Useful Idiot for Islamism? Or Adorning the Gospel of Christ? A Response to James Simpson &

So welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. The Dividing Line is a ministry of Alpha and Omega Ministries. Why would I be explaining these things? Well, we are doing this program specifically to provide an opportunity for me to address the allegations that have been made against this ministry, and myself in particular, in regards to dialogues that took place earlier this year in Memphis, Tennessee, between myself and Dr. Yasir Qadhi.

Now, I have addressed many of these things over the course of the past month, but tomorrow on the Janet Mefford Show, an interview is going to air with the author, James Simpson, of an article that appeared on American Thinker called, When Evangelicals Become Useful Idiots for Islamism.

And this was a hit piece that was written about me. Now, why would I describe it as a hit piece? Well, I think there are certain standards of journalistic behavior that should be observed by everyone, and even more so by people who call themselves Christians.

And this particular article was written by an individual who has admitted in public that he read none of my books that would be relevant to the topic, did not observe any of literally thousands of hours of debates that I have done with Muslims around the world, and did not take the time to listen to the rebuttals that I offered to one of the primary witnesses that he cited against me, a man by the name of Brandon House.

In other words, and let's add the most important one in, he didn't contact me. It's very easy to do. Many people contact the ministry, but he just simply didn't bother doing so. So if you refer to someone who has been involved in apologetic ministry for 34 years, has written more than 20 books, engaged in more than 150 moderated public debates around the world, and you refer to that person as a useful idiot for Islamism, but you don't even contact the person or do any meaningful research into their position so as to accurately represent them, at least when I was growing up, that wasn't called journalism, and that's why I think it is appropriate to describe this as a hit piece.

And so Janet Mefford is going to be airing an interview with Mr. Simpson on her national program tomorrow, which would be July 13th of 2017. And what that means is an entire new audience of people unaware of all the material that we've produced in the past, unaware of the refutations of these assertions, people that are just going to hear one side of the story are going to be looking up our website, and we just don't want people to have to piece together something from over here and over here and look this up.

We want to just simply probably title this particular program, you know, put some type of description in it that will make it easy for people to see that this would be sort of a one-stop shop to be able to get a response to what is being alleged by these individuals.

And so that's what we want to deal with today. We will do a regular dividing line hopefully later on in the week. We'll figure out when that will be a possibility. So obviously I'm also not doing this in our regular studio.

I am currently out of town and will be till next week. It's not, you know, these types of controversies do not take vacations. They do not allow themselves to be, you know, fit right within a nice easy schedule.

So I am doing this via Skype. It's not as nice as what we would be able to do with anything else. I can't see the channel, so sending things to me on my channel won't do it good. So with that said, I would like to talk a little bit about what was said specifically in Mr. Simpson's article in American Thinker.

And by the way, I requested from American Thinker the opportunity of responding to this hit piece. It would seem to me that when you put out an article referring to someone as a useful idiot for Islamism, in fact when you describe someone who has debated more often in mosques than any other living Christian in the world right now as a useful idiot for Islamism, that American Thinker, just simply out of simple honesty, having some level of editorial integrity, would allow a response.

They did not. We asked and they refused to be able to do that. I guess I'll just have to minimize this thing here. There actually told the editor from American Thinker actually said, I've just never heard of anybody doing anything like that.

And I'm like, I certainly have. It is lengthy and long and honored journalistic practice to allow give and take and to allow response. I think of how often, for example, in the history of textual criticism, the field that I'm working in right now, there would be extensive letters published in newspapers in England going back and forth on really what would seem to be arcane issues.

The idea of not allowing a person whose entire work and ministry has been lampooned by someone without having done any meaningful homework in regards to their history and their works and so on and so forth.

Any meaningful outlet would have allowed that up until this modern day, evidently. Just point out that that's the type of thing that we're dealing with here and that American Thinker simply found it unthinkable.

That's an odd way of putting it, but American Thinker found it unthinkable that you would allow a response to a hit piece against someone, especially when I provided to them Mr. Simpson's own admission.

