Mohammed as the Only Mediator

I like to present Jesus to my Muslim friends as the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5-6).  But the response I usually hear is, “Mohammed is our mediator.”  This idea is not found in the Qur’an but in the Hadith, which are seen by many Muslims to be just as authoritative as the Qur’an.

The Qur’an states that no one may mediate unless God permits him: “Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission?”  (2:254-5).  This question is answered by the Bukhari collection of the Hadith 6:60:3:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, 'Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.'

So they will go to Adam and say, 'You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.'

Adam will say, 'I am not fit for this (i.e. intercession for you).' Then Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed thereof. He will say, 'Go to Noah, for he was the first Apostle, Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth.'

They will go to him and Noah will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking.' He will remember his appeal to his Lord to do what he had no knowledge of, then he will feel ashamed thereof and will say, 'Go to the Khalil--r-Rahman (i.e. Abraham).'

They will go to him [Abraham] and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking. Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah .'

So they will go to him [Moses] and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking.' and he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will say, 'Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him.

Jesus will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.'

So they will come to me [Muhammad] and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord's Permission and I will be given permission. When I see my Lord, I will fall down in Prostration and He will let me remain in that state as long as He wishes and then I will be addressed.' (Muhammad!) Raise your head. Ask, and your request will be granted; say, and your saying will be listened to; intercede, and your intercession will be accepted.' I will raise my head and praise Allah with a saying (i.e. invocation) He will teach me, and then I will intercede. He will fix a limit for me (to intercede for) whom I will admit into Paradise. Then I will come back again to Allah, and when I see my Lord, the same thing will happen to me. And then I will intercede and Allah will fix a limit for me to intercede whom I will let into Paradise, then I will come back for the third time; and then I will come back for the fourth time, and will say, 'None remains in Hell but those whom the Quran has imprisoned (in Hell) and who have been destined to an eternal stay in Hell.' " (The compiler) Abu 'Abdullah said: 'But those whom the Qur'an has imprisoned in Hell,' refers to the Statement of Allah: "They will dwell therein forever." (16.29).

Bases on this hadith, I believe many of my Muslim friends actually place their faith and trust in Mohammed.  They hope Mohammed will find them to be a good Muslim on Judgment day.

HT: Abdul Musloob

What are the Bible and the Qur’an Basically About?

Watch this 4 minute video (HT: SM) below to answer the question, What is the Bible basically about?

Compare this with the Qur’an.  In Major Themes in the Qur’an, Fazlur Rahman says:

“The aim of the Qur’an is man and his behavior, not God” (3).

This is a repeat of what was in the first line of the book, “The Qur’an is a document that is squarely aimed at man.”  The Qur’an is “guidance for mankind” (2:185).

The Bible is written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years detailing God’s redemptive purposes for humankind in Christ, yet is amazingly unified on this story.

The Qur’an, however, was recorded by one author over a period of 23 years and has very little grand story in it.

It seems to me much easier to simply write an instruction manual for living than it would be to write on the character, nature, and plan of God revealed in a Messiah who would transform hearts and usher in the rule of God.

Islam is Not a Civilization, Ramachandra- Faiths in Conflict?

This post is a summary of chapter 1 “Islam and new religious wars?” in Faiths in Conflict?: Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World (IVP Academic, 2000).  Ramachandra, who works with the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES), writes dry and intellectually, but he has a very interesting argument, especially since this was written pre-9/11.  Here I will only try to summarize his argument and let you post your comments below.

From the Preface of the book:

In chapter 1 [Islam and new religious wars?], I discuss the “Islamic resurgence” of recent decades and the alleged threat it poses to the West.  One of the most competent exponents of the view that “Islam” and the “West” are mutually hostile and irreconcilable is Samuel Huntington [The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order], a politics professor at Harvard University and adviser on the international relations to the US governments.  In the post-Cold War world, Huntington argues, religious or civilizational clashes have replaced wars fought for economic or strategic reasons.  This chapter combines a critique of Huntington with an examination of the West’s perception of Islam and the misleading rhetoric of Islamist movements.  It also explores how dangerous stereotypes are generated in both Western and Islamic societies.  It concludes with some challenging question for Muslims and Christians alike.   

Ramachandra begins by agreeing that Huntington’s main thesis is simple, clear, and seemingly self-evident.  “In the post-Cold War world, the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic.  They are cultural… The most pervasive, important and dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities” (13).

Huntington defines six major contemporary civilizations: Western, Sinic [Chinese], Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, and Orthodox.  According to Huntington, the coming conflict between the West and Islam will be because Islam is obsessed with the inferiority of its power and and that the West believes in the universality of Western culture; Islamic intolerance will clash with Western arrogance.  For Huntington, the solution is that civilizations should not interfere in conflicts based in other civilizations and an international order based on civilizations is a safeguard against world war.  Ramachandra believes Huntington’s analysis is “seriously flawed” and an “unreliable guide for understanding the world in which we live” (15).  Ramachandra argues against viewing Islam in a civilizational category.

