SEVEN REVELATIONS OF FERGUSON

by Dan Phillips

I was just as happy to have my plans to write on this yesterday curtailed by Frank's post, as I usually am. It gave me a day more to ponder. That done — the ponderation having been ponderously pondered — I'll offer some thoughts, which in intent will be very like those I offered about "the Florida revival." That is, they will be Biblical principles whose application is I think fairly obvious.

Frank's focus was on the undeniable human tragedy. I won't reinvent that wheel, but will focus on other aspects. I hope the posts will be complementary. Don't blame his post for not being mine, nor mine for not being his. Fair enough?

To the seven revelations of Ferguson:

First: men outside of Christ are still hateful and still hate each other (Titus 3:3). Anger simmers not far below the surface. Evolution, real or imagined, biological or social, has changed none of that. No Federal program will fix it, no state or local legislation will fix it. It is a problem of the human heart, which lurks beneath every epidermal hue. Someone needs to propose a solution that transforms hearts. Anyone know of one?

Second: it still is better to gather the facts and hear an array of perspectives before coming to a conclusion (Proverbs 18:17). Some spoke awfully quickly when this situation first made the news. There seemed to be some feeling that immediate conclusions and statements should be made and issued.

One of the problems with this is that, once a public statement has been made, one is reluctant to walk it back publicly. Human nature and human pride make it very hard to retract a dogmatic stance, once publicly adopted. Better to wait longer and say less, than to jump the gun (pun unintended) and say too much.

Third: people ought to stick to what they know (cf. Proverbs 25:14). Being an expert in one area has nothing to do with expertise in others. For instance, one Christian brother who is a bookish conference speaker/author offered this:

To that, an equally-Christian brother with twenty years of actual experience in law enforcement responded:

Neither brother, probably, could do what the other does. It might have been well for the former to punt on this question, and stick with Scripture. "A man's got to know his limitations" may not be in Scripture verbatim, but it's sage advice.

As I'm trying to do. I'm a Christian, and I'm a minister of the word of God. If I have expertise, it's there. So I'll endeavor to speak as such.

Fourth: the very best thing parents of all ethnicities can do for their children is (1) repent and believe savingly in Christ (1 John 3:16), (2) advance in His Word as genuine disciples (John 8:31-32), (3) involve themselves in a faithful Gospel-proclaiming, Bible-teaching church (Hebrews 10:24-25), (4) marry before having children and honor the marital bond (Matthew 19:3-9) — and, in that overall context, (5) raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4, among many others). In that context, they will teach their children many indispensable life-lessons. For instance, they will teach their children that

• The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10)
• Therefore they should seek and cultivate and embrace the fear of God from their earliest days (Proverbs 2:1ff.)
• Gangs will appeal to their most vulnerable points, but they must consider their violent end and heed the inscripturated voice of God's wisdom instead (Proverbs 1:10-32)
• Immoral people will sweet-talk them, but by Dad's instruction and God's word they should see right through it (Proverbs 2:16ff; 7:1ff.)
• They should pick godly friends who walk in the fear of God, or else they will come to harm (Proverbs 13:20; 22:24-25)
• They should avoid drunkards (and, therefore, druggies; Proverbs 23:20-21)
• They should study hard in school and learn a profitable skill while children (Proverbs 22:29)
• They should know that what will matter and will reveal their character is not how they see or feel about themselves, but what they actually produce (Proverbs 20:11)
• They should take full responsibility for their own choices and actions, and never blame others for what they choose and do (Ezekiel 18:4, 20; Romans 14:10, 12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Galatians 6:5, 7-8, etc.).
• They should never steal, but instead should be productive and generous (cf. Ephesians 4:28)
• They should respect officers of the law as God's servants, knowing that disrespect for the office is disrespect for God which invites His judgment (Romans 13, especially vv. 1-5)
• If they defy the lawful authority, they should expect God's judgment to fall on them (Romans 13:4-5a).
• If in any of these things they choose to defy God and rebel against Him and His word, they must expect both of their parents to stand with God, and not to make excuses for, coddle, enable, or otherwise try to deodorize their sin (cf. Deuteronomy 21:18ff.)

