Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews, Science - Creation/Evolution

In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2 

by Cornelis Van Dam 2021 / 371 pages Dr. C. Van Dam begins his latest book by explicitly laying out his presuppositions.  He’s upfront about his non-negotiable assumptions and biases.  As I review his book, it’s appropriate that I share mine too.  I share his presuppositions about Scripture as the trustworthy Word of God, but I also bring a personal bias to the table.  Back in the day, Van Dam was my Old Testament professor at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary.  I had an affectionate nickname for him in view of his ability to put the smack-down on unbelieving or shoddy scholarship:  “Wham-Bam-Van-Dam.”  This was always said with the greatest admiration for Dr. Van Dam.  As a seminary professor, he was nothing if not thorough and careful. Far more than a commentary This new book exhibits that same kind of comprehensive and precise approach to the two opening chapters of Scripture.  Van Dam leaves no stone unturned.  In the Beginning is an exhaustive treatment not only of the meaning of these two chapters, but also the various challenges that have been raised in Old Testament scholarship regarding them.  What you’re looking at here is not just a commentary on Genesis 1-2, but far more. Over the last decade or so John Walton has become well-known for his views on the early chapters of Genesis.  Walton argues that we often misunderstand Genesis 1-2 because we don’t take into account the ancient Near Eastern context of these chapters.  Once we do that, says Walton, then we can see that Genesis 1-2 was never meant to be taken literally as history.  The history can then be filled in with what science teaches us, including what science says about human origins.  In chapter 2 of In the Beginning, Van Dam discusses Walton’s views at length and explains how and where they fail to do justice to the character of Scripture as the Word of God.  In my view this is the most important chapter of the book. A sampling To whet your appetite further, let me share a selection of questions that Dr. Van Dam answers elsewhere in the book: Can new scientific data be regarded as general revelation given by God? What is the relationship of Scripture to science?  Is Scripture a scientific textbook? Can geology give us a history of creation? Was Herman Dooyeweerd faithful to Scripture in his view of origins? How are we to evaluate Meredith Kline’s Framework Hypothesis? Did the ancient Israelites believe that heaven was a solid vault above us? Why is there no mention of evening and morning with the seventh day in Genesis 1? What does Scripture mean when it says that God created through his Son? Can the breath of life in Genesis 2:7 be equated with the Holy Spirit? Was there animal death before the fall into sin? Why did God create everything with an appearance of age?  Was he being deceptive in so doing? Those are just a few of the questions answered.  There are far more.  What I appreciate about Van Dam’s answers is that he bases them on what Scripture says.  He doesn’t want to go beyond Scripture and so he’ll sometimes say, “Scripture doesn’t say more than this – this is as far as we can go.” A point of disagreement If I would venture some respectful disagreement, it would be in the final chapter where the author briefly discusses whether there’s a need for new confessional formulations to address the challenges of evolution.  In 2014-15, I was involved with an effort to add some clarification to article 14 of the Belgic Confession in the Canadian Reformed Church.  That effort was ultimately unsuccessful.  I don’t regret having made the effort, nor do I think it unnecessary to this day. Van Dam argues that Scripture is clear and our “confessions faithfully reflect that testimony.” However, that fails to account for those who have argued that the Three Forms of Unity provide the latitude needed to hold to forms of theistic macro-evolution.  Their arguments have persuaded some.  This wiggle-room ought to be addressed, especially if there is openness to theistic macro-evolution in your churches. Van Dam also posits that: “A difficulty with preparing a new formulation asserting the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 is the temptation to go beyond what Scripture says, in other words, to provide specifics about that which Scripture gives no additional detail.” The proposal to add clarification to BC 14 was to state what Scripture states:  that Adam was created from dust (Gen. 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22).  As a consequence:  “They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans.  There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid.”  If one thinks that this infringes upon the freedom of exegesis, then one is willing to grant the latitude for theistic evolutionary accounts of human (and other) origins. Conclusion That criticism notwithstanding, In the Beginning was a delight to read – personally it brought me back to many of the OT lectures I enjoyed from Dr. Van Dam in my seminary years.  While enjoyable, it could be tough-going at times for some.  It’s not highly technical, but in places Van Dam does go academic.  It’s not a book you’d necessarily be giving out as gifts to those doing profession of faith.  It would, however, be a great gift for someone doing post-secondary studies, whether in the sciences or in the humanities.  And it’s definitely a recommended read for those who’ve completed such studies. Dr. Bredenhof first posted this review to, a blog “promoting the biblical understanding of origins” and it is reprinted here with his permission. For an even more in-depth review, check out Martin Williams' "Genesis: No Room for Theistic Evolution" at

Pro-life - Abortion

Should we ask God to forgive Canada for all the babies being aborted? No.

A few years back I was busy preparing for a cross-country series of pro-life presentations. My research had me digging through some articles on what Scripture says about who or what the preborn child is, what our responsibility to the preborn child is, and what the law’s relationship to the preborn child ought to be. In one of piece I came across the following Bible text from Deut. 21:1-3a, 7-9: If anyone is found slain…and it is not known who killed him, then your elders and your judges shall go out and measure the distance from the slain man to the surrounding cities. And it shall be that the elders of the city nearest to the slain man will take a heifer…. Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, O LORD, for your people Israel, who you have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people…” So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD. The passage left me pondering: should we, as Reformed churches, be regularly praying for forgiveness for the shedding of innocent blood, as it relates to abortion? We know that the carcasses of dead babies can be found in nearly every hospital in every major city in this country. Ought we to be in specific prayer on this issue? Or would that be a misapplication of the text? No forgiveness without repentance I turned the passage and the text over to Professor emeritus of Old Testament, Dr. Cornelis Van Dam. He wrote the following. "What is striking is that although the murder was unsolved, and no one could specifically be held accountable, God teaches that there is nevertheless corporate responsibility. The people as a whole needed to respond to it through their elders. The elders of the two closest cities have to make atonement on behalf of Israel and pray for forgiveness. By making atonement, the people through the elders show remorse over this murder and thus provide a basis for asking for forgiveness. " there are some major differences with our current situation. Canada is not in a special covenant relationship with God, with special rules for affecting atonement in the land. However, the country’s rulers are ultimately responsible to God, also with respect to the sixth commandment (Rom 13:1-5). But, as a nation, we have not received special covenant regulations for making atonement. Atonement has been made in Christ and it is the church that has been given the duty to proclaim that gospel. Hence your question, does the church also have the task to pray for forgiveness? "Abortions are not unsolved murders and we certainly have corporate responsibility as a democratic society for the murders of those children not yet born that take place in hospitals. Abortion has become a taboo topic. Those who govern are determined to let abortions continue. Can we pray for forgiveness when there is no repentance? The biblical answer is 'no.' We can pray that God withhold his wrath from our decadent society, bless the proclamation of the gospel so that many repent, and bless the work of those who want to honor God’s rights in the land. But simply to pray for forgiveness would go against the biblical principle that repentance is necessary for forgiveness to be possible. Think, for example, of Christ’s words: 'If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him' (Luke 17:3). God only forgives us if we are repentant (Luke 13:3; Acts 3:19) and his forgiving is to be a model for ours (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13). If and when Canada repents of the sin of abortion, then the church should certainly pray that God also forgive that heinous crime. "The crime of abortion is extremely serious. Israel had to make atonement lest God’s wrath descend on the land. But Israel also had to repent in order for the sacrifices of atonement to be accepted. Without repentance, God rejected the sacrifices and – due to Israel’s continued sins – ultimately destroyed both the northern and southern kingdoms in accordance with the covenant curses. Even though Canada is not in a special covenant relationship with God, this country too faces God’s judgment and at some point it will happen unless there is repentance and the forgiveness that follows. After all, God holds all nations accountable, especially those who know or could know his will (cf., e.g., Luke 10:14)." But what of Jesus and Stephen’s prayers? Dr. Van Dam’s response was very helpful, but it did prompt one more question. If repentance must precede forgiveness, what should we make of Jesus’ plea on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?” (Luke 23:34) And what should we make of Stephen’s prayer as he was stoned to death, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). Dr. Van Dam responded with the following: "In the light of what Scripture teaches, the late Dr. William Hendriksen, in his commentary on this passage, rightly paraphrased this prayer of our Savior thus: “Blot out their transgression completely. In thy sovereign grace cause them to repent truly, so that they can be and will be pardoned fully.” "In this way he interceded for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). Christ’s prayer was heard. Thousands of Jews believed in Christ after his death when they realized what they had done (Acts 2:37-41; 4:4; 6:7). At the same time, the nation as a whole stood condemned and the judgment pronounced on Jerusalem could not be averted (Luke 21:5-6). The city fell to the Romans in 70 AD with the resulting slaughter, enslavement, the sacking of the city, and the destruction of the temple. It was the end of the Jewish state. Stephen’s prayer can be understood in the same light as that of the Lord. It was a plea that those who were killing him would see and realize what they were actually doing and repent and so receive forgiveness." Conclusion As Christians then, we must be a shining light in this country darkened by the heinous crime of abortion. We must continue to work also to bring repentance to our decadent society so that, one day, our Father might forgive Canada our trespasses. As one pro-life apologist said to me, “May their sins of commission never be because of our sins of omission.” André Schutten is ARPA Canada's Director of Law & Policy. Dr. Van Dam is Professor emeritus of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary....

