Barriers and Bridges to Befriending Muslims (2)
The second barrier is failure in love. Didn’t Jesus pray that we may be one “so the world would believe” (John 17)? He even prayed for “complete unity.” How can we expect Muslims to follow Christ unless they see our love, but all too often, evangelical Christians find it easier to defend the truth (as they see it), than love one another.
Several years ago, when wounded by fellow-workers, my wife wrote a poem:
“Dear Lord, they performed surgery, not a small, neat cut, but radical, poking, digging, pulling, tearing. So unexpected, a total surprise, without antiseptic, they worked, exposing what they felt was wrong. And then they stopped and left. No stitches, balm or pain killers. In isolation, all alone; Lord, here I am post op, weak, sleepless and hurting. I need your touch of healing, peace, comfort and love. Lord, you know and care: mocked, struck, spat upon, crucified. Forgive; they don’t know what they do.”
An evangelical mission group recently described three different approaches currently in use among Muslims. In the first approach, a missionary baptized a twenty-three-year old single man, subsequently disowned by family, threatened and fired from his job. He has been attending a local church (members from a different ethnic group), growing in Christ and the church hired him as part-time janitor. The missionary emphasizes this verse, “Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord” (Rm. 10:9).
The second approach is poles apart: A worker has been talking to a Muslim who made a decision to follow Jesus two years ago, but the worker has encouraged him to stay with his family if at all possible; that means keeping a Muslim identity, continuing many former religious practices, like prayer five times a day, attending the mosque and fasting one month of the year. This “follower” (with his friends) sometimes studies the Bible but they still respect Muhammad and the Qur’an. He never calls himself a Christian, and the favorite verse of this worker is “Each one should remain in the place life the Lord assigned to him” (I Cor. 7:17).
The third approach is of a worker who seeks out “People of Peace” (Mt. 10) where Jesus tells his disciples to find “worthy persons,” who are hospitable and open. Recently he was talking with a Muslim who was a fruit seller in a local market and asked: “Have you ever had a dream you think is from God?” The Muslim was shocked and responded “yes,” “It was of a man in white, who said: ‘You’re on the path of destruction. I am the path of life. Ask my servant how to find the right path.” The worker said: “I serve the man in white and will gladly show you and your friends.” Seven friends gathered for the first study of God’s holy book, the story of creation, Genesis 1:1-2:4.
After the third study, the worker stopped attending the group, equipping the inquirer to lead ongoing studies, week by week. At the end of thirty studies, covering basic truths up through the NT, six of the eight original members were baptized and continue meeting as a household fellowship, but they avoid the words “Christian” and “Church,” calling themselves “Followers of the Way of God” as expressed in Acts 18:26 and Acts 24:14. The favorite verse is 2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to reliable men who will be qualified to teach others.”
If you were a worker among Muslims, what method would you use? What would you think a Muslim has to believe and practice to be considered a believer? How can we have indigenous groups supported and relying on local means, not on outsider money? These are important questions. We must encourage church-planting movements rather than just individual response. But there is another question that is equally important: How would you treat a fellow-worker who opts for the second method when you are convinced number three is the biblical approach? Polarization on contextualization among Muslims seems to be growing and we are not settling our differences peaceably.
Fortunately some evangelicals are trying to come together. Given the sharp disagreements, a consultation was held last June, called, “Bridging the Divide” (BtD). Many of the more than fifty scholar-practitioners did not have much hope for reconciliation because of strong positions and some had been hurt by what others had said or written about them. Yet, during introductions on the first night, many said they had come to listen and learn. This paved the way for positive interaction and God did a work amongst us. There was open sharing and prayer for one another throughout the meeting and even tears of repentance over unkind things that had been said, or written, often without understanding or accurate citation.
A survey taken in preparation for the gathering revealed a dozen participants who were strongly pro-insider and just as many on the other side. (“Insider Movement” means someone can be a Muslim, both culturally and religiously, while following Christ.) Ninety percent of them said it was normal for believers to keep their Muslim identity for a time, following conversion. Few felt it was ever acceptable for non-Muslims to convert to Islam in order to reach Muslims. No one thought it was a good idea for Christian workers to take on a Muslim identity to spread the gospel. Most said we should retain familial language (Son, Son of God and Father) in translating the Scripture but be careful to explain these terms in footnotes or in parenthesis within the text. During the consultation topics generating most discussion were ethics (is it ethical for a Christ-follower to be called a Muslim?), translation (should we stick to literal words or strive for meaning?), hermeneutics (what do passages like I Cor. 7:17 really mean?), identity (how can we convey that this is a Christ-follower, not a political party, or a social status?)
