After having read the piece "Steady in His Blood", I'm puzzled by your mention of "an abusive, unqualified verbal attack" on homosexuals...this piece has absolutely nothing of the sort in it. What was you point in inserting it in your review of this piece?

This quotation:

"If new members are not oriented as to why we’re Seventh-day Adventists and what motivates us as a church, if they don’t understand the great controversy theme, if they don’t see the emphasis that God has given us through the writings of Ellen White—then we’re going to have a lot of people who don’t totally understand why they’re Seventh-day Adventists and who may not be fully prepared to stand true to God in the last days."

Is an insult to all: for only "good SDAs" who have read all the SOP will be ready to stand in the last days? Without EGW there will be no salvation? How arrogant!

As for Normal Gulley's article that the OT Norman R. Gulley makes the case for the Trinity in 1+1+1=ONE. However, when he argues that the books of the Old Testament confirm the Trinitarian position, he weakens his argument.

This, also is an insult to all the Hebrews and later Christians who did not "see" the Trinity in either the OT nor in their own experiences until the fourth century! Did they all overlook what is obvious to him?

Alas, I'm afraid that "three years focused on making contact with leaders of Islam" have been one or two too many for William Johnsson. Like Jake Sully in "Avatar" (or John Dunbar in "Dances with Wolves") he's apparently gone native, and forgotten what team he's playing for.

In a previous article, he stated that there are 10 million Muslims in the U.S. overstating, the true number by a factor of five. Muslims intentionally overstate their true numbers to try to gain political influence. They do this because Islam is first and foremost a political and jurisprudential ideology, with a religion attached as a rump element.

In the article in the February "Adventist World," Johnsson dissociates himself from Christianity:

"In meeting Muslim leaders, I emphasize from the outset that I prefer to be known as an Adventist rather than as a Christian. For Muslims the name 'Christian' carries such negative associations—associations that do not belong with Seventh-day Adventists—that I would rather avoid the term."

All of you who have argued that Adventism is a non-Christian cult, you've got a spokesman in William Johnsson. He thinks that Christianity and Adventism are terms that really should not be associated.

"Muslims in the West suffer widespread prejudice." No they don't, really. Western elites and opinion leaders apologize for Islam constantly, and try to fool people with fatuous idiocies like, "Islam is a religion of peace." Many people--almost exclusively those who have not done their own investigation--actually believe what our political, media and religious leaders are telling us.

Here, according to Johnsson, is a myth: "Islam is a violent religion, and most Muslims are therefore prone to violence." No one actually believes this, so it can hardly rise to the level of a myth. Johnsson is rather transparently trying to discredit the first clause "Islam is a violent religion" by tying it to the second clause "most Muslims are therefore prone to violence" which is so over-broad as to be ridiculous.

The first clause is basically true. Islam is a religion joined with a political/jurisprudential ideology focused upon obtaining and using power in this world; it is totalitarian, aggressive and supremacist. In theory, Islam is on a more or less permanent war footing with the non-Muslim world (dar al-harb). Treaties are to allow the Muslim contingent to grow stronger, and are never to last more than 10 years. Infidels should either convert to Islam, live as inferior dhimmis to be lorded over by Muslims, or be killed. Those are the only options admitted in Islam. Muslims are divided about terrorism as a tactic, but any Muslim who doesn't believe inthe ultimate supremacy of Islam and subjugation of the unbelievers simply isn't a Muslim.

Not to worry, says William Johnsson, there's a Gallup poll that says 93 percent of Muslims reject violence. And we all know that Gallup polls are never wrong. So if there are about a billion Muslims, that means that only about 70 million of them embrace violence. I'm so relieved. Aren't you?

David,

I also read the article and was offended by, ""In meeting Muslim leaders, I emphasize from the outset that I prefer to be known as an Adventist rather than as a Christian. For Muslims the name 'Christian' carries such negative associations—associations that do not belong with Seventh-day Adventists—that I would rather avoid the term."

Not once was the "offense and foolishness of the cross of Christ" mentioned to the sheikh as reported by Johnsson. Perhaps Johnsson has forgotten the uniqueness of Christianity...and it isn't the "commonalities" with Muslims. How many of those commonalities could not be shared by those who crucified Christ?

regards,
pat

Pat, presumably William Johnsson plans to get around to Christianity at some later time, after we've established our bona fides by showing how much we hate pork and Israel.