Adult non-fiction

4 books on the irreconcilable divide between Creation and Evolution

Four encouraging books to equip the Church in the current Evolution vs. Creation debates, listed by size, smallest to biggest. No Adam, No Gospel: Adam and the History of Redemption by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. 29 pages / 2015 More and more professing Christians are accepting scientific theory that suggests that man-like mammals (hominids) preceded the coming of Adam by millions of years. Biologos, a well-funded organization, is also pushing evolution using scholars who have a conservative reputation to convince people to accept evolution. But what does affirming evolutionary origins of the human race do to the gospel? Can you affirm that Adam was not historically the first human on earth without jeopardizing the Good News? Professor Gaffin clearly shows that “the truth of the gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being from whom all other human beings descend.” After clearly explaining Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49, Gaffin responds to The Evolution of Adam, a book written by a popular Old Testament scholar, Peter Enns. Gaffin shows how the views of Enns lead to a complete abandonment of the Reformed faith in its biblical understanding of sin, salvation, and death. Indeed, no Adam, no gospel! The results of accepting evolution theory are disastrous for the Christian faith. Although a small publication, this booklet is timely and packed with excellent biblical insights. I highly recommend it. The Faces of Origins by David Herbert 180 pages / 2012 It’s often said that new scientific knowledge has made it impossible to continue to accept the truth of the Genesis creation account, that this new knowledge meant scientists had no choice but to accept evolution. Herbert challenges this narrative. He says it wasn’t the new knowledge, but a new worldview that led to the rejection of the Genesis creation account. Western civilization left a worldview based on biblical revelation, where God was actively involved in history, and instead embraced a naturalistic worldview based only on reason. Naturalism believes that natural processes alone are sufficient to account for life and creation. Herbert shows that for eighteen centuries a biblical understanding of origins had the upper hand. Real change came during the seventeenth century. Indeed, BenoÎt de Maillet (1656-1738) was the first modern uniformitarian and evolutionist. Once scientific findings were interpreted without God, through the lens of naturalism, evolution became the most popular explanation of our origins. This in spite of the fact that the empirical evidence points to design and not evolution. The price of excluding God and denying Genesis is high. It has led to a resurgence of atheism. This book is a great and easy read. By Design: Evidence for nature's Intelligent Designer – the God of the Bible by Jonathan Sarfati 260 pages / 2008 The Bible tells us that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20). One implication of these words is that scientists who study creation must be able to see something of God’s awesome power and wisdom. Yet, most mainstream scientists steadfastly refuse to give glory to God and instead seek to honour the god of their making, the theory of evolution, to account for the wonders of creation. This delightful book illustrates magnificently how God’s glory can indeed be seen in his handiwork. God’s design is evident everywhere and it all argues against evolution. For example, God has put an incredible amount of information in creation to enable everything to work properly. “There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.” This book is chock-full of all sorts of examples of God’s wonderful design, including the incredible designs allowing sight, smell, flight, orientation, and stickiness. Critics are answered and God’s wisdom is celebrated. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture by Jason Lisle 496 pages / 2015 Building on his The Ultimate Proof of Creation (2009), Jason Lisle, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, goes into considerable detail in outlining the rules and principles for correctly interpreting God’s Word. He wants to logically refute faulty interpretations of Genesis and equip Christians to defend God’s Word against compromised positions, especially with respect to Genesis. These concerns take up the first half of the book. The second part of the book goes into considerable detail in applying sound principles of interpretation to the matter of geocentricity, the age of the earth, theistic evolution, and the extent of the Genesis flood. Two appendices on a defense of the Trinity and formal fallacies round off the book. Lisle’s approach is sound and he does an excellent job in fleshing out how to interpret Scripture. He resists the temptation which earlier creationists like Henry Morris fell into by claiming that the Bible is a scientific textbook and so this book appears to be a significant improvement in the manner in which the Bible Is used. Lisle rightly prioritizes Scripture over scientific theories and through careful exegesis wants to let the Word of God speak. This is a very helpful book. Dr. Van Dam is the Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary and the author of several books including "The Deacon: The biblical roots and the ministry of mercy today," and "The Elder: Today's ministry rooted in all of Scripture."...

Adult non-fiction, Book Reviews

God and government

Biblical Principles for Today: An introduction and Resource by Cornelis Van Dam 330 pages / 2014 Any Christian who wants to be involved in politics, or any politician who wants to understand Christians who are involved in politics, needs to read this book. Dr. Van Dam explores the two great foundations of Canadian politics – Christianity and humanism – and the nature of the conflict between them. Then, after outlining the conflict, Dr. Van Dam makes clear how Christian principles can function in a world dominated by humanistic ideals. Christians and humanists have very different views of the origin and task of government, the relationship of church and state, and the concepts of human rights and toleration – but, as Van Dam shows from both Biblical and historical evidence, the Christian understandings of these concepts leads to both greater stability and freedom for society. That same general form of looking at the fruit of the two worldviews leads to enlightening discussions of the differences an approach guided by the Bible could make in areas like the abortion and euthanasia debates, the issue of capital punishment, the need for traditional marriage, the balance of productive work and necessary weekly rest, the stewardship of creation, and immigration policy. By this point in my reading, my renewed commitment to see Biblical values reaffirmed in our politics had me primed for the last section – "Working for Change" – which first describes the Biblical reasons for getting involved in the government of the country, and ends with a look at the many excellent organizations that are doing just that. The study questions and bibliography at the end make this an excellent resource for starting some political activism of your own, with both insightful Biblical application and plenty of written and online works, as well as the groups mentioned above, to help you (and me) and like-minded Christians to get going (or to keep going, only with a little better grounding in basic principles). Of course, this conflict isn’t limited to Canada – humanism and Christianity are also battling it out in the US, in Australia and most other Western nations – so this would be a great book for Reformed Christians in all those counties. To get a print copy of God and Government, Australians, Canadians, and Americans can email [email protected] for information – they have a suggested donation of $10. Americans also have the option of a Kindle version for just $10 at This review was first published on You can read two excerpts from the book: the first is on what principled pluralism is, and the second is on the Bible and pluralism....


