The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 6, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a celebration of a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity and Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of ecumenicalism qualifies both the Bible and the Qur'an as holy texts. Hence, in a show of equal authenticity, Qur’ans were positioned in church pews next to Bibles.1
Not surprisingly, the American version of Nigerian Chrislamology hops the political correctness bandwagon. For the sake of harmonious coexistence, ecumenical reconcilers value elastic syncretism over orthodoxy, a milk-toast conciliatory gospel over the New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ. This paradigm shift appears to be compellingly “tolerant”; however, the case for recognizing Chrislam within Christian churches relies solely on fallacies of logic, certainly not biblical compulsion.2
Conflict Escalation: Slippery Slope Fallacy
Some argue that if American “tolerance”—i.e., as in the form of Chrislam—were rejected, then the ongoing conflict between East and West would escalate beyond repair. This slippery-slope fallacy presumes a sort of chain reaction, destined to end with dire consequences that otherwise might have been averted.
Truth be told, embracing tolerance in the name of Chrislam—not the opposite—is what really leads to a slippery slope. After all, the Qur’an explicitly subjugates People of the Book (Jews and Christians) as second-class citizens, subject to burdensome fees and Shariah Law. Believers may live, yes, but only under Islamic terms.3
Can you say, “separate, but not equal”? Been there; done that; not good. Even if all Christian Americans were to embrace Chrislam, and Israeli Jews were to accommodate demands of neighboring Muslim countries, the ongoing conflict in the Near East would nonetheless persist. Solid evidence is lacking to support assertion that “tolerance” of this ilk can restrain Armageddon or that its lack will trigger it. To the contrary, Qur’an-believing Muslims will continue the fight until the Great Satan (America) and the Lesser Satan (Israel) are wiped off the face of the earth—literally.4
Wimpy Doctrine: Straw Man Fallacy
A clever way of strengthening one’s argument is to anticipate opposition, then respond to it in advance. Applying the straw-man fallacy, an arguer sets up a wimpy version of his opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
A devout Christian, for example, is expected to denigrate Chrislam as apostasy (abandonment of, or departure from, the faith). One who anticipates this response will bypass deal-breaking differences to emphasize superficial similarities between Islam and Christianity—e.g., Abrahamic roots, monotheism, morals and ethics, and the like. Then, he might try to convince others that, only by uniting the world’s two largest monotheistic religions, will rise of atheism and alternative spirituality be thwarted.
Despite apparent similarities, it can’t be emphasized enough that the respective scriptures of Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. When the Qur’an adamantly rejects the deity of Christ as blasphemy (5:17), and it denies His death on the cross (4:157-158), Islam eradicates altogether any semblance to Christianity. Apostasy established; case closed.
Quacks Like a Duck Theory: Fallacy of Weak Analogy
From God’s vantage point, it’s a daffy idea that just because it looks, acts, and walks like a duck—it is one. He looks, not outwardly, but inwardly. Unfortunately, apart from God, humans lack that ability.5
Mirroring the Muslim practice of walking around the Ka'aba in Mecca, Chrislamists engage in "running deliverance," allegedly practiced by Joshua's army upon taking Jericho. But when Chrislam followers practice “running deliverance,” it doesn’t follow that these two examples of “spiritual running” represent one and the same thing.
Indeed, circumambulation—tawaf (طواف) in Arabic; pradakshina in Sanskrit; skorba in Tibetan—distinguishes many faith traditions. Its practice is integral to Hindu ritual for discovering a deity’s most sacred center of spiritual energy, but no one factors Hinduism into the Chrislam equation.
Merely drawing an analogy between two things (a weak one at that) doesn't prove the fallacious “quacks-like-a-duck” theory proposed by Chrislamists.
The Fast: Begging the Question Fallacy
An argument said to “beg the question” asks one to accept a conclusion without offering weighty evidence. It simply ignores an important, but questionable assumption upon which the argument rests. For example, Emerging Church Movement leader Brian McLaren has written a five-part blog entry arguing why Christians should join with Muslims in the Ramadan fast.
