GOD'S FOOTPRINTS
With interest I read the article entitled "God's Footprints in the Rubble"(AR 9-12-02). The author accurately points out areas where "Christians" have mistreated Muslims both past and present. These unfortunate happenings are suggested as somewhat valid reasons, even some kind of justification, for terrorist attacks. Although the points are well taken, the article perhaps should be a little more balanced. Reasons for terror-attacks on USA are also to be found internally among the Muslims. Dissatisfactions in Islamic countries with corrupt leaders, who are strongly supported by the West are also reaons for the terrible acts. They are generally so protected in their own palaces that no-one gets near them uninvited. So when radical Muslims cannot hit the enemy within they will strike at the distant supporters of their enemies. In their eyes USA is the greatest of these as it is the patron of the dreaded and corrupt regime at home.

Perhaps the article would also have been better balanced also if it had dug a little into the Islamic theology, traditional beliefs and general world-view. For here even the terror-attacks can find a defence for their vicious acts. There are quite a few selected texts that can be interpreted and applied as a justification for the the 9-11 and other evil attacks.

Only a couple of essential matters shall be mentioned. The proposal that the Islamic division of the world into "dar-Islam" (the house of Islam) and "dar-al-harb" (the house of war) is an "early" Muslim practice is certainly a doubtful claim. As far as most Muslims are concerned this division is still valid, and used in their propaganda.

The attempt almost to equate the "Allah" of Islam with Elohim of the Hebraic/Christian scriptures would appear to be wishful thinking. Most Muslim scholars would reject it as indeed would Christian authorities notwithstanding the Arabic biblical translators using the pre-islamic Arabic word for Allah. The orthodox Christan view comprising three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is anathema to Muslims who regard that to be Christian. This mystery so essential and beautiful for the Christians is strongly denounced by Muslim, even regarded as polytheism.

In the paragraph dealing with how SDA's should relate to recent events, the author warns us against "toxid" faith also defined as faith systems that emphasizes "control of the member's life more than compassion". No doubt the warning points to "toxid" segments of Christians, perhaps even some Adventists. However, this definition and the whole trend in these lines fit so extremely well on Islam more than any other world-religion. The integrated Shariah law controls every aspect of the life of the Muslim. In Islamic law there is no distinction between the secular and the religious. It has regulation for every detail in the believers life being in criminal, civil, religious or personal matters. In Islam there is a toxid faith that has control of its members.

Under Additional Suggestions Adventists are counselled not to be like 'other groups that see the "kingdom of God" as the reigning of Christianity through earthly governments over "non-belivers"'. And no doubt there are still Christians with this nationalistic attitude. However, deep in Islamic theology the "kingdom of Allah" begins with the life in this world. This was exemplified with Muhammed's Medina experince where the prophet also was mayor, teacher, commander of the army, law-giver and judge. So the author's warning again has a better application on Islam than on Christianity.

There is no doubt that in evangelism to people of other religions genuine respect and love are very significant. And points of agreements in faith and practice should be touched upon. However, erroneous beliefs and fallacies must be pointed out. Such approaches that are needed for successful results, demand much tact and humility. This humility, however, does not expect us to bend backward to accept false teachings. It should never exempt us from a direct and truthful witness.

Borge Schantz

In the opening lines of the article, "God's Footprints in the Rubble," [September 12, 2002, Adventist Review], Elder Jerald Whitehouse asks, "Why do they hate us so much? Does the Koran really command Muslims to kill Christians?" Perhaps it would be well to consider these texts from the Muslim "holy" book:

1. Sura 9:5, 29: "When the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush." "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle [Muhammed] have forbidden." Elder Whitehouse, in his article, as well as in his teachings as director of the Global Center for Adventist-Muslim Relations, contends that the god of the Islamic faith is the same as the God of the Bible. While I am aware that this is what Muslims teach, I believe we need to be deeply concerned when an Adventist Christian expresses this opinion and applies this theology in preaching "another gospel" to Muslim people.

Elder Whitehouse makes his case for this supposition by quoting from different texts in the Koran about the character of Allah. This methodology is, by definition, faulty. In attempting to demonstrate that the god of the Koran is the God of the Bible, it is inappropriate to seek evidence from the Koran to substantiate this claim. Instead, the standard for judgment must be the original document, the Bible, in testing the validity of the claims of the Koran, not vice versa.

Therefore, in order for the Koran to be valid, and the god of Islam to be the God of the Bible, then the inspiration of the Koran must be consistent with the truth of the Holy Scriptures. The following texts from the Bible clearly demonstrate that the source of inspiration for the Koran is not the same as the Bible, because the teachings of the Koran clearly disagree with the teachings of Holy Scripture.