Will the Islamic State disappear?

A look at ISIS, and its past, to get an understanding of its future About four years ago the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) appeared to have come out of nowhere, creating havoc with its unspeakable brutality and dramatically transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. In short order it had millions under its control in a territory comparable to that of Great Britain, with footholds in Libya, northern Nigeria, and elsewhere as well. However, it now looks as if the days of ISIS are numbered, with coalition forces having taken the city of Mosul from ISIS in July, and now having the momentum as they seek to destroy ISIS. Gone for good? But will the battle against what ISIS represents, and its dreams of a caliphate, truly be over if ISIS is wiped off the map of the Middle East? That does not appear likely. ISIS has been compared to an aggressive cancer. You can take out a local tumor (ISIS in the Middle East), but the cancer then goes to the next phase. It metastasizes, that is, it spreads elsewhere where it is much more difficult to confront and control. We already see this happening in Southeast Asia where the Philippines are in turmoil as the government there grapples with ISIS forces. But why is the ISIS drive for Islamic domination so difficult to defeat? In seeking an answer to that question, we need to understand what motivates ISIS. Since it claims to be Islamic, we must try to understand the notion and history of the caliphate and its theological origins. We also need to hear what authoritative Islamic scholars are saying about ISIS and specifically their thoughts about how ISIS justifies everything it does from the Quran. Finally we will ask what all of this suggests for the future. Caliphate Let’s being with a question: what is a caliphate? It is an Islamic form of government headed by a caliph – that is, someone who is considered to be the religious and political successor of Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic faith. Such a caliphate would unite the entire Muslim world and be ruled with a strict Islamic code. There was a caliphate in the past. By the time of Mohammed’s death in 632, Islam dominated the entire Arabian Peninsula and by 661 AD had spread into northern Africa and what is today the entire Middle East including part of Turkey and Afghanistan. By 750 AD this caliphate had expanded from India to Spain and Portugal. The last major caliphate was the Ottoman Empire which embraced Turkey, the Middle East, northern Africa, the Balkans and beyond. This empire lasted from 1517-1924. Among the titles of the head of the Ottoman Empire was that of caliph. It was not always taken seriously but in the 1800’s the importance of the caliph and the caliphate was revived and Islam was promoted as a unifying factor in the empire. It is good to remember that it was the Ottoman Empire that in 1683 seemed ready to overrun Christian Europe but it was stopped at Vienna. Christianity’s conflict with Islam is very old! Islamic caliphates and empires have had years of dominance and glory. It is no wonder that idealistic Muslims who take the Quran and its teachings seriously want to create a new caliphate. The 21st century has given these Muslims an opportunity. Is ISIS Islamic? To understand ISIS and its aggression, we need to know how ISIS relates to the Islamic faith. The areas that ISIS controls are subject to Sharia law. Christians cannot worship in public and build or repair churches. They cannot display a cross, ring church bells, or pray within earshot of Muslims. ISIS has all the trappings of a state including their own currency and an army of over 100,000. Their flag is the Black Standard or Black Banner which Islamic tradition says that Mohammed used. The white banner at the top of the flag reads: “There is no god but Allah. Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.” This declaration of the Islamic faith is known as the shahada. Underneath is a white circle with the words “Mohammed is the messenger of God” which is meant to resemble the prophet’s seal. A version of this flag is also used by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. In spite of what has just been noted, Western leaders have been saying that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. But is this politically correct approach true? ISIS says it is Islamic, but it has been very much in war mode. What are we to make of this? What is the relationship of ISIS to Islam? The theological origin of ISIS To answer those questions we need to take a look back at some recent Saudi Arabian history. After oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938, the Saud family has spent an estimated $100 billion to spread the cause of conservative fundamentalist Islam called Wahhabi Islam. This is the official religion of Saudi Arabia which considers itself the guardian of Islam since the two most holy places associated with Mohammed are found there: Mecca and Medina. Wahhabi Islam stems from an eighteenth-century Muslim, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who wanted to restore Islam to its original purity by rejecting all innovations and basing his religious observance strictly on what the Quran and Mohammed taught. Anyone who disagreed was declared to be an unbeliever and could lawfully be killed as a heretic and apostate. Wahhab died in 1792 but the ideology lived on. Eventually a Wahhabi sheikh, ibn Saud, captured Riyadh and established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. The brutality of ISIS today has been demonstrated in the past by the Wahhabis. For example, in 1803 the Wahhabis entered the city of Ta’if, close to Mecca and massacred all the Muslim men, and enslaved all the women and children.1 Saudi wealth has made Wahhabism go worldwide and mainstream in the Islamic world. Al-Qaeda is simply an especially pernicious outgrowth of Wahhabism, and ISIS in turn is a virulent outgrowth of al-Qaeda.2 It is interesting to note that “in July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism.”3 So how does Saudi Arabia respond to that? The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the highest official of religious law in a Muslim country, condemned ISIS in the strongest terms and insisted that, “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way.” This could of course purely be an exercise in public relations and may be an exercise in using the Muslim right to lie (taqiya) in order to advance the cause of Islam.4 There may however be an element of truth in what the Grand Mufti said. Prior to the rise of Wahhabism, Muslims were reluctant to declare a fellow Muslim an unbeliever (kafir), a practice called takfir. They would quote the Quran “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256). However, Wahhabism has now become mainstream fundamentalist Islam, especially through Saudi Arabia’s worldwide efforts to export this brand of the faith. The Sauds have done so very effectively, not only in poor Muslim countries, but also in wealthy western nations, especially by building mosques and providing Wahhbi preachers. And so an entire generation of Muslims spread over the whole world is growing up with this indoctrination. Not surprisingly, Saudi Arabia is in a difficult position over against ISIS. Particularly when you consider that it has encouraged its young men to join recruits from the Arab world to fight in the Islamic Jihad against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980’s (one of whom was Osama Bin Laden). Not surprisingly, Saudi young men have also flocked to ISIS.5 Why the Saudis oppose ISIS Many have assumed or claimed that Saudi Arabia, which is of the Sunni branch of Islam, was a patron of ISIS, using ISIS as a pawn to check the rising power of Iran, which is of the Shiite branch of Islam. While some experts suggest that there’s truth to this claim, they also say that it’s not quite that simple. Saudi Arabia supports a Wahhabi Islam and has sought to export it, but it did so not just for religious reasons, but especially political. As Wahhabi influence spread, the hope was that those who accepted it would also want to be ruled by Saudi Arabia, the protector of Islam, and so the influence and power of the Saudi nation would expand. Because of its political, pragmatic approach, Saudi Arabia has had to deal with rebellions and uprisings in its own country from those who saw in the politics a less than faithful adherence to Islam. Al-Qaeda also launched attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2003. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia has continued its pragmatic course seeking to consolidate its own power. This means that it must take exception to the ISIS declaration of a caliphate. After all, Saudi Arabia imagines itself to be the center of any future caliphate – it doesn’t want competition for that title from ISIS. It has therefore quietly tried to discourage Saudi fighters from going to ISIS, but it promotes the Wahhabi system that supports them. So there is a problem here for Saudi Arabia. The declaration of a caliphate has enormous appeal to faithful Muslims who want to answer its call. According to Islamic theology, the caliphate “is the Islamic nation, embodying the supranational unity of the Muslim community worldwide under a single leader, the caliph, or ‘successor’ of Mohammed as the spiritual, political, and military leader of the Muslims.”6 So when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-proclaimed caliph of ISIS, speaks as the caliph, to any who recognize him under that title, he is speaking as a successor of Mohammed, yes, as if he were Mohammed himself. This is powerful stuff, for the Quran repeatedly exhorts Muslims to obey not only Allah, but Mohammed as well.7 So, reaching across Arab borders, including tribes in northern Saudi Arabia, ISIS called for the faithful to subject themselves to ISIS. And so, although theologically similar to ISIS, Saudi Arabia, in order to protect its pretensions to the caliphate and perhaps above all the unity of its country quickly formed an international alliance against ISIS and declared it a terrorist threat. In February, 2016, Saudi Arabia even decided to send troops against ISIS. Actually Saudi Arabia does not use the term ISIS, for they deny it is the Islamic caliphate. Instead they call ISIS, Daesh which is an acronym for the Arabic words: “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.” In any case, with so much at stake, and with Western air power not defeating ISIS, Saudi Arabia had little choice but to say that they would join in the fight against ISIS by promising to send ground troops. However, it is not clear whether they have actually done so. With this background into the caliphate and the theological origins of ISIS, we