This statement came out of the consultation:
“We gathered for the purpose of “Bridging the Divide” over the differences related to ministry practices in the Muslim world. Over these days we have prayed, worshiped and examined the Scriptures. We have examined case studies from the field and celebrated what God is sovereignly doing to call Muslim peoples to himself and a place in the body of Christ. We have spoken openly and honestly, showing love and respect to one another about our differences. Although serious differences remain and ongoing interaction is needed, we have sought to listen and learn and most of all to hear what God would say to us corporately as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. We have sought to be faithful to Scripture, and by the grace of God we have found agreement on certain issues, clarified misunderstandings and identified issues for further study, reflection, and dialogue. With mutual respect and in submission to God, as well his word, our authority for faith and practice, we have come to agreement on a number of points and committed ourselves to continue the process that we have begun in these days. To glorify the Lord and help to bridge the divide between us as we seek to extend the kingdom to Muslim peoples.”
Soon after the consultation, however, Chrislam: How Missionaries are Promoting an Islamized Gospel was published. It has some positive parts to it, but the greatest weakness is that it is a work of extremes (as suggested by the title) leaving little room for negotiation within the body of Christ. Criticisms are personal, pointed and some border on slander. Some individuals and organizations are named. My review was less than positive because of the harsh tone and inaccurate statements. At last count there were over sixty comments and some angrily defended their positions.
Currently the topic most vigorously debated has to do with translation. The problem is that when Muslims hear familial terms in the Bible (Son, Son of God, father), they think God had a wife and physically produced a son. It is true that translators on occasion have taken too much liberty, like substituting “Messiah” for “Son” in an audio translation of the Scriptures. This is a mistake and we need to be faithful to God’s word. A few organizations and individuals come under heavy fire for their support of insider movements. Some accusations are valid, but others are false and misleading. Another consultation is coming up in June and we pray for a resolution to some of these issues so the work will not be hindered.
In conclusion, a major barrier facing the church today in reaching Muslims with the gospel is fear. As stated above, Christians can learn about Islam from trustworthy sources, seek out Muslim friendships, and most importantly, begin praying for God-given opportunities. Second, we must discuss the issues that divide us without tearing one another to pieces. This can only be accomplished when we engage with fellow-believers on divisive issues in respectful, face-to-face dialogue. The alternative results in more acrimony than enlightenment, unity of purpose, and clear understanding. Evangelicals of all persuasions have a strong motivation to build bridges so that Muslims will hear the gospel and find new life in Christ. Differences of opinion on these issues can only be solved through biblical scholarship, mutual respect and face-to-face dialog. We will never have complete uniformity but we can strive for unity.
Dr. Warren Larson
Professor of Muslim Studies, Columbia International University
A Conversation About Jesus, Allah and Yahweh
Sometimes it's helpful in trying to understand an issue to be able to view a dialogue about it between those who are coming at the issue from many perspectives. Below is a blog "conversation" between the American Bedu blog, Dr. Daniel Janosik and several other readers. It's in reference to his work originally posted on this blog "Is the Allah of Islam the same as Yahweh of Christianity?".
Jerry M, on May 14, 2012 at 7:20 am said:
Janosik is using the kind of argument that shows a willingness to be ignorant. Yes, the idea of God in Christianity is different than the idea of God in Islam but there is no denying the Christianity adopted the scriptures of Judaism and the Jewish idea of God is no more a trinity than the God of Islam.
Dr. Janosik, on May 14, 2012 at 5:38 pm said:
It is always interesting following comments on a blog issue that you write. It reveals that some people actually try to engage with the ideas, but it also, unfortunately, demonstrates that a lot of the responders have not even read the article but merely respond to the title. As I said, this is unfortunate, because this issue between Allah and Yahweh is of immense importance, if the Bible is true. If the New Testament is not true, then as one of responders alluded to, we should all “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” However, if the Bible is true, then there are eternal consequences, whether you believe what it says or not. That is why I take these things seriously.
