On the Outside Looking In
“Are you a Christian?” There are a lot of people who will answer “Yes” to that question. But if you ask them to elaborate you get stuff like “I believe in God” and “I believe that Jesus died on the cross.” These are elements of a believer’s creed, certainly, but imagine an interview where you’ve got two people being asked the same questions and consider their answers in light of what the Bible says.
Question #1: Do you believe in God?
Believer: Yes, I do.
Demon: Absolutely.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (Jas 2:19)
Question #2: Do you believe that Jesus is God’s Son?
Believer: Sure.
Demon: I certainly do.
When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me! (Matt 8:28 [response of the demon(s) to Jesus when they saw Him approaching])
Question #3: Do you believe that Jesus rose from the grave?
Believer: I do.
Demon: Yes.
And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Col 2:15 [Satan and his subordinates are very aware of the Ultimate Defeat that was dealt to them as a result of the cross])
So, consider where this positions the believer and the demon at this point in the interview. Both of them subscribe to the exact same facts, yet the demon isn’t going to Heaven (Rev 20:10). So what is it, then, that distinguishes the believer from the demon? What is it about their belief system that’s unique when compared to what a demon believes?
Question #4: Is the Spirit of Christ living in you?
Believer: Yes, He is.
Demon: (awkward silence…)
“You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ” (Rom. 8:9).
That’s either the deal-maker or the deal-breaker. Does the Spirit of God live in you? It’s not a trick question, it’s not some lofty theological “spin.” The Presence of God’s Spirit is what defines you either as someone who’s born again or someone who’s on the outside looking in.
Salvation is you going from a spiritual corpse to having a spiritual pulse (Eph 2:1,4-5). It’s not a stained glass band-aid, it’s an entirely new paradigm and it changes everything (2 Cor 5:17).
To get that in place, you simply ask God to make it happen. All He requires is what’s referenced in Romans 10:9-10. The first part is “confessing with your mouth,” which is easy. The second part, for some, is more challenging in that He’s looking at your core and He wants to see something that goes beyond an academic tolerance for the idea of a Savior. It’s not just a historical fact, it’s a personal reality and your life is now intentionally lived as a temporary existence that is entirely subordinated to Him (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:20).
It’s the difference between believing in your mind that diet and exercise is good for you, yet not acting on it. Whereas believing in your “heart” that fitness is a priority – that will manifest itself in your actions.
In other words, “ideas” remain in your mind, “convictions” reside in your heart and that’s where God looks for a saving belief as opposed to an intellectual approval.
So, where are you at? You good, or are you on the outside looking in?
Half Truths and Loaded Questions
I) Intro – If You Ask the Wrong Questions…
If you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions and the accuracy of your answers is in direct proportion to the accuracy of your perspective.
To the right you see a series of accusations coming from the mindset of an indignant unbeliever. On the surface, one might stumble a little bit as they attempt to articulate a response. After all, some people who professed Christ as their Savior have justified some heinous acts and perspectives according to a quasi biblical sounding rationale. How do you respond and is it possible to effectively refute the indictments leveled against Christ by unbelievers who are looking to justify their lack of reverence for God?
Absolutely.
Everyone of these questions / indictments can easily be dismantled by recognizing that they’re all designed to shift the burden of responsibility from man to God and in that way insist that God is to be held accountable for the sinful actions of the persons involved.
This is a technique that is fairly common. You see it in other scenarios as well. They’re not legitimate objections as much as they are clever strategies. Consider the following:
Question: How can a loving God send someone to hell?
Answer: How can a rational person say “No” to a loving God?
Question: How can God wipe out an entire people group including women and children?
Answer: How vile was that community that they would warrant God’s wrath to that degree?
Question: Do you think you’re better than me?
Answer: It’s not whether or not I’m a better human being, it’s about whether or not your current situation could be dramatically improved by making different choices.
Question: Doesn’t the Bible say you’re not supposed to judge?
Answer: Doesn’t the Bible say that what you’re doing is wrong?
Question: Do I not have the right to be happy?
Answer: Do you not have the responsibility to be moral?
In each instance you have a tactic being deployed where the focus is redirected from the person being evaluated – be it their character or their actions – to the person doing the evaluation. It’s a brilliant scheme in that, not only are you able to minimize the substance of the offense, but by judiciously selecting your verbiage the accused is now the victim and everyone else that would be critical is now the villain.
This is where you get the intellectual sounding justification for the phrase “hate speech.” This is how unbelievers seek to, not only justify their atheism, but diminish the Presence of God in the marketplace in general. This is how the critics of the gospel are able to remove prayer from schools, manger scenes from public spaces, and our nation’s Christian heritage from academic textbooks.
