Do Muslims Worship the True God? A Bridge Too Far
49 comments | PermalinkRick and I have enjoyed good fellowship together during my time at Bethlehem Baptist Church. He is a tireless and insightful and articulate follower of Christ who longs to reach Muslims with the good news of Jesus as Lord and Savior. I deeply respect him. I mention this because the following post will criticize some of his recent comments, and I want it to be clear that my criticism is couched in admiration and appreciation.
For those keeping track at home, there are have been some exchanges between John Piper and Rick Love. As far as I can tell, the back-and-forth is over. And so now I wade in (where angels fear to tread!).
- A Common Word Between Us and You, signed by 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals (Oct. 13, 2007)
- Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to "A Common Word Between Us"
- John Piper, A Common Word Between Us? (video)
- Rick Love, Why I Signed the Yale Response to "A Common Word"
- John Piper, How Shall We Love Our Muslim Neighbors
- Rick Love, Apostolic Practice in a Globalized World
At the heart of their disagreement was this paragraph from Love (italics indicates my emphasis):
Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.This was clearly in mind when Piper wrote his article on loving our Muslim neighbors. His final point was: "Don't mislead them or give them false hope by saying, 'Muslims worship the true God.'"I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: "What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you" (Acts 17:23).
In his final response, Love reiterates his view: "Muslims already worship God as the One Living God—Creator and Judge of the Universe. . . . I believe that Muslims worship the true God. . . . I believe that anyone who affirms monotheism—whether Muslim, Jew, Sikh or Tribal—are worshiping the true God. How can it be otherwise, since there is only one God?" At the same time, he pleads "not guilty" to misleading Muslims or giving them false hope. He sets his response in the context of his understanding of Pauline theology and methodology. His perspective in this post is helpful—but his statements about Muslims worshipping the true God are not helpful, because they are not true.
Love assumes that all monotheists (i.e., people who believe in only one God) de facto "are worshiping the true God." This proposition is unsustainable from a biblical perspective. First, Apostle James observed that even the demons are monotheists (James 2:19–20)—that certainly doesn't mean they worship the true God!
Second, consider what Jesus could say to his fellow Jews. Their leaders insisted to Jesus, "We have one Father—even God" (John 8:42). These are the Monotheists of Monotheism talking. If Love were consistent, he would say that by definition they are worshippers of the true God. But that's not Jesus' perspective. "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me. . . You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. . . . Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God' (8:43, 44, 47). Jesus is pretty clear here about these Jewish monotheists: (a) they do not have God as their Father and are not of God; (b) they do have the devil as their father—who has nothing to do with the truth. In light of this can we possibly imagine Jesus agreeing with a statement like "Jesus-denying Jews worship the one true God?" He is at pains to demonstrate precisely the opposite. If this is true for Jesus-denying Jews, how much more so for Jesus-denying Muslims.
Further, Love seems to see an obvious, necessary, logical connection between "X believes that there is only one God" and "X worships the one true God." But just as an "is" does not imply an "ought," so it is also the case that a "belief" does not entail a "fact." The first is a claim of epistemology (what/how we know), the second is a claim of ontology (reality). Love is making an illegitimate jump here.
The problem is not in the word "worship" per se. "Worship," in biblical terms, is a neutral term—it all depends on the object of the "worship" (e.g., Israel could worship Yahweh or worship a golden calf). The problem comes when we call the object of "worship" "the true God." This then becomes an evaluative statement, inexorably bound up with the character of who that God is.
Let me offer an example: there is only one President of the United States. We could say that everyone who (rightly) believes this is a mono-executivist. Now virtually all of us believe that George W. Bush is the current President. But someone could insist that, "No, Al Gore is the true President of the U.S, and therefore I honor and treat him as such." No one would say that from the mere fact that we're all mono-executivists, it therefore follows that the statement "we all honor the same true President" applies to those who honor Bush and those who honor Gore.
In wrapping up, let me say again how much I appreciate Rick Love and his work. I affirm his apostolic bridge-building. But in the case of claiming that Muslims worship the true God, I suggest we have a case of a bridge too far.
Update: For a good overview of Paul's evangelistic strategy in Acts 17, see this article by D. A. Carson.
posted by JT at Thursday, February 28, 2008
49 Comments:
Well done JT! Indeed, Rick Love is insisting upon a case that amounts to "a bridge too far." And what he and other evangelicals have done in this case is far more serious than he or they seem to comprehend.
Jesus said, "If God were your Father, you would love Me..."
JT,
Thanks for summarizing the recent discussion. Last week I did an evangelistic outreach at Ohio University and one of the first questions was "Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" I echo the concerns of Piper that in the effort to reach Muslims we must make the important clear distinctions between the God and Father of Jesus Christ and Allah.
Not to dogpile biblical references, but here's 1 John 2:22-23.
"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."
I'm not settled on either argument. However, I think that Love's best argument came from Acts 17:22-23. Here, Paul says that they are indeed worshipping. The problem Paul has with this worship is that it is done in ignorance. Could we use the concept of "zeal without knowledge" (Rom 10:2) to help illuminate the worship in Acts 17? I know that they are addressing two different peoples, but maybe the concept is shared. Any thoughts?
Echoing Ken's sentiments we could add Luke 10:16 - "He who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me." and John 8:19 - "If you knew me, you would know my father also."
So which is it - Paul was wrong that the Athenians we're worshiping the one true God "in ignorance" or that Paul wasn't actually proclaiming the one true God? It doesn't seem like there are a lot of other possibilities the way that verse is structured.
Note: yes this is kind of a squirrels question, and I actually tend to agree more with you than Rick on this. I don't think Paul's evangelistic example is something to ignore though. Sometimes you need to meet people where they're at.
I endorse what Justin is saying too. And there are all kinds of reasons for doing so.
The word/vocable 'god' can refer to all kinds of ideas/conceptions, but the point is what/who is the reality referred to? The God of Christianity is 'named' Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19). Since this is not the One who is acknowledged by those of other faiths, how can it be coherent to say that they are engaging with/worshiping Him?
