May
16
2012
Piper Responds to the Insider Movement
Editors' Note: Christians didn't discover the need for missions in the Muslim world on September 11, 2001. The Middle East is the homeland of our faith, too, the site of many great acts of God's miraculous redemption. Long before the Twin Towers fell in Manhattan that clear fall day, Christians debated why the church has struggled to gain a hearing for the gospel where the call once sounded freely. Yet in the last decade, debate has intensified as we agonized over the depth of many Muslims' hostility toward Christianity. Missionaries and academics have wondered aloud whether the problem extends beyond Western politics, military intervention, and spiritual bondage to the very way we present the gospel. Could our methods be to blame? Could more sophisticated contextualization unlock many more hearts for Christ?
These are the questions we asked experienced pastors and missionaries to answer this week. Whether you're planning to take the gospel overseas yourself or supporting those who do, we hope these articles will help you make wise, informed decisions about this great missionary challenge of our generation.
Previously:
- Leading Muslims to Jesus: Questions to Consider by L. D. Waterman
- How Islamic Can Christianity Be? by J. T. Smith
- How to Share the Gospel with Muslims by J. T. Smith
- Questions and Biblical Guidelines for Missionaries among Muslim Peoples by Erik Hyatt
**********
One way or another, every church leader who supports missions among Muslims needs to answer this question with regard to contextualization: how far is too far? Missions agencies advocate different approaches, and missionaries often develop new theories and methods in the field, so many churches have studied the issue and developed their own guidelines for strategy and support.
John Piper depends on many experienced missionaries and pastors at Bethlehem Baptist Church who help him discern the related issues: whether new followers of Jesus Christ can stay in the mosque, continue to call themselves Muslims, refer to Jesus as the "Son of God," and so on. In this interview, he tells me what he appreciates about the impulse behind the Insider Movement and why Westerners struggle to understand the consequences of belief among Muslim-background believers.
Piper also raises an important problem with the Insider Movement not always appreciated by its proponents: the staunch opposition of many Muslim-background believers who have sacrificed so much to follow Christ and reach their friends, family, and neighbors with the gospel.
46 Comments
[...] (HT) Share this:TwitterFacebook Categories: Islam, Missions | Leave a comment [...]
I appreciate John Piper's input concerning this controversial subject.
I really appreciate John Piper coming out on this subject. It is controversial, but vital for anyone who is in Missions, Sends Missionaries, and is involved in anyway whatsoever in Missions to learn about.
An excellent resource is the Online Biblical Journal: http://biblicalmissiology.org
It should be noted that the vast majority of Christians from a Muslim background are strongly opposed to the Insider Movement. It is a methodology generally pushed by Western Mission Organizations, in particular Frontiers, training programs like TOAG, Common Ground, and Jesus in the Quran, Camel Method, and trainers, Carl Medearis. This should make churches very careful with whom they send their missionaries that they are responsible for in shepherding and guarding their souls.
Wycliffe Bible Translators are also involved in the translation aspect making Muslim-friendly translations of the Bible that remove/replace 'Father' and 'Son' from the Bible. There is a petition asking Wycliffe to cease this practice with evidences showing what they are doing. It can be found here: http://www.change.org/petitions/lost-in-translation-keep-father-son-in-the-bible
Rev. Piper says all (MBBs) he met in 2010 at Lausanne Congress in Capetown were upset and angry with the Insider Movement. Former Muslims have always been opposed to this movement. Westerners invented and now propagate it. It is time for churches and mission agencies, if they haven't yet, to "require missionaries" to not go beyond C4 level in contextualization. BBC will. Rev. Piper calls C5 "misleading and dishonest," which is a fitting description.
Here's where we draw the line. It works for ministry in Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu contexts. It works in Catholic, Mormon, and animist contexts, also. Here's the statement:
We do NOT allow mature Christians (or expatriate workers) to teach converts to intentionally mislead observers to view them as adherents to their former religion (from which they were converted).
A new convert might innocently, without having teaching otherwise, continue in some of the religious-cultural forms by continuation of habit. But the sincere, growing disciple will inevitably "soon" come to a point at which they understand they cannot live a double-life, intentionally deceiving (or thinking that they are deceiving) onlookers as to their true allegiances.
For those who might be interested in substantive academic works on Insider Movements, two PhD dissertations examining this approach were completed last spring (2011).