What makes this issue so crucial is that even the most casual Christian has as their philosophical starting point a respect for the reality and the necessity of Absolutes: The rule of law, a respect for a person’s office, an approach to morality that’s founded on something that transcends cultural norms…
The very essence of our country is based on the fact that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable, human rights.” We justified our independence by appealing to the Absolute of the Divine Imprint that is stamped on each one of us as individuals. When you remove God from the equation, the only absolute that remains is the notion that there are no absolutes and therefore no moral barrier to stand between you and your definition of what is best and reasonable.
There are only two religions in this world: Either God is God or man is god. While it’s possible for a person to be moral apart from God, it is nevertheless their definition of morality that they subscribe to and it is their choice whether they abide by it or not. In short, they are their own absolute.
According to the Pew Research Center, the number of atheists in this country has doubled since 2014. When you look at:
- the legislation that is being passed
- the godless practices that are being promoted as acts of moral heroism
- the increasing amount of violent protesters who force speaking engagements to be cancelled
- the murder of those who march beneath the Republican banner
- the public figures who “jokingly” advocate the assassination of the President of the United States
…this is more than just a discussion of one’s metaphysical temperament. This is a contest between those who would retool the moral and spiritual fabric of our country and those who seek to preserve the spiritual foundation upon which we’re built.
And it’s no longer a conversation characterized by respectful dialogue nor is it limited to Executive Orders and the federal government. It is a war between those who insist that man is God and those who maintain that God is God. Either God is the Absolute Who we look to for both policy and salvation or man is the bottom line for this life and the next.
Never before has the tension been more palpable and rarely has the sense of urgency surrounding the ability to defend one’s faith been more intense. This is article will look at some of the half truths and loaded questions circulated by atheists in an attempt to undermine the substance and the advantages represented by the Gospel.
While we will look at the questions in the introductory graphic, let’s start with one question that is often heard: “Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?”
II) Why Does God Allow the Innocent to Suffer?
According to the image you see to the right, God is cruel and indifferent. While He has the ability to step in and protect children who are being beaten by abusive fathers, He doesn’t. Instead, He ignores their pleas and allows them to be emotionally scarred and physically damaged. If God exists at all, He is worse than a joke, He’s despicable.
Going back to the observations made in the Introduction, while it’s a clever strategy it is nevertheless a pointless tactic to try and shift the blame from man to God when it comes to the sinful and heinous acts of humanity. The first question should not be, “Where is God?” The first question should be why is Timmy’s dad beating his son to begin with.
It’s Timmy’s father that needs to be held accountable for what’s happening in the home and not God. Beyond that, however, C.S. Lewis once said, “There is nothing so self defeating as a question that is not fully understood when it is fully posed.” This is an example of a question that is not fully understood in that you’re saying that unless God prevents Timmy’s father from abusing his son, then God is not the Just and Powerful Deity that the Bible proclaims Him to be. He is Just and He is Powerful, but it’s up to mankind to acknowledge Him as such.
God does not force man to comply, He gives him the ability to choose and it’s that freedom of choice that defines the human paradigm. God is not oblivious to Timmy’s situation (Matt 10:29-31) and Timmy’s father will have to answer for the way in which he has treated his son (Ps 94:23; Heb 4:13).
Secondly, while Timmy is obviously being hurt, ultimately the One Who Timmy’s father is sinning against is God (Ps 51:4; Lk 15:18). Here is where the question being asked is revealed as something that goes beyond Timmy’s welfare.
As a human being, Timmy’s dad has the ability to choose whether to honor God or to rebel. It is his job to love and protect his son (Eph 6:4). It is also his choice (Josh 24:15; Gal 5:13). Protecting Timmy, in this instance, means more than God simply preventing Timmy from being hit. It means that He has to alter the terms of the contract that He has made with every human being as far as giving them the option of either loving Him or despising Him. And that’s not going to happen (Gen 2:16-17).
On the surface, that is not an entirely satisfactory answer. Timmy still has scars. It would be great if God stepped in every time something heinous was about to occur:
- prevent that doctor from performing that abortion
- stop that individual from getting drunk before he gets into his car
- change the minds of those two “consenting adults” before they commit adultery
Now you have a situation where some will attempt to qualify when God asserts Himself, but you can’t have it both ways. You’re either a human being with the ability to choose, or you’re a programed organism that’s obligated to comply.
The great thing about having an option is that when you choose to love God, it is love and the things that God designed to occur within the context of that voluntary relationship between Himself and His Creation can happen (Jn 10:10). But if it’s nothing more than a prearranged commitment, it isn’t love. There’s no relationship, there’s no interaction – there’s no pulse.