The Bible teaches that there is a mysterious unity in the three Persons of the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Genesis 1:2, 26, and Col. 1:12-19; Genesis 11:4, 7; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14 Ephesians 2:18). In contrast, the Koran teaches:

Sura 4:169: "O ye people of the Book! Exceed not the limits in your religion; and of God, say not what is untrue. The Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary, is but an apostle of God… Believe, therefore, in God and His apostles, and say not 'Trinity' - forbear - it will be better for you! For God is one God." Sura 5:77: "Surely they blaspheme who say 'God is the third of three'; for there is no god but the one God, and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall befall such as do blaspheme."

The Holy Bible is very clear that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God (see Mark 1:1, 15:39; Matt. 27:54; John 1:1-3, 14; 3:16; 14:9). In opposition to this, the Koran says: Sura 112:1-4: "Say: He is God alone: God the Eternal! He doth not beget, and He is not begotten; and there is no one in His likeness at all."

Sura 9:30-1: "The Christians say, 'The Messiah is a son of God'. Such are the sayings in their mouths. They resemble the saying of the infidels of old! God fight them! How misguided they are!... Far from His glory be what they associate with Him."

Sura 5:19: "They blaspheme indeed who say, 'Verily God is the Messiah, the son of Mary'!" At the center of all true faith is what God did for us in sending His Son to live amongst us, and to die for our sins on the cross of Calvary. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified, died, laid in a tomb for three days, rose again from the grave, and ascended into heaven (see Matt. 27:35, 50, 59-60, 63, 28:5-7; Mark 15:24, 37, 44-46, 16:6, et al.). It is only because of the sacrifice of the Son of God that we can receive the gift of eternal salvation. Regarding the death of the Christ on the cross the Koran teaches:

Sura 4:156: "And for their (Jews) saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, and Apostle of God' - yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: no sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion; and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself. And God is Mighty, Wise!"

The god of Islam is not the God of the Bible, despite whatever claims the Koran makes. The Bible does speak of the "prophet" Muhammed, in Deut. 13:1-11, when it describes those who claim to speak for God, but then attempt to turn the hearts of God's people away from Him. That the Koran is an "inspired" book is not the question. The issue is whether the source of the inspiration of the Koran is the God of Abraham, Isaac (not Ishmael) and Jacob. Rather, could it be that the source of inspiration of the Koran is another spiritual being who attempts to deceive the elect into thinking that he is the Most High (see Isa. 14:12-14)?

John Baxter

Whoa! Was that a sanitized version of Islam or what? (God's Footprints in the Rubble, Sept 12) The article did not reach to the foundation of either religion. In truth, true Christianity is peaceful, false Christianity is violent. True Islam is violent but false Islam is peaceful. In the interest of reaching Moslem people with the Gospel, we should not whitewash the true nature of the religion.

On another topic, I wondered if the Review could have and article on the Good, the Bad, the Ugly of Adventism. The Article should rate 10 areas in which the Church estimates of high value. It should rate what we should be doing in these areas if we were 95% perfect; how does other Protestants Churches rate against this standard; how do we rate against this standard. Example: Knowledge of the Bible, the average Adventist when asked 10 questions about the Bible scored 40%, other Protestants scored 30%, we should score 90-100% on such a quiz.

Duane Maycock
Corvallis, Oregon

THEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
Praise God! My heart has been warmed anew and my faith strengthened this morning. I have just read President Jan Paulsen's focused, balanced and challenging message, "The Theological Landscape," (NAD Edition, October 2002}.

Pastor Paulsen's wise perspective is so very timely for me in these turbulent and uncertain days. The thought occurred to me (since every member of our church does not have access to the Review), that spiritual nurturing could occur if each congregation would choose a special Sabbath and feature Paulsen's message during the 11:00 hour. The congregation's most skilled reader could present the message (without editorial comment). It would be helpful for each person attending to have a copy of the article in hand to follow along with the reader. A footnote could be added that would help clarify such terms as "eschaton" and "ecclesiology". Following the presentation, small groups could form and dialogue on what they have heard and felt, concluding with a time of prayerful searching for a God-centered, individual response to the Holy Spirit --- expressing gratitude to God for our Church and for our Spirit-filled leader, Jan Paulsen.

Sincerely,
Chet Damron

SEND HIM PACKING
"How to send your pastor packing" is not exactly and encouraging, fulfilling article geared to the spiritual upliftment of God's people or the spreading of the gospel.

The schemes suggested here, are anything but reflective of what should be the motives and attitudes and practices of God's remnant people. I'm sure this article can and will be held against us when "push comes to shove".

Let us get back to focusing on the sole aim of our church - "teach all nations...", instead of perpetrating the sole purpose of the devil himself which is to stir up confusion, discord and rebellion. I'll keep you all in my prayers.

Name Withheld

BENDING THE RULES
Our Sept. 19 Review reached us just a few weeks after we had studied in our Sabbath school lesson about God bending the rules as told in 2 Chronicles 30. Alden Thompson's sentiments paralleled what I had shared in my class as a new kernel of truth that I had discovered that week. It was so timely because that week we had two people present who had been away from the church for some time.

