Who is God? A Mere List of Facts?

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
John 8:31-32

In discipleship we have taken this and flopped it. We start like this:

Know the truth

Be set free

Follow Jesus

because of this, many people have never actually seen what God is like, they only know facts about him. They can list off many things:

He is loving, gracious, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere, infinite, provider, caring, passionate.

Here is the issue... We never fall in love with anyone by a list of things we know of them when it's made like a grocery list. I was speaking to a young woman who said she was struggling with her faith, and very confused on who God was and struggled as well because this confusing God was also the very one she was supposed to tell her friends about, strangers about, neighbors about. She would list off all the things above but for some reason they didn't like her algarhythm of a god.



I then pressed into her.

She has a boyfriend so I asked her: What if I were trying to introduce you to your boyfriend before you guys met and I said:

He has two eyes, two legs, a face, hair, a mouth, he eats, he hugs people and he wears clothes.

Will you be so caught up about him that you'd fall in love with him?

She laughed and said of course not. I said, "how have you fell in love with him?" She responded with: our time in relationship with each other. Exactly. She spent time with and walked in relationship and life with him to see what he was like. So much so, that if I were to tell her, " Your boyfriend is a thief and a liar" you wouldnt believe me, because of your understanding of who he is and what he is like.

This is how it is with God. He has always wanted relationship with us, so we could show off what he is like to the entire world. This is why discipleship starts with the first time we have contact with a person. We show off what God is like as we walk in God's ways. Because we aren't merely memorizing facts about God, but actually experiencing those facts in relationship with him, we can show him clearly to others. So, instead of just saying God provides, we see that he provides as we lean on his provision and wisdom. We don't merely call him comforter, but we have experienced his comfort during our lives. These things are what we then show off to others as we live in community with them. Up close. So, when they begin to trust in Jesus, they've already seen what a disciple does and experienced it. Because of this, they have a relationship with God and not merely head knowledge that was proven to be more believable than the alternative.

Where did we get so off track? We've never had relationships like this. We've never merely known facts about someone and said we were in intimate relationship with them. . But, we can see many people that are living this way. They believe this list of facts, then they work the rest of their lives trying to do things to prove that God is real and true, the same way they know it. In reality, they've never been set free. They are still a slave. Jesus' burden is heavy, not light. And, in the end, the gospel isn't good news and it definitely doesn't bring great joy. Maybe this is the reason why so many pastors and Christians are burnt out...they have a relationship with a spreadsheet of facts instead of walking in the ways of Jesus in real relationship with the Father that sets them free, brings great joy, and who's burden is light.

We need to go back to discipleship that starts with walking with others as we walk with God in the cool of the day, so they'll know the truth and so that truth sets them free as it has set us free.

Read More......

The Uniting Church Unites Nothing!

I'm here in the land down under where the current weekly church population is about 2% of the people. The Aussies are wonderful, hospitable people, but not much for the divine institution. I guess I can't really blame them since many of their mainline churches have opted out of church planting and the gospel, and have chosen to be "Affirming" (Pro Gay) and "Uniting" (Pretty much pro anything), and have tossed away the only redeeming message the church has to offer. This is their response to a culture who has shunned the institution called church. Sounds on the outset like an attempt to reach the marginalized, but it is quite evident that the uniting church has no interest in uniting those that hold to the biblical story of God. I'm all for a good 'ole tweaking of the machine, but mitigating the only thing that makes going to church worth it; Jesus, has neutered it's affect on a culture already skeptical of "Church." They have also alienated many young men who desire to see the gospel of Jesus Christ move into the cities of Oz, and are told that they are "personna non grata." It is no wonder that so many of their beautiful churches have been turned into cafes, and art museums.

It is a reminder that our contextualization always needs to include contending well for the faith, and that religion never saves anyone, but unfortunately many of our own mainline and "Fundamentalist" churches are falling into the same irrelevant condition because they too have attached so much religion and false dogma on to the gospel , mitigating its message and creating a dull theology that no longer moves us to love God and others, which should be the aim of any Christian theology (Matthew 22:37-39). No wonder church attendance has dropped from 64% to 46% in the last 30 years in America, we have become irrelevant and are content to grow churches, but fail to grow the kingdom of God by moving outside of our institutions and engage our culture with the Love of Jesus, and the message that He alone redeems us from the miry clay of our brokenness and sin.

Read More......

Contending Well For The Faith

"I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith, that was once for all delivered to the saints"
Jude 3

There is no doubt we are to "Contend" for the faith, but the bigger question for those applying this in the field, is what does that look like in a non-believing culture? In Jude 3 we see Jude appealing to believers to contend ("fight" from 'agon' a contest, agonize, etc.) for the "Faith" (The Gospel of Grace v.4) against false teachers who pervert such a doctrine, and have "Crept in" amongst the brethren and have "Perverted the grace of our Lord." But what are the circumstances that force us to contend/fight, and how is this done in a manner that we are articulating God's "Good News" so that those we are contending against can understand it (Contextualization)?

It seems that the circumstances that caused both Jesus and Paul to come out fighting (And arguably here in Jude) are religious hypocrites that work from the inside out, and force moralistic and legalistic doctrines on the people. These are people who want to "wrangle about words," instead of preach the doctrines of grace to those that don't know Christ with love and patience (See 2 Timothy 2:14ff). Paul commends the Elders in Acts 20 to watch out for "Fierce wolves who will come among you" and preach another doctrine (See Acts 20:28-32). Jesus' harshest words were reserved for the Pharisees and Sadducees, while Paul reserved his for the "Judaizers" who perverted the truth of the gospel from the inside. Ostensibly when they spoke to non-believers and pagans, they spoke with grace and tact (John 4; Acts 17:28ff; see too Colossians 4:1-4).

It seems obvious that non-believers and pagans reject the gospel truth, and are definitely in error when they speak about Christ and the church (What else should we expect), but it appears equally clear that many evangelicals have developed a polemic apologetic toward 'outsiders' that takes verses such as Jude 3 and wages war on any 'error' in order to make sure their argument was heard and they had won, rather than effectively communicating the gospel truth so that is understood by a non-believing person(s) (Ala Paul in Acts 17, and other uses of contextualization like John's use of pagan terms such as "Logos" to present Jesus to a pagan audience).

This polemic is never as clear as when someone tries to step out of their culture and contextualize the gospel in another culture. Certain words and phrases become taboo, while others become gospel themselves. All of a sudden we find ourselves 'contending' for words and phrases and not the gospel, and in doing so, we are acting as the Judaizers and Pharisees who demanded that certain traditions and words could or could not be spoken (ie. It was forbidden to use the name of God given to Moses on Sinai).

An interesting tactic of those that disdain this type of contextualization is to call those that contextualize heretics, etc. and then deflect any criticism by saying, "Anyone who holds the 'truth' of the gospel is always labeled legalist and pharisees by the unorthodox liberals." Well if the shoe fits...?

This type of rejection of contextualization has become evident in the effort to bring the gospel to the Muslim world. There is much debate surrounding words and phrases, and much name calling and self-righteousness is becoming more evident in the debate.

One of the phrases that has gotten much attention as of late is the biblical term "Son of God." To the Muslim, this term means that Mary and Allah had physical sexual union and bore a son and called Him Jesus. I don't know of any evangelical that would teach this type of blasphemy to anyone, but when we ignorantly lead with Jesus as God's Son, we are unknowingly doing exactly that. Ironically those that hold that Jude 3 demands that we "Offend" with the gospel, are ironically offending without the gospel, since the gospel isn't being heard by those they are trying to communicate it to. In their effort to 'contend for the faith,' they are unwittingly strengthening a false doctrine based on a misunderstanding of words and concepts. I am in no way denying the use of this phrase, but it may be prudent to lead with Jesus, and begin to define these terms in relationship with Muslims, so we can present the Jesus of the scriptures, and not a Jesus of our culture, or their cultural misunderstanding.

