John Piper’s response to A Common Word, the Open Letter from 138 Muslim scholars, and the subsequent Christian response emanating from Yale university, is spot on, I think.

Andrew, you were right. David [hey, that’s me!], you were wrong. I’ve struggled through the long rambling Muslim letter and also read the Christian response. As Piper reminds us, we don’t have a common ground. I don’t think this means that Christians and Muslims can’t say that they will respect one another and be tolerant of one another’s differing views, but they must also acknowledge that their view of God is very different.

Over the summer holidays, we watched an ABC documentary about how different families celebrate. The program featured a Christian family, a Muslim family and a Jewish family. The Muslims bent over backwards to be conciliatory and even went knocking on neighbours’ doors

[sings Knock, knock knocking on neighbours’ doors ...]

Btu the nice Muslim man also said that Christians and Muslims both acknowledge Jesus Christ. Jesus is one of the top five prophets for Muslims! Hmmm. We have a problem, Houston!

I’m afraid I probably won’t have access to “multimedia” until my family gets back from China in 2-3 weeks.

Is a transcript available of Piper’s comments? I should like to see it if at all possible.

TZ.

I also wish that people would post text as well as video, Tia.
But it was nice to see Pastor Piper speaking quietly in his study, after having heard and seen him speak so dramatically in his preaching.

I can give you a quick idea, but it is worth hearing the whole thing.

One powerful thing he said was that it is simplistic and wrong to say that because Muslims and Christians believe in loving one God and loving one’s fellow man, they therefore believe the same thing.

He gave an illustration which a friend had given him about two school friends reminiscing about a girl they used to know.

Bea: She had lovely long, auburn hair didn’t she?
Fee: I would have called it brown. Wasn’t particularly long, was it?
Bea: I loved her laugh
Fee: I don’t remember her laughing much

Bea gets out the old school facebook and says: I always liked this photo of her!

And Fee says: Oh! That’s not the Dee I used to know! We’re talking about two different people!

Jesus is God’s facebook, but Muslims do not believe he is God at all.

I think this gives you the gist of what he was saying, but it is not at all exact, just gives you the flavour, Tia.

Hi,

For those who are broadband-challenged, John Piper’s desiringgod.org
web site also refers to this statement of principles in this area from 2002.

Grace & peace,
Terry

I saw this on the Anglican web site this morning. What exactly does ‘healing the differences’ mean? Forgetting the past? (That pesky Reformation period and all those martyrs.) Is this the same as the Islam issue?

By ‘healing our differences,’ does that mean we are moving to common theology? How could the Catholic church move away from works, Mary , the Pope etc? How could evangelicals move away from the priesthood of all believers, salvation by faith in Christ alone? Very strange. And very non-bliblical.

It’s even worse than that Andrew. If you actually read the post, it’s the Muslims!

Andrew, concerning the Newcastle thing: I think the Anglicans and Roman Catholics in Newcastle agree on a lot ... more’s the pity.

Have you listened to Peter Jensen on being a Reformed Protestant Evangelical?

He articulates the differences, while acknowledging that evangelicals and Roman Catholics do have some things in common.

He also points out that unfortunately the things we have in common [e g belief in the trinity] can be obscured by additions to our supposed common beliefs.

He acknowledges that some Roman Catholics may be Christian, but that it is very difficult to be a Roman Catholic and have a proper understanding of the gospel, because of all those additions.

I don’t agree with everything you say, Andrew, but I was saying I think you awee closer to the truth than I was on the Muslim-Christian dialogue issue.

I still think we can acknowledge some shared beliefs, while pointing out the incompatibility of Muslim teaching with Christianity.

Also, I work with a Muslim man. I believe it is possible to live alongside/work alongside a person of differing beliefs, without feeling obligated to fight with him all the time to prove how different we are.

I thought the environmental issue had its roots in science, which in turn has its roots in the simultaneously very pragmatic and profoundly philosophical wisdom of the bible.