I felt it was a special message they may have needed that day: we can all return to God as best we are able at the time and God will accept our heart's desire to be closer to Him. What a wonderful message of God's grace! However, Roy Adams' sidebar seemed to be doctrinally unsound. We are not "innocent" or "guiltless" when we knowingly disobey our government's or God's law. The Bible and Patriarchs and Prophets do not say that God approved of Rahab's lying, but rather her faith and acting on that faith by hiding the Israelite men are praised. (See also SDA Bible Commentary on Joshua 2:4.) In Hezekiah's situation he allowed the people to violate ceremonial rules. But then he prayed for them because he knew they were not innocent, and the Bible writer records that God "healed the people". When our motive is to set our hearts to seek God, and we do it the best we can, God may bend the rules. God winks at our ignorance (Acts 17:30) but when we know to do good and do not do it, it is a sin (James 4:17).

Melissa J. Whitaker
Charlotte, Michigan

I just read with interest, "Does God Ever Bend The Rules" by Alden Thompson. (AR 9-19-02). While that's a catchy way to express it, I prefer to recognize that God has basic priorities which are unbending principles and which apply under all circumstances. They always take precedence over any and all written rules for general appplication.

Christ expressed this many times: When He saw someone suffering on the Sabbath, He declared that it is "lawful to do good on the Sabbath day." Mark 3:4. When asked why he ate with publicans and sinners, and why His disciples would "pluck the ears of corn" on the Sabbath, Christ's answer was: "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'" Matt. 9:13; 12:7; Hosea 6:6. An overriding principle is also implied in Christ's statement that, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27.

God's overriding priorities in all situations are the pure, unselfish principles of love and justice that naturally motivate all His actions. The Holy Spirit will help these principles to become our natural priorities for wise and helpful action as we forget self and draw close to Christ in faith.

J. Stanley (Stan) McCluskey
Naches, Washington

Regarding Alden Thompson's Sept. 19, 2002 article, "Does God Ever Bend the Rules?"

The author's premise about "God's bending the rules to make good things happen" does not coincide with the Biblical portrayal of a changeless and eternal God -- Mal. 3:6, "For I [am] the LORD, I change not . . . and Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Since God's changeless nature is inexorably linked with His law, He cannot "bend" the rules, even for a good reason: saving the sinner. The best confirmation of this rule is, of course, Christ becoming our atoning sacrifice on the cross. That Christ died as the sinner's substitute and only hope for reconciliation with God verifies His unalterable law.

In the story of this Passover celebration, Hezekiah was not, as the author implies, deliberately testing God to see if He would bend the rules. In fact, they did celebrate the Passover at God's ordained alternative time (see Numbers 9:10-11). However, apparently, many people attended who had not been properly cleansed. Thus, Hezekiah was a type of Christ figure interceding for these unprepared people. They had broken God's law; but God pardoned them because of Hezekiah's petition. Surely, the foundation of our faith rests on the principle that God does NOT bend the rules. Rather, His unchanging law is broken by sinful humans. Indeed, God forgives the repentant sinner, but He does not bend the rules in order to accommodate the sin or the sinner.

Ginger Bromme Turner
Roanoke, Virginia

LIMITED, NOT CONDESCENDING
I just finished reading the first issue of the Adventist Review's Limited Edition online. I have a real burden for communicating to the new believer and have been involved in writing and editing a well-received conference publication for a similar target audience. So please accept this as helpful insight and not ugliness -- it isn't meant that way.

In order to avoid a condescending and patronizing tone (our comfort zone since we have "the truth"), we must first put ourselves in an [adult] new believer's shoes. I understand about keeping it simple, but we're not talking to children. Though they are babes in Christ, they are not 12-year-olds. Though many may have less than a 4th grade education, and though they may not fit our western culture norm, they are still adult human beings and ought to be treated as such without insulting their intelligence and life experience. To accomplish this we must lose the holier-than-thou attitude (which I sensed, and, by the way, the new or non-believer picks up on very quickly). We long-time Seventh-day Adventists have to consicously purge ourselves of the "them" and "us" attitude in order to communicate effectively.

A few other points that stuck out:

First paragraph: "We have written it just for you." WHO? (Oh, OK, they'll see the tiny print in the little box at the end.)

Second paragraph: "Jesus is wonderful." Yes he is. But in this paragraph and in this context, this opening sentence sounds like fluff. We are talking about the Son of God of the Universe. Our job is not to tell people how they ought to feel about Him. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Our job is to tell His story and create the possibility to imagine this act, awesome beyond words. Please don't reduce Jesus Christ to a junior-level chorus.

I could go on, but then you'd have to pay me :)

Ani Holdsworth
Bracknell, United Kingdom