As others have noted, passages like John 3:36;1 John 2:22-23 and 5:12 are decisive.
Maybe another analogy could help. Let's say a person, we'll call him "Jeff," sometimes calls his biological father 'Dad' and other times calls the step-father who actually raised him 'Dad.' And let's say Jeff ends up estranged from his biological father but very close to his step-father.
When Jeff tells someone, I really enjoy spending time with 'Dad' (referring to his step-father), it's silly to imagine that he is also referring to his biological father.
The one word, 'dad', might serve to refer to each of the two persons, given the context, but it clearly does not refer to both persons simultaneously.
Make that a squirrel-y question -- darn iPhone autocorrection :)
Quick thoughts:
Joseph: As I said in the post, "worship" is not problematic per se. It's combining that with "true God" that is wrong. I can't imagine Paul saying that.
syates21: Paul simply does not say that they are "worshipping the one true God in ignorance." He says that they are worship a god in ignorance, but he is going to proclaim to them the true God.
JT
Love's use of Acts 17:23 is misapplied. Paul's statement was set in a context of polytheism where the Greeks were trying to cover all their bases. They had an altar to an unknown god in case they had missed one; they didn't want to anger an unknown god through neglect.
Muslims would never accept that they worship an unknown god in ignorance. They believe there is one god Allah and that he has revealed himself through the prophet. They worship that god - i.e. the one who spoke through Muhammed.
In such a context, I doubt strongly that Paul would have used such an appeal - 'We worship the same god; let me tell you more about him.' Paul would have vehemently stood against such an idea. He would have demanded that they turn from "these vain things to a living God" (Acts 14:15).
It is especially hard to see how one can claim that Muslims worship the true God when Love writes: "Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
What is left of our God that we agree on!? That he is singular?... so we both worship a singularity. That doesn't say a whole lot.
Well said Matt Foreman!
To get back to your President analogy...
What if someone acknowledges George Bush as President of the United States, but believes that he is actually 48 years old (not his actual age)? Is he still talking about the same GWB? What if he believes that GWB has a son (not twin daughters)? Is he still talking about the same GWB? What if he believes that he's married to a woman named Susan, not Laura?
At some point, a person can acknowledge the true President, but not understand everything about him, and even believe things about him that are not true. However, if the person is mixed-up enough about this President, there comes a point when it becomes apparent that the person is not talking about the same President, and actually believes that a different man is President.
So it is with God, perhaps. All people have at least *some* misconceptions about God (even Christians see through a glass darkly). Some people's misconceptions about who He is and His true nature are so far away from truth that we must acknowledge that they are not talking about the true God.
The question, then, is "Does denying the Trinity (and therefore the divinity of Jesus) amount to a sufficient misunderstanding to conclude that someone is talking about a different God altogether?"
I don't know that it does.
Missiologically, though, most people that I know who have been heavily involved in working with Muslims have told me that the most effective approach to communicating the gospel is to essentially communicate that believing in Jesus amounts to correcting their false understanding of God, embracing Jesus as God himself, and rejecting Mohammed as a false prophet. Not that the distinction should be based on a matter of practicality, but it is worth noting that Muslims seem to respond better to the idea that they have understood God incorrectly and denied His true nature than the idea that they have worshipped a false God altogether.
Hello JT,
I don't know if you give such respect for Mr. Love's past work, which I am totally unaware of. I will say this. If a man is preaching his first sermon and he prefaced it with the statment about "we worship the same God" it would be his last sermon, or at least the last sermon that I would listen to from him.
I don't know if there is a pass being given because of such work in the past as I have stated, but I will say I would be extremely critical and skeptical about anyting else coming from him in the future.
So many verses can be quoted, and most people who read this know them as well as they do their phone numbers, so I wonder if a more sharp rebuke is not warranted here. The quotes you provided by Mr. Love are vehicles on the swifest road leading to pluralism. We are giving Muslims a fuller revelation of God we are giving them the only true God.
Finally I wonder would we be so inclined to say Witness's, Mormons, and others who fall along those lines that yes we worship the one true God "you just need a fuller revelation"? As critical as we would be with those cults we have to be with Mr. Love. This isn't a slip of the tongue this is border line blasphemous, to say that the Allah of Islam and the YAWEH of the holy scriptures are one in the same is as about as dangerous a statement to say as "everyone worships the same God, people just need a little revelation to get them to Jesus".
My thoughts anyway
Jesus is God. How is it possible to worship the true God by ignoring the Son of God and the Holy Spirit? To do so speaks blasphemy and spits in the face of the trinity.
This is what is inscribed on the interior of the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount in Jerusalem:
S: In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone, without partner. Say: He is God, One, God, the Everlasting, who has not begotten and has not been begotten. He is without equal. [Qur'an 112] Muhammad is God's messenger, may God bless him.
SW: In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone, without partner. Muhammad is God's messenger. God and His angels send blessings on the Prophet.
W: 0 you who believe, send blessings on him and salute him with all respect. [Qur'an 33:56] In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone. Praise
NW: to God who has not taken a son and who doesn't have any partner in dominion nor any protector out of humbleness. Magnify Him greatly. [Qur'an 17:111] Muhammad is God's messenger.
N: May God, His angels and His messengers bless him and God grant him peace and mercy. In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone, without partner.
NE. To Him belongs dominion and to Him belong praise. He gives life and He makes to die; He is powerful over all things. [conflation of Qur'an 64:1 and 57.2] Muhammad is God's messenger, may God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of resurrection for his community.
E: In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone, without partner. Muhammad is God's messenger, may God bless him. There built this dome the servant of God
SE: 'Ab[d al-Malik, commander] of believers, in the year seventy-two, may God accept [it] from him and be pleased with him. Amen. Lord of the worlds. Praise to God.
Thanks for those links.
I think a lot of Christians who are working with the Muslims are sincere and genuine HOWEVER they lack the true understanding of Islamic worldview which also includes the Hadith.
To say that Rick Love lacks understanding would not be fair but I am left wondering.
The Hadith's perspective will show the distance between the God of the Bible and the Quran.
