Essay Eight

I am sixty years old, born in Portland, Oregon, and now live in Mill Valley, California. I became a Christian at age twenty-one. I am married with five children and eight grandchildren. I was ordained in 1966; most of the time my denomination has been Baptist.

The first spiritual truth I knew was that I was a lost and hopeless sinner. This is while I was in the military. My life was ordinary, no crises, but after hearing the message of Jesus and the cross, I understood for the first time that He died in my place, taking my sin upon Himself. The second truth I learned was that Jesus is the Savior, raised from the dead, who loves me and would give me the gift of eternal life.

I have been in the ministry ever since my ordination, most of that as a pastor, and have seen many hundreds become followers of Jesus. For Christians this means conversion, or the new birth, one and the same thing. We are not born Christian, though we might be born into a culture heavily influenced by Christianity. But this can be problematic since we can mistakenly believe that we are Christian due to our physical birth.

Now, as to the issue of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism worshipping the same God—yes and no. Certainly Judaism and Christianity see the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the Creator God. Islam, however, worships Allah, and Allah was a local deity worshipped by people of a particular area, the area where Mohammed lived.

Mohammed was born in Arabia and lived in Mecca. He belonged to the Quraysh tribe that controlled the worship at the Ka’bah shrine, which contains the “black stone.” This shrine was the center of idol worship with more than 360 idols being honored. The Arabic word for idol is “ilah” and “al” is Arabic for god. Allah, a combination of these two, and was the name for the primary god worshipped in Mecca. In addition, Allah was the name pre-Islamic Arabs used for the moon god, which was represented by the crescent moon. This symbol, the crescent moon, was used for many idols in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, it was common among pre-Islamic Arabs to pray facing Mecca and to observe a fast one month a year. Mohammed incorporated many pre-Islamic religious concepts into the Qur’an. Mohammed merely declared that only Allah would be worshipped to the exclusion of all other idols. Allah was essentially then the name of a local moon god.^[1]

The claim that Islam worships the same God as Judaism and Christianity is false. This is not to say that Muslims are not people of good will who are seeking peace. Some may and some may not. My concern is spiritual not political. If I had a merely political agenda, I might overlook the theological differences between the religions. However, the issue that transcends all others is a personal relationship with God. Error here is ultimate, the greatest of all enemies.

Now Judaism, in rejecting Jesus as Messiah and Savior, makes a mistake. To worship the Son of God, Jesus, is to worship God the Father. He who has the Son has the Father, but he who does not have the Son does not have the Father. To love one is to love the other. The Scripture is plain on this point. Many Jewish people do trust in Jesus, however. And Muslims may also trust in Jesus—anyone may. The names of the various religions are merely man-made designations. The fact is there is one God and we are all made in His image. I am not personally concerned about religious labels, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ, He is my Lord and Savior. He is not God of the Christians; He is the Lord of heaven and earth.

Many groups claim the God of the Bible as their God—groups like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. But they reject or deny what the Bible says about the Messiah in both the Old and New Testaments. Are we Christians bound to accept the picture of Jesus that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, give us? They say Jesus is the archangel Michael and not Emmanuel, God with us, despite, for example, what the prophet Isaiah wrote (see Isaiah 7:14). Am I bound to accept the pronouncements of the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Because groups like the Mormons say their prophet is the latest prophet superseding all others, am I bound to believe this? The Mormons say their Book of Mormon is the final truth and all that came before is good but not the final revelation of God. Do I have to believe this?

Mohammed claimed to be the final prophet and the Qur’an to be the final revelation. Am I bound to believe this? Numerous so-called prophets have come along with new versions of truth—so what! They each diminish or do a re-make on Jesus so they can insert into the place of the Lord Jesus Christ their own prophet, revelation, or holy book. No, we are wise to this in America; these prophets and angelic revelations—they are a dime a dozen.

I live in a free society that has freedom of religion. My faith is personal, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks about it. I did not choose God anyway, He chose me. He called me and gave me faith in Jesus, His only begotten Son. I am not a Christian because I was born one, I did not even want to be a Christian. But when God, by His Holy Spirit, showed me that Jesus, the perfect lamb of God, had died in my place, had taken all my sin upon Himself, and through His resurrection gives me the gift of eternal life, well, that was enough for me. I did not figure anything out, I did no good religious work; no, God changed my heart, helped me repent, and gave me faith.

This is the Gospel. Please know that I wish all the people of the world would live in peace and harmony. I have no anger or resentment toward Muslims. For what it is worth, I am also the manager of a baseball team, and I just appointed as my primary coach a Muslim man. And my leadoff hitter and second baseman is also a Muslim.

Would you be a Muslim if you did not have to be? Could you walk away from Islam? What might happen if you decided to be an atheist or even a Christian? You made no choice in the beginning—you were born Muslim, so then you had no real choice about  who you are and what you believe?

America is my country, though I do not think all we do is correct. I am a Christian first, an American second. Being an American does not commend me to God in any way. Christian does not equal American and vice versa. Wherever I live the Scripture commands me to be a good citizen. We do stand for freedom and an open society, and these are great things. I hate war, as anyone would, and I wish there weren’t a reason for a war on terrorism. But there is, and we can pray that it will end soon and we can all live in peace.

Would the destruction of America solve Islam’s problems? Would the destruction of Israel solve Islam’s problems? Is not the problem sin and rebellion in the human heart? Isn’t the human heart deceitful and desperately wicked, as the prophet said (see Jeremiah 17:9). Perhaps Muslims might feel superior and vindicated, if America and/or Israel should fall, but would that stop the warfare that constantly goes on within the “Muslim brotherhood”? The problem is a proud spirit and evil that lurks within—and it was for all this that Jesus died on the cross. Jesus died in our place, taking the death and judgment and hell upon Himself that we would have to bear, if we were to die unforgiven. Jesus was sacrificed instead of us; He atoned for the transgressions of those who believe in Him.

Over and above all that goes on in this crazy world, there is the reality of God. Let us seek Him, let us honor Him, let us worship Him, let us love Him. He has made this possible through our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).

Kent Philpott

March 2002

Mill Valley, CA

---

^[1]     On this point I have altered my opinion. Christians will see things differently and on this point there are definite differences. My new book is entitled, If Allah Wills. I have found that even many Muslims who have converted to Christianity still call God Allah. Allah was the term for God among Christians and Jews who lived in the Arabian Peninsula before, during, and after the time of Muhammad. Let us determine to agree to disagree on this point.

Luke 1:1–4 Dedication to Theophilus

Also read John 1:1–5

Slowly and carefully read the passages of Scripture.