No, I didn't read any of your books. No, I didn't watch any of your debates. No, I didn't look at your refutation of Brand House. Why? Because you're wrong. So that was even provided to them, and yet they're still like, no, never heard of anybody doing that.

We're not going to let you do that. So this is the situation we face today and hence have to go to other venues and sources for being able to provide a correction for the falsehoods that are being put out there.

This happens on the right and the left today. This is on the right doing it. People on the left do it. It just seems to be the situation we face today. In the article on American Thinker, which was posted on June 24th of 2017, he said, James White is a well-known conservative Christian evangelist who has been seduced by the siren call of the interfaith dialogue, and interfaith dialogue for some odd reason is capitalized, and has partnered with a Muslim imam, Dr. Yasir Qadhi, to scare quotes, educate, scare quotes closed, Americans on the Muslim religion.

White finds their budding relationship, quote, refreshing, end quote, and expounds on how much he has learned about Islam from his newfound friend. He calls Qadhi his, quote, mentor, end quote, on aspects of Islam.

He bristles at those who suggest he is being used, and instead has gone on offense, engaging his allies among Christian conservatives to attack his critics. And just as the never-Trumpers, I think we went, what, maybe three, four sentences before the politics came in, and just as the never-Trumpers have created a war within the GOP and assisted in democratic efforts to make our nation ungovernable by vilifying and hobbling President Trump, so Christians like this have created new fissures in the church that will not advance the Christian message, but rather further dilute and weaken it by allowing clever, articulate Muslims to explain why Islam is the ultimate religion.

So there is the introduction, and I just want to just point out just the many wildly erroneous things that Mr. Simpson places in this paragraph, and then it only gets worse from that point onward, things that would have been easily corrected if he had simply done the most basic due diligence of actually having contacted me, or of even having viewed if he had even viewed some of the debates that we've done since the Yasser Qadhi dialogues, so much of this would have been avoided.

These falsehoods being repeated over and over and over again, and what I really hope to hear on the program tomorrow is Mr. Simpson saying, I'm very sorry. I violated every standard of journalistic integrity with this.

I didn't do due diligence. I've now discovered that to accuse James White of these things was truly absurd, and hopefully there will be a full repentance on his part, an apology offer. That would be what would be needed, but I don't get the feeling that's actually what's going to be taking place in light of how American thinker as a whole has functioned.

Let's start off by reviewing these statements. It says that I have been seduced by the siren call of the interfaith dialogue. Let's talk about this capitalized interfaith dialogue. Unfortunately, no definition is given, and in this, what we're calling the season of slander, which is what really has been going on over the past about month and a half now, during this period of time, this phrase has been utilized over and over and over again.

I suppose any time two people from different faiths talk, I guess that's an interfaith dialogue, and given that I've done more debates with Muslims than any other group now, just barely, but have done more debates with Muslims than any other group, I guess those were all interfaith dialogues of some type, I guess.

The reason the terminology is being used, of course, is because we know about the ecumenical movement, and we know about interfaith dialogues in that sense, and that is where you have people getting together, and especially amongst liberal individuals, they don't really have a strong faith commitment.

They certainly don't believe that what they are saying and what they are teaching is objectively true for all people. It might be subjectively true for themselves, but it's not objectively true for everyone else, and so we are familiar with these quote-unquote interfaith dialogues, where you have compromising positions being adopted.

Well, you know, maybe there's something to that, or maybe there's something to that, and we've even heard of people trying to create something like Chrislam, a mixture of Christianity and Islam, and it is purposeful on the part of these critics to use phrases like this.

The problem is, any honest individual who views the dialogues is well aware that both Dr. Kadhi and I reject anything like that. We don't believe that's appropriate, we don't believe that's possible. It is utterly impossible to wed Christianity and Islam.

