The Thirteen: One Crisis

Vinnie MacIssac

Life is a highway and I love road trips! My best friend and I were trying to finish our Masters’ Degree, as part of our ordination track, when we threw caution to the wind and drove two states away, derailing our graduation date, all to take a summer intensive, in developmental theology, from a living legend who was about to retire from teaching.

Driving down the road, eager with excitement, we were just two pastors, yakking on about geeky-theology stuff, and somehow Romans 13:1 ended up dividing us on this issue of God’s role in directing citizens on issues of war and security.  Knowing, I was not going to win this debate, I simply, and maybe a bit mischievously, said to my friend, “Hey you know what, when we get to class you ought to ask our professor, Dr. Knight, what he thinks is the correct use of that verse.”  That was all it took.  My friend took the bait, hook, line-and-sinker. This, honestly, was unfair.  Because I had already read Dr. George R Knight’s devotional commentary on the Book of Romans and I knew exactly where he stood.

There we were, the first day of class, super excited to be learning at the feet of Dr. George Knight, himself, and my friend had his hand up, “Sir, Sir, can I ask you a question before we get started?”

I know, I should have tried harder to stop my friend. If you have never met Dr. George R Knight, he has often aptly been described as personifying both aspects of Jesus; the Lion and the Lamb.  As my friend eagerly presented his case on
Romans 13:1 being the bedrock of God’s good government on earth, he was sure the good Doctor would concur and correct me.

Doctor Knight, was as gentle as a Lamb. He listened, smiled, leaned down towards the desk making full eye contact, matching faces, like the sweet, joy-filled, grandfather figure that he is; and then with a flicker in his eyes, he transformed, in a millisecond, into the roaring Lion of the tribe of Judah, and barked out, “Don’t you know, that was Hitler’s favorite verse? What’s a teacher to think of you on the first day of class?” And the whole class broke into laughter defusing the matter at hand.

But Romans 13:1 is no laughing matter at all. Romans 13 has been used as a pretext for all kinds of government, and church/ state control throughout history; like Luther to subjugate the peasants[1], like the British loyalists during the American Revolution and to justify slavery in America[2], not to mention to keep people from opposing Hitler during the Holocaust[3], just to name a few. When Christians use Romans 13:1 to justify the injustice of a political power they are ripping the verse right out of the womb of its context, and aborting it from the very message of love, liberty, and freedom of equality both Paul and the Bible teaches.

Romans 13 was originally written by the Apostle Paul to Christians in Rome, just as Emperor Nero[4] was rising to power among other authorities who, in Paul’s time, were hostile to the church.^[5]  Paul, commonly believed to be writing from Corinth[6] to Christians throughout the Roman Empire, was telling them to keep focused on their religious mission and not stir up unnecessary trouble with the, already hostile, authorities of the time.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”^[7]

Paul was not lending power and authority to the tyrannical Roman government; he was telling Christians to get out of the way!  Remember, this was the government that mercilessly persecuted the early church and who had crucified Christ, himself. Yet, Christians from Rome did have some political power, because they had citizenship; even Paul was tempted, at times, to use it. So, Paul warns them that true power resides in God alone! Rome had been chosen by God for a purpose that was not the business of the Church. The church was to be focused on the mission of preaching Jesus to the ends of the Roman Empire and the world.

Professor Ken Boa, (Ph.D., ThM, DPhil, President of Trinity House Publishers) reflecting on this tension found in Romans 13:1-2 offers these important thoughts:

 “What Paul wanted the believers in Rome to understand was, in the Roman Empire (or any other), “No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another… The fact that “governing authorities” are human authorities—sinners just like us—is perhaps what makes it so difficult… How far is the Christian expected to go in obeying civil authorities—especially when those authorities demand that which goes against the will of God?”^[8]

That question provides much-needed context to the Romans 13:1 crisis because God certainly would not have been telling Christian to obey Nero, deny Christ, and worship idols, and submit to death. Furthermore, Paul would never give an absolute command contrary to the rest of the Apostles, who declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”[9]

Paul was not teaching his followers to be patriotic citizens of Rome but rather to be citizens that survived the crushing power of Rome against Christians!