1.              Luke, the only Gospel written by a Gentile, and a physician acquainted with that Roman/Greek world.

2.              Scholars note 3 characteristics to the Gospel account: one, it is universal in that it includes Gentiles; two, it is a Gospel of rejoicing; three, it is written for the “down and out.”

3.              In addition, that are 6 other unique features to Luke: one, it is Mark’s Gospel, that Luke is thought to have access to Mark’s story of Jesus, which was written about 20 years earlier; two, Luke likely used what is known as Q, which material not found in Mark but is found in Matthew and Luke; three, there are oral stories, not found in either Matthew or Mark such as the nativity account and the childhood stories of Jesus, thought to have been communicated to Luke by Mary, the mother of Jesus; four, Luke is the woman’s Gospel; five, it is the Gospel of the supernatural; six, it is the Gospel of prayer.

4.              Luke 1:1–4 is one long sentence, cleverly crafted, which contains 6 clauses.

5.              Theophilus, to whom the Gospel is directed, is unknown to us. Some think that Luke addresses his Gospel to all who are friends or lovers of God. Theo–the Greek word for God; philus–for friend or lover. Whether Theophilus is an actual person or not, is unknown, but this Gospel is for us all.

6.              The reason for the reading of John 1:1–5 is because this Gospel is also aimed at Gentiles living in the Graeco-Roman world. 7.                It is important to grasp what is meant by the world translated into English as Word, which in the Greek is logos. In the world at that time the term was not clearly defined but was used by religionists and philosophers to refer to the highest of that which is supernatural.

8.              Key to the understanding of Logos is that the “was” word is a verb of being, that is, without any time involved.  Thus, was can and should be translated “was and is.”

9.              This Logos was and is at the beginning, meaning was and is before the creation of the universe. The Logos was and is with God, and here we encounter one of the mysteries of the Trinity. This Logos was and is God. then and now.

Essay Seven

Islam is rarely critiqued by journalists because it can be dangerous to do so. This has been less true since September 11, 2001, because people are interested in Islam and are searching for answers.

However, it is still risky to write anything that may impugn Islam and especially the founder, Muhammad. This is one reason why I call Islam a cult. Muslims often treat opponents with something less than kindness as they seek to defend the honor of “Allah.”

What Is a Cult?

My working definition of a cult is non-theological. Traditionally, Christians apply the term to Bible-based groups that have departed significantly from the mainstream and historical creeds. Such cults frequently deny the full deity and humanity of Jesus; His atoning work on the cross; His bodily resurrection; and His return at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead.

However, here I employ a secular definition of a cult: “any group that uses psychological or sociological techniques to recruit, motivate, and retain adherents.”

Cults are not necessarily religious; they may be political, commercial, educational/therapeutic, or economic in nature. They may be large or small, named or unnamed, known or unknown.

Cults may have a leader or be without a leader. The common feature is the use of control mechanisms that violate the individuality of participants in the three areas stated above: recruitment, motivation, and retention.

Is Islam Cultic?

Many would deny that Islam has the characteristics of a cult. But why is Islam not a cult when in many Muslim-dominated countries it is a capital offense to hand Muslims a Bible or explain Christianity (or any other religion) to them?

Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Islam’s most holy shrines at Mecca and Medina, is a highly restricted society where Christians are not allowed any public expression of their faith.

Why is Islam not a cult when it is virtually impossible for a Muslim to leave the religion, even if he merely wishes to become an atheist or agnostic?

Why is Islam not a cult when Muslim warriors force their religion on people? The history of Islam is full of that kind of “proselytization.”

It is true that the Roman Catholic Church has in the past forced “pagans” to adopt Catholicism. However, that church has acknowledged that it was both wrong-headed and anti-Christian to do so and has terminated the practice.

As a Baptist, I can say that in 500 years of our history we have not engaged in such tactics and neither have any of the traditionally Evangelical, Protestant denominations.

Satanic Verses

A vivid illustration of the cultic nature of Islam is the case involving the novelist Salman Rushdie. Rushdie had a death contract issued against him for writing his book, The Satanic Verses and supposedly impugning the character of Muhammad. Yet novelists, journalists, commentators, filmmakers, and television producers routinely blaspheme Jesus of Christianity and the Creator God without reprisals made against them by Christians.

Of course, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is blamed on “fundamentalists” and “extremists,” exonerating most Muslims who live in Western countries as peace-loving citizens. But the loyalty inculcated by Islam runs deeper than allegiance to any nation. Muslims will change political affiliations if needed, but their commitment to the defense of Islam easily becomes fanatical.

A Contrast

How insecure and weak must Islam be when Muslims threaten those who oppose it with violence rather than use reasoned defense. Such paranoid behavior renders Islam resistant to self-evaluation and exposes its internal deficiencies.

Biblical Christianity thrives in a free, pluralistic, and democratic society. It neither needs nor benefits from the support of a nation state. By contrast, Islamic control in many countries is totalitarian, dictatorial, and oppressive.

In countries ruled by Sharia Law, minor infractions may be punished by the loss of a hand, a foot, or life itself. Muslim women have been stoned to death for inadvertently exposing an ankle or forearm in public. The much-touted “mercy” of Islam is hard to detect.

Disillusionment with the religion simmers under the surface in Islamic societies. Many Muslim immigrants to Western countries, if not pressured by the local Muslim community to tow the line, either moderate or abandon Islam altogether. Others go through the religious motions, but their hearts are not in it.

The Cost of Defection

Today there is a “rallying to the cause,” as many Muslims believe the war against terrorism is between “Christian America” and Islam. But many Muslims would prefer to be free of such influences if they could. Of course, Muslim clerics in the West realize this and do not hesitate to isolate their constituents from non-Muslim influence. Isolation is a typical cultic mechanism—defections are treated most seriously.

In lands dominated by Islam, the rule is “once a Muslim, always a Muslim.” Like the Mafia, Islam is difficult to leave, and any who defect do so at a great price. Most cults ostracize defecting people, cutting them off from family, friends, and even employment. Muslims sometimes assassinate people who leave their religion. How very cultic!

World Rule

Cults are dangerous—they control and manipulate those under their sway. Islamic leaders may issue a declaration (fatwa) or call for a holy war (jihad). Muslims are expected to obey these calls despite their individual feelings. As with the fatwa against Rushdie, Muslims remained under a theoretical obligation to kill him even though restrained from doing so by the law of the land.

If Islam were not so fractured into sects and splinter movements, the non-Muslim world would face a more serious enemy than it does today. Islam sanctions the murder of infidels and, of course, I am one, and so is anyone who is not a Muslim. It is no secret that Islam’s goal is world rule. This is not some right-wing conspiracy theory; it is the stated aim of Islam.

