The RECORD

If you have been aware of the news this week, you know that Pope Benedict came under fire for a speech he gave recently. It contained a quote from the fourteenth century and caused a violent reaction from the Muslim world.

Here is the quote that the Pope included in his speech. It was from Professor Theodore Khoury, written in 1391:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

The Pope, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

Click [HERE] to read the entire speech.

Chuck Colson wrote about the Pope's speech and the media reaction in the Tuesday edition of Breakpoint. You can read the article by clicking [HERE].

Rev. John C. Rankin, Founder and President of the Theological Education Institute, regularly debates issues like this in his Mars Hill Forums. The question of a current Forum is: "Is Islam Willing to Embrace Hard Questions"? His article appeared in the RECORD this week. You can read it by clicking [HERE].

In case you haven't noticed, Christianity has been under attack in America and around the world. Enemies of the Faith know how to neutralize Christianity and erode its foundation. When skeptics remove the Creator in favor of secular humanism, they effectively cast doubt on the Bible and ultimately the Gospel message.

There are shocking attacks on Christianity shown on the American Family Association's web site. Check it out at: http://www.afa.net/ You will read about NBC's broadcast of Madonna set to mock the Crucifixion of Christ, Wal-Mart asking for and receiving permission to join a homosexual marriage group, and Rosie O'Donnell on ABC stating that "Christians are no different than murderous radical Muslims."

The time has come for Christians to stand tall. We do have answers! As Christian leaders we need to equip our people with information to defend the Faith against the onslaught of skeptical claims.

Contrary to what some might like to insist, Christianity is not the religion of "an eye for an eye." It is the religion of Jesus, who refined the Old Testament law down to two commands: love your neighbor as yourself, and love God with all your heart. No matter where one reads in the accounts of Jesus, the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus was about love.

So where does the Church stand when it comes to violent actions by the disciples of Mohammed? Interesting, isn't it, that Muslim fanatics use the idea of holy jihad and rewards in paradise to recruit people into terrible acts of destruction, and in Christian circles there is the solemn assembling for prayer and seeking of protection for the troops and leaders in their mission of war while basically remaining silent while the church is under siege? The church is not silent about many other subjects such as AIDS, physical abuse of various kinds, hunger and even immigration.

In 1945, the anti-Nazi German pastor Martin Niemoller wrote the following:

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

I suppose this famous statement could be updated for Americans:

"First they came for Israel, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Jews. Then they came for Lebanon's Christians, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Maronites. Then they came for France, and we didn't speak up because we weren't French citizens. Then they came for Sudan's blacks, and we didn't speak up because we weren't Sudanese blacks. Then they came for us, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for us."

There is a stark difference between the reaction of Muslims to the slightest negative reflection on their religion and Christianity which has experienced much more than slight negative remarks. We Christians remain pretty much silent when our faith is attacked. We have allowed enemies of the Christian faith to remove America's rich Christian heritage from our public school history books, and for that matter, God and the Bible are no longer welcome in public schools. Instead we have studies in Islam, homosexuality, abortion, sexuality and globalism.

Can you help the League?

I am asking individuals and churches to support the League. The League does the hard work of influencing lawmakers -- work that most people don't have the stomach for. That work is extremely important. The State of Maine has seen the positive result of that Biblical witness. The League can't do the job without adequate resources. Individuals can send regular offerings to the League and churches can support the League as a local mission with regular support.

Please feel free to contact me if your church is interested in getting more information about including the League in your missions budget. It would be greatly appreciated at this time.

Voter Guide

I am excited to inform you that the League has just launched its online voters guide. It is easy to use and can be accessed by going to the League's website. Once you are there, click on Search for candidates at the bottom of the page. They are listed by town in alphabetical order so the inquirer can easily locate their candidate. The information on that candidate can be printed for anyone interested. Some churches print out the information for the candidates that represent all the towns where their congregation lives.

Join us at the League Banquet

Please accept my invitation to attend the Civic League's annual banquet at the Senator Inn, Augusta, Friday, Oct. 6th, at 5:30 PM.

Besides a wonderful meal and warm Christian fellowship, you will be inspired and challenged by the presentations of two speakers, Pastor Sandy Williams of First Baptist Church of Freeport, and Coach Dave Daubenmire of "Pass The Salt" ministries. They will each make a presentation on the subject, "Is this a Christian nation? Two Perspectives."

Your church or ministry can also be a table sponsor for the event. The Evangelical pastors group in my area is going together and sponsoring a table with each church contributing a little. Perhaps your pastors group would consider doing the same. You will also want to click on Coach Daubenmire's website and listen to a podcast of his radio show.

The League's theological consultant, John Rankin, has issued a challenge to muslims in a "TEI Update" that he published today. "TEI" refers to Mr. Rankin's Theological Education Institute. He publishes regular email updates through the TEI.