As evangelists and ambassadors of the faith, aren't we supposed to find words and concepts that accurately articulate the truth of the phrase "Son of God," rather than apotheosizing the phrase itself?

All in all, the balance between contending and contextualizing needs to fall in an understanding of what we are contending for and how we can best communicate that to every culture (Which takes some hard work for the missionary, which we all are).

I think 'contending' has to include contextualization, otherwise we are contending for something no one can understand or cares about. So let's begin our contending for the faith within the church (Where contending was intended) and contend' against a rash of moralizing and therapeutic sermons that spew out of our "Seeker Friendly" and fundamentalist pulpits weekly, and then contextualize the gospel to a world that has no idea who or what the 'Son of God' is or what He has done for us!

Read More......

Celtic vs Roman Way of Evangelism

I'm currently reading one of my pastor's (he's becoming a good friend just before he leaves the country) books. The book is authored by Mike Gunn and it's called, "Gospel and Culture: Reaching the Nations With God's Glory." Once he gets it edited and made ready for sale...I'll give you more information. But, I have to say, it is very good, and like Mike's sermons, packs a lot in a few pages. I wanted to give you a quick taste. This is part 3 in a header called, "How Do We Change?" from the chapter, "What is Culture?"
__________________________________________________________________

We must be "all things to all people" (1 Corinthians 9:19-27; Acts 16:3; 18:18, Galatians 2) and see ourselves as Leslie Newbigin described us as the "hermeneutic of the Gospel." Meaning that it is the people of God that ultimately interpret the gospel to others that do not understand the Gospel (Matthew 5:16). When we approach the Gospel the "Celtic Way," verses the "Roman Way," which sees people not as "marks" to convert, but as "pre-Christians" waiting to be revealed to by God, we will become servants of the culture instead of its enemy.

Working like this helps us work hard not to import our culture, but it is our story that lifts up the name of Christ, the only name under heaven by which men are saved (Acts 4:12). When we love and serve the people, then they will begin to understand the grace of God, and witness the truth of forgiveness and sacrificial love in the people of God. As we apply the "Celtic Way" of evangelism, "People are called to come and see the transformed lives of God's people before they are called to repent of sins and to trust in God."(1) Literally, aspects of the culture can be redeemed as the people of God share in them, and utilize them for the glory of God. The following chart is adapted from George Hunter's, "The Celtic Way of Evangelism" and Mark Driscoll's "Radical Reformission" helps us see the process.

Traditional Evangelism

(Believe in Jesus then belong to the church)

Gospel info is presented

Hearers are called to make a decision about Christ

If an affirmative decision is made, the person is welcomed into the church.

Friendship is extended to the person

The convert is trained for service in ministry by being separated from culture

Celtic Way of Evangelism

(Belong to the church then believe in Jesus)

A genuine spiritual friendship between a Christian and a non-Christian is built

The non-Christian sees authentic faith and ministry lived openly and participates in it

The Gospel is naturally present in word and deed within the friendship

The non-Christian's conversion to Jesus follows his/hers conversion to Christian friendship and the church

The church celebrates the conversion of their friend

______________________________________________________________

Books Mentioned:

Read More......

Translating the Bible From An Idiot's Perspective

If you have read this blog for any amount of time, you know one thing: Seth isn't a theologian. I have no formal training in the Greek or Hebrew, I have no formal training in Christian History, I have no formal training in Preaching or teaching and I have no formal training in writing. I am your average idiot when it comes to these things. The other thing you know about me if you have read this blog is that I have never allowed these things to hinder me from learning or stating my convictions on a lot of subjects. In many ways, I am like most of my readers. Just a regular American citizen, who loves Jesus trying to figure out how Jesus should impact me every day through my reading and research in the Bible and culture. I think one thing I have that some don't is that I get that I am an idiot in these things. I get that those who have studied the things listed above are far more qualified to speak on these subjects than I am. I am merely a Berean.

The reason I get this is because the one thing I am trained in is investments. I would bet that compared to those reading my blog I am far superior in my knowledge of how to make money in both investments domestically and globally and in business. It's funny when I hear people try to speak about investments as though they know what they are talking about and they sound like a toddler giving their dad directions in the car.

Because of this understanding, I go to those I believe are experts. This doesn't mean I trust all the experts, but I try to discern from the experts, which ones I believe are true and which ones are just plain wrong. Recently, because of my friendships with people from different perspectives and cultures it has got me thinking of our English Bibles and the way that they are translated. I have spoken to Arab Muslims, today I spoke to a Westerner who just got his MBA in Turkey and is going back to start a business there, I also have a friend in my church who is a linguist (so is his wife). He is with Wycliffe Translators and actually built a written language for an Indonesian tribe where he translated two New Testaments from the ground up. He literally invented an alphabet for these tribes. It took him and his wife 15 years, which he said was quite fast for what they did, but the people were really hungry for a written language and specifically a New Testament in their language. As a side note, he pointed me to a book I am excited to read called, "Voices From the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World"

As I spoke to him, some of my "worries" or insights were confirmed about our translations of the Bible into English. This is what I mean. Ask yourself this:

What is the most important issue when dealing with translating the Bible into one's language and culture?

Think about it. Honestly, ask yourself, what is the most important thing about translations and the Bible?

The most important is simply this: To get the intent of the author across to the reader so that they can understand what is being said. That's it. It's not about certain terms or which words should be used or not, but about the author's intent to be clearly represented to the reader so that they can either clearly submit to the word of the Lord or reject it. What we shouldn't hold on to is making sure that certain terms are used, but making sure that certain terms are given over to clearly represent their meaning in their language and culture. Let me give you an example from the field.

My buddy, who is a linguist, said that the term "charis" or "grace" didn't exist in the language of the tribe he was working with. Not only that, but most tribal cultures don't have that term. Historically, what translators have done is been so forceful to make sure that the "charis" be coined as the western thought of "grace" that they miss the point. What my friend found out is that as he explained the term to the natives, they had the concept in their culture, but not the term. So, from that, he was able to translate the term "charis" into a concept that they would understand in their New Testament. Isn't that the point? We sometimes feel in the Western world that some terms are untouchable and should be literally translated. Some of these would be: Christ, propitiation, atonement, redemption, sin, Son of God, Son of Man, etc.

Let me ask you this. When you read the Bible with someone who has never sat under the reading of the word and you come to one of these words, do you just read it and expect them to understand it? Or, do you explain it to them so that they can understand what the term is speaking of? Just to give you another example. My buddy Michael, who presented Jesus at the dialogue with Muslims, had someone tell him that Michael's explanation of Jesus being the Lamb of God was transforming. He said before the explation, he thought that the reason he saw so many pictures with Jesus holding a lamb was because Jesus liked animals. Showing, once again, WE HAVE MISSED THE POINT OF PRESENTING THE GOSPEL CLEARLY!

I have preached and taught for the past 7 years, not long I know, but one of the first things one understands as a Bible teacher is that you must get the intended message to the hearers in a way they understand. It is not my job for them to respond, that is the Holy Spirit's job, but my job is to clearly articulate to whatever age group, culture, sex, that I am speaking to.