Without reproducing the whole introduction, let me comment on the following selection:
“But wait a minute, some will say. What about the Arabic Christians who call the God of the Bible “Allah”? Doesn’t this illustrate the fact that Allah and Yahweh are referring to the same God? Actually, when the Arabic Christians refer to “Allah” in their translation of the Bible, they believe that “Allah” is the father of Jesus and they believe that “Allah” is triune. Therefore, the Allah of the Arabic Christians cannot be the same Allah of the Muslims! This semantic [shibboleth] strangulation can be cleared up if we remember that words have both a denotative and a connotative meaning. Denotation refers to a dictionary definition, so it would be correct to say that Yahweh and Allah both refer to the concept of God, especially for their respective language groups. However, the connotation is determined by what a person conceives about the object of that word. For example, an Arab Christian may still use the word “Allah” to denote God, but his understanding of that term would be starkly different from a Muslim, for the Christian would recognize that Jesus Christ is God (Allah) whereas the Muslim would never consider that connotation. Thus, denotatively the word “allah” merely refers to “god, deity, etc.” However, we understand the denotative use by our connotative presuppositions. Therefore, “Allah” for the Muslim cannot be reconciled with the “Jesus is Allah” of the Arabic Christians. There is still a world of difference between the content of the word (connotation), even if the denotation is the same. Without this very important distinction made when we refer to “Allah” and “God” (Yahweh), a lot of Christians will be confused.
After comparing the Allah of the Qur’an and the Yahweh of the Bible, it should be apparent that they could not be referring to the same God. Either the Muslim Allah is the true God or the Christian Yahweh is the true God, or neither is true. As the Law of non-Contradiction teaches, they both cannot be true. One thing should be sure, though, the God of Muhammad cannot be the Father of Jesus.”
In brief, then, while “Allah” in a denotative sense can refer to the God of the Bible, in a connotative sense you cannot make the “Allah” of the Qur’an out to be the same “Yahweh” of the Bible, for, as I said above, the God (Allah) of Muhammad cannot be the Father of Jesus.
Also, Jerry seems to want to understand how the Trinity fits together in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. If you are really interested, here is a link to a lecture that I did titled “How to Explain the Trinity to a Muslim.” ().
Aafke-Art, on May 15, 2012 at 12:54 am said:
Dr Janosik you said *because this issue between Allah and Yahweh is of immense importance, if the Bible is true. If the New Testament is not true……*
You forget that the Abrahamic faiths are not the only option, there are lots of other option, lots of other religions, older and more recent with just as much validity (or invalidity) as the Abrahamic God of War. Nor does a non-religious stance equal some sort of orgiastic anarchy.
On the contrary, reality in our current time shows that the less religion in a country, the more civilized, advanced, prosperous, educated, and happy the people are. (especially women)
Dr. Janosik, on May 15, 2012 at 1:19 am said:
Aafke-Art,
If there is only one true God, then there is only one true religion. Unfortunately there are a lot of examples of degeneration and corruption that have brought about the many forms that we have today. If you are interested in this topic, then you may want to listen to my lecture on the Origin of Religion found here:
As far as your last statement is concerned, “On the contrary, reality in our current time shows that the less religion in a country, the more civilized, advanced, prosperous, educated, and happy the people are. (especially women),”
if you study a bit of history you will find that the best, and the worst, societies are the ones based on following religious views. However, the truly intelligent person will realize that religion is mostly about man searching for God. I am most interested in the God who has found me, and loved me so much that he has died for my sins so that I can enjoy the richest of all lives for eternity. No religion can provide that — only a relationship!
Aafke-Art, on May 15, 2012 at 1:54 am said:
*If there is only one true God*
But why should there be only one? There could be many, a great number of humans have in history and today many do believe there are lots of Gods. And this faith in God or Gods and Goddesses is believe without evidence.
More and more people start to think rationally, evaluate the myths and the (non) evidence for invisible all powerful beings and come to the conclusion that there are no gods at all.
If you study the state of countries today you will find that the more religious, and the less secular, the more humanitarian abuse, the less educated, the less (if at all) inventions and discoveries, the more wars, religious murder, the more misogyny and abuse of women and children, and the less happy the people living in those countries are.
You will have to deal with the fact that what history teaches us is that religion is not good, not moral, and causes stagnation of human development.
Dr. Janosik, on May 15, 2012 at 3:00 am said:
Aafke-Art,
If there is an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God, then logically there can only be one. Man in his limited understanding creates many gods, with himself as the final god, and therefore no god at all. It is better to stick with the real God, who has revealed Himself to us and died for us so that we can know Him and worship Him as the true God. Otherwise, men believe in anything and nothing.
If you are really interested in this topic and you want to look at some evidence rather than just words (without evidence), please listen to my lecture on the Origin of Religion found here:
American Bedu, on May 15, 2012 at 3:17 am said:
I think one of the biggest areas of challenge and confusion is that Christians believe Jesus is the son of God or even God himself and Muslims only recognize Jesus as a Prophet. Therefore it creates confusion on whether Muslims and Christians at least worship the same God.