McLaren’s argument rests on the central, but erroneous assumption that, for the sake of congeniality, it’s okay for Christians to fast with their Muslim “brothers” to commemorate the month during which the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammed (2:185).
Consider the Night of Power (Laylat Al Qadr), the 27th night of Ramadan (ninth month on the Islamic calendar). Some scholars apply gematric value (occult mysticism) to it, and devout Muslims (called submitters) who observe the Night of Power expect to earn “double credit” in Allah’s eyes. McLaren forgets that it’s by faith we find favor with God—this, through grace and not by works (i.e., fasting), lest any man should boast.6
In advancing his own brand of political correctness, McLaren ignores the erroneous assumption upon which his argument rests. This he does by withholding the preponderance of scriptural evidence: While loving and befriending others is paramount to the Christian faith, the Bible forbids participating in abiblical religious ceremonies.7
Abrahamic Heritage: Post Hoc (False Cause)
The “false cause” fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, translated "after this, therefore because of this." It assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. However reasoned this sounds, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
In Islamic tradition, the three monotheistic, Abrahamic religions journeyed in a caravan. Having obtained a measure of truth, Judaism pitched tent and went no further. Thereafter, having expanded Judeo truth, Christianity moved forward, but then settled. Only Islam continued full bore to receive maximum truth.
Chrislamists would have us believe that shared Abrahamic heritage spiritually unites Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but this belief presumes an established pecking order generated by the “false cause” fallacy. Because Christianity came after Judaism (and Islam followed Christianity) does not presuppose that Judaism caused Christianity, or that Christianity caused Islam. For Chrislam to claim shared Abrahamic heritage is no “proof” of Islam’s stature as a Yahweh-sanctioned improvement over faith of the fathers.8
Cutting-Edge Church Leaders: Appeal to Authority Fallacy
By referencing respected, albeit biased sources or authorities, some employ the “appeal to authority” fallacy. To lend support to their own beliefs, they namedrop, align with, and explain positions held by well-known leaders who may not qualify as subject-specific experts.
Take, for example, Emerging Church leader Dr. Tony Campolo. While Dr. Campolo’s credentials are impressive, he was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985, and for good reason. You see, he’s not convinced that Jesus lives only in Christians. In Campolo’s view, an Islamic “brother” who has fed the hungry and clothed the naked clearly has a personal relationship with Christ, but just doesn’t know it. Accordingly, Campolo excuses many Muslims from need for evangelization. Though not labeled heretical, he was found to be "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious." 9
Campolo insists “we cannot allow our theologies to separate us,” yet Jesus came with a doctrinal “sword” to do just that.10 Moreover, about seventy-five percent of Muhammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. In the words of Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, “about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Qur’an … speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses … show goodwill toward humanity."
Although Campolo is a popular voice for Chrislam, Jesus is the ultimate authority for Christianity; and Mohammed for Islam. When Campolo contradicts Jesus and/or Mohammed, he forfeits the credibility afforded him by namedroppers hoping to catch the wind of his sails.
“Hath God Said?”: Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
One who employs the fallacy of appealing to ignorance suggests that the absence of conclusive evidence on a given issue naturally boosts a position the arguer holds. Recall that, in the Genesis account, the serpent toyed with Eve, intimating that her lack of experiential knowledge—i.e., evidence—somehow gave default credence to his own premise, “Ye shall surely live.” 11
In similar fashion, Emergent Church leaders hold that spiritual edification and growth, inspiration and maturity, work for peace and the common good spring from uniting Islam and Christian worldviews. Without experiential knowledge, those who steer clear of Chrislam are deemed unknowing. Therefore, when arguers pose the biblical query “Hath God said?” they challenge purists to “try it and like it.” After all, what’s to say they won’t?
