A Theologian’s Response to Contextualization

The writer presumes that contextualization is a matter of choice. And to some degree it may be. But, generally, I think that when we speak we contextualize our words. That is, we all speak from certain times and places and our words and stories about Jesus or anybody else are drawn from that context. No one speaks from nowhere; that is, no one speaks contextless words or they would be meaningless to the audience. We all have to reflect our contexts to the extent that we make sense to those listening to us. Mr. Smith, for instance, speaks American English, which is clearly not Aramaic.

Predictable.

And as John pointed out, contains facts in error.

Brother Fred,

Thank you for your service as an educator of young (and old) minds. I do appreciate your apparent zeal for Jesus. Today I am quite busy, but, due to your service, felt compelled respond. Apologies for the hastily written response that follows.

Given that, as far as I can tell, all but one of your points was addressed either in the testimony itself, the subsequent comment thread or the post and comment thread of God, Allah and Good News for Muslims, I do not feel a response is warranted any further than addressing the following statement:

In the context of Islam, where “submission to the will of Allah” means something very specific, involving a whole set of beliefs and religious practices, we cannot use the same term with a completely different meaning and expect to be understood.

I highlighted the portion that I would like to address. The New Testament records both Jesus and Paul doing this exact thing – repeatedly. Two examples should suffice. The term “Messiah” was certainly misunderstood by first century Jews… just as submission to God is misunderstood by Muslims. The second example would be the term mystery used by Paul in his letter to the Colossians. This word was certainly pregnant with meaning to the gnostic-influenced readers. While most authors say that Paul “co-opted” the word, I would put it stronger and say he wholesale ripped them off! Taking indigenous language, even language that already has deep meaning and filling it with the Gospel is at the core of biblically proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus. Not only is this the model we see in the New Testament, but when we fail to do so, syncretism is inevitable.

One note about the above comments: if you, or anyone else for that matter, is of the opinion that I have not adequately filled the old terminology with new (read biblical) meaning… I would encourage you to reread the comment stream at sbcIMPACT!, specifically comment number 47 in order to understand more fully how this testimony is understand by my hearers.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Dr. Smith,

Excellent article. Another “gospel,” indeed. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

John,

An interesting thing that I’ve been told in that regard is that while Arabic translations of the Bible do sometimes use the word “Allah” for Jehovah, the vast majority of Arabic translations have avoided the Arabic word for Jesus, preferring instead a transliteration of sorts that results in essentially a new word. This is because the Isa of the Qur’an is so clearly distinct from the Jesus of the New Testament that confusion would result if the same word were used.

Brother Geoff,

In your comment #4 you state that Dr. Smith’s post “contains facts in error.” I realize that we are living in a post-modern society, but I did not know that we now have facts in error. Could you do me a favor and point to the facts of Dr. Smith’s post that you declare to be in error?

Blessings,
Tim

FTME,

I do not speak for Dr. Smith. Nonetheless, I find the two examples you offer entirely inadequate to substantiate your claim that Dr. Smith was wrong to assert “we cannot use the same term with a completely different meaning and expect to be understood.”

First, you suggest “The term “Messiah” was certainly misunderstood by first century Jews… just as submission to God is misunderstood by Muslims.” While you are correct, this fact has nothing in common with cross-cultural contextualization of the gospel. Jesus was not speaking to Jews as a non-Jew; He was speaking to Jews as a Jew Himself, a faithful adherent to Moses and the prophets. His was a corrective to them not a concession with them. Their understanding of Messiah was woefully inadequate. He was correcting the record of their culture.

Similarly, the Apostle Paul, when writing to Colossae, wrote to believers as a believer, an Apostle writing to the Gentile Church. There is no reason to infer that he would be employing “mystery” in a way that satisfied a presumed deficiency in communicating to a Colossaian sub-culture.

Not to suggest that the Apostles did not employ the language of their day to communicate effectively. An even more obvious word than”mystery” to demonstrate they did such may be John’s “logos.” However, it seems to me, that when they did use them, there is no question that whether it was “mystery” or “logos,” confusion would be virtually non-existent as to whether or not the word contained new meaning. In other words, the content would be unquestionably clear.

Even so, I think it needs to be mentioned, at least in passing, whether or not it is a viable, acceptable hermeneutic, to attempt to discern and employ the specific methods of the Inspired Authors in contemporary quest to contextualize the Gospel.

Using, as a model, an obvious and unrepeatable miraculous event–the Holy Spirit’s inscripturation process–to mimic in our hermeneutical pursuits, seems to me an odd, not to mention impossible, goal. Liberties He may take–for example, OT quotations in the NT–could very well be unacceptable for me.

With that, I am…

Peter

[...] the good folks over at SBCToday enlisted a teacher of theology to respond to the original post. I would encourage you to read both posts (with comments) if you’re [...]

Jim Champion,

The error in judgment that you make is the assumption that experience is preeminent in determining method. The issue is not, primarily, “what context are they ministering in?” The issue is, however, “what message are they communicating.” As has well been demonstrated, the message of FTME begins with an open door towards syncretism, something that is quite short of Biblical salvation.

Dear SBCToday,

I do agree with Peter in that we should weigh the comments that Dr. Smith has put forward as his opinion of FTME’s testimony. I have experienced testimonies in many different flavors, and the one penned by FTME did testify to the Gospel of God, where the change of “heart” was by grace through faith in Jesus the Messiah. Dr. Smith has not proved, at least in his rebuttal to the testimony, that FTME’s proclamation is “anti-Christ”. In fact, he has said two different things. First he states:

“However, this author, in his zeal to contextualize the truth, sacrifices way too much. The ideal of contextualization is to present the gospel in terms which the hearers will understand and so be able to make an informed decision about trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

Dr. Smith seems to put the responsibility of hearing at the feet of the testifier and not God granting the understanding by way of mercy and grace until later. I would submit that the terms that FTME used were very understandable and places the responsibility with God. If you simply replace the terms “Allah” and “Isa-Al-Masih” with God and Jesus the Messiah, the testimony would not be questioned with such disdain. FTME seems to be kind to the English readers by not replacing all the words with Arabic, which would require everyone to find their Arabic translator.

Dr. Smith states further, with which I certainly agree:
“Nowhere does the Bible ever tell us that salvation is a matter of merely understanding certain facts about God and his will. Certainly we must know something in order to believe it, but we are not saved because of what we know. We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ because of His finished work on the cross.”
It certainly appears that the testimony of FTME points to this same Christ that Dr. Smith discusses in the quote above. Dr. Smith’s accuses FTME of not allowing for grace and faith to be a component of his testimony. That accusation has no basis.

FTME actually states:

“He said that the only Prophet that could give us greater understanding of the Kingdom of Allah and true submission to His will was Isa Al-Masih. I asked why and he said there were many things to understand, but that the first thing I needed to understand is that he was pure and that purity is the only way to achieve nearness to Allah. As I studied the Torah, Zabur and Injil more and more, I came to see this is true. Finally, I was convinced only Isa Al-Masih was capable of helping me understand the Kingdom of Allah. So, I submitted to Allah’s will through Al-Masih.”

FTME was drawn by God to submit to Jesus the Messiah. As he studied and heard the word of God (Torah), which most theologians would agree does contain the Gospel, he became convinced that Jesus the Messiah was the only way to understand the Kingdom of God. So he submitted to God’s will through Jesus the Messiah. Dr. Smith seems to argue that something different.

He accused FTME with:

“In the end this writer is telling us, whether he intends to or not, that salvation comes by “understanding” and by “works,” not by faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross.”

It is clear he did not. In fact it seems that Dr. Smith has said the gospel must be spoke for “understanding” and then corrects that line of thinking by including “grace” and “faith”.

FTME, in his testimony never approaches a works based salvation,…and in great contrast to depending upon works…seeks God’s Word by way of a friend, where he learns from the Holy Spirit to submit to the will of God through Jesus the Messiah by faith. Maybe Dr. Smith didn’t pick up on what FTME was saying in the brief testimony.

Dr. Smith then seems to go into some theological doctrines, that I certainly agree with, but has nothing to do with the testimony in question concerning the prophets and the Qu’ran’s explanation of God. None of these subjects were brought up in the testimony, so it is difficult to use them as evidence. Those subjects are fun to discuss, because it is obvious that the Qu’ran borrows from all sorts of documents and the mind of a demented man and his buddies. So Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, God, Jesus, etc. seem to be in some context to the Muslim mind while borrowed from actual Holy text and revised for political gain.