Even the Quran would contradict the claim that both faith worship the same God (though lacking in Islam).
Surah 3:54 we read that Allah is the greatest of all Makereen or deceivers (from word Makara: to deceive).
Compare with the Bible,
Heb 6:18 and John 8:44.
Rick Love has also not examined the theory that Allah is the ancient Moon-god.
"Worship in ignorance" = "Worship without knowing" right?
i.e. They don't know God!
Andrew: I'm not sure how you know that Love has not examined that theory. I'm sure he has.
Mike Brown: your observations are along the lines of an additional paragraph I was working on, but decided to drop. God has both essential attributes (holiness, love, oneness, threeness, etc.) and non-essential attributes (e.g., he has the attribute of causing me to be born on July 10, 1976.) Without the former attributes, he ceases to be God. Without the latter, he can still be God.
What's problematic is that Love seems to think you can "worship the true God" even if, in your understanding of that God, you deny some of his essential attributes.
JT
That's the ultimate rub: do we take what the Scripture says about how to distinguish true faith from false religion. If even the Jews, prior to the crucifixion, could be called "sons of the Devil" while actually worshipping in the temple in Jerusalem, the bar for who to evangelize and why is set very high.
That's a good word, JT.
Would any Muslim-background believers reading this like to share their testimony? Thanks in advance.
Justin,
I don't know for sure but it did not come out in his writings. Still, he could have examined it without writing about it.
I agree with Matt Foreman. One important difference between Love's effort to reach Muslims and Paul's efforts to reach the people of Athens is that the "Unknown god" of Athens was just that, unknown! They didn’t know him or claim to know him as the Muslims do. There were no defined attributes, distinctives or doctrines whatsoever in which to believe, follow or dispute. They worshiped in complete ignorance. As such, Paul had an opportunity to proclaim to them who this God was. It was not a matter of clarifying their misunderstandings or agreeing about any common ground they shared. They had no understanding, no name, nothing! So, Paul was able to start from the ground up. I think that's why he was willing to use that bridge. On the contrary, the Muslim faith has clearly defined doctrines that stand opposed to the Gospel of the Glory of Christ.
Would any Muslim-background believers reading this like to share their testimony? Thanks in advance.
I just happened to stumble upon this post while randomly surfing the net (typical grad student procrastination :P), and I can provide at least some insight from the other side of the fence (two other sides, in fact). My family is liberal Muslim, though I'm an atheist, but like many atheists of religious extraction, I've got a fairly deep understanding of how my birth religion works. :)
The Islamic position on Christianity and Judaism is that they are previous religions brought to humanity through earlier prophets - there's a notion of continuous progression which eventually culminated in Islam. (Jews and Christians are called 'People of the Book' for that reason) The god worshipped by Abraham is in charge of the whole schmeer, of course. They're considered to have been largely corrupted by human beings over the years, which was why the Quran was supposedly revealed to Muhammad word-for-word, all the way down to the last letter, accompanied by a strong commandment to keep it completely and totally unchanged. There's also the assurance of divine protection for it, and so forth...
Jesus is considered as a previous Prophet, with some special characteristics, such as being imbued with the spirit of God. He's on par with Adam in the sense that he's an example of pre-Fall humanity. However, he is explicitly referred to as the son of Mary, and is not considered divine in the Christian sense. She's still a virgin, and the child was placed in the womb by god, but he isn't a divine being. The miracles of Jesus are considered a manifestation of god's power - Jesus himself has none. Finally, the crucifixion is considered an illusion, making the resurrection unnecessary.
You have to realize that one of the fundamental premises of Islam is extreme monotheism. It's not just that there is one god, but there isn't an associated family, no partners, no coming down to earth in the form of Jesus, and so forth. If you look at it from an extremely literal perspective, it's the only real monotheism of all the three Abrahamic faiths. There's a prohibition against worshipping images of any kind - in fact, worshipping the prophet himself is considered a terrible sin. Worshipping anything else at all makes you guilty of the sin of 'shirk', which is what all Christians are guilty of, from the Islamic perspective.
So do Muslims worship the same god as Christians? Yes, it's one of their fundamental beliefs, qualified by the notion that Jews and Christians have lost touch with the true faith that was revealed to them.
Do they worship the true god? There's no point in my taking any position on this subject, simply because I don't think there are any gods anyway. From either side of the issue, I don't see any way to resolve the question, since both sides can argue with equal validity that the other side is misguided. But in the tradition of Socrates, I love to argue (or watch interesting arguments), and this sort of stuff fascinates me in the same way that a good fantasy novel does. :)
My roots are Islamic but I am now a Christian. Here is some info that might be of help.
I am fluent in 5 Islamic laguages and do seminers for differant groups on Islam.
1- Allah is used for God in the Arabic Bible.
2-The person of God of the Bible and Quran are very different.
3-Allah of Quran can promise one thing and than change his mind.
4- Allah of Quran in not apportable.
5-One cannot address Allah of the Quran as "father".
Growing up we were tought in school the Muslims do not worship the same God of the Jews and Christians.
It is only in the West that this is being taught for political resaons.
My roots are Islamic but I am now a Christian. Here is some info that might be of help.
I am fluent in 5 Islamic laguages and do seminers for differant groups on Islam.
1- Allah is used for God in the Arabic Bible.
2-The person of God of the Bible and Quran are very different.
3-Allah of Quran can promise one thing and than change his mind.
4- Allah of Quran in not apportable.
5-One cannot address Allah of the Quran as "father".
Growing up we were tought in school the Muslims do not worship the same God of the Jews and Christians.
It is only in the West that this is being taught for political resaons.
To Joseph Dethrow: I would say that along with Matt Foreman's response to your concerns, I would add that one difference between the Athenian pagans and Muslims is related to "ignorance". The Athenians didn't really know what other "God" could be out there, and they were steeped in idols, so Paul proclaimed to them what they tried to "worship" in ignorance. I put "worship" in quotes, because true worship is in spirit and in truth.