Political Correctness Bandwagon: Ad Populum Fallacy
A common application of ad populum is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer convinces others to believe something because “everyone else” does. Given that tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam each year, and Chrislamic gatherings can attract up to 1,500 adherents each week, Christians should join the Emerging Church in its embrace of Chrislam.
The arguer overlooks the fact that, just because 130 prominent Christian leaders signed an agreement that states Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Indeed, solid archeological evidence overwhelmingly refutes Islamic identification with the God of the Bible.
In actuality, Islam is a revival of the ancient moon-god cult. Its ceremonies, rites, symbols, and name of its god come from this ancient pagan religion. When the moon-god’s popularity weakened, Arabs continued its worship as their chief deity, Allah (generic for “the god”).12
The Common Good: Red Herring Fallacy
The red-herring fallacy introduces a tangential side issue that distracts from what's really at stake. For example, it’s suggested that, when Jesus engaged and thereby learned from the Syrophoenician woman,13 he overcame his “religious prejudice” as a devout Jew. In spinning the biblical account thusly, the arguer distracts from what’s really at stake—the divinity of a sinless Jesus.14
Another example: Though the Qur’an mentions Jesus some twenty-five times (tangential side issue), it also accuses anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God as having committed the greatest blasphemy imaginable (Qur’an 19:88). In this case, Qur’anic mention of Jesus is a red herring to distract from what’s really at stake—again, belief in Christ’s divinity.15 The tactic employed is to knock over the king pin, so all the pins fall.
What’s Really at Stake?
What’s really at stake is orthodoxy. Coming from a Greek root, the word means "straight belief." Correct practice—i.e., orthopraxy—depends on orthodoxy, not tolerance, as Chrislamists would have us to believe.16
Not recognized as a world religion in its own right, Chrislam blurs differences and distinctions between biblical Christianity and Islam fundamentalism. Its fuzzy thinking renders Chrislam obscure, indistinct, and hazy—thus, capable of deceiving those unschooled as to its nature.
Predictably, relativism drives the “worldview potpourri” of Chrislam. Given no established “black” or “white”—no scripturally validated truth upon which all can rightfully draw—the core value “not to offend” takes front stage. Never mind that the Bible likens Jesus to a stone of stumbling and rock of offense; some Christians believe they must never offend.17
Granted, Chrislamists are not alone in employing fallacious arguments. Many Christians and Muslims do likewise, but then most agree that matters of spirituality and faith transcend logic. Amos 3:3 poses the fitting question, “How can two walk together except they be agreed”? The implied answer is “they can’t.”
As a Christian, I do not hate or shun Muslims, nor do I seek spiritual “common ground” with them, because core incompatibilities between Islam and Christianity preclude perceived, albeit superficial similarities. The Christian faith is founded on the deity of Jesus Christ, the great “I AM,” Immanuel (“God with us”). Were He not divine, Christ’s death on the cross would have been insufficient as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.18 To compromise basic tenants of biblical Christology is to abandon the faith altogether, thus removing the “Chris” from Chrislam.19
If I am faithful to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, I will seek instead to “make disciples of all nations,” Islamic ones included. This isn’t accomplished by might, power, “holy war,” or congenial “give-and-take,” but rather by the spirit of the living God.20
Fallacies of logic that Chrislamists employ “stand away from” orthodoxy (whether Christian or Islamic) and, therefore, qualify as apostate. The English word “apostasy” comes from two Greek words. The first is a preposition (apo), which means “away from”; the second, a verb (histēmi), which means “to stand.” Biblically, apostates “stand away from” known or previously embraced truth.
Be sure Chrislam is apostate. For a Christian to believe otherwise is self-deception.
1. Posted on line at http://thelastcrusade.org. Paul L. Williams, Ph.D. Qur’an in the Pews; Jesus in the Qur’an. (Accessed November 2010).
2. Galatians 1:6.
3. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 108-109.
4. Ibid, 219-236.
5. 1 Samuel 16:7.
6. Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4-6.
7. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
8. Galatians 1:6.
9. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tony_Campolo (Accessed November 2010).
10. Matthew 10:34-36.
11. Genesis 3:1.
12. James 1:17.
13. Mark 7:26; Matthew 5:22.
14. Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff.
15. 1 John 2:22, 23.
16. Matthew 7:14 with 1 Corinthians 12:31; 2 Peter 2:1-2, 15.
17. 1 Peter 2:7-8.
18. 1 John 2:2.
19. 2 Timothy 3:16 with John 10:35.
20. Zechariah 4:6.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 5, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
A pleasing mixture of aromatic or dried spices, fruits, and petals of flowers generally appeals to the senses; but “potpourri” also speaks to a mixed bag of that which is motley or miscellany. The montage of ingredients in potpourri of this nature may intend to attract, but the stew it offers reeks. No seasoning or garnish can hide the reality that some fundamentally incompatible elements, when combined, are unsuitable for ingestion.
So it is for the potpourri of worldviews merged in the sect of Chrislam which, as its name suggests, melds together religious elements of the Christian West and the Muslim East. Abraham McLaughlin of the Christian Science Monitor explains that, in the beginning, the group was called "Chris-lam-herb" for its unlikely mixture of Christianity, Islam, and “traditional medicine” based, not on scientific research, but rather on indigenous beliefs handed down from generation to generation. While its promise of unity and harmony pander to the postmodernist, Chrislam is far from savory.
“God’s Love”: Fallacy of Equivocation
Founded by Tela Tella, and practiced predominantly in Lagos, Nigeria, the will of God (feoluwa) mission, Chrislam, comes from a Yoruba word meaning “God’s love.”1 Adding Yoruba to the Greek New Testament concept of God’s love serves as a sort of “love garnish,” but it doesn’t fool those with mature taste. It’s still hash.
In a manner of speaking, Chrislam jams Christianity and Islam into a magic hat and, with wave of a wand, pulls out “love” by its proverbial ears. Because the “love” concept in Islam differs appreciably from that of Christian love, this love-rabbit, so to speak, is a sorry mutation.
Accordingly, the fallacy of equivocation involves sliding between different meanings of a single word that is vital to the debate—in this case, “love.” The Bible establishes that God is love.2 Arguably, its meaning is paramount within the context of religious debate.
Consider this: While the Qur’an affirms that "God is great" [Allahu akbar], it omits any reference to "God is love" [Allahu muhibba]. An example of contrast between Islam and Christianity is Muslim persecution and dhimmitude of Christians worldwide. In its pure form, Christianity practices nothing equivalent. Instead, Jesus taught His disciples to love, not terrorize their adversaries and to pray for, not subjugate them.3
Jesus blessed “peacemakers.”4 Despite claims to the contrary, history demonstrates that in Islam the purported greater jihad (warfare against sin) takes backseat to the so-called lesser jihad (holy war). Furthermore, the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation elevates revelation given later over and above earlier revelation. Hence, the latter revelation sanctioning harm (Medina Approach) effectively abrogates the earlier conciliatory revelation in favor of non-harm (Mecca Approach). Of the over 100 allusions to jihad in the Qur’an, some 97% of them reference jihad’s primary meaning—that being, the forceful spread and domination of Islam.5
Fear of God in the Judeo-Christian mindset speaks to reverential fear—i.e., veneration—for the person, nature, and magnitude of a loving God who never vacillates, but remains forever the same.6 In biblical Christianity perfect love casts out fear; the two (love and fear) are mutually exclusive, and together they are like oil and water.7
That said, Moroccan scholar Fatema Mernissi explains the centrality of fear within Islam. Many modern Muslims fear Allah and his Imams, the foreign West, democracy, freedom of thought, and individualism. What’s not to fear? After all, the fire of Hell is said to be seventy degrees hotter than earthly fire; and escaping it depends on the whim of Allah. Unfortunately, Allah is outright arbitrary with respect to salvation of his creation. In the words of Caesar Farah, “Allah may vary his ordinances at pleasure, prescribing one set of laws for the Jews, another for the Christians, and still another for Muslims.”8
The fallacy of equivocation with respect to this key word, “love,” is opportunistically used to syncretize (mix together) belief systems that, when closely scrutinized, prove to be incompatible. Hence, the resulting “love child” (or “love rabbit,” as the case may be) is no rightful heir of salvation, but rather a bastard.
