;)
Islam and Christianity – Defined
Posted by From the Middle East in Church & Missions
If I blurted out to you, “Friday night me and some friends are going to see some exotic dancers!” one Wednesday evening at prayer meeting, you might be somewhat shocked, even confused as to why I would be so bold with this confession of pre-meditated sin. However, if I told you there was an exhibition at the local community center about various tribes from Africa and one of the parts we were going to see on Friday night was traditional dancing, your perception would be a little different. Why? Because I defined what I meant by “exotic dancers.” Was the misunderstanding your fault because you assumed “exotic dancers” meant something “sinful” or was it my fault for not using a different expression that does not carry with it such a negative connotation in our culture? I do not know. What I do know is that whenever I am in a conversation, whether listening or speaking, I want understanding to take place. And I am willing to go out of my way, whether I am the speaker or listener, to see this happen!
The illustration above shows that words do have meanings. In fact, it shows that one word can mean many things to many different people. Different folks using the same word to represent different ideas in their respective minds is not really that big of a problem… as long as they never attempt to communicate with one another! However, communication is inevitable and when different people use common words with different meanings in an attempt to communicate with one another, it is often frustrating.
The title of this post implies we will look at the definitions of “Islam” and “Christianity.” We will. But first, please take a few moments to articulate how you define “Christianity” and then articulate how you define “Islam” as this will be helpful as we go through some different definitions of each. (Keep in mind Muslim and Christian are derivatives of Islam and Christianity respectively).
Christianity
Since we are all most familiar with Christianity, let us start here. It is my opinion that three broad ways of defining Christianity exist.
Definition One:
The first would be what many evangelicals would call the “biblical definition.” It might be expressed in a variety of ways, “a relationship with God,” “obedience to the Gospel,” “walking in the footsteps of Jesus,” “walking with Jesus,” “being with Jesus,” “God’s reconciliation of the world to himself,” etc, etc. The essence here is that living in the presence of God through obedience to what God has revealed to us in the Bible is what Christianity is all about.
Definition Two:
A second definition we might consider is that of a particular system. Perhaps one might define Christianity according to Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition or Syrian Orthodox doctrine and tradition, or even Protestant doctrine and tradition. Each of these systems is an attempt at figuring out how definition number one is to be expressed – lived out. These systems are often specific to a particular time and/or locale. There is nothing necessarily wrong with them, but they are certainly not the same as definition one. However they are derived from definition one.
Definition Three:
The third definition would be the cultural definition. Polls showing high percentages of Americans who consider themselves to be Christian immediately come to mind. The hustle and bustle of the Christmas season for many who have no concept of the significance of the Incarnation is something else that comes to mind. A divorce rate in the church that is equal to the overall divorce rate in the United States is another. It is cultural Christianity. Most of the West is influenced by Western Christianity (Protestantism and Roman Catholicism) in many ways. Many even consider themselves Christians but only because they were born in a particular place at a particular time… that is as far as it goes. “My parents were Baptist,” “my mother was a devout Presbyterian,” “I believe the Bible but have never read it,” etc, etc. This is the result of the strong influences of the “systems” of definition two upon a whole society. Thus, just as definition two is derived from definition one, definition three is derived from definition two.
Which category did your definition of Christianity fit into? None is necessarily right or wrong, but knowing how we use the word Christianity (and Christian) will greatly help us in communicating with others who may not use it in the same way.
Islam
As we look at the definition of “Islam,” we will use the same three categories we used for Christianity.
Definition One:
Just as definition one for Christianity represents the essence of what the Old and New Testaments call humanity to, definition one for Islam represents the essence of what the Generous Qur’an calls humanity to. Namely, to submit every aspect of their being to God. The word “Islam” literally means “submission” and even implies peace with God. This submission is accomplished through following the teachings of the prophets (from Adam to Abraham to Noah to John the Baptist to Jesus to Muhammad). To submit oneself fully to God and thereby be complete and at peace with Him is the essence of definition one.
Definition Two:
Just as definition two has to do with systems derived from definition one in Christianity, definition two for Islam is all of the traditions and resulting systems that are derived from definition number one (Shia, Sunni, Ishmaeli, Ibadi, etc.)