are now ready to address the question of how ISIS relates theologically to Islam. Is ISIS really Islamic or is it just a terrorist organization? ISIS and Muslim scholarship There are many who say that ISIS is not Islamic. Not just Western leaders who never tire of calling Islam a religion of peace, but also Islamic scholars have distanced themselves from ISIS. On one occasion more than 120 Muslim scholars from around the world, including the grand mufti of Egypt and the mufti of Jerusalem and All Palestine, condemned ISIS in an open letter to its Caliph that was released in Washington in 2014. It made 24 major points such as that it is forbidden to kill the innocent, that jihad is a defensive war, that it is forbidden to harm or mistreat – in any way – Christians or any “People of the Scripture,” that it is forbidden to torture people, etc. All the practices of ISIS were highlighted and denied as being Islamic. However, one can question both the accuracy of the fanfare accompanying this letter as well as the sincerity of those who signed it. Legitimate questions about the true extent of the condemnation of ISIS can be raised, as has been documented.8 A more recent conference that can be mentioned in this context is one that took place in Marrakesh, Morocco in January 2016. It included 300 prominent Islamic clerics and experts from Morocco to Indonesia. It called for more tolerance and quoted the Quran to back up its statements. When you read the Declaration they produced, you start to wonder, yes, is Islam not a religion of peace? There are definitely peaceful passages in the Quran. However, one needs to realize that Islam knows the concept of “abrogation.” Simply put that means any later revelation that contradicts an earlier one cancels out that earlier one. As Mark Durie put it in his excellent study, The Third Choice (2010) on page 36:9 "The Islamic doctrine of jihad is a noted example of the application of abrogation. Verses calling for warfare with unbelievers derive from Muhammad’s militant Medinan period, while more peaceful verses derived from the earlier Meccan period, when the Muslims were weak and few in numbers. In accordance with the doctrine of abrogation, Medinan verses take priority over Meccan ones. For example Q9:5 and Q9:29, both in the last chapter of the Quran to be revealed, call for virtually unlimited war against unbelievers. These have been regarded by some Muslim scholars as having abrogated more than a hundred earlier verses which commanded Muslims to deal peacefully with non-believers. Consequently, for most Muslim scholars down the centuries the 'Medinan face' of Islam overshadows the 'Meccan face.'" Muslims do not readily talk about this notion of abrogation. It is to the advantage of Islam and its spread in the West to be known as a religion of peace by quoting selective passages from the Quran which are no longer authoritative because they have been abrogated by passages mandating a hostile attitude to non-Muslims. The Declaration of Marrakesh was therefore not honest in representing Islamic thinking. It may have been well-intentioned but they were fooling themselves if they thought this would make any difference. The Declaration has been virtually ignored in the Muslim world. Al-Azhar University The Al-Azhar Mosque and University in Cairo. Furthermore, it is quite telling and decisive that Sunni Islam’s most prestigious center of learning, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, founded about 970 AD, refuses to condemn ISIS. This university expressed outrage at the burning of a Muslim Jordanian pilot by ISIS in early 2015, presumably because he was a Muslim, and even called for the crucifixion of the ISIS terrorists responsible, but it steadfastly refuses to say that ISIS is not Islamic. Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Sheikh and Grand Imam of Al Azhar, and thus Egypt’s top authority on Islam, said that he could not condemn ISIS. He would only do that if a Muslim rejected the fundamental principles of Islam such as the shahada – that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger – and Islamic Scriptures. As justification for ISIS tactics, Tayeb quoted the Quran 5:33: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah…will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.” In light of all this, it is not surprising that in a real sense ISIS is a by-product of Al Azhar’s programs. This is openly admitted. Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and a graduate of Al-Azhar University, when asked why the university does not condemn ISIS as un-Islamic, replied: “It can’t . The Islamic State is a by-product of Al-Azhar’s programs. So can Al-Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al-Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world . Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al-Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al-Azhar upholds the institution of jizya . Al-Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al-Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?” Other authoritative voices support these sentiments. For example, “Egyptian political writer Dr. Khalid al-Montaser revealed that Al-Azhar was encouraging enmity for non-Muslims, specifically Coptic Christians, and even inciting for their murder.” One needs to remember that Al-Azhar is a most renowned and authoritative institution which has a huge influence in the Muslim world. According to Wikipedia it oversees a national network of schools in Egypt with about two million students. In 1996 over 4,000 teaching institutions in Egypt were affiliated with this university. So why did so many scholars and many others continue to say that ISIS is not Islamic? Why do they continue to deceive the Western world while Muslims in the Middle East say ISIS is Islamic and indeed ISIS itself says it is Islamic and thus calls itself the Islamic State? It is possible that such scholars are following the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, a teaching held by all branches of Islam. According to this doctrine a Muslim can lie if that is advantageous to him or her or if lying promotes the cause of Islam.10 It makes sense for Muslims to keep propagating the idea that Islam is a religion of peace in order for it to find a more ready acceptance in the West. The integrity of these scholars must be questioned. It is better to listen to the most authoritative voice on Islam, the prestigious Al-Azhar University in Cairo. It rightly considers the Islamic State to be truly Islamic. A look at the evidence from the Quran and its application in ISIS makes that clear. The Islamic State and the Quran ISIS accepts the Quran as authoritative and thus understands it at face value according to the plain meaning of the text. This simple acceptance of the most holy text of Islam finds resonance and acceptance among the Muslim masses.11 Islamic with its beheadings ISIS has repeatedly cut off the heads of Westerners and others they consider their enemies. Not only did they behead, but they filmed and distributed the gruesome scenes on social media. Why? It is all justified from the Quran. “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” or “Smite at their necks” (47:4). This is in the context of battle for Allah. Furthermore, beheading was something Mohammed himself sanctioned. One example Andrew Bostom shares from 627 AD: “According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe….Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance.” ISIS is following the example of Mohammed. The filming of beheadings also fulfills the requirements of the Quran which states “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:6). Islamic as regards sex slaves Another atrocity committed by ISIS is their capturing non-Muslim women and using them as sex slaves. The Quran allows this practice. It says that in addition to having two to four wives, Muslim men may enjoy the “captives of the right hand.” “It is a decree of Allah for you” (4:3; 4:24). These women were taken as spoils of war (33:50) and were to be used specifically for sexual purposes. The Quran says that virtuous Muslims “abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess. For in their case they are free from blame” (23:5-6). It is no problem if the women they capture are already married. Islamic law directs that “when a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” ISIS does nothing new in capturing women to serve their sexual appetite. They say that they are simply reviving an institution justified under Sharia, that is, Islamic law. Indeed, the practice of female sex slaves is openly defended among Muslim scholars in the Middle East as being fully in accord with the Quran. If a single man cannot do without a woman, religious experts advise that he should purchase a sex slave. Then he will not sin. ISIS has sex slave markets where women from defeated infidels can be brought to be sold. This mind-set explains why Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group allied with ISIS, captured over 200 non-Muslim girls and pressed them into sex slavery. The going price of a slave was about $170. It is also not by chance that in many areas of the West where large numbers of young Muslim men now live, sex trafficking and rape have become major problems. Non-Muslim girls are considered fair game for those who wish to capture for Allah. Islamic in its punishments The horrific punishments that ISIS inflicts on those it captures and those caught “sinning” can also be defended as justified by the Quran which states: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (5:33-34). Accordingly in ISIS, blasphemy against Allah or Mohammed is punished by death. Murder accompanied with stealing means death and the crucifixion of the dead body. Stealing is punished by the amputation of the right hand and the left leg. Elsewhere, stealing is punished by amputation of the hands. “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah” (5:38). Adulterers are to be stoned to death, fornicators are to be given a hundred lashes and exile. Stoning for adultery is based on the hadith – the sayings of Mohammed. The stoning of an adulterer can be done on the basis of witness, or pregnancy, or confession. Homosexual behavior is to be punished by death according to another hadith. Other crimes deserving punishment within ISIS include drinking alcohol. According to a hadith, someone caught drinking such forbidden liquid is given 80 lashes. Slanderers also get 80 lashes. The Quran says: “And those who accuse honorable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers.” Those caught spying for unbelievers are to be put to death according to the Quran. And apostates too: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. but