- A -

• Abbott, Edwin A. “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions”
• Alcorn, Randy. “Heaven”
• Alcorn, Randy. “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments”
• Alcorn, Randy. “The Treasure Principle”
• Alcorn, Randy. “Why Pro-Life?”
• Amos, Gary T. “Defending the Declaration”
• Armstrong, Karen. “A History of God”
• Arterburn, Stephen. “The Secrets Men Keep”
• Aslan, Reza. “No god but God”

- B -

• Barna, George and Frank Viola. “Pagan Christianity?”
• Borg, Marcus. “The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith”
• Borg, Marcus. “Jesus”
• Borg, Marcus and N.  T. Wright. “The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions”
• Briscoe, D. Stuart. “Taking God Seriously”
• Bawer, Bruce. “Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity”
• Behe, Michael J. “The Edge of Evolution”
• Beliles, Mark A. and Douglas S. Anderson. “Contending for the Constitution”
• Bell, Rob. “Jesus Wants to Save Christians”
• Bell, Rob. “Sex God”
• Bell, Rob. “Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith”
• Beschloss, Michael. “Presidential Courage”
• Blackaby, Henry T. and Claude V. King. “Experiencing God”
• Bock, Darrell L. and Daniel B. Wallace. “Dethroning Jesus”
• Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. “The Cost of Discipleship”
• Boortz, Neal and John Linder. “The FairTax Book”
• Boyd, Gregory A. and Edward K. Boyd. “Letters From a Skeptic”
• Bridges, Jerry. “Respectable Sins”
• Bridges, Jerry. “The Practice of Godliness”
• Budziszewski, J. “How to Stay Christian in College”

- C -

• Campola, Anthony. “A Reasonable Faith”
• Caner, Ergun Mehmet and Emir Fethi Caner. “Unveiling Islam”
• Chambers, Alan. “God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door”
• Chan, Francis. “Crazy Love”
• Chan, Francis. “Forgotten God”
• Chapman, Gary. “The Five Love Languages”
• Chesterton, G. K. “Saint Thomas Aquinas”
• Claiborne, Shane. “The Irresistible Revolution”
• Collins, Francis S. “The Language of God”
• Colson, Charles and Ellen Vaughn. “Being the Body”
• Colson, Charles and Harold Fickett.  “The Faith”
• Colson, Charles. “God & Government”
• Colson, Charles. “The God of Stones & Spiders”
• Colson, Charles. “Who Speaks for God?”
• Comfort, Ray. “How to Know God Exists”
• Coulter, Ann. “Godless”
• Crosby, Fanny J. “Fanny J. Crosby: An Autobiography”
• Crowder, David. “Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven But Nobody Wants to Die”
• Crowder, David. “Praise Habit”

- D -

• Darwin, Charles. “The Origin of Species”
• Davis, Tom. “Red Letters”
• Dawkins, Richard. “The God Delusion”
• Dc Talk. “Jesus Freaks: Revolutionaries”
• Dc Talk. “Live Like a Jesus Freak”
• Demski, William A. and Sean McDowell. “Understanding Intelligent Design”
• Dobson, Ed. “The Year of Living Like Jesus”
• Driscoll, Mark. “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.”
• Driscoll, Mark. “Death by Love”
• Driscoll, Mark. “Religion Saves: + Nine Other Misconceptions”
• Driscoll, Mark. “Vintage Jesus”
• Driscoll, Mark. “Vintage Church”
• D’Souza, Dinesh. “Ronald Reagan”
• D’Souza, Dinesh. “What’s So Great About Christianity”
• Dunstan, J. Leslie. “Protestantism”

Read the rest of this entry

Recent occurrences in the political realm have brought the issue of homosexuality to the forefront of controversy. The passage of California’s Proposition 8 and Florida’s Amendment 2, both of which define marriage as a legal institution between one man and one woman, serve as a prime indication of this. Upon turning to one of the national news broadcasts, it does not take a great length of time before one hears of some report regarding this issue. In this brief essay, I will lay out the case against homosexuality, approaching it from a number of perspectives, including sociology, morality, and science. My argument will show that homosexuality fails to fulfill the three purposes of sex: reproduction, pleasure, and family life. Sex is not merely for procreation, or sensation, or ideal family living; rather, sex is intended to serve all three functions. When reduced to serving only one of these functions, sex is deprived of its full purpose. This critical observation must be addressed in order for homosexuality to be shown as an unethical construct. I will show through compelling evidence that homosexuality is not a valid sexual ethic due to these criteria.