After the fall of Communism, the West is seeking new demons.  Islam now fits that bill and is seen as a threat against the West.  Correspondingly, predominantly Muslim countries portray any Western involvement in their affairs as an affront against Islam.  Both sides have utilized anti-imperialist slogans and demonization, and engaged in a process of “mutual satanization” (19).  However, the dangerous rhetoric of stereotyping the “other” in broad strokes is not a recent phenomena.

Both Islamists and and their critics refer to Islam as a specific, timeless, social and political programme.  But Islam is far from a monolithic, unchanging reality.  In the post-colonial world, nationalist or Islamist movements from Morocco to India to Indonesia have appealed to Islam to legitimate their polices and gain popular support.  “These groups are responding to specific, historical problems, often of a social and political nature, not engaging in some universal crusade against other peoples” (17). 

In order to understand the nature of these movements, it’s not necessary to examine the Qur’an, but instead to look at problems facing the populations of these peoples.  Islam is often times posed by Islamists as being under threat.  This language is “part of the rhetorical baggage of political struggle, employed by both those who wish to remain in power and those who aspire to attain power” (19).  Most Muslims are not supporters of Islamist movements!  The myth of the “Islam in danger” slogan is propagated by those who wish to maintain or gain control of the community.

Another misperception of Islam as a civilization is the myth of Islamic unity.  “Within twenty-five years of the death of Muhammad, Muslim believers were killing each other on the field of battle” (21).  A cursory look at Islamic history confirms that Islam has always been segregated, as does the animosity between Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran today.  In the Gulf war, one Islamic state attacked another Islamic state.  Even Muslim communities in the West which appear homogeneous to outsiders are fragmented around ethnic, linguistic, and political groupings.

Today, what passes for “Islamic legal code” is far from unified and always reflects the local context.  Numerous conflicting examples of shari’a law abound, all ambiguously based on the Qur’an and sunnah.  “If we want to know why most Muslims hold the views they do about sexuality, economics, democracy and the like, it is not ‘Islam’ alone that can explain it” (25).  The difficulty of establishing democracy in many parts of the Muslim world is due, not to the inherent nature of Islam, but to “low levels of development, entrenched traditions of state control, political cultures that inhibit diversity and tolerance, the absence of a tradition of private property, and the lack of separation of state and law” (26).

The way “Islam” is defined by those defending their power or by those in conflict with them is a mirror-image of the way the “West” is defined by Muslims.  “It is a prominent feature of Muslim writings, both serious and popular: the West is depicted as a monolithic entity, irredeemably materialist, immoral and decadent, and characterized by aggressiveness, expansionism and intolerance towards Islam and Muslims” (34).  It is this reductionist approach to complex cultures and peoples that creates the appearance of unbridgeable differences today.

Huntington’s overall flaw is that he claims that the reason for the increase in religious rhetoric as justification for political action on both sides is evidence that differences in culture or religion are what precipitate international conflicts. Thus, Huntington’s argument of the “clash of the incompatible civilizations” is a self-fulfilling prophecy; the more we believe it, the more it will come true (37).  In fact, numerous examples can be cited where the West has explicitly worked with Muslims when their goals were aligned (i.e. American CIA support of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan or Saudi and Israeli support of the Gulf war, to name just two).

Ramachandra offers four suggestions for living with integrity in a multicultural world. First, we should try to avoid using religious categories such as ‘Muslim’, ‘Christian’, ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Hindu’ to describe an ethnic or cultural group. Second, whatever religious traditions we belong to and whatever religious convictions we hold, we should apply the same standards to political phenomena in other societies that we apply to our own. The KKK doesn’t speak for American Christians in the same way Muslims don’t want Osama Bin Laden speaking for them as a Muslim.  Thirdly, Muslims themselves need to champion religious freedoms.  It is hypocritical for Muslim citizens in the West to enjoy religious freedom when minority citizens in their home countries are denied those very same rights.  Finally, we must take seriously the challenge to explore faiths and cultures of other people, especially those who live in our own neighborhood- this goes for both Muslims and Christians.

Salvation sans Jesus?

Lots of stuff going on in the blogosphere about hell.  This is a really difficult issue on many levels, but important nevertheless for those who labor to see Muslims, most of whom have never heard the gospel, embrace the Messiah for all he is.

I think this quote from J.I. Packer quickly gets to the heart of the matter:

It has been urged that if non-Christian devotees come to know themselves as guilty, defiled, and unworthy, and to confess and renounce their sins, asking mercy from whatever gods there may be, they will receive the forgiveness they seek because of the Jesus they do not yet know, but will know hereafter. God forbid we should dispute this. But have we reason to think there are such people? The New Testament only speaks of penitents being saved through knowing about, and coming to trust, the crucified and risen Lord.

A Revolution in Church Multiplication in East Africa

Here is an excerpt [for the excerpt click on the link] of a DMin dissertation called, A Revolution in Church Multiplication in East Africa.  The entire paper can be downloaded from that link as well.