Doctor George R Knight, (BA, MA, MDiv, EdD, a retired professor from Andrews Seminary) the author of, Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary says, God established the government because, “Without it, life exists only by the law of the jungle.”[10] In other words, it exists to hold the most basic order of life in place. Yet it only has the authority to do it as a “Servant of God.”[11] That is to say, it is not an unchecked power unto itself, but rather it is an imperfect tool God uses.

Knight goes on to remind us;

“And what about those early Christian martyrs who lost their lives to the Roman emperors Decius and Diocletian? They had commanded Roman citizens to worship them on the pain of death. All that a Christian had to do was to bow down and curse Christ. Such was the direct order of the Roman government.  We should never forget that it is the very government that Paul refers to in Romans 13 that not only crucified Jesus but would eventually take the apostle’s own life… Thus earthly rulers are not supreme but operate under delegated authority. They are God’s servants and nothing more, in spite of whatever exalted views they may have of themselves… When the state steps out of its rightful role and seeks to become the supreme authority, in the place of God, it has departed its legitimate function. Thus when the regulations of the state conflict with loyalty to God, civil disobedience is not only appropriate but demanded by the first commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:3).”[12]

As we exegete Romans 13:1 and its context, one thing we all must hold certain is that the Bible should never be exegeted by the State;  particularly not this verse, because it has been used, historically, to oppress so many people by various governments. It is a fundamental principle of religious liberty that the American government, or any government, should never tell Christians what to believe.  This practice should be opposed by all Bible-believing Christians, and particularly by all Protestants and Evangelicals. Protestants have a long and brutal history of having to escape persecution from the State when it united with Papal and other church/state combinations. In fact, the United States arose, in large part, from the very escape of such tyrannical forces.[13]

Our Founding Fathers, when envisioning what sort of nation we were to be, made this idea the founding principle of the Bill of Rights.  The first amendment of the constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, and promised that the government could not show favor to the establishment of any religion because if it did, it would suppress both freedoms of conviction and speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[14]

Thomas Jefferson in his distinguished and renowned letter to the Danbury Baptists on Jan. 1. 1802, further explained the intent of this concept:

“Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”[15]

When Jeff Sessions, acting in his official role as The US Attorney General, stood before the press, defending the policy of his office by saying; “I would cite to you  the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful”[16] he violated the spirit of the text and the stated intent of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers for our Religious Liberty. Jeff Sessions, with those words, created what I call the current, “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis”. Regardless if we agreed, or not with his policy, every Bible-believing, constitution loving, Christian in the nation, ought to have stood up, with one voice, denouncing such actions. So why did we not?

Have Christians and Constitutionalist,  alike, become so side-tracked with policy, political tribalism, or even apathy, that we would be willing to ignore our very own religious liberties, and bow down once again to the golden statue on the plains of Dura[17], and worship the golden image, forsaking Yahweh our Lord, and embracing our new rulers? Have we already, sold ourselves back into the slavery of church ruled by the State? This is what I call the “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis,” and now the church must awake to its danger before it becomes the new norm. This is the spirit of those in the crowd, on that terrible day, who cried out with a “zero tolerance” voice for the God who ‘immigrated’ to this world to save them, “We have no king but Caesar!”[18] We must not forsake our liberty of religious freedom, by handing over our religious understanding to the State to use, even if with good intentions, lest we find that Caesar is the only version of God we have left!

To be fair, perhaps Jeff Sessions, and later to a lesser significance Sarah Huckabee Sanders[19], did not mean act against years of religious liberty and separation of church and state. Perhaps, they felt cornered, or even pressed by the media, or as Christians serving in higher office to defend their own faith because of what people were saying about their current immigration policy[20], but as gracious as I can be about the motivations of their actions, I cannot excuse the great danger in which they have placed all of America.

