Preparing Yourself to Share the Gospel with Muslims
Ibrahim is a Professor of Islamic Studies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Director of Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam. Having been born and raised in Egypt, he has first-hand experience with Islam and access to the Arabic language. This makes him especially qualified and his books especially effective. There are four I recommend to you.
I always enjoy speaking with Muslims. I enjoy it, in part, because I have yet to meet a Muslim who is offended when I bring up spiritual matters or who is uninterested in discussing them. I’m quite sure I have had more cordial conversations about the gospel with Muslims than with anyone else. I suspect many others would say the same.
As I have spoken with Muslims, I always find myself wanting to better understand their faith so I can more effectively present the gospel to them. There are many resources that can help with this, but I am especially thankful for the collection written by Ayman Ibrahim. Ibrahim is a Professor of Islamic Studies at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Director of Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam. Having been born and raised in Egypt, he has first-hand experience with Islam and access to the Arabic language. This makes him especially qualified and his books especially effective. There are four I recommend to you.
Reaching Your Muslim Neighbor with the Gospel was published by Crossway in 2002 and provides lots of insights and practical counsel on sharing the gospel with Muslims. In the first half of the book, he explains the different strands of Islam and their key beliefs to ensure the reader understands the sheer diversity of the Muslim world. In the second half, he offers advice on actually connecting with Muslims and sharing the gospel with them. That makes this book a very good place to begin before conversing with Muslims.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Clarity on PCA Overture 15
Overture 15 would not declare the mere presence of homosexual desire to be disqualifying. While there may be a minority within the PCA who would bar anyone from office who confesses unnatural lust, overture 15 would not do that. Overture 15 is narrowly focused on barring from church office any man who describes, characterizes, or defines himself according to his sinful desire.
Words can be confusing. Last year in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), we learned a number of elders were unclear on the meaning of identity. This year a minority of the Overtures Committee tried to avoid the confusion regarding identity by proposing this amendment to our Book of Church Order (BCO) Chapter 7:
Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.
The proposed BCO amendment is clear, succinct, and straightforward. It bars anyone from office who describes himself according to his sinful and unnatural lust.
There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the change proposed by Overture 15 (Item 1 before the Presbyteries), but I wonder how much of the opposition comes from misunderstanding what the proposed amendment would do rather than reading the plain language.
I. Confusion by the Stated Clerk
In an otherwise anodyne summary of the history and state of the PCA given at Southwood PCA in Huntsville, Alabama, Stated Clerk TE Bryan Chapell, PhD described the “present division” within the denomination as centered on homosexual desire and whether “the desire itself is disqualifying.”
The Stated Clerk gave an overview of his efforts “organizing people from both sides” at General Assembly to resolve this matter. He indicated he urged “the opposing sides” to “listen to each other” and invited them to collaborate “in the same room” to resolve the scandal surrounding homosexuality in the PCA. The Stated Clerk notes the meeting he organized resulted in an “agreed upon proposal” (presumably Overtures 29 and/or 31), which easily passed the Overtures Committee.
The Stated Clerk then proceeded to give background on Overture 15 and how it came to the floor. TE Chapell stated, “sadly, those who were not in the room” came with another proposal (i.e. Overture 15) in addition to the “agreed to proposal” (i.e. Overtures 29 and/or 31) produced by the group brought together by the Stated Clerk.
He then characterized the “very divisive” Overture 15 as proposing to amend our BCO to state regarding homosexuality, “the desire itself is disqualifying.”
Both the consensus proposal crafted by those invited by the Stated Clerk to a meeting and the proposal of those “not in the room” passed the Assembly and are now before the presbyteries for consideration.
II. Clarity from the Text
While some might commend the Stated Clerk for trying to bring consensus between the wings of the PCA regarding officer qualifications, the trouble here is how he mischaracterized Overture 15.
Later, in a Q&A portion at the very end of his presentation, the Stated Clerk described the issue as whether or not, “the same sex attraction itself is more heinous, so heinous that it is automatically disqualifying.” That is a surprising description of our intramural disagreement given there is currently no proposal to disqualify someone from office on the mere basis of experiencing unnatural lust.
Read More
Related Posts: -
How To Seek Contentment in a World of Pseudo-Flourishing
There are devoted parents, outstanding teachers, and excellent schools. But no one can say that, overall, our system of education is flourishing. This is one of the many things that leads a majority of Americans to feel that their country is going off, or is in danger of going off, the rails. We didn’t get here because we wanted to get here. We got here, at least in part, because we wanted eudaimonia—we wanted to flourish—but without putting in the work. Paul wrote, “I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” I have learned. It took time and practice, paying attention and perseverance.
People want to flourish. Aristotle surmised that the most basic longing people have is for eudaimonia, usually translated as happiness but perhaps better understood as contentedness of mind and soul. It’s a sense that one’s life is worthwhile and on track, that is one is living the way he or she should—and it’s a good, beneficial life. When St. Paul wrote that he had “learned to be content whatever the circumstances” (Phil. 4:11), it seems that he was expressing something like eudaimonia.
People want to feel that their lives are going well. What’s often forgotten is something classical philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, and also Jesus and St. Paul agreed on, namely, that the path to contentedness of soul isn’t the chasing of contentment itself but hard work over a long period within the context of a virtuous life.