The Crescent Cross: Appeal to Pity Fallacy
To persuade another to accept his conclusion, one who applies the appeal-to-pity fallacy introduces empathy and/or sympathy. For instance, the Chrislam symbol of the crescent cross, as pictured above, purports to emphasize togetherness and thereby creates a sense of empathy between Muslim and Christian “brothers.”
Designed to appeal as an interfaith symbol to both camps, the crescent cross allegedly represents neither a cross that is adorned with a crescent, nor a crescent adorned with a cross; nonetheless, any suggestion that these merged symbols bear equal significance simply doesn’t ring true.
In Christianity, the cross speaks to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection without which Christian faith simply doesn’t exist.9 Significantly, the Qur’an outright denies Christ’s death on the cross (4:157-158). With a simple stroke of a pen, the crescent cross is reminiscent of this symbol: ( + leaning ), indicating negation.
Superimposing a crescent moon over the cross—this, in the bogus name of tolerance—symbolically trumps the Christian gospel with Muslim belief. Indeed, the Islamic version of unity is tawheed (“the unity of Allah”). In Islam, “the Body of Christ” eludes the equation. Be sure there is no single visible church of Muslim converts in any Arab country.
Tolerance or Intolerance: False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy offers only two viable choices and thereby eliminates a world of possibilities left undisclosed. Political correctness (in this case, “diversity”) postulates two such options—namely, tolerance or intolerance. Take your pick.
To the postmodernist, fundamentalism of any stripe smacks of intolerance; and one-way, all-the-way belief in either Christianity or Islam is gravely flawed. The answer, then, is a made-to-order belief system (Chrislam), which deigns to make sense of the complex and varied landscape of 21st- century religiosity. Because Chrislam ostensibly epitomizes tolerance, it stands proud as the obvious choice.
An Episcopal priest from Seattle, Rev. Anne Holmes Redding apparently agrees. In 2007 Redding declared herself a Christian-Muslim. In an outward show of inward “tolerance,” Redding dons her Islamic headscarf on Fridays and her clerical collar on Sundays.
That increasing numbers of nominal Christians are taking the bait is evidenced by an observation made by Bishop Vincent Warner of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia. Warner insisted that Redding’s politically correct enlightenment had not been controversial in his diocese.10
Small Sample: Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Redding’s creed may not have sparked controversy in Warner’s diocese, but that’s not so of the Christian community at large. To make an assumption, as this, based on the atypical and certainly flimsy reckonings of a small sample (Episcopal diocese of Olympia) demonstrates the underlying fallacy of hasty generalization.
Redding contends that, when she looks through Jesus, she sees Allah. For her, Jesus is not “the beginning and the end,” but rather means to an end—namely, the Muslim moon-god, Allah. In her economy, Jesus is not divine; but Allah is.
Redding overlooks the fact that, although today’s Islam is monotheistic, its roots are decidedly pagan. As far back as 2000 BC, the crescent moon has symbolized pagan moon worship. The moon-god was referred to as "al-ilah." Before Mohammed promoted his new religion in AD 610, “al-ilah” was shortened to Allah, a generic word for “the god.” 11
That said, union of Allah (moon-god) with the sun goddess purportedly resulted in three goddesses (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). Together, the family were viewed as "high" gods at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Even so, a host of “lesser gods” were likewise worshiped (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61).