One is my own, examining key biblical and theological issues in-depth. It has been published in the Evangelical Missiological Society Dissertation Series and is available via Amazon in paperback (http://amzn.to/LbxFfi) and Kindle versions (http://amzn.to/JPaObx).
The other is available freely on the internet. In addition to a section on biblical issues, it examines in-depth the emergence of the approach, methodological issues, and considers a case study from 19th century Indonesia. It can be accessed here: http://bit.ly/JzLqZb.
I also write a short blog series that was posted on the blog of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary here: http://bit.ly/JjZuaa. The series briefly discusses a few issues examined much more extensively in my dissertation.
Blessings,
Doug Coleman
"I've really got to listen to our missionaries."-Piper
People who don't live and work among an unreached bloc of Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism can't fully understand the way that culture and religious identity are nearly inseparable.
I didn't fully understand until I did. There is a reason there has no been a greater breakthrough in this part of the world. Definition of insanity comes to mind.
These issues are the cutting edge of cross cultural missions today. Most overseas church plants are C-1 (very Western), not even close to the line Pastor John draws at C-4.
Everyone should advocate to moving further down the line in contextualization. Whether they draw the line at "C-4 and no more" is not even an issue for the majority. It is whether or not they can recognize their Western imported forms of church are actually hindering their outreach and effectiveness in making Christ known to their neighbors.
Those who have been extracted from their cultural contexts by well meaning missionaries and given a Western form of church and evangelism may never accept deeper levels of contextualization.
They have paid a high price to come to Christ as they did and even more to come into leadership. They may expect that everyone who comes into the Kingdom must come as they did. I would probably be angry at these contextualized believers as well if I was in their shoes.
The question they may be afraid of is, "was some of my own struggling, persecution, and suffering actually necessary for me to come to Christ?" If so, does it still have to be necessary for everyone that comes after me?
No doubt that persecution and suffering are a part of our life in Christ, especially among the frontiers, but unnecessary social dislocation and misunderstanding can cause unnecessary suffering.
trying to be educated...what is the c-1 to apparently c-5 line? If you have time to explain, I would be thankful. I'm not that much of an insider.
Sure, this is short explanation:
https://www.wikibam.com/wiki/C-Scale_(Contextualization_Scale)
Travis did not create the scale in order to drive a certain missiology but simply to give explanation of what was already happening, in his case, in the M. world. The scale has been used to give some understanding of choices that m's have made in their approach to evangelism, discipleship, and cp.
The C-Spectrum compares and contrasts types of Christ-centered communities found in the Muslim world. The scale is from C-1 to C-6.
Very basically:
C-1 is a traditional church using a language different from the surrounding Muslim community (think Western church)
C-2 traditional church using the daily language of the Muslim community but is still distinctly 'Christian'
NOTE: majority of churches located in the Muslim world today are C1 and C2
C-3 contextualized community using the daily language, some local cultural forms but Islamic elements are filtered out
C-4 is a contextualized community using the local language and biblically acceptable Islamic cultural forms like avoiding certain foods and alcohol, keeping a fast, etc. This is the line that Piper stops at.
C-5 community of Muslims who follow Jesus yet remain culturally and officially Muslim. They do meet together with other C-5 believers and share their faith with unsaved Muslims so they risk being expelled from the mosque.
C-6, a secret or underground Muslim follower of Jesus with little to no visible community and they identify as Muslim and are considered Muslim by all who would know them.
Hope this helps a little bit.
(taken from 'The C-Spectrum' by John J. Travis)
John Lambert says "Most overseas church plants are C-1"; however, I have not heard of any missionary organization advocating C1 in my lifetime. Is it possible that some today are planting c-1 churches? Possibly. Is this the type of church plant that "MOST" missionaries establish today, absolutely not!
Missionaries go to langauge schools to learn the langauge of the people they are trying to reach and plant churches that speak those native languages (a native langauge speaking church is at least a c-2 no matter how western it is). Most missions organizations are increasingly relying on native converts to lead these churches to minimize western influences. These organizations have been targeting the c-3 level of contextualization long before the "C" scale was ever developed i.e. native langauge congregations that worship in a style that reflects their own culture. Very few are opposed to c-4 levels of contextualization although some may be cautious. Because of the socio-religious aspects of contextualization reflected in c-4 congregations i.e. they may require one to eat Halal, to fast during Ramadan, etc... in some cases c4 contextualization can begin to cause a congregation adopt the same kinds of practices Paul condemned in Galatians. However, because c-4 churches do not compromise essential Christian doctrines, there are very few who would oppose all c-4 churches.