Christians believe that one must accept Jesus as their Savior in order to enter heaven whereas Muslims do not. Many Christians believe that anyone who has not accepted Jesus as their Savior will not gain entry to heaven regardless of how pious.
Dr. Janosik: What do you say/think, please?
Dr. Janosik, on May 15, 2012 at 3:38 am said:
American Bedu (Carol),
This is an excellent question!
I think the best way to approach an answer is for us to first realize that if the Bible is correct in its assessment of man, then we are all sinners (i.e., we have all rejected the one true God) and deserve separation from God for eternity. This is why we cannot accuse God of being unfair, for if he were fair then we would get what we deserve — eternal separation. It also short circuits the arguments of those who say that God is unjust for sending people to hell if they have never heard of Christ, for God does not send people to hell for not believing in Christ, but rather people are eternally separated from God because they are sinners (and they have chosen rebellion instead of salvation).
This is why it is so important to see the centrality of Christ in this whole dilemma. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ came in order to restore us to a proper relationship with God. He is the only one who could do that because our rebellion put us in a situation that only God could pay for our sins against Himself. This would be impossible for God to accomplish unless He also became man and took on our sins (our rebellion against Him) and died for those sins. Thus, the only one who could accomplish this is the God/man Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Second person of the Trinity. No man-made god could reconcile us to God or take on our sins. That is why I believe that Jesus Christ is the only one who can save us from eternal separation from God.
American Bedu, on May 15, 2012 at 3:53 am said:
Thank you for your response, Dr. Janosik. But what does your answer mean then in regards to Muslims? I’m sure I am not alone when I say that I know many pious, pure and beautiful Muslims (my late husband among them) and could not fathom them (and him) anywhere but heaven (Jannah).
Dr. Janosik, on May 15, 2012 at 4:07 am said:
I understand. This is the hardest part about answering your question. As a Christian I am bound to the revelation given to me in the Bible. It is sufficient for salvation; but we also need to remember that God exists on many dimensions above our three-dimensional world and our limited understanding (“My ways are not your ways, says the LORD”). I also know that God promises to reveal Himself to any who desire to know Him. He often begins this process through nature and the world around us (see Romans 1 in the Bible) and then leads us to specific revelation about Himself. I have heard of many Muslims who have come to Christ through dreams and visions of Christ coming to them and revealing himself to them. Perhaps Christ came to your husband in this way before he died. I do know that Christ also said that he came to save the ones he was sent to save and that he would not lose any of them (John 18:9).
American Bedu, on May 15, 2012 at 4:41 am said:
Thank you, Dr. Janosik.
Aafke-Art, on May 16, 2012 at 1:08 am said:
The problem with Jesus being the son of God is that he wasn’t, and that bit of doctrine was introduced hundreds of years after he died after a vote . A small majority voted to have Jesus as the ”son of God” from then on.
And now all Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, before that became doctrine many Christians did not believe so. And if the vote had gone the other way none of the Christians today would believe jesus is the son of God. This is literally religion in the making. Religion and who’s god and who isn’t is decided by the ruling clergy.
The same goes for Islam, actually islam shows even clearer how mohammed changed his mind and his politics as he got more power. Not to mention that although all men were allowed only 4 wives he of course was allowed many more. (besides his slaves)
Why is it not clear to everybody that these are made up stories?
I’ve said it before, all religious people can see quite clear why all other different religions are wrong, except the one they are in, that is the one where they wear the blinders and don’t see how silly it really is.
The real difference between A-theists and religionists is that A-theists do not wear blinders. Most A-theists become A-theists because they have really, actually read the magic books, and studied religions. The more you learn about any religion, and where it came from, and who constructed it, the more chance you will become an A-theist.