Gospel Planting vs. Church Planting

From the footnotes of Rick Love’s paper Following Jesus in a Glocalized World:

What about the term, “church planting?” I believe it miscommunicates at a number of levels, so I prefer the term “gospel planting” for three reasons:

(1) “Gospel planting” is more biblical and accurate. Nowhere does the New Testament imply that we plant the church. But it does teach that we plant the gospel. The parable of the sower makes this most clear.

(2) “Gospel planting” helps us envision our task more clearly. The term “church planting” implies that we bring the church from the outside. To use another metaphor, “church planting” implies that we plant the gospel seed along with a flower pot. The church is then foreign rather than indigenous. “Gospel planting” implies that we sow the gospel seed, and churches spring up from indigenous soil.

(3) “Gospel planting” is more Christ-centered than “church planting,” since Jesus is the gospel.

Paul the apostle linked his apostolic aims and ambitions with the gospel. His “apostolic self-description” indicates that his goal was the gospel. His work resulted in communities of Jesus’ followers. He loved and suffered for these communities of faith. But he linked his apostolic aims and ambitions with the gospel:

“Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1 NASB).

“However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24 NIV).

“And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20 NASB).

“I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (1 Corinthians 9:23 NASB).

“I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness … ” (Colossians 1:25).

“To me, the very least of all saints, this grace [of apostleship] was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8).

“But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear” (2 Timothy 4:17).

In my previous post, Decline of the Church Planting Movement Strategy?, “Mark” criticized church planting movements, but from a different angle.

Decline of the Church Planting Movement Strategy?

From “Mark” at Second Thoughts on The Future of Missions (edstetzer.com):

For the last twenty years the primary strategy in evangelical missions has been the Church Planting Movement (CPM) strategy. This strategy was developed by the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (but is now widely used by many other organizations). The leaders of the IMB were frustrated because most of their evangelistic fruit came from only five countries: Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines, and Korea. They longed to see similar results from their work in all the nations. So, they developed the CPM strategy in order to emphasize the planting of rapidly reproducing churches around the world. CPM was seen as the "golden key," a strategy that will work in any place at any time. Many missions agencies have embraced CPM as their strategy. For example, Youth with a Mission (YWAM) has held seminars on CPM all over the world.

What's the problem? Surely, it is a good thing to seek to plant churches that will rapidly reproduce. Yes, indeed. CPM has much to commend it. It stresses fervent prayer, widespread evangelism, and planting indigenous churches. The problems with CPM have been discussed by Dr. David Sills in his book, Reaching and Teaching. (highly recommended!) Dr. Sills cogently argues that CPM fails because it neglects training disciples and especially church leaders. Another weakness is that CPM has a weak ecclesiology. This has been pointed out by writers at 9Marks Ministries and Mid-America Seminary. Beyond that, many of the featured CPMs seem to have a short lifespan. That is, after a few years researchers cannot find the churches. In John 15:16 Jesus told his disciples "I chose you and appointed you to bear fruit--fruit that will last." It seems the rapidity emphasized by the CPM strategy does not produce fruit that lasts. I am not predicting that CPM will disappear overnight. Missions agencies change slowly; however, it does seem that CPM will slowly decline due to inherent weaknesses.

Interesting that this criticism comes out as Mission Frontiers publishes their March-April 2011 Issue on Church Planting Movements!

See this article: Church Planting Movements Among Muslim Peoples

What do you think?

Infinite Translatability of the Christian Faith

From Andrew Walls’ The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, pgs. 22-23:

Each phase of Christian history has seen a transformation of Christianity as it has entered and penetrated another culture.  There is no such thing as “Christian culture” or “Christian civilization” in the sense that there is an Islamic culture, and an Islamic civilization.  There have been several different Christian civilizations already; there may yet be many more.  The reason for this lies in the infinite translatability of the Christian faith.  Islam, the only other faith hitherto to make comparable impact in such global terms, can produce a single recognizable culture (recognizable despite local assimilations and variations) across its huge geographical spread.  This has surely something to do with the ultimate untranslatability of its charter document, the Qur’an.  The Christian Scriptures, by contrast, are open to translation; nay, the great Act on which Christian faith rests, the Word becoming flesh and pitching tent among us, is itself an act of translation.  And this principle brings Christ to the heart of each culture where he finds acceptance; to the burning questions within that culture, to the points of reference within it by which people know themselves.  That is why each phase of Christian history has produced new themes: themes which the points of reference of that culture have made inescapable for those who share that framework.  The same themes may be beyond the conception of Christians of an earlier or another framework of thought.  They will have their own commanding heights to be conquered by Christ.

Related Posts:

• What are the questions Muslims are asking of God?
• The Tension Between the Pilgrim and Indigenous Principles

5 Reasons Muslims Follow Jesus: Woodberry Study 2007

From Leadership Journal in 2008:

A survey of 750 Muslims who converted to Christianity shows five predominant reasons they chose to follow Christ.

