A Reformation with Christians, Muslims and Jews

By Graham Glover

Wait, what? A reformation with non-Christians? Wasn’t the whole point of the Reformation to reform the Christian faith? How can we talk about a reformation with faiths that deny the most important belief of Christianity, namely, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?

Before I’m accused of syncretism, let me be clear, I’m not suggesting that Christians, Muslims, and Jews abandon their theological distinctions. While these three monotheistic faiths share somewhat of a common heritage, they most assuredly do not confess the same thing. They are three different faiths who believe in three different gods, which is why there can never be a reformation like the one we celebrated yesterday among those who do not agree on who God is.

However, this doesn’t mean there can’t be any type of reformation with Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Obviously then, I have in mind a different type of reformation. The reformation I’m referring to is not one that tries find the least common denominator of these three very distinct faiths. I’m no “coexist” bumper sticker supporter and neither should anyone who takes their faith seriously.

Rather, the reformation I’m referring to is one that finds these three faiths uniting for the common cause of religious liberty. In an era where secular progressivism dictates how much of the world understands knowledge, power, culture, and morality, those that confess and practice a particular religion are increasingly at risk of being completely atomized in society. This isn’t just an American thing. It’s not only a Western world phenomenon. It’s a global threat. And my fellow Christians, we cannot fight this battle alone. We need help. We need a wholesale commitment among other “believers” to assist in the effort to maintain any real semblance of religious freedom in our world. Which is why I think it’s time for a reformation of sorts with those who share our commitment to religious liberty.

This reformation wouldn’t be focused on uniquely theological things. In fact, any attempt to do so would find it meeting little or no success. Questions about who God is, how one is made righteous before this God, etc. can be debated (and reformed) in different venues.

This reformation though can attempt to find a shared cooperation, a reforming of the secularized ethos, on some of our common values. This reformation can attempt to affirm the belief that community matters, including religious ones, and that within such communities there are beliefs, customs, and practices that deserve protection. While we affirm freedom, we reject the secular progressive idea that human beings must be free to choose all things and that inclusion of newborns and children in religious communities is somehow an attack on such freedom. This reformation can affirm the importance of serious minded theologies and the right for religions to maintain beliefs that necessarily exclude some from their fold. None of us should presume to think that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are three different ways of believing in the same god. This is the type of presumption that has fed the secular progressive mantra for centuries. And it is the very presumption that could see these three faiths even further ostracized. For this presumption has at its core a belief that theological differences are somehow an offense to freedom – a presumption that is as backwards as it is offensive.

I was reminded last week at a forum discussing this very topic that if one is confident in their own faith, that we should never be threatened by others. Serious minded Christians, Muslims, and Jews are wise to hear this and to begin a movement that reforms our world away from is secularized progressive notions of religion and anthropology. If the desire to live in a religiously free world is shared by all three faiths, then our cooperation with one another on the ability and necessity for us to maintain our theological distinctions must be embraced.

Religious liberty is our call to reform. A call Christians, Muslims, and Jews can support.

11 thoughts on “A Reformation with Christians, Muslims and Jews

  1. I admire your idealism, Graham, but there is absolutely no chance the Muslim world will abandon the Koran or Sharia Law anytime before Our Lord returns. Jihad and Caliphates are the core of their expansion strategy and will never be removed from their religion.

    Like

    1. John, I’ll pray that there remains Muslims in this country and elsewhere that will heed my call. In the end though, you are correct, our Lord’s return is what we all pray for and what will usher in the perfection we all seek.

      Idealistic, perhaps, but I think it’s the approach and hope we should all take.

      Like

  2. G2

    Muzzies could care less about what you say. They want to kill you, me, John Joseph, and pretty much – everyone who does no agree with them.

    As it was in their beginning, is now, an probably shall ever be . . .

    Graham – get off the liberal mindset train. It makes you look – well . . .

    Uninformed.

    Reference Charles Martel. He understood.

    Like

  3. jb, I’m sorry you think I’m on the liberal mindset train. I’m not sure how a call for religious liberty makes me a liberal or uniformed.

    Like

  4. Graham –

    We have religious liberty still – although the commie dems would love to strangle it!

    You made your political preferences clear a long time ago.

    But you need to study what passes for ” theology” in “Islam.” They want nothing to do with anything but conquest and total domination.

    jb

    Like

    1. jb, yes we have religious liberty, but you aren’t suggesting that liberty is in serious danger both here and abroad, are you?

      I’m also a little confused about who you think is out threat, Muslims, Communists, or Democrats?

      As to my political preferences, what does my call in the original post for a unity around religious liberty have to do with my politics? (As an aside, I’m not even sure what my political preferences are in this country anymore! On an issue I think you and I would agree, neither party speaks to my concerns…)

      I would concur that there are Muslims in this world whose political theology wants nothing to do with religious liberty, but even if I find Islam’s theology offensive, I also recognize there are many Muslims in this country and in others who share my sentiments on freedom. As I noted to John above, I pray their voices will be heard.