Definition Three:
Definition three for Islam also follows the pattern of definitions for Christianity in that it refers to “cultural Islam.” Muslims sleeping for hours during the day in order to stay up at night during the daylight fast of Ramadan is one example. Another example would be “honor killings” that have nothing to do with Islam (and are actually in direct conflict with Islamic jurisprudence), but seem to occur in many Muslim countries. Similar to Christianity, thousands, even millions of people who consider themselves Muslims do not fast during Ramadan each year, do not give to the poor, do not worship during the designated hours and never dust off a copy of the Generous Qur’an for spiritual guidance, but do consider themselves Muslims. They follow the acceptable cultural norms derived from the system(s) of their time and geographic area, but go no further. This is cultural Islam and, again, it is derived from the systems of definition two.
Which category did your definition of Islam fit into? None is necessarily right or wrong, but knowing how we use the word Islam (and Muslim) will greatly help us in communicating with others who may not use it in the same way.
A better way to categorize this information may exist. This is simply one way I have developed for coping with the varying ways people from different backgrounds use the terms “Christianity” and “Islam” and their derivatives. A few notes and questions are warranted here:
First, while definition two is derived from definition one and definition three from definition two, it is possible to belong to any of the three definitions without belonging to another. Going to the mosque once a week does not make someone a Muslim according to definition one or two anymore than going to a church building makes someone a Christian according to definition one or two. But neither does following one of the systems in definition two make someone a definition number one Muslim anymore than alignment with a particular Christian tradition makes someone a definition one Christian.
Second, what is written above makes no mention of how we address others who use a different definition than we do. A few possibilities seem to exist:
- Educate our conversation partners as to how we are using the word(s).
- Determine our conversation partners’ definition(s) for these words and adapt to their use(s) of the terms.
- Allow our friends to continue using the terminology in question according to their definition(s) while we continue using our own definitions.
It would seem to me there is neither a universal right nor wrong for all situations, but only a “better” or “best” that is dependent upon the situation. However, I am curious as to what you think?
Third, understanding what others mean when using a word is not just for “overseas missionaries.” I have often asked folks, even in the southern part of the United States what their definition for Christianity is… you might be surprised!
Fourth, while dealing with this language barrier is not only for Muslim ministry, it is absolutely essential if we desire to effectively communicate with our Muslim friends. I rarely encounter a Muslim who employs definition one in speaking of Christianity. Sometimes it is definition two, but the overwhelming majority of the time it is definition three. To the average Muslim, not only do Christians eat pork, but also get drunk at parties, are involved in all forms of sexual immorality, have no qualms with denigrating their esteemed prophet, support the “crusades” against the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples and historically are responsible for the slaughter of large numbers of Muslims during the Crusades of the Middle Ages. While we may not define Christianity in this way, they do and we must deal with it in some way.
Fifth, given the vast differences in the way “Christians” and “Muslims” define Christianity and Islam, we should take a serious look at ALL theological terminology we use. Redemption, incarnation, trinity, prophet, God, jihad, church, baptism, Son of God, even words we rarely consider theological in nature such as saved, love, family, community, etc need to be understood from their perspective prior to employing them in dialogue.
I am very interested in your thoughts on the different ways in which these words are used and the implications for communicating the Gospel Story. But, at the time of this posting, if all has gone as scheduled, I am in an airplane headed back to the States. Please do not allow this to stop conversation. I will do my best to interact with any comments posted today throughout the weekend and next week.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I have to take issue with one thing you said:
I take issue with this characterization of honor killings when you say they have nothing to do with Islam. You seem to refute your own thesis that definition three flows from or is a product of the previous definition. In the case of honor killings, it is true that honor killings have no sanction in the core Islamic texts. However, it is a result of attitudes instilled by Islam. You are right that words have meaning but ideas also have consequences. Honor killings are not something that “seems” to happen in Islamic countries. Two years ago, the Human Rights Commission estimated that approximately a thousand women are victims of honor killings every year in Pakistan. It is a pervasive phenomenon which follows Islam where ever it goes. Witness the numerous reports in Europe and now on the rise in the U.S. The only reason it is not as pervasive in the West is the restraining influence of Western culture/law. Also it is not reported as such by the politically correct media and the refusal of politically correct authorities to call a spade a spade for fear of offending the perpetually offended Islamic mindset.