On the other hand, while Christians seek to share the Good News of Christ worldwide, they are not intent on forcing people to accept Christianity, much less eliminating those who reject the message.

Spiritual Process

Conversion to Christ is a spiritual process, not the recitation of a formula such as, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” Biblical Christianity is about grace, which is God’s gift of faith and forgiveness.

Christianity is grounded both in the sacrifice Jesus offered for sin on the cross, and upon His resurrection that declares that those for whom He died are “justified.” No one becomes a Christian on the basis of his or her works or actions. Rather, conversion is something God brings about. This is why the New Testament uses the term “new birth” to describe it (see John 3: 1-15). Humans do not control their physical birth, and with the new (spiritual) birth it is the same. Salvation is accomplished through God’s power, not man’s. No public or private declaration will ever make a Christian out of anyone.

Revised Religion

Islam is classed with those religious groups that have “revised” Christianity. Some of these are The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In these groups, including Islam, Jesus is acknowledged and honored as a prophet. He may even be worshipped to some degree. Yet Jesus’ teachings are declared to be incomplete and outdated. They must therefore be replaced or superseded by the teachings of ________ (insert name of group or prophet).

The Christianity Muhammad knew in the sixth and seventh centuries in the Arabian Peninsula was far different from New Testament Christianity—which had radically deteriorated. Observing the deficiencies in Judaism and a degenerate Christianity, Muhammad replaced them with his own concepts. This is understandable. The result, however, is not an improvement; it is simply another failed revisionist effort.

Downgrade

It is patronizing, too, for Islam to say it respects Jesus as a prophet while denying or altering what He said about himself and what the New Testament writers said concerning Him. I am thinking of such Scriptures as John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20 among many others. Of course, the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same. Revisionist cults must downgrade Jesus so that the “new, improved prophet” (or “truth”) can be presented as a replacement.

If Jesus is God in the flesh—Emmanuel, as the Christian Scripture proclaims; and if Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the great Hebrew prophets; and if Jesus is the only Lord and Savior who will return to judge the living and the dead, then it is impossible to replace him.

Revelation and Misunderstanding

The Qur’an declares that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is a revelation from God. But it then proceeds to reject the clear message of the Bible! If the Bible is accurate about Jesus, there is no need for the Qur’an or Muhammad.

So, was Muhammad using flattery or attempting to patronize Christians when he seemed to honor Jesus? Or did he simply not understand? Essentially, Muhammad rejected a Christianity vastly different from the teaching of the New Testament.

Another sign of a cult is the way it keeps its adherents in the dark about other faiths. I doubt whether Muslims today know much about the message of Jesus and His Gospel. They know only what they have been told by their religious teachers. How accurate would we expect this information to be considering that the Qur’an is their authority?

To make it even worse, there is a general misunderstanding of what Christianity is. One misconception, for example, is that the West is Christian and that America is a Christian nation. Obviously, all that goes by the name of Christian is not Christian. To grasp what is the true essence of Jesus’ teachings, we must examine the primary source, the Bible.

Christians reject the belief that Muhammad is the prophet of God. Christians reject the Qur’an as a revelation from God. At least this is an honest position, innocent of any effort to mislead, flatter, confuse, or patronize.

What about the Crusades?

Muslims often ask, “What about the Crusades?” The intention of this question is often to deflect attention from the violence and oppression displayed by Muslims worldwide in the name of Allah.

Yes, there were the Crusades, and historians debate the complex tangle of religion and politics that gave rise to them. The Church of that era did not always pursue a true Christian and Biblical agenda. And this same authoritarian organization persecuted Jews and Protestants also. This same medieval church persecuted to the death those who believed the truths that I, as a Christian today, hold precious.

Is it therefore accurate for Muslims to blame all that goes by the name Christian for the Crusades? Would it not be fairer and wiser to discriminate amongst Christians? After all, most people do not blame all Muslims for the actions of some extremists.

Women in Islam

Another cultic aspect of Islam is the oppression of women in countries under Islamic rule. It is shocking, deviant, and evil.

Why is this frightful treatment tolerated? Why is there such an exaggerated fear and mistrust of women? Islamic spokesmen say the women are merely being protected. The women themselves generally resent their treatment and lowly status, but are seemingly powerless to bring about change.

The plight of young men and women in Islamic countries is sad indeed. Their isolation from one another distorts normal social relationships between the sexes. Wealthy (and usually older) men can have four wives and as many concubines as they can afford, while younger, poorer men, are deprived. This deplorable situation stems directly from the nature and traditions of Islam itself as well as the tribal culture from which it sprang.

Women are denied education in countries ruled by strict Sharia law. Why? Is it to keep women in their place? Why must women cover themselves so that not even an ankle can be seen in public? These are twisted gender mores.

Moderate Muslims claim that these practices are only enforced by extremists. The “extremists” claim they are only interpreting Islam in the purest manner possible! Who is right?

Fruit of Islam

Islamic political control has prevented social progress and economic development. For example, does anyone own a car made in an Islamic country? How about a television set, a computer, an alarm clock, an airplane, or a boat? Why are many Islamic countries among the poorest in the world even while their oil reserves are vast?

Where do wealthy Muslims send their young people to be educated? To Western countries, for the most part, since those countries freely entertain examination of all points of view for the widest number of topics using the latest discoveries and thinking.

The cultic nature of Islam prevents Muslim-dominated countries from developing middle class wealth, which would require an ever-increasing importation of Western ways, and this is feared and condemned by Muslim clerics. The shot callers in Islam fear the rise of a middle class.

Muslims have undoubtedly contributed to the world’s storehouse of achievements. But if we look at the Islamic nations today, we see they are something less than wonderful. Except for Afghan refugees trying to enter Pakistan, I haven’t read about people lining up at their borders waiting to get in. Islam is sometimes described as the “beautiful religion,” but where can this beauty be seen? What Islamic country practices Islam in such a way that someone might be motivated to move there?

It is one thing for Muslim leaders to disown the September 11 terrorists as extremists. It is another to demonstrate peaceful moderation and tolerance.

Please understand I am not saying that Muslim people are not as capable, intelligent, and worthy as any other people. Rather, it is the toxic and repressive nature of recruitment, retention, and motivation that is cultic.

Muslims are born into a religious heritage they did not choose and cannot walk away from. They are molded by their environment into dedicated Muslims; there is essentially no choice available for them—they are stuck.

The Major Difference

Islam is a religion based on performance, whereas Biblical Christianity is grounded on God’s grace. The Islamic deity rewards obedience. Muslim heaven, or paradise, must be earned, either by martyrdom or by carefully keeping rules and regulations.