We specifically, repeatedly, almost excessively stated the fact that we do not compromise our beliefs. We fully recognize that the other one wants our conversion, we want their conversion. This was specifically intended to demonstrate that individuals can completely disagree with what the other person is saying, and still do so without coming to blows, without expressing disrespect, hatred, prejudice, bigotry, violence, etc., etc., and that in fact this particular subject of the claims of Islam, the claims of Christianity, should be addressed in the most respectful way.

If it's addressed in any other way, you are in essence showing disrespect to what you say you believe about God, and I as a Christian, Jesus Christ, the Gospel, the Cross. Putting myself in there, allowing for anger, vitriol, things like that, this is showing great disrespect for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And so the reality is, while it was an interfaith dialogue, it was a very unique interfaith dialogue, because it specifically eschewed, rejected, abhorred any idea of compromise, any idea of we can all just get along, not worry about our differences, no, we need to discuss our differences.

But we also need to understand what those differences are in a faithful and accurate fashion. And this has been one of the things that has truly concerned me, is that so many Christians have reacted to this by saying, well, you don't need to learn anything from a Muslim imam.

And of course, we will see here, talking about this idea of Dr. Khadi as my mentor, the idea amongst many Christians is, a Christian should never learn anything from someone who isn't a Christian. And of course, if you just stop for a moment, lay aside the emotions, that is absurd as the day is long.

I have been taught in my life by many people who were not Christians. I have learned many things from people who were not Christians. And if you have not, then you are very, very strange. Do you really honestly want to try to assert that every teacher you've ever had, you knew that was a true Christian?

And if anyone tries to start lecturing you about something, you'd, excuse me, are you a Christian? Not? Then shut up. Do you really do that? No, of course not. And when it comes to discovering the truths about other religions, I've even had Christians saying, we shouldn't do that.

Well, so much for being able to debate and dialogue and give a reason for the hope that's within you in a way that's understandable. It's very clear that the New Testament writers did not take that perspective.

The apostle Paul could quote from pagan philosophers, do you think he learned that from a Christian or even a Jewish person? Probably not. And so I've discovered an incredible amount of backwards thinking amongst many Christians in regards to this idea.

The reality is that this interfaith dialogue that we had, this discussion that we had was specifically meant to allow for an accurate statement of what both sides believe. So that, not so that Dr. Khadi and I could debate the issues.

That's what I normally do. I've done debates with Muslims in mosques since that particular encounter. You can go find these debates online. No compromising, direct presentations of the gospel. But in a debate, the argument is taking place right there between the two individuals.

In this situation, our desire was to expand the conversation to a much wider audience. The first night of the dialogue took place at a church. This was a weeknight. This was a ticketed event. Everybody who came knew exactly what they were coming to see.

This was not a church service. There was not an imam asking to preach in a church service. Yes, it was in a church as a church building, but it was not a church service. The church did not meet. There was no worship being offered.

There was no reading the word. There was no hymns. The ordinances were not being practiced. None of those things. Everybody who has said, well, this is a church service, and you ask an imam in to preach at church service, that's just simply a falsehood.

It's just simply untrue. It's been very discouraging to me to see how many Christians, even when faced with the facts, just continue to stubbornly go, well, nope, nope, that was church service. Nope. It just simply isn't true.

And so the first night was at a church. It was a ticketed event. There was security present and things like that. The next night was at the Memphis Islamic Center, where Yasir Qadhi is the imam. Again, this was not a regular type service.

It wasn't a service. There weren't any—the khutbah was not given, etc., etc. This was during the—I think it was a Monday and Tuesday night, as I recall, if I recall correctly. And so in the first instance in the church building, Dr. Qadhi did more speaking than I did, because I was basically asking questions.

Dr. Qadhi specifically stated that he was not interested in doing debates, that he would be at a disadvantage, that while he is a Muslim scholar, Christianity is not a field of his study. Since Islam is a field of my study, along with the Bible, the history of the Bible, the transmission of the Bible, church history, Christian theology, etc., etc., then I would be at a great advantage in that I have studied the Quran, but then I can also give a defense to the Christian faith, and he has not studied the Christian scriptures, so as to be able to give a criticism.