But on the other hand, in order for love to be possible, indifference and even hatred have to be viable alternatives. And the greater the distance between you and God, the more likely the thoughts and actions of one who perceives himself as his own absolute stand to become more sinister and damaging.
III) Conclusion
It’s not God’s fault that man chooses to rebel against Him. The questions atheists ask in an attempt to discredit God intentionally sidesteps the human element that is to be held accountable. And even if God were to assert Himself in order to prevent the sinful actions of humanity from occurring, He would have to alter the contract He’s made with the human race that allows love to occur in the context of a choice.
Having that option, while necessary, also allows for the antithesis of reverence and obedience to flourish. In the end, it’s not, “Why doesn’t God do something?” It’s, “Why does mankind choose to loathe his Creator, his Redeemer and his King?” If your evaluation of God assumes the presence of human flaws, then His Actions can never fully resonate as Holy let alone, Just.
The Real Contest
I don’t care what side of the political aisle you sit on, praying for your leaders is right out of Scripture:
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:1-4)
So, when you’ve got a number of pastors gathering around President Trump to pray for him – that God would give him wisdom and insight – how is it possible that another pastor would refer to that as “theological malpractice bordering on heresy?“
I’ll tell you how: When your platform is more about your agenda than it is those Absolutes that govern all of mankind, both Republicans and Democrats.
More and more the political tension that we’re seeing is becoming easier to discern as a contest between those that look to Divine Absolutes for the bottom line and those that would have nothing to do with any absolute save the absolute of themselves. 44% of Democrats go as far as to say that they believe church is detrimental to the nation.
If you pop the hood on that statistic, what you have is a scenario where close to half of your political constituency is antagonistic to Christ, grace and the concept of sin. Forget the incalculable love proven on the cross, never mind the Power represented by the empty tomb. Neither of those Realities are considered credible. The only thing that matters from a philosophical standpoint is the priority of self and from a practical perspective the only thing that matters is the acquisition of power.
Perhaps that seems a little harsh, but consider some of the talking points of the Democrat party: Abortion, Same Sex Marriage and the Doctrine of Entitlement. All three of these are antithetical to Scripture. But what makes it even more sinister is that they’re not “topics” as much as they are ultimately “tactics.”
Even Racism, in the way it is touted as a current stain on the fabric of American culture and indicative of our nation’s dark past as an enterprise built on enslavement, theft and cruelty, is more “strategy” than it is “substance.”
But if you can demonstrate the America is built on something sinister, then you can easily segue into what appears to be a viable reason to reconfigure the philosophical paradigm that America is built upon. In other words, if you can retool America’s heritage – if you can redefine morality and redo the foundational impetus of personal responsibility – you can establish a government based entirely on Humanism.
At first brush, perhaps that doesn’t seem like an especially dramatic scenario. But the end result is something truly heinous.
Os Guiness was born in China during WWII. He moved with his family to England and completed his undergraduate work at the University of London and completed his doctorate at Oriel College, Oxford. A sought after speaker and a prolific author, he sums up America’s political status apart from it being founded on a Divine Absolute in his book, “Last Call for Liberty“:
The framers also held that, though the Constitution’s barriers against the abuse of power are indispensable, they were only “parchment barriers” and therefore could never be more than part of the answer. And in some ways they were the secondary part at that. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to be the sole bulwark of freedom, let alone a self perpetuating machine that would go by itself. The American founders were not, in Joseph de Maistre’s words, “poor men who imagine that nations can be constituted with ink.” Without strong ethics to support them, the best laws and the strongest institutions would only be ropes of sand.
He makes a strong argument for the way in which the “pursuit of happiness” unchecked by the responsibility one has to be moral translates to disaster. And while it’s not always obvious, as far as the true essence of why our political climate continues to deteriorate into violent protests and little regard for the rule of law, it is nevertheless the foundational curse upon which their rhetoric is based.
…there is a deep irony in play today. Many educated people who scorn religious fundamentalism are hard at work creating a constitutional fundamentalism, though with lawyers and judges instead of rabbis, priests and pastors. “Constitutional” and “unconstitutional” have replaced the old language of orthodoxy and heresy. But unlike the better angels of religious fundamentalism, constitutional fundamentalism has no recourse to a divine spirit to rescue it from power games, casuistry, legalism, litigiousness—and, eventually, calcification and death.1
If you position yourself beneath the banner of Progressive thought and liberal politics, take a moment and pop the hood on what your party pushes as “compassion” and “equality” and realize it’s nothing more than a ploy to retool morality and redefine true freedom. Your champions are godless, your clergy is heretical and your platform is toxic.