Dr. Janosik, on May 16, 2012 at 2:57 am said:
Aafke-Art,
It is unfortunate that you believe that the council of Nicea in 325 AD was the origin of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. I guess Dan Brown's influence is more prevalent than we think! Actually, if you read the history of the first three centuries of Christianity, and especially through the primary sources of the early Church Fathers, you would understand clearly that the deity of Christ was never in doubt from the time that he walked the earth through our present time. Part of my doctoral dissertation was tracing the development of the understanding of the Trinity from the first century AD through the eighth century. One thing I came to realize is that I should never say anything concerning historical matters unless I have actually read the history from the people who lived during that time. When you do that you will better understand why the Dan Browns of this world may have their 15 seconds, but then they will fade away into obscurity. On the other hand, one of the reasons that one-third of the world's population still believes that Jesus Christ is God the Son is because the evidence is overwhelming, especially when you consider something like the resurrection of Jesus. Even scholars who are not Christian will attest to these five facts from history: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them, 3) The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed, 4) the skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed, and 5) the tomb was empty. Gary Habermas, one of the world's experts in this area, states that these "minimal facts" "are so strongly attested historically that even the majority of nonbelieving scholars accept them as facts." (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 75). So, when you want to speak historically, go back to the earliest sources and make sure that you deal with the facts. (15 seconds really isn't that much time).
Barriers and Bridges to Befriending Muslims (1)
This is the first of several articles Dr. Warren Larson will be writing on this topic–fortunately twice as many bridges as barriers!
On the morning of 9-11, I was teaching a course on Islam at Columbia International University, and during the break heard the tragic news. A few faculty members gathered in a conference center where a small television had been set up, and we saw the towers fall. Regular chapel was cancelled and a senior colleague was called upon to give some comfort and direction. He said, “Our nation has been humbled and we have suffered attacks on the highest levels of our financial and government institutions. The greatest symbols of our power and glory have toppled; we need to pray and trust God.”
On May 2, one year ago, my article, “Do not Gloat over Osama bin Laden’s Death” was published in Christianity Today. Quoting the Scripture that says not to “gloat when your enemy falls” (Proverbs 24:7), I said that rather than playing bagpipes, dancing in the streets, and singing Amazing Grace near Ground Zero, we should be praying for Muslims. Although we can be thankful bin Laden is no longer around to threaten us, we must demonstrate spiritual concern for the countless Muslims still alive, many of whom are open to hearing the good news.
To help the church see how needy Muslims are, I have a message entitled, “Five Muslims by the side of the road,” likening all of them to the man Jesus talked about who was left wounded and bleeding, while religious folks passed him by. They include a destitute woman (more than ½ billion Muslim women constitute the largest block of unreached peoples), a folk Muslim–75% of Muslims in our world do daily battle with spirits where the world view involves charms, amulets, curses, blessings and the evil eye. There is of course the ordinary one next door, but the last Muslim is a radical, and it is mostly because of him that the church is confused and struggling.
There are many barriers that keep Muslims away: theological (Muslims struggle with certain concepts, like the incarnation and Son of God issue), social (family and society work together to prevent anyone from leaving Islam), political (Muslims see Christians as allies of Israel in the plight of Palestinians), historical (unhappy Muslim-Christian conflicts in the past, like the Crusades, have not been forgotten) and economic (sixty percent of the world’s poor are Muslims). We may not be able to do much about these obstacles, but there are barriers we can do something about, and I believe they are bigger than they were prior to September 11, 2001.
The first barrier is fear. Not long ago an evangelical pastor I know had a young Muslim man in traditional dress visit his church on a Sunday morning. After taking notes through the sermon, the Muslim approached the pastor at the end of the service to argue. In response, the pastor tried to give biblical answers, but wasn’t prepared for it and felt threatened, mostly because the Muslim kept one hand in his pocket; it was assumed he had a weapon. Others in the church felt the same because of the intense dialog. He left, saying “You’re all are a bunch of hypocrites and I’m not coming back!” One deacon suggested bringing guns to church for protection.
After this unpleasant incident, the pastor called for a meeting of other pastors in his denomination to discuss how to respond to such situations, and the Zwemer Center was invited. Our staff encouraged them to learn all they could about Islam through seminars/courses, seek out Muslim friendships, and most of all to begin praying for Muslims. The pastors listened politely, but seemed unconvinced. It was like a gigantic struggle between fear and faith and fear won out.
Such sentiments appear to be widespread, especially among evangelicals. In a poll taken by the Pew Forum in September of 2004, twenty-nine percent of evangelicals held a “favorable” view of Islam while forty-six percent an “unfavorable” view. Pew said: “more than half of white evangelicals who attend church at least once a week have an unfavorable impression of Islam.”
Then, in 2007, Pew noted an increase in negative views by evangelicals toward Muslims and Islam, dropping five points between 2004 and 2007. This same survey said that while Catholic and mainline Protestant views toward Muslims/Islam became somewhat more positive, evangelical views declined: By 2007, twenty-four percent have favorable views in contrast to Catholics (48% favorable) and mainline Protestants (fifty-one percent favorable).