Why shouldn't our translations be the same? We are so worried about word for word translation that some don't even really understand how translations happen. Usually, what happens is that if a Greek word has multiple words in the English that can be used, the translator picks the one he believes is the best and then uses that English term throughout the entirety of his translation. But, what happens if Paul meant something different than Peter with that term. Or what if Paul meant something totally different depending on the context? Shouldn't we desire to get Paul's intended message across to the reader to make it easier to understand? If you want an example, just look at Romans 8 where Paul uses the term "flesh" 13 times yet the term isn't meant to be taken the same way each time. What if instead of translating the term as "flesh" it was translated so that we could actually understand it? This would be a far greater translation. The problem is that we are too bent on word for word translation instead of bent on getting the correct concept to be presented so that the reader clearly understands. Some say that if we allow this type of translation then the translator has too much room to be a "commentator" on the passage. But that is exactly what happens when someone picks from 15 different English terms to translate a Greek term. He chooses the one he feels fits the best. Plus, this is how good translations in tribal settings are put forth, they give the meaning, instead of merely a term. This is also exaclty what we ask our pastors to do every Sunday when they preach. We ask them to exegete Scripture. Meaning, we ask them to tell us what the passage means!

I think with our translations, we are so bent on getting the word right, we miss out on it's actual meaning. One that is clearly misunderstood is the term "Son of God." Ask an average Christian, they have no idea how to unpack this term and revert to merely saying that Jesus had no earthly father, but his father was God in heaven. That isn't the entirety of the meaning of this term. This is NOT what was meant primarily with this term. Most of the time, you'll see the term closely related (usually in the same context) to the term Christ, which means to those Jews in the 1st Century as one who will come to redeem them from oppression. Why not use that explanation instead? Because Westerners are so bent on word for word translations and then don't even understand the actual words used because they are from a different culture and vernacular. (there is much more to unpack with the terms Son of God and Christ, but hopefully you get the point)

If we desire to see people hear the Gospel clearly, we need to ask ourselves if we care more about the terms used, or the concept that was intended by the author and by God himself. I believe most of the time, people care more about dying for a term than for the concept. It is actually killing opportunities to speak to other cultures about Jesus as America is becoming more and more global.

We should seek out to explain the concepts of terms instead of getting too concerned with the term itself. If the term itself is too loaded with controversy just because of how it has been misused, then why not explain what the term means instead of getting stuck on the term itself? Why get mad when someone hates the term Christianity or Son of God because it has been so abused? Why not explain the terms instead? You are not watering down the Gospel when doing so, but you are actually making it clearer to the hearers.

Honestly ask yourself. Are you more concerned with being able to clearly articulate who Jesus was, is and what he accomplished, or are you more concerned with holding certain terms "dear to your heart"? If someone rejects what you are saying because you can't articulate, maybe they aren't rejecting the Gospel, but rejecting you.

Just some thoughts from an idiot who loves to interject his opinions.

Read More......

Should Christians Try to Convert Muslims to Christianity?

This post is from Jesus in the Quran. I highly recommend you look through the site as it has a lot of very good information. When I first heard of this idea presented, it seemed odd to me, but after doing some study and reflection of the culture and understanding of the Kingdom of God, it truly is something that makes complete since. You also have to get passed the two terms, Christian and Muslim, on how you view them and what these terms actually mean to most of the world. The bottom line, I want everyone to follow Jesus, not Christianity or Islam or any other religion.

“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12

Kingdom Circles

How can we radically change the conversation between Islam and Christianity?

It’s actually pretty simple. And it’s nothing new–Jesus did the exact same thing 2,000 years ago. In John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well recognized Jesus as a prophet and immediately wanted to ask Jesus a religious question: “Where should we worship God? At Jerusalem as the Jews believe? At Mt. Gerizim as the Samaritans believe?” It’s the classic setup for a debate. Whose religion is right?

Jesus, however, refuses to enter the discussion. In fact, he elevates the conversation to another plane altogether: “The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.”

So how can we implement Jesus’ way? Read on, friends, and see the simple diagram that has transformed everything.



1. For 1400 years, the debate has looked like this: Christianity v. Islam. Jesus v. Muhammad. Bible v. Qur’an. I know of many missionaries who tell Muslims that they need to become Christians. I’ve had many Muslims tell me that I’d be a great Muslim and that I should convert.



2. But what if there’s something far bigger than “Christianity v. Islam”? And what if THAT idea was actually what Jesus talked about all the time? Interestingly, Jesus never asked a single person to become a “Christian.” Paul was a Jew until the day he died. Both Jesus and Paul had a concern greater than religious identity. They spoke of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Change the way you think and believe in the Good News” (Mark 1.15)



3. The Kingdom is the conversation. What is the straight path into the Kingdom of God? How do we enter into a personal, transformational relationship with the King, living as citizens submitted to His good will? Here’s what I try to say to every Muslim I meet: “Listen, I know there’s been a lot of bad blood and misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims over the years. But we actually have quite a bit in common. And I believe that both you and me desire to love and honor the one true God. I promise I will never ask you to become a Christian. And please, don’t ask me to become a Muslim. But I also promise that I will do all that I can to help us both discover the true straight path into the Kingdom of God. And I believe that the true access to that Kingdom is through the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah.”

Read More......

John the Baptist and Street Preaching

Before I start this post, I want the readers to understand that this post is a process of trying to get some different perspectives on the ministry of John the Baptist and street preaching. The reason I am bringing this post to the surface is that I have run into many street preachers and spoken to them about their means of preaching and why they do it. Asked them specifically, "where do you get this method in the Bible?" Most of the time, they specifically point to John the Baptist and his way of preaching. This sort of evangelism is done in the form of just yelling on the corners, holding up signs with questionable messages and going to different religious venues telling people that they are going to hell if they don't repent. I guess my question is, "Was John the Baptist setting a prescriptive way of preaching, or was his ministry done because of the prophecies concerning him and the context he was preaching in?"

What John the Baptist Did

John the Baptist definitely preached the word of God. He is odd because he is the first voice of God after 400 years of silence. He is also a little different from his countrymen because he is from the wilderness. This just wasn't where John was preaching, but was most likely where he was from. We know this because we are told that he was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and he ate locusts and wild honey. John wasn't doing this to prove a point, he was doing this because this is just what his context and culture was being a man from the wilderness. It's like saying, Billy Bob wore tight pants, had a mullet, ate pork rinds and his house had wheels. Billy Bob is just from the sticks, this is his culture. Is Billy Bob a little odd for people from the city? Yes. Is Billy Bob a little odd for tornado alley? Not at all.


Notice too that John the Baptist was one that was foretold about:

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You,
Who will prepare Your way;
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight.’ ”

Mark 1:2-3

John the Baptist if fulfilling his role as the connection of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to come. He is bringing the voice back from the silence. John the Baptist is a "one of a kind" type of guy. His role was one that was specific to him and his role in the story of God. We shouldn't automatically just copy what he did because it's found in the Bible. If this is the case, then I am worried because Isaiah was called to go naked and barefoot for three years. We have to understand that sometimes prophets are called to do things that are specific to them, not for Christians for all time.

Should We Copy John the Baptist?

This is actually a yes and no answer. The yes in my mind though isn't how the street preacher would like me to answer. Notice that John the Baptist was in the wilderness and the people came to him. John stayed in his context and the people came to him. Quite interesting when you think of it. I believe this is what the street preachers get confused with. What they don't understand is that John the Baptist was actually contextualizing in his culture. He stayed in the culture of one that was from the wilderness and preached the message the people would understand. Because John stayed in the wilderness instead of going into the city with his message, it makes me wonder if he stayed in the wilderness because he knew his form and function wouldn't work in the city, but stayed where God had called him and preached like a prophet from the Old Testament would preach with a New Testament message. He used terms that they would understand, such as using the term "Lamb" and showed how he wasn't even worthy to be a servant boy to Jesus by untying his sandals. Not only this, but along with his preaching he used the Jewish washings to point towards the washing of the Holy Spirit as he baptized people to ready them for the coming of Jesus. All this is completely contextualized to the Jewish culture.