It is not enough, that Jeff Sessions’ own church seeks  now to possibly discipline him[21] “alleging he has misused his “tremendous social/political power” in his enforcement of the nation’s laws”[22] and “criticizes Sessions for citing Romans 13 to justify the policies.”[23] We all must, as Bible-believing, liberty-loving Christians, stand up and demand that the Government get out of our pulpit, out of our Bible, and out of the business of justifying political policy with subjective interpretations of our Bible! This was not a national prayer breakfast, or a traditional holiday address, or a generic call for God’s blessing on our nation. This was the defense of the execution of the legal policy of the United States Department of Justice, with a personal application, of the preferred peculiar religious discernment, held by the nation’s chief lawyer, the Attorney General; and thus, must be seen as a serious threat to religious liberty and the first amendment. If apathetic Christians, Pastors, Ministers, Church officials, and Denominations do not stand up to abhor and abominate such practices as this, the time will soon be upon us that whoever happens to reside in the White House at any given time might as well be called both President and Pope.

For the irony that directly stands before us is this: The Apostle Paul was writing to Christians living in the greater Roman Empire about appropriate Christian obedience to Rome and yet, this is the exact same Rome that in just a few hundred years, would unite with the church in partnership, and evoke brutal church and state powers and attempt to crush out any Christian who opposed their interpretations of the Bible. The conclusion is sobering, a “Romans Thirteen: One Crisis,” will always, in time, produce a “Revelation Thirteen: Fifteen Crisis.”

“Let anyone who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”[24] [25]

Video appendix:

Footnotes:

[1] Luther, Martin (1525). Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.

[2] Mullen, Lincoln. “The Fight to Define Romans 13”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 17 June 2018

[3] George R Knight. Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary. Review & Herald (December 18, 2013)

[4] “Nero | Roman emperor”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-07-02.

^[5] Boa, K., & Kruidenier, W. (2000). Romans (Vol. 6, p. 392). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[6] Dunn, xliv; Stuhlmacher, 5;

^[7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 13:1). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[8] Boa, K., & Kruidenier, W. (2000). Romans (Vol. 6, p. 392-394). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

[9] Acts 5:29

[10] George R Knight. Exploring Romans: A Devotional Commentary. Review & Herald (December 18, 2013), p. 249

[11] Ibid. p.250

[12] Ibid p.250-251 (quotes gathered to summarize the larger point)

[13] The Library of Congress, America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

[14] https://www.ushistory.org/gov/10b.asp

[15] Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists  – Library of Congress Information Bulletin

[16] Swenson, Kyle (15 June 2018). “Sessions says the Bible justifies separating immigrant families. The verses he cited are infamous”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 June 2018.

[17] The plain where Nebuchadnezzar set up the golden image, (Daniel 3:1)

[18]  John 19:15

[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-4tGZLyW0A

[20] Such a position, as this, granted particularly to Jeff Session, is extremely liberal in generosity considering the nature of the position he holds, his vast history of public service, and his University of Alabama School of Law education.

[21] https://time.com/5316396/united-methodist-church-discipline-jeff-sessions-child-separation/

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Revelation 2:29

[25] I would like to say a special thanks to Michael D. Peabody, Esq. for his support and assistance in the inspiration and formation of some of my key ideas enclosed in this article.

The post The Thirteen: One Crisis appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

Christianity’s Struggle

With Authority

By Guest Blogger Pastor Daniel Royo

Those who profess to follow God have a long track record of struggling with power. From the entrance of sin those who have some connection with God, either by profession or historical connection, have largely not had a clear idea of where spiritual authority comes from and how they should relate to it. This blog post highlights the history of the struggle, with a particular emphasis on developments of the last 2000 years. Despite our human tendencies, God proposes self-governance, not centralized power, as His preferred solution to sin-induced chaos.

Christian History

Protestant Christianity can be said to be simply a 500-year history of fights, splits, accusations, heretical teachings, and chaos. Despite countless attempts to bring some order to the chaos, the arguing continues. This battle, however, traces back to the beginnings of Christianity. Following Jesus’s ascension, the apostles warned that false teachers and false doctrines were lurking (Acts 20:29–31; 2 Cor 11:13–15; 1 Tim 4:1–3; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 2:26). One would think this would have been the preferred time to establish a creed or a doctrinal statement and designate those who be responsible for assuring adherence to the creed. Instead, the consistent message of the apostles was to study the revelation of the Jewish Scriptures (Acts 17:11; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6, 11; 2 Tim 3:15–17; 2 Pet 1:19–21). There were already false teachers in the lifetime of the New Testament writers who misused the writings of the apostles (2 Pet 3:15–16) but the centralization of power to confront the false teachers developed after the time of the apostles.

