The Bible tells us that Satan rules this world’s system. It is fallen, in darkness and under his jurisdiction. Yet, as believers, we are to be a light and carry the message of truth in a world filled with falsehood. This is especially important to understand when it comes to the different cultures in the world that hold to various religious/spiritual beliefs. on the surface some of them contain a few similarities, but when more closely examined they are not similar at all. Whatever is not in agreement with the Word of God is not truth, and is to be rejected for our spiritual living. This would include the idea of “inclusive evangelism.”

In our day there are many new alternatives for evangelism. People are experimenting with “new” ways to get the message of Jesus to those who have never heard. There is nothing wrong with being flexible in how a message can be communicated to a people group that has never heard about Jesus Christ or the gospel. As good intentioned as some may be, we must be careful to stay within biblical parameters. Sincerity and good objectives are not enough to justify some of these new methods. What we are seeing is the same idea Aaron used with the golden calf encapsulated in the new evangelism model; to call someone a Christian. Using the least amount of truth from the Bible, they diminish the Gospel and present it using their own cultural setting. This has become an extremely problematic missiology that is being promoted by the New Apostolic Reformation, YWAM and other missionary organizations, and it is getting much worse.

Here’s the scenario—Moses was up on the mountain for weeks and no one heard from him or from God. Under pressure from the people Moses’ helper, Aaron, made an idol in the shape of one of the gods from Egypt, a calf. He then assigned the golden calf the title of being Israels deliverer, the God (elohim) that freed and led the Israelites out of Egypt.

They made a feast day the next day and sacrificed to it. They celebrated, dancing and rejoicing around this visible representation of their God, attributing to him all that was done thus far. This idol, that was not God, was accepted as God for the sake of the people. The Lord’s response- they have corrupted themselves.

The application: we can call something God, when it is in fact, not. We find this being done today with what is called an inclusive evangelism, referring to national gods as the true God only with different names.

I recently heard a series of programs with Daniel Kikawa being interviewed by Danny Lehmann director of YWAM in Hawaii (who is on YWAM's governing board) on KLHT the local Christian radio station. What I heard was extremely disturbing, problematic and some of it was rank heresy. The message was clear— tell people they can keep their supreme god’s name, in their culture, and add Jesus into the equation.

I cannot let this go without it being addressed. It cannot be ignored because it is of the utmost importance that we have answers for what is being said. What does the Bible actually say on these matters that Daniel Kikawa presents as facts? I see this new way of evangelism as an attack on the very nature of God, opposing His revelation to man by the Bible. Those who are not educated on this subject matter or familiar with history will not be able to easily discern the errors presented. If you are not grounded in the Scripture you can be misled by this type of rhetoric. Before we go to the radio interview we need to learn some of the beliefs in Kikawa’s teachings.

Daniel Kikawa runs a ministry called Aloha ke Akua. He has written a book called Perpetuated in Righteousness—the Journey of the Hawaiian people from Eden to the present time.

This is a portion of their MISSION STATEMENT:

While I agree that God does love people, the Bible says something very different than what Kikawa has concluded. God was not involved in all the nations cultures, especially when they worshipped other 'false gods. 'All one needs to do is look at what these gods required in worship and how these cultures lived to know how hopeless these people were as they groped to please their gods though their religions. God was not involved in forming any culture except for one— the nation of Israel.

The meaning of this could be left up to ones interpretation if it wasn’t for Kikawa’s interpretative teaching in his book Perpetuated in Righteousness.  He makes it clear what he means by this statement:

This is the basis for his evangelism—telling people their God[s] (of their nation, culture or tribe) had a son and that their God’s son (of their nation) is Jesus Christ. As we will see, this does far more damage than good because it misrepresents the God of the Scripture. What they perceived as God in their own culture is not the same God presented in the Bible. Are the names of OTHER gods to be treated as a legacy or be abandoned for the True One? Kikawa writes:

This is just one of many serious errors in his philosophy and it becomes the foundation for his new way to evangelize. To say God is directly responsible for the formation of the people of the world’s cultures and customs is complete nonsense. Did God give them these ways to worship other gods?

This is one of the proofs for Kikawa's teaching that God was involved in giving customs and traditions to the cultures of the world. He makes this point in his DVD video, “God's Fingerprints in Japan”. Paul tells the Greeks in Acts 17:26-27)

Paul is referring to Deut .32:8-9:

From the time of Noah and his sons, in the days of Peleg, whose name means division (Gen. 10:25) God gave the nations their place (land) and ordained how far each should reach—east, west, north and south. He put boundaries in relation to the Jews he placed among them by whom He brought salvation by. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God gave  the nations their customs, traditions or beliefs as He did to Israel. The Bible is very clear on this matter:

Jacob is a synonym of Israel (the 12 tribes). In other words, no other nation was given a revelation of God like Israel. This record becomes our Old Testament and is completed in the New Testament.

