Method vs Proclamation

I was reading a book today about a modern method of "reaching Muslims for Jesus." The method is based on using the Koran, Islamic tradition and custom, but somehow sneaking Jesus into the mix. The tactic is to Islamify the "gospel" and take away the offense. Change the name of Jesus or Yeshua to "Isa". Change God to Allah. Exchange the title "Jesus, Son of God" for "Isa, Spirit of God". The hopeful end result is "Isa Muslim" (someone who looks, speaks and acts like a Muslim; but has been "saved" by Isa). If you have read much of this blog I am sure you know how I feel about this so I will not belabor the point.

The interesting thing is the story for how this particular method was started. Years ago a young Muslim boy was evicted from his school and family for asking, "How do we know the Koran is true?" He was literally labeled as a "sinner". Some time later the boy was befriended by a foreign missionary who gave the young sinner a Bible. The boy read the Bible, repented and received faith in Jesus. He was baptized and began sharing the Bible with others. Eventually hundreds were saved by hearing the Gospel as revealed in Scripture. After some time one of the leaders in the movement was killed for his faith. Then a method was developed in an effort to "bridge the gap", and hopefully "remove the offense".

I found it ironic that the gift of a Bible was the catalyst for this move of God, however the method now is to use the Koran. The impetus for the young sinner to receive the gift was his expulsion from Islamic society. The young boy exited Islamic culture and found Jesus. The product of using the Bible was a true convert to Christ who was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Why try to develop a scheme for evangelism when God has given us His Word?

Words - are they important?

I am totally understanding the need to be careful in our language
with prospects, and even the general public. I do not agree with lying
about our intentions to evangelize, or deception to gain access to "closed areas".
However, I can see the wisdom of prudent language when living or
ministering in a hostile land.

Recently I was asked to teach a seminar to converted Muslims. I was instructed to not call Jesus the "Son of God" or to mention "Trinity". Furthermore I was told to call God "Allah" and use "Al Masheia" rather than "Jesus".

When we are dealing with converted Muslims I think it would be irresponsible
not to teach the whole counsel of Scripture and introduce our new brothers
to good theology. I know that Muslims have a problem with calling Jesus
the Son of God because they know it means that He is literally God's Son
and therefore divine. But, that is the point.

Some years ago I had a bad experience with the IMB's "expert" on Muslim
evangelization. He said that Muslim, Jews and Christians all worship the
same god. I asked, "But, doesn't Jesus say, 'I am the Way, the Truth and
the Life... no man comes to the Father except by me.'"? The teacher
rebuked me and said that I was only interested in arguing semantics. I
responded that I was not speaking of semantics at all, but the very words
of God. He had said that Jews and Muslims worship the God I worship, but they do not
know Jesus. SO, in what way can they come to the Father? How can they
worship a God that can only be approached through Christ Jesus? It was an argument over words, primarily the Word of God.

Recently I had a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. In the past they
would have never said, "Jesus is LORD." However, they have recently
started saying, "Jesus is lord." Notice the difference? "LORD" =
God, Jehovah, the Word incarnate. "lord" = master, landowner, knight. When I
say "LORD" I proclaim that Jesus is God. When a JW says "lord" he is
saying "mister." Very subtle, and very dangerous. So it isn't just words I am
concerned about it is their meaning.

Allah is an Arabic word for the god of Mohammed. After thinking about it I might could use the term "allah" to refer to God, but not Allah. I think I would be compelled to clarify each time I said allah "notice the small 'a'." Or maybe "allah - I mean the triune God of the Universe". It would be difficult, but I think I could find some way to accommodate on this point.

Many languages have a word for god and another for God. I have heard Muslims in America use "God" when speaking of Allah.

Really this whole issue for me is resolved in the Trinity. The Nicene and
Apostle's creeds predate Islam by several hundred years, and I would think
that a converted Muslim would readily agree with these historically
orthodox statements. In fact, for several hundred years you would not be
considered Christian, nor be baptized if you did not profess a Trinitarian
creed. Christ's divinity is almost impossible to discuss without a
discussion of the Trinity.