The claim that "Most overseas church plants are C-1" appears to me to be at best grossly misleading if not completely dishonest claim.
I concur with Benelchi. How unfortunate that Mr. Lambert would so exaggerate with "Most overseas church plants are C-1". Doing so reveals an ignorance, on one hand, or an arrogance, on the other; either extreme is a position unbecoming to serious discussion. Putting forth such a statement certainly smacks of an unwillingness to evaluate others objectively. Regrettably, Mr. Lambert, you are a victim of your own deception. As we have heard about avid followers of any false religion: The primary victims are it's adherents.
david
C-1 is defined as: "Traditional church structure; using the local trade or national language. Often reflects western churches in practices and styles."
"structure, language, practices, and style."
Majority would probably be a better word than "most."
But I would say especially among the last three remaining blocs of Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim, the majority of churches would be structured according to the planting denominational structure (variety though mostly Western), using trade language versus heart dialect in services, and sometimes reflecting western practices and styles.
This is shifting with the planting of new groups and more focusing on indigenization, but I would still stand by "majority," if not most. We still have a long way to go, especially in my context of the Buddhist world.
Others can chime in from the places where they are currently serving as oversees workers.
Given your definition of c-1 (a definition that I have never seen used before), I still think your claims are somewhat misleading. In areas were there are many dialects (many of which are still unwritten and where no bible translation exist), it is very likely that many churches would meet your definition of c-1 in regards to language (but still be much more contextualized in terms of worship). However, in areas were there is much less linguistic diversity and where native (heart) langauge translations already exist, most would not meet even your linguistic definition of c-1.
[...] may also want to know about a recent interview that Collin Hansen conducted with John Piper on the insider movement in [...]
One of the problems with the way that Rev. Piper uses the C-scale is that it was created to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Instead of focusing on a scale that was developed to describe what was taking place at a certain time in contextualization--we must instead focus on the missiological implications of the life of Christ and His incarnation.
The pursuit of contextualization starts with Jesus as its basis--and when it departs from the spirit and example of Christ it fails. Syncretism is a deviation from the life and model of Jesus Christ, not from a Western church model. We are all contextualizing ourselves to our cultures whether we know it or not, and many within the Western world are more syncretistic than missionaries working in Majority World contexts--simply because they have never sat down to take stock of their culture presuppositions.
Jesus' incarnation has to be our model for contextualization in missions. Jesus became 100% human. He crossed the greatest cultural divide--and he became an insider. He didn't stop at 80%. He grew up from a baby in the Jewish culture, he learned the language, celebrated the festivals, went to the synagogues and to the temple. Much of the culture he was steeped in was unfaithful to its biblical origins. But he was an insider before he challenged the traditions and idolatry of the Jewish people of his day.
Paul Hiebert talks about this in his discussion of 'Critical Contextualization'--we need to become insiders before we can challenge the cultures in which we seek to share the Gospel.
It is also important to note that the early Church prior to the persecution in Acts 8 stayed largely Jewish--and until the Acts 15 counsel that was largely the case. They continued to meet in the temple (not the true temple since the presence of God was no longer there) and synagogues, observed the religious festivals, used the Scriptures, observed the dietary laws, and called themselves 'the Way.' They continued this way until they were forced out of the temple--but Paul always went first to the synagogues. He even shaved his head and took a Nazarene vow later in his ministry.
We see the early church laying claim to Greco-Roman culture and transforming it. Early missionaries like Justin Martyr who dressed as a Greek Philosopher and used Philosophy as a method of contextualized witness were the norm, not the exception.
The Western church had largely departed from the model of contextualization seen in the NT and the early Church until men like J Hudson Taylor and other modern missionaries started dressing and adapting their ministry methods to the cultural contexts in which they worked. He caused quite a stir in his day for dressing in Chinese clothing (not that de Nobili hadn't done that centuries earlier), and was accused of being every kind of heretic. Now we consider him a missionary pioneer.
Some in our churches are still guilty of building sepluchres for prophets killed by their forefathers.
Note: it is the "insiders" who are most critical of the Western contextualization contortionism. It's a pretty long (and unnecessary) stretch of hermeneutics and historical theology applied to develop support for modern C-5-ish practices from first century narrative of a time of transition. "Sola Scriptura" applies the normative, simplest, most easily understand interpretation of conservative believers over the course of time. It's not imposition of Western norms in question here; it is basic loyalty and obedience to Christ and His teachings in the New Testament. Trust the evaluation of mature converts who enthusiastically embrace Jesus and eschew the bondage of man-made legalism.