And so this was specifically meant not to be a debate, and that means that there are going to be times when the other person says things that you don't immediately contradict, and this has caused so many people so many problems.

But once again, the purpose was to move the conversation away from just having two people do it up front to where we model how the conversation can take place, and then that encourages other people to engage in this.

Because folks, if you're tuning in as a Christian, the reality is that there is very little meaningful outreach being done, very little meaningful impact amongst the Muslim community in the United States.

And part of the reason is the reaction that has come from this. There's been almost no negative reaction on the Islamic side for a Christian minister having been in a mosque explaining the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the necessity of the death of Christ, any of that.

There's been almost no negative reaction to that at all. The negative reaction has all been from Christians, and that's shameful. I'll just be honest, it's just absolutely shameful. But that's the reality.

And we need to have believing Christians reaching out to the Muslim people in the United States, not by seeking to antagonize them and to offend them. The Gospel is offense enough. Instead, just as in missionary contexts in the rest of the world, Christians who are willing to invest themselves in the lives of others, learn what other people believe, and respect what other people believe, approach them in a manner that demonstrates you believe that they're made in the image of God, that they are a person of worth, that you care for them, and to accurately understand what someone believes is to demonstrate that you care for them.

Those people that are saying, I just can't believe that you would ever learn from a Muslim imam, how in the world can you show any kind of care or concern for someone when you have that kind of an attitude?

Put the shoe on the other foot. How often do we accurately criticize Islam in other countries for misrepresenting Christianity, because many Muslim imams show no interest whatsoever in understanding what Christians actually believe?

Now we automatically go, that's wrong, you should listen to what Christians believe, and then turn around and hypocritically say, but we won't do that. No, you simply can't do that. To follow him who is the truth, you have to be consistent.

And so, not for a second do I apologize for engaging in a conversation with Yasir Qadhi that encouraged both Christians and Muslims to talk to one another, because you see, I have confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are many Christians that seemingly do not have confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they think that Christians should be protected from hearing what a Muslim thinks. The reality is, I think if you listen very carefully to the dialogues, you'll hear Dr. Qadhi saying, we're very much like the Jews.

There's this issue of doing what's right before God, and the judgment, and works, and things like that. If as a Christian, you aren't ready and desirous of pointing out the supremacy of the Gospel in that context, if you can't trust the Spirit of God is going to bring conviction to someone's heart that it doesn't matter what works they have done, then you don't have much confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I would highly recommend to you that you watch the debate that we did at the Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, in 2013. And it was on the subject of the Gospel, and I specifically, very strongly said to the Muslims that were gathered there, in that mosque, in the very place of, I was standing where the imam leads the prayers, all your good works and all your good deeds will never bring you peace with God.

We need a mediator. We need a perfect righteousness. God's standard is too high. Listen to the entirety of that debate, and you will hear that clearly presented. I have not changed my perspective in one little bit, but I have great confidence that if Christians who know the Gospel engage in conversation with Muslims who know their faith, and they've been given enough information to communicate with one another, that's what we want.

Isn't that what we want? It's shocking. There's so many Christians like, oh, we don't want this to happen. This is scary. No, this is called actually doing evangelism, and it's a beautiful thing. It's a wonderful thing.

So, to say I've been seduced by the siren call of the interfaith dialogue is to misrepresent the situation. First of all, I've known Dr. Khadi for years, tried to get him to do a book with me, and this is not a quote-unquote interfaith dialogue of compromise, which is, of course, the idea that is being communicated here.

So, that's falsehood number one, a whole complex of falsehoods, and has partnered with a Muslim imam, Dr. Yasir Khadi, to educate Americans on the Muslim religion. Where did we say that? What we were seeking to do was if you're going to put it that way, why not turn around and say, and to educate American Muslims on the Christian religion?