Not only this, but John preached a message of repentance and of the Messiah who would wash away our sin. John preached a message that was specific. He preached about the Messiah and didn't draw back from it. This is definitely something we could all learn from John the Baptist, as we take this message to our context and to our culture.

Just as John preached to his culture and in his context, so should we. We need to study our culture, our context and preach to them the understanding of repentance and the hope in the Messiah in a way that they would understand. Being counter cultural and getting persecuted isn't godly persecution, it's just being ignorant. It's like saying I am getting persecuted for being a Christian if I go to a ranch and wear baggy pants, white tennis shoes and my hat slammed backwards. No, I am getting laughed at because I am out of place in that culture.

Did those Following After John the Baptist Copy Him?

Yes. But not in the way you would think. Peter, Paul and John (the apostle) all copied John the Baptist by still preaching the message of repentance and the hope of the Messiah. But you will notice none of them went to the trailer park, bought a trailer, ate pork rinds and grew a mullet for Jesus. Instead, they preached the message of repentance in their context to their culture in a way that they would understand and have the best chance to accept this message without watering it down.

When Peter and Paul preached to Jews, they used the Old Testament and went to their synagogues to do so. They didn't stand on the corner yelling at people with bug guts stuck in their teeth.

When Paul spoke to the gentiles, he quoted their poets and drew from their context to point to Jesus and redemption.

When John wanted the people of his day to understand his message he drew from their source of understanding and took their phrase "logos" and attached that to Jesus.

Again, these men understood that John the Baptist was a one of a kind dude. He did what he was called to do in his context and culture and did it quite well. They took what John did and applied it in their culture. That is what we are called to do. The only reason one can truly say that they are being persecuted for their faith is if they are living out the gospel and preaching it in the context they're in and are rejected for doing so. You can't say you are being persecuted for Jesus just because people laugh at your means. This probably means you just didn't do your cultural homework.

If you eat bugs and wear camels hair in downtown Seattle yelling at people to repent, not only will peopel make fun of you, but I'll make fun of you. That's just weird.

Our Hearts are God's

All this is said to bring us to one thing. God is the one who knows our hearts. I do my best not to judge street preachers because I do not know them or their hearts. But, I will say this: if you base what you are doing on John the Baptist your interpretation of Scripture is pretty weak. We are never told to do what John the Baptist did. But, over and over again we see that we are to take the message of God and preach it in our context to our culture so that they will see clearly the ways of God and his plan of redemption. If we do anything that blocks people from seeing this message clearly, that is our fault. This is exactly what every preacher/prophet did in the New Testament.

I just ask everyone who is preaching the message of Jesus to do it in a way that presents itself fully and clearly to the culture we are in. Do not put up unnecessary walls for people to climb to get to the gospel. And from what I have seen, these walls are usually lined with megaphones and signs saying, "repent or you are going to hell."

I will also say that if this is how your culture gets out important messages to people and they respond to these types of communication, then by all means go for it. I am not hear to tell the dude with the mullet and walkman that his ways are evil, they just look odd to me.

If you want to live how John the Baptist lived, then look how your culture looks, speak how your culture speaks, and clearly show them how Jesus Christ is the center at everything that they do. Show them the greatness of the One who created their culture and context.

Read More......

What Is Contextualization?

This is a repost from about 2 years ago.

I was reading erik's notes from the Shepherd's Conference and was caught by this quote by John MacArthur:

“contextualization is a curse.” The sermons we preach and the messages we proclaim should transcend “zip-codes.” MacArthur said, referring to Peter in Acts 2, “Not only did he not identify with the generation, but he said you have to be saved from it.”

So, what is contexualization? Because I believe that John MacArthur is either throwing out the baby with the bath water, or has no clue what he means by it.

First, let me say that if MacArthur is simply meaning that we don't try and change the word of God to make it easier for people to follow by taking truths out of the gospel to do so, then I agree with him. Such as. We shouldn't stop using words like sin and hell or speaking about the cross just because the current culture doesn't like to talk about certain things. That would be wrong and is downright blasphemy of the Gospel.

But, for Dr. MacArthur to simply say that "contextualization is a curse" I find to be way off...and I believe that his thoughts on Acts 2 are way off...because I believe that Peter actually contextualizes the Gospel in this very passage!

What is contextualization? First, good biblical contextualization is not what was previously mentioned, but good biblical contextualization is to know the audience and culture you are speaking to and bringing it to them in ways that they would easily understand.

I not only believe that it is okay to contextualize, but I believe that it is biblical and what Christ would have us do and what Christ actually did when he was here on the earth.

If I can give you an example:

Read John 10. The whole of the chapter is a passage on the good Shepherd, which is Christ. Why would Christ use this kind of explanation to give eternal truths? Because those in that region were very familiar with the shepherd and sheep relationship. It was very easy to see the truths that were being offered because Christ used the context, the culture that he was in, to explain the unexplainable. And Christ did this through his whole tenure as lead pastor while he was on this earth. Think seed and sower, the vine dresser, etc. All culturally relevent to those in that time.

You might be saying, "Well that was Jesus, he can do what he wants, He is God." Well...first, I don't like that reasoning for the mere fact that we are called to imitate Christ (1 John 2:6) and he is our perfect example (1 Tim 1:16) to follow in all things. But, I will play along.

First Example: Paul

Everyone knew that I would go here, but look to Acts 17. Paul is in Athens to preach the Gospel and notices a bunch of gods being represented and especially one that is called, "The unknown God." What I like here is the use of correct biblical contextualizaion. Notice that Paul uses the culture around him to illustrate eternal truths. The truths are not changed, nor are they watered down. The reason we know this is because the Stoics didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, and yet what does Paul preach?

because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Acts 17:31

Paul, although in a different culture than a Jewish one, didn't ignore the truth but proclaimed it. But notice that he didn't ignore who he was speaking to either, but contextualized the gospel so that it would be more clear for the hearers, just as Christ did the entire time he was on this earth.

Second Example: John

I am not sure how many people know this but John contextualized actual God-breathed Scripture, and he did it with one of our favorite verses that prove the Deity of our Lord Jesus. It is found in John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

The term here, as most know, for the term Word is the Greek word logos. What most don't know is the usage of this word in it's historical context. The term logos was known to most Greeks as that "thing," whatever it was, that held the earth together.

Look at what the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says about this word logos:

Although little used in epic,32 λόγος; achieved a comprehensive and varied significance with the process of rationalisation which characterised the Greek spirit. Indeed, in its manifold historical application one might almost call it symbolic of the Greek understanding of the world and existence.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament.
1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (4:77). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

John contextualized the very pages of Scripture so that those whom he was writing to would have a greater understanding of what, and who, he was speaking of. John did his own form of speaking of the "unknown logos" by showing that they could know the actual Logos, that became flesh.

Last Example: Peter

The last example is actually going to be shown from the very passage Dr. MacArthur tries to argue his point, Acts 2. Do you think that Peter knew who he was talking to? If Paul uses the unknown god to show who God was to the Stoics in Athens and John uses the term "logos" to show the Logos for the Greeks to understand, then what should we expect Peter to use when he speaks to those in Jerusalem? Wouldn't Peter be smart to use their very patriarchs? It is hard to see what he is doing, but if you look closely, Peter is speaking to those in Judea (Acts 2:14) and then he uses what they would know, namely the Jewish Scriptures and patriarchs. He quotes Joel in Acts 2:16-21, then quotes David and the Psalms in Acts 2:25-28, then again quotes Psalm 132:11; 2 Samuel 7:12; and Psalm 89:3 in Acts 2:30; and finally ends with a quote from Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34,35. Notice that the message that he preaches is the exact message that Paul preaches in Acts 17 but with some tweaks because he is preaching to Jews and not Gentiles. In Acts 17 Paul does not quote one single Old Testament verse because he is speaking to the Gentiles so he contextualizes it to their unknown god so that they would understand.