And since Allah is depicted as remote and detached from the individual Muslim, there is no assurance of salvation nor any confidence that even the faithful Muslim will achieve paradise.

Works-based religion can and does inspire fear and extremism in those who take it seriously. It is not surprising that some go to extremes to curry the favor of the deity and their religious leaders, especially when a favorable eternity is at stake.

The Qur’an assures martyrs that they will attain paradise, and it is this very promise that attracts and motivates suicide bombers, including those who turned commercial airliners into missiles on September 11. Since that day, the Qur’anic command to “strike terror into the heart” of the infidel has been obeyed more and more often by young men and women recruited by watching on the Internet horrific violence against innocent civilians in dozens of filmed executions and other gruesome attacks.

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, emphasizes grace, which signifies “God’s giving”. Through Jesus Christ, God imparts forgiveness and salvation as a free gift, apart from any good work. Salvation is by grace, not by works (Ephesians 2:4-10). Even extreme devotion, sacrifice, and obedience will never secure God’s favor.

Furthermore, Christians have assurance of salvation by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, so they are not left in doubt and insecurity (Romans 8:15-17). Everlasting life with God in heaven is given to the Christian through the work of God the Son. It cannot be lost, since God the Father keeps the believer by His great power (John 10:27-30).

An Absurdity

Cults employ mind-bending techniques to induce their followers to be obedient—this has long been understood.

What about the mind-boggling promise of seventy-two virgins available for the pleasures of every martyred Islamic warrior? This is as extreme an example as can be found even in the strangest cult sects!

Certainly, for poor, young, love-starved men, whose future is clouded at best, the promise of unlimited fleshly pleasure in the hereafter might be an inducement to die for the sake of Allah. But is this obscene and sexist doctrine true? Moderate Islamic interpreters say no; the sexually oriented promises are unfounded. Yet, this perverse promise is constantly embraced. Many a mind-bent warrior has killed and died to acquire his virgins.

A Challenge

Harassment of Muslims is unacceptable, and this essay is not an attempt to bring grief to Muslim people.

However, I would challenge Muslims to examine their religion—indeed, their hearts and minds, and ask themselves these questions:

Why am I a Muslim? Is my commitment to Islam based on a free decision apart from family influences?

What is my attitude towards those of other religions, particularly Jews and Christians?

Are my attitudes cultic in any way?

Do I honestly think that killing Jews and Christians serves Allah?

Do I believe it is a Muslim’s duty to defend Islam by martyrdom or suicide?

Should I support religious tolerance for people of other faiths in Muslim-dominated countries like Saudi Arabia?

Many Muslims are seekers after God, and this is good. The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah wrote: “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13).

Whether Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, nominal Christian, or nothing at all—the challenge is to seek God because He can be found. Jesus said, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well” (Matthew 6:33).

Knowing God

Regardless of our religious background, we are created in the image of God. We have been made by and for Him, and we will never be satisfied until we know Him personally. The Creator God sent His Son, Jesus, to break down the walls of separation between men and reconcile all kinds of people to Himself (Ephesians 2:14-18).

The challenge is to make up your own mind about Jesus Christ. Learn about Him yourself and do not merely accept the opinions of others.

Find a New Testament, read the story of His life, and see if you find anything amiss with Him. Is there any sin, or anything false, in the one who came from God? Find an Old Testament and read the prophecies of the Messiah (which is Hebrew for “Christ”), passages like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Are these passages not about Jesus?

If you seek Him, He will be found.

Find a quiet place, alone and apart from distractions. Be comfortably alert, still, and at peace. Recite the Lord’s Prayer. Sing or cant the Jesus Prayer. Pray for family, friends, neighbors, and yourself.

1.         This Gospel is the story of the Jewish Messiah written by a Gentile, and is the first of two books, which are the Gospel and the Book of Acts. The date of the writings is between 62 and 64 AD according to the majority of Biblical commentators. There are other views as well.

2.         Some distinguishing characteristics of Luke are: He traces Jesus’ genealogy to Adam; he commends Samaritans, which is revolutionary; he shows there is a place for women as followers of Jesus; he shows that Gentiles will accept the Gospel; he has more of the parables of Jesus than the other Gospel writers; he is the most educated of the Gospel writers; he spent years in association with the ministry of Paul, and Paul highly commends Luke;  Luke is writing to second generation Christians; one of Luke’s reasons for writing his Gospel and Acts is to show the message of Jesus had reached Rome and that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to the entire world; the Gospel and Acts are addressed to Theophilus, which means friend of God; Luke acts as an historian as he spoke with eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus; Luke is careful to show that the events of Jesus’ life were in fulfillment of ancient prophecy; he shows that Christianity is not a new religion but is the fulfillment of the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

3.         Though trained as a physician, he may still have been a slave, which was common in that day.

4.         Of special note are the “we” and “us” passages in Acts, among which are Acts 16:10–17, Acts 20:5–21:18, and Acts 27:1–28–16. It is recommended that these passages be examined.  

Essay Six

In nearly every edition of major American newspapers are stories of Muslims somewhere, east or west, engaged in acts of violence—in the name of Allah. Suicide bombing, kidnapping, killing Christians, Jews, and Hindus, burning churches and temples, destroying ancient religious relics, protesting free expressions of religion and the press—such terrorist reports are routine. What does this indicate about the very fabric of Islam?

I say it demonstrates a core weakness.

By weakness, I mean Islam is not able to compete in the spiritual marketplace of ideas. It must instead resort to repression, intimidation, and violence. Perhaps there is a sense of inferiority in that Muslims are gripped by the fear that Islam is not able to stand alongside Christianity, which does not seek to gain influence and converts by dependence on questionable, cultic methods.

I am reminded of Paul who, prior to his conversion, vigorously persecuted the Church. Many Bible scholars think he was motivated by a fear that his religious beliefs were inadequate or even erroneous. Paul was a terrorist while he was still known as Saul, according to the Biblical account in Acts. Yet after Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, Paul no longer threw men, women, and children in prison merely because they believed in Jesus. Rather, he himself became a simple preacher of the gospel armed only with the message of a crucified and risen Savior.

Paul learned from Jesus, who taught His disciples to turn the other cheek, to pray for their enemies, and to do good to those who treated them shamefully. Jesus taught that His followers were to love their neighbors as themselves and to do to others as they would have done to them. Jesus said nothing of killing infidels or repressing religious teachings. He did warn of false prophets whose aim would be to deceive and corrupt. Clearly, however, He did not advocate imprisoning or killing them. In one instance, Jesus taught His disciples to simply go on to the next town when opposition arose. Jesus Himself practiced this, as did Paul throughout his missionary journeys.