For Redding to claim Jesus as her Savior is inauthentic. Denying Christ’s divinity renders Him a deceiver and invalidates His efficacious work of mankind’s salvation from sin, death, and the devil.12 In short, Redding’s portrayal of Jesus as some lesser “god”—i.e., a mere prophet—transcends controversy. It’s out-and-out heretical.
A Panacea: Fallacy of Missing the Point
Some view Chrislam as the solution, a panacea of sorts, for the ongoing conflict between the Western world, which is predominantly Christian, and the Middle East, which is predominantly Muslim. Premises of this faulty argument may indeed support a conclusion, but not the feel-good conclusion that actually is drawn.
You see, while this analysis seems evenhanded, it nonetheless misses the point—that being, exclusive truth claims of Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible.13
Examining Chrislam in the light of critical thinking reveals that any semblance of “truth” springs from fallacies of logic, among which are equivocation, appeal to pity, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, and missing the point, to name but a few.
Summary
When Constantine the Great opportunistically embraced Christianity, adding to it sundry pagan practices of the day, he established an historic example of syncretism for the sake of appeasement. True, the mix of Christianity with paganism served Constantine’s political ambition, but it also skewed the pure doctrine of biblical Christianity.14
The same holds true today regarding Chrislam. A politically-correct worldview potpourri may well suit the postmodernist, but its resulting violence to biblical truth sullies the pot.
In his epistle to the church at Galatia, the apostle Paul cautioned against embracing “another gospel.” Christians today do well to heed Paul’s warning.15
More to follow.
1. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam (Accessed November 2010).
2. 1 John 4:8,16.
3. Matthew 5:43-45.
4. Matthew 5:9.
5. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 61-81.
6. James 1:17.
7. 1 John 4:18.
8. Caesar E. Farah, Islam (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s, 2000), 80.
9. Hebrews 9:22,28.
10. Adrian Ryan. “Urban Voodoo: Santeria. It’s Not Salsa; It’s a Religion.” The Stranger (Seattle, WA: On Line Publication, June 28 – July 4, 2001 issue).
11. See discussion of the origins of Allah in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190.
12. Romans 10:9-11.
13. 2 Corinthians 6:14; Jude 24-25.
14. Posted on line at http://historymedren.about.com/od/cwho/p/who_constantine.htm (Accessed November 2010).
15. Galatians 1:6.
Part 5, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
A pleasing mixture of aromatic or dried spices, fruits, and petals of flowers generally appeals to the senses; but “potpourri” also speaks to a mixed bag of that which is motley or miscellany. The montage of ingredients in potpourri of this nature may intend to attract, but the stew it offers reeks. No seasoning or garnish can hide the reality that some fundamentally incompatible elements, when combined, are unsuitable for ingestion.
So it is for the potpourri of worldviews merged in the sect of Chrislam which, as its name suggests, melds together religious elements of the Christian West and the Muslim East. Abraham McLaughlin of the Christian Science Monitor explains that, in the beginning, the group was called "Chris-lam-herb" for its unlikely mixture of Christianity, Islam, and “traditional medicine” based, not on scientific research, but rather on indigenous beliefs handed down from generation to generation. While its promise of unity and harmony pander to the postmodernist, Chrislam is far from savory.
“God’s Love”: Fallacy of Equivocation
Founded by Tela Tella, and practiced predominantly in Lagos, Nigeria, the will of God (feoluwa) mission, Chrislam, comes from a Yoruba word meaning “God’s love.”1 Adding Yoruba to the Greek New Testament concept of God’s love serves as a sort of “love garnish,” but it doesn’t fool those with mature taste. It’s still hash.
In a manner of speaking, Chrislam jams Christianity and Islam into a magic hat and, with wave of a wand, pulls out “love” by its proverbial ears. Because the “love” concept in Islam differs appreciably from that of Christian love, this love-rabbit, so to speak, is a sorry mutation.
Accordingly, the fallacy of equivocation involves sliding between different meanings of a single word that is vital to the debate—in this case, “love.” The Bible establishes that God is love.2 Arguably, its meaning is paramount within the context of religious debate.