if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper” (4:89). As mentioned earlier, ISIS burned a Jordanian alive while locked up in a cage on February 3, 2015. Some Muslims have condemned this as un-Islamic and even forbidden. There is indeed an Islamic tradition, or hadith, which forbids it, saying that only God tortures with fire. However, as happens so often in Islam, there is a contradictory hadith that depicts Mohammed as saying that “those who don’t answer the call to prayer should be set on fire, along with their houses.” The burning of the pilot can even be justified from the Quran. It says: “and if you do punish , then punish with the equivalent of that with which you were harmed” (16:126). As ISIS explained in their on-line English language propaganda magazine: “In burning the crusader pilot alive and burying him under a pile of debris, the Islamic State carried out a just form of retaliation for his involvement in the crusader bombing campaign which continues to result in the killing of countless Muslims who, as a result of these air strikes, are burned alive and buried under mountains of debris.” This statement was followed by proof from the Quran and Islamic tradition. More generally, the Quran tells Muslims to kill all those who turn away from Islam (4:89). This would include all Muslims fighting with the Western powers against ISIS. There is no question that ISIS is brutal. However, the brutality of ISIS punishments is a true reflection of Mohammed’s own record of cruelty and many of the crimes punished with death in ISIS are also punished with death in Saudi Arabia. These include the death penalty for adultery, armed robbery, sorcery, heresy, spying, and for anyone who does not desist from his crime, and from whose evil civil society can be saved only by their death. Islamic in its tax on Christians In accordance with the Quran, ISIS also demands that Christians pay a special tax. It is the jizya tax. The Quran states that “the People of the Book” (which includes Jews and Christians) “pay the jizya with willing submission” until they “feel themselves subdued” (9:29). This tax is to be imposed on virtually all non-Muslim mature males who live in a Muslim majority country. In the Wikipedia entry on jizya it is described as: “a fee for protection provided by the Muslim ruler to non-Muslims, for the permission to practice a non-Muslim faith with some communal autonomy in a Muslim state, and as material proof of the non-Muslims’ submission to the Muslim state and its laws. Jizya has also been rationalized by some as a symbol of the humiliation of the non-Muslims in a Muslim state for not converting to Islam.” One needs to remember that this special tax within its historical context was basically one of three choices that non-Muslims can make. The other two choices were to convert to Islam or to be killed. There is one further way in which the IS is truly Islamic and firmly built on Islamic tradition – its view of the end times. Islamic regarding the End Times Unlike other terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, ISIS believes that the final day is near. References to the end times fill the propaganda of ISIS. As author William McCants shares in his book The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State: “It’s a big selling point with foreign fighters who want to travel to the lands where the final battles of the apocalypse will take place.” The civil wars raging in the Middle East give credibility to the prophecies. As McCants notes, “The Islamic State has stoked the apocalyptic fire. Its fighters died to capture the militarily unimportant town of Dabiq, Syria, because it’s mentioned in the prophecies.”12 The approaching final Day of Judgment means that the Middle East and Europe need to be and will be conquered for ISIS’s vision of Islam according to Islamic prophecies, found in the hadith, and not the Quran. Such thinking fuels enormous energy and enthusiasm, especially among the young. They are convinced that the day of victory is in sight. They also think that the Left in Europe will help them achieve their goals. This type of thinking drives young Jihadists from the comforts of the West to fight for ISIS and to carry out terrorist attacks in the West. Is the Islamic State a caliphate? Connected with the question whether ISIS is truly Islamic is the issue of the caliphate. Once a caliphate is proclaimed, many believe it is the duty of Muslims to flock to it and join it. As Robert Spencer writes: “The caliphate is an obligation, that is, Muslims should strive to establish a single multinational, multiethnic empire, to which alone they owe political loyalty. In other words they owe no loyalty to the nations in which they currently reside.”13 Young jihadists have answered the call and thousands from the Western world have flocked to ISIS. In the Islamic world, jihadists have come from the Sinai, Libya, Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Somalia. Although ISIS is surely Islamic, not much in the way of official endorsement has been forthcoming from Muslim countries or scholars. This lack of enthusiasm for ISIS is mainly for political reasons. The Muslim Brotherhood is a large international Muslim organization dedicated to the promotion and dominance of Islam in the world, with the use of terror as necessary. Yet, it is not recognizing ISIS simply because it also wants a caliphate, but one over which it has control.14 The Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions came clearly to the fore when it gained power in Egypt. It immediately pushed a rapid Islamization of Egypt which created serious public opposition. In the end the Muslim Brotherhood was thwarted by the army which rightly saw democracy disappearing under the Brotherhood’s agenda and so removed Mohamed Morsi from the presidency. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the head of Egypt’s armed forces became president. Saudi Arabia formed a 34 state coalition against the Islamic State in December 2015, and ISIS in turn declared war on Saudi Arabia. There is some irony in all of this since, as we have seen, Saudi Arabia is to a large extent responsible for the export of radical Islamic ideology. Since Saudi Arabia considers itself the leader of the Muslim world, it does not like to be upstaged by ISIS. Furthermore, since Saudi Arabia and ISIS have competing claims to leadership of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia is rightly concerned about ISIS terrorist activity in its own country. What ISIS would love to do is to take over the two most holy sites of Islam, both of which are in Saudi Arabia, namely, Mecca and Medina.15 When one realizes that the refusal to recognize the ISIS caliphate is mainly for political reasons and not because it is unfaithful to the Quran, the question arises whether a truly moderate Islam is possible. Is a moderate Islam Possible? There is a good deal of controversy about this point. On the one hand you can defend that a moderate Islam is possible. Historically, there has been a form of Islamic government that is not as cruel and barbaric as ISIS. One can think of medieval times when Jews fled persecution in Christian Europe by going to the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Turkey became home to Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from France in 1394 and from Sicily in the early 15th century. However, moderate Islam is difficult to find today. It is true that Islam has to sort out their problems with ISIS. No one outside Islam can do that. But, the question can rightly be asked, where is moderate Islam over against all the atrocities of ISIS? The silence from the Islamic community is deafening. Where is moderate Islam 14 years after 9/11? There are a handful of Islamic scholars that speak up and protest, but as Robert Spencer comments: “what they offer is a non-traditional Islam with no foundation in Islamic theology or history, and no significant backing among Muslims. There is no large-scale movement among moderate Muslims to combat the Islamic State, Boko Harmam, and other jihadists…. there is no moderate Muslim organization with a large membership or influence among Muslims.” When one looks at Islamic majority countries, the outlook is not very good. Turkey, although a member of NATO, is being Islamized. Its president, Erdoğan is succeeding in turning Turkey away from its secular past into an Islamic state. Christians are seen as second-class citizens and Christianity is on the verge of extinction. The Armenian genocide and the continued marginalization of Christians has left them with a mere 0.2% of the population. There are only 34 church buildings and no new church buildings are allowed.16 Nowhere in Muslim nations do Christians have the same rights and freedoms as Muslims have in the West. Some exceptions may exist in certain local or provincial situations where there is a larger Christian population, as in Indonesia. But these are the exceptions indeed. Wherever Islam has the majority, the world over, it is intolerant to Christianity. So, is a moderate Islam possible? Not really if they are true to their teachings. This reality should send a warning message to the West. One could say, “Well the Muslims I know are not like that. They are moderate and peaceful.” Two comments on this. First, most Muslims are nominal Muslims and most have probably never read the Quran which is difficult to understand. It does not interpret itself as the Bible does. It is also written in ancient Arabic, the preferred language for reading it. Many Muslims have a copy of the Quran in translation but few appear to have read it. Second, Muslims are now a minority, but once they have a high enough percentage in the population, trouble starts and demands for Sharia law are sounded. Basic to their ideology is the need to convert the world to Islam. The current friendly neighborhood Muslim may not be interested, but when the time comes the mosque may demand that he or she participate to increase the influence of Islam by whatever means the mosque deems necessary. That process is already starting in many parts of Europe. The Netherlands There are telltale signs that Islamic intolerance is now extending into the Western world. In the Netherlands, for example, open protests and marches to demand Islamic domination in Dutch society take place. The most obvious example of Islamic intolerance is the existence of so-called “no-go” zones where only Muslims are welcome. They are more and more prevalent in Europe. In such zones Sharia or Islamic law trumps the law of the land. Here are some facts about Islamic no-go zones in Europe. France The French government has acknowledged the existence of many no-go zones in their country. As Soeren Kern has reported: "In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, Banlieue de la