« Dr. Sheri Klouda: Hearing Her Lament, Honoring Her Lord | Main | Liberalism Remembered: Recalling Classic Liberalism's Most Famous Sermon »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

We need to pray for this woman and her family. Though she claims to be a secular humanist, she certainly has an understanding of the various religious beliefs.



Wow, she is brutal in her logic and she is absolutely right in proclaiming the truth she sees. But, she will never change anyone. Our response to the truth she has said must be love. Only love can change a Muslim- not logic or debates. We must find ways to love them better if we will be obedient to our Lord and 'win' the war.


I do not entirely agree with her. However, I disagree more with her pro-Muslim opponents, obviously. Though I believe she has a good understanding of many of the negative effects of contemporary fundamentalist Islamic belief and practice, I believe her secular viewpoint is blind to the real and true causes, which are supernatural in nature. However vehement her position, her defense rises not much above the superficial and secular.

She is right about the offenses done in the name of Islam. She is right about the backwardness in general of areas under strict Islamic rule. She is right about the idea that Muslims must earn the respect of humankind before it is given (and gave examples of Jewish and Christian achievements which have done exactly that).

However, I believe her basic diagnosis of the problem is in error.

She said this is not a clash between religions (which is not surprising, since she is not a believer in any religion according to her own words). She said it is also not a clash between civilizations (though I do not understand her distinction between "clash" and "compete", but my impression is that she means that there is not equality in substance and worthiness between the two). She basically summarizes what follows as a clash between the civilized and the primitive.

But she is wrong. This is a clash of opposing philosophies and worldviews, even religions in some instances (though you do not have to be a Christian to be in agreement with her reasons for opposition to Islam). I believe these spring from fundamental disagreements on the nature of God, the nature of man, and the purpose of life.

Muslims are not constructing a worldview based on the outside reality they find themselves in, but are reconstructing the world to match their worldview or impression of reality. Everything must submit to this view and fall under its dominion. Anything that opposes is simply error to be fought, conquered, subdued, cleansed, and converted or eliminated. Nothing else can or will be tolerated in this system because its inherent structure and survival seems to absolutely depend on eliminating all opposition and strengthening any alliances, with an ultimate goal to bring everything into submission and obedience to their false idea of God and what such a one requires.

That is why I believe the ultimate source of this is supernatural in nature. There is only one God, who has expressed Himself fully and finally in His Son, and everything else is opposition. That opposition can take the form of the (actually) amoral liberty of the secular humanist, whose morality derives from prevailing culture and standards of rationality, or any of the myriad of religious systems that currently plague the earth and swallow millions into deception and spiritual ruin, of which Islam forms a significant part.

One could accuse Christians also of reconstructing the world to match their chosen worldview, but such accusation is false when seen and understood spiritually by Christian believers. Ultimately, the correct worldview is not formed by the prevailing sense of modernity, the logical foundations for rationality, or the benevolence of a nurturing human culture. As Christians, what matters is submitting to Christ, who is God Himself. Christ is Lord!

This is not the same as Islam, or any other religious system, though often atheists, agnostics, and others accuse this. It cannot be proven, just as the truth of the Bible cannot be defended or vindicated by mere human effort (though such is a very noble goal of apologetics). Ultimately the truth about who God is in Christ and the Holy Spirit who indwells us must be supernaturally revealed by the preaching of the gospel.

Love will not change a Muslim. They despise the moral decay and cultural decadence of the West. They despise the social liberty that to them must inevitably give rise to the rampant licentiousness and evil infesting our culture. No amount of love on the mere human level will overcome that ultimately, though Christian love is vital and God can use this to open hearts and minds. But ultimately it is the message and the power of the preached gospel that is paramount. Everyone, not only Muslims, must realize that our basic position in humanity begins with our state of sinful rebellion and alienation from a Holy God . Only when the Holy Spirit presses the truth home to the heart is there hope, when a person's heart is opened to understand the just condemnation and holy wrath proclaimed by the gospel, and its only remedy in Christ.

As I believe Spurgeon said, may God save all the elect, and then elect some more!


Byron, when are you going to start preaching? :) powerful stuff about our Lord. selahV


Bryan made some good comments that I agree with but then in the last paragraph I got confused- or at least I hope I misunderstand.

After pointing out that being a true follower of Jesus is not a religion which I agree with he goes on to say:

Love will not change a Muslim. They despise the moral decay and cultural decadence of the West.

I assume he is referencing my comment that stated that only love could change a Muslim. I stand by my statement. Now, if Bryan is qualifying 'love' as the moral decay that Muslims see then he must mean the 'Eros' kind of love which has been corrupted into porn and all kinds of other social evils which Muslims decry- well then I agree, that kind of love will not change a Muslim. But I would hope Bryan would give me some credit and realize that I was speaking of Agape love- the love of God. 1 John says that God is love and when I said that only love could change a Muslim this is what I was refering to- only God can change a Muslim.
But now I have another issue to clarify. Bryan said that what Muslims really need in order to be changed is a good understanding of how sinful they are. He intimated that preaching the Gospel would do this for them. Now, standing on its own I can see how this is true but since these comments were made in opposition to my comment on love I feel a need to clarify this. By 'Gospel' do you mean the John 3:16 version that declares that God so loved the world that he sent his son to die for our sins or are you talking about us telling the Muslims just how sinful they are (which is what it kinda sounded like you were getting at). I believe that Bryan was right about Christianity being a relationship rather than a religion but I am afraid too many do not understand this. Many well meaning Christians have lived in our Western form for so long that they have lost Jesus in the midst of the traditions much like the pharasees did so many years ago. They preach the law as if it were the Gospel when the law is there only to prove the Gospel necessary. So, I will repeat: Only love can change a Muslim. Preaching the law will get you rejection at best and at worst it will lead to Muslim giving up the five pillars of Islam for an equally empty list of Christian rules. Love will lead them to knowledge of sin and repentance. Law will lead them to more law and self-righteousness. My guess is that Bryan knows this but his last paragraph gave me pause and so I have now written a too long comment in reply.
Thanks for the grace Peter!


It's Byron, not Bryon- I need even more grace. Sorry.



Point taken on your comment concerning agape love. I stand corrected. However, what I was afraid of in your comments was that you were implying that people can be won to God by mere positive emotion. I see now that is not what you meant, since you rightly give God ultimate credit, and make reference to His love in John 3:16 and 1 John which actually changes people.

And I probably did not word it correctly, but I certainly do not mean to imply that Muslims only need to hear how sinful they are, or that they need to hear that being obedient to God's Law will save them. I certainly do believe in preaching God's Law, fully and without apology, but deeper than mere ceremonial outward obedience into the spiritual matters of the heart, as Christ deals with in Matthew. The preaching of the gospel absolutely should give no one excuse to trust their own self-righteousness, which is a worthless substitute for Christ's righteousness and our only hope for redemption. Salvation is all of faith and all of grace and all of merit, but that merit belongs to Christ in its entirety.

Sorry if I was not clear, or if I still haven't explained myself adequately. Please let me know.


It's also not just the Muslims which see moral decay in our culture. Christian believers ought to see it and understand it the best. But too often we are desensitized to it, which I am certainly guilty of at times. I have to repent of losing faith in the power of the gospel and God's ability to change hearts and save souls, because at times I place my faith in, and I believe many Americans do as well, the power of our culture, our treasury of knowledge, and our ability to reason, over and above Christ's power to transform and cleanse and purify. It's really a horrible mindset when you think about it.


We are definitely on the same page now!

The comments to this entry are closed.