Fifth: faithful pastors must prescribe and teach these things without prejudice (2 Timothy 2:14; Titus 3:1-2).  What I'm saying won't make the beautiful people love you. They won't. They won't praise you (as a Tweep did John Piper) for being "nuanced." You'll be told you're insensitive, you're ignoring the real problems, you're impractical. But as a minister of the Gospel, you know better. Sin is the problem. Sin is always the problem at some level; and there's only one solution for sin. The Son's blood buys your freedom (Ephesians 1:7), and the Son's word shows you how to live in it (John 8:31-32). 

That's what you have to give. You're not a social engineering genius. You're a servant of God who has His word. Don't set it aside. It applies here.

Sixth: if the issue of racism is ever to be resolved, people will have to stop thinking of bitterness and suspicion and resentment and prejudice as ills that other people really have to get over (cf. Romans 2:21-23; 1 Corinthians 10:12). Now, hear me: If you can read that sentence and think, "Well, he mainly means whites" or "blacks," you know something I don't. I mean people. I mean you, I mean me. I mean every color on the palette.

I've seen this in marriage. Every pastor has. The sure prescription for deadlock, for stalemate, is two people who are willing to change just as soon as the other person changes. You think that doesn't apply here? Mercy.

Seventh: the only real solution for racism is the one God instituted: the cross of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:28-29; Ephesians 2:14-22; Colossians 3:11). Astute readers will say, "Some of those verses are about Jews and Gentiles, so they don't apply." To that, first: maybe some of those verses are, but not all; and second, they don't? You think the Cross addresses Jew-Gentile hatred and suspicion and contempt, but not black-white hatred and suspicion and contempt?

There isn't a Federal program that will fix this, or a local one. If one person says, "Let's make it harder for cops to kill people," another will say "Let's make it harder for people to menace cops." And each person will sound like he's enabling some form of sin — either a hypothetical thug's sin against a decent cop, or a hypothetical trigger-happy cop's sin against an innocent teen. You see where this goes? It's all beside the point.

The point is that only God has the answer, and it's the one we find only in His word.

WHAT IF MODERN MISSIONAL CELEBRITY PASTORS HAD EXISTED IN THE EARLY CHURCH?

A satire

Written by Andy Webb | Monday, September 9, 2013

I‘ve often wondered what it would have sounded like if they’d had the modern “missional” celebrity pastors in the early church, and how they would have handled issues like Roman pressure to compromise on the Lordship of Christ or the exclusivity of Christianity. I sense it might have gone something like this:

Archaeologists working in Turkey have recently uncovered what they believe to be a 2nd Century fragment from an ancient interview with popular Lycus Valley Presbyter, Elder Lew Dicean, which occurred shortly after the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The fragment is part of a larger scroll, with the Latin Title “TEMPUS” and dated February, 157. Here is what they have translated so far:

“T: So what do are your thoughts?
L: What, the Polycarp thing?
T: Yes
L: Well it’s hard to criticize such a well known guy who’d been in ministry for so long, but I can’t get away from thinking, ‘Come on guys, its just a pinch of incense!’ I mean, think about it, we Christians already support the Roman state in so many ways every day. We pay the taxes that go to build those temples, buy the incense, and make the busts of Caesar! And we even use money that has his image on it already. And hey, who doesn’t worship that just a little, right?
I’m looking forward to a juicy steak tonight that my wife cooks so well – mind you I’m not ‘THAT’ guy, I cook too, it’s just not my night – and I know that steak came from a bull sacrificed in the name of Caesar. So aren’t I kind of a hypocrite if I declare Caesar is Lord in the secular realm in all those ways, but refuse to burn a little incense and say three words?
T: But don’t Christians view that as a compromise?
L: Look, all of us, Christian, Pagan, Jew, Zorastrian, whatever, have to compromise our religious faith a little to be good citizens of the empire. It’s the price of citizenship. And let’s face it, NOT burning incense doesn’t get you into heaven. I think in the future, you’re going to see more Christians seeing this as a political and not a religious issue, and attitudes about whether mixing politics and religion has been healthy are definitely changing.
T: So where do you draw the line?
L: Well, not where Polycarp did. I know he had his reasons, but I think there’s this unhealthy fascination with martyrdom amongst some Christians who see Christianity in this very aggressive, confrontational light that just turns modern people off. We need to engage not enrage the culture. One of our guys, Paul, once wrote in one of his letters – and I have this beautiful framed copy at home – “become all things to all men.” To me, that says I must first become a good Roman before I earn the privilege of being able to tell them about Jesus. So for me, the incense is just part of “becoming a Roman” so that I can win Romans. I think in the future you’re to see less of that martyr in your face Christianity that makes enemies and more of the “Compromissional approach” that I favor…