It seems the author fell short of his goal of declaring this testimony as “anti-Christian”, yet he does bring up the opportunity to make the gospel as clear as possible. Even the author of the rebuttal slipped around a bit in the beginning.

Blessings,
Chris

Dr. Smith,

I am with you on most of the main points of your critique. I agree that FTME’s contextualization is sufficently lacking in a number of areas you mention. I’m not sure, however, we can make a definitive statement about the use of the term “Allah” without knowing FTME’s specific context.

Respectfully, I would submit that there are some contexts in which any use of the term “Allah” may indeed be too confusing to use without affirming the Muslim faith. In many contexts, however, the use of allah may be perfectly acceptable. The problem of your illustration about Zeus and Jupiter is that these are names of gods. Certainly the NT evangelists did not employ the names of false gods. They did, however, have no problem adapting the word “theos” as a designation for the Christian God. Not every use of “allah” is as the name of the God of Islam.

In American Christianity we employ the word “God” both as a generic designation of any god and for a specific designation of the Christian deity. For many, we use “God” as a name. Context determines whether we are speaking of any deity or the God of the Bible. We do not shy away from using the term God when witnessing in English, even when speaking with a person of another faith who is using the term “God” to refer to THEIR diety. We merely make sure that the hearer understands what we mean by the term “God” (American Christians would do well to remember that everyone who claims a belief in “God” do not worship the one true God of the Bible). The same is true in the Arabic language. (Might I add the often stated and just as often ignored fact that Arab Christians have used “Allah” to refer to the Christian God for as long as Arab Christianity has existed).

I do believe that missionaries must take great care that they are not miscommunicating their message. This care is particularly needed, one could argue, in the use of “Allah” as a designation for God. Still, I don’t think we can make a statement from our seats in the West, embedded in our own culture, and make a blanket determination of how the word “Allah” is understood by the hearer in every culture and in every conversational context within that culture.

As theologians, we should encourage missionaries and help them to speak with theological precision and clearly communicate the gospel. We shouldn’t, however, second guess the work of missiologists on the field as if we new their cultures better than they do. Thus, in my opinion, we should constantly encourage, equip, and hold accountable our missionaries to present a clear and accurate gospel. At the same time, we should not treat Islam as if all Muslims or all Arabs are part of one vast monolithic culture and make blanket contextual decisions away from the field.

Let’s do what we can to asses particular efforts at contextualization and offer legitimate criticism and help to our missionaries. Let’s not, however, have a knee-jerk response every time we hear the word Allah. I have to stand on the side of our missionaries on that one.

Blessings,
Todd

Wow, by the time I posted, 15 more comments were made. Sorry if my post seems misplaced.

I’ll try to catch up

Todd,

I don’t think that Dr. Smith has offered anything that can be categorized as a “knee-jerk response every time we hear the word Allah.” While we’re contextualizing, let’s consider the context that has led up to this interchange:

1. The growing practice of disclosing and encouraging vague and controversial pre-evangelism methods absent any instruction in or divulgence of actual evangelism methods to correspond with them.

2. FTME’s prior published opinion that rejection of the Trinity does not make one a non-Christian.

3. Deliberate deception of potential converts from Islam to Christianity in the book The Camel, and FTME’s having weighed in on those discussions.

4. FTME’s prior published opinion that the Allah of Islam is the same in essence as the God of the Bible.

Ought these items of context not to be included in our evaluation? Do they not make it much more difficult for you to “stand on the side of [this missionary]“?

Jim,

Christians believe that one comes to Christ through repentance and faith.

The ideas of “coming to an understanding of the kingdom of God” and “submitting to God’s will” are too generic, in my opinion, to be helpful.

Any Muslim would say they have already done that.

In my own evangelism in America, I might say I cam to believe in God and do his will, but that would not be a distinctively Christian testimony. I might even say that I did this “through Jesus” but that would still be insufficient. In my own culture, over 90% of americans say they believe in God and over 60% believe in Jesus (forgive the impreciseness of the numbers). So I must be careful in my own witness to be sure that I am communicating a distinctly Christian testimony and not a generic one.

That is all I would say about FTME’s testimony. It’s not his use of contextualized terms, its the fact that many of us do not believe that the testimony in its contextualized form is sufficiently and distinctly Christian.

Blessings,
Todd

Peter, You asked me:

Why you would further demote this exchange to “good guys/bad guys” adds exactly what to this conversation? I infer from what you wrote that “BI Pastors” (bad guys) and “Ivory-tower Intellectuals” (teachers of bad guys) contribute nothing substantial to global missions–unless, of course, its global dollars to fund global missions.

Personally, I am all for letting the missionaries do their jobs without the least hindrance from states-side Christians, least of all, me. Believing and practicing such, however, does not imply nor include doing their job apart from accountability to the local churches they represent. That too, seems to be indicative of your words.

Peter – Two reasons
1. For whatever reason SBC Today chose to attack FTME on what I would consider the preeminent BI blog. And I consider the words used by this Ivory Tower intellectual of a False Gospel to be a terrible attack on our brother.

2. I would assume that what FTME does is done under the auspices of the IMB who is charged with his supervision.

Seems Ironic that it is ok for missionaries to muslim countries to be called to task but not seminary presidents…

Jim,

FTME’s is indeed responsible to his supervisor on the field and ultimately to the trustees of the IMB.

As soon as he posts his ideas on a blog, however, they are open for public critique.

– Todd

Again. To everyone.

FTME does not work for the IMB. This was the one factual error in the post. FTME is not an IMB missionary. I have no idea who he is, but we know that much.

He does not work for the IMB.

I am a missionary in the Middle East.

I would like to make three points:First, that in Arabic there is really no alternative to using the word Allah.

Second: that “understanding the Kingdom of Allah” is the most brilliant part of this testimony, not the weakest part. Jesus did not talk much about anything other than the Kingdom of God in fact. If evangelicals would spend a little less time in Paul and a little more time in Jesus that would become clear.

Muslims have a very vague concept of the Kingdom of God, and the usually identify it with Creation, which makes sense. So to get Muslims asking questions about the Kingdom is very positive, very important.

Third: submitting to God’s will of course includes repentance (tauba) or more specifically, asking forgiveness (istighfaar). Every Muslim knows that, so he should not be accused of wrong-doing on these grounds.

I will say that I like Dr Smith’s mention of “remission of sins”, taken as it is from the Lord’s Supper narrative, which as we all know is at the heart of Baptist piety (Don’t worry, I’m not IMB.)

Bart,

Youve got a bit of the devil in you today, nice gig on the Dilday thing – of course we differ there as we do on other seminary presidents – ah well.

My mistake in the IMB, my assumption was that he is with the IMB, nevertheless, he has a mission board that he answers to and is ultimately accountable to God. I still submit that his testimony is strong and I applaud him for being out there.

Todd: Thank you. But I think we need to look more closely at the word understand. To understand something in a genuine and sincere way, which is what FTME is speaking of here, is to be confronted with a complete reality. It is (in my context in the Arab world) more like the Hebrew verb, to know. Used, of course, as a reference to sexual intercourse.

Semitic cultures do not tend towards dividing and subdividing the processes of the heart and the mind. This comes across in Paul:

Rom. 15:14 ¶ I myself feel confident about you, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

Paul also has no qualm of using the word “knowledge” in close reference to salvation: 2Cor. 4:6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

One might well ask FTME what exactly he means by “understand the Kingdom”, but in an Arab context there is no need because it is, as we say, mafhoom–understood already.

Abu,

So how is FTME’s testimony decidedly Christian? Are you saying that a Muslim who heard his testimony would understand that he had accepted something different than Islam rather than merely a more complete or accurate view of Islam?

The Allah of Islam is not the Allah of Christianity.

Unless that is clear, how can someone “turn from these worthless things to the living God”???

– Todd

Chris,

One must ask the question why this form of “contextualization” would occur. In other words, is it an attempt to “gain a hearing” or is it rather an attempt to remove the offense from the Gospel? There seems to be no reason to utilize the Islamic designation of God, and moreover, Christ, than to avoid offense. I am not convinced that Dr. Smith’s main concern is that the testimony is so much of a “lie” as it is that it is inadequate for salvation. As Dr. Smith clearly communicates, this testimony is void of redemption, atonement, and regeneration. Rather, it is an appeal for the Muslim to find real fulfillment and satisfaction in life by coming to Isa. (An error we have seen in American evangelism, to be sure). At best, we see repentance without regeneration and salvation without atonement. We also see a utilization of certain words with the hope of removing the offense, as well as the avoidance of certain terms for the same reason. The work of the Spirit and the Gospel is an act of unveiling. This, however, is an attempt to unveil utilizing the method of veiling. This requires a rather “slight of hand” indeed.