République' (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming 'separate Islamic societies cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law. The report also showed how the problem is being exacerbated by radical Muslim preachers who are promoting the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in order to create a parallel Muslim society in France that is ruled by Sharia law." One needs to realize that this is over six years ago. The situation is much worse today. Here is a typical comment from Fabrice Balanche, a well-known French Islam scholar. He said: “You have territories in France . . . such as northern Marseille, where police will not step foot, where the authority of the state is completely absent, where mini Islamic states have been formed.” This is consistent with the ideology of ISIS and Islam. Modified Gareth Davies' photo, licensed under CC license BY 2.0. Great Britain Similar things are being said in Britain. The Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern writes: “A study by Oxford Professor David Coleman showed that if current immigration levels continue, white Britons will be a minority in little more than 50 years – within the lifespan of most young adults alive today. Coleman warned that this will be accompanied by a total change in national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious. He wrote: ‘The ethnic transformation implicit in current trends would be a major, unlooked-for, and irreversible change in British society, unprecedented for at least a millennium.’” There are already over a 100 Islamic enclaves in Britain. Here Sharia law would be the norm. Again, this is consistent with Islamic State ideals and the ideals of Islam generally. Islam needs to take over the world. However, political correctness means you must not talk about this. As a matter of fact when Donald Trump back in 2015 spoke of no-go zones in Britain and said: “We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that police are afraid for their own lives” a government sponsored petition was launched to ban him from entry to the UK. Police officers, however, retaliated with backing up Trump’s claims completely and letting them be published. Terrorist attacks in Britain this year underline Britain’s vulnerability. North America More examples from Europe could be given, but let’s move to North America. Although the mainstream politically correct media do not report or deny any danger of no-go zones in America, there are three urban areas that almost qualify as no-go zones: Dearborn, Michigan (Detroit), Paterson, New Jersey, and the Muslim quarter of Jersey City, New Jersey (just outside New York across the Hudson River). These are communities that do not want to integrate or assimilate. Robert Spencer, an expert on Islam told a news agency that there are no no-go zones in America right now, “but they’re coming as the Muslim population grows.... We already see areas such as Dearborn, Michigan: It isn’t a no-go zone – police don’t fear to enter there and non-Muslims aren’t menaced for non-adherence to Sharia norms – but police did the bidding of the Muslim community a couple of years ago and arrested some Christian missionaries solely for the crime of preaching to Muslims. A Sharia crime, not a crime according to any U.S. law.” Indeed, these evangelical Christians were attacked with rocks and bottles by a Muslim crowd for talking about their faith on public property during an annual Arab festival. In another report we read: “Hamtramck, Michigan now has a city council that is majority Muslim. The call to Muslim prayer is broadcast five times a day over the entire city, with the first blast launching at 6 am every day whether Christian residents are offended by it or not. Am I saying Hamtramck is a no-go zone? Of course not. Am I saying that if something isn't done, it will become one? If there is anything to learn from Europe, the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes.” Obviously all of this has a message for Canada as well. We need to be far more realistic about our multiculturalism and immigration policies. Those entering our country from Muslim countries should be asked whether they wish to integrate into Canadian society. If not, they should normally not be admitted. Canada as the host country has the right to maintain its historic Judeo-Christian identity.17 Conclusion ISIS has a close relationship to Islam. It has justified all its actions from the Quran and Islamic tradition. The top Islamic university in the world does not deny the Islamic character of ISIS or its right to exist. Those Muslims who do challenge its right to exist, do so for selfish or political reasons. ISIS is Islamic, whether our politically correct society wants to acknowledge it or not. Is there such a thing as a moderate Islam that can be more amenable to Western ways so that it can integrate into Western society? The bottom line seems to be that it is very difficult if not impossible for Muslims to be moderate if they are serious about their faith. The Islamic faith demands to be dominant and rule. It is part of their theology. The religious and the political go together. They cannot be separated. ISIS has illustrated that and the spreading of no-go zones in Europe and ISIS sponsored terrorist attacks confirm it. It is foolish to ignore this reality. Those modern Muslims who do not frequent the mosque and are Muslim in name only are not recognized as Muslim by the faithful and so they have very little or no influence. Even if ISIS were to be completely defeated in the Middle East it would probably continue to have a global impact and continue to plant terrorist cells in many nations as long as the funding is there. The jihadists are willing to fight and die for the cause. Western nations need to be vigilant. They must also ensure that those immigrating from Islamic majority countries are interested in integrating into Western society. It is of course also important to work with Muslim organizations that do wish to honor key Western values. One example of such an entity is the Muslim Canadian Congress which was established by Tarek Fatah, who writes critical commentary on Islamic matters for the Toronto Sun and opposes Sharia law. A problem is that those Muslims who are sympathetic to the ideals of ISIS will not recognize another Muslim or Muslim organization that does not follow their understanding of the dictates of the Quran. A huge obstacle to openly discussing the issues that radical Islam presents is political correctness. The challenges need to be discussed openly for the Islamic dream of a caliphate that ISIS embodied will not disappear. This dream has significant influence among Canada’s Muslims, especially the idealistic and fervent young. The only answer At the end of the day, the only real solution for Islam is the gospel. That is why it is important to support mission efforts to Islamic peoples at home and abroad. When an open-minded Muslim reads Scripture, the Spirit works and the Muslim is, so to speak, blown away. God is love! That is gospel, exciting good news, for those who only know of a distant and stern Allah. This concept of a loving God and Father is so important in reaching out to Muslims. When I was in northern (Muslim) Sudan some years ago, I visited the Muhaba Centre for boys aged 11-13. These are orphaned street boys who are given shelter, food and a Christian education. Within the Muslim context, the sign above the door made a deep impression on me: “God is Love.” There is forgiveness of sins! There is assurance of salvation for all who believe! All these concepts are foreign to a Muslim. When they understand them, they are overwhelmed. An example of that is Nabeel Qureshi who earnestly sought to be faithful to Islam and in the process was led to faith in Christ. He wrote a book about it, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (2014). The Lord gathers his church also from Muslim nations. Some of that activity has been described by David Garrison in his study, A Wind in the House of Islam (2014). The Middle East Reformed Fellowship also receives much positive feedback to the gospel in its broadcasts. While the dream of radical Islam will probably live on beyond ISIS, Christians have a future that is no mere dream, but a guaranteed reality. We have a Savior who rules in glory. He is sovereign. God the Father has given to him all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18). He gathers together his people, not with terrorist tactics, but with the Word of God, the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). And when the complete number of the elect has been gathered, he will return! As Christians we can rest assured that at the end of the day, Christ will triumph over all forces arrayed against him, including Islam. The victory will be his!  Endnotes 1. For the above paragraph, see Robert Spencer, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2015), 24–25; also see Karen Armstrong, “Wahhabism to ISIS: How Saudi Arabia Exported the Main Source of Global Terrorism,” The New Statesman, 27 November 2014. 2. Spencer, The Complete Guide, 26. 3. Armstrong, “Wahhabism to ISIS”. 4. See Armstrong, “Wahhabism to ISIS”, and on lying, Cornelis Van Dam, “Islam and Deception,” Clarion65 (2016): 10. 5. Armstrong, “Wahhabism to ISIS”. 6. Spencer, The Complete Guide, 167. 7. See all the references in Spencer, The Complete Guide, 167. 8. By Spencer, The Complete Guide, 244–50. 9. Also see William McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2015), 78. 10. Van Dam, “Islam and Deception.” 11. For most of what follows in this section, see Spencer, The Complete Guide, 226–50. It is noteworthy that the “caliph” of ISIS, Al-Baghdadi, has a Ph.D. in Quranic studies. McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse, 74–76, 150. 12. McCants, The ISIS Apocalypse, 147. 13. Spencer, The Complete Guide, 249. 14. Spencer, The Complete Guide, 249–50. 15. See, e.g., Al-Rasheed, “Saudi Arabia Forced to Rethink”; Prasanta Kumar Pradhan, “The Kingdom and the Caliphate: Saudi Arabia’s Approach Towards the Islamic State,”, 2 February 2015. 16. See Cornelis Van Dam, “Turkish Christianity Imperilled,” Clarion64 (2015): 336 and Can Erimtan, “The End of ‘Secular Turkey’ or Ottomans Re-Emergent?”, 13 January 2015. 17. See, e.g., Cornelis Van Dam, The Multicultural Challenge: A Christian View (Ottawa: ARPA Canada, 2012), and Cornelis Van Dam, “Interreligious Relations and the Challenge of Multiculturalism: Some Biblical Principles,” in Interreligious Relations: Biblical Perspectives, ed. Hallvard Hagelia and Markus Zehnder (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2017), 31–50. Dr. Van Dam is the author of “God and Government,” “The Elder,” and “The Deacon,” and is Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary...