1. The lifestyle of Christians. Former Muslims cited the love that Christians exhibited in their relationships with non-Christians and their treatment of women as equals.
2. The power of God in answered prayers and healing. Experiences of God's supernatural work—especially important to folk Muslims who have a characteristic concern for power and blessings—increased after their conversions, according to the survey. Often dreams about Jesus were reported.
3. Dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they had experienced. Many expressed dissatisfaction with the Qur'an, emphasizing God's punishment over his love. Others cited Islamic militancy and the failure of Islamic law to transform society.
4. The spiritual truth in the Bible. Muslims are generally taught that the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels are from God, but that they became corrupted. These Christian converts said, however, that the truth of God found in Scripture became compelling for them and key to their understanding of God's character.
5. Biblical teachings about the love of God. In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional, but God's love for all people was especially eye-opening for Muslims. These converts were moved by the love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus. The next step for many Muslims was to become part of a fellowship of loving Christians.

The respondents were from 30 countries and 50 ethnic groups. The survey was prepared at Fuller Theological Seminary's School of Intercultural Studies, and reported in Christianity Today.

Muslims are now 21 percent of the world population, increasing from 12 percent in the past 100 years. And the growth rate of Islam is higher than that of Christianity (1.81% per year, compared to 1.23%). Christians still outnumber Muslims, with one-third of the world population naming Christianity as their faith.

In some parts of the world, significant pockets of Muslims are turning to Christ, including North Africa, South Asia, and Indonesia.

The study appears as a chapter in From the Straight Path to the Narrow Way.

Reflections on the Egyptian Revolution

Rick love posts his thoughts here.

“Sonship” and “Lordship” Translation Issues

From koinonia:

The CT article The Son and the Crescent has caused quite a stir. It examined Bible translations that use a substitute for the term “son of God” to make inroads into the Muslim community.

In response Ed Stetzer looks at reasons to retain “son of God”, Trevin Wax hosts an interview with Hansen and Greear on the issues, and Daniel Kirk argues that it’s more important to insist “Jesus is Lord.”

See also Bible Translations for Muslim Readers by Vern Poythress at Mission Frontiers.

I just want to mention that Kirk’s point is just as problematic, as “Lord” is commonly used by Muslims when addressing Allah.  It is common in the Qur’an as well. I don’t know what is worse for my Muslim friends, hearing Jesus called the “Son of God” or “Lord.” Both titles are repugnant.

Andrew Walls in The Missionary Movement in Christian History (1996) indicates that the first use of “Lord” in Acts 11:20 by Jewish Christians with Greek-speaking pagans could have resulted with “the recognition of the Lord Jesus as one more cult divinity alongside the Lord Serapis or the Lord Osiris” (34). Talk about a serious translation issue in the Septuagint!  Claiming Jesus as “Lord” actually “sharpened the confrontation of early Christianity with the popular religion of the Greco-Roman world” (35). The Septuagint would certainly be labeled syncretistic by today’s standards, and yet look how it was used of God.

Communicating the “lordship” of Jesus to Muslims is perhaps an even more problematic  issue than his “sonship” because of all the different words for “Lord” in other languages (especially Arabic).

Why is there a significant increase of Muslims making a commitment to Jesus? 10 Reasons

A paper by Duane Miller “Woven in the Weakness of the Changing Body: the Genesis of World Islamic Christianity.”  At his blog he says, “In this paper I try to analyze some of the main trends that have allowed for a global space wherein conversions from Islam to Christ have increased very substantially since the second half of the 20th Century.”  Here are the 10 factors Miller’s research identified:

1. Media
2. Exposure to other ways of life/thought/and religion
3. Contextualized or culturally-sensitive witness
4. Living Abroad/migration
5. Prayers/a move of the Spirit/God‘s timing
6. Dreams/Visions/Miracles
7. Greater number of missionaries
8. Translation of the Bible and material into local languages/dialects/forms
9. Greater diversity in missionary strategies/platforms
10. Great boldness in evangelization

Read the whole thing (35 pages).

What Insiders and Traditionalists assume or claim about each other

An irenic article from Jeff Morton, a traditionalist (“Historical” in his wording), trying to bring clarity to the debate:

Perhaps a different way to think about our differences is in these statements:

• The IMers believe the theology of the Historicals is bound to the past (a past hallmarked by extraction and failure) and lacks a real understanding of Jesus’ own methodology.

• Historicals believe IMers are blind to the insidious nature of Islam, which negatively affects their methodology.

Read the whole thing.  What do you think?

The Son and the Crescent

An article at Christianity Today by Collin Hansen, The Son and the Crescent: “Bible translations that avoid the phrase "Son of God" are bearing dramatic fruit among Muslims. But that translation has some missionaries and scholars dismayed.” 

Hansen does a good job framing the debate.