What are the other elements of Islam found in definition one and two that make honor killings an Islamic cultural phenomenon? It is wife beating, polygamy, and the prosecution and murder of rape victims. All these are justified by Islamic law and are enshrined in Shari’a. Also these attitudes go a long way to excusing perpetrators of honor killings when perpetrators are prosecuted, then given light sentences and then pardoned or have their sentences commuted later. Also attempts to stiffen laws and penalties related to honor killings, female circumcision etc. are beaten down in Muslim law making bodies on the basis that it would be un-Islamic.
There has been a disconnect in the West among the three definitions of Christianity. When someone who calls himself a Christian seeks their way out of a marriage through divorce they are doing that in spite of the teachings of Jesus. When a Muslim kills his wife, daughter or mother to restore “honor” to his family he is being consistent with and “living out” his faith. A recent poll, I believe it was in Great Britain, found that a majority could not identify the reason (from your definition one) for the observance of Easter. Most of Europe and the U.S. is no longer Christian in the three definitions but Christianity has to take the rap for something it is not. I understand there are many reasons for this. The primary one is the church withdrew from culture in the last century and left it to the secularists to define our culture. Therein lies the problem you touch on. Muslims use the junk culture exported to the world as their definition of Christianity when in fact it is not. I lived in Turkey for some time and can remember going to fast food places such as MacDonald’s and Burger King. Inside the restaurants were TVs which always seemed to be broadcasting MTV music videos (not the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana variety either). No wonder the Muslim world has this distorted, grotesque definition of Christianity. Since Islam is a complete system which regulates all aspects of life, Muslims wrongly assume that Christianity is practiced in the same way and therefore all western cultural manifestations flow from Christianity. That may have been true some time ago but no longer.
Wow! Really good stuff! If you don’t mind I’d like to use this idea in my comparative religion classes. It’s very insightful!
When I began to read JBDay’s comment I thought the intent was to slam Islam. Upon further reading, I like what you said. However, there are quite a few practices in Christianity, when taken to the extreme that can also be harmful.
Great job!
Howie,
I am a little taken aback with your comment. Are you saying that pointing out a despicable, oppressive, misogynistic, and murderous practice such as honor killing could be construed as “slamming Islam.” I think it is speaking the truth. It would be “slamming Islam” only if my comments were untrue. Was William Wilberforce “slamming” slavery when he pointed out its oppressive aspects. I was trying to illuminate something that appeared to be minimized or glossed over in the original post.
Your stab at moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity displays a lack of understanding of the differences between the two I was putting forth. One of my points I was trying to get across is that when a Christian does something despicable, it is IN SPITE OF the teachings of Christ. When a Muslim kills his female relative for the sake of honor or wages jihad it is BECAUSE OF his following of the teachings of Muhammad. The Muslim is being a consistent Muslim and the Christian is not being a consistent Christian in my comparisons. Please enumerate some Christian practices that are harmful when taken to the extreme. I would submit they are no longer Christian when taken to the extreme.
Not here to argue dude. Thought I’d post a positive comment. Guess that was a waste of time.
Slavery, demanding store employees say “Merry Christmas,” using OT texts to support racism, etc.
Slavery? That is a common criticism. Certainly, the institution of slavery is found in the Bible. However this acknowledgement doesn’t mean Christianity/the Bible/God condoned it. No culture ever criticized the morality of slavery until recent times but you will notice it was Christians that did the questioning (see William Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas Clarkson, et. al.) Also the slavery practiced in the South was chattel slavery and quite different from the institution of slavery as it existed in Old and New Testament times. Without going into an involved explanation, chattel slavery was manstealing and the Bible does explicitly condemn slavery. Where? The answer is 1 Timothy 1:10, where Paul catalogs intolerable sins, including “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” That sounds pretty much like a very explicit statement naming slavery — literally, “man-stealing,” that is, the sin of buying or selling human beings. It is right there smack dab between homosexuality and habitual liars. Also, Exodus 21:16:
Anyone calling himself a Christian and engaged in slavery or using the Bible to justify it and its attendant racism is either not really a Christian or a very inconsistent sinning one. That includes southern slaveowners and the northerners who owned and operated the slave ships bringing the slaves here.
