Roger Gelwicks

Thanks, John, for your comparison of Christianity to that of Islam, especially the roles of prophet, priest, and king as displayed by the respective leaders of each religion. Your comparison is so illegitimate that it hardly makes any sense to read it.  From the start you make Christ the ultimate standard to which you compare Mohammed.  Of course Mohammed is going to fail the test.  And Christ would fail just as fatally if you were to make Mohammed the standard of perfection to whom you compared Jesus.  Any Muslim would laugh at your comparison, it is so unfairly unbalanced, and falls far short of objectivity.  Your comparison is like comparing a fine wine to that of Welch’s grape juice.  There is no comparison.  To the person who is not religious, Christian or a Muslim, such a comparison as you make is embarrassing.  But thanks, John, for making an attempt.

       Thanks, Walt, for your comment.  I’m struck by your response to this article.  It doesn’t really align well with our Belgic Confession (Art. 13) or Heidelberg Catechism (LD 10).  Of course you may not be of Reformed persuasion or may not hold such confessions in high regard.  Christians from other traditions will come to different conclusions than either you or the Reformed Confessions.  Appealing to the Bible, as you have, will also bring a huge variety of interpretations.  After all, with the hundreds of Christian denominations, there are nearly as many different interpretations of particular Bible passages.  On top of that there are hundreds of different religions, all making the same claim as Christians that their Scriptures are the true inspired word of God.  And with the variety of God inspired Scriptures there are a variety of ways to understand God’s (or the Gods) involvement in human events, as well as natural events such as the Corona virus. 

       I realize that Christians think they are the only ones with true insight into all things religious and spiritual, including the nature of God.  But Christianity (in all its variety) is having a diminishing impact on first world nations (Western civilization) with its emphasis on reason.  In other words, the Bible is seen as less and less relevant in our world of reason and even common sense.   Religions, including Christianity, base their teachings on so-called supernatural revelations.  For all the reasons that Christianity rejects the inspired teachings of all other religions, those outside of Christianity also reject the inspired teachings of the Bible for the same reasons.  In other words, as a manmade revelation, the Bible is no more relevant than the Scriptures of other religions in forecasting or predicting God’s involvement or non involvement in world or personal affairs.  

       So what is God’s involvement in the Corona virus?  Where do we look for resolve of this endemic?  I would venture that most are looking to the experts in the scientific and medical fields.  With over five million confirmed cases globally and nearly four hundred thousand deaths it would seem as though prayer has been less than effective.  So let’s hope for a vaccine.

Quoting Mark Durie from your article, “reciting the Islamic confession of faith engenders a type of spiritual bondage; something of which many Western mission societies have little appreciation.”  But of course Christians know such spiritual bondage, as the New Testament makes many references calling for believers to be slaves of Christ.  So John, are you suggesting a commonality that Christians have with Muslims?

      Thanks, Justin, for explaining your approach to evangelism, especially in working with those of other religions such as those of the Muslim persuasion.  I think your view of Christianity has clouded what you believe Muslims believe.  Even as there is great variety within Christian belief, so there is with Muslims.  You talk of yourself as a “real, live Christian.”  Many Christians (nominal) think of their life and works as a reflection of their attitude toward God.  “I’m basically a good person.”  In such thinking their works are not kept on a score sheet of pass or fail.  Their life of caring about and for others is a reflection of their respect, and love for God.  They know God is a forgiving God and they don’t see themselves as an enemy of God but as a friend.  It’s not so different from you, who think of works as an expression of love and gratitude.  The big difference is that you think of yourself as worthless before God, apart from Jesus.  Others don’t consider themselves as worthless, but as a valued creation of God.

       There are differences among Muslims, as well.  In that your Muslim neighbor saw both Christianity and Islam as good, he didn’t see the other religion (Christianity) as the enemy.  Both are concerned with doing good.  I doubt that your neighbor saw his own religion primarily as a set of ethical rules, a list of dos and don’ts, as you suggest.  His living by an ethical standard of good was merely a reflection of his heart and love for Allah (or God).  Muslims also believe in God’s forgiveness and that God doesn’t expect perfection of his creatures.  So, much like many (so called) Christians, Muslims believe in doing good as an expression of love for God and neighbor.

Maybe you, Justin, need to rethink what contributes to the superiority of Christianity over that of Islam.