Muslims, on the other hand, have explicitly rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and have rejected His claims. It's built into the Qur'an. So it's much more difficult to say that they are worshiping (or even trying to worship) the same God as we are, except out of ignorance. They're worshiping a similar idea of "God", to a degree, but that's about all you can fairly say, I think.
To Mike Brown: I think you are quite right that if we're going to be telling Muslims they're wrong, we SHOULD indeed take into account how they're going to react, depending on how we frame what we say. I think we can tell a Muslim with good conscience that we do think they're trying to worship the one true God, to a certain extent. I wouldn't say that their trying is a blameless trying, though, because it's obviously misguided, and like the Bible says, the natural man cannot please God, even if they're "trying".
P.S. I'd like to comment that I LOVE how even differing views here are expressed with patience and love to each other! How refreshing :)
If we believe that Jews worship the one true God, but are outside of salvation, can it also be true that Muslims are worshiping the one true God, even though they are outside of salvation?
It should also be noted that Rick Love has spent his life communicating the God news to Muslim people.
If we believe that Jews worship the one true God, but are outside of salvation, can it also be true that Muslims are worshiping the one true God, even though they are outside of salvation?
No. Islam does not recognize YHWH as God's proper name. "Allah" is not only a generic term for "god" in Islam, it's also God's proper name.
In the OT, God is predictable, covenantal, self-revelatory directly to people, etc. In Islam, Allah is utterly inscrutable and unapproachable, etc. These are not convertible attributes.
I suggest that much of this discussion suffers from confusing two questions: (1) do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? and (2) does God accept the worship of Muslims? When those two questions are distinguished, Love’s position should not be controversial. Indeed, it is common in Christian tradition. Jack Miles spoke aptly to this point back at the time when George Bush was taking flak for having asserted that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. (http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/2937.html)
Miles notes that “when Muhammad first preached to the Jews of Arabia, the Jews definitely thought he had got their God wrong, but they just as definitely did not think he had got the wrong God”
“Jews, Christians, and Muslims have always assumed their differences to be about the character rather than the identity of God”
-cf. 7th C Spain where the “3 religions mingled freely and the best scholars were bi- or even trilingual in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew. During that era, a number of famous theological debates took place in which all participants transparently assumed that all other participants were speaking of—and, of course, disagreeing about—the same divine subject”
-“Aquinas wrote his immense Summa Contra Gentiles in good part to refute Ibn Rushd [the earlier Muslim philosopher whom the West knows as Averroes], but the Angelic Doctor never saw fit to take what would have been the terribly convenient shortcut of claiming (in the manner of Richard Land) that whatever his Muslim forebear had said about God was irrelevant because the man was simply speaking of another God”
Terry
I read a helpful article recently on the use of the word Allah for God when sharing the gospel with Muslims and for believers from a muslim background (especially in a language group where Allah is the only word for God).
While I know that this isn't the issue being dealt with on this post I feel like the author had some good insight into the idea of the true word of God (the bible) redeeming the concept of Allah so that it is in line with the truth.
You can find it here in the International Journal of Frontier Missiology.
http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/23_2_PDFs/Brown_WhoIsAllah.pdf
I also just wanted to pose a question. Please know I do understand deeply why this is being discussed and cared for. It IS vital that we not allow ourselves to lose site of truth or fall into a pluralistic understanding of God.
If JT and I both agree that the only way to truly knowing God and the only way to salvation are through a right, biblical understanding of Christ and God and are equally zealous that our Muslim friends truly know Christ, yet we differ on whether Muslims are, in deceived ignorance trying unsucessfully to worship the God of Abraham or whether it is another god they worship should that divide us or stop/slow our fervour to love and speak truth to our Muslim neighbors?
I think both Pastor John and Rick Love would agree and hold to salvation through being justified by God-given faith in the substitutionary work of a fully man/fully God Jesus on the cross as our propitiation. I would hate to see internal debate (while I think appropriate) to either keep people on either side from loving and sharing with muslims or to in anyway bring dishonor to the name of Christ.
This is not as simple an issue as one would like it to be. As Da Oud (which is Arabic for "David" if I'm not mistaken) has pointed out, the name Allah is used by both Christians and Muslims alike; in fact, Arab Christians used the term even before the birth of Islam.
The question loses its relevance when, without any substantive reason to believe otherwise, no god at all exists. The question of "the true god" and related debate becomes an argument between two or more insane or, in the least, persistently irrational people.
Worship what is real and essential - your own life and the nature of which it is a part and on which it is irrevocably dependent.
I am an African and also a Christian. I think that it is possible to draw an analogy between African traditional religion and the worship of Allah in Islam.
I come from Zimbabwe and from the Shona tribe. Before Christianity came into Africa, the Shona’s worshiped a god whom they called ‘Mwari.’ The Shona’s who later converted to Christianity still use the title ‘Mwari’ to call God, although they often use other terms such as (Jehovah).
Pre-Christianity era, the Shona’s believed in one god. They believed that ‘Mwari’ was a loving god and that he provided the rain and food for his people. The Shona’s also believed that Mwari punishes people who do evil.
Despite the evil of colonialism, and to the glory of God, many Shona’s just like many Africans converted to the true God. They became Christians and eventually part of the Kingdom of God which is made up of people who come from all tribes and tongues.
The Shona’s who converted to Christ did so on the basis that:
-They were previously not worshiping the true God
-That the only God is the one in the bible
-That no one comes to this God except, through Jesus Christ.
There are still a number of Shona’s, just like a number of Africans, who have rejected Christianity. They say Christianity is for the Jews or the west. These Shona’s insist that they have and are worshiping the same god, albeit with a different name, as the rest of the world. They believe that African spirit mediums had a revelation from ‘Mwari’ for Africans just like Jesus had a revelation to give to the Jews and Mohammed had a revelation to the Arabs. They believe that ‘Mwari’ has sent prophets to every tribe and culture.
Analogy between African traditional religion and Islam.
-Both are very sincere in their worship of Mwari, just like some Muslims.
-Both reject Jesus as God but only see Jesus as another of many prophets that ‘Mwari’ or ‘Allah’ has sent.