Andy Webb is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church America and serves as Pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church in Fayetteville, NC. This article first appeared on his blog and is used with permission.

TOLERANT INTOLERANT

John MacArthur
Post-modernism's veneration of tolerance is its most obvious feature. But the version of "tolerance" peddled by post-modernists is actually a twisted and dangerous corruption of true virtue.
Incidentally, tolerance is never mentioned in the Bible as a virtue, except in the sense of patience, forbearance, and longsuffering (cf. Ephesians 4:2.) In fact, the contemporary notion of tolerance is a pathetically feeble concept compared to the love Scripture commands Christians to show even to their enemies. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you" (Luke 6:27-28; cf. vv. 29-36).
When our grandparents spoke of tolerance as a virtue, they had something like that in mind. The word used to mean respecting people and treating them kindly even when we believe they are wrong. But the post-modern notion of tolerance means we must never regard anyone else's opinions as "wrong." Biblical tolerance is for people; post-modern tolerance is for ideas.
Accepting every belief as equally valid is hardly a real virtue, but it is about the kind of only "virtue" post-modernism knows anything about. Traditional virtues (including humility, self control, and chastity) are openly scorned -- and even regarded as transgressions -- in the world of post-modernism.
Predictably, the beatification of post-modern tolerance has had a disastrous effect on real virtue in our society. In this age of tolerance, what was once forbidden is now encouraged. What was once universally deemed immoral is now celebrated. Marital infidelity and divorce have been normalized. Profanity is commonplace. Abortion, homosexuality, and moral perversions of all kinds are championed by large advocacy groups and enthusiastically promoted by the popular media. The post-modern notion of "tolerance" is systematically turning genuine virtue on its head.
Just about the only remaining taboo is the naive and politically incorrect notion that another person's "alternative lifestyle," religion, or different perspective is wrong.
One major exception to that rule stands out starkly: it is OK for post-modernists to be intolerant of those who claim they know the truth -- particularly biblical Christians. In fact, those who fancy themselves the leading advocates of tolerance today are often the most outspoken opponents of evangelical Christianity.
Look on the Web, for example, and see what is being said by the self styled champions of "religious tolerance." What you'll find is a great deal of intolerance for Bible based Christianity. In fact, some of the most bitterly anti-Christian material on the World Wide Web can be found at sites supposedly promoting religious tolerance.
Why is that? Why does authentic biblical Christianity find such ferocious opposition from people who think they are paragons of tolerance? It is because the truth-claims of Scripture -- and particularly Jesus' claim to be the only way to God -- are diametrically opposed to the fundamental presuppositions of the post-modern mind. The Christian message represents a death blow to the post-modernist worldview.
But as long as Christians are being duped or intimidated into softening the bold claims of Christ and widening the narrow road, the church will make no headway against post-modernism. We need to recover the distinctiveness of the gospel. We need to regain our confidence in the power of God's truth. And we need to proclaim boldly that Christ is the only true hope for the people of this world.
That may not be what people want to hear in this pseudo-tolerant age of post-modernism. But it is true nonetheless. And precisely because it is true and the gospel of Christ is the only hope for a lost world, it is all the more urgent that we rise above all the voices of confusion in the world and say so.