Having employees say Merry Christmas. Are you kidding?
The fact is religions aren’t some raw material or spiritual putty, which believers can fashion into anything they want. Anyone can do terrible things. But their frequency and volume are multiplied when the acts are enshrined by religious texts and encouraged by those who teach those texts as we see in all to often in Islam.
It seems to me that THE major definition, when it comes to contrasting the two systems of belief, is entirely absent from your trifold classification.
CHRISTIANITY: The system of belief claiming that the one true God is He who exists in three persons: God the Father; the incarnate, sinless, crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected God the Son (Jesus Christ); and God the Holy Spirit.
ISLAM: The system of belief claiming that the one true god is he who revealed himself to a series of prophets culminating in the ultimate and supreme revelation to Muhammad.
Any problem incorporating these two definitions into your schema?
Brother John B,
Thank you for your comments. You have my apologies for taking this long to respond. It seems there is more than one item to be addressed in your comments, so my responses will be in multiple comment form. This comment will deal with the question of why the concept of honor killings being placed in definition number three does not refute my thesis that three flows from two. The next comment will directly address honor killings and how Islamic or un-Islamic they are according to definitions one and two. Here we go…
Referring to honor killings and their placement being in definition three, you state:
I do understand where this concern comes from and would like to address it. But first, would like for you to reread both Definition Three of Christianity and Definition Three of Islam.
Having done so, you may have noticed both definitions include things that are not in definitions numbers one or two. Again, each successive definition is derived from the preceding definition but also includes things that are not part of the preceding definition. For a clearer understanding of this, you may consider definitions one and two for Christianity. Several concepts in definition two (Christmas celebration, worshipping on Sunday & Wednesday alone, the order of an “official service,” etc) are not found in definition one. However, they very well may be within some systems under number two. Some (the idea of three maji) are completely foreign to definition one but seem to have slipped into definition two.
The point is that while each definition is derived from the preceding, not all things associate with it are part of the preceding. Maybe we could say that each successive definition is a less clear picture of the preceding and is slightly cloudier due to additional things being added and sometimes essentials even being removed.
Hopefully this clears some of this up for you. Let me know if it does not. Or, would you recommend some changes to the definitions?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother John B,
I would submit to you that honor killings are part of definition number three as they are forbade in both definitions one and two. While execution (by stoning) is the appropriate penalty for adultery under definition two and 100 lashes (to BOTH participants) for fornication under definitions one and two, these penalties are to be carried out by a governing authority. Family members are not supposed to mete out justice, the governing authority is. I will agree that some portions of the definition two understanding of men and women has not helped the matter at all. However, remember that definition two is a system set up to try and “live out” definition number one in a particular time and place. In the case of most “systems” in Islam, the seventh century is the time and Arabia is the place – a time and place where family honor was of the utmost importance… go figure. You may want to check Leviticus 20 for the concept of honor (or dishonoring) in relation to sexual sin and the punishment God requires of it in the Scriptures. In addition Deuteronomy 22 is another portion of the Law that speaks to sexual relations between unmarried men and women.
With this in mind, I would like to address some of you comments. In speaking of honor killings you said:
If I am not mistaken, the cases in the West that have occurred were perpetrated by first of second generation folks from eastern cultures. I have yet to read of a case of a western “convert/revert” to Islam who participated in an honor killing (but am open on this point). The reason I bring this up is because this, coupled with cases of “Christians” in the East taking part in honor killings illustrates that honor killings are not driven by Islam but by culture. Again, no one is saying that third definition Islam makes it hard for someone to make the decision to “do” an honor killing, but definitions one and most systems within two certainly do not drive them to it.