That is, all knowledge is God’s knowledge, and the fact that we can easily observe what happens when we chop down most of the trees, catch all the fish, use up and pollute all the rivers (watch ABC’s “Strange Days” 8:30 tonight), use up all the mineral resources, over-farm and kill the soil and change the climate are all observable phenomenon we can empirically monitor happening in God’s world today. Indeed, as stewards of God’s world I thought we were MEANT to observe and protect and monitor how we use God’s creation, unless of course all this biblical stewardship stuff has its origins in paganism?

My concern rests at the higher levels where denominations, in the current environment of “unity, tollerance and diversity”, wish to embrace. I think this is unbiblical, as those verses with Paul, Peter and John show.

I agree… everyone here is too soft! We should put the Archbishop in a “Cage” with the heads of other faiths and see who wins. ;-)

BTW Andrew, so are we agreed in tearing “Acts” out of our bibles? We all know how soft Paul was on moving on from common ground with pagans (as a supposed “conversation starter” tch tch tch), and taking that to the distinct and clear message of the gospel (I wonder if they even heard the differences after all his praise for their religion! Tch tch tch). He probably did this stuff all the time. Why didn’t someone stop him and teach him how to be rude to these terrible pagans! Such a compromiser!

Acts 17:22-24
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

Dave Lankshear, look at moye, look at moye

I’ve got one word to say to you, Dave Lankshear: Gordon Cheng

Check out Gordon’s blog, which effectively demolishes the view that Paul was soft-soaping the Athenians.

Hi David M,
nice article by Gordo, and yet followed by some very perceptive points made afterwards… of which I’d like to make another.

What did Paul mean when he said he’d be “all things to all men, in order that he might win some”?

Andrew - re: The Newcastle thing.

I’m living in Newcastle and I can tell you that this agreement will have no effect whatsoever. The Anglicans up here are itching to join Rome. I’m glad I became a Presbyterian when I came up here. Sydney Anglicans who cross the Hawkesbury simply don’t go to Anglican churches here. If there were any biblical ones around, they would.

Hi Neil,
that’s a sad situation. If I moved up there, I’d probably stalk you to church. ;-)

To others… I’m largely in agreement with the issues Andrew T raised in his post above… I’d rather cranky conservative evangelicals than “nice” “new” evangelicals.

Gordo may have also helped us unpack Paul’s motivation in Acts 19 as well.

Yet I’m still wondering if there’s a place for “being nice” for the sake of the gospel. Is it possible for evangelists to be “polite” to another culture while firmly presenting the gospel? Because it sounds like we’re being told that cranky aloofness is all that matters.

1 Corinthians 9

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Hi Dave
He didn’t mean he was willing to compromise here and there, if it softened people up a bit!

Where have I mentioned changing the message? I’m just concerned about the manner of the messenger.

Dave Lankshear - 29 January 2008 03:19 PM

What did Paul mean when he said he’d be “all things to all men, in order that he might win some”?

Hi everyone,

I would have liked to comment on more of this discussion but I am stretched for time at present.

I think a useful way to look at what Paul is saying here is that the only offense that we should give people is the offense of the gospel message. [Paraphrased from Tim Keller at EMA 2007]

This offense is the New Testament offense or stumbling block of Jesus Christ and his cross [ 1 Cor 1:17 to 2:5, Matt 11:6, Gal 5:11 ]

Any other offense we would give is our sin, not God’s message [ 2 Cor 6:3] and Peter tells us:

1 Peter 3:15-16 :
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy,
always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you
for a reason for the hope that is in you;
yet do it with gentleness and respect,
having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered,
those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[ ESV translation, my bold]

Grace & peace,
Terry

Any other offense we would give is our sin, not God’s message [ 2 Cor 6:3] and Peter tells us:

Some sanity at last! Thanks Terry.

Hi Dave
I didn’t intend to say anything different from what Terry is saying, but he said it better.