If you want to argue the disaster of socialized medicine, it you want to debate the credibility of perversion, if you want to challenge the rule of law – fine. But if you fail to acknowledge the true source from which this philosophical approach proceeds, you’re either a fool or a fiend. It’s not about politics as much as it the One Who governs the affairs of men. It was that Reality that the Framers based, not only their case for independence, but also for what equated to an entirely new approach to government.
Jefferson references this in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Adams mentions it in his commentary on the Constitution
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.2
And Benjamin Franklin references this fact in some comments he made recorded by James Madison in the “Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”:
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise with his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.”3
Regardless of how you want to base your rhetoric on judiciously selected snippets of history in order to create a fictional account of the role Christianity played in our nation’s conception and legislative framework, the volume of evidence that proves your narrative to be false is overwhelming. However you would attempt to assault someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with the spin you put on current events and our nation’s heritage, your perspective is revealed for the poisonous platform that it is when you’re confronted with a comprehensive perspective on the news and history that forces you to think beyond your liberal talking points.
And however you want to present yourselves as the champions of freedom and enlightened thinking by referring to Trump supporters as fascists and racists, your strategy fails miserably once your tactics are exposed, your labels are revealed and your motives are recognized.
The real contest today is not defined in the context of political parties. Rather, it’s a fight between a mindset that seeks to justify its morality by asking “Is it Constitutional?” as opposed to “Is it right?” It’s not whether or not you have the Constitutional right, it’s whether or not you are morally right in doing whatever it is that you’re attempting to justify.
And where do go to determine a behavior’s moral value? Now you have the true essence of the debate. Either God is the Absolute that you default to or you simply default to the absolute of yourself.
That is the real contest.
1. “The Golden Triangle of Freedom”, Os Guiness, http://rzim.org/just-thinking/the-golden-triangle-of-freedom/, accessed October 4, 2017
2. “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102, accessed March 30, 2025
3. “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787”, James Madison, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000009929227&view=1up&seq=489, accessed March 30, 2025)
The Star Spangled Banner
Ft McHenry – guardian of the Baltimore Port
It’s common knowledge that Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the “Star Spangled Banner.” But what might surprise some is the fact that while it’s normally performed in a very stately fashion, the words come from the mind of someone who was outrageously elated and relieved after seeing the flag of United States still flying over Fort McHenry.
It was 1814. Key was on a diplomatic mission in an effort to secure the release of an elderly physician who had been taken prisoner by the British in the aftermath of them having burned Washington D.C.
This was the War of 1812. Despite having won her independence, America was still be harassed by the British and things came to head after Britain refused to honor America’s maritime rights and cut into her trade as part of supporting its war with France.
It was now two years later and while Key was able to successfully negotiate the release of Dr. William Beanes, he was nevertheless detained in part to ensure that anything he and his colleagues might’ve heard pertaining to the attack on Fort McHenry would not get back to the American military.
For 25 hours the British bombarded the Fort. Had they succeeded, they would’ve been able to secure Baltimore’s harbor which was both a thriving port and a strategic location. While Key wasn’t a prisoner of war, he was still under guard which made the outcome of the battle all the more significant given the way both his fate and the future of his country was tied to what would be visible once the early morning sunrise revealed the status of the fort.
Upon seeing the American flag, “…by the dawn’s early light,” Key was thrilled and inspired. The fort had endured, his country was in tact and he would be released two days later after the British departed.
When you consider the words of the Star Spangled Banner in that context, the lyrics resonate as a real celebration. And not just in the context of a fortunate victory, but as a posture of gratitude for the number of times God has been willing to protect and preserve our nation.
You see that in the fourth verse of Key’s composition:
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
It’s from that stanza that we get our National Motto.
The National Anthem has been performed in a variety of ways. But regardless of the tempo or the style, it’s the words and their meaning that make it a special piece of music. It’s a reminder that we are more than a secular experiment in politics. We’re a government based on the idea that we are made in the image of God and our future is based on His Blessing and His Protection. Provided we keep that in mind, we will continue to be, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Moses
The architecture of the US Supreme Court Building in Washington DC displays Moses with the tables of stone written with the finger of God containing the law of God, which is the basis of all law.
Most people when they think of Moses, they think of him as an elderly man holding the Ten Commandments.
And while that is certainly a huge credential, it’s easy to overlook the fact that Moses’ life was extraordinary and he was outrageously accomplished.
First of all, Acts 7:22 says,
Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. (Acts 7:22)
He had a “king’s education.” Frank Damazio elaborates on that in his book,The Making of a Leader,
Moses was adopted and raised in the house of the daughter of Pharaoh, which meant he lived in the royal household. Acts 7:22 states, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds.” From this verse we see that Moses had all the education of the known world available while in the royal house of Pharaoh. Any university or tutoring scholar, as it were, would have deemed it a privilege to tutor the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.