I believe that Dr. MacArthur is making a huge mistake by saying that "contextualization is a curse," and continues to show that he is ignoring what emerging folks mean when we say we are contextualizing for the sake of Christ and His fame.

May we continue to love those who we are evangelizing and ALWAYS look for ways to contextualize the Gospel in a way that the will understand.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Read More......

A Deadly Misunderstanding :::UPDATED:::

**After posting my review, Mark Siljander was kind of enough to write me an email and tell me that some others have had some of the same "issues" as I did with the book. Because of this, Mr. Siljander, in the 2nd edition of the book is going to make some changes. He also was kind enough to tell me that this book was written to both the Christian and Mulsim. Because of this, some things can seem more "soft" for the Christian, when not intending to be. I appreciate the humility that is shown by Siljander, one that is not found that often in authors today. We have had a good exchange between each other, and one that I pray will continue. I also hope to be able to get together with him if he makes it up here to Seattle, to hear more of the amazing work that Jesus is doing through him. Again, I highly recommend the book.

A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark D. Siljander, is challenging and pushes your comforts past where you would like. The full title for the book is, A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman's Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide. Not only is this a title of a book, but the title of Mr. Siljander's life. Siljander is one that will surprise you. He is a white, Republican, conservative, Evangelical, from Michigan. He breaks the stereotype fully, when you read his quest. But, he is honest where the quest started, which is one where he used to hate Islam so much, and spoke out against them so profusely, that Yasser Arafat had a hit put out on him. He really started out where the majority of Evangelical Christians find themselves today. I found the opening to the book one that I can personally relate with:

Many years later, after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Christian leaders began denouncing Islam and the Qur'an from pulpits and radio stations across America, their litany of vitriol and hysteria was both frightening and yet oddly familiar.

Back in 1984, what I didn't realize was that I was also a hostage, held captive by my own ignorance and fear-much like the fear that has held so much of the world hostage since the events of 9/11. And while I could not have remotely suspected it at the time, that same letter of protest would trigger a series of encounters that would eventually shake me loose from the beliefs that held me there. (p.11)

The book is about the quest of a congressman (mostly as his time as a former congressman) who wasn't content at being ignorant. Siljander took this urge seriously as he spanned the globe meeting up with major leaders in the Islamic world to sit and speak to them about the divide between Muslims and Christians. Not only this, but he would be someone I would call (I doubt he would call himself this) a self trained genius. He so much wanted to truly befriend those from other nations that he learned Spanish, Hebrew, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, French, Italian, Portuguese, and then to specifically speak to those in the Arab and Muslim world, learned Arabic and Aramaic. He learned the former two to aid his quest to study the Qur'an and language that Christ most likely spoke in, Aramaic, to be able to seek out why these two Monotheistic faiths have been at each other's throats for so many years.

In this book, Siljander gives forth not only his life's quest of bridging this divide one relationship at a time, but also through showing some of his findings (exegetically) that break down some major walls between the two faiths. I will say that those he has spoken to in the Muslim world are quite impressive. These stories are amazing to read about, and truthfully should challenge all of us to consider our motives for relationships. Siljander over and over again, quite honestly, shatters any concepts one would have of a conservative Evangelical Republican congressman.

The reader is challenged, both Muslim and Christian (but mostly Christian) on their understanding of the Bible, Qur'an and how they interact, which is more than most think. Reading this book, had me going back and forth. At one point, I would smile and almost yell, "amen!", then I would find myself cringing because I felt a misstep was happening within Siljander's exegesis. And although Siljander does his best to convey this when stating,

What follows in these pages is not some new form of ecumenism or syncretism where Christians, Muslims, or anyone else is expected to give up cherished and long-held beliefs or creeds.

The problem is that I felt as though, at points, Siljander seemed to just that. The reason is because the centrality of the Christian faith is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God's atoning death for us and His glory. This seemed to be very light in the book and within his interactions with the Muslim world. He even, at one point, tries to bring these two faiths together on this point, but I believe he gives up too much in the understanding of orthodoxy within Christendom to make this work. So, at points, I feel as though Siljander sounds very syncretic, even though he starts trying to say he is not doing this. But, I will also say this. The written word can be misleading and very difficult to convey at times, especially on such touchy subjects as this. So, before I would say anything completely negative about Siljander and his path towards reconciliation, I would desire to sit down and ask him questions about these issues and what he has found as he has spoken to those of the Muslim faith.

So, with that in mind, would I recommend this book? Yes. Like any book about faith and dialogue, you must be discerning. Siljander doesn't even say "his way" is how everyone should handle themselves. But, he tells the story of how his journey and where his journey has taken him, both in his study and relationships. This, I highly commend him for sharing. This book will stretch anyone who reads it. There is so much "good" in this book and so much that the reader will realize about their own journey towards truth (if they are honestly trying to learn), that it is well worth the read. If you like where you are currently in your understanding of the world and are enjoying what is portrayed in American media, don't read this book. But, if you want to see what is actually happening elsewhere, what Muslims actually believe, what the Bible actually says in certain points and desire to be stretched, you need to read this book. You will learn much through Siljander's interactions with Muslim leaders and also with his interactions of great study through the Aramaic translation of the New Testament (which is a personal conviction with just that statement). You will learn such things as:

Who is Allah? What does this term have to do with the term "God"? (for an excerpt, click here)
What do Muslims understand of the Christian when we speak of the Son of God, Jesus' death and the Trinity?
What does the Qur'an say about Jesus and the spirit of God?
What is the Aramaic understanding of (this was one of my favorite parts):
- Camel through the eye of the needle (Matt 19:24)
- The Lord's Prayer, specifically on God leading us into temptation
- Jesus telling us to hate our family members (Luke 14:26)
- Heap burning coals on our enemy's head (Romans 12:20), etc.

As you can see, this book is jammed pack with data. It is only 222 pages, and flows in and out with exegesis and personal stories of his travels all over the world. It is very readable and very enjoyable and one that I couldn't put down. I read it in three days. It will have you saying "amen" one second, "no way!" the next and lastly just plain shaking your head in personal shame for your misunderstandings.

I ask you, please read this book and be challenged. Will you agree with everything in this book? Probably not. Will it stretch you more than other books you have read in the past? I would bet it will be in the top 5, if not the top book as far as its' challenges.

I have had a brief conversation with Mr. Siljander and I hope to have some more in the future. I pray that I get the chance to sit down with him and seek out his wisdom on how God continues to challenge him on the path he has been put on. Until then, I pray that my misunderstandings of others, are able to be broken down as I search out the truth in both Jesus and my relationships with others who aren't like myself.

I highly recommend this book.

May God be glorified.

Read More......

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Part II

What Do the Scriptures Teach About Non-Trinitarian Peoples?

Hopefully you have seen what I mean when I say worship (again, not speaking of the term “to know”) and the fact that Allah is described in many of the same ways we would describe him. The one fact remains though: We (Christians and followers of Jesus) worship God, knowing God is triune in nature; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Remember that when seeking to find if Muslims or Jews worship the same God, we are not saying that they know him or are fully worshiping him in the manner that God desires. We even see this in the Old Testament when Isaiah is given the commandment to proclaim to Israel that they were not worshiping God in the way he desired, but this didn’t mean that they were not worshiping God, it just meant that their worship was in vain, or empty.

Then the Lord said,
“Because this people draw near with their words
And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Isaiah 29:13

We see that Jesus quotes this same verse from Isaiah in Matthew 15:8, using the term “sebomai” to show forth the idea of “worship or fear” of God. If Jerusalem in the Old Testament wasn’t worshiping the true God, we have some real issues, as it is God himself who is speaking to Jerusalem and telling them “you are worshiping me incorrectly!” What God is not saying is that they are worshiping another god. What is being conveyed, in both the Old and the New, is the importance of worshiping God correctly, so that your mouth and your heart are near God, so that you may know God.

