DIVINE IDENTITY THEFT
May we rightfully refer to our God as Allah when witnessing to Muslims?
Contents
A very brief historical overview
A brief theological overview
A wise biblical approach
First, notice the essential doctrinal issue
Secondly, notice the essential content of our witness
Let’s weave these threads to a conclusion
A final word
As Islamic influence grows, loving Christians are seeking to improve their witnessing skills among these people. God loves the Muslim and desires to bring him to Himself.
As I began happily collecting materials to improve my own witness I stumbled upon a land mine, a hotly debated issue which has divided us into two distinct groups. The debated question: Should we use the name Allah in reference to our God when witnessing to Muslims? Representatives of both views (yes and no) are often emotionally involved and have been less than gracious with those with whom they disagree. Both sides can offer a long list of facts to consider. It is not our purpose to address them in depth. The following discussion is offered with a spirit of kindness and respect for all parties.
A very brief historical overview.
The idea of referring to our God as Allah has been around for centuries, because the term was originally a generic term for deity just as the word god in its generic form can refer to any supposed deity. Some Christians (in Indonesia, for example) address the problem by changing the accent on the word. By accenting the last syllable of Allah they refer to the Christian God. Also keep in mind that both sides of the” Allah issue” will return to Muhammad himself in this discussion. Some believe he destroyed all of the Arabian gods in preference to worshipping Allah. Others affirm, with just as much historical evidence that he destroyed all but one god, the moon god, and developed his theistic view around him. While I share the latter view I believe the issue will not be easily resolved using historical arguments and do not plan to die on that hill.
A brief theological overview.
Christians seem to hold to one of two preferences when discussing Allah. Either Allah is a strange god, a false god, or he is a corruption of Jehovah God. Some embrace this second view because so many of Islam’s views concerning Allah parallel our God. In fact, they parallel more than with any other god which men have worshipped. However, no one denies that Jehovah and Allah are far from being the same. Our God is knowable (through Christ) but Allah is not knowable. The Koran is not a self revelation of Allah; it is only a revelation of his will. While Christians are theists, our God exists in three persons, a thought which is anathema to Islam.
In defense of the view that the Islamic Allah is simply a corruption of Jehovah, Mateen Elass provides the typical arguments in his small (but powerful) book entitled: Understanding the Koran. While this writer disagrees totally with Elass on this point he still recommends that everyone read this wonderful, concise presentation regarding the Muslim holy book. After making the comparisons which we summarized in the previous paragraph, Elass says: “For all these reasons I believe on the basis of two biblical passages that Muslims fall into the category of those worshipping the true God in ignorance rather than those pursuing a false god. “
Elass then treats John 4:1-26 recounting Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman. According to Elass, Jesus essentially accused the Samaritans of worshipping the One they did not know (vs. 22). He did not, for example, accuse them of worshipping a false god.
Elass’ second reference is to Romans 10:1-3 where Paul does not accuse the Jews of worshipping a false god, but only pursuing the true God in ignorance.
These are not small matters. If we are to embrace the idea that we may rightfully use the name of Allah when witnessing to Muslims we must justify ourselves by being convinced that Muslims really do hold a corrupted view of the true God.
A wise biblical approach.
While this author does not agree with Elass’ conclusion he does believe we find a key for resolving our dilemma based upon (at least) two additional scriptures which mirror the same issue, Romans 1, and Acts 17.
First, notice the essential doctrinal issue.
All four of the passages under discussion (John 4, Acts 17, Romans 1, and Romans 10) deal with the same core issue, the knowledge of God. Whether we are listening to Jesus say “Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship,” or we are listening to Paul at Mar’s hill announce that these Greeks were ignorantly worshipping their unknown (Gr: agnostos) god, or we study Paul’s broader treatment of the whole world in Romans 1, we find that both Christ and Paul centered the discussion on the knowledge of God. While neither Christ nor Paul accused their listeners of worshipping a false God, they did openly, and without apology accuse their listeners of ignorance regarding the true God.
Secondly, notice the essential content of our witness.
We find the same pattern in John 4, in Acts 17, along with Romans 1 where we see that both Christ and Paul drive home the essential points with immediacy. Neither feels the need to establish long term relationships with his listeners before making his point.
a. First, there is the matter of God revealed in the creation.
While not required in Christ’s witness, Paul first posits the argument that God is revealed in the creation, a truth their own Greek poets had conceded. Rather than praising their poets, he does this to show their own self-contradiction in worshipping manmade idols in spite of knowing better. This same argument is used in Romans 1 where the knowledge of God has been exchanged for creature worship.
b. Secondly, there is the matter of the true identity of Jesus Christ.