Adult non-fiction, Book excerpts, Politics

The Bible and Pluralism

Pluralism is the belief that people of different cultures and beliefs can live together in harmony. But when their different values inevitably clash how do these differences get resolved? In this excerpt from Dr. Van Dam's “God and Government” he outlines a specifically Christian form of pluralism that allows for believers and unbelievers to live in peace together, because it recognizes that God and his law are supreme. ***** When God gathered his chosen people, his demands were clear. They had to be completely dedicated to his service. However, God recognized that within his kingdom of Israel, there was not only his holy nation, the church, but, as noted earlier, there were also others who did not really belong to the assembly of God’s people. They nevertheless lived within the kingdom of God on earth as established in Israel. To these people the Lord showed great forbearance. They were not forced to become worshippers of the God of Israel nor did God give any command to that effect to Israel’s rulers. However, they were expected to obey the prohibitive commands of God’s moral law. They could not, for example, indulge in sexual sin (Lev. 18:24–30), blaspheme God’s name (Lev 24:15) or sacrifice their children to the false god Molech. (Lev. 20:2). The people in whose midst they lived, as well as the land, was holy and they had to respect that. Indeed, God had expressly commanded that all the idolatrous nations living in Canaan had to be wiped out for the land was to be holy (Deut. 7; cf. Ps. 78:54; Zec. 2:12). There was, however, no such command for territories outside Canaan that were later conquered to be under Israel’s rule. It is noteworthy that after David defeated Moab, the Aramaean kingdoms of Hadadezer (Damascus and Maacah), Edom, and the Ammonites, there is no hint anywhere in Scripture that he worked to remove all idolatry and false worship. Also no special attempt was made to compel these people to become worshippers of the true God. Since David’s office as a godly king over these gentile peoples roughly parallels the office of government today, this tolerance points to a principle that can apply to government today. Tolerance of false religion Indeed, state tolerance of false religion is not in disagreement with Scripture. God is long-suffering and patient. “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). He allows the good grain as well as the weeds to grow together, until the time of harvest. Then God himself will separate the two in the final Day of Judgment (Matt. 13:36–43). Government can tolerate what the church cannot endure. Each has its own office and calling. In a modern pluralistic society, the following words of Christ are relevant: “do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt. 7:12). If one asks freedom of worship for oneself, then it should also be granted to others. As head of the church, Christ tolerates no ungodliness and sin. The church on earth must act accordingly. As head and ruler of his kingdom Christ is patient and bears with the weakness of the sinful human heart. His servants, the civil governments, must do likewise even as they are obligated to seek true righteousness and justice for the country entrusted to their rule. State is not the Church Besides the principle of toleration, there is the related principle of the civil authority being distinct from the religious authority in Israel. Even though church and state were very closely related, they were not identical. Each had its own jurisdiction. This has important implications. Even in Israel, which was a theocracy, there were clear limitations to what the king as civil ruler could do. Although the theocratic king had priestly and prophetic aspects to his office, he nevertheless remained in the first place the civil ruler in charge of the judicial and political affairs of the nation. Although the priests were vital in the theocracy, Israel as a theo cracy was not a priest state as found in other ancient near Eastern countries such as Egypt. Priestly authority was limited to all things related to the administration of the sacrificial service of reconciliation, including instruction in the ways of the Lord. And so there were clear distinctions. Religious matters were in the province of the priests and the civil ones were the responsibility of the king. Accordingly, in the time of King Jehoshaphat the civil courts were organized specifically along the lines of religious and civil matters (2 Chron. 19:11; cf. 1 Chron. 26:30, 32). We need to value the biblical principle that is involved here. Scripture gives no justification for a modern theocratic state such as we find in some Islamic jurisdictions. The Bible indicates that there is to be a clear separation of what we today call church and state, or spiritual authorit y and civil authority. Christ’s teaching affirmed this when he said “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36). Such thinking is completely contrary to, for example, the Muslim idea of a jihad or holy war that is necessary to establish their kingdom in the here and now. All of this underlines the fact that the state is not given the duty to force people to love God and to worship him. The state is permitted to tolerate things that the church cannot tolerate. There is, however, more to this larger issue. Rule of Law Another important principle in considering the relation of church and state is the rule of law. The Davidic king was not to be autocratic and self-seeking, thinking himself to be more worthy than those around him. He was God’s representative in the theocracy, sitting on God’s throne (1 Chron. 29:23) and therefore a servant of God who needed to submit to God’s law. The Lord even stipulated that when the king assumed the throne of the kingdom then he “is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left” (Deut. 17:18–20). In this way God’s will would be done for his chosen nation in his kingdom. With all the plurality that may have existed in Israelite society, above it all was the law of God. It needed to be heeded for the well-being of the people. Israel’s rulers were not the only ones who were accountable to God. Pagan ones were as well. For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar that God had put him in power (Dan. 2:37–38) and so God warned the monarch through Daniel that unless he acknowledged God’s supreme place and repented of his sins in ruling, he would be driven from the throne to live with the wild animals (Dan. 4:24–27). There was accountability that had to be acknowledged. Today, rulers are to be servants of God in the first place and as such also have an obligation to heed the abiding principles of God’s Word for the good of society. Thus, when government makes decisions pertaining to morals and issues on which the Word of God gives clear direction, it should not set itself above the norms which God has revealed. It is the duty of government to restrain sin and evil (Prov. 14:33; Rom. 13:4). How does the calling of the church factor into this obligation of the government? Church is not the State Clearly the task of the church is to preach the gospel and administer the reconciliation that God offers to humankind. The church’s “job description” was given by the risen Christ prior to his ascension when he said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:18–20). The church is to proclaim the glad tidings of salvation and gather God’s people together. The state must give the church the freedom and opportunity to do its calling of spreading the gospel. That gospel includes the proclamation of Christ’s kingship, a message the state must hear from the church or its members