Muslims are rioting around the world in response to a theological speech by Pope Benedict that was delivered at a German University last Tuesday. In the speech Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor offering critical comments about Islam's policy of forced conversions. Many observers feel that the Pope is being quoted out of context. The Pope has apologized for the reaction to the speech and indicated that he does not share the views of the Byzantine emperor that he quoted in the speech.

Read the Pope's entire speech here.

Here is today's published challenge by John Rankin entitled "Is Islam Willing to Embrace Hard Questions?"

In the debate over the war on terror, over language such as the clash of civilizations or concerning the newly minted word Islamofascism, it all comes down to the nature of Islam.

As a biblically literate Christian, I can happily affirm a statement by Muhammad, in reference to hard questions, where he says "Ask whatever you want." I can also affirm a statement in the Quran which says there should be no compulsion in religion.

Islam historically argues that it is superior, and is strong enough to handle anything. Here are four compelling questions:

1] Is Islam strong enough to embrace hard questions from non-Muslims?

In the Quran, Allah warns Muslims not to dispute with Jews and Christians, for the revelation of the Quran is perfect (cf. Surah 29:36). As well, in Surah 33:36, "no option is allowed when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger."

But in the Hadith [Al-Bukhari], there is hope. In Volume 1, No. 63, Muhammad says to a man who approached him, "I am here to answer your questions." The man says, "I want to ask you something and will be very hard in questioning. So do not get angry." Muhammad replied, "Ask whatever you want."

But then again, in Vol. 3, No. 591, Muhammad says that Allah hates for Muslims "to ask too many questions [in disputed religious matters]."

2] Is Islam strong enough to handle freedom?

In the Quran, Surah 2:256 says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error." But this was written when Muhammad was being persecuted by the polytheists. Later, when Islam gained political control, the Quran calls for jihad against Jews, Christians and infidels. This jihad [Arabic for "struggle"] can be done means of persuasion or war. In the face of jihad, from the very beginning of Islam, non-Muslims had three options: conversion, slavery or death. And in Islamic Sharia law, Muslims have no freedom to convert away from Islam.

3] Is Islam, by definition, at war with all non-Muslims?

There are only two possibilities in Islam "dar al-Islam" (the state of Islam) and "dar al-harb" (the state of war). People live in one or the other. Those who refuse to submit to Islam are by definition in "a state of war" against Islam. Do Muslims in the United States view all non-Muslims here the same way, and hence, subject to jihad?

4] Can Muslims in the United States fully affirm unalienable rights for all people equally?

The unalienable rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, cited in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, are given by the biblical Creator. Such an understanding is not found in Allah or the Quran. Thus, do American Muslims fully honor the unalienable rights upon which this nation is founded? If not, is Sharia law the goal?

I believe that "truth stands out clear from error" when both sides are fully heard. The non-military part of jihad involves speech and reasoning. In my own freedom, I can conclude with this question: "Is it possible for Islam to convert a biblically literate Christian by arguments rooted in history and sound reasoning"? I invite any Muslim person or scholar to convert me accordingly, if possible, and most delightfully, in a public conversation.

In order to understand the gravest threats to human freedom, I believe we need first to understand how the world's greatest social evils are rooted in "the chosen absence of the biological father." This reality of broken aspirations permeates the full spectrum of human life and history.

It also defines the seething anger underlying the current Middle East time bomb. But as the political classes scramble to douse the long-ignited fuse, are they willing to embrace historical reality? Or will ambassadorial niceties trump once again, while the fuse burns ever closer to a point of no return?

Middle East dynamics can only be understood in knowing the bitter roots that go back some 4,000 years. And this means a look at biblical history -- a subject not often welcome among the political classes in the West. But in the Muslim world, the Quran and its view of the Bible are central and inseparable from politics. Thus, we in the West face a great incommensurability. Can we, will we overcome the fear of welcoming biblical history to the discussion?

Whether or not someone accepts how the Bible understands itself, a look into its story line describes the reality of Middle Eastern conflict. You can judge for yourself the accuracy of such a perspective.

Abraham is the father to both the Arabs and the Jews; his son Ishmael is the father of the Arabs, his son Isaac is the father of the Jews, and Christians are spiritual descendants of Jewish history and assumptions. The nature of the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac is thus definitive.

In Genesis 16, Abram's wife Sarai (before their names were changed to Abraham and Sarah) sought to address her barrenness by suggesting that Abraham sleep with her Egyptian maidservant, Hagar. Her intent was to build a family through her, which is to say, the first recorded surrogate motherhood. Sarah was not even giving Hagar the pagan status of a concubine, who, while having no legal standing in the family, at least could raise her own child. Sarah planned to take the child from Hagar at birth and claim him for her own.