Egypt was, at that time, one of the most productive and progressive countries of the known world, with educational achievements far above any other land. Their economic and social life, too, was highly developed. Even today, Egypt’s colossal pyramids, with their mathematical precision, confound the understanding of the most educated builders in the world. This was the environment in which Moses was raised from his youth.
This helps explain how Moses was able to write the first five books of the Old Testament. Granted, he did so under Divine Inspiration (2 Tim 3:16), but you can see how God equipped Moses with the practical tools he would need in order to document all that God would speak through him.
In addition, Moses would’ve been trained in leadership and military tactics. Josephus, who was a Jewish historian, records an incredible example of Moses’ military prowess when he was made general of the Egyptian army and conquered the Ethiopians by attacking them using a route that was considered impassable because of the abundance of poisonous snakes that littered the area. But Moses was able to successfully lead his army through that region by deploying a large collection of birds who fed on those snakes and effectively created a path that allowed his army to pass through safely.
In that same account, Josephus talks about how the Ethiopian king’s daughter fell in love with Moses in the aftermath of the battle:
Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians: she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls, and fought with great courage; and admiring the subtility of his undertakings, and believing him to be the author of the Egyptians’ success, when they had before despaired of recovering their liberty, and to be the occasion of the great danger the Ethiopians were in, when they had before boasted of their great achievements, she fell deeply in love with him; and upon the prevalency of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him about their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city; and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her to his wife; and that when he had once taken possession of the city, he would not break his oath to her. No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land. (Josephus)
The Bible doesn’t say anything about Moses military career, but it does mention Moses’ Ethiopian wife (Num 12:1). So, Josephus’ account is credible and, given the fact that one day Moses would be leading a group of people that numbered over 600,000 (Ex 12:37), it makes sense that Moses would need the kind of experience you get by leading an army in order to effectively take responsibility for over half a million people.
The other part of Moses that often gets overlooked is that he left Egypt when he was 40 (Acts 7:23-30). And he didn’t leave because of having committed a misdemeanor. He killed a man (Ex 2:11), and while that’s not something to glorify, Moses was obviously someone who was capable of overpowering another person and then, when Pharaoh tried to have him killed, Moses was able to evade capture and that’s what landed him in Midian.
Moses was not a weak man physically and he was capable of taking care of himself.
By the time Moses returned to Egypt, this time to demand the release of the Israelites, he was 80 years old (Ex 7:7). That’s 40 years of tending sheep after having been trained and educated in Pharaoh’s court and enjoying all the benefits of power and privilege. How many days did he spend remembering the palace and now living in a tent? How many times did he remember having a servant fanning him to help deal with the heat, and now he spends every day out in the open desert?
That’s four decades of of assuming that your best days are behind you and however you might’ve looked in the mirror at one point and seeing something distinctive, now there’s nothing really to see.
Numbers 12:3 says:
Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Num 12:3)
He wasn’t humble because he didn’t have a reason to be arrogant. He was a general, he was a prince, he was capable, he was strong. He had a resume and a presence that commanded your attention.
Moses was humble because he knew God.
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Ex 33:11)
When you know the Lord, not just as a spiritual appliance or a daily discipline, but as the living God Who redeems you (Eph 2:10), Who equips you (Dt 8:18) and guides you in everything you say, think, and do (Ps 139: 16; Phil 2:13), you’re not just “grateful,” as though you’re see God as Someone Who gives your natural ability an extra push. You see Him as your One and Only Starting Point (Prov 9:10) , the sole Reason for your success (Josh 1:8; Ps 144:9-10), and the only Path that leads that leads to a life that’s truly worth living (Ps 1:3; Jn 10:10).
You don’t want to just obey Him, you want to honor Him. You don’t settle for knowing about Him, you engage in a relentless pursuit of a relationship with Him because you recognize there’s nothing and no one more worthy of your time and attention (1 Chron 29:10-13).
In the end, that’s why Moses was as accomplished as he was. That’s why he was genuinely humble and that’s why he was able to be used by God to the point where we’re still talking about his accomplishments today.
It says in Scripture that without faith it’s impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). But Faith begins with the humility that allows for an honest acknowledgement of Who it is that you’re trusting and not just a token prayer of gratitude. It’s then that surrendering your right to yourself becomes a logical response, and the faith needed to unlock the Purpose and Potential that’s built into every day of your life is now a fundamental part of the way you process yourself and the world around you.
That’s the perspective Moses had on himself and all his accomplishments and that’s the perspective we need to have as well.