You also said:
In the same way that Muslims (definition 3) have received a distorted view of definition one Christianity via definition three, I would say Christians (definition 3) have received a distorted view of definition one Islam via definition three.
In reference to support for honor killings coming from definitions one and two Islam, you said to me:
And to Brother Howie:
Again, this is simply not true for definition one (based upon the Generous Qur’an) and most systems within definition two (based on the Traditions, ancient and contemporary commentators – the Taliban being an obviously radical exception that remain unsupported by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world). And lest anyone be tempted to respond by proof-texting with out of context verses from any writings, I would ask that you properly exegete any Islamic writings as you would our own Scriptures.
Given that Islamic systems are typically “complete systems which regulate all aspects of life” based upon law, we might do better to compare Islamic systems with Old Testament laws and regulations which was designed to be an all-encompassing system as well. In helping with this we may note that the Generous Qur’an makes no distinction between adultery and fornication and applies a punishment of 100 lashes to both participants for such an act (definition one). Systems within definition two usually do distinguish between adultery and fornication by applying 100 lashes to fornication and death by stoning for adultery. Try comparing these with Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 22.
Apologies for the long response, but this information was not included in original post… not that I mind a good rabbit trail from time to time ;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Howie,
Use it however you want. But it’s just a start so don’t blame me for bad grades. Or are you the prof?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Bart,
Good question. Based on previous conversations we have had with regard to Islam and Christianity and your use of “God” for Christianity and “god” for Islam, it seems to me you are looking for a discussion of whether or not the Supreme Being in Christianity is the same being as the Supreme Being in Islam. If this is the case, I would recommend my post entitled God, Allah and Good News for Muslims found here.
I readily admit my perception may be off due to jet-lag today. If so, with regard to your definition of Christianity:
I would first point out that the definitions I propose are action oriented whereas your definition is a set of doctrinal points. While it is obvious that the actions listed in definitions one through three are directly related to one’s convictions, this is worth pointing out as definition one is not a list of doctrinal points. My contention would be that it would be impossible to spend time with God and not come to the conclusion that He is an eternally communal and loving God. In this sense, your definition could be placed into definition one. However, the wording/formula you use in articulating the triune nature of the Creator is obviously from one (or more) of the “systems” within definition two.
You define Islam as:
Again, I would point out that your definition is not action oriented, but would still place this definition of Islam into definition two due to the words “ultimate and supreme.” (The Generous Qur’an claims consistency with the message of previous prophets and even commands that no distinction is to be made between any of the prophets.) If you left out “ultimate and supreme,” it could possibly fit into definition one if you are implying that humanity should submit to the decrees of God as revealed through the writings of the prophets.
One item worth noting is that your use of the word “system(s)” three times in a short comment may indicate which definition you are defaulted to function within… Probably number two as it has to do with “systems” of thought and practice rather than the essence of what Christianity and Islam are all about. There is nothing wrong with this, it just seems to me we need to be aware of which definition we are working within.
Hopefully this answers your question. And thanks for stopping by – I always enjoy hearing your perspective!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
I know that honor killing is not sanctioned by the core Islamic texts. But if this practice is purely cultural then what about this citation I found in my research? Is this a legitimate ruling?
Since, in my reading, the vast majority of honor killings are committed by the father (sometimes in concert with the victim’s brother(s), uncles and even mothers of the victim) it appears there is some support in Islamic jurisprudence for the murder of offsprings. I know this citation doesn’t specifically mention what has come to be called honor killing but it does appear that Islam by this citation at least provides some religious cover for honor killings.
Also, given the high regard for the institution of family in Islam, one would think Islamic authorities would censor the practice after the fashion of the early church in its opposition of the Roman custom of infanticide and abortion.
Brother John B,
I hear what you are saying. Your first sentence:
seems to pretty much sum it up. Systems are faulty and I am not a big fan of definition two Islam for this reason.