---

Related Resources (free):

• Error Intolerant (articles)
• God's Generous Response to Boldness in Prayer (sermons)
• Does God allow Satan to test us? (questions)
• How long does it take you to prepare a sermon? (questions)

Related Products (to purchase):

• The Truth War (Hardcover) (books)
• What's So Dangerous About the Emerging Church? (audio-lessons)
• Why Biblical Christianity Is Intolerant in an Age of Tolerance (audio-lessons)
• Why We Believe the Bible is True (dvds)

QUESTION : " HOW SHOULD A CHRISTIAN VIEW GUN CONTROL ? "

Answer: The recent shootings across the United States have caused much heartache. The senseless and tragic incidents have also renewed the intensity of discussion regarding American gun laws. Politicians, sportsmen, and theologians have all weighed in on the issue of gun control. Guns are readily available in the U.S., and ownership is protected by the Constitution. How should a Christian view gun control? What does the Bible have to say that would apply to gun control?

The Bible was written long before the invention of any type of gun, so the phrase “gun control” will not be found in Scripture. However, the Bible records many accounts of wars, battles, and the use of weapons. Warfare is presented as an inevitable part of living in a fallen world (Mark 13:7; James 4:1), and weaponry is a necessary part of warfare. Weapons in the Bible were also used for personal protection. In some parts of Israel, robbers were common (see Luke 10:30), and many people carried weapons when they traveled. Carrying a weapon for self-defense is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, it was mentioned in a positive light by Jesus Himself on one occasion (Luke 22:35-38).

Christians are called to submit to governing authorities, and they are to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). This would have to apply to gun laws, too. If American gun laws change, American Christians should submit to these changes and work through democratic means toward any desired alternatives. The Bible does not forbid the possession of weapons, and neither does it command such possession. Laws may come and go, but the goal of the believer in Jesus Christ remains the same: to glorify the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Another biblical principle to consider is that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus said this to Peter when Peter tried to mount an imprudent “defense” of Jesus against the mob that had come to arrest Him. Peter’s actions were not only futile against such a “large crowd armed with swords and clubs” (verse 47), but his rash behavior also belied Jesus’ submissive attitude (verse 50) and worked against the fulfillment of Scripture (verse 54). There is “a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8), and Peter confused the two.

Christianity supports personal freedom. Romans 14:1-4 indicates that, when Scripture does not clearly address a particular issue, there is freedom for individual choice. America has historically embraced the concept of personal freedom that resonates with this principle, and the founding documents guarantee wide freedoms regarding firearms. Some point to Matthew 5:9, in which Jesus pronounces a blessing on the peacemakers, and apply it to the issue of gun control. The idea is that guns are antithetical to peace. This may be more of a philosophical or political idea than a theological one, however. There is nothing theologically, or even logically, that links guns to a lack of peace; sometimes, guns help maintain civil peace.

Debates over whether to control guns or how much to control them depend largely on political and philosophical arguments, not moral ones. This is not to say that there is no moral component to the issue. Obviously, the gun itself is amoral, an object that can be used for good or for evil. More important is the morality of the person wielding the gun, and that is too often the missing consideration in the gun control argument. The fact that some sinners use guns to commit sin does not mean guns are the problem. Sin is the problem, and that’s a moral and spiritual issue. Since the very beginning of humanity, people have been killing other people, with and without weapons (see Genesis 4). Taking a certain weapon out of circulation might make murder more difficult but by no means impossible.

As far as the Bible is concerned, the use of guns is a matter of personal conviction. There is nothing unspiritual about owning a gun or knowing how to use one. There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself or loved ones, even if it involves the use of weapons. We need not pretend there is never a need for guns, but pointing a gun at a person should always be a last resort. We should seek to neutralize threats without violence whenever possible.

So, how should a Christian view gun control? With the authority God has entrusted to it, the government has the right to allow or disallow gun ownership to whatever degree it deems right. We, as citizens, are called to submit to whatever gun control laws the government institutes. This is not, however, a statement on the wisdom of gun control. There are good reasons to allow law-abiding citizens to own guns. Ultimately, guns are not the problem. Sinful people are the problem.

Recommended Resource: Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem.

METHODS USED BY MUSLIMS TO ATTACK CHRISTIANITY

by Matt Slick

When dealing with Muslims it is wise to understand some of the approaches used by them to discredit Christianity.  Much could be written on each of the following subjects with numerous examples.  But, instead, I will simply expound on the areas common among Muslim approaches and point out what to watch for.