Purpose of Sex: Procreation

The first argument against homosexuality is that of procreation. In his Duties Toward the Body in Respect to Sexual Impulse, Immanuel Kant points out “the end of humanity in respect of sexuality is to preserve the species without debasing the person” (Kant 288). Sex between two of the same gender is incapable of reproducing the human race. Applying the categorical imperative here brings to light a key point: Homosexual sex, if universalized, would eliminate the human population in a matter of one generation. If all people were to embrace the gay lifestyle overnight, no new children would be conceived. The logical result of this sort of living also means there will be no new births, thereby meaning no new people to replace the current population. Within a matter of our lifetime, the human species would cease to be. However, the apparent flaw to this procreation logic, which Alan Goldman points out in Plain Sex, is that within heterosexual marriage contraception, the intentional act of preventing pregnancy, does the very same thing – it prevents conception (Goldman 293). This leads to the second argument against homosexuality.

Purpose of Sex: Pleasure

Pleasure is inextricably linked with sex; it is impossible to separate the two. Sex is the most enjoyable sensation experienced by the human body and to diminish this fact is also to fail in recognizing sex for what it truly is. Few would disagree with this point. However, the error comes about when one posits pleasure as the ultimate, sole purpose of sex. In response to Goldman’s objection, there is something to be said of potentiality. Whereas procreation is an impossibility within homosexual sex, it is a possibility within heterosexual sex. Goldman fails to recognize this crucial point. A heterosexual couple, unlike a homosexual couple, is capable of conception. A straight couple can always choose to cease their efforts to prevent pregnancy, though a gay or lesbian couple can never make this decision.

Additionally, proponents of sex-for-pleasure must address the issue of boundaries. If sex is solely for the purpose of pleasure then on what basis can incest, polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia be ruled immoral and unacceptable? These acts, when all parties consent, result in a physically satisfying sensation (though pleasure and consent on the part of the beast is difficult to discern). The point is this: If acts such as these result in pleasure, then on what grounds can they be deemed socially unacceptable sexual behavior? Advocates of sex-for-pleasure must identify boundaries for sexuality. If pleasure is the sole purpose of sex then the sexually deviant behaviors listed above must also, according to this reasoning, be ruled acceptable.

Purpose of Sex: Family

The third argument against homosexuality has to deal with the family. The commitment between a man and a woman within heterosexual marriage is the healthiest environment for children. As Maggie Gallagher points out in her Louisiana Law Review article, “successful societies support and prefer marriage not only because children need mothers and fathers, but also because societies need babies. It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies: only societies that reproduce survive” (Gallagher 789). The consequences of same-sex parenting on children, Mathew Staver reports, include negative psychological health, hindered social development, and increased potential for child abuse and infant mortality (Staver 42-47). The scientific findings, such as the ones Staver presents in his book Same-Sex Marriage, argue strongly against homosexuality. They show the extent to which same-sex parenting has a negative effect on the family and, therefore, on society. The risk, it may be said, is too great to take.

The Marriage Debate

It is on this point that the topic of marriage is spotlighted. Advocates of homosexuality will argue their case, claiming homosexuality is an entirely private lifestyle and should be of no concern to the public. What happens in bed, it can be said, is of no concern to the government. They then carry this reasoning on into their case for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a private institution. “While marriage has a private aspect, it is a public institution that impacts the entire society,” a point Staver is wise to recognize (Staver 18). The state has the right – even the duty, I would argue – to define and enact legislation regarding marriage. Marriage, as a public institution, is a public good, not merely a private one. As such, it is within the purview of the government to establish boundaries that define marriage in an effort to bring about the greater public good. “Marriage,” William Bennett argues, “is based on a natural teleology, on the different, complementary nature of men and women – and how they refine, support, encourage, and complete one another. It is the institution through which we propagate, nurture, educate, and sustain our species” (Bennett and Sullivan 329). It follows, then, that the monumental impact of this institution necessitates action on the part of the legislature. Marriage, as a public institution, must be defined. And it must be defined in a manner that brings about the greater good for society. Homosexuality, as a lifestyle, does not benefit humanity.

Stereotypes

One of the unfortunate results of the heated debate on homosexuality is that blanket statements, however incorrect or distorted they may be, are made. These statements lead to a number of stereotypes that I seek here to address. The first is that of homosexual promiscuity, in particular with gay men. Many of the conservative bent equate gay men with rampant sexual offenders, placing them on the same pane with child molesters. Richard Mohr believes “the stereotype of the gay person as child-molester functions to give the traditionally-defined family unit a false sheen of innocence. It keeps the unit from being examined too closely for incest, child abuse, wife-battering, and the terrorizing of women and children by a father’s constant threats. The stereotype teaches that the problems of the family are alien to it, not internal to it” (Mohr 301). I believe his sentiment is often the case an unfortunate truth. Many attempt to make gay relationships the scapegoat for sexual misconduct, though the very same behavior can be observed in heterosexual relationships. There are many heterosexual couples that help prove Mohr’s point. However, there must be a distinction made here that domestic abuse in any relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is unacceptable. The fact that it happens does not condone the behavior. Abuse in any relationship is immoral and unethical.