Aristotle writes of the toil involved in becoming a person of integrity—the kind of person who has arrived at a place where he or she can enjoy a life of honesty and know that he or she is trusted. Paul speaks of a contentment and peace that “transcends all understanding” (Phil. 4:7), but he also uses the metaphors of running, fighting, and boxing. Jesus speaks of peace but also of crosses.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that God had given all people a right to “pursue happiness,” he was drawing on this ancient thought. Happiness—eudaimonia—human flourishing—is something that’s pursued. It takes time, work, persistence, perseverance; it involves a longstanding pursuit of some kind of excellence, the possession of which, along with a virtuous moral life, can bring a sense of contentment and thriving.
A persistent problem lies in the desire to arrive at contentment without putting in the effort. Aristotle noticed a tendency to confuse eudaimonia with amusement.
Read More -
Inside the Underground Railroad Out of Afghanistan
I struggled with this intensely, especially after reading hundreds of emails with personal pleas, and poring over documentation of entire Afghan families with real faces and identities. I could not do it. But I had to do it. Along with my co-worker, Faisal Al Mutar, I ultimately did pick just five based on a basic evaluation of relative risk and ease of extraction. The moral weight of such a decision was overwhelming. We should have never been in a position to make such a call in the first place.
On Saturday night I had just sat down to have a drink with a friend when he got a call. He apologized for having to take it, but it was urgent: it was about the Afghan women’s orchestra. They were stuck in Kabul and desperate to get out. He was involved in the effort to extract them.
Twenty minutes later, we ordered another martini.
I’ve been thinking a lot these past two weeks about luck. The luck of where we are born. The luck of the parents we are born to. And, right now, the luck of who we know.
Knowing — or having proximity to someone who knows my well-placed friend, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a matter of life or death for untold numbers of Afghans.
The question of who will live and who will die — part of the Unetaneh Tokef prayer that all Jews say on the high holy days, which are just around the corner — is supposed to be in the hands of God. But right now, for so many Afghans, the answer to that question is in the hands of the Taliban. The chance to live relies on Americans: those who have the luck to live in freedom and those who are determined to right what the Biden administration has gotten so horribly wrong.
Melissa Chen is one of those people.
Melissa co-founded an organization called Ideas Beyond Borders, which digitizes and translates English books and articles into Arabic. And not just any books: Books like Orwell’s ‘“Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Steven Pinker’s “Enlightenment Now,” and a graphic novel based on John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” Works that promote reason, pluralism and liberty. Suffice it to say the translators she works with in places like Egypt, Syria and Iraq do so at great risk.
Because of her connections in the Middle East — and because she is the kind of person who lives by her principles — it did not surprise me that she found herself involved in the efforts to save Afghans from the horrors of the Taliban. She shares some of the details of those remarkable efforts in the essay below.
The operation to get American allies out of Kabul has been dubbed the Underground Railroad and Digital Dunkirk. But I can’t help but think of the MS St. Louis. That’s the ship that came to this country in 1939 packed with more 900 Jews fleeing Germany. To our country’s eternal shame we turned the ship around and into the arms of the Third Reich. — BW
For the past two weeks I have been part of a 21st century Underground Railroad. We are a ragtag group — combat veterans, human rights activists, ex-special forces, State Department officials, intelligence agents, members of Congress, non-profit organizers, and private individuals with the resources to charter planes and helicopters — who have stepped into the vacuum left by the Biden administration.
Today the Pentagon announced the end of our 20-year war in Afghanistan. But there are hundreds of Americans and an estimated 250,000 Afghan allies who remain trapped there. Many of these Afghans, due to the nature of their work, their religious beliefs, their minority ethnic status or even just their appearance (say, sporting tattoos anywhere on their bodies), see escape as a matter of life and death. As Kabul descended into chaos, their pleas for help leaving were largely met with bureaucratic silence.
The operation to save them began before the Taliban were seen riding bumper cars in amusement parks and occupying the presidential palace. Many veterans and civilians who had deep ties to the country were under no illusions about the nature of the Taliban and what a deal with them would mean for the people who had worked with the U.S.
Long before Kabul fell, I noticed that military friends started using Facebook and Twitter to figure out how to help their “terps” — interpreters, linguists and translators who served alongside them during their tours in Afghanistan. WhatsApp groups, email threads, and ad hoc task forces with their own central command centers sprang up spontaneously. Google docs were cobbled together to compile and share resources for individuals assisting their Afghan friends in their evacuation and eventual resettlement. No one was relying on a White House that had voluntarily closed Bagram Airbase or a commander-in-chief who, as of last month, was assuring the American public that a Taliban takeover “is not inevitable.”
No One Left Behind, a charity that was founded to help interpreters through the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program and resettle them in the U.S., has been at the vanguard of these efforts. Human Rights Foundation and Human Rights First were very effective in helping activists and dissidents secure political asylum. AfghanEvac, a self-organized group of beltway insiders and outsiders, have been logistical ninjas, chartering planes and requesting landing rights in neighboring countries. The Commercial Task Force set up shop in a conference room at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington, D.C., and has so far helped evacuate 5,000 Afghan refugees. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton set up a war room office to take over the duties and responsibilities that the State Department had abdicated. Democratic Rep. Andy Kim had his office set up an email account to assist those seeking help evacuating allies.
And then there were the extraction teams like Task Force Pineapple and Task Force Dunkirk, informal, volunteer groups of U.S. veterans who took matters in their own hands to launch dangerous secret missions to save hundreds of at-risk Afghan allies and their families.
Read More