Thanks, Greg, for graciously giving the readers of your article the opportunity to respon.  You have been generous in your response to the different viewpoints presented.  You have had quite a feedback as to what many think contributes to the timid proclamation of the Christian gospel.

     And you have had some examples of Christian evangelism demonstrated right here in the comments that have been made.  I doubt if they are the kind of evangelistic effort that would be effective in interfaith discussions though.  Dan seems to admit such ineffectiveness quite openly.  What he says about declaring the gospel at interfaith discussions would be true in most settings in our Western culture.  As Dan suggests a bold presentation of Christ would be a one hit wonder.  Don’t expect any invite backs.

     I don’t know, Greg, but have you considered that Dan in his comment is on to something?  It would seem, Biblically speaking, the gospel is not really meant to have a wide spread impact.  It is not meant to be a solution to the world’s problems.  It’s not meant to be the solution to the religious intolerance of the world, or even in our Western culture.

     Does God intend for Christianity to be the solution to the world’s problems?  As Christians we quote, or are at least aware of, the Scriptures that say, “narrow is the way that leads to life and wide is the way that leads to destruction.”  Or that, “many are called but few are chosen” for salvation.  Reformed Christians (in their own small circles) hold high the doctrine of election, the idea that God chooses only some for salvation but not all.  God, in Reformed thought, never intended to reach the many with the gospel, but only the few.  The rest, the unchosen, can go to hell which is what they deserve.  So how can we expect a success rate for the gospel when God measures success by a different standard than Christians themselves.  So Christians can proclaim the gospel far and wide (“many are called”), but God’s intention only extends to the few, the few he has chosen.

    So Greg, I would say (maybe with Dan) don’t get your hopes up.  The gospel has had little effect in establishing world peace in two thousand years.  And it won’t in the future either.  That’s not the intent of the gospel (at least in God’s mind). From a logical perspective, or reasonable perspective, the gospel’s failure has many reasons, some listed in the responses given here.  Thanks again, Greg, for the opportunity for dialogue.

Thanks, Dan, for the comment.  I don’t mean to be crass or mean spirited, but you apparently know little or nothing about other religions.  Christians themselves, have characterized all other religions as self help based in contrast to Christianity which is grace based.  Self help indicates that religious adherents  must find acceptance with God through a life pleasing to him.  That involves turning from sinful ways and following righteousness. I also suggested that David of the Old Testament was a deist who was considered a “man after God’s own heart.”  Nearly every religion has a code of conduct, or moral standards, most very similar to the ten commandments.  So I don’t know, Dan, where you are getting your information about other religions, but it is obviously misguided.

As to those rejecting the Christian gospel benefiting from the peace and tranquility the gospel brings.  Hmm.  I think of the peace and tranquility of apartheid in South Africa which was led, for the most part, by Reformed Christians and their churches.  If you were to turn your statement around, I think you could say that Christians benefit greatly by the advances of secular culture - science, medicine, health care, technology, government and more. 

Well, Dan, I think you miss the point of other religions, again.  Other religions don’t have a grading scale as to earning God’s favor.  Muslims, for instance, believe in the perfection of God, like Christianity.  Works don’t measure anyone’s righteousness and therefore acceptance with God.  Good works merely demonstrate a commitment to God.  No one is perfect.  After all we are human beings, not Gods.  Even the Bible admits there is none righteous, no not one.  If we had been created as Gods, then God might expect perfection.  But we are human and come into the world with a natural inclination to sin.   So God isn’t looking for perfection, just commitment, even though that commitment often falls short.  God is a forgiving God, so perfection isn’t the goal.  He sees the heart.

Deism is the believe in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and nature only. David, of the Old Testament, could be a good example of deism, one who saw God’s glory and wonder in the created world.  Many of his Psalms glory in the God of creation.  And even though he sinned, sometimes grievously, God forgave him and referred to him as a man after his own heart.  All this without ever having heard of Jesus or having believed in him for salvation.  David’s life was lived in the knowledge of and love for the God he saw in creation.  So, Dan, I think your criticism of other religions and even deism misses the mark.  And by the way, Dan, deism is not a man made religion. The only revelation deists believe is the created order, or nature.  That’s God’s revelation of himself, especially when reason is applied to it.  As you say, all other religions (and so called supernatural revelations) are man made which would include the Bible.  Blessings to you.