A number of studies, though, have shown gay men to be more promiscuous than straight men. Staver presents some of these findings, reporting that “a comprehensive study published by A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg showed that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, and 28 percent had one thousand or more sex partners. . . . In contrast, between 75 and 81 percent of husbands and between 77 and 85 percent of wives have remained faithful to their marital vows” (Staver 11). These statistics show a more open, sexually deviant behavior on the part of homosexual males. The findings presented here indicate this. Strong support can be made for the argument that homosexual relationships are about sex, whereas heterosexual relationships involve a certain level of commitment. However, this disclaimer must be stated for fairness: Some heterosexual couples are together for the sole purpose of sex as well. Additionally, there are homosexual relationships that have their foundation on love, mutual support, and commitment. The statistics presented here, though, show this disclaimer is more the exception than the norm.

The second stereotype is that of genetic predisposition. The scientific studies have shown that the verdict on this issue is inconclusive, a fact that homosexual advocate Richard Mohr recognizes (Mohr 304). Scott Rae, an opponent of homosexuality, states that it is a myth commonly believed “that homosexuality is always a chosen way of life” (Rae 281). But the debate surrounding predisposition is irrelevant. My argument is as follows. Hypothetically speaking, if in the future scientific research is able to prove the existence of a homosexual predisposition, or gay gene as some have termed it, this does not mean it is an ethically permissible form of behavior. The error in their logic is the belief that predisposition makes an action morally acceptable. It does no such thing. If scientific research was also to show a predisposition on the part of serial murderers towards violence, we would not suddenly pass laws in support of murder. If it were also found that some had a greater bent towards lying, it would not mean lying should become an acceptable act. The debate regarding predisposition, though it may help us to understand the issue more thoroughly, is irrelevant. Regardless of any potential predisposition, homosexuality, like other socially unacceptable and immoral behaviors, is unethical.

Morality

I have, prior to now, left unmentioned the moral perspective. Though my faith compels me to believe Scripture, others may not share this common belief. It is for this reason I have, through secular arguments, shown homosexuality to be an unethical construct. I have reserved the biblical argument for this moment. I have done this to show the case against homosexuality needs not to resort solely to the Bible, but can stand alone using sociology and philosophy. I have made my case up to now using arguments most can agree with. Now I will show Scripture has much to say as well on this topic. In his letter to the Romans, Paul explains unrighteousness results from the suppression of truth. The suppression Paul here speaks of is the intentional rejection of God. “For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,” as the Scripture says (Romans 1:21). Paul continues, saying “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts . . . because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (1:24-25). In the following verses, homosexuality is presented as a “dishonorable passion” contrary to nature. Homosexuality is immoral because it goes against divine design. Just as every inventor knows his invention, God as Creator knows best his creation. And he has, through Scripture, communicated clearly that homosexuality does not fit this design. The sociological, philosophical, and religious arguments I have presented line up with reality. Therefore, the verdict in this case must follow: homosexuality is an unethical construct to be rejected.

Read the rest of this entry

The Christian Bible is not the sole source outspoken about Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus, or ‘Isa as he is referred to in the Qur’an, is as central a figure to Islam as he is within Christianity, though the manner in which he is depicted differs drastically. There are many aspects of Jesus’ life that both Muslims and Christians can come to consensus, such as his virgin birth, power to heal and perform miracles, and authority as a teacher. In contrast, the areas of disagreement are his divine status, role as the crucified and resurrected Savior, and part within the Trinity. Jesus is seen through the passages found in the Qur’an, the Holy Book of Islam, in a number of capacities, including: Jesus as babe, prophet, mystic, alleged savior, and monotheist. As Muhammad ‘Ata ur-Rahim observes: “The Qur’an is very specific as to [Jesus’] purpose, how he appeared on earth, who he was, and, equally important, who he was not, and how his mission ended” (’Ata ur-Rahim 206). The Qur’an is scattered with numerous references to Jesus.

It is logical in the chronological sequence of events to begin first in looking at Jesus in his capacity as a babe, presented in what may be called the Islamic version of the birth narrative found in Surah 3:

The angels said: “O Mary, indeed God has favoured you and made you immaculate, and chosen you from all the women of the world. […] When the angels said: “O Mary, God gives you news of a thing from Him, for rejoicing, (news of one) whose name will be Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in this world and the next, and one among the honoured, Who will speak to the people when in the cradle and when in the prime of life, and will be among the upright and doers of good.” She said: “How can I have a son, O Lord, when no man has touched me?” He said: “That is how God creates what He wills. When He decrees a thing, He says ‘Be’, and it is.” (Surah 3:42-47)