It's almost like the second night didn't happen. It's almost like my going into the mosque just didn't happen. Many of my critics had not actually bothered to watch these, whether he did or not, I don't know.

He didn't read my books. He didn't watch my debates. He didn't watch my rebuttals. But I didn't ask him, did you actually watch the debates, these dialogues themselves? But many of the critics have not done that.

They have not actually done so. It's like the second night didn't even happen. If Mr. Simpson claims to be a Christian, and he quotes from the Bible later on, so I guess he claims to be some kind of a Christian, why not say something in here about, well, you know, we do need to note, however, that Dr. Cotty asked Dr. White to explain the doctrine of the Trinity to the Muslims, and he was given free reign to do so.

He was asked, why did Jesus have to die? And he was given free reign to do so. He was allowed to explain the doctrine of justification, the relationship of faith and works in the Christian faith. Why wasn't there any mention of this?

But because that doesn't fit the interfaith dialogue meme scene. And so I have yet to see an even semi-fair recounting of the reality of the dialogues. Of course, you know, I'm just simply thankful they're out there, and so anyone with honesty can go take a look at them and go, wow, how come all these critics are ignoring 98 .8 of what actually took place?

Why not talk about, wow, the attitude that people had and the subjects that were gotten into, and there's a lot of important stuff that was discussed, and yet it was done in a respectful way. Wow, the world could really use a lot more of this.

Instead, we have this wild-eyed, screaming, look out, run for the hills, it's the interfaith dialogue jihad taking place, or ecumenism and all the rest of this stuff. And it truly is an astounding thing to see.

But it was not a matter of educating Americans on the Muslim religion. It was having a believing, and of course, the first five minutes, I laid all this out. And that five minutes has been repeated over and over again, even by the critics, even though it's almost like they're blinded, so they can't hear what's actually being said.

This is a believing Christian and a believing Muslim in dialogue about what they believe, about the things that they actually do have in common, and the things that they don't, and clarifying those issues so that when we do have conversation, we're focused upon the real issues and not misrepresenting one another.

And this is nothing new for me. I have been doing this, this ministry has existed for more than 34 years. And every single religious group we have ever dealt with, we have strongly encouraged Christian believers to be very careful in accurately representing what the other side believes and says.

This is the only way to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, who said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. It's the only way to be able to consistently then demand from the other side, you need to accurately represent what I'm saying.

If I'm going to say, hey, I need to define my belief, then I have to give you the right to define your belief. We've been doing this for nearly three and a half decades now. And so why has it become controversial?

I think it's the political situation of the day. You'll notice, Mr. Simpson couldn't get more than halfway through this paragraph before bringing in politics. And the vast majority of the response to this theological dialogue has been by people who have a political agenda that determines how they see the gospel.

I eschew that, abhor that, reject that, and condemn that, and always have. The gospel must determine how you view politics, not the other way around. And anytime the gospel becomes something that is used to political ends, whether by the left or the right, this is an abuse of the gospel, and it is to be abhorred by any follower of Jesus Christ.

I hope I'm being very clear about that. Since I'm being accused of being squishy and ecumenical, the reality is I'm very clear about what I believe. Very clear indeed, which again would have been known to Mr. Simpson by doing even a very minimal amount of research, which he did not do.

We continue on. White finds their budding relationship. A relationship began in 2007. And the odd thing about this is that that was mentioned in the second half of the dialogues, which again is why a lot of people go, did you really listen very carefully?

Or were you under time pressure to get these things turned in by a certain publishing date or something like that? I understand those pressures, but it can cause problems. White finds their budding relationship refreshing.

Yes, it is refreshing actually to have the conversation I had with Yasir Qadhi after conversations I've had with people like Nader Ahmed. But you didn't look at the Nader Ahmed debate, so you wouldn't know what that relationship would be.

You wouldn't understand why that would be. But yes, it's refreshing to be able to speak with someone without verbal barbs and constant misrepresentation and everything else. Yes, that is refreshing. Mr. Simpson, maybe Mr. Simpson just doesn't have conversations with Muslims like this.