If former Muslims had sound teaching in this area I think it
would give them a foundation that would be unshakable. Someone recently implied that the Trinity is too advanced for new believers, but I
would argue that a child could understand - indeed we must have the faith
of a child to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe they would not be
able to explain, but I am confident that the Spirit (if indeed they have
the Spirit of Christ) would bear witness and they would shout "glory to
God" as the beauty of God's triune nature is proclaimed to them.

Often we make the mistake of not communicating deeper truth with new
converts. Somehow we think that a lack of formal education might mean
that they are too ignorant to grasp complex concepts. We think that
evangelism is too important to waste time on theology. However, we see
many examples in Scripture of men preparing for years (some for decades)
learning about God before serving Him.

Stephen Kennedy, Mission Coordinator for IOI, had a beautiful experience with a new evangelist. He came from the countryside and was very poorly educated. When he was joining IOI he had to sign a form that states that he agrees with the Apostle's
Creed. He did not know what it was, so Stephen read it to him. When he
heard what the creed contained he began to say, "Yes! Yes! Praise God!"
It was wonderful to see that the truth of this creed was readily accepted
by this dear brother. He was encouraged to find that this creed predated
his personal experience by over 1,700 years.

To contrast I heard a song tonight on Christian radio. The lyrics said
something like, "It isn't important that I understand some creed, or even
what I believe... I want to feel like I am falling in love." So, are we
saying that it does not really matter what we believe about God as long as
it feels right? Call Him Allah, or Baal, or Bob - Trinity, not trinity -
Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha - don't all roads lead to the same destination? -
words don't matter as long as it feels right, promotes peace and we keep
the numbers coming.

I cannot state emphatically enough how central the Trinity is to everything I might teach. I mean my name is PATRICK (as in Saint Patrick the Trinitarian theologian that won Ireland for Christ - and to this day symbols for the Trinity are plastered
everywhere in Ireland including on beer bottles) for goodness sakes!

Lying to tell the Truth - Evangelistic Deception

For years I have protested the modern evangelical Christian practice of Evangelistic Deception (lying about our intentions in doing mission work). How can we share the Truth by lying?

Today it is painfully evident that we have only deceived ourselves - the Taliban knows exactly what the IAM (International Assistance Mission) workers were doing - promoting Christianity. It seems that the only people who are unaware that this is what the team was doing are the US Secretary of State, news outlets and the director of IAM.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the attack and disputed the Taliban's assertion that the medical team was promoting Christianity.

"We also condemn the Taliban's transparent attempt to justify the unjustifiable by making false accusations about their activities in Afghanistan," Clinton said.

On the IAM website a statement was posted that reads, "Our faith motivates and inspires us - but we do not proselytize. We abide by the laws of Afghanistan. We are signatures of the Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs Disaster Response Programmes, in other words, that, 'aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious standpoint.' But more than that, our record speaks for itself." (Dirk R Frans)

What record is that? One of doing good in the name of Jesus the Christ and proclamation of the Gospel I would hope. For a true Christian your entire life is about the following of Christ which certainly does include "proselytizing."

It is a shame that this mass martydom is not being portrayed as exactly what it is. These people were killed because they were Christians ministering in the name of Jesus and hopeful that their witness might cause some to convert to Christ and proclaim Jesus as LORD. Instead the State department and even the ministry that sent the team is tying to convince the world that these people were "aid workers" and not "ministers."

It is time to stop fooling ourselves. If you go to another country in the name of Jesus you are a missionary! If you extend yourself on behalf of the poor for Jesus sake, and the Gospel - YOU ARE A MISSIONARY! You do not have to "preach," but I certainly am hopeful that many heard the Gospel through this team of missionaries. Certainly I do not propose that we wear little name plates that say "Missionary Bob," but we should never be ashamed of the fact that these people (at least one that I knew) were promoting Jesus!