Consider a society like Saudi Arabia where even the simple recounting of the Christian message to a Muslim is a capital offense. That is weakness in the extreme.

Islamic evangelistic strategy, known as da’wa, is so very often fueled by intimidation and violence. “Convert or die” has too often been the Muslim message. Am I exaggerating here? I don’t think so, since sufficient historical data supports my claim, both ancient and modern. In fact, I think that the Islamic means of spreading the faith are held in check only by fear of retaliation from target peoples.

Biblical Christianity has entirely different weapons of warfare. Paul wrote, “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). Such is the power of the message of Jesus.

Evangelical Christians proclaim the message of the Cross of Jesus and His resurrection. The Holy Spirit of God then convicts individuals of their rebellion against God and draws them to the Savior, Jesus Christ, who has completely provided for their salvation. No one can be forced to become a Christian; no one can even “join” Christianity or apply for membership. It is a work of God and not of man. One of the great weaknesses of Islam is that it arose and continues to exist as the work of man. Few voluntarily choose to join Islam, especially in recent years now that the religion was been partially unmasked. It is usually by birth and community attachments that one becomes a Muslim. And especially in Muslim-dominated countries it is nearly impossible to leave it. This again is a great weakness. There is no religious freedom for Muslims to come and go, to be faithful or not; there is only fear of the community, of hellfire, and peer pressure. To be an apostate Muslim, that is one who has declared faith in Jesus rather than Muhammad, is to be classified worse than an infidel. The result is often death.

Paul trusted in the work of the Holy Spirit and did not revert to his old ways of violence and imprisonment—fleshly warfare. In Ephesians, Chapter 6, he describes the “armor of God”— which is the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, for the feet the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (see Ephesians 6: 10-20).

This is strength. This is confidence. This is peace. This is actual dependence on and submission to God.

Luke 18:9–14

Also read: Psalm 51:1–3; Matthew 5:17–20; 9:10–                          13; and 10:1–4.

1.         A Pharisee, either of the school of Shammai, or Hillel, praying at the temple in Jerusalem, boasting really, that he was better than others due to his good deeds.

2.         Noticing the tax collector, a Jewish man who worked for the corrupt Roman government and thus was despised by his fellow Jews, was also present at the temple praying.

3.         The Pharisee gives thanks while standing, and likely with eyes open and hands lifted up, that he is not like others, especially the tax collector he could see also praying. (We are reminded that Matthew, one of Jesus’ chosen apostles, had been a tax collector.)

4.         The tax collector, standing “far off” does not look to heaven, rather he beats on his chest, a kind of self-punishment, and has nothing to commend himself to the God he worships.       

5.         All he can manage to say is “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” (This becomes the inspiration for the oldest prayer found outside the Bible, which reads, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”)

6.         Jesus now lets it be known that this turncoat robbing tax collector left the temple “justified,” that is, forgiven of his sin, while the Pharisee was not forgiven.

7.         Jesus then concludes the parable with incredibly dramatic declarations.

8.         The proud and self-righteous Pharisee will be “humbled,” that is, brought down thus not in heaven upon his death. The verb humbled is a perfect passive indicative and means he was acted upon or judged.

9.         The humble and repentant tax collector will be “exalted,” again a perfect passive indicative verb, meaning God saves him and not due to anything he did or did not do.

Essay Four

It is declared by a growing number of Christians and non-Christians alike that what is observed in the Islamic State (ISIS, also called Daesh from an Arabic acronym) and other groups that engage in violent jihad does not represent true Islam. This, however, is debatable.

Muhammad did force non-Muslims into submission and made them pay a tax to stay alive. Muhammad did behead captured enemies, or at least ordered such and then observed the process. He did cut off the hands of thieves. He did arrange that captured women and children be sold as slaves. He did permit captured women to be taken as concubines; in fact, his last wife was a beauty he had rescued from a Jewish tribe that the Muslim army had defeated. Muhammad authorized lying if and when the cause of Islam was being defended or advanced. He did practice forced conversions. Whatever Muhammad did in his lifetime, as spelled out in the Qur’an, found in the hadith, or seen in the biography of Muhammad (called the Sira, written by Ibn Ishaq), are being imitated by the Islamic State now. And this Caliphate does not deny but proudly embraces this fact.

Not only do they not deny they are imitating Muhammad’s tactics, but IS would view non-compliance to be at minimum weakness bordering on apostasy. This is the present state of affairs. Muhammad taught that Islam should be global and that Shar’ia Law be universal, which would result in the entire world then being at peace. It is the task of Muslims to bring this about. Anything less than this is un-Islamic.

Then there is Salafism. This term describes Muslims who practice a conservative, even radical form of their faith. They attempt to imitate Muhammad and hope to live under Shar’ia Law. It is just that they cannot do so except in a place where it is politically and culturally possible. “Most Salafis are not jihadists, and most adhere to sects that reject the Islamic State,” writes Graeme Wood in his March, 2015, article in Atlantic entitled, “What ISIS Really Wants.” They might, however, if given the chance, be every bit as strict as violent jihadists. Wood states that Salafis might implement “monstrous practices such as slavery and amputation – but at some future point.” The Salafis’ stated agenda is to purify their personal lives, including personal hygiene, and to be faithful in prayer and observance of all standard forms of the main rituals of Islam. ^[1]

Are all those who promote and/or engage in violent jihad real Muslims? If the answer is No, then it must be asked, “How could this be?”

There are many reasons why one would turn to violent jihad other than wanting to live like Muhammad. Is it possible that young men and women living in very poor circumstances, without much of a future, could be recruited into something they would later regret? Perhaps peer pressure overcomes them. Perhaps boredom, hopelessness, or a strong sense of inferiority might trigger the desire for a radical change in living. By means of the Internet, which jihadists use but detest at the same time, they recruit these vulnerable youth.

Not only those who grow up in less-than-ideal circumstances are attracted to violence and murder. It is enough that Muhammad both sanctioned and participated in such. The desire for a wonderful eternal future is a powerful magnet and may be the strongest motivator for a violent defense or advance of Islam.

The Internet also shows clearly what is available in the Western world; could envy be an instigating element that plays on the Muslim mind? Or, might a motivation be a chance for a quick ticket to paradise and seventy-two virgins, which may appear to be the only way to get love? Might young men and women be driven to distraction, to a cultic or toxic state of mind and made willing to do almost anything to lift themselves out of depression and despair?

Since Islam is both religion and state, which predominates? Or is there such a blending that there is no religion or state, just Islam? Islam is yet very much tribally oriented, one tribe against another, which is plain to see in daily news stories. Is the Muslim fighting for Muhammad, the imam, the umma (Muslim community), the political boundary, or what? This question might receive a hundred different answers, and silence as an answer could be expected.