-African traditionalists, and to some extent Moslems, see any attempt to evangelise as an attempt to simply dominate and control other people’s cultures. Sadly, the way some missionaries were engaged in imperialism and colonialism has done little good but damage to the gospel.
-The only difference between the Shona’s or many other African traditional beliefs and Islam is that Islam has had more of influence in the world hence western missionaries have to ‘respect’ Muslims understanding of God .
The most important similarity between the two religions is this: they both deny Jesus, as an essential part of God. The denial of Jesus, however sincere, is = denial of God.
Right now I am responding to this blog from within a Muslim country. I think that this discussion is helpful. Let me throw some questions out there.
1) When you are talking with your non-Christian friends in America, and they make a reference to "God", do you go a) correct them and say that they don't worship the same God as you or b)work from their wrong understanding of God to show them the Glory of God in the face of Christ. Why should this differ with Muslims?
2) Do you personally know Muslims and are drawing your information from real words that they have said? or are you commenting on something that you heard from a friend or a book?
3) Do you have bitterness in your heart towards Muslims, or your perception of Muslims, that guide your comments?
Brothers, let's stand up for the truth of the gospel, think wisely, and be bold. Let's also be bold with our own sin, acknowledging when pride, partiality, or slander are in our hearts.
Racism towards Muslims is the new "acceptable" racism, especially in the Reformed subculture. That is horrible sin that dishonors Jesus and people made in the image of God. I can tell you that Muslims feel it and it deeply hurts our work over here. While I commend the heart of what many of you are doing in trying to defend the gospel, please take care that you are not a hindrance to it among Muslims by carl.
Most of my best friends are Muslims. They have been amazing friends. They need a Savior no more and no less than the average American. They are very diverse in belief and practice. You can't sum them all up with a few definitions or something you read in a book. The real idols they struggle with and need to repent of are the same idols that you and I struggle with, not the external issues. I think that this issue is much more complex than how it has been framed. However, I'm thankful that people are thinking through this very important subject.
Jeremy Landes here, responding to Justin's initial comment that Jesus was calling the Jews "sons of the devil" who worship their Father, Satan. I also want to point out a few other instances where He spoke something differently about the Jews and Samaritans who did not yet know Him.
He told the Samaritan woman, in John 4: "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews."
In John 3, Jesus reacts to Nicodemus with seeming astonishment when He says, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?" I think Jesus expects that Jewish leaders like Nicodemus who have had access to Scripture for centuries will understand what He is saying. If Muslims are told by Mohammed to accept the five books of Moses and the Psalms of David as His Word, could we not also challenge Muslims with similar words Jesus used to challenge this Pharisee?
In John 2, Jesus proclaims the Jewish temple as "My Father's house." Thus, I don't believe that all the peoples, Jewish and non-Jewish, were actually worshipping the devil.
I could go on.
Could it be that, when Jesus told some religious leaders they were sons of the devil that he meant the people He was addressing, rather than the whole nation of Israel?
In Romans 11, Paul states that Jews who do not yet worship Jesus have not been cast away by God (verse 1). Don't hear me saying all Jews are saved. I'm quoting Paul--he just says they're not cast off, but they are blinded (verse 7).
In accordance with verse 11 of Romans 11, Muslim peoples who, like Jews, have blindly worshipped the God of Abraham and do not know about Jesus (most of them don't read Arabic Korans), are going to begin provoking Jews to jealousy through their salvation. That is, when we will go and speak the truth in love to them. That is, when some of you reading this will go yourselves and/or send young and old people to reveal to Muslims the full nature of the God of Abraham.
Rick Love will agree with me that Muslims who do not yet know and love Jesus, including the Muslims you and I and all believers choose not to tell, will perish without an ally in heaven. They need a living witness. How does it help our witness to tell Muslims, "We share no commonality. You and your culture are ignorant/pagan. You think you worship the God of Abraham, but He doesn't really hear you." Then quote John 8:44 to them and say, "Let me introduce you to the actual God of Abraham, to whom I have access through His divine grave and election."
The context of the verse in John 8 describes Jesus defending His ministry in person to people who have heard the truth and are in the process of rejecting it--condemning themselves and calling the long-awaited Messiah the despised name...a Samaritan. When you are witnessing to Muslims who now know the full gospel and are rejecting it, I believe you may then have the right to invoke Jesus' words and call them sons of the devil. But I wouldn't recommend doing this to Jews or Muslims anytime before then.
I would really like to see this conversation shift into hearing your plans for actively lifting the veil that's over the eyes of Muslims. Could we start with Jesus' method of sharing Himself with an outcast woman from Samaria--the people Jews disregarded as false followers and pretty close to the category many writers to this forum put Muslims into now?
Muslims worship the God who made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th; the God who judged the earth with a flood and delivered Noah and his family on the ark; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Joseph. The God who parted the sea to save the children of Israel from Pharaoh and drowned Pharaoh's armies and who revealed the Law to Moses; the God who revealed the Psalms to David; who sent the great fish to swallow Jonah and the plant to shade him. The God who sent Jesus of Nazareth in to this world to be born of
the virgin Mary and who empowered Jesus to work great miracles and who inspired and gave authority to Jesus’ teachings; the God who will send Jesus to judge the world and separate the righteous from the unrighteous, the sheep from the goats. Of course the Doer of all these deeds is the God of the Bible. Yet this list I took as a very abbreviated list of the Biblical actions of Allah in the Quran. Were there 2 different historical God-figures at work in the historical implementation of these actions? One named God and one named Allah? Now that really gets confusing. But wait a minute. Arab Christians before Mohammed (and still today) called the God of the Bible “Allah”. So it seems like the hard and confusing work of explaining why 2 different god’s claimed to do so many of the same actions seems unnecessary if indeed history points to the fact that they are the same historical God-figure intervening in history.