Related Posts

• Does the “Kingdom” Make Sense to Muslims?
• Is Allah God? A Relevant Issue?
• “Son of God” in Bible Translation for Muslims

Christians and Muslims in Egypt

You may have heard about how Muslims protected Christians in Egypt last month by forming a human chain during Orthodox Christmas services.  Now this image is coming out of Cairo this week - Christians returning the favor... Man, I bet the Devil hates to see this!  May Jesus bring the truest Salaam in its fullness!

Luke 15 and a Word about Parables

Listen to this Islamic interpretation of Luke 15:11-32:

In this parable the Father obviously represents God while the younger son represents humankind.  The son leaves home, gets into trouble and finally decides to return to his Father.  He “yistaghfir Allah” (he seeks the forgiveness of God).  On arrival the Father welcomes the son and thus demonstrates the he, the father, is “rahman wa rahim” (merciful and compassionate).  There is no cross and no incarnation, no “son of God” and no “savior,” no “word that becomes flesh” and no “way of salvation,” no death and no resurrection, no mediator and no mediation.  The son needs no help to return home.  The result is obvious.  Jesus is a good Muslim who in this parable affirms Muslim theology.  The heart of the Christian faith is thus denied by the very prophet Christianity claims to follow.  Islam with neither a cross nor a savior preserves the true message of the prophet Jesus.

This is how Kenneth Bailey opens The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants. In his book, Bailey interprets the parable in light of the cultural paradigms of the first century Mediterranean world.  He finds a warrant to introduce the atonement in this parable because the father bore the public shame of his prodigal son’s “death wish” (asking for his inheritance while his father was still alive) by running publically in the street to embrace the prodigal son.  A dignified man in the Middle East would never run without great cost (public shame) to himself.  “This parable depicts a father who leaves the comfort and security of his home and humiliates himself before the village.  The coming down and going out to his son is a parable of the incarnation.  The costly demonstration of the unexpected love in the village street demonstrates a part of the meaning of the cross” (67).

Clearly the Muslim interpretation is flawed with eisegesis, trying to insert the Islamic concept of salvation into the parable. Let’s not forget to interpret the the parable in light of the crucifixion narrative and Jesus’ words in Luke 9:22, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

But I wonder if Bailey goes too far as well?  Parables were not meant to teach a summary of everything in Biblical faith, but instead to highlight one main point.  Luke 15 illustrates God’s extravagant mercy for sinners (something, by the way, that Islam and Biblical faith have in common).  Read this from the New American Commentary on Luke 15 (pg. 410):

The question has been raised about whether this parable teaches that God’s forgiveness is “free.” Did Luke believe there was thus no necessity of an “atonement.” One cannot require in a parable such as this, which teaches God’s love for the outcasts and the hostility this encounters, a complete doctrine of the atonement as well. A parable is not meant to serve as a shorter catechism of all Christian doctrine. Luke expected that this parable would be interpreted in light of what he had already said in his Gospel (cf. 9:22), what he would say shortly (cf. 19:10; 22:17–22), what he would write in Acts (4:12; 13:26–39; 20:28), and what they had already been taught (perhaps a tradition such as 1 Cor 15:3–8). The purpose of this parable is to teach essentially one basic point dealing with the situation described in 15:1–2. To ask more of it than this is unwarranted.

The church must continually examine the significance of this parable. Will we be the church of the elder brother or the church of the loving father?

This is the same route Tim Keller takes in The Prodigal God. He warns, “This story is a great metaphor of sin and salvation, but we can’t press every single detail literally” (76).  Keller continues:

Over the years many readers have drawn the superficial conclusion that the restoration of the younger brother involved no atonement, no cost… (82)

Mercy and forgiveness must be free and unmerited to the wrongdoer.  If the wrongdoer has to do something to merit it, then it isn’t mercy, but forgiveness always comes at a cost the one granting the forgiveness. (83)

The younger brother’s restoration was free to him, but it came at enormous cost to the elder brother.  The father could not just forgive the the younger son, somebody had to pay!  The father could not reinstate him except at the expense of the elder brother.  There was no other way.  But Jesus does not put a true elder brother in the story, one who is willing to pay any cost to seek and save that which is lost.  It is heartbreaking.  The younger son gets a Pharisee for a brother instead.

But we do not…(84)

Praise God for Jesus, who absorbed the cost of forgiveness in our place on the cross!  But the point of the parable does not take us there.

The Cape Town Commitment

Friends, I am very excited to announce the release of the Cape Town Commitment, the result of the efforts of the Theology Working Group chaired so ably by Dr. Chris Wright.  Here is the beginning of the forward, then you can look below if you wish to read the entire thing...

The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization (Cape Town, 16-25 October 2010) brought together 4,200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries, and extended to hundreds of thousands more, participating in meetings around the world, and online. Its goal? To bring a fresh challenge to the global Church to bear witness to Jesus Christ and all his teaching - in every nation, in every sphere of society, and in the realm of ideas.

The Cape Town Commitment is the fruit of this endeavour. It stands in an historic line, building on both The Lausanne Covenant and The Manila Manifesto. It is in two parts. Part l sets out biblical convictions, passed down to us in the scriptures, and Part ll sounds the call to action.