No. 1      Attack the validity of the Bible

This is expected.  If the Muslim can undermine the strength and integrity of God's word, then it would be much easier for him to win arguments, confound the Christian, and make converts of those who don't know the truth and power of the Bible.  This is what the devil did in the Garden of Eden.  Satan said, "You truly will not die," (Gen. 3:4).  I am not calling Muslims satanic.  I am simply pointing out that that is how deception begins, by bringing doubt upon God's word, and that this is exactly what Muslims do.  They try and get people to doubt the Bible and then tell you how great Islam is.  Various methods are used here to accomplish this:

1. Stating that the Bible has numerous contradictions
   1. Of course, I cannot go through all the alleged Bible contradictions here (See the Bible Difficulties section for more explanation).  But my observation has been that the majority of "biblical contradictions" raised by Muslims are nothing more than examples of their lack of understanding of biblical theology and context.  Always read the context of verses.  Don't let a Muslim simply state that there are contradictions and leave it at that.  Ask him to give you one.  If you cannot answer it, do research and get back to him.  Sure, there are some tough areas of Scripture, but there are no contradictions in God's Word.1
2. Criticizing the lack of original manuscripts
   1. The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted.  They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.  Of course, what they fail to mention is:
      1. The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate. In fact, we have around 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. So much so, that no major area of Christian doctrine is affected by possible variations among manuscripts (click here for more details).2
      2. Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down.  There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit.  So how could he have verified its truth?
      3. Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid.  Why?  Is it because Zaid's copy was better?  If so, how do we know?  Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division?  It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility.
      4. Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved.  But, the mere claim is not enough.  It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.
3. Claiming that the Bible is false because it contradicts the Koran (Qur'an).
   1. This is simply begging the question.  That means that one assumes the validity of the thing that he is trying to prove.  The Muslim assumes the validity of the Qur'an and because it contradicts the Bible, the Bible is wrong.  Well, the Christian can just as easily state that the Koran is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.  But the Muslims would not accept that.  Therefore, why should we accept their argument?

No. 2      Attempt to set Paul against Jesus

Muslims often make the claim that Paul never met Jesus and was not a disciple or apostle of Jesus.  Of course, this is not true.  Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in Acts 9, after Jesus' resurrection.  Jesus spoke to him and commissioned him.  So, Paul met Jesus.  Furthermore, Paul visited the Jerusalem apostles Peter, James, and John who affirmed Paul's mission and message (See Gal. 2:9. Also, see the context ofGalatians 1:18 - 2:10.)  Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus, personally authenticated Paul's writings by calling them scripture in 2 Pet. 3:15-16.  If they are inspired, then they cannot contradict Jesus' words.

In addition, many Muslims claim that Jesus never claimed to be God and that Paul is the one who wrote that Jesus was God.  First of all, if they admit that Paul wrote that Jesus was God, then remind them of 2 Pet. 3:15-16where Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture and affirms Paul's message in Gal. 2:9.  Nevertheless, they sometimes assert that Paul hijacked Christianity and took it over and made Jesus into something He was not.  This claim is false.

Perhaps the primary area where Muslims think Paul and Jesus contradict is in the area of who Jesus is.  Paul states that Jesus is God in flesh:  Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form," (cf. Rom. 9:5).  Muslims assert that no where in the Gospels did Jesus claim to be God.  Therefore, they claim, Paul's words are not true and the Bible is not trustworthy.

This attack by Muslims is an attack based out of opinion.  Jesus did claim to be God.   In John 8:56-59, Jesus says, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." ⁵⁷The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"  ⁵⁸Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." ⁵⁹Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."3 Why did the Pharisees want to kill Jesus?  They explain their reason in John 10:33when they say, "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God," (KJV).  Whether or not the Muslim will accept this, let alone agree that this is correct, matters little because his presupposition will not allow him to accept, no matter what.  Nevertheless, the text clearly states that the Pharisees understood that Jesus was claiming to be God.  Also, consider John 5:18 where the Apostle John says, "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God," (KJV). In this verse Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees thought He was breaking the Sabbath law.  John the Apostle also states that when Jesus claimed that God was His Father, that it was "making himself equal with God." The Muslim will always find a way to argue out of these texts.  But, two facts remain.  First, Jesus claimed to be God.  Second, the Pharisees denied that Jesus was God and the Muslims agree with them.