Seriously, there is alot to be said in favor of a systematic outreach to Muslims. But a search for points of commonality cannot be allowed to degenerate into a gross distortion of what we believe, or a white-washing of what Islam is, and there is a great deal of both in Johnsson's article.

David,

While, as you, I don't disagree completely with dialogue with other faith traditions the results seem to usually/always skirt the issues that are unique.

"Our commonness" most often overlooked is that we are all sinners and the cross of Christ is the only remedy!

regards,
pat

Pat,

Amen and Amen!

So, "connecting with Jesus" means distributing 10 SOP books? There's something rather, um, papal about that kind of suggestion, as if we can't connect with Jesus without these extra-Biblical books.

To see a demonstration of Muslim students at U.C. Irvine repeatedly interrupt an American ambassador:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w96UR79TBw

Elaine, thanks for the link to that video. Very instructive. BTW, the ambassador was the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, who is an academic and author of such books as "Six Days of War" and "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East."

Obviously, free speech is not an Islamic value, but the larger point is that Islam is completely incompatible with any prominent Western value, including democracy, representative government, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or equality for women. People get distracted by the "war on terror," when terrorism isn't the main issue, nor the main weapon in Islam's jihad against the infidel world. The main issue is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that leaves no scope for human freedom--most especially including freedom of conscience--and that Muslims are duty bound to advance Islamic rule by any means at their disposal, seldom including terror.

Isn't it elitist to castigate Muslims for violent aggression and overlook our own "Christian" history of the same. This "Christian" aggression reaches even to the present generation so is not just a relic of the Middle Ages. For an instructive primer on this, I recommend reading the book "The Imperial Cruise" by James Bradley.

To the surviving relatives of so very many massacred Philippinoes, the violent, aggressive nature of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestantism is all too real. Sadly, this is only one country's experience. Others can be cited as well.

Yes, Christians have been no worse and no less warriors than any of the three monotheistic religions throughout history.

However, here in the U.S. we are far more accepting of various religions as there are probably more representations than any other nation of comparable size.

The video shows the Islamic students repeatedly interrupting a talk by the ambassador at a U.C. campus meeting. Practically every sentence from the speaker drew more outbursts and the campus police were busy escorting them from the room. Common courtesy seems to be in short supply with those students who are allowed, even welcomed to U.S. university campuses. Street and outdoors protest signs are allowed, but to consistently interrupt an invited speaker shows the total lack of respect. Students should expect to hear various opinions in a university, something prosecuted in many of their homelands.

Stephen, I see that you have put "Christian" in quotation marks, and appropriately so. You are referring to what Christian, or nominally Christian, nations and infividuals have done, but not in the name of Christianity. In the Western, Christian world, no one has gone to war in the name of Christianity in over 300 years. Even if they had, there actions would be "Christian" rather than Christian, because Biblical Christianity does not promote violence. The American imperialist moment in the Philippines is certainly a dark chapter in our history. We should have recognized the Aguinaldo government rather than taking the country over from Spain as an imperial possession. But that was not done in the name of Christianity.

When I refer to Islam, I am referring to a religio/political ideology, not any particular person or nation. Islam is a totalitarian, aggressive, supremacist ideology. Although I am speaking of ideas, not of people, it is not hard to find examples of Muslims who have acted in conformity with Islamic ideology. Since you mention the Philippines, we will go there for the examples.

What is being done in the Philippines today in the name of Islam is quite horrifying. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is fighting a jihad in Mindanao that has, in the last 40 years, killed between 100,000 and 150,000 people, and has displaced some 700,000 people. But the MILF are good people compared to the Abu Sayyaf group, a Philippino/Muslim terrorist organization specializing in kidnappings, bombings, assassinations and extortion.

None of this gets much publicity in the West, and if it does, it is invariably depicted as a local conflict rather than as a local instance of the worldwide jihad. But the Muslims of Mindanao want a separate Muslim state for the same reason that Muslims everywhere need to be in control of the apparatus of government: because they are enjoined to submit to and be governed by Sharia law, and they can only do that if the government is Islamic.

So sad to see many of the comments here in regard to William G. Johnsson's article. I'm going to buck the trend and applaud the article.