Peter,

Not that it probably matters at this point, as my comment early this morning is pretty well water under the bridge as quickly as this conversation moves, but…

The IMB correction I offered was present simply as an attempt by me to ensure no one tries to tie FTME’s article into a larger criticism of the IMB.

As for the rest of my post, I simply wanted to ensure Today’s readers knew that there has already been much discussion at IMPACT on this topic that might be of interest as they consider Dr. Smith’s post. In my opinion, it seemed as if many of Dr. Smith’s questions had been addressed. Obviously many disagree.

Anyway, have fun with the debate. I sincerely hope that all of this back and forth produces some Christ honoring dialog that people find beneficial as they consider cross-cultural missions to Muslims.

John,

Thanks for the clarification. With that, I am…

Peter

It seems ludicrous to me that an Independent Baptist theologian and American pastors are trying to impose their view on how to witness in a cross-cutlutral context to career missionaries.

Going on a mission trip one or two times a year does not make you an expert in cross-cultural evangelization. I have heard from two missionaries on this thread and will take their view as being much more credible than all the pastors and theologians in the SBC.

When you pastors and theologians spend ten or more years fulltime in a Muslim country actually trying to reach Muslims for Christ, then, perhaps you will have some credibility on this issue.

Les

If one had to have 10 years of experience before they could comment on anything then we would have no need of blogs. Oh and Les, you would be prohibited from discussing fashion. While having boots on the ground is helpful it by no means excludes others because their boots are on different soil.

If the Gospel is trans-cultural then I don’t need 10 years in one culture to tell a person that there is only one remedy to escape the Wrath of God. Maybe our fear of persecution is driving our message?

Les,

We’re about to write a $20,000-plus check to the IMB for the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. When the day comes that I’m told to butt out of International Missions, I’ll butt out entirely.

And then I’ll go spend it to reach the world with the actual gospel.

Brother Peter,

My health is back to about 70%…which is not bad after 8 weeks and 26 inches of new arteries on the heart. Thank you for asking.

I always enjoy your responses because they are logically thought out… we must meet at Starbucks some time in the future!

First of all, I simply read through the paragraphs. As I read through them, this is what stood out to me…..

1. The straight path – the gospel message was presented to him at a young age in a Christian home. (paragraph 1)
2. As an adult he became convicted. (paragraph 1)
3. He contemplated works, even tried them, but began to realize it was not enough to in his quest for peace. (paragraph 3)
4. He realized his working his way to God was vanity and began to understand his heart must be changed. (paragraph 4)
5. He saw his sin (black heart, paragraph 4)
6. The testimony of another Christian friend helped him to see the gospel more clearly. (paragraph 4)
7. He understood from his Christian friend, who knew this peace, that Jesus the Messiah alone gave this understanding because He is righteous. (paragraph 5)
8. He became “convinced” that Jesus the Messiah was capable of helping him understand the Kingdom of God. So he repented. (paragraph 5)
9. Now God speaks to him. He prays and knows his prayers are heard and continues to walk in righteousness because of Jesus the Messiah. (paragraph 6)
10. Finally, he said that God had changed his heart from black to pure and provides the sustenance to walk in righteousness. All Glory to God. (paragraph 6)

Obviously, I come at this discussion with 35 years of study and a specific viewpoint living in America and reading the English language. Can the testimony given by FTME be more clear and state the gospel with more clarity,…yes. But, its not my testimony to give. Is the testimony syncretistic in its methodology…. Not really. It simply and generally lays out one mans adoption in the family of God by way of Jesus the Messiah. I would be surprised to learn if FTME ends his relationship with a Muslim at this juncture of their conversation.

It seems in America, the depth of most folks testimony is …. “Where do you go to church?” As if that question makes any sense. Again, I don’t believe that FTME is lying about Christ. He has been accused of presenting “another gospel”, which is obviously not the case when you read the testimony. It might not be near as clear as you or I would like, but it is not another gospel.

Blessings,
Chris

Les

Allow me to reiterate to you what Bart said to Jim with a few corrections:

Congratulations on being the second to state the “Missionaries are semi-divine beings who should be empowered to say whatever they want no matter what kind of things they chop out of the gospel” argument. It’s a tough competition, and being second requires a little less moxie than being first, but you have done it.

BTW, I believe Dr. Smith is Southern Baptist.

Darby,

It’s a great question. The answer is…both.

Allah is the name of a pagan pre-Muslim Arabic deity. It, in and of itself, is the combination of the definite article and a word meaning something along the lines of “divine being.” Allah lexically means something along the lines of “THE god.” In the pagan days, that didn’t mean monotheism; it just meant priority.

Mohammad appropriated it as the name of the deity that he was promoting. Eventually it linguistically drove out all other words to describe a god. Thus, in modern Arabic, the word Allah has become the only word left to describe anything monotheistically divine.

However, that is not to suggest that Allah is the only alternative. There’s a bit of legerdomain employed when our syncretizing friends tell us that Allah is the only alternative in Arabic. Christians can use and have used the terms Allah al-ab (“God the Father”), Allah al-ibn (“God the Son”) and Allah al-ruh al qudus (“God the Holy Spirit”). These terms still employ the word Allah, but they do so in such a way that those who hear it are never in any doubt that the speaker is not referring to the false god of Islam.

Bart and Robin:

One more note. Evangelical Arab Christians do indeed use Allah (without any qualifiers) to refer to God. When they want to stipulate that they are not Muslim they might use Rab (Lord). Of course Muslims also call Allah “Rab”. Muslims don’t call God “Father”, that indeed is a particularly Christian title.

Chris,

It does not require prejudice. I am not demeaning Arabs. The same thing happens here in the USA all of the time. Mormons approach Southern Baptists and talk about “God” and “Jesus” to them. But they are talking about a different “God” and “Jesus” (fictional versions) than the Father and Son revealed in the Bible. They have built a cult and win a great many Americans each year by cultivating a careful campaign of using biblical words with different meanings.

I can argue against Mormon deceptive use of “God” and “Jesus” without arguing against the use of those words entirely. And I can argue that those who believe that Mormons are Christians and are discussing the orthodox Christian Father and Son have been deceived without suggesting that they are imbeciles.

But Christian evangelism ought to rise above such things. And if we really believe that there is power in the gospel, then we ought not to act like the peddlers of broken-down used cars when we go out to present the gospel. Our best hope is in clarity, not obfuscation. Therefore the use of terminology like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their Arabic equivalents (see mine @60) is a great way to speak in Arabic and be entirely understood from the get-go.

Father-Of-David,

I did not mean to suggest that Arabic Christians EXCLUSIVELY use the modified forms of Allah. I merely meant to make certain that everyone in the thread knows that there are linguistic ways to speak of the Christian God in Arabic in ways that cannot be confused with the false deity of Islam.

Brother Peter,

Dr. Smith makes this assertion:

“The ideal of contextualization is to present the gospel in terms which the hearers will understand and so be able to make an informed decision about trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.”

That seems to be his basis for the purpose of contextualization. His understanding of contextualization seems to depend upon the hearer’s “primarily understanding” the conversation, so that the hearer can then make a decision about trusting Jesus Christ. It could be assumed that Dr. Smith believes in “decisional regeneration”,…I’m not sure because we do not have enough information to judge his intent. I’m not saying he does believe that,…but his definition does not really clear that up for me.

My example about Dr. Smith’s “ideal of contextualization” is about on par with his critique concerning FTME, except he took the luxury of going into a clear delineation of the gospel, which I enjoyed.

I really believe that most of the commenter’s are looking at this from a cooperating IMB position and asking the question,…Would I want our missionaries speaking like this? Many would say, we must insist he be clearer. Others would say… he obviously understands how to approach those in the Muslim faith. A good test for all pastors is to find someone of the Muslim faith and share your faith. Many pastors would find a good excuse to shake the dust off quickly and move on in great pride because they have done their duty. Others are called to minister to those Muslims headed for hell, that some might be saved.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,

Fine. As someone who has shared the gospel with Muslims and seen Muslim conversions to Christianity in so doing, I acknowledge that both of the categories that you have mentioned do exist.

My critique would not be that your schema is incorrect, but that it is incomplete. It fails to identify the category of people who, intent upon seeing Muslim conversions (out of their passion for such, due to pressures from those who employ them, for whatever reason), will readily jettison the cardinal doctrines of the faith just to get a Muslim to sign on the dotted line…any dotted line.

This last category are more dangerous than the first that you gave, who are preaching the real gospel, even if from impure motives.

