# Worshipping Jesus in the Mosque



## Pergamum (Jan 12, 2013)

worshipping Jesus in the Mosque | Christianity Today

Can you help me answer this article? What all do you see wrong with it?



> Why is there a [problem] when we come to Islam? So we ask, "Do Muslims deserve a church that fits their cultural context?" We are not trying to bring them into the already [existing] evangelical church. They should have a church that reflects their culture. Then we can say that we have an indigenous church, one that grows from the soil of the Muslim community. To "hook" one person into the evangelical church is possible. But the question is how we can fish with a net.
> 
> When you are talking to one person you [are also] talking to his community. He represents the whole community. What we say to one will go back to all the rest. So we want to reach a whole community and bring community transformation. The content of church is from heaven, but the form of the church should be from the ground, the culture. The church should reflect Muslim culture, not Muslim theology.





> How do the people in your movement view Muhammad? Is there confusion?
> 
> First, we cannot rule out syncretism at the beginning of a new believer's life. The purpose of discipleship is to separate their old beliefs from their new beliefs. So when they put their faith in Jesus, they may have at the same time Muhammad in their heart. But when they start to pray in the name of Isa for their own need, they experience joy, assurance, and peace. And when they pray in the name of Jesus and find people healed and demons cast out, they completely stop thinking about Muhammad. It is a process of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tim (Jan 12, 2013)

> They should have a church that reflects their culture.





> The church should reflect Muslim culture, not Muslim theology.



I don't think that the writer understands that you can't separate Muslim culture from Muslim theology. The latter informs the former because culture stems from the worldview.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 12, 2013)

> Then we can say that we have an indigenous church, one that grows from the soil of the Muslim community....
> The church should reflect Muslim culture.



If he'd said "Arab culture," or "Pakistani culture," or "Indonesian culture" or something of that sort, then I'd be much more comfortable with it. The church in any particular corner of the world should reflect that culture to some extent, not just be an imitation of Western culture. The Spirit makes us one in Christ yet different in things such as language.

But what of "Muslim culture"? "Muslim" is a religious term that represents a belief system inherently opposed to faith in Jesus. Ever since Cain and Abel, everyone in the world has been on either one side or the other. We're either people of true faith or we oppose true faith. The idea that we grow out of one side and into the other really isn't correct. When we come to Jesus we put the non-faith way behind us—completely. Sure, we still have much to learn and much reformation is yet to come. But a fundamental break must occur first.

So if the writer is, say, an Arab... then he can be a Christian and still Arab, but not still Muslim. 

Alas, if only it were that simple. His reference to "Muslim culture" reflects the reality in many places. The belief system of Islam has so influenced many local cultures that it's very difficult to separate what's Islamic about the culture and what isn't. That's why many missionaries and pastors have urged believers in such places to adopt Western cultural norms that are, presumably, less tainted by a faith system opposed to Christ. And even strong believers who know the local culture extremely well may vehemently disagree about what to reject and what to keep.

I think the old school missionaries pushed too hard against local culture at times. Yet, we must acknowledge that there absolutely cannot be any coming to Christ without a firm, visible rejection of old ways. It's called repentance. It's basic to conversion. It applies to everyone in every culture, including us Westerners. And in cultures where an opposed-to-Christ faith system is deeply engrained, we should not be surprised if many seemingly innocuous practices must be forsaken to safeguard the pursuit of Him who is infinately better.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 12, 2013)

I think of Islam and Mormonism in much the same way. Both are cults that speak of Jesus but not in the sense that the Bible speaks of Jesus. A Christian must make a clean break from such a cult.


----------



## PaulCLawton (Jan 12, 2013)

The latest episode of Christ the Center (Reformed Forum) deals with Insider Movements and has as its primary guest Dr. Dave Garner who served (serves?) on a study committee of some sort on IMs for the PCA.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 12, 2013)

Tim said:


> > They should have a church that reflects their culture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed! That is the heart of the issue.

Also, this article reeks of New Apostolic Reformation stuff. The people praying to both, being OK for beginners? I say no. The food multiplying before their eyes? Not impossible, but it is smack of that already debunked transformation movie they put out about a whole village turning to Jesus and all the local produce becoming gigantic. There's a severe credibility problem with this article.

_"It is the evangelist's responsibility to choose which benefit of the Cross is the answer for the spiritual needs a Muslim feels."_ Wow! This one makes evangelism subject to felt needs, like he is selling some sort of benefit plan.

_"People ask us, "Who is Isa for you?" Our answer is, "He is the Word of Allah." Then we quote from the Qur'an, but explain what the "Word of Allah" means from a biblical perspective" _ It sounds like they are using the Bible as supplementary to the Koran here. They need to explain that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the Qur'an is writings of a false prophet that may lift a few verses here and there. 

At this point, I give up. The article is just too full of error and what I perceive as deliberate deceit. If he thinks syncretism is OK, there is a bigger problem than just this article. Jesus wasn't afraid to claim his exclusivity as Lord & Savior, neither should he.

Here's a trailer for the transformation movie series I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBvxWl7jXr0


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 12, 2013)

Rich Koster said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> > > They should have a church that reflects their culture.
> ...