The early church faced a number of false teachings. Some of the more prominent were Gnosticism (secret knowledge was necessary for salvation), Montanism (Montanus was the Holy Spirit), Sabellianism (God is only one manifested three ways, not three), Arianism (Jesus was a created being), and Pelagianism (humanity can achieve heaven through our own power).[i] A bishop in Lyon, named Irenaeus (c.125–202 A.D.), in his efforts to counter Gnosticism, suggested that the solution to the false teachers could three-fold: (1) centralize power in the bishops as the successors of the apostles who received the oral tradition not recorded in Scripture, (2) codify church tradition in creeds, and (3) make church tradition and Scripture equal sources of authority.[ii] These ideas continued to develop and grow as the church continued to face persecution from without and false teachings from within.[iii]

The bishops called church councils to discuss the issues facing the church and to formulate creeds both to reflect their understanding of church tradition and to confront the false teachings. The central power of the church moved from the people, with multiple elders overseeing the churches, to the bishops who were deemed to be the successors of the apostles.[iv] This centralization continued to lead to greater prominence among certain bishops to the point that to this day there is an argument between the Eastern Orthodox who argue for a historical pentarchy and the Roman Catholic Church who argues for Roman primacy. The disagreement is not over whether or not there was centralization of religious authority, it is over who were the centralized authorities.

There were dark times in the Dark Age (Saeculum Obscurum A.D. 904–964) when corruption was rife in Rome and the only concern was power seeking and self-indulgence. This was followed by the schism in 1054 between east and west in which both the Eastern Patriarch and the Pope excommunicated each other. This apex of the corruption of those in power not only places a blot on the history of Christianity but also points to the dangers of centralizing power. The church had appointed to itself the authority to define doctrine for the people and then those in power did not even abide by the very teachings they imposed on the people.

The church had appointed to itself the authority to define doctrine for the people and then those in power did not even abide by the very teachings they imposed on the people.

The revolution brought about by the Protestant Reformation has at its center the issue of authority. One historian of the Protestant Reformation wrote,

The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation . . . was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers—and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabilize the church, eventually leading to fissure and the formation of breakaway groups.[v]

He goes on to write, “Protestantism took its stand on the right of individuals to interpret the Bible for themselves rather than be forced to submit to ‘official’ interpretations handed down by popes or other centralized religious authorities.”[vi] The idea of the individual having the right to read and interpret the Bible for themselves apart from the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the church was a revolutionary idea at the time.

As one Roman Catholic theologian looks at the Protestant Reformation he agrees with the issue regarding authority, but he makes an insightful comment about the state of Protestant churches since the Reformation.

When the Protestant churches seceded from Rome, they seceded from the teaching office, and the Roman understanding of the teaching office was not adopted in the Protestant churches. The abandonment was not total; the Protestant churches wrote confessions of faith, they reached doctrinal decisions by synods of bishops or of ministers, and they enforced doctrinal conformity at times with a rigidity equal to the rigidity of Rome.[vii]

This is unfortunately true. Despite the ideal of the Protestant Reformation, the tendency even among Protestants is to follow in the same steps that have taken place time and again throughout history. Power is centralized to prevent chaos, confront threats, and root out dissent. The assumption is always that if power is centralized, then it helps the group to remain united, focused, and in a position to successfully confront the real or perceived threat.

This issue of centralized power is so deeply rooted in Western Christianity, one Reformed historical theologian wrote the following in a frequently-cited blog post of the book Is the Reformation Over?:

Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church.[viii]

The tendency of human beings is to cede responsibility to someone else rather than to take personal responsibility. Protestant Christians are—in too many instances—following the same path of centralization of authority, and abdication of personal responsibility to read the Bible and connect directly with God, that has been the hallmark of human tendency throughout history. It is particularly those professed Protestants who object to Roman Catholicism that should be clear on not only disagreeing with some doctrinal issues but also examining the structural issues that are at the foundation of the tendency toward centralization and pick up their Bibles and read them. The democratic approach to the Bible that has been characterized as the dangerous idea at the heart of Protestantism does indeed have its risks—arguing, bickering, schisms—and there are significant numbers of Protestants who are taking the plunge and “crossing the Tiber”.[ix] Protestants should be clear on what makes them Protestants and live a life of personal Bible study and adherence to what the Bible says.