There are other areas that the Muslims will say are where Jesus and Paul do not agree, but when they bring it up, always ask for an example.  Each time I've done this, I've discovered that the Muslim did not have a sufficient understanding of what the text is saying.  Remember, always read the context.

No. 3      Misrepresentation of Christian doctrine

Sadly, this is a very common error of the Muslims.  The single greatest instance of this is in the doctrine of theTrinity.  Muslims so often attack a false understanding of the Trinity by stating that it is three gods.  That is not the correct Christian definition of the Trinity doctrine.  Christianity does not teach there are three gods.  It never has and it never will.  The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God who exists in three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Trinitarianism is monotheistic.  If a Muslim continues to proclaim that the Trinity is three gods, then I simply stop discussing the issue with him because he is not willing to accept what the definition is and it isn't possible to have a meaningful dialogue.

Another Christian doctrine they fail to understand is the Hypostatic Union.  This is the teaching that Jesus is one person with two natures.  He is both God and man as is declared in Col. 2:9, "For in Him [Jesus] dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Because Jesus was also a man, we have verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says "the Father is greater than I." Muslims will say that if Jesus is God, how could He be greater than Himself?  Of course, they fail to understand the Trinity (three persons) and they fail to understand that Jesus, as a man (Phil. 2:5-8), cooperated with the limitations of being a man and was in a lower position than the Father (Heb. 2:9) for a while (See: "The Ontological and Economic Trinity" for more explanation.).

Sometimes Muslims refuse to accept Christian explanations for things because it doesn't fit their agenda nor their preconceived ideas of what they think Christianity is.  Oddly enough, Christians often contribute to this problem by offering inadequate and sometimes erring explanations of Christian doctrine.  Thus, many Muslims are led into error regarding what Christianity really teaches.  Christians need to know their doctrine, and Muslims need to understand the proper explanations for those doctrines.

No. 4      Misinterpreting various Scripture passages

A very good example of misrepresentation of biblical passages can be found in a dialogue I had with a Muslim regarding John 1:1, 14.  These verses say, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." Verse 14 says "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." The Muslim I was speaking to reasoned thus:

If the word is God then we can insert the word "god" into the verse each time it says "word."  Therefore, we would have it say 'In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and God was God.'  As you can see, this makes no sense.  Therefore, when you go to verse 14 where it says the word became flesh, it cannot mean that God became flesh, because John 1:1 makes no sense."

As you can see, this kind of logic is very bad.  First of all, John 1:1 does not say what he said it does.  It does not speak in contradictory terms the way he tried to make it sound.  Instead, it uses both the word "word" and the word "god" in the sentence.  I told him that he needed to go with what the text does say and not with what it does not say.  In other words, he reconstructed it in such a way as to purposely not make sense and then he attacked that.

Another verse, or verses, that they misinterpret is when Jesus says that He is the Son of God.  To the Muslim, this means that God literally had a wife and produced a literal son.  Of course, this is not what is meant by the biblical account.  Sonship is in relation to the Fatherhood of God in a spiritual and metaphoric sense.  After all, Jesus says that God is spirit (John 4:24).  Of course, God would not have a body of flesh and bones with which to procreate children.  What the Muslims are guilty of doing is imposing Islamic understandings upon biblical texts and then complaining about the biblical texts in light of how they interpret them.  This is not how one should go about "refuting the opposition."  Rather, the Muslim should seek to understand the biblical/cultural context and deal with the issue from that perspective not a fabricated one as this example shows.

No. 5      Failing to differentiate between Protestant and Catholic doctrines

Sadly, Christianity is not in complete unity in all things --which is why we have denominations.  I am dismayed at the fragmentation within Christianity and think it is a poor witness to the world.  But, the fact is that differences of opinions among Christians do occur.  In fact, we are allowed to have differences of opinion according to God's word found in Rom. 14: 1-13.  True Christians are all united in the essentials of the faith and are often divided on the non-essentials.  This does not mean we are not all Christians, but that we have differences of opinions on some things.

