Okay, I’ve read some dumb things, but this is getting mushy gushy just a little too quickly. This whole Christian Response to the AcommonWord from the Muslim community is just outright bizarre. I feel like Christians are bending over backwards to be a bunch of blithering idiots.
“Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship…”
Thanks for the news flash. Does anyone know why? Apparently, these self-loathing Christians can’t seem to get past the Crusades. So let us apologize…again.
“…we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present e.g. in excesses of the "war on terror") many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we "shake your hand" in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”
Frankly, I am sick of apologizing for people who lived centuries ago defending the West from the advancement of Islam. The fact that Islam was taking the world over by force doesn’t seem to be a factor for these Christians. What really needs to happen is that these Muslim Clerics need to put their mouths on the line by condemning the persecution of Christians worldwide.
Excesses of war? Hey, nations go to war. There are reasons we are at war. 9/11? Possible nukes? Terrorists attacks on military installations? God did institute the State to maintain peace by the sword. Obviously promoting democracies in Islamic countries is only a band-aid. It is a job the state must do to maintain peace in the region. It is precisely because this is only a band-aid that Christians must evangelize the Middle East. This is probably one of the most difficult challenges that Christians living in the West have never truly figured out.
The other problem is that asking for forgiveness from the All-Merciful One is to confuse the Muslim. We act (on purpose?) as if we are asking Allah for forgiveness. That is the last thing any Christian ought to be doing. Why not say to the Muslims, “Hey, we are sorry. We are asking Jesus to forgive us for hurting some long ago dead relatives that we might not even be related to.” I think asking Jesus for forgiveness (instead of the Almighty vague guy) might really test the waters.
One more quote:
“We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another.”
Ahhhh, is this really that hard? I got a solution. Stop promoting annihilation of the West. Stop all of the propaganda against the mean and terrible West. Allow Christians to live peaceably in Muslim lands.
Even further though, both sides need to have the freedom to persuade the other for their point of view. Evangelism or proselytizing is something a free people may do. Historically, Muslims cannot afford this, which is why Muslim countries do not allow thought to occur.
Bleeding hearts promoting a social gospel never really change anything. The one thing that may bring peace between us is Jesus Christ. The problem is that the Cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing. To think that Islam will just magically be willing to make peace with a Savior who died on a Cross (something they abhor) and a Savior who is God in the flesh (Shirk anyone?) is simply naïve.
3 comments:
BTW, the top says this, "In the name of the Infinitely Good God whom we should love with all our being"
How about the Name of Christ? These guys are just a bunch of cowards.
Howie,
1.)
I think asking Jesus for forgiveness (instead of the Almighty vague guy) might really test the waters.
If they would have said Almighty, it would have been biblical, but they chose the name that is not used in the Bible- Bunch of Pukes
2.)
When I read this “A Common, blah, blah, blah” yesterday at J. Taylor’s blog, I was surprised to see Stott and George Verwer on the list. Kind of goes with our MLK discussion? This gives me the opportunity to ask about something Mr. Film, Gorman and I mentioned the other day at a staff meeting. It’s this whole “heretical, misunderstanding, grace and orthodoxy” debate. That is to say, essentials and nonessentials debate, and when is it good to make fun of or debate or scream at or simply disregard people and their theology. I mean I know what I consider essentials, but the question seems to stem from our MLK discussion. By the way, I happened to read the same stuff from Stanford the other night too, we must have googled the same things. For example, let’s get away from MLK, lets try someone I really like, C.S. Lewis, some of his theology is jacked up. (Purgatory, libertarian free-will, original sin and imputation), I think both of us would disagree with Lewis on these things, yet God used him mightily in my personal studies that led me to desiring God for His Glory (Weight of Glory, Mere Christianity, Problem of Pain, & Surprised by Joy). I guess I am just ranting more than asking, it is just so frustrating to be looking at the same thing as someone else and see two different things (TOA comes to mind). This has come up in the context of the series on Revelation we will be preaching from. Anyways, I feel the same way about our current presidential race. Mr. Film and I have come up with a saying that seems to sum up our feelings when we read things like “A Common, blah….). “I laughed, I cried, I threw things.”
Paul
Paul,
I don't mean to attempt to put MLK out to pasture or in the hell box. I just think (as typical of liberal theology or social gospels) that it is quite difficult to pin these guys down on what they believe.
CS Lewis didn't claim to be a theologian. The fact that he spoke publicly to a great many people on many things with an apparent authority or weight behind his words should remind us all to remain cautious about what we say.
Nevertheless he poses an interesting problem for those of us who desire to be more precise and Biblically thorough in our theology. I look at the problem from the vantage point of consistency. Most of us are inconsistent at some points, some more than others.
The question I think really is the struggle every Christian has. To learn and grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. This doesn't mean that Christians who have an Arminian view have to reject their Arminianism simply because I presented Calvinism in a clear manner. I think people should struggle with their current beliefs and be fully persuaded before changing to another position.
For instance, I rejected Dispensationalism years before I accepted Covenant Theology. Was I some heretic then? Are they who hold that position now heretical? Of course not (of course that is not an essential teaching).
I think there are beliefs that people intuitively believe while intellectually holding onto beliefs that are inconsistent. John Piper demonstrated this once in a sermon when he told of a story about a person arguing against Calvinism. he asked the person for their testimony. They spoke like a Calvinist!
A good pastor friend of mine once told me that when we preach and someone hears and is converted, a true miracle has just occurred before our eyes. I said to him that was Calvinism in a nutshell. Yet to this day he is still struggling wit the doctrines of grace.
So I think we need to approach the MLK issue with great caution. I don't think MLK was clear while preaching the social gospel about his views. But I wasn't there and so I am speaking out of ignorance. Strictly going by his writings that I have read, I think more study needs to be done.
Post a Comment