Dave Hunt's solution

Post by **_JJR** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:54 am

Dave Hunt spoke at my church this morning. His topic was Radical Islam. I have learned to be wary of what Hunt says because it always seems that he misrepresents the group that he is attacking (Ex. Catholics, Preterists, Rick Warren) to make his point, and this lack of honesty hurts his credibility. I think he is an intelligent individual, but it is disappointing that he often has to misrepresent others to make his points.

I wanted to ask your opinions on something he said this morning. His thesis seemed to be that there is no such thing as radical Islam, because all radical Muslims are simply acting in obedience to the Quran. But he really piqued my curiousity with his following assessment as to how to deal with the problems that Islam poses: Since countries with an Islamic government do not allow for Christianity, "we" should respond by giving them four months to either change this policy or we will start to close down all the mosques in "our" country. After all, if we can't have churches in their country, why should they have mosques in our country? (I am paraphrasing here, but correctly stating his point). The response was a hearty applause, to which I stood stunned. Particularly because Hunt had earlier made the point of saying that "Jesus established the concept of separation of church and state." Christ's command to "Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceaser's" was the prooftext he provided.

Here are my questions:

1) Does anyone feel that Christ's command to "Render unto Ceaser the things which are Ceasar's" is meant to establish separation of church and state?

2) What are your opinions as to the solution Hunt provided?

Personally, while I have no problem with the concept of separation of church and state, I don't see this command from Christ as teaching it. I certainly don't see anything in Christ's teachings that advocate Christian nation-states, but wouldn't use this passage as my proof-text for separation of church and state.

I think the solution Hunt offered is incredible in light of his statement about Christ establishing separation of church and state. Furthermore, is there any possible evangelistic utility in outlawing other religions in America? Finally, I find it amazing that anyone would suggest that our country become exclusivistic and intolerant of other religions in light of our 1st amendment. While it is clear that most of the founders of the United States were deeply religious (and predominantly Protestant), if they wanted this country to be a solely Protestant/Christian country, they certainly didn't leave that impression clearly in our founding documents.

While I am no defender of radical Islam, I believe that this solution was very illogical, and I am curious as to your feedbacks.

Post by **_Allyn** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:50 am

Hi JJR,

I am so fed up with radical christianity that it gives me a headache. I know exactly where you are coming from and the misuse and in most cases the un-use of scriptures of well known christian men to make their point. I am on your side on this and I simply know that Christ is not about forced conversion but a heart totally changed over to him because our need for Him.

Jesus and all the disciples and prophets proved that remaining faithful to God can be done in any type of society the world has thrown at us. It may be unto death but it is still possible to live for Christ anywhere. Since we all die, why the worry of the hows and whens? Maybe people like Dave Hunt should concern themselves more with the great commision and let God worry about the legistics. MHO

Post by **_TK** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:07 am

why do i have a feeling that if evangelical christians started pushing for other religions to be outlawed in america, then evangelical christianity would be the first to go?

everything the guy says sounds ludicrous to me, applause or not.

Post by **_JC** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:17 pm

Modern Christian leaders should be more careful when they make statements like that. Muslims want to kill us because we are infidels. True. But Jesus addressed this by saying we are to love our enemies. This means we act in a loving way toward them and, as Paul said, instruct others with gentleness and patience. If they don't heed our instruction then God is their judge, not us.

The solution to radical Islam is prayer and consistent love in the life of all Christians. The apostles all delt with violent pagans and never once stood up and said, "The solution, brothers, is to enter the political realm and outlaw the worship of false gods!" Paul said, "What have I to do with those outside the church. I will judge those inside the church."

Post by **_Allyn** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:19 pm

I cannot AMEN your posts enough JC and TK

Post by **_JJR** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:22 am

Thank you all for your comments. It was really amazing not just to hear the comments from Hunt, but the response from the congregation. It astonishes me that so many individuals are not willing to think critically about things they hear, especially when they come from the pulpit. Furthermore, I fail to see why it is so essential to teach on the "threat Islam poses to our country." Have we already exhausted all we can learn from the teachings of Christ so that we can now just bring in the experts to give us political diatribes? Perhaps I am a little oversensitive, but the whole study just seemed so contrary to the example Christ gave us concerning evangelism. It is my prayer that the Church, and myself, will strive to once again become disciples of Christ, rather than crusaders against Islam...after all, hasn't history confirmed what we should already know as to which of the two is the more effective evangelistic approach?

Post by **_Allyn** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 6:50 am

I was wondering JJR, have you spoken to anyone at your church concerning this and what was their reaction?

Post by **_Micah** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:56 pm

I would be curious how your congregation would respond to the following passage:

Matthew 5:

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

This seems to completely contradict Hunt's response and the verse about Caesar was in response to giving taxes and not about revenge tactics.

Post by **_JJR** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:31 pm

I've actually only spoken to 1 person about Hunt's comments. Many people consider me to be a little controversial for ever questioning anything that is said from the pulpit at my church. I've been given weird looks in the past for the mere suggestion of a different position than that of my church on such topics as alcohol consumption, eschatology, etc. So I just don't say much very often these days. However, many brothers will sometimes inquire as to my thoughts on a subject, and I enjoy having an edifying discussion with them, because I don't intend/cause any controversy. Nothing Hunt says really surprises me at this point, what really shocked me is the round of applause which followed his statement. Hunt is obviously seen as a hired gun available to clear the air on "controversial" subjects. By controversy, this means anything relevant to current news headlines or otherwise any doctrine that contradicts a pet doctrine of our church. Thanks for all your comments.