The ruling you cited is from a very famous book on Shafi’i Islam (one of the madhab of Sunni Islam). I have read some from this book online and am under the impression that it never condones “retaliation” apart from the “ruler” being present. It actually commands the opposite – that no retaliation take place without the ruler who can properly apply fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). I do need to get a copy of this book and read through it as it is very relevant and quoted often, but have not done so yet so I cannot speak to whether or not discipline (different than retaliation in my understanding, but I am open to correction on this one) is applied to men who mete out the death penalty to family members. I do know that 80 lashes is the punishment for anyone who wrongly accuses a chaste woman of zina (adultery or fornication) and it is actually considered in the same category as shirk (associating partners with God) in one hadith.
Again, I understand your concern and think that this is driven more by culture. However Islam was definitely influenced by the culture it was born into and thus definition two does not seem to make a strong enough stand against honor killings in my opinion. I think the difference between the way we are viewing this is that you seem to think Islam is driving honor killings whereas I would say culture drives them and Muslims stand by and let them happen.
His grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Just to clear up this “action” vs. “doctrine” business…
There is a difference between defining “Christianity” and stipulating “what makes one a Christian.” It seems to me that the post confuses the two. I, for example, can correctly identify Islam although I am in no sense a Muslim.
We act because of what we believe. Belief gives rise to action. I believe that my house is on fire; therefore, I call 9-1-1. I believe that abortion is murder and that the blood of innocent babies is on the hands of any nation that would condone their killing; therefore, I vote for John McCain. I believe that the One True God is the Trinity revealed in the Bible. Let those holding various positions with regard to the ordo salutis debate what agency brought me into that belief. But having come to that persuasion, I sought refuge in the blood of Christ for my forgiveness and salvation, entering into the “living in the presence of God” that you have mentioned above as a consequence of having fully accepted certain doctrinal convictions about who God is and what He expects of me.
I will clearly state that, no matter what a person will affirm as beliefs (to one degree or another) about God, only those who have such firm beliefs (let’s call them convictions, if that clarifies the matter) as to have acted upon them. “Belief” apart from “action” does not make one a Christian.
Of course, that statement itself is nothing more than a “belief.” And it is among the beliefs that define what Christianity is. And perhaps it is necessary to include that bit of phraseology in addition to what I have mentioned above in order to have a definition fully-orbed enough to probe the varying definitions of Christianity and Islam.
Nevertheless, I also want to press you firmly and affirm certainly that the beliefs I stipulated above do constitute a sine qua non for Christianity. Act all you wish and “live in the presence” of whatever you imagine, but if you do not share a conviction regarding the truths given above, whatever else you may be, you are not a Christian and your faith cannot be included under the umbrella of Christianity.
As to the second definition, no honest definition of Islam can short-sell the role of Muhammad in that belief-system. Muslims accept what Muhammad has claimed about who god is. He is the definitive figure of the religion, and affirmation of his definitive role is part-and-parcel of every mainstream variant of Islam. “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.”
To put it bluntly: Muslims worship Muhammad’s god; Christians worship God as revealed by Jesus.
Come to think of it, that last sentence may be definition enough for us all.
Brother Bart,
You said:
The author of Hebrews writes that they “were unable to enter because of unbelief” which he defined in the preceding series of questions as rebellion, sin and disobedience. So, I agree with what you said… as long as we are talking about definition one of Christianity… knowing you, I am sure we are ;^)
You also said:
Your stipulated beliefs were:
Is it your contention that an understanding of the triune nature of God is necessary for new life to begin? If so, I am afraid many of us had a horrendous false sense of security as immature believers. Even now, I do not fully understand the mystery of God’s nature… is this necessary for a relationship to begin? Or is it possible that a simple understanding that “the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures and that he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve” is enough for the relationship to begin and then God will reveal more fully who He is as we grow closer to Him and this will cause change in our lives?
Then again, if you are referring to definition three of Christianity, please disregard the paragraph above… and I assure you that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, when they heard the word “Christianity” or “Christian,” are thinking in terms of definition three.
As to your concern that one might “short-sell the role of Muhammad in that belief-system,” I’m not sure who is doing such a thing. The Generous Qur’an clearly states that no distinction is to be made between the prophets and that Muhammad is nothing new among them but that his message was the final one and consistent with the prophets who came before him.