Compare this language to the birth narrative reported in the Christian Gospel of Luke:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. […]” And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. (Luke 1:26-35)

In both narratives, one can see the similarities that exist. The two texts agree on a woman named Mary as the mother of a babe by the name of Jesus. Angels (or angel, specifically Gabriel, in the New Testament) are sent to her to deliver the news that she will be with child. Mary is told that God has found favor with her and asks how she could, as a virgin, bear a child. The Qur’an, in response to this inquiry, says that God will decree it, and it will be so. The Bible, in more detail, explains God will accomplish this feat by sending his Spirit to overshadow her. Neither of these accounts refutes the concept of a virgin birth; rather, both affirm it. Both versions tell of Jesus’ status: The Bible reports that Jesus will be called the “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” In contrast, the Qur’an does not call Jesus the Son of God, instead referring to him as Messiah, or Nabi.

To Muslims, Messiah is not to be interpreted as support for divine status: “As far as Jesus is concerned, there is a clear denunciation of his divine sonship throughout the Qur’an, and, while he is called al-Masih, the Messiah (‘the anointed one’), this is presented as his name only and not as an indication of his function or status” (Rippin 21). The reason the Qur’an does not use the title “Son of God” may be found when contrasted with Christianity’s claim that the Bible’s birth narrative confirms Jesus’ divinity. The term “Son of God” appears only in the New Testament and where it is used, it refers specifically to Jesus. The use of the term “sons of God” does appear throughout the Old and New Testaments, but only where it references groups of people. The specificity of this term being attributed only to Jesus is argument for his divine status.

According to a number of scholars, including Tarif Khalidi, “Jesus is a controversial prophet” (Khalidi 12). In Surah 4:163-164, we see Jesus named as one in a long line of prophets who was given a revelation to make known to the world. That revelation, we see in Surah 5:46, is “the Gospel containing guidance and light, which corroborated the earlier Torah, a guidance and warning for those who preserve themselves from evil and follow the straight path.” For Muslims, Jesus was a gifted teacher and orator entrusted with a new revelation of Allah. Norman Geisler points out that “according to the Qur’an Jesus was merely a human being who was chosen by God as a prophet and sent for the guidance of the people of Israel” (Geisler and Saleeb 63). What this means is Islam accepts the message of Jesus as prophet, but denies his divinity. This is not meant to communicate a disapproval of Jesus. Rather, Islam, specifically Muhammad, speaks positively of him: “As for Jesus Christ, Muhammad speaks of him with the highest respect, but only as one of the greatest of the prophets” (Swartley 35). Muslims take issue when statements of Jesus’ authority over other prophets are made. However, when presented as a prophet in the likes of Abraham or Noah, Islam accepts such statements, and approves of Jesus. “Muslims do respect the Messiah, Jesus, profoundly. However, they do not believe that he is therefore superior to all other Prophets” (Kateregga and Shenk 76). Such a claim would also place Jesus above Muhammad in importance, influence, and status. Another of Jesus’ responsibilities in addition to proclaiming the Gospel was to prepare the way for Muhammad. In Surah 61:6, Jesus himself reveals this second purpose: “O children of Israel, I am sent to you by God to confirm the Torah (sent) before me, and to give you good tidings of an apostle who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad (the praised one).” Jesus was a prophet with two missions from God: First, to confirm the Torah, giving Christians the New Testament and the Gospel; second, to deliver word of one who will come after him, Muhammad, who would present the final revelation.

It has been presented already that the Holy Book of Islam accepts the miraculous birth of Jesus. However, the miraculous works are not limited to this event. Muslims believe in Jesus’ ability to perform miracles. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb point out that “the Qur’an affirms the virgin birth (19:16-21, 3:37-45) and Jesus’ many miraculous acts recorded in the New Testament, such as his healing and raising people from the dead” (Geisler and Saleeb 64). Though Islam accepts the supernatural signs that Jesus performed, it differs fundamentally in explaining the manner in which they were carried out. For Christianity, Jesus performed miracles of his own power and authority, being God incarnate. In Islam, Jesus performed miracles because he was given “divine grace” from Allah. One posits divinity, the other argues divine empowerment. In the words of Neal Robinson, “the Qur’an does not deny that Jesus performed the miracles which the Christians attributed to him but it puts them in perspective by stressing that they were performed by God’s leave, that is to say they are not proofs of his divinity” (Robinson 144). Evidence for Robinson’s claim can be found in Surah 2:253, which states that “to Jesus, son of Mary, We [Allah] gave tokens, and reinforced him with divine grace.” Further, we see in Surah 3:49 that he performed many miracles, including healing the blind and leprous and giving life to the dead.