Here is what the Bible says about the origin of ancient cultures and nations:

Genesis 10:20 mentions the sons of Ham and also Shem.

Do we find anything in the Old Testament like Kikawa asserts? Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God, “left many treasures and worthy traditions within their culture,” as if He himself put them in those cultures. Kikawa has no proof that God “has been a part of their history and culture from the beginning”—NONE whatsoever within the Scripture.

When the flood occurred in Noah’s day there was no one left (no culture or nation) obeying God but ONLY Noah’s family. God said: “I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation” (Gen. 7:1). After the flood the people in rebellion united and built the tower of Babel (Ziggurat), not for the worship of God, but the host of heaven. God intentionally scattered these people over the face of the earth where they themselves created nations (Gen. 11:6-9).

Abraham (2120 -1950 BC.) was removed at God’s request from the pagan land he was in. Why? God found no nation, no people group, worshipping Him correctly. They were in darkness. So He took Abraham and formed a people, Israel, to whom He personally gave His commandments and instructions. When we come to the time of Moses, God gave Israel the land of Canaan he had promised to Abraham, and it says in Exodus 34:24: “For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders.” If God was so involved in forming these nations, putting treasures in them (as Kikawa insinuates) he certainly would not have had to destroy them.

In Deut. 7:1-2 the Lord names seven greater nations that the Isrealites were surrounded by: the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, “and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them” (also Deut 31:3; Deut 20:16-20).

Why would the Lord tell Israel to do this if they had redeeming traditions the Lord had put into them or if they were worshipping Him? The reason is: “For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods” (Deut 7:4). OTHER Gods were involved, not the creator God. In fact He made it clear to Israel (who is the ONLY nation He formed) in Lev. 18:24:

He warned Israel not to adopt other cultures ways to worship or to live.

Deut. 18:9-14: “you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations.” Jer. 10:2: “Thus says the LORD: "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles”

I will show how serious this is and how the nation Israel is our example in being separate as well as dealing with the idolatry in the nations. God did not tell Israel, nor did He EVER tell the church, to redeem cultures but, rather, people.

John Dawson, the current president of YWAM, is on the board of Daniel Kikawa's organization, Aloha Ke Akua, and fully endorses his mythology presented in his book “Perpetuated in Righteousness.” Because of this acceptance, Kikawa was able to teach his false history of Hawaii to YWAM bases in Hawaii and elsewhere. John Dawson of YWAM said this in approval of Kikawa’s book:

At the end of Kikawa's video, Fingerprints, John Dawson gives a glowing endorsement of what Kikawa is teaching. On the back cover of the DVD Dawson's endorsement states:

I thought the Bible gave us the Gospel as the key to evangelize the nations! Not according to the president of YWAM (which Lehmann is in agreement with)

Posted on Aloha ke Akua website John Dawson further comments:

Even Loren Cunningham, Founder of YWAM chimed in:

This is outrageous! For YWAM to accept this is not only negligent but inexcusable. It shows the lack of education in their own organization. It also illustrates that they adopt new trends without ever verifying the veracity of the sources.

There are many so-called evangelists advancing a synthetic gospel, which consists of an inclusive message. Kikawa has now expanded his concept of ‘Io of the Hawaiian people being the true God (as the same God of Israel). Now he applies it to the cultures/nations of the world.  This shows me how far removed he is from a Biblical worldview. This gospel formula of inclusivism has no limits and can be made to fit anyone or anything. It turns into a customized Universalist view of nations.

In this series of interviews by Danny Lehmann on the 'Word to the world program' he interviews Daniel Kikawa.

Acts 17 tells us while Paul was in Athens he saw that the city was given over to idols.

This is why they took him to the Areopagus, for him to explain this new doctrine (Acts 17:19-20) of another God. What God was Paul going to tell them about? One they did not know, not one they did! He told them about the God of Israel, the true Creator.

It is apparent, by what they said, that he was telling them about a foreign god, one they did not know. Paul WAS referring to Scripture in his sermon on Mars Hill. He used Bible based teachings to explain to those who knew nothing about the true God. Did he quote chapter and verse? No, but it was Biblically based. (He also used their own poet’s words against them).