Thanks for an interesting conversation on the topic of Christian evangelism in the public arena.  Greg, in your above article, you wonder why evangelicals (or even classically minded Christians) are not stepping up to the plate and proclaiming Jesus publically.  To someone standing on the sidelines, the answer seems obvious.  “Jesus” is a bit of an embarrassment.  He doesn’t fit into the common ground by which other religions see as a solution to the problem of religious intolerance.  Even the mainline minister whom you mentioned seems to recognize this.  Jesus represents the height of Christian superstition, and most people including those of other religions recognize this (even those at this religious vigil).  Superstition (even Christian superstition) will not help solve the problem of religious intolerance. 
           
Classical Christians have long proclaimed that the problem of sin is solved in turning to Christ who paid the price as a substitute for sinners.  Christians have, over the ages, spoken of the unique nature of Christianity over all other religions.  All religions are self help religions (so say Christians).  People can better themselves, even making themselves acceptable to God.  But not so for the Christian.  So a classical Christian standing in a pool of non Christian religious people will stand out like a sore thumb.  He/she is radically different at the base.  This is the superstition of Christianity, and it is not welcome, even among other religions.  Such a vigil as you attended, Greg, are looking for a common ground, and classical Christianity doesn’t offer that.  And if you pretend there is you are coming close to hypocrisy.   That’s the obvious reason Christians don’t fit into an interfaith dialogue.

And so the hesitancy of Jason is that to enter the fray with non Christian religions, as though there is a common ground, when there isn’t.  To enter into a dialogue with other religions as though we had something in common is hypocrisy.  The Christian’s ultimate answer is Jesus and him alone.  I think the PR’s hesitancy to jump on the common grace bandwagon is that it tends to compromise the Christian stand on “Christ alone.”  Common grace is like putting a band-aid on a terminal illness.

So the answer that Christians offer the world (non Christian and those of other religions) is foolishness.  Christianity has nothing to contribute to religious harmony amongst all religions and non religions. And because even Christians know this, why embarrass themselves by proclaiming their unique superstition among non believers?  Thanks for allowing the input.

     Thanks, Greg, for the continuing dialogue.  I would question the value of the “Scriptural Reasoning” approach, at least to an evangelical effort.  Such an approach appears, to me, to be more of an intellectual approach.  It’s an approach in which each religion presents its own perspective as the best approach to God.  No one is at such a session to be convinced of another religion, especially Christians.  Other participants may be listening to each perspective, but listening with the idea of how to defend their own religion.  In the end it would be similar to a class on world religions, an intellectual approach to religious differences. Such an approach is not geared toward evangelism.  In such a setting there is little embarrassment in expressing religious ideas.  It is expected.  But I doubt that the Scriptural Reasoning approach has any or little effect as to evangelism.

     I mentioned the embarrassment Christians typically feel in doing evangelism in the public arena.  It’s easy to speak of Jesus Christ in a church setting or a seminary or Bible college setting where all believe basically the same.  It’s easy to write articles and make comments on a Christian website, where Christian dialogue is expected. 

     But it’s altogether different when a Christian is placed in hostile territory.  Christians realize that the Christian message of Jesus does not stack up to reason or common sense.  It’s a message that has to be acknowledged by faith apart from reason.  That God is a three person being of which the second person came to earth as a human baby makes little sense (even to the Muslim).  Or that Jesus is fully human and fully divine at the same time, but as to his humanity never sinned or did wrong, even as a child or a teenager, makes little sense.  And we could go on with the improbabilities of Jesus’ miraculous life, and so the non Christian reasons quickly that Christianity makes little common sense.  It’s difficult for the Christian (especially in Western culture) to evangelize in a cultural setting where reason and common sense wins the day.  That has increasing become the embarrassment of making a stand for Jesus in our culture. 

     Again, as to common grace being a segue to the Christian faith.  Perhaps there is a place for common grace in Christian thinking, that God works through other avenues other than the Christian message which is common to all people.  But common grace is not the Christian message.  A message of God’s common grace skirts the Christian message altogether.  That seemed to be your complaint in regard to the mainline Christian’s speech, no mention of Jesus, but only of “common grace” methods to help curb religious intolerance.  Once again, Greg, thanks for the dialogue.