Trying to make Allah of the Quran into a different God than the God of the Bible is a precarious exercise in intellectual denial (or possibly ignorance). It's like trying to say that the nation that is now America is not the same nation that declared independence from England in 1776 - that because of the differences then and now there can be no identification between the original true America and modern America. Yes, modern America is very different; the cities and country sides have little or no resemblance to those of the original colonies/territories, the way the modern American government functions is radically different from the original minimalist, fledgling democracy. Certainly the political map is very different - 50 states vs 13. Compare the elections then and now. WOW! But the fact remains that those original cities rest on the same geographic and historic locations and the government is founded on the same documents and 'founding fathers'. Arguing that America has become philosophically another nation is a different issue (I think closer to the real issue we wrestle with when comparing the God of Islam and of Christianity). But denying that the current nation originated in the original 'true America' simply ignores the historical and geographical facts that point to continuity. It is not a credible position even though the comparison can leave us feeling very uncomfortable. The historical Figure who is God in both the Bible and the Quran is the same - how many Gods sent a great fish to swallow a wayward Jewish prophet named Jonah, or sent Jesus of Nazareth to be born of a Jewish virgin girl named Mary? It is the One True God that is claimed by both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism, but that is not at issue here). But what has been taught about Him and claimed as revelation about Him in the subsequent traditions of Islam and Christianity is very different. Acknowledging the common identity does not deny that enormous differences between modern and original America have evolved, just as huge differences have developed in how the One True God has come to be represented in Quran/Islam vs Bible/Christianity.
Dr Piper wrote: ".9. Don't mislead them or give them false hope by saying, "Muslims worship the true God."
John Piper is one of my favorite authors -- his books have spoken much light and life to me over the last 15 years. But here he simply misses the mark. All that I've seen written to support Dr Piper's statement here seems to assume or imply that worshiping the one true God is somehow equivalent to having (or at least well on the way to) a saving relationship with the One True God. Justin’s logic seems reasonable to me. He writes, “The problem comes when we call the object of "worship" "the true God." This then becomes an evaluative statement,
inexorably bound up with the character of who that God is.” Yet while I affirm the reasonableness of this statement, in the context of evangelistic engagements, the Holy Spirit/Scriptures seems not to apply this line of logic. I see no Scriptural litmus test that explicitly determines who can or cannot be called a worshiper of the “true God”, nor do we see any “minimum knowledge requirement” to be a worshiper. Indeed the Bible affirms (Ro 14:11, Phil 2:10-11) that at some point all will be prostate in worship before Him and declare His praise whether they are to spend eternity in His presence or apart from Him. Also the Bible makes it clear enough that in spite of gross ignorance of God one can worship Him in some measure and not (yet) have a saving relationship with Him. (Scriptures also affirm that we can have a very well informed understanding of God and have neither a saving relationship with Him nor properly worship Him). And affirming that worship (however incomplete or imperfect) is something that important Bible characters do.
Was Paul misleading and giving false hope to the pagans at Athens? Acts 17:22."So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you..." In Act 17 Paul was saying to them, you worship the 'true God', you just need more truth about Him.
Was Jesus giving false hope to the Samaritan woman? He said, "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know..." He deals with her worship not as idolatry, but as ignorant worship of the true God, not yet attaining to the desired standard of “in Spirit and in truth” that God seeks.
God as described in the Quran seems much closer to the true God than what either the Samaritans or the Athenian pagans worshiped... The issue is not WHICH God Muslims worship - it is that Muslims, like Jews, like the Samaritans, like the pagans in ancient Athens do not worship Him "according to knowledge" (Rom 10:2) but worship Him in ignorance (and error). Nevertheless Paul and Jesus affirmed the imperfect worship of those with non-orthodox religious affinities and use it as common ground. Incidentally, believers are commanded to imitate both Jesus and Paul. Yet neither Paul or Jesus glossed over the urgent and grave need for more truth/reality in the object of the worship.
First, let me present an issue in the philosophy of language. There's some difference of opinion about how words acquire their reference, i.e. how it is that a word comes to refer to the thing that it does. The dominant view in philosophy of language today is that a word comes to refer to what it refers to because of an initial "baptism" that declares what it refers to, along with various processes that happen along its continued usage. But there's a causal chain back to the original "baptism".
The name "George W. Bush" refers to the guy who happens to be the current president because his parents gave him that name and continued to use it to refer to him without changing it, and he continued to use the name without changing it. Its reference is because of that causal chain back to when his parents declared it to be his name.
Now suppose someone comes along and enters into the causal chain, calling him George W. Bush and engaging in the normal process of using the name. But this person starting claiming that the guy called George W. Bush is a clone of the original and has only existed for a few years. That amounts to denying an essential property of George W. Bush, i.e. his origin. Someone can't be him without having that origin. Nonetheless, the weirdo with the cloning theory successfully refers to the real George W. Bush, despite having a view that denies one of his essential properties.
Muslims use certain words to refer to the being they worship (to remain neutral at this point). The linguistic practice that involves those words referring to the being they worship traces back to the time of Muhammad, who wrote a series of Surahs that ended up becoming the Qur'an. In these writings, Muhammad claimed to have received them from an angel, and they spoke of the being worshiped by the Christians and Jews. The initial use of the word 'Allah' (which is a description for a divine being in Arabic, not a name) thus referred explicitly to the God worshiped by Jews and Christians. It went on to say a whole bunch of false things about God, denying some essential properties of God, and all that. It led to a false religion that is worthless in terms of knowing God, and the worship of this being under Islam does not count as genuine worship.
Nevertheless, it seems completely ludicrous to me to claim that this being that is falsely and ungenuinely worshiped by Muslims is not God. This is the God long worshiped by Jews and Christians that Muhammad intended to be referring to when he said all those false things about God. The being he misrepresented and twisted all sorts of things about is the God of the Bible. I don't know how the historical facts can get around that.
There is an issue of how we should make this point. Perhaps Love didn't go far enough in distancing himself from how people might hear it. But that doesn't mean what he says is false.