However, in the 1500s, there was a major split in the Catholic church.  It was called the Reformation.  As a Protestant, I believe the Reformation was necessary because the Catholic church had adopted some dangerous and erroneous doctrines that extend far beyond mere differences of opinion; namely, prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.

Muslims often fail to differentiate between Catholicism and Protestantism in their arguments.  I've heard and read where Muslims attack, for example, the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist where the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are claimed by the Catholics to actually become the body and blood of Christ during the communion service.  Of course, we Protestants strongly disagree with this.  But this disagreement is rarely, if ever, brought up when attacking Christian doctrine.  So, when Muslims say "Christians believe ...", be careful that they do not make too broad a generalization as they continue their attack.

No. 6      Claim their thinking is correct and Christian thinking is incorrect

Many Muslims have told me that what I am saying about God, Salvation, the Bible, etc., isn't logical.  Now, perhaps some things I say are not logical.  But, I've not heard any convincing arguments yet demonstrating what is and is not logical regarding Christian doctrine.  Usually, the Muslim will simply say that Jesus having two natures is not logical or that the Trinity being three persons doesn't make sense.   But saying so doesn't make it so.  There is nothing illogical about a part of God being able to become a person and add human nature to Himself.  It may not be the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it is not illogical.  Neither does saying that the Trinity is three persons is illogical make it so.  Surely anyone would agree that when we encounter God and His self revelation there will be things that are difficult to understand.  The Trinity certainly falls under that category.  But, the Trinity doctrine is not against logic.  It would be illogical to say that one God is three gods, or that one person is three persons.  But that is not what Christianity teaches.

I've found that when dialoguing with Muslims and when reading their material against Christianity, that their claim to know real logic is really an extension of their Muslim thought and not a mastery of logic at all.

No. 7      Switching topics when challenged

Sometimes when discussing subjects that Muslims find difficult to answer, they will quickly change the subject.  Very often this change involves attacking the Bible.  Other times they will testify that they know Islam is true or they will simply say that you do not know what you are talking about.  But when they change the subject you must be patient.  Lovingly bring them back to the subject at hand.  I have had to do this many times when discussing Islam with Muslims.

This is a small but very important point.  Too many Christians fall into the trap of allowing themselves to be diverted from the subject at hand.  Do not let a Muslim simply ignore a question and start a new subject when it gets tough.  Likewise, Christians should not simply change the subject when it gets difficult for them either.  Instead, if you do not know the answer to a question, simply admit it.  Go do some research and then get back with them.

Always remember to be gracious.  You will not win the Muslim to the Lord with cruelty and rudeness.  And remember that we are in the spiritual battle.  Love and truth in the name of Jesus is more powerful than any perfect answer.

When dialoguing with Muslims, please remember to be respectful and patient.  But, check everything they say and listen to them.  They do not have the market cornered on truth, even though they think they do.

IT'S ALL ABOUT TOLERANCE

Have you scratched your head over the last few weeks and thought, “What in the world is going on?”

Take the Chick-fil-A affair. Why such a cultural firestorm and, clearly, a divide that runs deeper than just gay marriage?

What’s going on is a massive divide about what is meant by “tolerance.”

“Toleration is one of the most attractive and widespread ideals of our day,” writes Alan Levine. “It is ... the predominant ethos of all civilizations in the modern world.”

The degree to which this has become ingrained within our culture was evidenced by Allan Bloom’s observation in his critique of higher education, namely that students have been taught to fear that the great danger is not error, but intolerance.

But this is where the cultural divide is critical to understand. 

What, precisely, do we mean by tolerance?

1. Legal Tolerance. The first application of tolerance is legal tolerance. This has to do with basic first amendment rights to believe what we want to believe. 

Cries against the legislation of morality, often directed against the infamous “moral majority” of the 1980s, spoke to this aspect of tolerance. Of course, all laws involve the legislation of morality, but the concern is valid – there should be great tolerance for diverse viewpoints and beliefs, as opposed to the stifling of opinion or the freedom to worship as one chooses. 