Are all fighters with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the various Shia and Sunni militias, even with ISIS, true Muslims? Yes, No, and Maybe! Only God knows.

---

^[1]     By “Personal hygiene” is meant the intent to properly observe and avoid the many ways that Muslims might defile themselves before prayer. A chief instance of this is to avoid splashing oneself with urine in the toilet. Proper techniques for washing feet, arms, hands, and face before prayer is critical in the Muslim mind. This little section could continue for many pages describing the means of coping with and defending against the evil jinn (demons), since hygiene in the Muslim world is not what non-Muslim Westerners understand but is more concerned with superstitions about the supernatural.

Genesis chapters 37 to 45:1-15

1.              Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob (Israel), is the favorite of his father, who gives this son a robe of many colors, and which makes his older brothers angry at him.

2.              One day, Joseph is sent out by his father Israel to see if his older brothers, who are tending to flocks, are well. Seeing their younger brother approaching they decide they will kill him, out of jealousy, soak his many-colored robe in animal blood, and tell their father that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.    

3.              Reuben, one of the brothers, manages to have Joseph sold to a caravan of Ishmaelite traders heading toward Egypt.

4.              Joseph, now in Egypt, is sold to a man named Potiphar, a high ranking Egyptian official, whose wife attempts to entice Joseph into a sexual relationship. Joseph resists and the woman then claims Joseph has attempted to rape her, which ends up with Joseph being placed into prison.

5.              Two others formerly of Pharaoh’s employ, are also in prison, a cupbearer and a baker. Both have dreams, which Joseph interprets. The dream of the cupbearer indicates he will once again be back in pharaoh’s household while the baker, however, will he executed by hanging.

6.              Pharaoh has a dream, and the cupbearer reports that in prison a man did accurately interpret his dream whereupon pharaoh brings Joseph out of prison and tells him of his own dream. Joseph hears the dream and gives its meaning. It is about a severe famine that is coming, and along with that, there is a means also revealed as how to deal with this.

7.              Pharaoh makes Joseph the second most powerful official in Egypt, and who then goes about preparing for the coming famine. When it hits, Egypt is more than weathering the famine and the family of Joseph hears of this and Jacob (Israel) sends ten of his sons to Egypt to buy food. Only the youngest, Benjamin, Joseph’s brother, remains.

8.              Joseph, who interviews his brothers, but without their knowing who he is, creates a situation that would bring his younger brother, Benjamin, to Egypt. And after some complex maneuvering, the goal is achieved, and Joseph and his brother are united.

Yes, No, Maybe

PART ONE: The Crusaders

“Crusader” is a negative word to many, and maybe deservedly so, but we may have to reconsider the negative position. Following is a summary and examination of the history of the crusades themselves.

There were eight crusades in all, from 1095 to 1294. Oddly enough, no Arab tribes played much of a role, if any, in fighting the crusaders. This is not to say that Muslim armies were not involved, but exactly who within Islam actually participated is another issue.

The French initiated the first crusade led by Godfrey of Bouillon. The purpose was to wrest control of Jerusalem away from the Muslim Seljuk Turks, who had taken it in 1070. Jerusalem had previously been part of the Fatimid Empire, composed mostly of Shi’a Berbers from North Africa, and during their control of the Holy City, Christians were allowed to visit their special religious sites. But such was not the case with the Seljuks, who violently persecuted the Christians and desecrated and destroyed churches. After a time, Pope Urban II called for the rescue of the Holy City from the Islamic infidels.

Bouillon, certainly a member of the Roman Catholic Church, managed to murder 70,000 Muslims and even burned down synagogues crowded with Jewish people hoping to escape the violence around them. Despite the slaughter, many of the European soldiers married local Muslim and Jewish women; they settled down, and for at least forty years, the Christians and Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side. The fact remains, however, that Crusaders slaughtered a host of people.

The second crusade in 1144 was undertaken when a Kurdish army from Mosul (now in the modern state of Iraq) attacked a Christian fortress in Edessa (now in the modern state of Turkey). As a result, Pope Eugenius III called for a crusade. Two Christian armies, one French, the other German, were completely decimated by the Seljuk armies while on their way to join the battle at Edessa. A monk named Bernard of Clairvoux was engaged in this one. Following the crusade nearly forty more years of peace ensued. 

The third crusade was called in 1189 by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa after the army of Saladin (1137–1193), the famous Kurd who became the Sultan of Egypt, defeated the crusader army on July 4, 1187, at the Horns of Hittin, a site just above the Sea of Galilee. It proved to be the most famous of all the battles during the crusade period. Jerusalem surrendered, and Saladin dealt humanely with the survivors; there was no sacking or murdering, and the city was kept open to Christian pilgrims. But Jerusalem’s fall inspired Barbarossa to lead a French army into Turkey, where he died crossing a creek. The Seljuks quickly destroyed his army.

There was, however, more to the third crusade. King Richard the Third of England (the “Lion Heart”) gathered an army of Norman Knights, set off for the Holy Land, and proceeded to capture Acre and Jaffa on the Mediterranean Coast, even defeating Saladin at the battle of Arsuf.

The two commanders treated each other with respect and signed a peace treaty on September 2, 1192, the terms of which left Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims, while the Christians retained the coastal areas where Acre, Caesarea, and Jaffa are located.

Pope Innocent III in and around 1195 called the fourth crusade. This one had nothing to do with the Holy Land or Muslims, but the goal was to liberate Jerusalem. The French crusaders entered Constantinople, home of the Greek Orthodox Church, who resented the presence of the Roman Catholics and rose up against the crusaders. In the battle that resulted, the crusader “Western” Christians did not kill many Greek “Eastern” Christians, but they did completely pillage the city. After a short period, the crusaders made off with their loot and headed for home. Nothing was accomplished.

Pope Honorius III, Innocent’s successor, could not accept the results of the fourth crusade and called for a fifth crusade. This time mainly Germans and Hungarians marched off to Jerusalem by way of Egypt in 1217. The army spent three years in skirmishes with the Kurdish Ayyubids in Egypt. They failed to make headway and finally called it quits and sailed home.

The sixth crusade’s outstanding personality was the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, who was the grandson of the famous Barbarossa. Frederick II’s daughter was married to John of Brienne, who now ruled Jerusalem. Thinking that marriage gave him authority over Jerusalem, he called for the sixth crusade in 1225. Due to the knowledge and negotiating skills of the remarkable Frederick, the crusade was peacefully conducted without one battle or casualty.