Within the Qur’an, as seen through passages like 2:253 and 3:49, the miracles of Jesus are undisputed. They assert Jesus performed miracles to reveal his status as God: “Jesus, by contrast [to Muhammad], repeatedly offered his ability to do miracles as a proof that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. When about to heal the paralytic he said to the unbelieving Jews, ‘that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’ – something the Jews admitted that only God could do” (Geisler and Saleeb 168). By Jesus making a claim such as this, Jesus was declaring himself God. Muslims reject this claim, stating Jesus was only able to perform the miracles that he did because Allah empowered him and any account, even the Bible, presenting Jesus as God is corrupt. Muslims do not “doubt that Jesus performed miracles or that He was betrayed and arrested. They do deny his crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension” (Caner and Caner 50), which is where we turn to next.

On the topic of crucifixion, the Qur’an reports that those who believed Jesus was crucified were under a false impression. For Muslims, death on a cross was an act far too humiliating for any prophet of God to endure. As such, they deny any source that records a crucifixion account of Jesus. Surah 4:157-158 states,

And for saying: “We killed the Christ, Jesus, son of Mary, who was an apostle of God;” but they neither killed nor crucified him, though it so appeared to them. Those who disagree in the matter are only lost in doubt. They have no knowledge about it other than conjecture, for surely they did not kill him, but God raised him up (in position) and closer to Himself; and God is all-mighty and all-wise.

Instead of crucifixion, Muslims hold to the belief that Allah took Jesus directly up to be with himself, saving Jesus from such a disgraceful death. In Islam, there is an ascension experience, but not after death on a cross. “The mainstream Muslim interpretation of these statements is that Jesus was not crucified, but was rather delivered from crucifixion and taken directly to be with God. There is therefore, it could be said, as ascension, but not, as in the Christian view, after crucifixion and resurrection, but instead of crucifixion and resurrection.” (Houlden 404-405). If Jesus was spared from crucifixion, who was crucified? Keith Swartley says: “The Qur’an states that Jesus did not die but was rescued from the cross by a ruse, and a substitute was provided to take his place” (Swartley 36). If Jesus ascended pre-crucifixion, then a substitute must have been crucified. Islam has the difficult task of facing this dilemma. The Qur’an does not deny a crucifixion, it merely denies Jesus as the one crucified.

Many theories have been proposed that attempt to identify the one who was crucified. Some believe the Roman guards tasked to arrest Jesus selected the wrong man, instead of Jesus they chose Barabbas, also known by the name Jesus, and crucified him. Others suggest that it was in fact Jesus, but he did not die, a view known as the “swoon theory.” Instead, he passed into unconsciousness, awakened in the tomb, rolled away the stone, and appeared to his followers. One of the most popular, and widely accepted, theories claims that Judas was crucified on the cross. “According to this theory, after Judas betrayed Jesus, Allah transformed Judas so that he looked like Jesus, and then Judas was nailed to the cross to die. Jesus, unharmed, was then taken directly into heaven” (Rhodes 136-137). Due to this theory’s popularity, a number of variations to this hypothesis have been raised. One such variation of “the Judas theory is that when the Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus, it was dark, and in the commotion the soldiers mistakenly arrested Judas instead of Jesus. Judas was then crucified while Jesus remained unharmed and was raised up to heaven by Allah” (Rhodes 137). It is worth taking note that, according to this theory, the man held responsible for betraying Jesus into the hands of the Romans was then crucified in his place.

The teachings of Islam clearly state that Jesus is only to be considered an apostle of Allah, and any discussion of Jesus and the Christian concept of Trinity is to pollute, and go entirely against, the strict belief of monotheism. What Jesus taught during his earthly ministry, Muslim scholars argue, is not what Christians have presented in their Gospel. Instead, they believe the Bible of today has been corrupted with talk of a Trinity. “The Christians received the universal message of God, but have compromised it by stressing the ‘trinity’ instead of the ‘unity’ of Allah” (Kateregga and Shenk 66). Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf points out that “the Quran criticizes the deification of Jesus (Quran 9:30) as well as the doctrine of trinitarianism and exaggeration in matters of religion (Quran 4:171). The Quran reproaches Christians for not bringing out the full worth of monotheism and of replacing or diluting it with another message” (Rauf 38). Viewing the Trinity in terms of polytheism, the belief in multiple deities, Muslims strongly reject any teaching other than strict monotheism. This belief is such a central point of Islam that “the Qur’an declares the Christian belief in the Trinity to be an extremist religious position” (Omar 129). The Qur’an calls those who believe in the Trinity infidels:

They are surely infidels who say: “God is the Christ, son of Mary.” But the Christ had only said: “O children of Israel, worship God who is my Lord and your Lord.” Whosoever associates a compeer with God, will have Paradise denied to him by God, and his abode shall be Hell; and the sinners will have none to help them. Disbelievers are they surely who say: “God is the third of the trinity;” but there is no god other than God the one. And if they do not desist from saying what they say, then indeed those among them who persist in disbelief will suffer painful punishment.” (Surah 5:72-73)