It's indeed true, and it's true in the same way the Bible is true when it speaks this way. See II Kings 17, which makes it clear that syncretists can fear God and other gods and thus not really be fearing God by not serving him fully. It's still God that they're not really fearing. The name 'YHWH' is even used. It's him that they're not fearing properly when they fear both him and other gods. So why is it a problem if Muslims also worship God but don't really worship God. It's God they're not worshiping properly. The term still refers to him. It's just not genuine worship of him (which is what Love perhaps could have emphasized to avoid misleading people).
One further thought. Those who say that denying the Trinity means one's terms for God don't refer to God have to say the same about Jews. Do you want to say that we don't worship the God of the Jews? It's very clear that the NT authors thought they were worshiping the God of the Jews, and they didn't think the Jews suddenly were worshiping some fictional being once Jesus appeared. They were worshiping God but just not doing so properly. It was God that they weren't worshiping properly.
I don't want to extend this to all monotheists. If the origin of a particular monotheistic religion connects its worship of one being up with God in some linguistically-appropriate way, then they might worship God even if they do so wrongly. If the religion begins by picking out something that clearly isn't God, calling it God, and then worshiping it, then I wouldn't say they worship God, even wrongly. They worship that other thing. So I don't agree that any monotheistic religion worships the true God but wrongly. It has to have the appropriate historical-linguistic connection. But Islam so clearly does that it amazes me that anyone could deny it. The only reason people are giving for denying it seems like such a non sequitur, as my Bush example above shows, that I have to think people are confusing improper worship with worship of the wrong thing. You can improperly treat anything, getting even its essential properties wrong, while nevertheless still referring to it when one speaks of it.
I admit that I have not read every response closely, but I would submit that Romans 10:1-3 is very vital for this discussion:
10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Paul does not deny that the Jews are being "zealous" toward God, which would certainly include outward worship. And the Judaism of Paul's day, and the orthodox Judaism of our day, has many parallels with Islam, nonetheless because M. made use of many Jewish traditions in the Qur'an.
I may be wrong, but I think that there is a tendency that those who are not so much engaged with reaching Muslims with the Gospel to burn their bridges in front of them; those who are searching for ways to reach Muslims do not.
I didn't explain myself very well, I"m afraid (I have the flu right now!)--the point is that Paul does not deny that the Jews are trying with great zeal to worship the one true God, but that their approach is wrong.
Denying the Father and the Son is not necessarily denying that there is one true God. Nor does the fact that the demons admit that there is only one God say that the demons worship Him--that verse is really irrelevant for this discussion.
I am fairly certain that Paul would side with Rick Love. And the incredible thing is the intense love that Paul had for people (Romans 9:1-3, 10:1), including these of his own people who hated him. That should go a long way in coloring this discussion.
Looks like this thread is no longer active, but if someone is reading it, I would highly recommend Nabeel Jabbour's book, The Crescent Through the Eyes of the Cross (new, and available from Amazon--the best book for Christians on understanding Muslim thinking that there is). Here is part of his answer to this question (see page 103):
Another way of looking at it is by asking this question: Was the Yahweh that Jesus talked about the same Yahweh that the Pharisees talked about? The answer is yes and no. The similarities are obvious, but when Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He told them to address God as Father. The Pharisees must ahve been shocked by this teaching and must have considered it a heresy.
This post has been removed by the author.
Justin... as I read through all the comments of those who agree with your analysis of Dr. Rick Love's statements I was saddened that you didn't more vigorously defend your friend Rick Love. You seemed strangely silent as several (undoubtedly well meaning) commentators engaged in a verbal tar & feathering (bordering on slander) of Dr. Love. This ought not to be. You nobly spoke up when one writer accused Dr. Love of being ignorant of the "Moon God" theory. Good work. However I fault you for not being more vigorous in moderating this discussion. It would have been a noble thing to defend Rick Love when his character and intellect was under attack. No Muslim I know would stand by and watch while his friend is getting beat up. I think you failed to show love to Love by allowing too many unbridled/undisciplined tongues go unchecked in this blog.
"As featured in the New York Times, our secret techniques are
revealed on the internet for the first time."
Read on to find out how we can make mind blowing, multi-orgasmic
sex a reality for you and your partners...??
Women will be begging you for sex...!!
What women really want in the bedroom, DIRECTLY from A Women..!!
Hard to find foreplay techniques which make her hornier than ever..!!
http://tinyurl.com/2hy2t4
========================================================================
As featured in The Daily Express, 5 Dec 2006."
Proactol™, tablet are 100% natural and totally organic with no known
negative side effects.
You are no longer anxious about the odd unhealthy eating, because
Proactol™ will absorb up to 28% of the fat in anything you eat.
Loose Fat within 15 days.
http://tinyurl.com/2b7jwg
==========================================================================
"As featured in the New York Times, Men's Fitness, FHM."
Penis enlargement, harder erections and sexual stamina..??
Medically & clinically proved...Penis enlargement Device !!
http://tinyurl.com/yrgvhr
I have the "joy" of posting my thoughts right under some egregious comment Spam. Oh, well.
I am somewhat torn. One the one hand, I've known Rick from years ago when my wife and I sat on the missions committee of the sending church for Rick and his family. (Yes, attending a Vineyard is the skeleton in my closet - I'm Reformed now!). I can understand his intent and his heart. What I don't understand is why he didn't have a more nuanced response, such as the one by the Maranatha Community or GodVoter.org's response. Both call into question the wrong assumption that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Indeed, this has been the teaching of the majority of Islam's Imams for years.
On the other hand, I do think that Piper has drilled into some of the most important of the core issues. It seems like there's a better way to respond to the invitation to dialog (as indeed many groups chose to do). As a confession of sorts, John Piper generally comes closest to almost every point of theology I hold (including primary, secondary, and even many tertiary areas), so I would tend to lean towards his viewpoints.
So, sadly - I must reject and ultimately distance myself from Rick's stance on this. I know - who am I as a non-missionary (in the conventional sense) to start sizing up stones to toss. However, I cannot in good conscience making peace at all costs (compromising the gospel) simply for a chance to dialog.
You all reflect the true nature of so called christians in American.
The muslims extended a hand toward being civil to each other based on common belief, and instead of you accepting it (as I am sure that jesus, who accepted the gentils would have done)you make all the efforts that you can to create separations.