Notice that both our Lord’s witness and Paul’s witness at Mars Hill take the same path. Instead of dealing with the issue of strange gods, they zero right in on the identity of Jesus Christ. In the case of the woman at the well, He asserts His messianic identity and we marvel as we watch the Holy Spirit move her by grades from her awareness of Christ as a man, then, as a prophet, and finally as the Christ. Alternately, at Mars Hill, Paul does not rest on his defense of God, but focuses immediately on the person of Christ.
c. Thirdly, there is the matter of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
From the very beginning of their witness in Acts, we find the apostles doing the very same thing, regardless whether their witness was to Jew or Gentile. The focus was first placed on the name and person of Christ, and then placed squarely on His resurrection. This pattern occurs time and again and, in my opinion was based directly on our Lord’s post resurrection instructions given explicitly to the apostles in Luke 24 (See especially vs. 44-49.) These witnessing patterns are not incidental, they are fundamental.
At Mars Hill it was Paul’s insistent preaching on “Jesus and the resurrection” that prompted his invitation to the Aeropagus (vs. 18.). Paul concludes his short message there by nailing this point down with great authority:
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Acts 17:31 KJV
Paul was not diminishing the message of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. That fact was both asserted and assumed by the apostles. The gospel contains both the message of the cross and the resurrection. Because these cannot be separated, it was not uncommon for the apostles to stress one or the other. However, the resurrection was the litmus test, the point of confrontation, not the point of agreement. As an example, the man who boldly embraces the resurrection is not likely to deny the sacrifice of Christ. The resurrection has long been the dividing point between truth and lie.
d. Finally, there are the discussions of repentance and righteousness which are seen among the New Testament evangelists.
The three previously listed core elements relate to God’s self revelation. This fourth recurring theme has to do with our relationship to God. This is such a strong point with Paul, for example, that the whole fiber of Romans is woven around it. This author has found the demand for righteousness to be the singularly most powerful witnessing tool in his arsenal. The more self righteous a man’s religion may be, the more that man struggles with his secret guilt. Leverage this fact skillfully in your witnessing.
Let’s weave these threads to a conclusion.
We restate the question, How do we witness to Muslims, and should we use the name Allah when referring to our God?
Review the core issue – the knowledge of God.
The Islamic people (like many others) are agnostic regarding the true knowledge of God. There is no need to begin by broaching the issue of whether or not their god is a false god. We know of no biblical evangelist who took that tack in similar situations.
Of course, Allah is a false god, an imposter. That is why we should never use or confuse his name with Jehovah – a practice which ardent Muslims also protest.
Throughout both Old and New Testaments, our God is exceedingly defensive about His name. Unlike the Jews and the Samaritans, Islam rejects, at hand, the very names by which God distinguishes Himself. They have not simply corrupted His names; they have rejected them as blasphemous. In fact, the more God prides Himself in a name, the more Islam rejects it. Islam is absolutely and unequivocally guilty of the worst kind of identity theft of all. This is why Elass is incorrect with his basic assumption that Allah is a corruption of Jehovah.
However, the first goal of the evangelist is to confront the lost sinner with the area of his greatest accountability. He is first, last, and foremost, accountable regarding what he does with the message of Christ. Jesus Christ is now God’s first “talking point” with man, (Romans 1:16).
Review the essential four-fold content of our witness.
1.) God’s self revelation in the creation (a proclamation more likely to be required among secularists and polytheists);
2.) The true identity of Jesus Christ;
3.) The gospel in general, showcased in the resurrection of Christ; and finally,
4.) Man’s need for imputed righteousness
If we are to follow the example of Christ and the apostles, our witness to these facts is to be straightforward and spontaneous. On the surface, this approach does not seem to be very loving, and yet the opposite is true. Jesus looked on that Samaritan woman and He loved her deeply. Yet this did not mitigate His message to her. Though non argumentative, Jesus was still unequivocal. The very reason why Paul was at Mars Hill was because his spirit was so deeply stirred over the idolatry of Athens, but he was straightforward and unequivocal. Paul’s open declaration regarding the ignorant zeal of Israel in Romans 10 was made right in the very same context which declares his deep compassion for them, even to the extent of being willing to be cut off on their behalf. There is no conflict in being both loving and truthful.
A final word.
The Muslim people are in bondage to an angry and arbitrary god. They, in turn, reflect that image in their persona. While they make a heroic effort to translate this anger into righteous indignation, the fact remains. Their behavior reflects the nature of the god they worship. Above all else, Muslims need to see the joy, peace, and satisfaction which fills the believer who is in an abiding relationship with Christ.
Understanding the Koran, A Quick Guide to the Muslim Holy Book, pg. 91ff, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, 2004. ISBN 0-310-24812-4