I sort of doubt he's ever done street preaching in Leicester Square in London like I have and spent hours talking to Muslims there. Maybe I have some experiences that he doesn't have that might have impacted how he viewed these things.

But please note something. This is a gentleman bringing specific charges against an elder in a Christian congregation, against a Christian theologian. And so if I push back by pointing out that the individual hasn't done their homework, I think I have appropriate grounds for doing that, especially in light of the fact that obviously budding relationship, using the scare quotes around refreshing, there is a concept being communicated here in a rather sarcastic fashion.

And the problem is it's coming from Mr. Simpson's own ignorance and his own lack of experience in these areas. And if Mr. Simpson hadn't chosen to slander me and not do his homework, then I would never have been pointing these things out.

But he has. And so there we go. Refreshing and expounds on how much he has learned about Islam from his newfound friend. Well, never said newfound friend. It really makes you wonder how accurately Mr. Simpson even listens to the debates because we specifically talked about how long this conversation has been going on, gave the dates.

Newfound friend, 10 years. Okay. Doesn't sound very accurate to me, Mr. Simpson, once again. But I did very specifically talk about how much I learned about Islam from him. But of course, he's not the only person.

Because again, if you had done homework, if Mr. Simpson had done any homework, then he would know that there are other individuals within Islam who have different perspectives than Yasir Qadhi, from whom I have learned as well.

For example, I've spent hours listening to Hamza Yusuf, a very well-known Muslim scholar here in the United States. I've listened to entire classes he's done, and he did this entire series on the life of Muhammad, and I've listened to all of these things.

The reality is it would be really neat if people on both sides had mentors on both sides, which would mean that they would actually understand what the issues are, so we could actually focus upon what's really important, rather than constantly going around and having to deal with misrepresentation after misrepresentation after misrepresentation.

It seems that for many people today, the idea is keep the criticisms of Islam as simplistic as possible. Whether they actually represent what well-read Muslims, intelligent Muslims who really know their faith, whether that represents what they really believe, doesn't matter.

Just keep it as simplistic as possible. Well, if that's what you're looking for, if you want to call anyone who wants to actually communicate the gospel to a much wider audience and to people who really do believe what they believe, if you want to call them useful idiots, go for it.

But if you're a Christian, you will answer for that someday before the Lord Jesus Christ, because it's untruthful, and we are called to be truthful people. So you're free to do it. I can't stop you. But if you're going to do that, just realize that someday you will answer for it.

You won't answer to me. You'll answer to a higher power, one that I think you need to consider. He calls Qadi his mentor on aspects of Islam. I may have used that terminology. We gave specific instances in listening to his lectures, 16-CD series called Light and Guidance, lectures on shirk specifically.

That was the first thing that I had before we had actually communicated. I had found his lectures on shirk, which I found to be very useful, very helpful in understanding the different kinds of shirk, and then his lectures on Hadith sciences and how a Hadith is identified as whether it's Sahih or Hassan or the various rules and regulations that go into that particular study of Hadith.

The vast majority of Christians do not invest any time in reading the Hadith as I have or trying to be able to classify them properly to understand these issues, but that's because the vast majority of Christians aren't involved in doing specific Islamic ministry in mosques around the world or in other contexts around the world, which is what we do.

And so it's simply a part of needing to understand and be able to accurately represent what I believe and what they believe. We think that's important. If you don't think that's important, then we're obviously not going to be of much assistance to you.

He bristles at those who suggest he is being used, and instead—I'll stop there. He bristles at those who suggest he's being used. When I asked Mr. Simpson, did you listen to my refutations of He said, no, I don't have to.

You're wrong. Who's bristling? You can make the accusation that I'm being used, but if you don't do your homework and your facts are all messed up and you don't even accurately represent what took place, who's doing the bristling?

And instead has gone on offense, engaging his allies among Christian conservatives to attack his critics. So this is almost humorous. This is called projection, and this came directly from Brannon House, I assure you.