Sadly, most of the "insiders" are no longer insiders. Because of the ways that they have practiced their faith, they were pushed outside and rejected by their own people and families. They are now outsiders.
In what way is a Muslim who is following Jesus as Lord and Savior not being obedient to his/her Lord?
Zoozoc,
Why is it so strange for you that true followers of Jesus, Christians as the Bible calls them, are rejected by their family? The bible clearly states that will happen in multiple locations. Jesus clearly said that if you are not willing to leave your family for me, you are not worthy fo me. He says that your earthly family will be against you. He clearly says when you follow him, your identity and relation has changed, and your only family is the Body of Christ. Now does this mean you don't care about others? No, of course not. But you love your old family through the eyes of Christ, and you look and act to them in relation through Christ. The gospel is about truth, and Jesus never sacrificed relationship for truth. The truth Jesus preached ended up getting him killed. Jesus was outside the Jewish culture. He was seen as a loony by his family. He was rejected in every way you can be rejected, and he didn't seem to care, but valued God the Father more than man the sinner. In fact he said, who is my mother, my brothers and sisters? Those who do the Will of God.
Jesus was a rebel against the sinful world, and through His perfection, and love, he was killed by that sinful world as our sacrifice so that he could call our His chosen and adopted them as children without blemish because of His work. If they did this to Him, our salvation, how will they not do that to us as well? Take Jesus' words seriously. If they persecuted Him, they will you as well. We cannot truly follow Christ and be perceived as Insiders with the World. I don't question your motivation. I simply question your understanding of God's Word and that it isn't a social gospel, but a transformational revolutionary gospel with the intent of starting a revolution to ransom His children from sin.
Another good article on why the Insider Movement isn't biblical can be found here: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/03/27/idolatry-in-the-modern-missions-movement/
David,
You said, "Trust the evaluation of mature converts who enthusiastically embrace Jesus and eschew the bondage of man-made legalism."
It is important to listen to mature converts--but we also must be careful to recognize the way in which many converts have become Christians. Oftentimes in coming to Christ they have rejected their culture in order to embrace Christianity. I have run into 'mature' Christians from other cultures who believe that there are such things as Christian cloths, Christian instruments, Christian names, Christian food, Christian prayer etc.
I even recall meeting a group of Christians from a South Asian context and after hearing them prayer I was accutely aware that they had been discipled and lead to Christ by Koreans... they probably were not aware that it was so obvious. Upon inquiry, the missionary who had worked among them had been a Charismatic Korean. Oftentimes, when one becomes aware of these nuances one can detect when a group has been lead to Christ by Indian missionaries, or Koreans, or cessationist Fundamentalists.
I have met 'mature' converts from other religions who have inherited many of the cultural flaws and mistakes of the missionaries that led them to Christ.
Scott, I appreciate the senntmeits. There are a number of pastors (and others, of course) making a very strong case for the sin of idolatry being the primary sin under-girding just about every other sin which we commit. Essentially, we commit idolatry whenever we put anything before God or worship anything else as God instead of the true God of the Bible. Very thought provoking stuff. One book (which I'm yet to read but is on my shelf) is by Tim Keller called Counterfeit Gods , but I'm sure there are others as well.
This is a response to Ian Smith. I appreciate his comment but I think he is naive about C1-C6 as it is now understood or implemented. The following is a comment by a friend of mine, who is a mission agency leader, about an area where so-called C4-C5 approaches were done. "It has always been interesting to me that in early presentations of the C scale, it was strongly noted that it was intended to be descriptive and not prescriptive. It didn’t take long, however, for this posture to change – at least in the way that workers (expat and Indonesian) described using a “C5 approach”…. to the point of using this terminology as a yardstick to connote a new type of authenticity." (E-mail Nov. 17, 2011)
From my experience, I agree with this.
Roger,
I am well aware of how C1-C6 has been used--I just think its junk.
The way that it is used leads to the assumption that the farther you go down the scale the closer you get to syncretism...whereas in reality, there are opportunities to be syncretistic at every point on the scale. In fact, there is less of a theological basis for C1-C3 than there are for C4-C5.