Sensing the trend, six years ago, I wrote an article in Christianity Today that addressed the negative post 9/11 literature on Islam in an article entitled, “Unveiling the Truth about Islam: Too Many Christians Miss the Mark.” This is part of what I said in the review of several books that came out soon after the horrendous event that rocked our nation:
“Unfortunately, too many of these evangelical polemics are historically inaccurate, theologically misinformed, and missiologically misguided. Apparently, a lot of us simply dislike Muslims (usually without knowing any). When we critique Islam, we need to be fair and accurate. Those of us who make Muslim-Christian comparisons must do so from a position of informed engagement, as those who have worked with Muslims. When we review historical tensions between the two faiths, we must apply rigorous historical analysis, when we write about Islam; we must remember that love is the greatest apologetic.”
One book reviewed gave readers the impression that “a real Muslim is by definition a violent one,” and the tendency is once again to define Islam by its most radical expression, rather than by seeking to have a balanced understanding that encompasses the wide variety of Muslims.
Another book with the title, from 9/11 to 666: The Convergence of Current Events, Biblical Prophecy and the Vision of Islam presumes that the antichrist will be a Muslim. Dates were even set for the Beast’s appearance and describe in dramatic detail what life will be like in the United States under the tyranny of Islam. Such presumptuous statements damage Muslim-Christian relations to the extent that people take them seriously. I also said,
“We Christians must discuss irreconcilable differences with Muslims, but we should also recognize similarities, bridges, and common themes. There is a place for “unveiling” Islam, provided we do it with sensitivity, understanding, and careful research.”
No doubt Muslims do violent things in the name of Islam. Radicalized Muslims, some of whom were born and bred in the West continue to carry out hateful acts. It is true that radical Muslims are targeting Christians. Boko Haram, an extremist group in Nigeria, is burning down Christian churches and Coptic churches are going up in flames in Egypt. The suffering of Christians in Southern Sudan and the case against an Iranian pastor are true. The media, including some Christian media, focus on this, as they have sought to warn America about radical Islam; but the media have not always given a balanced picture of ordinary Muslims. While media sources cannot be blamed for informing people about radical religion, their focus on terrorism in Islam perpetuates the generalization that all Muslims are untrustworthy, unpatriotic and dangerous. Some of the coverage is alarmist and many Christians seem paranoid.
There is also fear of Muslim growth. In Canada, several years ago I saw a sign outside a mosque in Toronto that said: “Everyone welcome and no one told he is a sinner.” The Ottawa Citizen (8/31/09) told how Muslims have increased. Over a period of three decades in Canada’s capitol, they grew from 4,000 to 65,000 (one-hundred and twenty-eight percent increase) and this makes most Canadians nervous. In Europe (fifteen million Muslims), it’s not only the growth, but lack of integration that is worrisome. When said integration isn’t working, it means Muslims don’t fit. Two years ago, when I was teaching a course just outside Stuttgart, Chancellor Merkel said multiculturalism “has utterly failed.” What she evidently meant was that millions of Muslims have not integrated well into society. She’s right. In France there are other divisive issues, like the veil, and Muslims do not feel at home there either.
Besides, there is fear of an Islamic takeover, of Shari’ah Law, and that Western governments are too soft on Islam. A news letter received from workers in a major American city received just before Easter put it this way: “Around the world the agenda of Islam marches on—to bring the whole earth under submission to Allah. Muslim leaders act like the victory is inevitable—and all the while, we in the West are meekly conceding to their many demands. Let us lay hold of the promise that, the one who died for us, rose for us, who daily empowers us, soon coming for us—he alone is the one through whom we are able to have overwhelming victory.” Another newsletter from one who describes herself as “a student of Islam” and of the Bible, says: “… the Holy Spirit has showed me several times … that the Antichrist will be Islamic.”
Could it be that this is what many want to hear? They want to hear how evil Islam is, how badly Muslim women are treated, and that Islam has a global agenda. One group, “Operation save America,” held a procession outside a mosque in Charlotte, NC. They railed against abortion and homosexuality, but included Muslims in their tirade: “Jesus hates Muslims.” A Muslim inside the mosque said: “We also love Jesus and if he were here he wouldn’t say he hates us.” We want to preserve our values, our cultures, our “kingdoms” and let the Muslims go to hell. Many of Islam’s fiercest critics have no interest in repentance and no desire to see Muslims rescued from the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light. We need to be reminded that that God wants to save Muslims, not kill them: “He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter 3:9).