Bart,

Not at all, but I would refer to Abu Daoud’s comments at #60 and #61 as well as the other Middle Eastern Missionaries that have commented on the use of the word Allah in this comment stream as the generic Arabic term for God – as our generic term for God is God.

It seems to me that we are arguing (at least here) over English vs Arabic translations of the same word.

How we distinguish that word, and what FTME is doing with his testimony and how he uses that testimony to bring muslims to Christ is another matter. The author of this post thinks FTME is preaching another Gospel, you seem to think that his testimony is weak at best or severely flawed.

I am in sales – every presentation I make is different for each audience I present to. Every time I make a presentation I kick myself afterwards wondering what I messed up and how I could have done better. My guess is that FTME has refined his testimony and that it is never the same.

The missionaries who have posted in this stream seem to think that FTME has a solid testimony, that will open doors to muslims

Chris,

I agree with you that this testimony alone is not sufficient evidence to conclude that FTME brooks heresy in presenting the gospel to Muslims. This testimony does not stand alone, but if it did, we would be unwarranted to draw such a drastic conclusion.

Chris,

While you may not agree with him, I don’t believe Dr. Smith is suggesting that FTME is a heretic or that he believes a false gospel.

Rather, he is saying that FTME’s testimony, in the form presented, is contextualized in such a way that the message as it is understood by the hearer is a false gospel.

IOW, Dr. Smith suggests that this particular contextual approach is deficient. It is neither an argument against FTME personally or against contextualization generally. Rather he argues against this one particular example of contextualization and argues that its end result is a false gospel.

– Todd

Brother Todd,

He might not of meant what he wrote….we all fall prey to that at times…but he write with emphasis:

“The author of the SBCImpact.net article may well have sought to do something similar to what Paul did in these examples, but in fact he preached “another gospel” and we know what Paul says about that!”

That seems pretty personal to me…..

Blessings,
Chris

Jim Champion,

“Ivory tower ‘intellectuals’ and BI pastors” is not snarky? I’ll confess that often, even when I shouldn’t, I make comments that match the tone of the statements that other people have directed my way first. Here is a case in point.

When Christ spoke to Nicodemus in the book of John, he simply repeated to Nicodemus that he must be born again. Where is repentance and the things that some believe should be included in Christ speaking to Nicodemus?

Jim Champion,

Except that FTME has already stated in other contexts that he believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, although Muslims do so incorrectly. And he has stated that one can be a Christian and not be a Trinitarian. So apparently the purpose of his testimony is not to bring Muslims to the same place.

Brother Todd,

He did say that FTME in fact “preached another gospel”. I agree with you that the Gospel of God is serious business. If I were to accuse members of our congregation of “preaching another gospel” as they gave their testimonies, I may not be giving them the best encouragement, unless it were true of course.

It is obvious that the gospel of God, the power of God unto salvation is generally outlined in FTME’s testimony unless one is intent on causing syncretism. If someone is not willing to understand that a true Muslim will be offended by what FTME has testified, then they will remain convinced that his testimony is heresy.

It would be interesting to see what the experts might include to spruce up the testimony. But again, it is his words about what he understood and clearly God was made known to him through Jesus the Messiah without any works.

For some reason I think that Dr. Smith will stand by his conviction and say this testimony is another gospel.

Blessings,
Chris

‘. . . we believe that Muslims are lost and going to Hell apart from the grace of God; that we believe that God loves them and that He loves us not one bit more than He loves them . . .’

However confused or otherwise the Camel Method it is scary to think that a Professor at one of our Seminaries can be this confused.

You seem to be saying that God’s grace operates independently of his love – he loves Muslims like he loves believers, but they go to hell apart from his grace. Doesn’t look like the one God of the Bible but one deity waiting for another to help out.

And you think others are mispresenting God . . .

I can’t speak for Dr. Smith as to the intent of his words. I can only speak for myself.

In my opinion, FTME’s testimony is deficient. I would not necessarily call this a presentation of a “false gospel” (since FTME states that his purpose is to lead to an opportunity to share the gospel not to share the gospel itself). Nevertheless, FTME’s testimony contains elements that at least to not appear consistent with the Christian gospel and do appear to be somewhat misleading.

I find FTME’s presentation deficient both as a testimony and as pre-evangelism.
As a “testimony” it does not sufficiently describe his conversion as a conversion to the Christian faith and is potentially misleading to the hearer.

As “pre-evangelism” FTME’s testimony does not sufficiently challenge or cause the hearer to question their worldview.

You can see my full critique here (comments 63 & 64): http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/01/06/my-pilgrimage/

Abu Daoud (47) suggests that referring to Jesus as the great prophet (i.e. Isa Al-Masih) does challenge the Muslim worldview, at least in a subtle way. He may indeed have a point here.

I still think, however, that FTME’s presentation is such that it validates reverence for Muhammed, even if it makes Jesus superior to Muhammed. I don’t argue that one must attack belief in Muhammed at the outset, but we must not validate the belief either. That is to say, either ignore Muhammed or call him into question, but don’t (A) suggest that you your pilgrimage to Christ included studying “the prophets” a claim that a Muslim would most certainly assume to include Muhammed or (B) suggest that belief in Muhammed is OK in the Christian faith, as long as Jesus is #1.

Just my two cents.

Blessings,
Todd

Todd: I think being a missionary is a huge prerequisite for an informed opinion. Moreso than those who have not been a missionary nor dealt with what they have to deal with on a daily basis. To dismiss that is wrong in my opinion.

Les,

I think it depends upon the missionary. Just because somebody does something doesn’t mean that they do it well.

Somewhere in the USA is somebody who thinks that he can do a better job running GM than does the present CEO with all of his experience. And that somebody is right.

Debbie,

Les’s argument is similar to saying you can’t critique the war because you are not in the military,

OR

you can’t critique the Cubs because you don’t play baseball,

OR

you can’t critique Paige Patterson because you are not a Seminary president.

Uhh…..Les….you know…although you may have been the first pastor to blog about it to the whole world, yours isn’t the first church to adopt the Acts 1:8 challenge. Been there, doing that.

Les,

Les, you are truly frustrating to converse with. Of course I am not equating baseball to missions! But I am indeed equating your line of reasoning with those three examples. You are free to say that a missionary will have first-hand insight and knowledge of cultural contexts that American pastors and theologians do not. You are NOT free to conclude, however, that the missionary is correct merely because of this experiential advantage or that a non-missionary is wrong because he does not have it. It that way it is very similar to dismissing a critique of the war because you are not a general or saying the general is right, merely because he has first-hand experience with war.

I’m not trying to insult you. I’m merely saying that you can’t dismiss the critiques by Dr. Smith, Bart, myself, or anyone else merely by saying that you must be a missionary to be informed about cross-cultural communication.

Further, it is foolish to set up missionaries as infallible and free from critique.

– Todd

Along with Bart…

LES please think before you speak. Our church, too, is living out the Acts 1:8 challenge…involving local KC area missions…beginning this year moving into cooperation with state-wide missions…and have already begun partnering with the IMB to pray for an unreached people group in China…and have done preliminary work on Muslim Bible Day for this year. Thanks for the suggestion though…we might even have our mission team look into that…along with Robin Hadaway here at MBTS in missions.

Have I said enough to prove how petty and insipid your little quip was?

SG!

Todd: Do you know what training a missionary has before they are put on the field? It is extensive. Experience in missions does play a huge role. Again, to downplay that is to ignore the most important things. I would not equate it to baseball, a CEO or any other job.

In response to the issue of who has more credibility to this discussion, one only needs to look at America – just because one supposedly serves in America and supposedly preaches in America, does not automatically mean that one knows how best to share the Gospel in America.

As for the main discussion: This post and the defending comments point to a simple truth, the Gospel must be above all and complete or else confusion and a false Gospel will be the results. When I read the post from Impact, I was shocked! There was no repentence and without repentence, there is no remission of sin. When you follow the links that Bart listed above, it is easy to see that this is another gospel at best!

Dr. Smith (who is SBC) has written a great response.

Les, I agree, the Acts 1: 8 challange is awesome. We are loving it! I am hearing that more are as well!

Les,

Don’t twist my words.

My remark to you had nothing at all to do with the content of the Acts 1:8 Challenge…hence the fact that I have led our church to undertake the task.

Closing the blast doors…

Sola Gratia!

One final thing and then I’m done because I’ve made my point.

I’ll give SBC Today their due. They sure know how to get people talking. Good job guys.

Blessings to you all.