Converts from Islam to Christianity, brothers Emir and Ergun Caner recognize and understand these strong believes of Islam against the Trinity: “Islam unequivocally disavows any attribute of Allah that would bespeak the Trinity” (Caner and Caner 34). Of such a great concern is this to Muslims that they are taught that “to claim a Trinitarian view of God is, in Muslim theology, the highest of sins, the Islamic equivalent [to Christianity] of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Caner and Caner 35). The reason for this importance is that “a great sin for Islam is to associate the divine nature of God with man. That sin is called shirk” (Braswell 118). Surah 4:171, regarding the Trinity, states:

O people of the Book, do not be fanatical in your faith, and say nothing but the truth about God. The Messiah who is Jesus, son of Mary, was only an apostle of God, and a command of His which He sent to Mary, as a mercy from Him. So believe in God and His apostles, and do not call Him ‘Trinity’. Abstain from this for your own good; for God is only one God, and far from His glory is it to beget a son.

According to Muslims, the concept of the Trinity is polytheism, a belief that is an unforgivable sin. The Trinity, in their view, means Jesus is a naturally born son of God, born as a result of sexual relations with a woman. Responding to this belief, the Caner brothers state that “Christianity does not teach that ‘God is one of three.’ Nor do Christians believe that God reproduced a ‘son’ through sexual intercourse with a consort (surah 6:101). Muhammad may well have encountered cults who taught that. […] This idea is as blasphemous to a Muslim as to a biblical Christian” (Caner and Caner 36). For Christians, the Trinity is not a polytheistic belief; it is a belief that God manifests himself in different forms to reveal to us more of his character. Much like a man may be a father, husband, and coworker, God reveals a part of his nature by revealing himself through Jesus. The Christian doctrine of monotheism is one God presented to mankind in three distinct forms: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The identity of Jesus of Nazareth has been in debate ever since his lifetime two millennium ago. With the birth of Muhammad in 570 (Aslan xxxi) and the revelation of the Qur’an , this conversation has included Muslims. They believe Jesus is as important, if not more, than the prophets that came before him. Mention of him can be found throughout the Qur’an, as we have seen. However, where discrepancies arise regarding the person of Jesus, “the Qur’an is the final criterion by which all earlier revelations are to be judged. In their pristine form, these earlier revelations must of necessity bear witness to the Qur’anic revelation. Where they do not, they must be judged corrupt” (Khalidi 20). Regardless of how Jesus is presented in the Christian New Testament, the account of Jesus presented in the Qur’an is the final word. And “here is Islam’s crucial difference with Christianity: God is one; neither Jesus nor Muhammad is divine. Muhammad is placed very high in Islam’s profession of faith – in the call to prayer, ‘There is no god but God’ is followed immediately by ‘and Muhammad is His Messenger’ – but he most certainly is not divine” (Hotaling 16). Although there is commonality between Christians and Muslims on many fronts; when the discussion turns to Jesus, there is also much in conflict. It is because of these conflicts that the individual must determine which source is most accurate, and which is to be the one trusted above all else.

Read the rest of this entry

When thinking of those that have been most influential in contributing to the rise of Christianity, we are seldom reminded of sexual deviants that made mocking petitions to God like “grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.” However, the Bible records the lives of numerous misfits that were used by God to reach diverse people groups with the message of Christ – the message of faith, hope, and love. Though not a biblical character, much the same testimony can be found in the life of Augustine of Hippo, or, as he is better known, Saint Augustine.

Augustine was born in 354 A.D. in a North African province of the Roman Empire. His study consisted of philosophy and rhetoric, to which he excelled at using his brilliant mind. Augustine’s intelligence, which led him to acquire great power and prestige, also caused him to pursue a very promiscuous lifestyle of sexual endeavors. At the age of 32, Augustine left all that he had come to know in his youthful pursuit of passion and lust and, instead, committed his life to the priesthood (and celibacy). He later became the bishop of Hippo (hence his name Augustine of Hippo) and professor of rhetoric for the imperial court of Milan. He is best known for his written works: Confessions and The City of God.

In this enchiridion, or short handbook, on how to serve God through faith, hope, and love, Augustine sets out to address, much like Paul in his New Testament letters, the concerns of his friend Laurence. Beginning with the meaning of the three principles faith, hope, and love, Augustine observes that “faith refers to things past and present and future” (Augustine 6). This means that we have faith in Christ’s death (past), his position at the right hand of the Father (present), and his coming judgment (future). “Hope,” Augustine asserts, “deals only with good things, and only with those which lie in the future, and which pertain to the man who cherishes the hope” (7). And lastly, he points out that “love is not without hope, hope is not without love, and neither hope nor love are without faith” (7). In order to have a genuine love of Christ, Augustine states, one must also have faith and hope in Christ.