Consider this: While the Qur’an affirms that "God is great" [Allahu akbar], it omits any reference to "God is love" [Allahu muhibba]. An example of contrast between Islam and Christianity is Muslim persecution and dhimmitude of Christians worldwide. In its pure form, Christianity practices nothing equivalent. Instead, Jesus taught His disciples to love, not terrorize their adversaries and to pray for, not subjugate them.3
Jesus blessed “peacemakers.”4 Despite claims to the contrary, history demonstrates that in Islam the purported greater jihad (warfare against sin) takes backseat to the so-called lesser jihad (holy war). Furthermore, the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation elevates revelation given later over and above earlier revelation. Hence, the latter revelation sanctioning harm (Medina Approach) effectively abrogates the earlier conciliatory revelation in favor of non-harm (Mecca Approach). Of the over 100 allusions to jihad in the Qur’an, some 97% of them reference jihad’s primary meaning—that being, the forceful spread and domination of Islam.5
Fear of God in the Judeo-Christian mindset speaks to reverential fear—i.e., veneration—for the person, nature, and magnitude of a loving God who never vacillates, but remains forever the same.6 In biblical Christianity perfect love casts out fear; the two (love and fear) are mutually exclusive, and together they are like oil and water.7
That said, Moroccan scholar Fatema Mernissi explains the centrality of fear within Islam. Many modern Muslims fear Allah and his Imams, the foreign West, democracy, freedom of thought, and individualism. What’s not to fear? After all, the fire of Hell is said to be seventy degrees hotter than earthly fire; and escaping it depends on the whim of Allah. Unfortunately, Allah is outright arbitrary with respect to salvation of his creation. In the words of Caesar Farah, “Allah may vary his ordinances at pleasure, prescribing one set of laws for the Jews, another for the Christians, and still another for Muslims.”8
The fallacy of equivocation with respect to this key word, “love,” is opportunistically used to syncretize (mix together) belief systems that, when closely scrutinized, prove to be incompatible. Hence, the resulting “love child” (or “love rabbit,” as the case may be) is no rightful heir of salvation, but rather a bastard.
The Crescent Cross: Appeal to Pity Fallacy
To persuade another to accept his conclusion, one who applies the appeal-to-pity fallacy introduces empathy and/or sympathy. For instance, the Chrislam symbol of the crescent cross, as pictured above, purports to emphasize togetherness and thereby creates a sense of empathy between Muslim and Christian “brothers.”
Designed to appeal as an interfaith symbol to both camps, the crescent cross allegedly represents neither a cross that is adorned with a crescent, nor a crescent adorned with a cross; nonetheless, any suggestion that these merged symbols bear equal significance simply doesn’t ring true.
In Christianity, the cross speaks to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection without which Christian faith simply doesn’t exist.9 Significantly, the Qur’an outright denies Christ’s death on the cross (4:157-158). With a simple stroke of a pen, the crescent cross is reminiscent of this symbol: ( + leaning ), indicating negation.
Superimposing a crescent moon over the cross—this, in the bogus name of tolerance—symbolically trumps the Christian gospel with Muslim belief. Indeed, the Islamic version of unity is tawheed (“the unity of Allah”). In Islam, “the Body of Christ” eludes the equation. Be sure there is no single visible church of Muslim converts in any Arab country.
Tolerance or Intolerance: False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy offers only two viable choices and thereby eliminates a world of possibilities left undisclosed. Political correctness (in this case, “diversity”) postulates two such options—namely, tolerance or intolerance. Take your pick.
To the postmodernist, fundamentalism of any stripe smacks of intolerance; and one-way, all-the-way belief in either Christianity or Islam is gravely flawed. The answer, then, is a made-to-order belief system (Chrislam), which deigns to make sense of the complex and varied landscape of 21st- century religiosity. Because Chrislam ostensibly epitomizes tolerance, it stands proud as the obvious choice.