Abraham agreed to the idea, and when Hagar knew she was pregnant, and understood Sarah's designs, she despised her. Sarah despised Hagar in return, blamed the matter on Abraham, and began to mistreat Hagar. This war between the women led to the war between the sons when Isaac was born to Abraham and Sarah thirteen years later. Ishmael was biologically the first-born, and resented the fact that Isaac was to be honored legally as the first-born.

Now Abraham wanted to be a present father to his son Ishmael, and loved him dearly. But Sarah prevented him, and in order to keep his marriage intact, Abraham could not publicly embrace Ishmael. His relational absence from Ishmael's life was not his desired choice, but it was the fruit of a choice he foolishly made. It was a chosen yet unchosen absence with devastating effects on Ishmael and world history.

From Ishmael's perspective as a young boy, he grew up not knowing why his father Abraham was relationally absent in his life. There was his father, the patriarch of the large nomadic community, wealthy and with a status parallel to that of regional kings. Abraham was powerful, therefore his absence must be chosen, so a little boy would grow to reason. All that young Ishmael desired was the honor of being known and treated as the son of the patriarch. But the war on Sarah's part prevented it.

Thus, Ishmael grew up enmeshed in shame, written into his soul from before his birth. Shame happens when we suffer for no fault of our own. Indeed, as the Arab peoples have descended from Ishmael, their corporate psyche has been shaped by the burden of shame, and only true honor can overcome it. This reality of the shame versus honor conflict in the Arab soul is clear to this day. When Islam arose out of Arabia nearly 1400 years ago, this sense of shame has continued to influence Islam as it expanded into non-Arab cultures.

The social consequences of Ishmael's shame are summed up as Genesis 16:12 says of him:

"He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."

In contrast, Isaac did not grow up in such shame, being honored as the heir to Abraham's lineage. Indeed, his name means "he laughs" -- a freedom produced by honor given. But he also had an honest sense of guilt, the knowledge of what it means to suffer due to faults we know are our own. The power to look at our own guilt needs a measure of freedom from shame as a prerequisite. And the only way to overcome guilt is through acknowledgment of our faults and embrace of forgiveness.

Here we face the great disjunctive between Islam and much of the West -- the heirs to shame without honor on the one hand; and the heirs to guilt without forgiveness on the other.

How do we respond? It is ultimately a theological question and here Islam knows that most of the West is suffering from a self-imposed weakness. We fear mixing theology and politics, and do not know how to integrate the two subjects in a healthy civic context.

We need to honor the Arab soul at a deep level, at a level that is honest and surprising at the same time.

On the one hand, we need to eschew the folly of thinking "dialogue" will cut it. It is viewed by Islam as a sign of weakness. The Quran and the Hadith have no tradition for dialogue with dissenters; no tradition for welcoming questions concerning core Muslim beliefs from insiders, not to mention outsiders.

In contrast, the rabbinic nature of loving hard questions concerning core biblical beliefs is a central pedagogical tool in Jewish faith, and is also seen with great clarity in the teaching style of Jesus.

On the other hand, to engage Islam at the level of an atomistic military response to outward jihad will not cut it. We become hated Crusaders, and the Muslim world feels more justified yet and accuses us of hypocrisy in the goal to make us feel guilty. They can thus engage in outward jihad without a sense of guilt as they destroy the innocent lives of Jews, Christians and "infidels."

The way to honor the Arab and Muslim soul is to challenge Muslims directly at the level of "inner jihad", to debate them head-on concerning truth claims.

To engage Muslims at the level of inner jihad is a profound sign of respect of a mutual humanity, if approached honestly.

Jihad is an Arabic word for "struggle", and it can be applied in a range of contexts in struggling to be faithful to the Quran. The most well known form is the outward or military jihad, which is how Islam grew from the outset. This distinction between "outward" and "inner jihad" reflects my own terms, and they serve my best understanding of a distinction that Islam knows well.

Since Islam has always claimed intellectual superiority, part of inner jihad is the expectation for Muslims that all questions which the human soul can perceive are answered in Islam. The irony is that such an inner jihad is only allowed to find the answers in what is given to them up front, not in what they can learn by a freedom to challenge Islam.

What would happen if a devout and well-educated Muslim were challenged: "Is Islam strong enough to handle any given issue?" The answer would be yes. But what about the specific question: "Is Islam strong enough to handle freedom"?

The sharia law of Islam does not allow Muslims to convert apart from the penalty of death. Yet when Islam has historically had the power to enforce sharia, it has demanded the submission of all peoples to its religion, whether by forced conversion, paying a regular tax, or being enslaved. It gives no freedom of dissent. Yet the human soul yearns for freedom, and Muslim peoples are no different -- we all share a common humanity.