On one of the greatest concerns of his friend, Augustine approaches the problem of evil. He begins by making the claim that in order for evil to exist there must also be good, for evil is dependent upon good existing:

“All of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it. Thus the good in created things can be diminished and augmented. For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all” (13).

Augustine continues, teaching that evil only exists as a corruption of something good. Corruption, unlike good which can exist independent of evil, is dependent upon something to corrupt. Without that object to corrupt, corruption itself, or evil, can not exist. In summation, Augustine says that “nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good” (15).

Regarding other topics, Augustine has much to say, in very few words, about topics such as: the depravity of man in the Fall, necessity of grace, limitations of knowledge, role of Christ as Mediator, meaning of the Incarnation, the Trinity, doctrine of original sin, purpose of baptism, justification, and the immorality of lying (even when a lie is told for a “good” reason), which is one of Augustine’s most notable teachings.

On that topic, Augustine says that “every lie […] must be a called a sin, because every man ought to speak what is in his heart. […] A man who lies says the opposite of what is in his heart, with the deliberate intent to deceive” (30). Giving an analogy, Augustine addresses the question “is there any such thing as a lie that is not a sin?” If someone were to request that you commit adultery with them because they were dying for love does not make the offense acceptable. Adultery, like lying, is a sin and there is no such thing as a lie that is not a sin.

This handbook, though brief, is a bold and blunt look into the meaning of faith, hope, and love. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” And love, which is the greatest, can only exist where there is first faith and hope. Seek after love and, as a result, increase your faith in Christ and your hope in his return.

The church is a hot topic. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is talking about it, but what is a biblical church? Is the church a static concept, to be left unaltered from how it was in the first century? Or is it flexible, allowed to change with time? Mark Driscoll, with the assistance of his friend Gerry Breshears, sets out to answer this question, along with many more regarding the church, in his book Vintage Church.

Mark Driscoll is the founding pastor and lead teaching pastor at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. He is the president of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network and has authored a number of books, including Confessions of a Reformission Rev., The Radical Reformission, and Religion Saves. Gerry Breshears is the chairman of biblical and theological studies at Western Seminary, where he is also professor of theology. He has co-authored with Driscoll two other books, Vintage Jesus and Death by Love.

Together, Driscoll and Breshears attempt to tackle the topic of the biblical church, beginning with a definition of the local church:

“The local church is a community of regenerated believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. In obedience to Scripture they organize under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, observe the biblical sacraments of baptism and Communion, are unified by the Spirit, are disciplined for holiness, and scatter to fulfill the Great Commandment and the Great Commission as missionaries to the world for God’s glory and their joy” (38).

Driscoll asserts that the church must adhere to this definition, which is a summarization of Acts 2, in order to be considered a true biblical church. He outlines the differences between the visible church (local church) and the invisible church (all believers with Christ as the head), contrasting the differences between them.

Having established the definition, he continues on, tackling many topics being debated by church leaders. Such topics include the different styles of preaching, the need for unity, the use of technology, the outward expression of love as the Body, and the responsibility of the church to help transform the world. Throughout, Driscoll supports his points with Scripture, captures your attention with stories, and entertains you with his wit, making a strong case for what the biblical church is.

Two of the most controversial issues covered in the book are the questions: “Who Is Supposed to Lead a Church?” and “What Is Church Discipline?” Regarding the first, he reminds us that Jesus is “the head of the church, the apostle who plants a church, the leader who builds the church, and the senior pastor and Chief Shepherd who rules the church” (64). Using Philippians 1:1, Driscoll teaches that the formal church offices are those of elder, deacon, and member.

He makes a biblical case for male-only eldership, using a number of Scriptural passages in support of his position. In addition, he contrasts the three views on church leadership – egalitarian (liberal), complementarian (moderate), and hierarchical (conservative). He points that “the Bible does not use ‘pastor’ as an office but as a function. A leader does the work of pasturing or shepherding but is not called pastor but elder or overseer. Simply, the various words are used interchangeably to refer to the same person in the same office” (69). Continuing, though, he makes the point that an elder-pastor need not be paid, but that he is worthy of it. Also, Driscoll presents biblical evidence for a “first among equals” elder, citing Peter as an example. On the topic of deacons, Driscoll supports the view that women are qualified to serve as deacons, using biblical examples to make his case. Lastly, he communicates the responsibilities and roles that members have in the church.