Islam, Syrian Refugees and How to Love Your Enemy
“Pure Christianity” is never exercised in the absence of wisdom (Prov 9:10; Jas 1:5). Dressing up whatever policy or conviction you in the guise of “compassion” or “Christian charity” – if it doesn’t pass the litmus test of a comprehensive perspective on Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) – you’re simply attempting to give your flawed opinions the look of a Biblically based disposition, the result being neither healthy nor wise.
The question on the table is “Does denying Syrian refugees into the US run contrary to the commandment to love your enemies and to be loving and charitable to all people?”
90% of Syria
90% of Syria is Muslim. When you scan the headlines, you find differing stories as to whether or not you can accept these people as legitimate refugees or you need to at least consider the fact that they pose a potential threat given their creed as well as the history of the way terrorists have infiltrated those areas they define as targets. Given the question marks surrounding the true nature and agenda of these people, a vetting process has been established, but, according to some, it’s been diluted to the point of becoming almost non-existent in order to accommodate President Obama’s commitment to welcome 10,000 refugees by September of 2016.
Many believe that this is a logical response to a problem that doesn’t really exist, others see it as an irresponsible mindset that could case the country harm. There are several “bullet points” that emerge in the context of this debate, and while some appear both credible and compelling, there’s a warning represented by the aforementioned statistics thast need to be acknowledged in order to arrive at a conclusion that is taking into consideration all of the facts.
- Do Muslims represent a real threat?
- Are the Syrian refugees devoid of any possible terrorist element?
- What is the appropriate Christian response?
Are Muslims a Threat?
The struggle that’s going on in Syria right now is being described as one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 21st century. What began as an uprising fueled by economic and political unrest has become a struggle that’s drawn according to sectarian lines. In other words, it’s become a religious battle between the Suni’s and the Shiite’s. The struggle between Suni’s and Shiites goes back to the beginning of Islam as far as who is the true successor to Mohammed.
But there are nevertheless some common denominators between the two factions, one being their mutual hatred and resolve to destroy the United States. Some will argue that this is not the tenor of most Muslims and is therefore illogical and unfair to be hesitant when labeling Muslims in general as being a threat to national security. But here’s the problem:
The moment you put that uniform on – the moment you align yourself with Islamic teachings – you are subscribing to a creed that includes a divine endorsement for murder in the name of Allah. Not all Muslims are radical, but the more orthodox your interpretation of the Quran, the more militant you become.
Furthermore, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.
The Problem of Abrogation
While the Bill of Rights gives everyone the opportunity to practice their religion without any kind of governmental limitation, the Supreme Court in 1878 appropriately ruled that the practice of one’s religion does not serve as a defense to a criminal indictment. In other words, should your religion be used as a way to justify murder, then your religious beliefs no longer fall beneath the umbrella of the First Amendment.
Because of the way in which our nation’s 200 year history has been consistently punctuated with acts of terror prosecuted by individuals who claim a commitment to Allah as being their inspiration, being a Muslim, by default, puts you in a position where your voluntary ties to these acts defines you as a potential threat to the general welfare and not as a mere religious pilgrim.
That may sound harsh and even inaccurate, given the way many Muslims appear to be kind and more than gracious, and they may very well be. But it’s imperative to realize that those who are “moderate” are viewed by their more orthodox counterparts as “Uncle Tom’s” and not followers of the true faith. And it’s also important to realize that the Qur’an insists on the destruction of the infidel. It’s not a question of how you interpret the Qur’an, rather it’s your personal disposition as to which passages you embrace and which ones you do not.
The contention is that the most recent revelations of Mohamad are the ones that you obey. Should any of those contradict what had been documented in the past, you are to ignore anything that was previously stated and instead obey the newest admonishments. This anomaly is called “abrogation” and it’s most threatening manifestation is in the context of jihad:
During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad’s life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.
Chapter 9 of the Qur’an, in English called “Ultimatum,” is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that “Ultimatum” was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad’s life, “Ultimatum” trumps earlier revelations. 1
This is why any Muslim who is “peaceful” is nevertheless conflicted in that they are hard pressed to condemn their more militant counterparts. After all, the terrorists are simply obeying what is in the Quran. For example:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)
What About Christianity?
Some will argue that Christianity has fueled may of the conflicts that have plagued the human existence, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t being categorized as a threat. “Why not?” they ask.
First and foremost, just because you carry a Bible doesn’t make you a believer any more than brandishing a cross on your shield qualifies you as a Christian soldier. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as a truly “righteous” cause that merits the use of force. But there’s a difference between what’s right from a Biblical standpoint and what’s merely profitable.
The Crusades are often viewed as a Christian enterprise that illustrates how people who are supposedly Christ followers can be just as violent as their Islamic counterparts thus giving the impression there is no distinction between one “religious” group over another.