An Episcopal priest from Seattle, Rev. Anne Holmes Redding apparently agrees. In 2007 Redding declared herself a Christian-Muslim. In an outward show of inward “tolerance,” Redding dons her Islamic headscarf on Fridays and her clerical collar on Sundays.
That increasing numbers of nominal Christians are taking the bait is evidenced by an observation made by Bishop Vincent Warner of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia. Warner insisted that Redding’s politically correct enlightenment had not been controversial in his diocese.10
Small Sample: Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Redding’s creed may not have sparked controversy in Warner’s diocese, but that’s not so of the Christian community at large. To make an assumption, as this, based on the atypical and certainly flimsy reckonings of a small sample (Episcopal diocese of Olympia) demonstrates the underlying fallacy of hasty generalization.
Redding contends that, when she looks through Jesus, she sees Allah. For her, Jesus is not “the beginning and the end,” but rather means to an end—namely, the Muslim moon-god, Allah. In her economy, Jesus is not divine; but Allah is.
Redding overlooks the fact that, although today’s Islam is monotheistic, its roots are decidedly pagan. As far back as 2000 BC, the crescent moon has symbolized pagan moon worship. The moon-god was referred to as "al-ilah." Before Mohammed promoted his new religion in AD 610, “al-ilah” was shortened to Allah, a generic word for “the god.” 11
That said, union of Allah (moon-god) with the sun goddess purportedly resulted in three goddesses (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). Together, the family were viewed as "high" gods at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Even so, a host of “lesser gods” were likewise worshiped (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61).
For Redding to claim Jesus as her Savior is inauthentic. Denying Christ’s divinity renders Him a deceiver and invalidates His efficacious work of mankind’s salvation from sin, death, and the devil.12 In short, Redding’s portrayal of Jesus as some lesser “god”—i.e., a mere prophet—transcends controversy. It’s out-and-out heretical.
A Panacea: Fallacy of Missing the Point
Some view Chrislam as the solution, a panacea of sorts, for the ongoing conflict between the Western world, which is predominantly Christian, and the Middle East, which is predominantly Muslim. Premises of this faulty argument may indeed support a conclusion, but not the feel-good conclusion that actually is drawn.
You see, while this analysis seems evenhanded, it nonetheless misses the point—that being, exclusive truth claims of Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible.13
Examining Chrislam in the light of critical thinking reveals that any semblance of “truth” springs from fallacies of logic, among which are equivocation, appeal to pity, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, and missing the point, to name but a few.
Summary
When Constantine the Great opportunistically embraced Christianity, adding to it sundry pagan practices of the day, he established an historic example of syncretism for the sake of appeasement. True, the mix of Christianity with paganism served Constantine’s political ambition, but it also skewed the pure doctrine of biblical Christianity.14
The same holds true today regarding Chrislam. A politically-correct worldview potpourri may well suit the postmodernist, but its resulting violence to biblical truth sullies the pot.
In his epistle to the church at Galatia, the apostle Paul cautioned against embracing “another gospel.” Christians today do well to heed Paul’s warning.15
More to follow.
1. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam (Accessed November 2010).
2. 1 John 4:8,16.
3. Matthew 5:43-45.
4. Matthew 5:9.
5. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 61-81.
6. James 1:17.
7. 1 John 4:18.
8. Caesar E. Farah, Islam (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s, 2000), 80.
9. Hebrews 9:22,28.
10. Adrian Ryan. “Urban Voodoo: Santeria. It’s Not Salsa; It’s a Religion.” The Stranger (Seattle, WA: On Line Publication, June 28 – July 4, 2001 issue).
11. See discussion of the origins of Allah in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190.
12. Romans 10:9-11.
13. 2 Corinthians 6:14; Jude 24-25.
14. Posted on line at http://historymedren.about.com/od/cwho/p/who_constantine.htm (Accessed November 2010).
15. Galatians 1:6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