      Like

  5. Graham –

    What difference in the end, is there between the communists, which are still a very present and real threat, and Muslims? Both wish to end our constitutional republic (not a democracy) by whatever means possible. Democrats, when they used to be just that, I could live and deal with. They are no longer that, but socialists. So are a good number among the GOP – so we have some common ground there. But when it comes to Muslims, you have to know – you are a theologian as am I – that “jihad” is hard-boiled into their faith. It simply is a part of it, and trying to deny it or say these here or those there don’t, is to fool ourselves.

    In that some will not anyway, our constitutional republic has wide wings under which all might flock, so to speak. But the propensity of those identifying as Muslim to perpetrate horrific crimes cannot be swept under the carpet. But it is part and parcel of their political system. That simply cannot be denied or overlooked. I don’t count Islam as a “faith” – it has repeatedly failed, over time and especially now, to live up to any religious criterion. Their entire history has been one of conquest and subjugation. That simply cannot be argued. And the “peaceful ones” never speak out in any meaningful way against those labeled as “radical” or terrorist.”

    I shan’t belabor the point with you. Islam, as written and confessed, is without question at odds with things American. They can say and do whatever they want, but I don’t have to want or desire them in my backyard, so to speak. It is not any kind of prejudice, it is to deal with the reality as it is. Individuals – I would work to convert to Christ, yes, at the drop of a hat. But the stupid wholesale acceptance urged upon us by politicians who answer “cui bono” with “voters! – I simply ignore as the jackasses they are.

    Like

    1. jb, several follow-up questions:

      1) Where is communism a threat today? I’ll give you China, but it seems like you think it is a threat elsewhere. Where and to what extent?
      2) Are you really equating communism (an atheist political system) with Islam?
      3) So what if Democrats support some elements of a socialist system (which to be fair, is not true of all Democrats)? How is that a threat to our republic? I’m guessing anything that isn’t a wholesale embrace of libertarian economics would be socialistic to you and a threat?
      4) Since you decry socialism so much, I trust that you have not, nor ever will be a beneficiary of any government system like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. You most certainly would never participate in a health care system that has any government subsidy (since these things are such a threat).
      5) Do you deny that there are any Muslims, in any place in the world today, that embrace democracy and freedom?
      6) I’m guessing based on your last paragraph that you think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to become American citizens?
      7) I love to debate things and welcome the disagreement on this post and any others, but your last phrase that begins with “I simply ignore…”, along with your first comment that identifies Muslims with a certain phrase, are really unnecessary.

      Like

  6. G2 – 

    I shall answer your queries, however, not quite in the order you listed them . . .

    3) So what if Democrats support some elements of a socialist system (which to be fair, is not true of all Democrats)? How is that a threat to our republic? I’m guessing anything that isn’t a wholesale embrace of libertarian economics would be socialistic to you and a threat?

    So what?  Graham, have you done any kind of study into the “Gramscian March through the Institutions?” It is the version of communism that has proven itself far more advanced than Leninism or Stalinism, and has rather thoroughly invaded our Constitutional Republic (democracy – that is its own thread entirely, and not at all thought out well in the political arena)  Saul Alinsky was an unreconstructed socialist/communist at his best, and is the “god-father” of democrats, whom I do consider socialists, one and all (he dedicated his famous book “Rules for Radicals” to satan!)  Hillary extolled Alinsky.  Gee, big surprise.  I know the constructs of both/all our political parties.  I will grant there might be a “dem” here or there that are not socialists, but I don’t need a second hand of fingers to count them.  I’d like you to explain or detail how you could come to refer to me in terms of a devotee of libertarian economics.  While I hold that their math (a la Mises) on economics is the most beneficial understanding (My God, Man, a thousand times better than the rape the Federal Reserve has perpetrated on the country in the last 104 years! – Thanks, Woody! – a dem) – if you even came close to understanding libertarianism, you would not have written that of me.  Politically, I am a constitutional republican (not to be mis-identified with the GOP).  I hope I don’t have to explain that basic concept.

    1) Where is communism a threat today? I’ll give you China, but it seems like you think it is a threat elsewhere. Where and to what extent?

    Right in our midst, Graham!  To how great an extent, I cannot say.  My first answer pretty much got there, Antifa and BLM are but rather loud and obnoxious present examples, but the high reliance and advocacy of the state by the dems makes it clear its here already.  And the GOP is most often commie light, so I can hardly identify with much of their nonsense, either.  

    4) Since you decry socialism so much, I trust that you have not, nor ever will be a beneficiary of any government system like social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. You most certainly would never participate in a health care system that has any government subsidy (since these things are such a threat).

