To be Muslim, there are 2 major requirements in terms of belief.

1/ Believe in the ONE-ness of God
2/ Believe Mohammad is His final messenger.

Christians have no problem with the idea of the ONE-ness of God, as clearly revealed in the Old Testament. We also do not argue with God, when he says at the Baptism of Jesus "Behold my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"

Nor do we argue with God at the Transfiguration when He uses the same words, but adds "Listen to Him"..... It is noteworthy that from that moment, Jesus BEGAN to teach them about His impending death and resurrection.

Christians are faced with a huge problem with seeking to understand the nature of God. We know the Old Testament, and we also know that God revealed HimSELF in Christ, and proclaimed Jesus as 'My Son'.
"Show us the Father then we will be satisfied" asked Thomas. "Have I been with you so long and yet you do not know ME" replied Jesus.

It is unthinkable, that given the fulfillment of the New Covenant of Grace in Christ, (Jeremiah 31:31) that anyone could come along afterwards and claim any kind of divine authority.

This applies to anyone making such claims.
-Mohammad bin Abdullah (Founder of Islam)
-Gautama Buddha (preceeded Jesus historically)
-Hindu Gods
-Confucious
-Jim Jones (Jonestown coolaid)
-Divine Light Mission (Eastern mysticism)
-Mormons
-Jehovah's witnesses
-Scientologists
-Any Pope.

We can live under pagan emperor, (and watch the grace of God reach into the emperors own family) or we can live under a Christian king.
But we can never agree or accept that there is any Saviour, other than Christ, for all time.

Jesus said "If I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself" (John 12.32)
The question is... will they come?
He stands knocking at the door of our hearts, we only need open it by faith and repentance.
He won't break down the door.

The oneness of God is not understood by many persons calling themselves Christian so promote a Roman spatial view of Trinity. Why? Because they view God as literal persons so according to them there are three persons. Persons have space and individual identity. However God has one identity - God - the eternal purity of character and is spirit. He is not A spirit among many spirits. He is manifest in humanity by his character, actions, creation, wisdom, grace etc. None of these have physical image by itself; but all are manifest in the humanity of Jesus. The spirit of God wants to be manifest in every human life. We were made to bear his image and likness. We ought to recognise the revelation of God primarily in human character, actions, creativity, motivations, and wisdom

What I find intriguing is the response of the Episcopalian Church of the USA (ECUSA). I would have thought that a priest who embraces a religion that explicitly denies core Christian beliefs can no longer continue in his or her ministry. The core beliefs to which I refer are:

--Jesus is (present tense) the son of God

--Jesus is God incarnate.

--Jesus died on the cross for our sins

--Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.

All four are explicitly denied by Islam.

Given ECUSA's response to Redding's embrace of Islam I can only infer that at least one of the following is true:

--ECUSA does not regard the above as core beliefs.

--The ECUSA leadership does not care whether their priests accept their core beliefs.

If the first I have to ask what is the ECUSA definition of what it means to be a Christian.

In ECUSA terms could a Christian engage in Jihad? Could the Rev Redding kill an apostate as mandated by Sharia law? Could she go after Salman Rushdie for example?

I have asked the Anglican Diocese here in Melbourne, Australia, to comment. If and when I get a reply I shall post it here.

Definition of a Christian?

One who attempts to follow the teachings of Christ and who believes that Christ is God.

Simple as that.

>>One who attempts to follow the teachings of Christ and who believes that Christ is God.>>

You understand Is Mise that Muslims specifically reject the divinity of Jesus?

Redding herself appears to be, as one Episcopalian put it, a few slices short of a full loaf. But the reactions of her Bishop, and the ECUSA leadership, generally is astonishing.

Here is a link to a page on the ECUSA (Ecumenical Church of the USA) website that purports to spell out the official ECUSA position on the essentials of Christianity.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/visitors_16966_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=43796

Redding has embraced a faith that rejects almost all the tenets ECUSA says it regards as essential and that espouses what ECUSA says are heresies. Yet she continues to be an Episcopalian priest in good standing.

Even by the standards of Christian churches this is loopy.

Steven,

You said
"Jesus is (present tense) the son of God
Jesus is God incarnate.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day
All four are explicitly denied by Islam"

That's not exactly correct:
Point 1 and 2 are correct.
Point 3: Islamic scripture have a position (he may have been on the cross, google few articles by Ahmed Deedat).
Point 4, we have no position on it whether he was resurrected or not.
Resurrection according to Islam happened to many prophets (including Ozeir) and for us have no theological meaning or implication.

Peace,