The Cape Town Commitment

Foreword

Preamble

PART I - FOR THE LORD WE LOVE: The Cape Town Confession Of Faith

1. We love because God first loved us
2. We love the living God
3. We love God the Father
4. We love God the Son
5. We love God the Holy Spirit
6. We love God’s Word
7. We love God’s world
8. We love the gospel of God
9. We love the people of God
10. We love the mission of God

PART II  - FOR THE WORLD WE SERVE: The Cape Town Call to Action

Introduction

1. Bearing witness to the truth of Christ in a pluralistic, globalized world
2. Building the peace of Christ in our divided and broken world
3. Living the love of Christ among people of other faiths
4. Discerning the will of Christ for world evangelization
5. Calling the Church of Christ back to humility, integrity and simplicity
6. Partnering in the body of Christ for unity in mission

Conclusion

Pray for Farshid and our Iranian Brothers and Sisters

CAPE TOWN 2010 PARTICIPANT ARRESTED IN IRAN
Farshid Fathi, who was with us at Cape Town 2010, was recently arrested by Iranian authorities because of his Christian faith.  He was one of 70 Iranian believers arrested by government security forces on 26 December.  According to Elam Ministries, Farshid, like the thirteen others still being held, has been in solitary confinement and subjected to numerous hours of interrogation.
To learn more about the situation, please go to:

http://www.elam.com/articles/70-Christians-Arrested/

Doug Birdsall, Lausanne's Executive Chair, says, "We're deeply concerned by the arrests of Christians in Iran.  We recognize evangelical Christians in Iran who have no other choice but to meet in 'house churches' as a legitimate part of the global church.  We therefore call on the Iranian government to release those arrested and ensure that Iranian Christians are free to worship God and practice their faith in accordance with the United Nations Charter of Human Rights."

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please be praying for Farshid and the other Iranian Christians being held.  Also, consider adding your voice by sending a short email to David Yeghnazar (david@elam.com), Director of Elam Ministries, a ministry that serves the church in Iran.  David was also with us in Cape Town.  In your email simply say that you are in agreement with Lausanne's position and request the Iranian government to ensure that Iranian Christians are free to worship and practice their faith.  Please state your name, your position and your church or organization. 

HT: Archbishop Henry Orombi 

H-Scale for Hindu Contextualization

Here.

HT: AH

Miniskirts, Mothers & Muslims

From David Mays’ book notes:

Miniskirts, Mothers & Muslims: A Christian Woman in a Muslim Land, by Christine A. Mallouhi | Monarch Books, 2004, 184 pp. ISBN 978-0-8254-6051-7 | Order this book here.

Christine Mallouhi, an Australian, is married to an Arab Christian. She has lived for nearly 30 years in many different Muslim cultures and authored Waging Peace on Islam. Christine’s experience can help Christians live honorably among Muslims. I hadn’t intended to take notes on this book, but when I was nearly half way through I had run across so many valuable insights, that I couldn’t resist it.

“Conservative Muslims’ sense of right and wrong is more acute than that of Western Christians. In spite of the fact that we consider ourselves to have a strict spiritual/moral worldview, we are surprised to discover that conservative Muslims do not view us as a spiritual people because of our behaviour and dress. Clothing is an important, and necessary, way to make a statement. If you live in a Muslim community you will notice the different clothes used for weddings, circumcisions, mourning, and to show religious affiliation.” “Local people often asked me why I dressed so conservatively for a Westerner, and many enquired if I was a Muslim. I usually told them that the Bible teaches that godly women should dress modestly, and since I have submitted my life to God through Christ, I want to be modest in their country as well as my own. So, if they recognize godliness and decency by a certain type of clothing then I will wear it while in their country.” (83-4)

“If we want to be respectable then we need to know what decent and indecent dress in other countries is. I have seen some Christian women in conservative countries, where most women wear a veil, appearing in the street in shorts. The Western equivalent would be to go out completely naked.” (86) “My advice is to be sensitive to the culture, because it is helpful for your relationships.” (92)

“Women and men worldwide use voice inflection to show interest in each other. … When speaking with the opposite sex you need a cooler manner. Westerners tend to be a bit naïve about this, but Muslims are aware of these boundaries. … avoid lengthy eye contact, adopt modest postures, watch the tone of voice, keep your general demeanour more reserved.” (99)

“By voluntarily submitting to the same restrictions that our Muslim friends live under, Christians can walk in their shoes. There are few ways in which Western Christian women can truly identify with Muslim friends, or can understand their struggles, because our life is different, but we can choose to try to take on their point of view and live in their world. Identify with Muslim women in as many ways as possible and share Christ’s life within those boundaries. This seems to me, to be what living the Gospel means and leaving a model of faith that can be copied.” (118)

“If secular and Muslim women can give up personal preferences and submit to Islamic customs that they do not agree with, surely Christian women can do the same for our testimony. Christ left all his glory to become one of us, in order to show us the way home to the Father. We have an opportunity to lay down self for the sake of Christ. We have an opportunity to follow in the steps of the One who laid aside everything to enable us to receive his word.” (119)