What I want to show is how the terms used for worship are used both of those who are true followers of Jesus and those who don’t know Jesus as God. If I am successful in this, one should be able to see that to say that “Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians” is at least unhelpful, if not totally false.

Cornelius in Acts 10

When we come to Acts 10, a man named Cornelius is introduced to us. He is described in this way:

a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
Acts 10:2

Understand that Cornelius is a Gentile and knows nothing of Jesus. The term “feared” used here is the term “phobeo” which Peter also uses in 1 Peter 2:17 when he tells believers to “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” As we mentioned above, this term for fear is closely related to the term worship. Not only this, but this passage gets very clear about this Gentile who knows nothing of Jesus Christ. It says in Acts 10:4 that the angel of the Lord that appeared to Cornelius states, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.” I don’t know of any scholar, or even nominal Christian, who would say that prayer isn’t a part of worshiping God. What we find here is that a Gentile, who has yet to be converted to Jesus, or taught the triune aspect of God, is, and has been, worshiping the true God.

Cornelius’ total ignorance of what it means to truly worship and know God shows forth when Peter visits him to preach. When Peter approached Cornelius, Cornelius fell down and worshiped Peter!

So, although Cornelius is a Gentile, knowing nothing of Jesus, he worships/fears/prays to God and God hears him.

The First Convert in Europe, Lydia

The second example is found in Acts 16:14 when it states the following:

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

In this passage, we find a woman in Europe who ended up submitting herself to Jesus. But, before she was surrendered her life, she is called a “worshiper of God.” This is before Paul had spoken the gospel to Lydia, and once she heard, her heart was opened and she responded. The term used here in the Greek is the term “sebomai.” Which, as we noted above, is used both to have a sense of “fear” and also “worship.” This term puts these two expressions in congruence with each other.

One might say at this point, “Yes, they are said to worship God, because once they heard the good news, they then converted to Jesus.” (I think that is quite a weak argument, but nevertheless, I will respond as though it were convincing) While this is true of both of the first two examples, this term “sebomai” is also used of people where we have no proof that they ever converted to be followers of Jesus

Here is a quick list of the verses that use this term “sebomai” in regards to those who are not shown to ever submit to Jesus:

‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ ”
Matthew 15:9


‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
Mark 7:7

So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
Acts 17:17

In every one of these instances, we see that this Greek term “sebomai” is used for those who are worshiping God in ignorance, with no proof that they ever turned to Jesus. On the contrary, we also find the same term used, not only with Lydia, but with others who “feared” or “worshiped” God and then later (also used in the present tense) turned to Jesus.

Some of these could be argued from the text that we don’t even know if some of these people actually submitted to Jesus later, but I will put them in this context to avoid argument.

Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts 13:43

But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
Acts 13:50

And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.
Acts 17:4

Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue.
Acts 18:7

saying, “This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.”
Acts 18:13

One can plainly see that throughout the Scriptures, the term “sebomai” which means to worship is used interchangeably with those who know the fullness of God through Jesus Christ, those who eventually come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and to those who we never see turning to Jesus. What we never see is the fact, that some would like to charge, that Jesus and the apostles ever told those who are worshiping God in the way they know him as, that they are worshiping another god.

If this term “sebomai” or “worship” or “God-fearers” can be used for those who don’t know Jesus in the New Testament, why can this term not be used in today’s context with Muslims?

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Worshiping God

I want to also point out a couple of other verses that support this understanding, but might not necessarily hold enough weight to convince as the above.

The first is found in Matthew 5:16

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

What we see is a command from Jesus to those who follow him, his disciples. He tells them that they should be light and salt, and to allow their works to be seen by men. Why? So that men will glorify their Father who is in heaven. It interesting because the term “glorify” is closely related to worship (1 to think, suppose, be of opinion. 2 to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate. 3 to honour, do honour to, hold in honour. 4 to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour. 4a to impart glory to something, render it excellent. 4b to make renowned, render illustrious. 4b1 to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged).

You’ll also notice that there is no distinction whether those that will glorify God are followers of Jesus or not. But, the fact remains, whether they love Jesus or not, they can glorify God who is in heaven, without knowing Him. Again, this would seem to show that although one doesn’t know God, they can still glorify and worship God.

The second is found in Acts 13:48 and has been much debate among Calvinists and Arminians, but we can also glean one other theological conclusion here.

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

What you see here is Paul and Barnabas preaching to a group of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews reject the preaching, while it says that all the Gentiles present began to rejoice and glorify the word of the Lord. Again, we see this exact same term “glorify” or “doxazo.” You’ll notice that not all those who were rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord then believed; only those who were appointed to believe, believed. That would leave us to understand that there were some who rejoiced and glorified the word, without actually turning to Jesus.

Conclusion

I wrote this to simply ask those who continually say that “Allah” is a demon or that Islam worships another god, to see the reasoning from us who say that this isn’t the case. Although I don’t believe that Islam paints a complete picture of who God is, and what his attributes are, this doesn’t mean that they worship a completely different god altogether. Let me give an example before I conclude.

There were two men (Steve and David) who claimed to know another man (James) who lived in South Africa. As these two met each other in New York at a conference, they began speaking about this man James who lived in South Africa. David began to speak about James, but didn’t know him personally. He only knew a guy who claimed to know James and learned about James through him. Throughout the years, David sent James letters of thankfulness because of all the wisdom he was learning through his other friend. As David began to describe James to Steve, they seemed to be talking of the very same man. They both knew James to be quite funny, he had two sons, his wife had died giving birth to their second son and James, to both of them, was quite the business man. Then David said that James was pretty harsh in business, and disowned his second son after the son refused to get a job when he turned 18. Steve was quite perplexed. Steve told David, I actually live right next to James and I personally have known him for over 20 years. He actually isn’t harsh in business, but quite kind to all of his employees and very forgiving those who have been dishonest in their business dealings. Also, Steve said that James’ oldest son, decided to leave the house at the age of 18 on his own and James has been pursuing a relationship with him ever since. Then Steve asked, “Would you like to know James personally?” David quickly responded, “Yes, in fact I would”. Steve said, “Good, because he is coming to New York tomorrow, and you can start to personally know him.”

I know that this parallel is only helpful to a small degree. But, the understanding I am trying to get across is the one we should have with our Muslim friends. Although they might worship God, as David was sending letters to James, they don’t know God personally as we do, because of Jesus. Our job isn’t to tell the Muslim that they don’t worship another god, as it would have been very odd for Steve to tell David that he didn’t know the real James from South Africa. Our job is to lead them to the fullness of God, only known through Jesus Christ. Our job is to lovingly guide the Muslim to a complete understanding of the grace found in God, through the Messiah.

Remember, incomplete truth isn’t non-truth. It’s like saying, “sugar and flour” are ingredients of a cake. While true, this isn’t the complete ingredient list for a cake. We need to continue with the fullness of wisdom to show which ingredients have been left out, or which ones are wrong.

We should be like Paul at Mars Hill. We should find those things that are similar and then guide them to the fullness of truth. We should not burn those bridges that have already been built between the two faiths, but we should introduce Jesus to them through these bridges. Just as Paul did with the “unknown god” to the Greeks.

Let me remind the reader, that what I am trying to convey is the difference between worship and knowing God. Knowing is a very deep and personal term in both the Hebrew and the Greek. One can think of it this way:

All those who know God will worship God; All those who worship God, don’t necessarily know God.