Les

There is no God other than Jehovah. Without repentance and faith being granted in Regeneration there can be no salvation.

we need not try to simply the Gospel but proclaim it as it is to men as they are, trusting The Holy Spirit to save those God the Father chose and gave to Christ, in the covenant of Grace.

Brothers and Sisters,

A few notes:
1. I had no idea that so many folks were so concerned with what I wrote and, in spite of being considered the bearer of a false Gospel by some, I am truly humbled.
2. Just to clear up any rumors: I am not divine or infallible ;^) and do appreciate being politely challenged by my brothers and sisters… Though I do not use or promote methods which have not been studied (in light of the Holy Scriptures), prayed over and considered in community… but this does not necessarily mean the greater missionary community or those I am closest with are not in error. Challenge away, I am open to revisions on this testimony… but only revisions that will more clearly communicate my pathetic condition prior to entering God’s Kingdom and the centrality of Jesus in my pilgrimage into His Kingdom and subsequently in my life to a Muslim.
3. If anyone would like to more fully understand my position on Allah in the Bible and Allah in the Qur’an, Bart has recommended the place to do so in comment #95. The same goes for my comments concerning our common expression of God’s triune nature. Though, being concerned with context ;^) I would encourage you to read the whole post and comment thread and not just a few isolated comments. If, after doing so, you have questions, please leave a comment with your question or even email me.
4. My greatest prayer for this whole discussion is that it will focus more believing hearts and minds here in the States on God’s heart for reaching Muslims no matter the cost.

Peace to all,
From the Middle East

Brother Wes,

There is no hurry. In fact, these concerns, at least from my perspective, are worthy of a detailed reading… even if it takes a few days, weeks or months to set aside the time. But, I would like to make the two links easily accessible:

Question one is answered here.

Question two is answered here.

Again, please feel free to interact either there or via email.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Todd: You have just proved by your comment to me that you are not interested in understanding where missionaries are coming from. I did not indicate anything about waving around anything. I am saying that solid Biblical teaching and rigorous training are given to our missionaries. Unless you are out on the field among these people, you have no idea how best to interact with them. That was my point. Period. That’s just common sense.

Wes: Badgering doesn’t go very far, and FTME answered your question. Find a PC.

Throughout the book of Acts, bold direct preaching is the method used to share the gospel [cf. the frequent use of the word parresia and its verb form], and the Spirit of God is always at work, attending to and accompanying such preaching [cf. also John 15:26-27]. These things need to be kept in mind when discussing the contextualization of the gospel message.

This debate is very interesting to me, an IMB missionary in a non-Muslim context. I’d like to throw in two points for consideration.

1. The time it takes a lost person in the post-Soviet context where I work to go from first hearing of a gospel message to becoming a baptized believer within a local church can be up to 10 years. Many of my national friends who are believers have told me that it took between 5 – 7 years for them to fully embrace the truth of the gospel and make the decision to go against cultural norms to become an evangelical believer. This debate, from my reading, had focused very little on the relationship between the believer and nonbeliever. I appreciate FTME’s testimony because it is not offensive and keeps the door open for discussion between friends. This is very important. Understanding of Biblical truths and the mysteries of the gospel happen gradually. In American church life we seem to have missed this and count success when there are instant (and often shallow) results.

2. Having experience in witnessing to Muslims who live in the US is not the same thing as working among Muslims on their native, non-US soil. Many of the nationals from my country are now living and working in the US and Canada. The folks here call them “diaspora.” Their worldview changes; the way they speak their native language changes; their priorities and lifestyle change. It can be a stretch to even treat them as if they are part of the same people group.

Thanks for the discussion. At the very least, if it makes us more aware of the need to invest ourselves in the lives of lost people, may we do so in a way that honors Christ!

Katie

Hi Tim (125):

I don’t think I have hinged the entire argument on the magnitude of sacrifice. Of course one could accuse God of doing such a thing, I suppose. But I was making a simple point about giving people whose faith has led to making sacrifices in life the benefit of the doubt and asking for clarification rather than being quick to make judgments. I will stand by that and not retract it.

You wrote:

>>One other comment concerning FTME’s use of “Allah” as creator God. Would you not agree that one denies an attribute of God by relating “Allah” as only the creator God? I mean, according to John 1:1 Jesus was the catalyst through which creation came. Would one not be denying Jesus’ creative attributes by expressing that he is the “greatest prophet”?

I would agree, and so would a Muslim for that matter. There are many attributes of God in both religions. If we say that God is only a Creator we probably end up with some kind of deism. I don’t see where you’re going though.

Are you speaking of the mode of creation? That is is done through the logos? That is an interesting point.

Jesus as he is described in the definition of Chalcedon (451) and as the greatest prophet are not mutually exclusive at all, if that is what you are applying. Of course he is the greatest prophet, and more than a prophet! But to speak of Jesus as prophet is not wrong, just like we speak of him as king or priest (well, maybe Baptists don’t speak of him as priest, I’m not sure).

Brothers Wes In Tex and Bart,

Regardless of everyone’s opinion on the substance or lack of substance of this testimony, Dr. Smith makes two clear assertions that must be examined:

1 – This testimony is a false Gospel.
2 – This testimony is promoting a works based salvation.

If Dr. Smith’s analysis is true, then the testimony is damned and FTME is leading people to hell and not to the Kingdom of God. He frames his argument by stating:

“Of all the errors in this article, this one departs furthest from Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible ever tell us that salvation is a matter of merely understanding certain facts about God and his will. …….. The writer of this article would have us believe that salvation comes by “understanding the Kingdom of Allah,” not by faith in anyone.”

Those are bold statements and accusations that assume that the testimony is abandoning true “faith”, because the actual word “faith” is not contained in the testimony. Even from my house in America, I can tell that the testimony is speaking about true faith. And because this concept is so foreign to the ears of a Muslim, it should be expected that they would certainly question or confront this type of testimony as not in line with their beliefs.

Frankly, the testimony accomplishes neither of what Dr. Smith alleges. It does not promote a false Gospel and actually spends about two paragraphs telling its hearers that works are not working.

I agree with Bart, in that if the testimony used terms that even Muslims have used to denote the Father, or the Son or Holy Spirit, it could be clearer, especially to me (but I’m an American). Certainly there are times that I do not use words like “justification” and instead use terms like “declared righteous”, or even explain the process in more general terms…so it is possible to pick your words so that from my perspective at least, the hearer may have the best opportunity to listen and follow the propositions of scripture.

There is no question that the god of the “Muslim faith” is not the same God of those adopted into the Kingdom of God. I use “Muslim faith” on purpose to separate any other god that is promoting works based salvation. It is clear that the Muslim faith has a god that promotes such activity. Yet when a Muslim is captured by God through Christ, he uses the same term (Allah / God), but his adoption carries a different faith associated to the name used.

I believe that is what FTME is arguing for in the other posts that he has mentioned.

Bottom line, Dr. Smith has not proved there is a promotion of a false Gospel, nor has he proved that the testimony is promoting a works based salvation. He has simply stated the Gospel in a clearer, mostly Americanized system of terms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Dr. Smith’s statement of the Gospel.

Blessings,
Chris

Abu, I am indeed trying to have a rational discussion with you with the intent of contending for the faith and communicating that faith contextually to your people group. I believe you are as well.

What is difficult in this blog forum is that when someone responds, all the players seem to get lumped together so that a response to a particular blogger seems like a response to everyone who is on his side of the argument.

To be clear, I do not sense from you or FTME the idea that you are passing yourselves off as infallible or perfect or right just because you are the missionary and I am not. Some of the people who are defending you, however, are indeed holding you up in that way and do not seem to care about honest discussion toward a common understanding of the truth.

Perhaps because of prior conceptions of this blog and their perception of the commentors here, they are are content to merely dismiss the questions and critiques without seriously considering their content.

One of the problems on the SBC blogosphere is that all ideas are now suspect. I cannot be considered as an independent thinker who is in nobody’s camp. Today, I will likely be considered a “Baptist Identity” guy by some. Tomorrow, when I blog against the IMB policies, I will be likely be labeled a “New Left” Burleson-ite by others.

As for me, I would like to get on a blog, read and respond to what has been written, do so in an irenic tone, have a cordial if pointed discussion on the topic at hand, and strive to come to the truth for the glory of God. Sometimes I will be on the right side of the issue. Other times, I will need to be convinced. What I don’t need is inflamatory and dismissive comments from those who have no interest in considering my point of view or calmly explaining why they think I’m wrong. Unfortunately, that may be too much to ask in this medium.

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion with you personally, even as I have I had to take some sidebars with others to defend my right to converse with you on the subject.