And concerning you statement:
I would again refer you to God, Allah and Good News for Muslims.
But I am curious as to whether or not you see the value in understanding the different ways different people define words? Would you throw the idea out? Do you have a different way of “categorizing” definitions of Islam and Christianity?
God’s peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
I think that definitions often define the endpoint of a discussion. They are almost incalculably important. I think it is a very important question that you have opened here, or I would not have troubled myself to opine.
I believe that the rejection of any of the things that I have stated above will ipso facto prevent even the beginning of the relationship. Do not conflate understanding something fully with not rejecting it. I do not understand the nature of God fully now, nor do I anticipate that moment coming soon. But I have not rejected any of these truths central to our faith. Do you believe that one can reject the Trinity and yet be a Christian?
Finally, with regard to “distinction…between the prophets,” the simple truth is that nobody else’s name is in the Shahadah. I’m not from the Middle East or anything, but I’d say that something that every Muslim repeats multiple times every day probably gives us a clue about Muslim belief, however you wish to define it.
Oops. I see that I missed your last question. Here’s my categorization:
1. Christians.
2. Lost people.
Brother Bart,
You said:
Thank you for the clarification that it is not misunderstanding, but rejection that prevents the beginning of the relationship. I’m sure even the Apostles appreciate this leniency ;^)
You asked if I “believe one can reject the Trinity and yet be a Christian.” I do think many may struggle with the concept, just as one might struggle with the idea of not beating his wife any longer because she is made in God’s image or the idea that all we are and possess belongs to God and is not ours to do with as we please because He is inherently worthy. But, at the end of the day, those who are in the Kingdom will accept the triune nature of God as true. At the same time, I refuse to set a timeline on how long it takes the Spirit to convict/teach someone a particular truth concerning God… it has taken me years to learn some things and my future hold many more years of the same if God grants.
With regard to the Islamic Creed and Muhammad’s role in Islam… okay. I have yet to say here or anywhere else that Muhammad is not an important figure and not considered the “Seal of the Prophets” by Muslims. And I’m sure you would agree that the primary text in Islam saying no distinction should be made between the prophets does not contradict this either.
And finally, in response to #16 I simply say:
;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
FTME,
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that one can reject the Trinity and yet be a Christian, but that such a one, although he rejects the Trinity, will someday reverse course and accept the Trinity. Do I correctly understand you?
Brother Bart,
What I am saying is that the formula you so neatly and succinctly provided for us on this comment thread:
is found nowhere, clearly stated as you have, in the Holy Scriptures. I do agree that the concepts are there and that it is a true statement. But as Muslims come to understand more fully who the Creator is and how His nature impacts our lives, I would expect them to search the Scriptures and accept what is revealed therein. Yes, they may struggle with this and that is okay. In my view it would be healthier for them to throw a portion of the Holy Scriptures into a river because they do not understand how two seemingly contradictory concepts can both be true (one essence and three persons… or faith and works) and then come back to accept it later, as opposed to simply accepting another’s creedal statement as true without struggling with the text.
I am curious if you have ever questioned God’s goodness while looking upon evil in the world or how faith and works are both essential in the believer’s life or asked God why He has forsaken you or have you ever denied our all-worthy Creator the surrendering all of your material possessions for the advancement of His Kingdom or surely, at some point in your life, you have questioned how God can be three and yet one? Do you not struggle with God? I know that you do brother. Would you be so kind as to allow our brothers and sisters who come from different backgrounds to do the same – even if their areas of struggle are different than ours?
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
FTME and Bart,
At the risk of butting into yet one more discussion, I offer the following observation (or question) here as well (see my most recent comment on Dave Samples most recent post):
At what point in time did “the 12″ cross the line from being “non-Christians” to being “Christians”? At first thought, this may seem like an anachronistic way to pose the question. But, I believe it is relevant for the present discussion.
Of course, one’s eternal destiny is in the hand of the Father. And I do believe that our doctrinal beliefs do play a role here. But, I also believe that Christian discipleship is a process, and not just a point in time. I believe the Engel’s scale is helpful here, if you are both familiar with that.