But the Crusades were not fought for sake of advancing the gospel as much as it was for the sake of protecting the interests of Alexis I, the emperor of Constantinople and promoting the influence of Pope Urban II. The Jews surrendered their home to the Muslims in 638. It wasn’t until 1096 that the first Crusade was initiated. If it was a purely Christian impetus that inspired the Crusades, why did it take over 400 years for any kind of military campaign to be launched? Fact is, the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their territory to include Constantinople. Only then did Alexis I reach out to the Pope who was only too happy to seize the opportunity to extend his authority into what was previously an exclusively Greek Orthodox dynamic. Bottom line: The Crusades were about wealth and power and not the cause of Christ.
That’s not to say that providing aid to Alexis the First would’ve been an inappropriate gesture. But to offer forgiveness of one’s sin in exchange for taking up arms against the Turks…
“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (portion of Pope Urban II’s speech at Council of Clermont, 1095)
…is not even remotely biblical let alone a “holy” war.
And as far as the kind of violence the you do see in Scripture, there’s a fundamental difference there as well.
War in the Bible versus Jihad
Dr. Emir Caner grew up as a Muslim and later, along with his brother, converted to Christianity. Part of what makes his story so compelling is that his father was a devout Muslim. According to the Hadith, you are to be put to death if you renounce your faith in Allah. Rather than following the Qur’an to the letter, their father chose instead to disown them and they never saw their father again until he was on their deathbed. He’s currently president of Truett McConnell College in Cleveland, Georgia.
He explains the difference between war from a biblical standpoint and the way it’s promoted in the Qur’an:
…war, in Christian thought has the express purpose of securing peace (see Timothy 2:2) and removing those who oppress and act wickedly (see Romans 13:1-7). But war in Islam is different both in its scope and purpose. The latter half of sura 9:5 commands, “But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.
After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees…
And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).2
God and Allah
And it’s not just the difference in what prompts war. It comes down to the fundamental difference between God and Allah. Dr. Emir Caner is joined by his brother in the book, “Unveiling Islam.” Together they explain that:
The greatest difference between Jesus Christ as God and Savior and Muhammad as prophet of Allah, comes at this point. Jesus Christ shed His own blood on the cross so that people could come go to God. Muhammad shed other people’s blood so that his constituents could have political power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Further, since Muhammad is held to be the “excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day” (sura 33:21), we need to look no righter for explanation of violent acts with Islam than at the character of its founder. Was Muhammad a man of peace who shed other people’s blood only as a last resort? When he killed others, were his acts part of war or for personal vengeance? The answers to such questions tarnish the ethical integrity of the Islamic worldview.3
Allah’s heart is set against the infidel (kafir). He has no love for the unbeliever, nor is it the task of the Muslim to “evangelize” the unbelieving world. Allah is to be worshiped, period. Any who will not do so must be defeated, silenced, or expelled. The theme is conquest, not conversion, of the unbelieving world. Allah has called the Muslim to make the name of Allah alone to be worshiped. 4
At the end of the day, Christianity and Islam represent two vastly different paradigms, both in the natures of God and Allah as well as in the way they are to be championed and proliferated. A very short and succinct way of expressing the differences would be to simply reflect on how Allah invites his followers to die for him, whereas God says, “No, I’ll die for you.” But what about the way in which you are to treat your enemy from a Christian standpoint? Does Christian charity not demand that we as a nation welcome anyone within our borders, regardless of their intent?
Loving Your Enemy versus Enabling Them
Here’s the thing: There’s a difference between loving your enemy and enabling them. In 2 Kings 6, the Arameans were at war with Israel and had surrounded the city of Dothan in an effort to capture the prophet Elisha. Elisha prayed that God would strike the army with blindness and God honored Elisha’s request. Elisha then led the army into Samaria, at which point the eyes of the Aramean army were opened. Rather than destroying them, Israel fed them and sent them away. Afterwhich the king of Aram ceased to war with Israel. But that peace didn’t last. In the very next chapter, the nation of Aram is once again attacking Israel.
The point is, chapter six illustrates how a Christian is to deal with their enemy – with compassion. That isn’t to say that there are no casualties in the kind of warfare prosecuted by believers (2 Kings 18:8). The Arameans were no strangers to Israel. You see them throughout the Old Testament. Indeed, in 2 Samuel 8, King David killed 22,000 of them in a battle where they had tried to defeat Israel by fighting alongside the Zobahites.