If one takes the scale to be prescriptive than it misses the point entirely--we should pursue culturally sensitive contextualization as led by the Holy Spirit and not try to fit our ministry into some arbitrary scale.
Ian,
You state that "there is less of a theological basis for C1-C3 than there are for C4-C5;" however, I have yet to see any good scriptural arguments made for either c5 or c6. Even c4 has the potential to be problematic if too much emphasis becomes placed on things like adherence to a Halal diet, etc...
Ian,
In regard to Jesus' incarnation as a model, it is certainly true that "grew up from a baby in the Jewish culture, he learned the language, celebrated the festivals, went to the synagogues and to the temple."
It may also be true that "much of the culture he was steeped in was unfaithful to its biblical origins."
However, one essential point is that the culture in which He was incarnated had biblical origins. Can the same be said for any other religious culture, besides the Judaism of His time and current religious cultures based on the Bible (however imperfectly they may reflect biblical teaching)?
If not, then is Jesus' incarnation an entirely appropriate model for us? In other words, does Jesus' model justify "incarnation"--or even "remaining"--in the religious worship of a non-Christian culture, even if the "follower of Jesus" reinterprets or modifies some of that worship?
For many reasons I find that biblically impermissible, but at least one key passage is 1 Cor. 10:14-21.
Doug
Doug,
I agree with you that Islam is special case--I have always thought it would be interesting to gather together experts on apologetics to Mormons, experts on cult reprogramming and Muslim missionaries around a table and have them exchange notes.
However, with non-Western cultures, there I believe, is a greater freedom for contextualization. I have observed some really exciting things going on in contextualization to Hindus.
I sense a lot of posturing with Piper's response. I think that's unfortunate. Piper had the opportunity here to give leadership to the Church in the same way that James did at the Jerusalem council, and I think he dropped the ball.
The main issue here is, Are we going to accept these Muslim background believers who remain within their Muslim culture as brothers and sisters in Christ, or not? We need to stop talking about this as a missionary issue, and start relating to it for what it is: brotherhood in Jesus. This was the issue in Acts 15. Recently a group of insider MBBs came to our church (Lake Ave Congregational Church) and asked the pastor, "Do you accept us?" How should we answer? They want to know, and it seems all they are hearing is, "No we will not accept you unless you become like us?" But shouldn't our answer be, "If the Holy Spirit is leading you to follow Jesus as you are, who am I not to accept you?"
For a good objective overview of insider movements, see the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_movement
David,
Your comment raises a few questions.
1. Should all claims that the Holy Spirit is leading someone to do something be accepted without any further question?
2. Do those questions, or even a suggestion that the act/belief under consideration is not biblically supported, mean that the person under discussion is not accepted as a brother?
3. To be more specific, is it necessarily unbrotherly to raise the question of whether actively remaining in a Muslim religious culture (with emphasis on "religious") is consistent with the teaching of Scripture?
I would hope that all believers would be open to such questions by other brothers, including those of us from Western backgrounds.
David,
You said, "Recently a group of insider MBBs came to our church." As I understand 'Insiders' they would never come to a church. That would be 'Outside' of their socio-religious forms. So why would they care to be accepted by the 'church' if the'church' has no baring on their socio-religious identity?
That statement just makes no sense to me from everything I know about the Insider Movement.
And I echo Doug Coleman's questions.
Just because someone shows up to a church and says they believe in Jesus doesn't mean they are Christian. By Christian I mean someone filled with the Holy Spirit and has been redeemed and sealed and adopted as a Child of God the Father. I clarify because foolishly many define Christian as Western cultural Christianity. The Bible doesn't define it that way, neither do I.
Let's be clear. It is obvious to anyone, that it isn't just what you believe, it's also what you don't believe. The epistles are filled with warnings against false teachers aka 'antichrists'. They are filled with stories of even believers who have been led astray and being demanded to come back to the real gospel. It is certainly the ability and authority of your elders to take a stand on this and say that these 'Insiders' fall outside of the doctrine of the gospel and are at best believers that are following false teachers, and at worse, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Biblical Missiology has many articles on the Insider Movement for any reader wanting to learn more information about it. http://biblicalmissiology.org/category/insider-movement/
This is not the first stance John Piper has taken against it, but luckily with every statement he's becoming more and more stronger against it.
Let's be clear, Outside and Inside has two meanings Biblically.
As followers of Christ, Christians, we are Inside the Kingdom of God, we are outside the Kingdom of Man.