Its Christianity today, very broad. May have good stuff, and has some bad. Such a shame like mirslav volf saying allah is the same god as God. Give me a break! They seem similar because mohammed stole things for christianity, judaism and zoroastranism and took the name of alah from the arabs name for their moon god. They have to reject mohammed, he forgets what Jesus says mainly in Luke to count the cost. Well this is what happens when to send out an easy believism guy into the mission field.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 12, 2013)

The writer states, "_But syncretism did not start with us. It started even in Paul's time. That was the reason Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians._"

Oh? Paul didn't accommodate the Jews / Judaizers and allow a syncretism to develop. He disallowed that in no uncertain terms!


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 13, 2013)

The PCA report that clarifies and refutes this nonsense is in process.
http://theaquilareport.com/at-the-p...on-insider-movements-overwhelmingly-approved/ 

The first part, "A Call to Faithful Witness," has been received by General Assembly this past year, the next part is on the way.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 13, 2013)

yeutter said:


> I think of Islam and Mormonism in much the same way. Both are cults that speak of Jesus but not in the sense that the Bible speaks of Jesus. A Christian must make a clean break from such a cult.



You hit the nail right on the head. Mormonism is nothing more than a modern update of Islam. "But even if we, *or an angel from heaven*, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."- Gal. 1:8


----------



## johnny_come_lately (Jan 13, 2013)

I mean no disrespect to "Abu Jaz", but I would hope that any solid Christian would question this article and movement. It seems to be a mechanism to allow new believers not to give up the world and to follow Christ only as much as is comfortable at one time. Yet Christ called us to take up that cross and die to the world. 



> Muslims believe there is a Creator of heaven and earth, and his name is Allah. If you tell a Muslim about the Creator of heaven and earth, but say that the Creator is not Allah, the Muslim will be very confused. What you are telling him is not good news...
> 
> If we say that the one they know as Allah is not God, we are not [speaking] against the religion of Islam, or Muhammad or Qur'an, but against the doctrine of general revelation. The missionary must first receive the name of the Creator God from the people, and then they have heavenly authority to give the people the name of the Savior, Isa al Masih...
> 
> So we are using the Muslim way of thinking about Isa, even if it is incomplete. If Muslims understand even one of these, they will call to Isa, and the Holy Spirit can lead them to understand more benefits of the Cross.



This is a dangerous line of thought that idolizes man's knowledge over the power of the Holy Spirit and God's truth. First off, the argument that we must use the Muslim understanding of a Creator (one that they would say is decidedly not Trinitarian, nor abounding in grace and is at its heart a works-based deity) to get to a proper understanding of the One True God is unfounded. God does not need any cultural context to pierce my heart. The entire point of the law in the Gospel message is to not be good news, it is to make us recognize (partially) just how wicked and wrong we are. A good start to that is recognizing that your understanding of the universe is founded on the wrong basis.

The idea that a missionary must use the local word for a creator god is also inherently implying that one must use the local idea for a creator god. The two are not the same thing as any Bahnsen fan should be able to note quickly. To a Muslim the term Allah is more than the word for creator, it represents an idol that is decidedly not the God of the Bible (Trinitarian, merciful). It would be far more logical to use a local generic term for god to make it clear that you are not trying to reform their idea of Allah, but explain something they've never heard before.

The conclusion of using an "incomplete" understanding of Jesus to get the Muslim to believe seems like flat out trickery to me. He seems to be arguing that by being straightforward in an explanation of Christ and His work in your life you will never reach a Muslim.

I have good news for those in "insider movements": the Holy Spirit does the hard work no matter what words you use. If we are faithful to preach the Word, He does the rest. As Paul did on Mars Hill, we can point the unbeliever to the God they have no concept of, and cannot have any concept of until the Holy Spirit works in their lives. 

Disclaimer: I'm not against identifying with local culture or even using local terms. My aversion is to the idea that we have to use the local culture to reach these areas. Hundreds of years of missionary work puts the lie to that.


----------



## JoannaV (Jan 13, 2013)

The only thing I'd agree(?) with is that syncretism _is_ often part of a believer's experience. Some Muslims-turned-Christian will straight away reject Muhammad. Others will need to be taught a little more: they may fully accept Jesus but still ask, what about Muhammad? It probably helps in this process if we focus more on the Bible and less on what Muhammad said about Jesus! So on that I disagree with the writer.


----------



## Brian Kooshian (Jan 13, 2013)

> [We should] categorize people in how they relate to Jesus: Where are these people, and where is Jesus in their life? We should ask, "Does this person accept Isa as Lord of their life?"



I agree with this. Jesus *is* to be Lord of their life. If Jesus somehow "shares" lordship with Muhammad, then Jesus is not really Lord in that person's life, and that person cannot be considered a Christian. It seems very clear to me.

This is all so characteristic of the syncretism of the IM movement, that wants to preserve its precious "cultural integrity" at the expense of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As our Lord said, "No one can serve two masters."


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 14, 2013)

The word to the potential convert is "Repent and believe The Gospel," and "Come to Christ, forsaking all others." Popular, or not, there can be no accommodating of dual allegiances, ever, at the start, or at the finish of a believers life.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 19, 2013)

Found this article:
worshipping Jesus in the Mosque: A response | Stand Up for the Truth


----------



## AdoptedDaughterHeir (Feb 5, 2013)

Kevin DeYoung has a post on the Gospel Coalition blog today as well: CT’s “Insider” Interview Prompts Questions and Concerns – Kevin DeYoung


----------