Blessings,
Todd

Hi Todd (130),

Well, I’m not SBC and only drop by the SBC blogosphere occassionaly. I came to this post bc FTME is a dear friend of mine, though our work takes us to quite different places in the region.

I am an Anglican (with warts and all) and I have always found the SBC ecclesiology very peculiar and difficult to understand. I mean the great emphasis on the autonomy of the congregation with what seems like a simultaneous drive to enforce the SBC policy and doctrine. I don’t mean that as an insult, just an observation from outside the SBC world.

All,

I find Dr. Smith’s rejection of the use “Allah” fascinating. In the past, I was a student of Liberty and assigned a paper on Islam. The focus of the paper was to present the gospel to a Muslim. I made repeated use of the word “Allah” for God, and “Isa” for Jesus. I used multiple references to the Qur’an; and attempted to proved that Isa was Allah and that, as a result, Allah was not impersonal.

Not only did I receive an “A,” but was told by the professor that he had no problem handing the paper to a Muslim.

I am fascinated because my methodology has been attacked by Dr. Smith, et al. Seems that not all at Liberty share Dr. Smith’s contentions.

Ms. Kaufman,

I don’t consider asking questions “badgering.” These were in fact questions that had come to my mind when I first read FTME’s post (and I have read it several times as well as much of the thread that followed). Bart raised these same two issues here and when FTME entered the comment stream at SBCToday, which I have on my BlackBerry browser, I asked two simple questions directly to him that would not have taken more than five seconds to answer. When he came back that I needed to read “this” post and “that” post for his “full” position on the questions there were two issues that came to my mind. First, I was not at my computer. It was not convenient for me at that time to go running around the World Wide Web to read his posts and the extended comment streams. He was here at SBCToday and these were questions that I wanted to ask. Second, I have generally found that when someone avoids giving a direct answer to direct questions they’re attempting to cover they’re backside. I was very disappointed that FTME took that route as I have enjoyed reading much of what he has said here and elsewhere – even if I don’t always agree with him.

Your post to me at #120 was unnecessary and uncalled for – but not unusual for you. I have tried to have discussions with you before and found it to be much like grasping oil with the hand (I think I’ve read that somewhere before – Pro. 27:16). Anyway, have a good day.

Chris,

You are correct when you write: “Regardless of everyone’s opinion on the substance or lack of substance of this testimony, Dr. Smith makes two clear assertions that must be examined:
1 – This testimony is a false Gospel.
2 – This testimony is promoting a works based salvation.
If Dr. Smith’s analysis is true, then the testimony is damned and FTME is leading people to hell and not to the Kingdom of God.”

I must admit when I first read the presentation by FTME it caused me a great deal of consternation. However, I did go back to the original post and re-read it (you know how slow and dim I am). I have re-read it several times since then and I believe that I have come to a better understanding of what he is attempting to do. I agree with FTME’s attempts to speak to the Muslim hearer and fully realize that one must speak the gospel in cultural context. I don’t know that I am as fully convinced as you are that he does this sufficiently – particularly as it speaks to the issues of faith, repentance and the exclusivity of Jesus. But I do realize that this is what he and others refer to as a “pre-evangelistic” presentation – something I think we here in America should consider carefully. So I was – and still am to an extent – willing to cut him some slack on those issues. I think I can see where Dr. Smith sees a teaching of “works based salvation.” But I also see where it could be a simple case of using cultural language.

My greatest concern, however, had to do with the issue of his use of “allah.” When Bart brought those same issues up here, it just confirmed for me that there was reason to be concerned. For the Gospel begins and ends with the person of God. If you have the wrong God – then you have the wrong Gospel. If you present the wrong gospel with the wrong god, then you are in fact, leading people to hell. This was why I attempted to take the opportunity to ask FTME directly last evening when he visited this site if he did in fact believe the Christian God and the Muslim allah were the same and if he believed that one could reject the doctrine of the Trinity and still be considered a Christian brother/ sister. I’m not asking if one has to embrace the doctrine to become a Christian – but if one who claims to be a Christian could reject this doctrine. For example, do we consider T.D. Jakes to be Christian even though he rejects Trinitarian theology? Again, this is an issue that speaks to the Person of God – which is the heart of the Gospel.

Now that I have had time to read both of the posts he referred to and the comment streams, here is my conclusion. First, FTME admits very clearly that he does believe Muslims worship the Christian God – but that they are in error and thus their worship is unacceptable. This is a far cry from simply acknowledging that there are similarities between Yahweh and allah. FTME believes they are in fact the same being. This is a horrifying position for me, and one that taints his presentation, be it “pre-evangelistic” or otherwise. As to his position on Trinitarian theology – he seems to waver – not ever giving Bart a clear answer. Thus, considering his position on the identity of allah, I must believe that he does not consider it to be necessary. If I am incorrect on that position I am willing to be corrected BY FTME with a very clear, simple “yes” or “no” to my previous questions. This is not about getting certain points about God wrong, nor is it a matter of using the common Arabic word for God. FTME’s belief that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are the same undermines his “gospel.” Thus it is a false gospel that he is presenting to those he is seeking to reach.

Chris, even if he is not presenting a works based salvation, he is presenting a false god which leads to a false gospel. Dr. Smith may not have proved point two, but he hit the nail on the head with point one.

Grace,
Wes

wesintexas: When you constantly ask for a yes or no answer, FTME continually answers your questions by pointing two articles that answer any questions you may have in greater detail, then you again ask for a yes and no answer, giving the reason in your last comment, that is badgering in anyone’s definition.

Chris,

I’ve never considered the thought of Islam as syncretism. Thanks for giving me something to chew on for while…

Blessings,
Todd

I think the main point of discussion and diagreement is indeed what Tim R has pointed out and why Wes keeps asking the same Yes and No question: where is Jesus presented in the testimony?

and Debbie, please understand, asking for a Yes or No answer is not badgering when one considers the context of the question. Those questions only need a Yes or No answer.

I would like to hear the response. I have the questions after reading the links.

typo alert: that should be “spending too much time in…”

The last paragraph should have read….”So, why would you take the word over a western, Amercian missionary who has just been involved in Muslim/Arabic culture FOR TEN YEARS over two men who were raised in it? who are Arabs? who used to be Muslims? Would they not have the better perspective in your way of looking at it?

PS – Some Muslim background believers (MBBs) I have encountered overseas really appreciate a high-level of contextualization and some do not like it and there are many who are comfortable with some terminology and not with other terminology. I hope that is clear to everyone… just as we have style and language discussions here in the States, they deal with the same issues… especially as they are forming indigenous communities. Some choose to adopt more cultural forms than others. Some choose to continue using more Islamic terminology (with new meaning) than others.

I shared much of my “style” of proclaiming the Kingdom with one pastor (actually the leader of a house church network in his country) in a 99.9% Muslim context… he got really excited and said, “You actually understand us!” That is exactly the kind of stuff that I do with my Muslim friends… they don’t understand the concepts I read about in commentaries, so I have to explain them in the language they do understand.

God’s peace to all,
From the Middle East

Chris,

My brother, how you do challenge me! And, quite frankly I am grateful for your patience with me.

I think you and I have had the privilege before of talking about your work with Naveed and I am grateful that God is continuing to work through your faithfulness. I think we would all pray with you that God would continue to work in his life bringing him to the freedom of grace in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me also make a couple of other statements to see if we can both get on the same page. I beg your patience as I would certainly not want to badger you.

First, I am aware of the fact – and agree – that evangelism with a Muslim is a very difficult and long term commandment. In fact, as I have listened to you and FTME and others, it is drawing a question into my mind that perhaps western evangelistic tactics attempt to take too many short cuts. I don’t think we take enough time with people and that is why our church rolls are so blotted and why many of our attending members are so shallow and worldly.

Secondly, I acknowledge the challenge with differing languages, particularly as it relates to the most common Arabic word for God being Allah. Language and even culture must speak, to an extent, of how we present the gospel. I even like the idea of a “pre-evangelistic” presentation as FTME originally writes at sbc Impact. These are not really the issues with me.

My problem (now a problem, but originally only a question) is FTME’s contention that the allah of the Qur’an is in fact the Yahweh of the Bible. In the link he gave me above he makes his position very clear even in the thesis of his paper: “What this article is about is whether or not the god of Islam is indeed the same being as the God of the Bible.”