Having been involved in discussions with Muslims for over 15 years I can testify that he is absolutely correct in what he says in the article. The word Christian has a negative connotation with Muslims, the word Adventist does not. Johnsson is right when he says that by identifying ourselves as Adventists we can get past the initial assumptions/prejudices. When we go on to tell (and demonstrate) the we do not touch pork or alcohol we immediately strike an empathetic chord and open channels whereby we can witness our faith. What is the most important blessing is that we are being consistently identified by Muslims as "the people of the Book", the people that Mohammed was told to seek out if he wanted confirmation and understanding.

We can insist on approaching them using the establish models of evangelism, although, if the truth be known, what this has really meant is that we beat them with "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" and when they refute it we walk away.

It is about time that we realised that by emphasising the commonalities of our religion - how many know, for example, that the seventh-day Sabbath is advocated in the Qur'an? - we can build bridges. Once those bridges have been built we can use hospitality, friendship, the health message, imminence of Christ's return, etc., to establish trust and eventually to give a solid witness. We have ignored the Muslim mission field for too long but God is opening doors. We are in danger of closing those doors by our ignorance of Islam and our fear of the media-image of "all Muslims prone to violence and terrorism whether they know it or not".

In East Africa and Europe we have SDA Conference departments that have been working to build bridges with Muslims for many years and William Johnsson is merely articulating what they have discovered over those years of work. The example of the Sheikh telling his followers that SDAs are "the people of the Book" shows us that God will soften the hearts of men so that *all* will have the opportunity of hearing the Gospel. As a direct result of the "friendship evangelism" that is being practiced as WGJ explains, SDAs are being invited into mosques to preach the Gospel.

Thank you for this article, Bro. Johnsson, I look forward to many more in the same vein.

God bless.

We insult all the other world religions by claiming that only Adventism elevates the "book." It appears that what is elevated is eliminating pork (imported from Judaism) and alcohol and only later, introducing Jesus.

Much better than mutual dietary habits, should be that we worship God, as they do. Simply because they have chosen "Allah" is no different than the Jews using Yahweh, or not even pronouncing the name. God has many names.

Once we, and they understand that we are more alike than different in our worship of God, it would seem more central than merely emphasizing diet. After all, there is nothing in the Christian (NT) portion of the Bible that prohibits either pork or alcohol and neither use will cause one to lose his soul. Habits or not the same as clear biblically justifiable Bible doctrines.

Why must it be assumed that all Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., will be irrevocably lost unless we tell them of Adventism? Given their long heritage, it is an impossible task to "convert" people who have more than a thousand years' confined to their religious beliefs. After all, how many Christians have converted and become Muslims?

If we approached them and explained that we love the same God and recognize that the Koran is much like the Bible, and any violence condoned is not unique to Islam, but is portrayed, and ordered by God throughout the Hebrew Bible.

Elaine, what is interesting is that it is Muslims who are identifying us as "the people of the Book". It would be foolish of us not to capitalise on this. I don't think that Muslims are necessarily insulting all other Christian denominations ("world religions" just doesn't enter into it as it is only Christianity that upholds the Bible as the definitive revelation of God), what they are doing is recognising that the SDA church is unique amongst the thousands of other denominations in that they practice what Muslims believe are binding directives from God. With this foundation Muslims are more inclined to listen to what a SDA says.

As to the assertion that "it is an impossible task to "convert" people who have more than a thousand years' confined to their religious beliefs" - I have to disagree.

If we really believed that we would not witness to Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians. Christ enjoined us to "go ye therefore" without restriction. Thomas went to those who had more than a thousand years practising their religion and had spectacular success, as did Peter and Paul. More importantly, Christ told us that nothing is impossible when it comes to preaching the Gospel, in fact, "with God, all things are possible."

I'm afraid that if one followed the outline of your last paragraph all it would do is confirm that Islam is the final, correct revelation of God.

No, SDAism is the final flowering of the Reformation and no other Christian denomination has properly understood the plan of salvation. This is why we are the only denomination that can approach Muslims because we already practice what Muslims see as important obligations, i.e. abstinenece from pork and alcohol. In this way the Health Message fulfills its role as being the right arm of the message and is an elegant entering wedge that will lead to further dialogue and allow us to present the true Gospel message to a people who, otherwise, may be lost.