Lehmann’s comments about Paul using the Greek word for God theos is inconsequential. Because Paul was speaking to them in Greek (the Bible was also written in Greek). Of course he used the word for God in their language. What he did NOT use was a Greek god’s name. Theos is general word for god, the god they did not know- the God of the Hebrews.

Paul wasn’t going to bring in the Hebrew God to them? Exactly what God would he be bringing to them? Why not the God of the Hebrews? Because their position is that the culture’s own national god’s names are acceptable as the same god. Again, this was not any of the Greek’s gods; he was an UNKNOWN god to them.

In fact Paul says in Acts 17:23-24  “I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth” and in v.31makes it clear whom this God is.  He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

So apparently Lehman and Kikawa want us to believe all the nations gods were the creator. Israel's God is now among the nations gods. That is a clever switch. Jehovah (YHWH) is not Allah. They are different in nature no matter what name one uses for them. What is insulting is to propose for us not tell Muslims that Allah is NOT Jehovah. He has no problem with Muslims continuing to use Allah, the same name they have always used for their god. Muslims believe their god Allah is the creator, the almighty, and there is no other. They borrow concepts from the Bible to prove this and will, when it is to their advantage, claim that Allah is the God of the Bible. When they take this position they are not agreeing with us but saying that we are wrong about God, that we have a corrupted belief system. Not everyone has the same definition of the words God, Jesus, revelation, inspiration, or the events and history surrounding these subjects. The “Allah” of Islam is certainly not the God found in the Bible because of the immense differences. We know this God who Mohammed had a revelation of hates Israel. This is not about just a name but about the one who is the name. The God (Allah) of Islam is not called Father and does not have a Son because this one god is not triune in nature. Neither is Isa (Jesus) the same Jesus of the Bible but is only a name the Muslims have assigned him as a prophet. Their Isa (Jesus) is not God’s Son who died on the cross for our sins, therefore Allah cannot be equivalent to or used as the name of our God. The Arabic word Allah literally means “The God.” If one asks a Muslim about Allah being equal to the other names of God (of the nations) as Kikawa is proposing, they would get a unanimous “NO”.

How can anyone say the name Allah is the same God as YHWH? We are not just using names, the name identifies who is behind the name. One has to be without knowledge on this subject or be dishonest to present them as the same God. However, Muslims know their god is different than the Christian's. How come these men don’t?

Here is the point- are they (the gods of the nations) all true Gods with different names? To say all of these are no more than the names of God in different languages is to intentionally not look at the god behind the name. There are distinctions in these gods. The true God says all others are false gods. If you do not make the distinctions of who the names represent, you will end up believing that all religions are essentially about the same God. This is what Bahai’s and Rosicrucian’s teach. That is what Universalism is about. This is no small issue and it takes time to answer what is being presented.

I would like to see historical proof of this claim, that Arab Christians used the name Allah before Mohammed. The first Arabic Bible came AFTER Mohammed. An Arabic version of the Hebrew Bible was made in the tenth century by Saadia ha Gaon, the New Testament came after. Even if a few people applied the name Allah to the God of the Bible. Usage of the name does mean it is correct or that we must accept it.

Historians tell us that “al-ilah” was originally a generic title for whatever god was considered the highest god among certain ancient Arabs. “Al-ilah” is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning “god.” The Hebrew word el and elohim is also used for both the true God and false gods. This is why in the Hebrew God is called Yahweh Elohim, to distinguish Him from other elohim (false gods). In the New Testament it is made clear that God is to be called Father who sent his Son from heaven, again relating to the Hebrew revelation.

Interviewer Danny Lehmann: “You can go to any Encyclopedia and find, well no, Allah is the moon god and therefore it shouldn’t be used, but I would tend to disagree with that but because Theos was not exactly a holy God either and neither is Gott in Germany, Vued in Sweden, or Hananim in Korean” (Word to the World interview with Daniel Kikawa Feb.7, 2006, #2). [emp. Mine]

If this is true then we have a huge problem. Because if “theos” (as well as these other generic names that are used for God) is not meant  to be the holy God then how could he be the true God that Paul is using theos for! Lehmann is then contradicting what both he and Kikawa are trying to prove in his interview. The whole premise is about redeeming these nation’s names of gods “by the closest also known as that is in that culture to our Jehovah.” This contradiction becomes more apparent as one reads the quotes. Here are a few already cited: Kikawa on Acts 17 to the Greeks: “I’m talking about your God… I’m going to tell you about this God.” Danny Lehmann: Paul using the, “Greek word for God theos and he says I’m going to declare to you about that God,” meaning their own god, not the Hebrew one.