“Typically, Christians arrive in foreign cultures intending to ‘disciple’ others. It’s not too long before they realize they need to learn a lot from those they came to teach. We must be guests before we can be hosts.” (124)

“Being like Jesus does not mean confronting everything all at once, even if we do not agree with it. …Jesus always treated individuals with honour and dignity, whether poor or rich, but he did not forcibly turn the class-system institution upside down during the years of his ministry. He turned it upside down by leaving an example of redeemed relationships for his followers to implement at the opportune time. … As unknown outsiders, Christians need to adapt to the culture in order to gain a hearing.” (128)

“We keep our bearings in Christ by not taking on an attitude that discriminates or denigrates people on the basis of status, yet all the while understanding its importance in the culture and manoeuvring within it.” (130)

“Friends will never say they cannot help. They may not come as they promised, but they will not say ‘No.’ … Arabs do not belong to themselves; they belong to each other. …In the Arab world there is no individual; there is only community. The Western attitude of being an individual in control of your life, and not dependent on anyone, is totally foreign and seen as deviant and dangerous to the group. … Arabs define themselves in terms of the groups they belong to. … It is groups that are unique, not the individual person. Any group member represents the whole group.” (136-37)

“Muslims tend to live in collectivist societies. These societies believe few things need to be spelled out, as people are socialized to learn them from childhood. … But this fact is invisible writing between the lines and is not obvious to an outsider. European society is individualistic. Everything is spelled out, leaving little to the imagination, and life is described by the legalities…. When individualistic members come into a collectivistic societies they do not know what is assumed between the lines. This will take a lot longer to learn than the language…. We may not realize that we don’t actually know what’s going on.” (138)

“The bottom-line value for relationships in family and society, and in theology, for Muslims is honour. For Westerners and Christians it is love.” (140) “Moreover, a call to make an individual decision to follow Christ as a personal Saviour in response to his love for us is just not in their frame of reference. If it is perceived as changing camps and joining the Western Christian camp then it is naturally viewed as dangerous, and more commonly as traitorous! It breaks the cohesive bond to others in the community. This presentation of the Gospel threatens all the most sacred foundations of Muslim societies: honour, authority, and loyalty. Following Christ will challenge our loyalties. But that is after we have understood what the Gospel is all about. We first have to hear it as good news, before we work out the implications on our particular family and culture. We need to understand the web of society, and the deeply held beliefs of people, in order to work out how to tell the story of God’s news so that it sounds like just that: good news.” (141)

“When Christ glorified God on earth, he poured his life into his disciples. This is how we also glorify God on earth. We pour our lives into others, and receive from them, until we both manifest the character of God.” (147)

“Follow Christ’s example and live with your friends, joining with them in all the affairs of daily life under their conditions. People do not only need the Book in their hand with instructions how to live. They need your hand in theirs, sharing their lives along with the Book. This is the heart of the Christian message. God did not rely on a book of instructions. Christ came and lived with us.” (149)

“For Muslims to feel comfortable with our spirituality they need to feel comfortable with our hospitality. … Hospitality is not just serving food; it is a lifestyle, … a generous heart. …The community Jesus lived among did not divide life into secular and religious; neither do Muslims. … Scripture asks us to have the same humility to do things ‘their’ way that Christ had to do things ‘our’ way.” (153) “Hospitality and an open home are crucial for anyone who wants to demonstrate Christ’s love to Muslims.” (155) “If you want deep relationships with people you must invite them to eat with you.” (162)

“Christians need to beware that we do not come to the Muslim world tainted by the arrogance of the secular West: saying by attitude that we are leading the world in science and technology and are going to teach these people how to live. We cannot afford to be arrogant. … Muslims distrust the motives of the West.” (164) One way to embody grace is to listen to their point of view. If we enter a house where there is pain and anger, we should care enough to hear and learn their story and try seeing things from their point of view. (165)

“Muslims do not want to hear the theological beliefs of not-very-nice people. Neither would anyone. If by your non-verbal communication you told your Muslim friend that he or she is not important to you, and by your appearance and actions that you have few moral or spiritual aspirations, then there is no point in telling him or her about your faith that changed your life and made you into a new creation. This new creation may not be looking so good! We embody the message. When Muslims do not believe our creed, nor understand our message, the truest witness is our lives. We need to live in a way that looks godly to Muslims if we want them to listen to our message.” (178)

Islam and Mormonism

Recently in the country where I live in the Middle East, I have noticed some Mormons who are here as missionaries.   Most Muslims in this country have never heard of Mormonism or Joseph Smith.  Thus I have had several chances recently to discuss the fact that they believe in another "final" prophet from God.   My Muslim friends don't like that.  When I tell them more about Mormonism, I ask them if it is from God or from Satan.  They always say it is from Satan.  But when they hear about the similarities between their own religion and Mormonism, it often leaves them scratching their heads! 