Anyone who, for a moment, will just step back and go to Brannon House's Facebook page and see how almost everything is about me, me, me, how he's done programs and television programs, and he'll be interviewing people on completely different topics, and bring me up in the midst of the issue.

You want to know who's on the attack? You want to see who's on the attack? Oh my goodness. And the idea that I'm coordinating some attack on his critics is just absolutely, abjectly false and absurd on its face.

I have been very busy with other things. I'm in the middle of a written debate on textual critical issues right now. I have work to be doing on a PhD in textual criticism. We have, I'm going to Johannesburg, Durban, London.

I just got back from teaching in Wittenberg, and Czech Republic, and Kiev, and London. And I'm sorry, but this idea that I'm somehow the puppet master organizing attacks upon my critics is laughably absurd, laughably absurd.

And for Mr. Simpson to repeat this kind of falsehood and not document it is just further evidence of how bad a hit piece this really was. And again, just how beyond any kind of journalistic sensibility, this is that he did not contact me.

Because I could have corrected all these things, but it doesn't seem like he wanted correction. That's why I call it a hit piece. And just as the never-Trumpers have created a war within the GOP. So I stopped right there.

I fully understand that the subject of Islam has political ramifications. But I sit here before you, and I just so deeply and strongly want to communicate the reality that for believing Christian people, the gospel has to be the central principle.

And when you begin to formulate your view of the gospel in light of political realities around you, you probably are no longer holding to the gospel itself. And one thing that has truly concerned me, deeply concerned me, in what I have been observing is a tendency on the part of people who call themselves evangelicals, to have a view of the gospel that is primarily determined by political realities within Western culture today.

Let me remind you of something. The gospel was true before the United States was founded. And the gospel was true before there was such a thing as meaningful Western culture. Now we can argue and talk about the importance of the gospel's impact upon the framing of Western culture and the freedoms that we have and all those things.

But the reality is, if God chose to bring Western culture to an end, and God can do that, God has the right to do that. Western culture right now is in full-scale rebellion against God. We have nations, including this nation, that not only has spit in God's face in regards to marriage, sexuality, life, someone really going to try to argue from a biblical perspective that God could not justly bring an end to any nation that murders its unborn children?

Any nation that profanes his institution of marriage? Are you really going to look me in the eye and hold a Bible up and say, oh no, God could never do that? Because he's done it over and over and over again, repeatedly.

Even the Bible documents that. And then church history after the Bible shows how many great nations once stood that stand no longer, that have fallen under God's wrath. And so the gospel has to be the central organizing principle.

It has to be through which we view everything else, never our politics. Our politics have to be seen through the lens of the gospel, first and foremost. And so when I look at reaching out to the Muslim people, I see the political element, and I see it as a barrier to the gospel.

I have no interest in arguing politics with anybody until I first communicate to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. And then I still don't have any interest in it, I'll be perfectly honest with you. But the first and foremost thing is I must speak to this person.

I am under the obligation, the commandment of Jesus Christ to do so. And so to start off with numerous false statements that could have been corrected if he had just bothered to do his homework, and then immediately jump into some defense of President Trump and some criticism of the left just shows me what the operative principle in this situation really is, and what the motivation here is.

It's not the gospel. That's why there's nothing in here about, wow, it's really, really great that Dr. White got to actually explain the gospel necessity of the atonement and the justice of God in the atoning sacrifice, because we know that Muslims really have a problem with this.

Well, I don't know that Mr. Simpson does know that. He starts talking about these things later on, but why not mention how clearly these things were addressed in the dialogues themselves? I don't know, but it does seem that this is the motivation.

So he goes on to say, but you seem to understand, the idea is useful idiots for Islamism. What he's saying is, well, here's like a conservative republic that's being used as a useful idiot to help the left.

That's the idea here. And assisted in Democrat efforts to make our nation and government by vilifying and hobbling President Trump. So Christians like this have created new fissures in the church that will not advance the Christian message.