In the article he answers his thesis with: “My contention would be that they attempt to worship the Creator of the heavens and earth, but He rejects their worship based upon their rejection of His Messiah.” He does try to mitigate this claim by writing: “While we do acknowledge that the Creator referred to in the Qur’an is the same Creator referred to in the Bible, we must make it clear that there is no way to this Creator except through His Messiah, namely Jesus of Nazareth.” And finally he writes this chilling point: “While I am loathe to use anecdotal evidence, the MBBs I know and know of typically do not say they have found the true God. Rather, they rejoice since they have found the acceptable Path to Allah and now have a real relationship with Him.”

Did you get that Chris? They haven’t found the true God, but the true “path to Allah” which he has already made clear, he believes is Yahweh.

Now brother, let me ask you this simple question. I know that you reject any god who calls for a works based salvation, but do you believe that the Qur’an’s allah is the same being as Yahweh of the Old and New Testaments? Yes, Muhammad borrowed much of the Qur’an from various other faiths (Judaism and Christianity), but do you believe that he also incorporated the One True God Almighty into his religious faith? Are Muslims worshipping a false god or are they just missing the true path?

Ok, so I’ll ask you three questions.

My contention is that he has overstepped that contextual line and equates Yahweh with the Muslim faith’s allah. Thus he is indeed presenting a false gospel.

Grace,
Wes

Brother Tim,

The issue is there is no clear presentation of Jesus being God.

I do not typically explain that Jesus is divine when sharing my testimony in English with Americans for the first time. Do you? Please read comment #56 in this thread as Brother Zach seems to do a pretty good job of relating my practice in an Islamic context to typical practice here in the States.

I spoke to Dr. Emir Caner and asked him where I was wrong on your presentation. He did inform me that you were very gracious in your presentation, but your presentation at least was deceptive, and at worst was heresy.

I disagree with him as do many Muslims who have tried to convert me to Islam AFTER hearing my testimony! However, I do affirm his ministry.

You say that your pre-evangelism testimony does not concern itself with doctrine.

Nope. I said it was not a full doctrinal statement on what I believe. My testimony, as written, is biblically sound so far as I can tell. If you would like to point out something that is unscriptural… come on over to our place (where it is posted) and we can discuss it.

You continue on that:

t is only a talking point in order to engage a Muslim in conversation concerning spiritual issues, in order for them to drop their defense.

Never said that either. I am very open about my intentions from the beginning. I have found that Muslims do not appreciate dishonesty, but people with convictions who love others.

When Muslims are converted are they encouraged to come to a Christian church or are they encouraged to continue in their Mosque’s?

They are encouraged to join existing communities of people who are devoted to Jesus and the Holy Scriptures (ecclesia). If there are none, they are encouraged to start one… of course in the areas I frequent most of this is going to be something other than a registered \”church building.\”

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Brother FTME,

I do not typically explain that Jesus is divine when sharing my testimony in English with Americans for the first time. Do you? Yes I do. I have never given a testimony that Jesus was only human and a good person to follow. Also, I have never encouraged people to come to Jesus because he was the only way to God. I have always encouraged people to come to Jesus because He is God.

I disagree with him as do many Muslims who have tried to convert me to Islam AFTER hearing my testimony! Are you telling me that you are Muslim? If you are a Muslim, are you speaking in a cultural sense? His statement to me was that Allah is not YHWH and that is where the deception comes from. Is that where you are in disagreement with him? Are you saying that for a Muslim, Allah and YHWH are one in the same?

come on over to our place (where it is posted) and we can discuss it. No thanks, my home is comfortable.

I am very open about my intentions from the beginning. How can you say that when you affirm Allah as the “Creator God” and the Bible clearly states that Jesus was the catalyst of creation. Jesus is the creator God.

If there are none, they are encouraged to start one… of course in the areas I frequent most of this is going to be something other than a registered \”church building.\” Can you explain exactly what a “registered church building” is? Is it a Mosque? If that is the “registered church building” do the house churches encourage their members to continue to meet in the mosque in order to not bring suspicion to them being a Christian?

Blessings,
Tim

FTME,
If I have called you a heretic in any of my posts I do apologize and ask your forgiveness. While I do believe you are wrong in presenting Islam’s allah as the true Yahweh of the Bible, I am not here trying to judge your heart.
However, it is my understanding that Muhammad chose his family’s patrion diety, the moon god of the Kahaba (sp?)to be “the god” (thus, allah) for his new religion. He rejected the other monotheistic faiths based one his belief that they worship the wrong god.
Grace,
Wes

Brother WesinTex,

I believe it was Brother Chris who referred to Islam as a corrupted version of Christianity/Judaism or syncretism. At any rate…

Alaha is the Aramaic word for God. It was used by Jewish and Christian religious leaders in the Arabian Peninsula during the 7th century A.D. and was interpolated into the Arabic language… no Muslim will ever agree with this, but non-Muslim linguistics note that it is virtually impossible to form the contraction Allah from al-ilah in Arabic. That, coupled with Muhammad’s proximity and dialogue with Jewish and Christian communities (we would call them heretical Christians btw) has led MANY linguists to surmise that this is where the word came from… what language did Jesus speak again ;^)

In addition, it is CLEAR from the text of the Generous Qur’an that Muhammad thought the revelation he was receiving did not contradict the teachings of the Torah and New Testament but actually was CONFIRMING what had already been revealed to the prophets before him in the Bible. We also know that his monotheistic thought was heavily influenced by both Jewish groups in the area and Christians as far north as Damascus – specifically Nestorians. Thus, we have this strange collection of beliefs based on the Judaism and Christianity but quite different in significant ways.

That Muhammad, a monotheist who despised the rampant polytheism in his hometown, picked a god out of a plethora of gods after showing great interest in both Christian and Jewish teachings (also strong monotheists) and even claiming that this moon god was the same as the one the Jews and the Christians were proclaiming and that is it just a coincidence that the Aramaic and Arabic words are so close… is utter nonsense.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I can’t tell you how many times I get asked about this moon god theory and each time I hear it it sounds even more far-fetched!

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

It is one thing to disagree with someone’s methodology. It is quite another to proclaim that a Christian missionary is in fact a false teacher proclaiming a false gospel. Do you folks really want to own those words?

“FTME is teaching that Muslims attempt to worship – albeit, without Christ, inncorectly, the same being we do as Christians. That is, as I and others believe, in grave error.”

“For as I passed along and observed the objects of YOUR worship, I found also an ALTAR with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore YOU worship as unknown, THIS I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).

“For, ‘In HIM we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of YOUR OWN POETS have said, ‘For WE are indeed HIS offspring’” (Acts 17:28).

Paul had no problem claiming one of the objects of Athenian worship was the true God – Creator of everything. His entire gospel argument to the Athenians depends on it. In arguing his case, he even quotes their poet, not to disagree with, but to further his point. You guys are overstating your case.

Brother WesInTex,

I have just got back from watching the Titans hand the Ravens a golden egg. What a pity….and a false god if I have ever seen one.

Brother you ask good questions! I know you have a good foundation because of those books high and right in your library.

Nevertheless, I will agree with Isaiah:
Isaiah 44:8-10 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’” (9) Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame. (10) Who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit?
Muhammad’s attempt to fashion a god is futile, even though he does use the real creator God learned from history as the display. He has invented the most successful denomination of syncretized deception in the world. Muhammad puts the one true God on trial, but Muhammad has no testimony, and thus fashions another god in His stead. Some have put it like this, the Qu’ran contains some true things, but it is not the truth.
Luke’s words are helpful as well:

Acts 17:29-31 “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. (30) “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, (31) 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.”

Ok, I’ll answer you straight my friend,

The Qu’ran uses the word Allah for the God that is attributed to Abraham, Isaac, etc. The God of Abraham is the one true God. Muhammad used the true God deceptively in his crafty design for power (supersyncretism). So the result of his efforts renders his teaching as damning and anti-Christ, destined for the wrath of the true God. Muhammad did not worship the true God of Abraham. He worshipped a god of his own making. The Jewish exodus crowd had a similar situation and fate.

Muhammad did incorporate the one true God into his religion, but his ways did not produce the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. His incorporation was deception that continues to deceive today impacting millions of people around the world.

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Muhammad took the name of the Lord God in vain and will be punished.

The “Muslim faith” is the worship of a false god and they are missing the true path to the God of Abraham because of the lack of knowledge and unbelief.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Blessings my friend,
Chris

My Dear Brother Chris,

I do hope you heard my great sigh of relief when I read your latest post. Thank you for your clarity – and more proficient way of expressing the truth. You wrote these two paragraphs:

“Muhammad’s attempt to fashion a god is futile, even though he does use the real creator God learned from history as the display. He has invented the most successful denomination of syncretized deception in the world. Muhammad puts the one true God on trial, but Muhammad has no testimony, and thus fashions another god in His stead. Some have put it like this, the Qu’ran contains some true things, but it is not the truth.”