May we continually seek ways to show all men the greatness of the Messiah, and ask them to seek out who Jesus was, is and will continue to be. May we do this in a constructive way, instead of a detrimental one.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Matthew 5:9

Read More......

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God? Part I

When I first heard this question brought up to me, my thought was a simple, “No.” The reason that I gave was the fact that we, as followers of Jesus, worship the monotheistic, yet triune God of Abraham. If one does not believe that God is triune in nature, how can they worship the same as I, one who is a follower of Jesus? But, I quickly started to think this through. The reason was that Jews would give the same answer as a Muslim in regards to God, yet I would have a harder time to say that God’s chosen nation in Old Testament didn’t worship God, if they didn’t believe Him to be triune. Not only that, but I would have a hard time regarding those in contemporary Judaism as not worshiping the same God as I. Being that both the Muslim and Jew worship God, who is the One and only, if one is cast out as not worshiping God so shall the other. One can see the similarities in the two faiths, in their preeminent proclamation of them:

The Shema for the Jew, taken from Deuteronomy 6:4, states:

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

When the Muslim is asked what makes one a true Muslim, or one who is submitted to God, they will speak of their Shahada:

There is no god but God

So, as I started to think this through, I said, “If I say that Muslims do not worship the same God as I, then neither does the monotheistic Jew either.” Although this bothered me some, I still, nonetheless, decided to go to the Scriptures to see what it would say about those who did not believe Jesus to be God, and held that believing so, meant that God is more than one and was therefore being blasphemous.

I am going to go through this in steps to show what I am getting to. I will first distinguish between worshiping God and knowing God, then will show what Islam teaches about God or Allah, and then what the Scriptures speak of concerning those who do not know Jesus to be part of the Triune aspect of the Godhead.

Defining Worship, Not Knowing

Worshiping in the New Testament Greek is brought about in the terms “sebomai, proskuneo and latreuo .” These terms have the connotation of both a physical aspect and spiritual one. The physical aspect is brought out in the term, “proskuneo” which can either mean to “prostrate, kiss or bow” but also carries the idea of “deep reverence.” We see this term used in the most profound way when John uses it when quoting Jesus as saying,

“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

John 4:24

The next term that is translated as worship in the New Testament Greek is “sebomai” and has the idea of “revere, worship or one who is devout.” This term is translated in the NASB by using the terms “God-fearing, devout, worship and worshiper.” A couple of usages in the New Testament are found in Acts 13:50 and Acts 16:14 respectively:

But the Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.

A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.

What one will notice is that the connection in these terms is the term, rendered in the English as, reverence. We will connect these further when looking at the Scriptures, but one other term that is very close to these two terms is the term “phobeo”, which means to “fear, to reverence or to be afraid.” So, when the Bible uses the term, “worship” there is some idea that reverential fear is being spoken of. Many times we see in the Scriptures that those who followed God were said, ‘to fear Him”. To give a reference that I will use later, Peter says in 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”

What I want the reader to know is that I am not saying that all those who “worship” or “fear God” know God fully, or worship him in the way that God desires. Jesus tells us,

“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

Matthew 11:27

I want to make this distinction, because I don’t want to confuse the reader to think that I am saying that by worshiping God, one then knows God, therefore accessing heaven by a different means than Christ.

What Does Islam Believe About God?

First, this is not some Magnum Opus on the doctrines of the Islamic faith on Allah or God. I understand that most of my readers are Westerners with very little knowledge of the Qur’an, but have only heard Evangelical Polemics against Islam in regards to their understanding of God. My intent here is to show the similarities of the Qur'an with the Torah and New Testament, not to get into a debate about their practical wisdom of the terms they use.

Before we begin, some love to draw a very odd straw man against Islam by saying that “Allah” is a demon and should not be used as a term for calling on God. So much so, that they desire Muslim converts to Jesus to stop calling God, Allah. This is quite simply, very elementary and foolish. Mark D. Siljander, in his book, “A Deadly Understanding” puts the understanding quite well. He states:

What did the Semitic languages have to say about God and Allah? The answer proved fascinating.

In pre-Muhammadan times, Arabs worship a moon god called Hubal, whom they also referred to as “Al-ilah,” and this, goes the claim, was the source of “Allah.” But ilah is simply the Arabic word for “god.” Al-ilah means, “the god.” (The Arabic “al” is equivalent to the English “the.”) In precicely the same generic way, Semitic tribes used this basic term, il or el, to refer to their various gods for thousands of years before Muhammad. El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon; the Canaanite language was closely related to Hebrew. With Abraham and the birth of the great monotheistic faiths, these words were adopted to refer to the one God. The Aramaic form was Alaha, the Hebrew Eloah, which became the Elohim who does the creating in the first chapter of Genesis.

Taking a closer look at our own language, I found precisely the same linguistic process: our word “God” is derived from the proto-German pagan word gott, which denotes a particular water spirit. The Latin Deus, from which we draw our word, “deity,” Spanish its Dios, and French its Dieu, are all descendants of Zeus, the name for the chief god in the Greek pantheon. Yet when modern Christians pray to God, Dios, or Dieu, we don’t accused them of invoking Zeus or a pagan water demon! The Hubal issues was a nonissue: God, Dios, Elohim, Eloah, Alaha – and yes, Allah as well – all refer to the same One Deity of Abrahamic monotheism.

For over five hundred years before the birth of Muhammad, Arab Christians and even some Jews in the Arabian peninsula used the word Allah for God.

Mark J. Siljander, A Deadly Misunderstanding, 46-47

As we continue, remember that the great monotheistic beliefs understand that there is only one God. There is no other God. So, when one says that they are worshiping the one God and then describes that God in many of the same ways we would, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, worshiping “another” god. Here are some of the descriptions that Islam has for Allah:

God is:
One
Sovereign
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Eternal
Creator of Universe
Revealer of Himself
The Light
Love
Merciful
Compassionate/Beneficent

It is easy to see that the way the Qur’an describes God, is very much how we would describe God. Would they describe God in every way that a follower of Jesus would? No. Would they understand God in every way that a follower of Jesus would? No. But, this shouldn’t negate the fact that Islam is monotheistic and hold to many of the same descriptions that we would hold to.

And these descriptions shouldn’t be too surprising, as Muhammad had much contact with Jews and Christians on the trade routes and the fact that Surah 3:64 states,

Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah ." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."

One can see that there are many similarities between the God of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an. Even Muhammad, when speaking to “the people of the book (Scripture)” states that we both worship the same God and that none is his equal. The reason is the fact that Muhammad saw that the Jew, the Christian and the Muslim were all worshiping Jehovah, God, Allah – the one true God.

I will continue tomorrow with how the Scriptures describe those people who do not know God to be triune, yet One: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Read More......

Too Much Jesus Isn't Good?

Any thoughts on this quote before I give you the person who said it? Thanks to my buddy Pete up in the bustling town of Bellingham. I found the quote to be quite interesting.

“The answer, he believed, was that in their anxiety to present salvation in terms of the person and work of Christ, evangelicals had become unbalanced and tended to forget God the Father. There was a danger of ‘Jesusology’. The worship of God as three Persons must always be remembered. In particular, the emphasis, ‘I believe in God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth’, needed to be restored – not simply God the Saviour, but before that, God the Creator. He pointed out that modern hymns and choruses had encouraged the tendency which he criticized, a tendency which reached a point at which evangelicals would rather have talks on ‘Personal Work’ than on the character of God.”

Read More......

Following Jesus and Still a Muslim?

Any thoughts on this video? It hits me pretty hard to see what Christ is doing around the world. I am picking up this book today to read more about the understanding of the Muslim world: A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark D. Siljander

As a follow up to this video, please read this article as well: Muslim Followers of Jesus?

Following Jesus from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.

Read More......