Biblical History

Decentralization of religious authority, however, has a long biblical history to build upon. The biblical record demonstrates God’s preference for decentralized religious authority. In the beginning, God gave clear instructions regarding obedience to His principles and at the same time gave freedom of choice to His creatures to submit or not. The instruction was to not eat of the tree, but the tree was prominently present in the midst of the garden (Gen 2:15–17; 3:2–3). (One would think since God was going to allow a choice, He could have used a Nudge [libertarian paternalism] strategy and made the option to do right much easier by putting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in a more obscure, less-accessible place.) The first humans chose to disregard God’s instructions and eat the fruit. God’s response was to expel them from the garden and allow them to experience the consequences of their sin (Gen 3:16–24). The history of humanity has been the exact opposite approach to God’s, for when humans have engaged in self-destructive activity the human response has been to restrict their movement and make more rules to attempt to keep the “deviants” from deviating in the same way again.

God repeated a similar approach with ancient Israel as he had with Adam and Eve. God gave them the law at Sinai that was to govern them as they went into a Promised Land. The law, particularly the law in Deuteronomy, outlined God’s expectations of His people, and the circumstances under which they could remain in the land (Deut 30:11–20). God anticipated, however, that the people may not choose to continue in the theocratic structure He was setting up. He made provision for restrictions on a king if the people decided to imitate the nations around by setting up a monarchy (Deut 17:14–20).

Once the people entered the land, Joshua passed away and did not leave a successor (Jdg 2:7–10). The time period of the judges was characterized by a cycle of disobedience, chaos, and renewal at the hands of a judge whom God called (Jdg 2:11; 3:7; 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). The book of Judges further emphasizes this cycle, and the frustration it brought, by the phrase that appears twice, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 17:6; 21:25 ESV).

The last judge was Samuel. Samuel’s call from God involved telling his caretaker and mentor Eli that his sons were corrupt and would face God’s judgment (1 Sam 2:12–17; 3:10–18). Samuel did not learn the lesson, and his own sons turned out to be corrupt as well (1 Sam 8:1–3). The people responded to Samuel’s attempt to appoint his sons to succeed him by asking for a king (a centralized power) to bring some stability to the chaos (1 Sam 8:4–5). Samuel warned the people, on God’s behalf, that the king would centralize power, build a bureaucracy, incorporate conscription to staff a standing army, and raise taxes significantly to fund the centralized government (1 Sam 8:10–18). Despite Samuel’s warning, the people chose the monarchy (1 Sam 8:19–22). Once God chose the king, and he was coronated, the people began to regret their decision, but Samuel instructed them to follow God’s other commandments and it would go well for them (1 Sam 12:19–25).

Jesus came to establish a new kingdom based on new ideals that did not continue the earthly theocracy.

The monarchy was as best disappointing for Israel (and later the divided monarchy). The kings who at least tried in some significant way to follow God were: David (1 Kings 3:6), Asa (1 Kings 15:11), Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 17:3), Uzziah (2 Kings 15:32), Jotham (2 Chron 27:2), Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:3), and Josiah (2 Kings 23:19, 24).[x] As a result of Israel and Judah’s unfaithfulness, God eventually took them out of the land (2 Kings 17:6, 23; 2 Chron 36:15–21). Following the return from captivity, the Jews were under the control of the foreign empires of Persia, Greece, the Ptolomies, and the Seleucids. There was a brief autonomy under the Hasmoneans for 80 years, but the Romans came and defeated Aristobulus (Mattathias) and his brother Hyrcanus, the last of the Hasmonean line.

Jesus came to establish a new kingdom based on new ideals that did not continue the earthly theocracy. The clearest description of the standards of his new kingdom with regard to authority is found in Matt 20:25–28. Jesus specifically distinguished between the standards of earthly nations and the standards of His kingdom. Jesus said that the model of the earthly nations was centralized authority that dictates to people whereas His kingdom was to be characterized by service. Jesus’s ideal was that all would follow God of their own volition and out of that commitment to God would flow service to fellow humans (John 13:34–35; 15:12, 17).