Never biblically are we called to be inside the Kingdom of man. We are called out. If you're fighting to be in the Kingdom of man and to be acceptable for them, no matter the motivation, that means is not how God has called us to ministry. We are called to be rejected. We are called to one family, the body of Christ. We are called to one Culture, the Holiness and Righteousness of God the Father through the blood of the Son empowered and led by the Spirit as dearly loved and adopted and redeemed children who have one purpose, to glorify Him.
David,
One of the very first concerns raised for me when I first heard about the "insider movement" about four years ago was when I realized that most "insider" MBB's believe the western church is apostate because it rejects a belief in Mohammad as a true prophet of God and does not accept the Qua'ran as the inspired word of God. These "insiders" seem to understand much better than you how serious the doctrinal differences between us really are.
[...] Piper Responds to the Insider Movement – The Gospel Coalition Blog Here is an article (with film clip) about John Piper discussing the Insider Movement. Pergamum [...]
Piper is naturally cautious since he is not an expert in this area of Insider Movement theology. David Taylor is bringing up a serious issue but I think that the way he states the "main issue" is a bit narrow.
Every shepherd must check on everyone who enters the sheepfold and examine the sincerity of everyone who claims to be a believer (follower of Jesus). The main issue is whether the "insider MBBs" who came to Lake Ave. Congregational Church were really seeking to live according to biblical teachings. This can be determined through fellowship and prayer. Of course, new believers are not going to be where older, mature believers are in their theology or life practices. The basic question is this: are they moving into a biblical lifestyle or regressing into a Muslim lifestyle? Are they developing a biblical worldview or continuing to cling to a Muslim worldview? Sometimes the process takes a long time but the shepherd must determine if the inquirer or new "follower of Jesus" is seriously moving forward into a Christ life or trying to retain or syncretize Muslim theology and practices with biblical teachings.
[...] brief interaction between Collin Hansen and John Piper on the Insider Movement in missions to Muslims in [...]
Roger, your question is intriguing: Are they moving into a Biblical lifestyle or a Muslim lifestyle? This assumes that Islam has a universal “lifestyle” that is 100% incompatible with the Bible. Obviously that is not true. Ironically, one of the main reasons MBBs choose not to become Christians is because they observe the “Christian lifestyle” to be incompatible with the Bible! Islam, in its origins, is nothing more or less than a Judeo-Christian sect, and as such, there is much in it that is Biblical and thus redeemable. What I believe we are seeing today is the emergence of a Christ-centered, Bible-based, Islamic reform movement, which is being fueled by the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit. In one recent case, a Sufi leader was praying that God would show him how to lead his people to heaven. That night he had a dream in which he was directed to go to a certain house. The home that he was led to was the home of an “insider” MBB. After becoming born-again himself through this encounter, he then proceeded to lead his entire Sufi network to faith in Christ, which was followed by baptism (about 10,000 people). One of the interesting things about these insider movements is the centrality of baptism. I have found this to be almost universal, yet emerging independently through the leading of the Holy Spirit around the world.
My question is, do we accept these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, or do we not? Do we not violate the gospel by saying they must become Christians to be saved, or become Christians to be part of the Body of Christ? Should not Jesus be the determining factor as to who is in his family and who is not? I truly believe that in the providence of God, the messianic Jewish movement emerged to teach us that the community of Christ extends beyond the traditions of Christendom. Hopefully this will rescue us from pursuing a false gospel and a false ecclesiology, which I am afraid many critics of insider movements have unwittingly fallen into. (By the way, for an excellent review of insider movements within Judaism, see the Wikipedia article on messianic Judaism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism. Note the section that speaks of Paul referring to himself in the present as a “Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee” during his trial in Acts 23:6).
Here is a passage to ponder: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Acts 15:8-11
With this breakthrough in understanding, the gospel was unleashed into the Greco-Roman world. I believe we are on the verge of a very similar breakthrough in the Islamic world. As it was in Acts 15, the house is divided, but the Holy Spirit will prevail!
“Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." Acts 5:38-39
David, You have so much in your comment. It is not possible to respond to it all. About my point concerning biblical worldview. Basically, I think you do not understand what I meant by that. Similar to many of the "insider" type arguments, you seem to equate biblical worldview with Judeo-Christian values. Obviously, the so-called "Christian lifestyle" is not necessarily a biblical worldview. In some cases, it may be. In many cases it is not.