FTME,
It seems to me that you are providing the rationale for an answer to my question without actually providing the answer. I’m not trying to browbeat you here. It’s just that I and most people who read this thread are going to walk away with some idea about what your answer to my question was. I know that I’ll draw a conclusion about that. I’d rather not conclude in error and have lurking around in my brain a misconception as to your viewpoint.
It seems to me that your #19 is a defense of an unstated “Yes” answer to my #18.
The prof.
Brother David R,
I honestly do not know when they “crossed the line,” but neither am I confident this is for me to know. It seems that our role is to serve others by helping them take the next step towards God whether they are in the Kingdom or still considering it from a distance. Regardless of where someone is, I am to proclaim His Kingdom and call others to full obedience to God and full participation in His Kingdom.
How would you answer your question?
His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother Bart,
I have reread my answer/rationale in #18 and do not think it was ambiguous. It seems that you understand quite well what I was saying. I would however caution you that there could be a difference between struggle and rejection. A difference that, when applied to this situation, might only be truly known by One who can peer into the soul of a man.
At any rate, it seems you understand the gist of what I was attempting to communicate. Care to take a shot at my questions to you in comment 19?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Apologies, the first sentence should read:
FTME,
It seems to me there is a legitimate biblical tension between one-point-in-time soteriology expressed in passages such as John 5:24 – “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he HAS CROSSED OVER from death to life” – and a lifetime process of growth, both in understanding and commitment, in Christian discipleship. It also seems that, in contemporary evangelicalism, we have over-emphasized the “one-point-in-time” aspect to the detriment of the “lifetime process” aspect. I also believe that God sees from a perspective of eternity, having “foreknown” those that are His from before the beginning of time. Thus, the importance of the actual point in time takes on a certain secondary status. I want to be careful here to make clear that I AM NOT saying there is not a clear moment in time when individuals repent of their sin, trust in Jesus, and cross over from death into life. I do believe that. But, when we look at other people’s spiritual pilgrammage, it can sometimes be very difficult to accurately assess this moment. From a NT point of view, it seems like water baptism is about a clear of a marker of this as there is. In general, the baptized were considered to be Christian disciples, and the unbaptized not. Unfortunately, however, 2,000 years of church tradition have blurred the distinction between public profession of faith in Christ and water baptism.
According to the Engel’s scale, there are stages of pre-conversion Christian growth and stages of post-conversion Christian growth. While it is undoubtedly true that only those who actually cross the threshold of “point 0″ (or conversion) on the Engel’s scale have crossed over from death into life, I think we can also affirm that those who are still on some negative point on the scale (a point of pre-conversion growth) are also on the path, in one way or another, of Christian discipleship. And, if indeed, they are among the elect, we will eventually spend eternity with them in heaven.
As far as “the 12″ are concerned, there are many factors that complicate the answer we might give to the question. For example, when were they baptized in water? Was this baptism the equivalent of John’s baptism (Acts 18:25; 19:3-4) or was it authentic Christian baptism? Is it possible they were baptized twice? Was Peter “saved” when he his confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God? Or was it when Jesus breathed on him, and said “receive the Holy Spirit”? Or, afterwards, on the Day of Pentecost? It is hard to say. But, I would say that he was already on the path of Christian discipleship before any of these occurrences. When could we legitimately call him a “Christian”? It all depends on your perspective.
I think much of the same could be said in response to the questions posed in your original post, as well as in the subsequent discussion between you and Bart.
Brother David R,
What you said.
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Br. Bart:
Some times we act on what we believe, but just as often we believe in something because we ACT on it. In older forms of Christianity we call it liturgy and ritual.
Also, the concise essence of the Scriptural kernel that one must believe to be baptized is contained in the Apostle’s Creed. (Though you suggestion is not bad, people don’t just get to summarize the heart of the faith according to their own minds–that is the prerogative of the holy catholic Church.) The Apostle’s creed is mostly narrative and historical, not doctrinal, and certainly does not delineate an explicitly Trinitarian doctrine.
Salam.
ابو داود