You believe in what you do and we believe in what was revealed to us, i do not need to prove you wrong in order to validate my own theophany. The issue is not whether we are correct or you are correct, the issue is whether either one of us believe in the Love that our particular intercesor taught. The wars faught over Christianty and Islam are a wound on humanity and a disgrace in the face of the Creator, what ever you may call Him.
Do Christians really believe that when Jesus returns that he would be over joyed at the slaughter of Afgani woman and children; that he would indorse this Bush lead crusade that we are in?
I do not understand how
Christianity preach such a beautiful and peace loving teaching and yet most christians seem to reflect such an ugly disposition toward anything that does not look like themselves.
I am a Muslim and I am overjoyed at the relationship that I have developed with The Creator. I do not care what you believe as long as it does not infringe on my own worship of God. You would do good to concentrate more on the applications that your master Jesus (pbuh)brought instead of worshipping your own false Image of perfection that you seem to believe you have attained.
Why do people who say they have faith (christian or Muslim) have to prove it to each other by spouting verses from books they have very little knowledge of, poking out their chests as if they honestly believe that they can choose who is going to hell or heaven.
The Book o revelations speak of many "so called christians" who will be going to hell; of false preachers who will burn with their bibles. The Prophet Muhammed also spoke in Hadith of "so called muslims" who would be marching toward the hell fire. what is funny is that everyone is so sure that they are on the right side that they arragantly preach 'their way or Hell" to the world.
My Shaykh has said that those of theology will seldom agree on anything, but those metaphysicians from those same religions will have few things that they disagree on.
In Islam, 'satans' rebellion from God started with the assumtion that he was superior to Adam and refused to prostrate in front of him. It seem that Many so called christians and so called Muslims are following more in the footsteps of the deciever in their attempts to Defend God lol than following the teaching of His Intercessors.
Peace be unto all of you
Soulsaint, I agree with you fully that Christians and Muslims should dialogue rather than fight, but this conflict is not religious except on the part of Islamic extremists. The Western world is defending themselves from an attacker who relies on the false stereotype that the secular West as Christian. The Islamic world as a whole seems to exhibit that stereotypical way of thinking. It thus sees this as a religious war when it is not remotely religious, at least on the part of the West. Bush happens to be a Christian, but this is not a war motivated by religion, either his or any other American's. Defense against attackers is a general part of just war theory, not a revealed teaching that Bush gained only by reading the Bible.
Almost all Christians in the United States and Europe have no problem letting Muslims worship as they see fit, provided that it doesn't involve things like hijacking airplanes and flying them into tall buildings in heavily populated areas or sending mentally retarded women into civilian target areas to blow up themselves and everyone around them. Evangelical Christians certainly disagree with Islam. We certainly want to dialogue about who is right (you don't seem interested in that, but many Muslims are, in my experience). We will present reasons for our side. But the discussion here is not an argument about whether Muslims should have the freedom to worship as they see fit, provided it doesn't harm anyone else. That is a given for most Americans.
The parts of the world that have been dominated by Christianity for a long time (even if that is changing significantly now in Europe and is starting to change in the U.S.) have been tolerant of other religions. The parts of the world that have been dominated by Islam are decisively not tolerant of other religions. Instead they put them in prison for simply meeting and worshiping, they kill them for converting to Christianity or any other non-Islamic religion, and they deport them for trying to dialogue about their faith with Muslims. I don't see the so-called Christian nations putting people in prison for their faith. I do see them arresting people for suspected ties to terrorism. Perhaps they have gone overboard with that, but what they explicitly have not done is arrest people (never mind kill them) merely for their religion.
As for hell, I don't think anyone here is pretending to decide who goes to hell. A lot of people here have looked at what the Bible teaches about hell (including what Jesus says in the gospels, which is pretty harsh indeed). They have stated what those teachings are. But that does not amount to taking the authority from God to declare such things. It merely amounts to taking the Bible as God's revelation to humanity and thus accepting its teachings about such things. Repeating a teaching one believes comes from God is not the same thing as simply selecting people yourself as the ones who will go to hell. You characterized people who did the first as doing the second, and that is not remotely fair.
I am a metaphysician, by the way. My formal training in philosophy has concentrated mostly on metaphysics, and I list it as one of my three academic specialties. I should note that, historically, philosophy has been discouraged in Islam, despite Islamic philosophers having been heavily influential in the history of thought. The medieval philosophical revolution, including Thomas Aquinas, could never have happened without Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd. I have great respect for that tradition.
My response to Soulsaint:
As a whole, evangelical Christians are not rejecting a chance to dialog with Muslims. It is the specific context that some of us are taking issue with. For example, if I said to you "we may have a common dialog as long as you deny Mohammed is the prophet of Allah". What would be your reaction? I doubt it would be "well, I guess that's OK!" No, you would reject that as it is a fundamental aspect of your religion.
You see, we are not creating separations - we are simply identifying the differences that are already there. Indeed, historically it is not just Christian scholars, but Islamic theologians as well who agree on this - we do not worship the same God. In Islam, Allah is unknowable except through his decrees. He is to humanity a force of will, declared through the Koran. The God of the Bible & Christianity, although not ultimately knowable, still has revealed many of His attributes to us - both in general and special revelation.
I would certainly agree with you that aggression in the name of Jesus is not Biblically warranted. We do, however, live within the confines of civil governments which may or may not be guided by Christian precepts (unlike Islam, Christianity has a long tradition of de-coupling civil and religious law). So, whether or not the current U.S. government acts in a manner that is consistent with my Christian convictions has no direct bearing on how I conduct my life. Actually, in the U.S. primaries, I voted for a candidate who had promised to remove U.S. troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
You are correct to suggest that many Christians, and often the public face of Christianity, has been marred by hypocrites who do not live out the teachings of our Lord and Savior. However, our conformance to the message of the Bible does not discount the truths it proclaims. If we do not show love to our enemies, we disobey scripture. If a Muslim hates his enemy - is he disob