    You painted with a rather broad brush with that one!  Of course I decry the disaster that is Obamacare and/or single payer health insurance.  When the gummint pays for something, it is the working people paying the taxes that really pay for it, and no one asks their permission before extracting even more taxes.  And since I was doing the same, I should get the contractually promised results.  As to SS and Medicare – in 1967 I entered into an agreement with the fed gummint on Social Security – I still have my original card, with the signature of my 14 year old self.  And at the bottom it clearly states the number is not to be used for identification purposes.  Gee – gummint kept that promise, didn’t they?  But I gave them 7.5% of every dollar I earned, and 13% when I was “self-employed.”  That was the agreement, so it is not some sort of hand-out.  Nor was my present VA medical coverage a handout which, along with the GI Bill, were reasons I served for over 4 years in the AF, and in a war zone technically, although not Vietnam.  That era, though.  I was a forward looking young man in my junior year of high school, when I pre-enlisted.  My draft number was 192 in a year that the highest taken was 90 or so – but I kept my end of the bargain.  I took monthly salaries of $70-90 a month for over four years in order to gain that agreement with the gummint.  Medicare I am forced to pay by law, beginning on my 65th BD next year.  I will be “fined” to pay for something I do not need since I already have the VA, and the fine will be taken taken out of my SS.  Gee – isn’t the state a great keeper of bargains?  Go socialism! – which I simply call communism and can thus be done with false nuances.

    2) Are you really equating communism (an atheist political system) with Islam?

    I believe I answered that rather succinctly already in the previous posting.

    5) Do you deny that there are any Muslims, in any place in the world today, that embrace democracy and freedom?

    No. Never said nor implied that.  But none of them understand what a constitutional republic is – I am not even sure you do.  Let me counter that question with a request – Name the single muslim country that is ruled in accord with “democracy and freedom.”  There is your answer to your question in the main.  Are there individual muslims that do so?  Well, now you are talking about two different subjects.  

    6) I’m guessing based on your last paragraph that you think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to become American citizens?

    They would have to give up basic tenets of their own faith to truly become American, since the Koran DOES call for jihad, subjugation and/or, absent the jizya, death.  Geezopete, Graham, do you know the basics of their faith/creed/political system???

    7) I love to debate things and welcome the disagreement on this post and any others, but your last phrase that begins with “I simply ignore…”, along with your first comment that identifies Muslims with a certain phrase, are really unnecessary.

    I’ll make this agreement with you, Graham.

    When the American people receive a public apology for every terrorist act perpetrated by (insert that phrase here) upon unarmed civilians, especially children, or even, upon our military, well, I might back off my opinion a bit.  But given that what we very charitably call their “faith” – it is their “politico-theologic” creed that most determines every outcome of their presence.  And the outcomes have not been very good, now have they, Graham?  How many Christians, in the Name of Christ, turn machine guns or automobiles on innocent folk?  Huh?  Tell me!  Yes, we have psychos like the deviant in Texas this last week, but they have always been in the mix of societies.  But a creed or political system that calls for the same, as did the communist Soviets (true Russians were Orthodox), and the Chicoms – both of which murdered many times what Hitler did, although he was their kissing cousin, if you understand Nationalist Socialism (gee, there’s that word again!).  Sorry, but the Muslims have hardly dissuaded anyone they do not do the very same thing . . . since they do the very same thing!  And they rarely, if ever, assimilate.  That is hardly going to make Americans of them, now is it?

    As for the stupid-ass politicians that want to invite into this country, or force us into accepting – unvetted Muslims for whatever reason – well – no, I will never apologize for disliking that, because I know (you should, too) exactly why politicians do so – more votes, and getting re-elected.  And for that reason I prefer to ignore politicians without apology.  Those meant to be our political servants, have become our masters.  And that, I know, is contrary to our Constitution.

    Next question?

    jb

    Like

  7. jb,
    Apologies for referring to you as a libertarian. Your comments on this post, as well as others, certainly highlight that you are not. I grant you are a well versed and loyal constitutional republican.

    As we’ve discussed before, I simply don’t share your worry about the rise of communism in our land. Are there those who are sympathetic to communism. Of course. Should they be called out and ridiculed for their asinine beliefs much more than most are willing. Absolutely. But I honestly don’t feel them any type of substantive threat to our republic.

    I’m also not overly concerned about many of the socialistic economic systems and attitudes that exist (to varying degrees) in our country. My political affiliation probably most mirrors that of the Christian Democrats in Germany, so such talk of socialism doesn’t worry me at all. (And as you are quick to point out when I make sweeping political generalizations, socialism is NOT communism.)

    I’m certainly no suggesting that your government benefits are handouts. You earned them with your service and even more importantly, with your citizenship. I just find it odd that so many who decry such programs are so willing and eager to accept their benefit.

    There may not be a Muslim constitutional republic, but you don’t even think ours is a democratic republic anymore. Regardless, your sweeping generalizations with respect to Muslims ignore the millions of Muslims around the world who reject radical jihadism.

    As to those faithful American Muslims that are currently defending your right to live in our not-so constitutional republic, I’ll be sure to let them know you think their faith is incongruent with being a citizen.

    It’s very disheartening to read your comments about Muslims. I don’t have the time or patience to respond in this venue to the disparaging remarks you continue to make about our fellow citizens. Do I find the Muslim faith abhorrent? On many levels, yes. But I feel the same way about Mormons too. My issues however with their faith doesn’t mean I treat them differently as citizens, and neither should you.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.