It is true that some Muslims talk about a “takeover” and think Islam will dominate the world. Muslims are getting into schools and demand freedom for dress codes and dietary laws, when at the same time either denying or restricting worship of minorities where Islam has a majority. Evangelicals therefore must be prepared to take on political Islam with political arguments. An American friend was in the UK, dialoging with Islamic clerics, mostly in universities. I quote what he wrote to me: “As the team of Muslims with whom I had worked with all week was traveling to the airport, they were holding forth with gusto on the need to establish Muslim rule and Shari’ah Law in England– that was the only hope for England as they were expounding. I weighed in with strong and forth right counter arguments. Eventually there were several minutes of silence, and then the chap who had been expounding the most vehemently in the need for Shari’ah in England observed, ‘If we are honest, we all know that we agree with Dr. S. That is why we are flying to Canada tonight and not to Pakistan which is our home land. We love the freedoms of Canada and detest the restrictions of Pakistan. In fact in Pakistan I would be put in prison if I practiced there the freedoms that I so love in Canada.’”
Dr. S. went on to say that that our strongest defense against political Islam is to boldly bear witness we who are followers of Christ and committed to the freedoms God himself gives to us and that we are deeply committed to the separation of church and state because that is Biblical. “If we cherish those freedoms,” he said, “we need to engage Islam in forthright dialogue and encounter on these issues.”
Dr. Warren Larson
Professor of Muslim Studies, Columbia International University
From the Mind of Dr. Cashin: Where is Islam Headed?
Dr. Cashin discusses the value of allowing people the freedom to debate a set of beliefs. He predicts that many Muslims will one day convert to Christianity, primarily because they are not allowed to question their faith.
What do you think? Can a closed system of beliefs without the freedom to debate endure? Share your thoughts below...
Dr. David Cashin
Professor of Intercultural Studies, Columbia International University
From the Mind of Dr. Cashin: Islam is a Complete Code of Life
Takfir is the "ex-communication" of a muslim -- the removal of a Muslim as a member of society from all rights, priviledges, and relationships. Following takfir, a Muslim is treated as an infidel and subject to assasination. Dr. Cashin elaborates on the expectations of Islam and how these impose both religious and political restrictions.
Do you think Islam's "complete code of life" could be creating a tension in their society which is not sustainable? What do you think may eventually happen? Share your perspective below.
From the Mind of Dr. Cashin: What Motivates the Suicide Killings?
Why do you think the suicide killings have occurred in such large numbers? Weigh in on our discussion below.
Dr. David Cashin
Professor of Intercultural Studies, Columbia International University
From the Mind of Dr. Cashin: A Religious Political System
Do you think Islam is a political system? How about Christianity? Where would you draw the line of distinction? Share your insights below.
Dialogue Between the Muslim Brotherhood and Christians in Egypt
This text is transcribed from documents received from the Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services, headed by Dr. Andrea Zaki, a chief participant in this meeting.
The text reads:
Based on a welcoming letter from Dr. Rev. Safwat al-Bayadi, President of the Protestant Community of Egypt and Dr. Rev. Andrea Zaki, Vice-President, sent to the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, which addressed some public opinion issues at this critical stage in Egyptian history after the January 25th Revolution and gained the attention of the Guidance Office of the Muslim Brotherhood, and based on the two parties’ communication, the General Guide called for a meeting to gather the leaders of the evangelical church and the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The meeting took place on February 28, 2012, at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The General Guide has agreed to visit the headquarters of the evangelical church upon invitation.
The participants consented on the importance of the current historical moment Egypt is going through after the revolution, which requires everyone to take social and historical responsibility to advance the country. The participants emphasized that Egypt’s future depends on community cohesion and unity, and stressed on the basic values of the Egyptian society that represent its social and cultural identity and brings its citizens together.
The participants agreed on the following:
- The sons of the country are all partners in one destiny and one future.
- The joint struggle of all Egyptians of all segments of society, that was manifest in the January Revolution, represents the cornerstone of societal unity; the struggle reflects that full citizenship, based on equality, is the foundation of this society.
- All sons of the country have the same rights and responsibilities as the constitution states. Equality among all citizens constructs societal unity; efficiency is the only criterion to hold a public position; and equality of economic opportunities is the basis of justice.
- The Egyptian society is based on solidarity, interdependence and compassion among all people, which represents the bond that includes all citizens without discrimination. Therefore, education should promote the values of tolerance, solidarity and pluralism.