I can't disagree more with you when you say, "Islam, in its origins, is nothing more or less than a Judeo-Christian sect, and as such, there is much in it that is Biblical and thus redeemable." Islam has a few characteristics of a biblical worldview but basically it does not have the central features that empower a biblical worldview. I will just mention belief in a God who is faithful and creates covenant that is everlasting; a God who loves his creatures and is ever near them; and a God who forgives and is not willing any should perish; and a God who reveals himself in Jesus Christ. These are some of the tenets that are the basis of a biblical worldview. Islam in most respects is the opposite of a biblical worldview and the main reason that Muslims leave that structure and become followers of Jesus is that they realize that the god of Islam is not the God & Father that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to us.
In answer to your question, of course we accept anyone as inquirers and we accept those who demonstrate (as you point out) “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us..." We are obligated to examine and teach converts while testing the spirits to see if they have received the Holy Spirit according to the verse you quoted.
That very verse shows that we have an obligation to examine and understand the position of new converts.
By the way, Acts 5:38-39 is a comment of someone who did not believe in Jesus and should not be taken as a proof text for a theological argument.
I want to start by saying that I have been greatly blessed by John Piper's books and ministry--his articles in the Perspectives course-book were some of the most formative readings in my life. I just finished reading his book, 'Jesus the only way to God' last week and was spurred on to keep running the race.
In regards to Rev. John Piper's comment about his meeting MB Believers at Lausanne, I would like to challenge the sample size and the nature of the sample of the leaders he encountered at Lausanne. Lausanne is a conference for professional missionaries, and many of the MBBs he would have met would have come to Christ through non-contextualized ministries and received Western theological educations. I also believe that Lausanne could have done a better job at bringing leaders from insider movements--however many of these leaders would have been uncomfortable coming to Lausanne.
A missionary serving in an Asian context related to me how while at the Lausanne Congress, a Pastor from that context accused him of being a cult leader for his contextualization efforts which caused a great deal of stress for this missionary. The delegates from that people group distances themselves publicly from the missionary (they shunned him), but many of them came to him in private to encourage him and share with him that they supported his work--despite their official stance. Several of them were afraid of losing Western support (MONEY) from churches that have taken stances against insider movements.
Rev. John Piper's final statement about pastors making decisions on whether to support missionaries with some arbitrary litmus test was frankly scary! I thought that we had learned that missions should be led from the field back with Hudson Taylor and other missionary pioneers... essentially John Piper is making the argument that, whether he realizes it or not, that churches should cut revenue to missionaries whose strategies do not line up with their limited missiological understanding.
Lastly, I would like to say, that as a convert from Roman Catholicism I was viciously anti-Catholic for many years. It has taken a great deal of God's grace to help me to have a calm conversation about the Roman Catholic church. The big change occurred when I met Chris Castaldo last year at a coffee shop, and in conversation with him about the RC church I felt myself losing control--I then realized that I had to deal with the betrayal and anger I felt towards the RC church. I have gone through a lot of healing. I haven't changed my theological position on the RC church, but I have learned to be less vitriolic. I relate this story to share that as a convert out of a group, my view of that group was filled with vitriol and bitterness and a sense of betrayal--it is difficult to see the positive things about that group when dealing with these emotions.
A video from Chris' website to think about: http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2009/01/02/the-need-for-holy-ground/
Does it go too far to say that the term "contextualization" in modern use has been hijacked to mean something quite different than it's historical usage?
It used to mean something good and right in missiology. These days there are folks who are saying that, unless you are willing to abdicate certain doctrines, you are not truly contextualizing. It used to be more obvious that such a stance was heresy.
To contextualize, in its simplest understanding, is to place in a context. Referring to the Gospel in a missions setting, it is explaining the Gospel in ways that it can be best understood in the recipient's context. Referring to a secular application, it is a natural part of business to market a product in an understandable and appealing way to new or foreign audiences. In either case, the particulars of the product do not change. The vocabulary and presentation approach leading to someone understanding and "buying" the message may change. In the case of the Gospel, there are essential non-negotiables even in vocabulary (though differences in language).
The problem is actually not one of sincerity. The "contextualization"-pushing Westerners don't intend to move outside the circle of orthodoxy. In fact, they are so sincerely undiscriminating that they probably don't even realize that they are not biblically off-base and use all kinds of Bible references to support their views, along with "elemental philosophies" (see Col. 2 here). They deny heterodoxy and refuse to listen to correction (see Col. 2 here). Alas, that doesn't change the truth.