But war in general is fought either as a last resort to subordinate a wicked ideology and ensure a lasting peace, or it is engaged for the sake of promoting a wicked ideology and advancing a quest for power. War is never choreographed nor is it scripted. By the time the situation has deteriorated to that point, horrific scenes are commonplace and those who survive that value life will carry with them scars and psychological wounds that they will bear for the rest of their lives. Individuals such as Hitler, however, had no problem sleeping at night because the presence of a breathing Jew – or any who would offer them sanctuary- was nothing more than an obstacle to overcome. A Hebrew was not a soul that Christ had died for. They were a social poison that was therefore unworthy of the dignity that every human being would otherwise rate when viewed through the lens of a Christian paradigm. Death and suffering were merely processes by which the Nazi archetype would be established.
That’s the distinction between war waged as a form of conquest and war waged in the name of justice. In both situations you have an enemy, but in the context of conquest, you have a nameless entity that needs to be eliminated. When the cause is just, on the other hand, the enemy is a human opponent that merits the consideration due a person that God valued enough to redeem.
But that doesn’t mean you hesitate to do whatever is required to subdue them should they attack (Num 21:1-3). Nor does it mean that you allow them to keep a sword in their hands as long as they remain a threat (see sidebar [Dt 20:10-11]).
When Israel went to war with neighboring nations, they were instructed to first make an offer of peace. It would be in the context of that offer that Israel’s enemy could demonstrate that they were no longer an enemy, but merely a foreigner that was now entitled to the same rights and privileges of an Israelite.
Take for example Uriah the Hittite. The Hittites were among those that Israel fought as part of the conquest of the Promised Land (Dt 20:17). Yet, Uriah is listed among David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 23:39). Uriah literally means, “My light is the Lord.” So, here’s an example of someone who’s lineage included a people group that had at one point been at war with Israel, but had since adopted the Israelite faith and proven his worth and integrity to the point where he was now serving in a prestigious, military position.
While we don’t have video footage of the feast the Jews held for their enemies, no doubt the mood of the Arameans was that of a conquered opponent. The reason the gesture resonated the way that it did was because it was deployed from a position of strength. It’s one thing to impress your enemy with a noble surrender, but when you have the higher ground, the impression you’re making by being compassionate can be even more powerful.
It’s Not a Courtroom, it’s Combat
In warfare, your enemy is not a mere criminal in that their agenda is not that of a common thief or a murderer. Rather, it’s the demise of the ideals that serve as the philosophical foundation upon which your nation is based.
That is their target.
When contending with an enemy soldier, it’s not a criminal attack that you’re trying, it’s a military attack that you’re combating. Hence, any kindness must be executed in a manner that prevents them for shaking hands with one hand and delivering a lethal blow with the other. It’s only when your foe is having to admit defeat or, at the very least, the very real likelihood of being overwhelmed, that your hospitality compels them to reevaluate their hatred for you and the value system you represent.
It should be noted as well that any pagan foreigner who chose to live among the Israelites was expected to obey the same laws that had been prescribed for the Jews (Num 15:16). The worship of Jehovah was not dictated (Ex 12:48) and the Israelites were commanded not to oppress or mistreat any foreigner (Ex 23:9). But as far as moral and criminal statutes – those laws were expected to be upheld.
In some instances, that might seem like a violation of one’s civil liberties – especially from today’s point of view. But you have to realize that it was the foreigner’s reverence for their pagan deities that served as the basis for their determination to destroy Israel. Committing to a new moral / legal code was not an infringement of their rights as much as it was a necessary pledge of allegiance to the general welfare of the Hebrew nation as opposed to its demise.
In Conclusion
Using Scripture as a template for the way in which the US is to approach the admission of 10,000 Muslims into our cities has to go beyond a hippie-like dismissal of evil based on a solitary Bible verse. Rather, it must be a comprehensive perspective of the Bible which includes the reason you are to love your enemies and the manner in which you are to make that love apparent.
Those who sneer at military action or condemn the use of deadly force forget that the opponent whose sole objective is power process their offer of peace as them simply removing themselves from the battlefield and exchanging the indignity of violence for the certainty of being destroyed.
- Pacifism is not an application of of the Bible, it’s a distortion of it.
- Socialism is not a system illustrated by the life of Christ, it’s a humanistic attempt to solve the problem of greed.
- Loving your enemy is not about making yourself vulnerable to attack as much as it’s a victor’s kindness extended to their foe as an encouragement to change.
Unless it can be determined conclusively that a Syrian refugee is not inclined to embrace those portions of the Qur’an that condemn the infidel to death, you are welcoming into your neighborhood a potential threat. Offering aid and assistance is one thing, handing over the keys to your home is another. That’s not being disobedient to the Word of God, that’s an application of the wisdom contained within it.
1. “Middle East Forum”, “Peace or Jihad: Abrogation in Islam”, David Bukay, 2007, http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam, accessed June 20, 2016)
2. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19
3. “Unveiling Islam”, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Emir Fethi Caner, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 2002, 2009, p20
4. Ibid, p90