- Respect for beliefs and sanctities is obligatory. Prevention of any contempt of others’ beliefs and the incitement of hatred is a compulsory social responsibility of loyal citizens.
- Freedom of belief and religious practices as well as freedom to build or renovate religious houses – in light of the law and the right for citizens to resort to their own religious laws concerning their personal affairs along with other rights mentioned in the Islamic Sharia’ – are all considered part of the values of the Egyptian society and a base for its cultural authenticity.
- The participation of all citizens in defending the country is the responsibility of all, and it is the crucible where all segments of society are melted and form national unity. This national unity is crucial to fighting all internal and external enemies of Egypt who want to drive a wedge between its societal segments.
- The religious values are the motives of the renaissance. Therefore, everyone must mobilize these values to achieve a better future for Egypt.
- Societal responsibility obliges all leaders, institutions and religious movements to fight against all types of strife, intolerance and discrimination, and consolidate the unity of society.
- The Egyptian society’s identity represents the frame for all its people. All people have made contributions to this identity and deserve its legacy. Protection of societal values is considered the basis of cultural uniqueness and the responsibility of all citizens who contributed to building Egypt’s civilization together over time.
All participants of this meeting made emphasis on the importance of communication between the two parties to promote joint activities, especially among the youth, such as encouraging active participation, advocating for values and religious morals, and carrying the social responsibility of fighting the illness that affected the Egyptian society under the previous regime. This will guarantee everyone the right to participate in building a new Egypt that achieves the demands and dreams of the revolution.
Jayson Casper
CIU Alumnus ('09) and current resident of Egypt
Originally posted on A Sense of Belonging
What do you think of this agreement? How will this effect Christians in Egypt? Please share your thoughts below...
From the Mind of Dr. Cashin: How Do We Gain Knowledge and Understanding?
Do you think we can learn more about religions by acknowledging and exploring their differences? Or do you feel that all religions are basically the same and we learn the most by looking for what they have in common? Feel free to join the discussion by leaving a comment below.
Prioritism and Holism: The Contribution of Acts (8)
This post is a contiuation from a previous post. Read up on this series here: Prioritism and Holism: The Contribution of Acts
Acts’ Understanding of Salvation Blessings: Both Temporal and Eternal But with Two Qualifiers.
Though this study of the profile of salvation terms in Luke-Acts has focused on its support for the priority of evangelism in Christian mission, it is also necessary to note that the profile also demonstrates that the scope, the parameters, of salvation blessings for Luke includes both aspects of the range of meaning—“this worldly,” temporal and transcendent, eschatological, eternal salvation. And there are two qualifiers to Luke’s understanding of salvation blessings, which indicate the proper way of relating these two kinds of salvation blessings, namely, expansive prioritism. First, suffering is often part of God’s sovereign plan for discipleship and for mission (14:22; 5:41). Healing ministry often led to physical persecution. For example, the mission at Lystra not only involved physical healing (Acts 14:9), but also physical suffering: the stoning of the healer (14:19-20; cf. 4:9, 18; 5:12-18, 40). “. . . salvation in the pregnant sense does not carry with it guarantees of long-life, being kept safe through trials, wealth or perpetual good health” (Witherington 1998:164).
Second, for Luke, social action benefits are the consequences of transcendent salvation transformation. Zaccheus and his economic repentance is the Third Gospel’s prime example (Luke 19:8, 9-10; cf. Acts 26:20). “Certainly ‘salvation’ for Luke has social consequences, but, equally clear, it is a spiritual transformation of human personality that leads a person to see logical social consequences of receiving Jesus” (Witherington 1998:160). The contribution of Acts’ understanding of salvation to the prioritism-holism debate, then, is to point to an “expansive prioritism” with, at its center, an evangelism, which calls for spiritual transformation that reaches out to embrace all of life, including physical and social concerns. The fact that a physical and social concerns dimension characterized Luke’s description of the immediate lifestyle change of new converts (16:14-15, 30-34) and his reports of the church’s internal life (2:42, 44-46; 4:32-37; 6:1-7; 9:39) shows that his understanding of prioritism had such an “expansive” scope.
Conclusion
Acts has much to contribute to the Prioritism-Holism debate. A clearer understanding of the way the “kingdom of God” characterized early church preaching and what salvation meant in the early church mission, i.e., transcendent, eschatological salvation with temporal consequences, points to an expansive prioritism as the best way to relate evangelism and social responsibility in the church’s mission today.
Dr. William Larkin
Professor of N.T. and Greek, Columbia International University