For those of you who aren't familiar with Abu Daoud's blog, Islam and Christianity, I heartily recommend it as a wealth of knowledge.  I found this article there.  And I re-post it below for your perusal...

Islam and Mormonism

by C. Fletcher

In studying world religions, I have noticed several similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Sure, there are significant differences as well (Monotheistic Islam vs. Polytheistic Mormonism for example), and I would not suggest that they are theologically compatible, but the foundings of both religions are surprisingly similar and worth noting.

Here are 12 of the parallels that have been noted (this list is by no means exhaustive):

1. Both claimed that the original meaning of the teachings of Jesus and those who preceded him had either been forgotten or corrupted.
2. Both prophets are reported to have come from humble beginnings with no formal education and were barely literate.
3. Holy Books: Both prophets wrote a new holy book that was apparently inspired by God, and both claimed that their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. Also, they both claimed that their holy books were based upon a record stored in heaven. Both religions claim that their Holy Books have been preserved and are accurate to what was originally recorded by their prophets.
4. Both prophets claimed to have had visions and to have been visited by angels. For Muhammad it was the angel Gabriel, and for Smith it was the angel Moroni. Both visions revealed many new teachings that contradict the Bible.
5. Both believed that no true religion existed on Earth and they were there to restore God’s truth. Islam claims that Adam and Abraham were truly Muslim and that it is restoring 'the true faith of Abraham'. Mormons claim to have restored 'the true faith/church' that was on the earth during and after the time of Jesus, before the supposed "Great Apostasy".
6. Both prophets were practicing polygamists and advocated polygamy (and condemn polyandry) by supposed revelation from God. Additionally, both men married very young girls.

Aaron Goerner: An Example to Follow

It's not everyday that a local church pastor from North America makes meaningful dialogue with Muslims a part  of his regular ministry.  That's why when I learned of Aaron Goerner's ministry and his new book, I was so thankful for his example to the Western Church.  Aaron Goerner is a pastor of a local church in Upstate New York, where face to face encounters with Muslims are not an everyday occurrence.  However, he takes his role as a messenger of the Gospel and a leader of the Church seriously, and has undertaken an extensive and ongoing dialogue with Muslims online as a part of his regular ministry.

I recommend you purchase an e-copy of his book, Is the Qur'an the Word of God? for your own resources.  It contains candid and respectful dialogue with Muslims from all over the world on all of the "typical" Muslim misunderstandings of Christianity.  I am so grateful for Aaron's example of taking personally his responsibility for the Great Commission among Muslims as a local church pastor.

Neglecting the Offense of Sin

I just read a post on the crucifixion by Timothy Winter (Abdal Hakim), a Cambridge professor who converted to Islam and is often called "Britain's most famous Muslim."  Here is an excerpt below:

If my neighbour owes me 1000 pounds, I have three options:
1. I can insist that he pay it back
2. I can get someone else to pay it back on his behalf
3. I can simply forgive the debt
Rather crudely it might be said that in the human penitential relationship to God’s rights, rabbinical Judaism favours the first, Christianity favours the second, and Islam favours the third. It is clear which is the ethically superior position.

It never ceases to amaze me that in denying penal substitution and saying that Allah can simply choose to forgive sin, Muslims consistently deny the offense of sin to a Holy God!  Essentially their position diminishes God's holiness, as it can be reduced to something akin to saying, "Oh, sin is no big offense to God, he can just forgive it and forget about it."  This minimizes the seriousness of our rebellion against God, and it destroys the very thing that Islam supposedly holds dear - the greatness of God!  Contrast this with the Christian position, which takes seriously our sin as an offense and a direct affront against a Holy God which requires some form of payment - either by us personally or by Christ.  I don't like my chances of paying back my own sin debt, so I am surely glad that Christ paid it for me!  To deny this is the ultimate form of pride and self-sufficiency.  It's like saying, "No thanks Lord, I can take care of my own sin." Wow!  That's dangerous.

p.s. I don't mean to demean Tim Winter as a scholar, I think he's one of the best.  I highly recommend his book, The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology.

Five Questions to Answer Everything

How we answer these 5 questions will shape almost everything we do (and form a general framework for missiology):

1. How do we know what we know?
2. What is the gospel?
3. What is mission?
4. What is the church?
5. What is the kingdom of God?

HT: Stetzer (And then answering these questions helps shape our Islamic missiology.)

The Sana'a Manuscripts and the Syriac Connection to the Qur'an

If you haven't heard about the Sana'a Manuscripts, there's probably a reason - because their revelation is so potentially shocking to the foundations of Islamic theology that it's in the best interests of the scholars involved to keep it hushed.  The following video talks a bit about them, as well as a publication about the connection between ancient Syriac and some of the very hapaxic passages in the Qur'an.  I don't know how helpful this video is to use with Muslim friends, since their first response is usually anger and outright disbelief.  But the fact remains that this video brings up facts that modern Muslims need to face.