Regarding the second controversial issue, church discipline, Driscoll points out that “because church leaders love the reputation of Jesus, love the entire church in which they serve, and love the sinner, dealing with sin is an art form that takes great courage, discernment, and wisdom” (165). “There are two kinds of discipline,” Driscoll says, “formative and restorative” (171). The manner in which the first is applied is positively, instructively, and encouragingly in a number of ways, including preaching, prayer, and personal Bible study. The second kind of discipline, restorative, focuses on correcting the abuse, working with the sinner in a demeanor of humility and love in an effort to restore that person to a closer relationship with Christ. He continues, communicating with clarity the process by which churches are to follow in administering discipline. On the question of importance, Driscoll remarks: “the church that refuses to exercise discipline can command neither the world’s respect nor the confidence of its own members” (172).

From cover to cover, this book is packed with footnotes, providing the reader with the resources necessary to test the claims they make, most of which are references to biblical support. Unlike many books out there that seek to answer, with subjective arguments, the hot topic of what a true church is, this book maneuvers through Scripture, communicating what the objective Word of God has to say on the topic. This is an informative, well-argued case for the biblical church that will prove to be a great resource for all.

Ever since the beginning of time, mankind has questioned what God is like. In a small town of Bethlehem in Judea nearly two millennia ago, God came in the form of a baby to answer that very question. Ironic as it is, people had a distorted view of who this Son of Man was, even as He was in their midst. Some doubted He was God, others questioned why He had come, and still others believed in Him all the while knowing very little about Him. Just as these things can be said of people at that time, the same can be said of people today.

In an effort to shed light on who this Jesus really is, Mark Driscoll answers twelve of the most common questions regarding Christ in his book titled Vintage Jesus. Such questions include: “How Human Was Jesus,” “Why Did Jesus Mom Need to Be a Virgin,” “Why Should We Worship Jesus,” and “What Difference Has Jesus Made in History,” among others.

With all political correctness aside, Driscoll points out (in response to the question, “is Jesus the only God?”) that “Jesus clearly stated that he is God. God alone calls heaven his eternal home, and God alone could descend from heaven as opposed to ascending up to heaven” (Vintage Jesus 18). If Jesus claimed to be God, He is a liar, a deranged man, or truly God. It is up to us, through personal research into the life and teachings of Jesus, to determine which of the three He is.

Vintage Jesus is a valuable resource for the reader in a pursuit to dispel the rumors and set the record straight regarding the small-town carpenter that was crucified on a cross and who He really was (and is).

For those familiar with Driscoll’s speaking style of transparency, boldness, humor, and intellect, this book will not disappoint. It reads much like if you were listening to him deliver the chapter in the form of a sermon (which, after all, makes sense because the book is based off the sermon series of the same title).

If Jesus truly is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6 ESV), then all of life comes down to how well we know Him. The person who comes to the realization of this profound statement by Jesus can not help but search tirelessly for answers about Him. That is the very purpose of this book by Driscoll – to provide a place for new believers and long-time followers alike to continue in their quest for the real Jesus.

For many, Donald Miller is a familiar name. Others may not know him, but doubtless have seen his well-known book Blue Like Jazz sitting on the bookshelves of their local bookstore. Some of you have purchased and read said book from said bookstore. The others who have not should make the transition into the first category.

Blue Like Jazz makes for quite a hodgepodge of musings regarding church, community, faith, grace, love, money, and redemption; highlighting the manner in which each of these fit into the life Jesus has called us to live. Feelings of inadequacy, bouts of doubt and despair, and the necessity for love and grace are all central themes in Miller’s book.

For those who think such a book does not suit their fancy or lacks relevancy, just read the titles of the various chapters: “gods: Our Tiny Invisible Friends,” “Redemption: The Sexy Carrots,” “Community: Living with Freaks,” “Romance: Meeting Girls is Easy,” and, finally, “Faith: Penguin Sex.” If the titles peak your interest, so will the chapters themselves.

With such profound thoughts communicated in such a simple manner (and with great satire), Miller certainly has a skill for communicating deep truth in a way both the theologian and simpleton alike can comprehend.

One such concept is the infatuation many Christians have with being religious:

“I believe the greatest trick of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to be religious. If he can sink a man’s mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God” (Blue Like Jazz, 13).

“Satan, who I believe exists as much as I believe Jesus exists, wants us to believe meaningless things for meaningless reasons. Can you image,” Miller asks, “if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue us from the pit of our own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half the world was living in poverty? Do you think they would change the way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? If we believed the right things, the true things, there wouldn’t be very many problems on earth” (106-107). At the heart of all the problems in the world lives our corrupted view of pleasure, of meaning, of purpose, and, most importantly, of love. If we truly understood this, Miller observed, how differently we would live our lives.

“I think Christian spirituality is like jazz music. I think loving Jesus is something you feel. I think it is something very difficult to get on paper. But it is no less real, no less meaningful, no less beautiful” (239). And beauty, meaning, and reality all come into clarity when we com to understand that “the most important thing that happens within Christian spirituality is when a person falls in love with Jesus” (237). For loving Jesus is what all of life comes down to.