Frederick had studied a great deal about Islamic literature, science, and philosophy, which gave him a solid platform for interaction with the leader of the Islamic army, Malik al-Kamil, who was the nephew of the great Saladin. The two leaders resolved the confrontation by signing a ten-year treaty in 1229. (Ten years was the maximum time allowed for a treaty according to Sharia Law.) Christians and Muslims alike welcomed the terms of the treaty. Unhappily, the new pope, Pope Gregory IX, hated Frederick and refused to ratify the treaty, denouncing it vigorously.

Things went from bad to worse after Sultan Kamil’s death in 1238, when a maverick Turk from Russia named Baibars led a Mameluk (Muslim) army against Jerusalem, sacking it and slaughtering the citizens in 1244.

King Louis IX of France called the seventh crusade. In 1250 King Louis brought an army to Egypt and sailed up the Nile to Cairo, where Baibars demolished that army. Baibars warred against everyone, Christian and Muslim alike, in an effort to establish his power and authority. His hate and murderous anger was mostly directed toward Christians, and he attacked one city after the other along the Mediterranean coast—Caesarea, Safad, Jaffa, and Antioch. He killed and enslaved thousands of Christians. Jerusalem was now firmly in the hands of Muslims, and the seventh crusade came to an end.

The eighth crusade flowed out of the outrage perpetrated against Christians in the seventh crusade. Louis IX demanded a new crusade in the year 1270. His plan was to come through Tunis on the way to Egypt, but a few days after landing in Tunis he died of dysentery.

Baibars died in 1277 (these crusades could last for years), and his successor, Sultan Khalil, managed to finally defeat the crusaders at Acre in 1291, killing or enslaving some 60,000 Christians there.

Impact of the Crusades

The crusades deepened the divide between the Eastern and Western wings of the Catholic Church, a rift that was already well underway centuries earlier.

Related to that, the crusades greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire, which succeeded the Holy Roman Empire.

The crusades also permanently embittered relations between Christians and Muslims, and they are used to this day to rationalize a continuing hatred that often erupts into violence. The fact that both Christians and Muslims committed horrible atrocities is often forgotten or conveniently submerged. Muslims have cited Christian crusader actions as justification for their own brutality. This is not a surmise, but openly declared by contemporary Islamic jihadists, whose portfolio of rallying cries includes something close to, “Remember the crusades.” They legitimize their call for revenge by pointing to what the Christians did in the crusades. This is, of course, completely disingenuous but nevertheless effective.

Promotion of religion by force of arms demonstrates the weakness of Muslim ideals, ethics, and message. To spread the faith by means of intimidation is the worst possible program, one that no one can respect. Not only the Muslims but also Christians have been guilty here. (This topic will be explored in greater detail in the second section of this essay, “The Inquisitors.”)

As early as the fifth century, and many say long before, becoming a Christian required baptism by an ordained priest of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. Faith and grace now abandoned, the Church became a power structure and fell into the same tactics employed by many other secular institutions. Some use the word “Christendom” to describe the Church as empire, combining religion with the state.

The crusades marked a departure from the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all nations. By picking up the sword, it was giving in to the barbaric culture of that day. The Church was intertwined with the state, the state using the Church and the Church using the state to advance goals and consolidate power.

As a result, the core doctrine of conversion was severely compromised. To coerce a person into leaving one faith for another is absolutely unbiblical. Requiring a choice of whether to convert, die, or pay the tax is not exactly proper evangelism, but the Church was guilty of this just as were the Muslims, and contemporary Muslims still employ these means. It cannot be said today that the Christian Church advances by means of force and fear. (Note: Instances of wrongly motivated attempts to convert so-called “primitive” people groups were occurring well into the nineteenth century, e.g., the forcing of Western/Christian culture and religion on Native Americans on reservations and similar activities by Britaish missionaries in India. Broadening the argument to include these examples or others is not possible in the space allowed, but we acknowledge needing to discuss this elsewhere.)

The same mentality that was seen in the crusades also resulted in the persecution of those we today call evangelical Christians, especially those who reject infant baptism, transubstantiation (Jesus being actually present in the Bread and the Cup), and the necessity of receiving other sacraments in order to go to heaven—in other words, those who adhere to salvation by grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone.

***

The story of two ancestors of mine might be of interest now. The first concerns Sir John Philpott.

John Philpott was a “Salter and Pepperer” (a grocer) who lived in the latter part of the fourteenth century in London, England, while the One Hundred Years War with France was underway. He relied on his merchant fleet to bring foodstuffs into England from the Continent, but a combination of a weak English king and an aggressive French king meant Philpott’s business was faltering. He was able, however, to convince the English king to allow him to outfit his ships into a navy and be crewed by convicts from London’s prisons, of which there were plenty. The result was a series of victories by Philpott’s navy, and on the strength of that he was elected Lord Mayor of London in 1388 and 1389. He was a faithful Christian, and in his will he left 100 pounds to be distributed amongst the poor of London at Christmas time each year. In the old city of London there is still Philpott Lane where a plaque commemorating this faithful Catholic and Christian man has been installed.

Then there was another Englishman, again named John Philpott, this time living in the sixteenth century. He was a Puritan, meaning he hoped that the newly founded Church of England that broke away from the Roman Church, precipitated by King Henry VIII, would be purified—that is, would conform more closely to what we see of the church in the New Testament. Philpott was forced into the Court of the Inquisitors and found guilty. Refusing to recant, he was burned at the stake in 1555. (Burning at the stake was desirable form of execution because it was thought the destruction of the body made resurrection impossible.)

PART TWO: The Inquisition

Although the story of the development of the Church in the centuries leading up to the “Dark Ages” (stretching from approximately AD 500 to 1500) is not so easy to uncover, there is evidence that the faith of Jesus and the early disciples was not extinguished. That it was diverted, perverted, and undermined, especially toward the end of the third century, is fairly plain history, at least as evangelicals read it.

During that dark time, the vibrant faith we see in the New Testament gradually shifted to a more formalized, mechanical, ritualistic, even magical understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. Especially after the so-called conversion of Constantine in the early fourth century, people became members of the Church and were counted among the faithful, despite their never hearing the real Gospel message or knowing much of anything about the core doctrines of Scripture.

