As you might know, the use of “Allah” by Christians when referring to the god of the Bible is a controversial issue in missiology.  Some argue that ”Allah” is simply the generic Arabic word for god and as such, it can be used by Christians.  On the other hand, others argue that the word “Allah” is too closely tied to Islam, and using it leads to doctrinal confusion.

There are many issues to consider:

1. Can the word “Allah” be separated from Islam?
2. What do you do if you are in an Arabic-speaking context and there is no other word for God?
3. What word have Arabic-speaking Christians used for God through the centuries?
4. How would using “Allah” for the god of the Bible confuse a Muslim, a new believer, etc?
5. How would the issue be different in a Muslim context as opposed to a non-Muslim context?
6. How would the issue be different in an Arabic-speaking context as opposed to a non-Arabic speaking context?
7. How would this issue affect Bible translation? Translation of Christian materials? Evangelistic materials?
8. How would using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?
9. How would not using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?

These questions are by no means exhaustive, but they do show how the issue is more complex than many make it out to be.  No matter where you stand on this issue, the reality is that a new believer needs to be taught about the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.  If the new believer was a Muslim then he must be taught the difference between the god of the Bible and the god of the Qur’an.  Similarly, if the new believer was an atheist then he must be taught the difference between what the Bible says God is like versus what he has heard about God from those around him.  This is true for all believers.  We should continually check to see how our view of God lines up with God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures.  As A.W. Tozer once wrote, “What comes into our minds when we think of God is the most important thing about us.” (The Knowledge of the Holy, Chapter 1) 

I also agree that much of our language about God must be in metaphor since God is completely above and beyond us. We must use figures of speech, yet this does not mean that the differences between religions are simply linguistic differences. For example, monotheistic religions believe that God created the universe and is distinct from it. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no creator God because the universe has always existed. God is either identical to the universe or he does not even exist. These differences cannot be explained away by appealing to semantics.

Moreover, Mason, as religious pluralists must do, must reject the idea that God has objectively revealed himself. If God has not revealed himself to humanity then all differences between religions can be attributed to people holding false ideas (i.e they made it up or just got it wrong).

However, if God has revealed himself and has taught truth about himself and creation then we no longer are at liberty to say that all religions lead to God unless he has said so. If God has revealed himself, what he has said about the way to him is very important. For example, according to Islam, Allah teaches that the way to heaven is earned by following the 5 Pillars or by becoming a martyr. In contrast, according to the New Testament the way to heaven cannot be earned but is received by trusting in Jesus Christ’s death for one’s sins. Moreover, in the Qur’an, Allah says that he has no offspring (i.e Jesus is not the Son of God) and that the worst sin one can do is adding anything to Allah (i.e Trinity). In the Qur’an, Allah condemns Christian doctrine. On the other hand, when Jesus was on earth he said that he was the only way to heaven; thus, he excluded all other paths to God. Repentance of sins and trust in him are the only ways to heaven. The Qur’an and Jesus cannot both be right. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right since they clearly contradict each other.

Ignoring these differences is an affront to both religious traditions. The main problem with those who hold to religious pluralism is that they do not take any religion seriously and they somehow think that they can stand above all religious traditions from the past and present and say to them “You are all pretty much the same. You are simply different paths to the same God.” They accuse religious exclusivists of being arrogant simply for believing what their sacred texts say while they see themselves as humble when they place themselves above all religious traditions and declare them all equally valid.