May Protestant Christians truly follow the Jesus we profess to follow and read our Bibles, serve others out of a commitment to Jesus, and consciously avoid encouraging or calling for centralized religious authorities to exercise well-intentioned but misguided efforts to get other people to “do right.” Let us place the authority in our lives and encourage those around us to make the Bible, and the Bible only, our rule of faith and practice.

BIO: Daniel Royo has served as a pastor for 15 years in Virginia and Maryland. He is married and has two sons. Daniel currently resides in Maryland.

Endnotes

[i] For a short summary of these various false teachings, see this page.

[ii] https://lonelypilgrim.com/2012/06/28/st-irenaeus-on-the-unity-and-orthodoxy-of-the-faith/

[iii] For a short summary of the development from multiple elders to a single bishop overseeing the church, see: https://www.michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Alistar McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 2. Link

[vi] Ibid., 3. Link

[vii] John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969), 198. Link

[viii] https://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/is-the-reformation-over.php

[ix] For a scholarly examination of why some evangelicals become Roman Catholic, see Scot McKnight, “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic,” JETS 45.3 (2002), 451–472. Link

[x] For a list of the kings of Israel and Judah with an evaluation of their faithfulness to God, see this chart.

The post Christianity’s Struggle with Authority -Guest Blog Daniel Royo appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus

A Reflective Book Review

By Pastor Vinnie

If ever two religions grossly misunderstood each other, had bad communication, and held uneducated views about the other, it is certainly the case with Islam and Christianity. Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, is the powerful, engaging, true-life story of a devout Muslim who sets out to defend Allah to infidel Christians and ends up completely converted to Jesus.

Click image to purchase at AMAZON.

This true-life story unfolds focusing on two young men, freshmen in College, who meet in Debate Club and forge an academically competitive friendship that flourishes, despite vastly opposing ideology and religious fervor. They end up connecting with each other’s life, goals, and dreams, in sincere ways that allow them both to overcome stereotypical assumptions about each other’s faith. This, in turn, gives way to a path for Jesus to shine forth from darkness to light. It is the story of how Jesus saved Nabeel Qureshi from very sincere faith in the religion of his upbringing to a deeper, burning desire to know Truth in both certainty and transformation, on a level that he’d become willing to trade everything to pursue it.

Nabeel’s friendship with David starts, casually, over studies, debate club, and typical college angst. But was fully forged by Nabeel’s sincere fear that his friend David, in the Judgment, would be found guilty of having not only rejected the Prophet Mohammad but of having worshiped three gods (Trinity) instead of one, Allah (God). It is actually, Nabeel’s evangelistic compulsion for the eternal fate of Christians, like David, that puts Nabeel on the path to Christ.

Nabeel, by college age, had become a powerful intellectual and apologist for Islam and was supported by the wisdom of his community and family in this pursuit. He was no novice, having already refuted and stumped many Christians about errors in their own understanding of their faith. David, however, was a simple, faithful Christian, who surprised Nabeel, by not being the typical, shallow Christian Nabeel is used to running into. David, not only reads his Bible, which Nabeel had rarely seen Christians truly do, but actually understands where the Bible came from, how it was written, collected, preserved, and translated. When Nabeel attempts to use typical accusations that the Bible is a corrupted, unreliable source of truth, David is ready to refute these challenges, not with anger or righteous annoyance, but with calm, collected, and sound historical truth; factual understanding of textual criticism, inexorable friendship and Christian compassion. This hooks Nabeel deeper and deeper into his search for truth.

Nabeel Qureshi

As a pastor, what I really love about this book is that the average Christian, or Muslim, reading it will quickly start to learn more correct understandings about the other person’s faith, as well as their own. Nabeel’s own testimony can’t help but give Christians an inside look at what being a Muslim really means, what they really believe and why. As a converted Christian, Nabeel can not only be forthright and honest about his former faith, but can give Christians deep insights into how traumatic it can be for a Muslim to come to terms with, not only, accepting their whole life’s foundation, all they have ever believed, may not be so, but even the mere fact that they entertain that question could mean losing their whole family and everyone they love and respect. There is so much misinformation about Islam, Muslims in general, and the Quran[1], out there in the Christian church, that many Christians have written off these people, or see them as some sort of monstrous threat. Yet Nabeel comes along to shows us, they are people just like us. They love God just like us, and they are only believing what they have been taught to believe about God; most often, just like us.

Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood in those early days.

David, on the other hand, a lay member of his church, and a young adult shows the excellence of understanding of the origins of the Bible, Christian history, and fundamental Christian theology that, untowardly, most pastors, let alone an untrained lay members, could not rival. David is able to masterfully lay it out in ways that speak to the seeker’s mind, while not ignoring the heart. For me, as a pastor, this book excites me; not just because of the powerful testimony of Nabeel, but because, in many ways, wrapped in the narrative of the story, is the single most basic teaching tool I know to teach the fundamentals of Islam and Christianity in a comparative model of understanding. This book will educate Christian and Muslim reader alike, about both their own faith and each other.

Nabeel, fought Christ the whole way through his journey to Truth. But, when he got to his wits’ end, he would pray and ask Allah to show him how to refute error, or to know the truth about Islam. Each time, “Allah” would lead him deeper into Christian truth. Eventually, Allah started sending Nabeel, clearer and clearer visions and dreams, that, even when decoded by his Muslim mother, was screaming at Nabeel: “Jesus is the only way to God. To be with God is to accept Jesus as the Savior from our sins. “ It was his prayers to Allah (which is the Aramaic word for God)[2][3][4][5] that eventually led Nabeel to the conclusion that he must take a stand, and publicly confess Jesus before men, or end up forever denying Him. But his Allah made it very clear to him that, to do so, would mean he’d be denied and cast out from his community, childhood faith, and worse of all, family; including his beloved mother and father. The cost of the cross was real, and Nabeel would not be spared the words of Christ, “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love Me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower.” Luke 14:26-27 ERV

Post Script:

Nabeel Qureshi and Family.

Nabeel Qureshi died, secure in Jesus, on September 16, 2017, at the young age of 34 from advanced- stage stomach cancer. Nabeel left behind a wife (Michelle Qureshi), and a daughter (Ayah Qureshi). But before going, Nabeel set the Muslim world and the Christian world on fire as an International Speaker on behalf of Christ to the Muslim world. He was a renowned apologetic author, and speaker in association with NQ Ministries, and RZIM. Nabeel’s body is at rest with Jesus, but his work roars on! Pray, please pray deeply, that Jesus keeps it shining as a treasured light to the Islamic world at large. Somewhere, out there, is a Muslim, scared and frightened, seeking the Truth; maybe even hiding a copy of Nabeel’s book under his pillow. Pray for conviction. Pray for courage.   Pray for the Truth of Jesus to shine on all Abraham’s Children.

 For, “Behold He comes, riding on the clouds,

Shining like the sun, at the trumpet’s call!

Lift your voice, it’s the year of Jubilee

For Out of Zion’s hill, salvation comes!”[6]

Footnotes:

[1] There is so much bad information flooding the church about the origins of Islam and most of it is spewed out of ignorance and even hatred. While the history of Islam is complex Nabeel’s book helps streamline it for the average person in the pews. However the first place Christians should look for the true origins if Islam is Genesis 21:8-21

[2] “The word Allah is used by Arabic speakers of all Abrahamic faiths (including Christianity and Judaism) as meaning “God.” However, according to Islam, Allah is God’s proper name, while Christians and Jews know Him as YHWH or Yahweh. When Arabic-speaking Christians use the word Allah, it is usually used in combination with the word al-Ab. Allah al-Ab means “God the Father,” and this usage is one way Arab Christians distinguish themselves from Muslims.” https://www.gotquestions.org/who-is-Allah.html

[3] “Etymologically, the name Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was il or el, the latter being used in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Allāh is the standard Arabic word for God and is used by Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews as well as by Muslims regardless of their native tongue.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allah

[4] “Islam and Christianity”, Encyclopedia of Christianity (2001): Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also refer to God as Allāh.

[5] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Allah

[6] Days of Elijah Lyrics- Songwriters: Francis Robert Mark

Days Of Elijah lyrics © Music Services, Inc

The post Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus -(A Reflective Book Review) appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.