The power of the Church over salvation, the only really important issue in life, was under the control of an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Those who rebelled against this were the targets of the Inquisition, the first court of which was formed around the year 1231 and continued for some three or four centuries. From the Church’s point of view, the Inquisition was necessary, because many good Catholics were turning away from the doctrines of the Church, especially after publication of the Bible in common languages, which allowed people to see what the Bible actually taught. For nearly a thousand years it had been hidden in a dark covering of non-intelligible Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

The renaissance of Biblical understanding forced the established Church to react, and energetically; heresy became the most heinous of all crimes.  There is evidence that many were troubled by the means used to keep the Church pure. Ecclesiastical leaders would often plead with secular authorities for sentences to be carried out mercifully. In the early days of the persecution, Roman Church officials acted ruthlessly. For instance, the Cathari (or Albigenses) and the Waldenses were persecuted, sometimes to death, during the 1220s by the order of Pope Gregory IX.

Fringe Christian groups were not the only ones to be sought out by the Inquisitors. As with John Philpott in 1555, the point at the center of the trials had to do with the elements of the Mass, otherwise known as Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. Along with the Reformers (i.e., Martin Luther and John Calvin), Philpott believed the bread of the Eucharist was just bread and the juice in the cup just juice. But the Church had developed the concept that the bread was transformed by an act of the priest into the actual body, the flesh, of Jesus. Likewise, the juice invisibly, magically, became the actual blood of Jesus.

Two Latin words were actually pronounced by the priest before the Mass began—hocus pocus—and when the words were pronounced, the magical power inherited from Peter and passed down through the properly ordained priesthood transformed the substances, shazam!

How this came to be is not possible to describe here, but there is an actual history to it. The short version is this: The Church had become far too Western in its understanding of the Middle-Eastern document we call the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. And when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:53-55), the Roman Church took His words literally.

To take Jesus’ words literally, however, would have been ludicrous for a Jewish person in the first century. And the early history of the Church clearly reveals that the passage was taken metaphorically—after all, the Church was composed mostly of Jews for the first generation. The point was that the disciples were to trust in and believe in Jesus as the Savior and that His death on the cross, with His broken body and shed blood, was the once-forever sacrifice for sin. Therefore, long after the “Eastern” sense of things was lost, the “Western” mindset misunderstood much of the nature and means of salvation.

The Inquisition was aimed at Christians, but Muslims and Jews were also tried, and many were executed. It is only natural that Muslims and Jews would have a negative reaction to this, and it is certainly possible that it yet lingers as something else horrible that Christendom perpetrated and thus could be avenged in whatever era.

During the period of the Inquisition there were undoubtedly thousands of bishops, priests, and regular members of the Roman Church who sincerely thought they were being faithful Christians to support and participate in what they perceived as a cleansing of their Church from heretical doctrine and practice. Undoubtedly, there were thousands of Christians who were horrified at what was being done in the name of Jesus Christ. And during the period of history when the Church and state were wed, significant resistance was virtually out of the question. Such resistance finally came in 1517 under the inspiration of a Catholic monk named Martin Luther.

PART THREE: Yes, No, Maybe

Were those who conducted the Inquisition real Christians?

Were the crusaders real Christians?

Were the Muslims who fought against the crusaders real Muslims? Or, to put it another way, are those Muslims who engage in violent jihad today the real Muslims?

To these questions the answers are, Yes, No, and Maybe.

Looking at Christians

It must be said that no one could possibly know for sure whether real and actual born-again Christians committed atrocities against Muslims and Jews, in that day or in this. If a group of careful observers had watched the murder of Muslims and Jews at the hands of people known as Christians during the crusades and at other times, would they have know for certain which was the right conclusion? The proper answer would have to be, No!

Why is this so? The core of the answer lies in the mystery of conversion. While one can be baptized, join a church, and even reform his or her life, this is far from genuine Christian conversion. Being a part of a church does not mean one is a Christian. Conversion means that the Holy Spirit indwells the one believing in Jesus, the one who has had all sin removed and forgiven. It is a profound spiritual experience not an intellectual or emotional one. It is something God does completely apart from anything an individual can do. It is miracle and mystery. Every pastor who has ministered to a congregation for ten or more years knows that in that congregation are those who have truly been born again and those who have not.

Not that every real Christian does right and lives right. The Christian life is a growing up into the fullness of Christ, little by little—first as an infant, then a toddler, young child, older child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, adult, older adult, and senior. Still after a lifetime of maturing, the Christian is not anywhere perfect until in heaven and in the presence of our holy God.

Is it possible that a Christian could be deceived into thinking that killing and persecuting others because they believed differently is justified? Yes, it is possible.

Might Christians commit horrific acts, because they were told to do so by powerful religious authorities? Maybe. Might Muslims? Maybe.

Would a Biblically literate Christian believe he or she was serving God by persecuting or even killing “infidels”? No, unless there was some unknown source of intimidation going on behind the scenes and/or such Christian had his or her mind bent to the point that they became merely tools of evil.

Perhaps the right answer for all of these questions is, Maybe!

Would persecuting or killing a non-Christian win approval with God? Would it ensure a place in heaven? To both of these, the answer is an unequivocal, No!

Would defending the cause of Christianity, the Church, a Christian leader, or anything else in all creation by harming others merit the favor of God? Certainly not! Would dying in defense of the God of Scripture assure a place in paradise? In no way!

This is my solemn opinion as a follower of Jesus.

Genesis 32:22–32

Find a quiet place, alone and apart from distractions. Be comfortably alert, still, and at peace. Recite the Lord’s Prayer. Sing or cant the Jesus Prayer. Pray for family, friends, neighbors, and yourself. Slowly and carefully read the passage of Scripture.

1.         Jacob, grandson of Abraham and son of Isaac, has his entire world turned upside down. His brother Esau and he are struggling in their relationship and Jacob is hard pressed as to what to do.

2.         Jacob and company are camped near a river named Jabbok, that flows into the Jordan River 24 miles north of the Dead Sea. Jacob sends his company across this river and is thus alone in the desert.

3.         All alone, Jacob “wrestled” with a man. The identity of this man is a mystery. Some of the possibilities are: Jacob’s guardian angel; another angel; Jacob wrestled with himself; Maimonides says it was a dream only; some a demon; Calvin says–the pre-incarnate Christ, and more. It is a mystery! Perhaps it is that Jacob wrestled with God in a way we do not understand.

4.         Jacob, while winning the match, is touched on his hip socket by the “man” and thus is disabled. The “man” is yet losing the match and begs to be let go of. Jacob will not do so until the “man” blesses him.

5.         The man asks Jacob what his name is and to the response the man says that he will no longer be called Jacob but Israel. The reason is that Jacob had won the wrestling match. Israel means “God rules” or “One who wrestles against God.”

6.         Jacob names the location of the match “Peniel,” which means “the face of God.” And Jacob’s great surprise is that though he fought against God he did not lose his life.

7.         The meaning of this story for followers of Jesus today is varied, it may refer to the fact that in our battle against God, despite our sin and rebelliousness, God will yet win us to Himself.