In the Bible, the nation of Israel began as a community of choice no one was forced to become an Israelite. The Christian church began under the fire of Roman persecution, and honored this history of freedom. Only when the church became legal under Constantine, did it then begin to merge with the state under Theodosius and Justinian, and pollute the biblical heritage by coercing both Jews and pagans into becoming "Christian." In fact, this so weakened both church and state, that "Christendom" was too weak to fight the initial spread of Islam with any energy.

From its origins in the seventh century A.D., and until the end of the 17th century, Islam was a religion spread by the sword for the purpose of demanding submission to Allah. Muslim armies conquered Syria, Palestine, Persia, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan, Egypt, North Africa, Sicily, Spain, Portugal the Balkans, Anatolia (Asian portion of Turkey), Constantinople, Russia, much of Eastern Europe, invaded France and Italy, sacked Ostia and Rome, and reached as far as the gates of Vienna. So the nature of Islam has never considered that strength means the ability to allow freedom for non-Muslims.

If Islam cannot handle freedom, what strength does it ultimately have? When coercion is employed, is this not a forfeiture of an intellectual confidence to win an argument on its own merits? Is this not an admission that Islam is not intellectually superior? The posing of this core question can upend the confidence of worldwide Islam, and such an intellectual turmoil has the greatest power to overcome Islamic outward jihad.

But the posing of this core question to Jews and Christians should be easy to answer. Jews have consistently honored freedom, and since the Reformation, the church in the West has largely returned to it biblical roots in this regard. Religious and political freedom is honored for Muslims in the West today.

If the hope of freedom gains access to the Arab and Muslim souls, if the historic shame rooted in Ishmael can be overcome by showing true honor to challenge Muslims at the intellectual level of inner jihad, thereby producing a level playing field to address issues of guilt and forgiveness, at the individual and national levels then the need for military conflict is greatly lessened.

Much of the turmoil in the Middle East is due to Muslim people chafing under dictatorial Muslim political power.

The religious, political and economic liberties of the United States are rooted in the unalienable rights given by the Creator as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. To the extent that U.S. citizens are faithful to our national origins, we celebrate freedom, and desire it for all people equally. But are we in the West always strong enough to handle freedom? Unless we are, we have no ability to resist Islam. Do we realize how many social cancers in out own midst sap our strength to handle the birthright of freedom? For example, how many political leaders and movements in the West truly celebrate a level playing field for all ideas to be equally heard, especially those of their dissenters? How can freedom fully exist otherwise?

Military wars against outward Islamic jihadists are interminable, as the Middle East continues to give evidence. But if we in the West truly embrace freedom, we need to know our own heritage, and we need to challenge Islam at the level of inner jihad. In so doing, we will enter a huge intellectual and spiritual contest, but its potential for serving stability and peace is far greater than mere politics and war.

For Jews and Christians who want to serve our biblical heritage of religious, political and economic freedom, we need to know how to respond biblically to the outward jihad of worldwide Islam against Israel and the West.

1. We need to understand the radical difference between a shame-based culture, and a guilt-based culture.

2. We need to know the difference between outward jihad and inward jihad.

3. To communicate with the shame-based culture of Islam, we need to know how to show honor to Muslims.

4. An invitation to dialogue will not work -- this is not the territory of jihad, and it is viewed as weakness, whether in the inner or outward capacity.

5. A military offensive by the West, seen as an attempt to conquer Islam, will not work -- calling to the Muslim mind the stereotype of the Crusades. (This is a distinct issue from national defense and the defense of allies from aggression.)

6. The challenge to debate Islam at the level of inner jihad is a proactive embrace of religious, political and intellectual turmoil, and it honors the Muslim soul. Here we define the terms, and the possibility of peace is greater than when we react to the terms of outward jihad.

7. The defining questions is: "Is Islam Strong Enough to Handle Freedom?" The subsequent question of "Are We?" indicates an equanimity, both Islam and the West are accountable to the same question.

8. Are we in the West courageous enough to tackle this question head on, or are we too guilt-laden to deal first with our own accountability?

9. In the United States, here is a question to be asked of Muslim citizens and immigrants: "Do Muslims unequivocally affirm the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property for all people equally as given by the Creator?"

10. This process and these questions invite us into one of the most compelling debates facing the 21st century. As Os Guinness has stated, this century will fall or rise on the hinges of how three international issues are addressed. Will the West reclaim its Christian heritage? Will Islam modernize peaceably? What religion will win in China? These and other questions interface at many points, but historically, the lighted fuse for all of it leads to Jerusalem.

11. If worldwide Islam can answer these questions in such a way as to embrace freedom for all people equally, then much good has been accomplished.

12. If Islam is not strong enough to handle freedom, then a moment of needed clarity has been achieved, and the thirst for freedom universal to the human soul can be more readily perceived by non-elitist Muslims. This too would accomplish much good.

To learn more about John Rankin and his ministry go to http://www.teinetwork.org