And:

“The Qu’ran uses the word Allah for the God that is attributed to Abraham, Isaac, etc. The God of Abraham is the one true God. Muhammad used the true God deceptively in his crafty design for power (supersyncretism). So the result of his efforts renders his teaching as damning and anti-Christ, destined for the wrath of the true God. Muhammad did not worship the true God of Abraham. He worshipped a god of his own making. The Jewish exodus crowd had a similar situation and fate.”

I will agree 100%. Muhammad may have used the idea and image of the one true God, but he used (and continues to use) Him deceptively for his own purposed, thus in reality creating an idol.

“… although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God in to the image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:21-23).

The god of Islam may not be a little statue – but it is still an idol. The good news is, however, that even out of such a corrupt faith – God’s grace still redeems and calls forth those who are His. Gives you hope for some of these here Baptists don’t it!

I hate to say it but I must now depart. There is much to do before the Lord’s Day tomorrow. May the Spirit of our Great and Wondrous God, rich in mercy and abounding in love; empower all of us tomorrow to proclaim the glorious news – JESUS SAVES!

Grace my Friend,
Wes

Darby,
Thank you for you conversation and I would love to discuss this with fully. However, please forgive me for I must put a bookmark here. I will do my very best to get back with you tomorrow afternoon. Thanks again and God bless.

Grace,
Wes

Darby has won the battle. Her appeal to Paul’s Areopagus speech is irrefutable.

Thank you!

Brother FTME,

I think I have a good understanding of why you wrote the testimony in the manner that you chose. I do not agree with Dr. Smith that the testimony is teaching another gospel. It was obvious to me, from working with various folks in the Muslim world, the purpose and intent of your writing was to take familiar language and use that to introduce the truth. It appeared to me that you were… as I have said earlier, “begging the question” who is Jesus the Messiah? Outlined in this brief and general testimony.

Naveed has told me numerous times that God cannot be known. So, I understand your frustration with some that have commented here. My encouragement to him, is come and know the one true God, …He is knowable.

To beat on the almost dead horse a little more…. The concern from most of the guys is in the realm of the authority of scripture. I think we both understand the ramifications of how God delivered His Word to man, and would probably be in agreement.

I liken the Qu’ran to several other popular manuals of late. The “40 Days of Purpose” and the now appealing fictional story, “The Shack”. All three of the accounts have God associated with their purpose. All three have a theology of works righteousness. Some less than others, but nonetheless they do. The 40 Days of Purpose did spend at least a paragraph explaining a prayer you could pray to be saved, of course you have to meant it or all bets are off, but then it uses variations of translations, some not even close to the Holy Scripture to explain its philosophy and brags about it in the appendix. There were myriads of churches that drank in the sweet aroma of the book, some families replacing their big white bible on the coffee table with an open 40 Days of Purpose book and journal.

I use the 40 Days, pretty much like some might use the Qu’ran. The God of Abraham is spoken of in the book, but I quickly explain to them the gospel of God and then explain to them the leaven that surrounds it in about 21 of the days.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,

(1) You stated, “the purpose and intent of your writing was to take familiar language and use that to introduce the truth.”

The problem is that if From the Middle East intended to introduce the truth, he never got around to it. What he wrote is not the gospel. There is no cross, no resurrection, no Jesus Christ as only begotten Son of God. There is no call to faith, no call to be born again, no call to be saved by Christ’s own person and work.

FTME simply stated what a Muslim might himself say about his own god. This is not the introduction of truth, for it has left the Muslim in his error, in his lostness. The Muslim who hears FTME’s “testimony” is still going to hell at the end of the testimony. Indeed, it leaves the Christian scratching his head, wondering what the testimony regarded, for it certainly did not testify to Christ the sacrificial mediator between God and man. If FTME is a Christian, his “testimony” does not indicate anything beyond a syncretistic works-righteousness.

(2) Your comparison of Mohammed’s work, the Quran, to that of Rick Warren is not only ridiculous, but highly offensive to many Christians who have been helped by Rick Warren’s ministry. I don’t use Warren’s book, but I would never compare a book written by an upstanding Christian preacher (Rick Warren) with a piece of fiction written by a murderous paedophile and propagator of demonic deception (Mohammed). You should consider issuing an apology for this offensive piece of rhetoric.

1. Thanks for the encouragement. I’ll read the entire passage of Acts 17 next time. I never thought of doing that.

2. Thanks for the encouragement. I’ve reviewed Deut. 5 because I never thought of that. I haven’t found it at all relevant to anything I’ve written. Now for your points.

3. I was referring to what he said in the Areopagus. Clearly it was a different setting with a different mix of people than out in the synagogue and the marketplace. Granted, Luke likely didn’t give the entire conversation, but what he gave is enough to show his method of argument.

4. “Actually, Paul reflected to the Athenians their own admission that they had no clue about what they worshiped.”

Simply not true. I’ll try this again, though I hate repeating points hoping it takes better the second time. The Athenians weren’t admitting they had no clue. They were worshiping the unknown god. They weren’t not worshiping the unknown god. They’d built an altar to it! Paul disagrees with you as well. “What therefore you WORSHIP as unknown, THIS I proclaim to you.” Paul took the “unknown god” that the Athenians were worshiping, and named him the Creator and Judge of the world. That is clearly not what the Athenians thought of this god when they built the altar. Their goal was likely to cover their bases so they didn’t tick off a god they missed. They didn’t build an altar as a testament to their ignorance.

“Darby, just because you call your god “creator” and use certain terms from the Bible to describe your god – does not make it the Lord God.”

Well said. Maybe just a tweak. I, like you, have to speak with a variety of folks, which is why I’ve found this post fascinating. My wife has been building a relationship with a neighbor lady. When they first met, I think she believed in “god.” Now, if in conversation, my wife asked, “Do you believe in God?” our neighbor may have replied, “Yes, of course.” She didn’t necessarily mean Jesus. She meant some creator of her own making. But my wife isn’t wrong for beginning the conversation there. We know what we mean when we say God. I’m afraid some of the arguments here sound like Jehovah’s Witnesses, because they are adamant that Christians are wrong every time we use the word “God.” It’s Jehovah, they tell us, and every other name is idolatry. Well.

Yes, my wife didn’t leave it there, and our neighbor has been faithfully coming on Sunday mornings for a few months now. She seems to be understanding the fullness of the gospel well, and even shows signs of belief. We’re praying for God to “finish the job.”

I understand your point. If I say that I believe in god, when in my mind, that god is named “Nebo,” I need more than just understanding how to properly come to him. I’m trying to come to the wrong one altogether. There’s no right way to come to the wrong god.

Brother or Sister John 3:16,

First of all, the Gospel of God is the power of God unto salvation. The genitive of possession is God Himself.

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

You said, “The Muslim who hears FTME’s “testimony” is still going to hell at the end of the testimony.” I’m sure you realize that it is not FTME’s testimony that will send the Muslim to hell or heaven.

Good grief, this was just a testimony, not Calvin’s or Dr. Yarnell’s thesis on Justification. Nor was it meant to be the Gospel itself.

Second of all, the “40 Days of Purpose” is very offensive to many that read and study the bible. The saddest part of approximately 19 of the days is that it is fiction or ambiguity or lawkeeping (no gospel). Several years ago my mom called me from across the country one day. She said her church had passed out a book for them to read and study. As she began to read it,..it didn’t seem quite right, but she couldn’t put her finger on the problem. I ask her what the title of the book was,…and she said the “40 Days of Purpose”. I simply said give me the contact number for your Pastor, because he probably has not read the book very closely. She did, and as suspected the Pastor had not read the book, but was placing trust in its notoriety. I encouraged him to read the book. Several weeks later the study disappeared.

I honestly do use the “40 Day” book as an example how not to study the bible in our hermeneutics classes.

I didn’t mean to offend those that liked the book. It is not a harsh book to read, it is just tough to dig out the real meaning of the scriptures….on page 325 the author states that he “deliberately used paraphrases in order to help you see God’s truth in new, fresh ways.” That was not comforting to hear, but he was true to his word.

I also didn’t compare the two, I said I liken it to other books (using it as an example) to illustrate how not to study the bible. Similarly, I have used a translation of the Qu’ran for the same purpose to show inconsistencies when compared to the Word of God.

Blessings,
Chris

To all,

Just trying to test our new commenting plug in. Thank you all for your comments.

Blessings,
Tim

[...] Smith, a professor at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article for the blog SBCToday taking issue with a post on the blog SBCImpact written by an anonymous writer [...]