And, of course, nothing in Christianity would advocate the refusal of legal tolerance. Indeed, the Bible is a great advocate of legal tolerance, providing the philosophical basis for much of democracy’s contours of thought. 

2. Social Tolerance. The second application of tolerance is social, or cultural, tolerance. This is accepting someone regardless of what they believe. Social tolerance seeks to love others, care about them, and remain open to them relationally regardless of such things as their views, ethnicity or sexual orientation. 

Of course, the great ethic of the Bible, not to mention the life-model of Jesus, would espouse this form of tolerance without reservation. If Jesus stood for anything, it was open, loving acceptance of others as people who mattered to God. 

Despite their sin, lifestyle or philosophical moorings, Jesus was so relationally welcoming that it earned him a rather bad reputation as being, well, one of them (“friend of sinners,” “drunkard,” “glutton”).

3. Intellectual Tolerance. The third form of tolerance is intellectual tolerance, which is accepting what someone believes as right regardless of what you believe or think is right. Or affirming a lifestyle as good when you do not believe it is good.

And it is only in this sense -- intellectual tolerance -- that Christianity would be considered intolerant. 

Jesus did not believe that everything and everyone was right. He did not muddy the waters between acceptance and affirmation. The Bible holds that there is right and wrong, true and false, and is wildly intolerant in saying so.

And it is precisely at this point that the cultural divide is both wide, and superficial.

Not only do many confuse acceptance with affirmation, but they confuse intellectual tolerance with legal or social tolerance.

Even though, in truth, no one believes in intellectual tolerance.

If someone came up to me and said, “I believe that the best way for you to optimize the performance of your laptop is to remove your anti-virus protection, take down your fire wall, open up every email attachment from people and companies you do not know and download as much free software as you can from sites you have never heard of.” 

I could easily be tolerant of that person legally, not to mention relationally, without buying into what he says about the way to optimize the mechanical performance of my computer. 

I would neither affirm, nor agree, with handling the internet, much less my computer, in that way.

In other words, I can hold to the value that other people have a right to their beliefs, without believing that all points of view are equally valid. 

Or be compelled to uphold the pursuit of such beliefs.

Now let’s be more aggressive. 

What about speaking out in favor of a particular position?

Should we simply allow for intellectual disagreement, or is there a place for – brace yourself – evangelism, and even a prophetic word of warning?

This is another point of cultural divide. Some would say that being an evangelist is the ultimate affront to the uber-virtue of tolerance. But again, they are not thinking through what they mean by tolerance.

Penn Jillette is the “talkative” half of Penn and Teller, the Las Vegas comedy-illusion team. Penn has been an outspoken atheist. But he posted a video blog on his personal website about a man who gave him a Bible, and his reflection was arresting:

I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there is a heaven and hell and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that, well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. ... How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? 

I mean if I believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it, but that truck was bearing down on you, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that. 

He’s right. It is.

But that doesn’t mean our culture “gets it.” In fact, it doesn’t.

So the next time you wonder what’s going on in our world, remember the deep cultural current that is dividing two very different worldviews:

One believes in truth that is made, and one believes in truth that is found.

And those who believe it is found are finding there is little tolerance – of any kind – for their belief.

James Emery White

Sources    

James Emery White, Wrestling with God (InterVarsity).

John Stott, The Authentic Jesus (Marshalls).

Alan Levine, “The Prehistory of Toleration and Varieties of Skepticism,” Early Modern Skepticism and the Origins of Toleration.

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.

Jillette, Penn. (2008, December 8). “Penn Says: A Gift of a Bible.” Crackle. Retrieved 2009, March 26; watch video.

Editor’s Note

James Emery White is the founding and senior pastor of Mecklenburg Community Church in Charlotte, N.C., and the ranked adjunctive professor of theology and culture at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which he also served as their fourth president. His newly released book is A Traveler's Guide to the Kingdom: Journeying through the Christian Life (InterVarsity Press). To enjoy a free subscription to the Church and Culture blog, log on towww.churchandculture.org, where you can post your comments on this blog, view past blogs in our archive and read the latest church and culture news from around the world. Follow Dr. White on Twitter @JamesEmeryWhite.