Muslim and Christian Resources: And Some Questions

There is an elder in my church who is doing some amazing work within the Muslim communities here in the Seattle area. He works with local churches to aid them in the understanding of how to speak to and serve Muslims in their area. I recently asked him for some resources that would speak to me how he formed his convictions for his ministry to the Muslims. I wanted to put that here for all to have. I have only had the chance to read the Christianity Today article (Muslim Followers of Jesus?) and listen to the Desiring God mp3's from the conference: Evangelicals and A Common Word. Both have already started to impact my thinking. I have not made many actual changes yet, but looking forward to see what the Spirit will teach me through it. Some of the questions that I am honestly asking myself as I read and listen is:

Do Muslims worship the same God? If we believe Jews do, what is the difference?

What does an actual Muslim believe? Do I characterize Muslims in a way that erects straw men instead of their actual convictions? (this is of vital importance) I have read many books on apologetical differences, but have found out that most of them erect unnecessary and unhelpful straw men.

How far can we go to reach Muslims? i.e. Can we pray with them?

What can I appreciate about the Muslim? What can I learn from them?

How can I impact Muslims for the gospel?

Mike is a great resource as he is on the front lines of bringing the gospel to the Muslims. He has been great to me so far in our discussions and I look forward to many more. As I continue, I will probably be interviewing him on this blog and would also like to invite a Muslim as well to interview them to aid us in a correct understanding of what they believe. I hope these resources help.

Evangelicals and A Common Word Conference Lectures (mp3):

Muslim Perspectives on the Writing of "A Common Word" (Caner Dagli and Joesph Lumbard)

Christian Defenses of the Yale Response to "A Common Word" (C. Donald Smedley and Joseph Cumming)

Christian Concerns About the Yale Response to "A Common Word" (John Piper and Al Mohler)

Questions and Answers

Readings:

Muslim Followers of Jesus?

Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslims Road by Paul Gordon Chandler (http://www.paulgordonchandler.com/)

Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam by Fouad Accad

No God But God by Reza Aslan

How to Win A Cosmic War by Reza Aslan

Muslims, Magic and the Kingdom of God by Rick Love (http://www.ricklove.net/)

Read More......

What is Evangelization?

Found this quote in my reading for my study through the book of Acts. Pretty interesting quote by Hugh Thomson Kerr on where our emphasis of evangelism should be as a universal Church of Christ.

We are sent not to preach sociology but salvation; not economics but evangelism; not reform but redemption; not culture but conversion; not progress but pardon; not a new social order but a new birth; not revolution but regeneration; not renovation but revival; not resuscitation but resurrection; not a new organization but a new creation; not democracy but the gospel; not civilization but Christ; we are ambassadors not diplomats.

Read More......

How Do I Know If My Child is Saved?

Because of the discussion of communion, many usually start asking, "if we don't allow people to come to the table unless they are saved, how do we know if they are saved?" Usually this has more to do with our children than adults, even though I do not believe there to be much difference in repentance and faith. Do they look different? Sometimes, but the same ideals should be seen and put forth. This isn't a dumb question and one that should be asked by parents and sought to be answered. The problem with the answer, like many things in practical Christianity is there is no hard and fast rule. If you would like to read my thoughts on infants and heaven, you can read that here: Where do babies go when they die?

But, for those God has allowed to grace us with their presence, even though we as parents don't always see it that way, how do we know when they are saved and ready to be baptized and partake in communion? I am more liberal than some on this thought and desire that my sons be included into the New Covenant sooner upon profession than a continual questioning of their salvation. I just want to share how I am going to "test" whether or not my children are saved.

Confession and Repentance

When looking throughout Acts and the Gospels two things are clear: a disciple of Christ is a person who confesses Christ and repents of sins.

Martin Luther's first of his 95 theses states:

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite (or "repent ye"), willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Both of these terms, confession and repentance, are in the present tense. Meaning, just as Luther points out, we should continually confess and repent as Christians. This does not mean that your child needs to then say a prayer of confession and repentance, fill out a card, check a box and walk down the aisle and consider himself saved from that nasty place called hell with that ugly beast called Satan. This isn't what the New Testament is trying to get across, although we will be saved from hell and the wrath of God.

Confession of Christ means just what the Bible continually points to. Confession, or faith in Christ, means that you believe that you are a grave sinner in need of a Saviour to save you. One must believe that their Saviour is found in Christ Jesus alone, on his works alone and that he rose from death, conquering our sin altogether. Can a child understand this fully? I would rather beg the question, "Can ANYONE understand this fully?" The depths of the cross and resurrection are so overwhelming that if anyone says they understand it, they are deceiving themselves. I would rather give the cross and resurrection liberally to the lost, including my children.

As they start to show this understanding as they continually seek its power, I will quickly affirm their belief, not belittle them.

Repentance is something that we as parents like to forget about. It really comes in the understanding of life change as well. Being that we are new creatures in Christ, we have to remember that this does not mean that we made ourselves new creatures because of our works, neither will we work out our sanctification solely on our works either. We must see this with our children.

Too many parents hold the sins over the heads of their children. Saying that they do not see the life change expected from a Christian, all while denying their own struggles with sin. Acting as if their life is holy and undefiled because they read and pray every morning before going to work while their child plays with Legos.

If we really want to get to the crux of the life of the Christian it is one where we desire Christ and his cross so much more because we see how clearly we, in our flesh, continually sin. We seek to understand how a God, infinite and holy, can love and die for a wretched sinner as I.

We don't then try and understand this and hold it over our child's head on why their life doesn't look "Christian". This sounds a lot like the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18, whose debt was paid and then strangled someone who owed him so much less. Do our children sin? Yes. Will they continue to sin and disappoint us? Yes. Do we forgive them for this? Yes. But we must remember that they didn't sin against us, but against God. We have to remember that we don't sin against others, but against God. If God can forgive us for sinning against a holy and infinite One, why can he not forgive our children of the same thing?

So, How Do I Know if My Child Is Saved?

I will seek to see when my child is repentant and loves the cross more than his sin. My sons currently, at the ages of 6 and 3, know the facts of the cross, but are showing little signs of repentance. Although I see other signs in my kids that make my heart cry out in joy, I don't see sons that desire forgiveness through the cross. They do not need to know all the facts of the Bible, they don't need to know how to debate the substitutionary theory of the atonement or prove that Christ was born of a virgin. What they need to know though is that Christ died for them (which is in fact substitutionary) and that they will continually sin in this life, but forgiveness waits for those who are repentant. This doesn't mean that they will desire to sin, but will desire to live for Jesus. This doesn't mean that they will be sinless, but will know who to go to for forgiveness when they don't share, fight, lie or call their siblings dumb.

As soon as I see this in my child's life, I will baptize them and allow them to partake of the table. I pray that this life starts sooner than later, but I will not wait for my child to be close to sinless for this to happen, but will seek out sons who love Jesus and love that he did all the work and they are helpless without him.

Parents, be careful that you don't become a heretic in waiting for a sinless child to kill themselves on the altar. Christ paid for their sins, just as he paid for yours. Don't be the unmerciful servant, but be the servant that tells the wonders of the great and merciful one who waits and desires for your child to be welcomed into the family of God.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Matthew 19:13-14

The principal difficulty of children in coming to Christ frequently lies in their friends. Their parents or their other relatives think they are too young, and discourage them. Oh, that we all had a right idea of the possibility of the conversion of little children; nay, not only of the possibility, but that we looked for it, watched for it, and encouraged young children to come to Christ! You know that, in the parable I am going to read presently, we are told that the householder “went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard.” What a privilege it is to be Brought to Christ early in the morning,—that is, while we are yet children.

Spurgeon, Charles H.: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 43. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Spurgeon's Sermons 43)

Read More......