so that it understands its servant role. The church’s task with respect to the state is not to make official pronouncements about the political issues of the day and to get involved in crafting government policy. The church as an institution has neither the charge nor expertise to do so. It is also not the task of the church to try to rule over the government (the Roman Catholic ideal). The state has its own God-given responsibilities. However, the church does have the duty to train and equip its members so that they can function meaningfully in today’s secular society as citizens of Christ’s kingdom and so influence also politics. Scripture is certainly relevant for the affairs of the state, but it is not the calling of the church as a corporate body to interfere in the political process and attempt to apply the biblical principles to the government agenda. That is the responsibility of Christians in all walks of life, also those involved in politics. All of this does not mean that the church should always remain silent. There can be unusual circumstances when the church needs to speak up by means of the pulpit or otherwise in order to protect its God-given mission to preach the gospel and condemn sin where sin needs to be condemned. There can also be occasions when the government invites input from interested parties on new legislation which is of great interest to the church. Churches should then participate and make a case for the application of biblical principles on the issues of the day. In summary, the church’s duty is to preach and safeguard the gospel and seek the spiritual well-being of its members. The resources and gifts of the church should focus on these central concerns. With respect to its task over against the government, the church must also lead the way in instructing its members to be good citizens and to be obedient to those in authority over them. Furthermore, the church is called to pray for those who rule over them (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Such prayer includes the petition that the state may continue to protect the freedom and ministry of the church so that the gospel can continue to be proclaimed. When that proclamation is blessed, it will eventually have a salutary effect on society and government. In our current age of secularization, it is easy for the people of God to grow weary in seeking the best for those who rule over them. But, one must realize that there are usually no quick fixes to the dilemmas of evil and sin in society and often incremental change is all that is possible. But the church need never become despondent. It has every reason to be encouraged for an important truth is that God is supreme ruler over everything already. In a broad sense his kingdom encompasses the entire universe. The battle against evil has been won (Col. 1:13–20; 2:15). One day God’s kingdom will arrive in full perfection when all will recognize him as Lord and Master. This excerpt is reprinted here with permission. To get a copy of “God and Government” email [email protected] for information (the suggested donation is $10). Or you can get a Kindle version at or

Adult non-fiction, Book excerpts, Politics

What is Principled Pluralism?

Our country is made up of many people and many faiths. How can the government best resolve the clash of values that will inevitably result? Can the government operate from some sort of "neutral" perspective that doesn't elevate one group's beliefs over another's?  In this excerpt from Dr. Van Dam's “God and Government” he explains that such neutrality isn't possible, and isn't desirable. But harmony between believer and unbeliever can be had, under a "Principled Pluralism" that recognizes God as supreme. ***** "Principled pluralism" recognizes the pluralism of contemporary society but contends that biblical norms need to be recognized and applied in order for government and society to function according to God’s will. When this is done, society benefits for God established the norms for humans to live together peacefully and for the benefit of each other. Principled pluralism has the following distinctive basic principles. 1) No neutral “non-religious” ground    There is no morally neutral ground. All of life is religious in nature and both Christians and non-Christians have religious presuppositions which they bring into the public square. Also secularism and the denial of God’s relevance for public life is a religious system. It is, therefore, impossible to restrict religion to the private personal sphere of home and church and to insist that the public square is without religious convictions. Principled pluralism opposes a secularized public square which bans religious voices and practices except its own. Christians have the obligation to influence the public discourse in a biblical direction. Principles derived from Scripture need to be part of the debate in the public square so that arguments can be made for a public policy according to the overriding norms of God’s Word. 2) All know God’s law Although God’s special revelation in the Bible is normative for all of life, God has revealed enough of his eternal power and divine nature in creation and in the nature of things to render all people without excuse. He has written his law in their conscience (Rom 1:18–21; 2:14–15). In this way God has a claim on all creation, including the civil authorities. Before his throne they are without excuse if they suppress the truth and refuse to see the light of God’s gracious demands and promote sin (Rom 1:18–19). 3) Government’s role is to maintain justice and righteousness The civil government is God’s servant to maintain justice and righteousness (Rom 13:1–5). To understand this mandate properly, one must realize that God gave each person an office or offices in life, be it as a parent, a church member, a plumber, a husband, or whatever. If a government is to maintain justice, it must see to it that these offices can be exercised. Or as Gordon J. Spykman put it: “The state should safeguard the freedom, rights, and responsibilities of citizens in the exercise of their offices within their various life-spheres according to their respective religious convictions. The government is obliged to respect, safeguard, preserve or, where lost, to restore, and to promote the free and responsible exercise of these other societal offices. That is what God commands the state to do to fulfill the biblical idea of public justice.” 4) Government’s authority is limited Principled pluralism affirms that a government’s authority is limited because God has ordered society in such a way that different structures make up the whole. These structures, such as civil government, the family, church, and the market place, each have their own sphere of authority which should not be transgressed by another societal structure or sphere. Government has the duty to recognize this diverse reality and to promote the well being of the different spheres of authority found within society by safeguarding their existence and ensuring their continued health. 5) Government doesn’t oversee the Church Principled pluralism also recognizes that civil government does not have the authority to decide what constitutes true religion. For that reason, government cannot favor one religion over another or enforce, for example, the religion of secularism in society. Within certain limits, such as the need to restrain evil, all religions must be treated alike and be given the same freedom and opportunities. This excerpt is reprinted here with permission. To get a copy of “God and Government” email [email protected] for information (the suggested donation is $10). Or you can get a Kindle version at or