Here's what I think has happened, in our humble perspective: Some contexts are very difficult. Potential recipients are literally trained to react negatively, sometimes violently negatively, towards the Gospel and anything perceived to be (Western-expression of) Christian. Well-meaning Christian communicators are flummoxed by lack of results. So, they explore compromise --- sometimes at every level. When they reach a level of compromise of the message that they begin to see "remarkable" results, then they tout this newly discovered level of "contextualization" as the greatest invention in Christian missions since the Great Commission. "Finally," they say, "we have the key to all these Gospel-unreached-peoples."
Where do they cross the line from a biblical Gospel to heresy?:
- when they say that other "holy writings" can be regarded by "new believers" on the same level as the Bible
- when they say that any extra-biblical prophet or founder can be regarded in any way as a messenger of God
- when they equivocate the deity of Jesus Christ in any way
- when they say that it's OK to keep all the former religion's forms, "just Jesus-ize it"
- when they knowingly permit "new believers" to retain superstitious beliefs, black magic, shamanism, etc. and just add a veneer of Bible and Jesus to it
We used to call that "heresy" in the form of "syncretism". It's certainly not contextualization in the truest, proper, and historical sense of the word. We should call this hijacked "contextualization" what it is and seek to restore this hostage term back to its rightful place in missions.
Don't get me wrong here: though in this forum I know I write in generalizations, most proponents of modern "contextualization" are genuine brothers in Christ. We love them in Christ; we seek to correct them in a spirit of gentleness and acceptance, using the Scriptures as the final authority. They are sincere. They rightly try to get rid of misunderstandings and stumbling blocks (western culture), but most practitioners have gone overboard in avoiding hard doctrines.
The lack of results flummoxes them. They often speak one way to Western Christians about orthodoxy and another way to the folks they seek to reach. They don’t realize they are being duplicitous. This is what Paul rebuked Peter for in Galatians 2:11-21 – an example of hypocrisy and taking I Corinthians 9:19-23 too far. He was not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
They too easily equivocate the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the exclusive authority of Scripture, and justification by faith alone, it seems. "Church" is not a western building and never has been. Clothing style, or lack thereof, has never been the issue. Hymnody, liturgy, clergy, ... none are at issue. The issue is not really western-cultural forms vs. ethnic forms; the issue is New Testament biblical Christian practice and teaching vs. pre-conversion practices which may be incompatible with sound doctrine.
Just a bonus parallel thought here, because it was mentioned by an earlier commentator: my understanding is that a renewed interest among Western Christians placing themselves in so-called Jewish-practice "Messianic" congregations is that they abdicate their New Testament freedoms and go back to the stuff warned about in Galatians and Hebrews.
[...] John Piper Responds to the Insider Movement [...]
I very much appreciate John Piper's stand on the "Insider Missions" issue, but from his presentation I am not sure he understands how far some "Insider" missiologist have taken this issue. In the video, Piper presents the idea of an "Insider" who affirms many essential Christian beliefs i.e. the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc... but adds unbiblical aspects from an Islamic context; while this is most often the picture "Insider" advocates present, it is an incomplete picture. Many leading "Insider" advocates consider these orthodox beliefs desirable (but not essential) for Muslim Background Believers. For example, many believe that one can have a genuine salvic faith in God while rejecting a belief in Christ's divinity and his atoning work on the cross. It is often difficult to ascertain exactly where some insider advocates stand on issues surrounding essential Christian doctrine because they often respond in ways that are misleading (at best). During discussions I had with one well known insider missiologist, I often found that answers to questions I had asked left me with the impression that I have received an orthodox answer when I really had not. For example, when I first learned that many “insider” MBB’s reject doctrines that have historically been considered essential to Christian faith, I began asking an insider missiologist questions about the beliefs these MBB’s held and was told that these beliefs were “heretical.” It wasn’t until a much later conversation that I understood that the insider missiologist had defined “heresy” very differently than it has been traditionally understood. His view of “heresy” was any doctrinal error no matter how minor or how serious. In his view, all doctrinal errors were equally severe. In our discussion, he compared the error of those rejecting Christ’s divinity and his atonement to that of the error of western Christians keeping Christmas trees in their home during the Christmas season. In his view, these doctrinal errors were equally wrong and neither error had salvic consequences. My advice to anyone seeking to understand this issue is to ask many, many questions and never assume that you are operating with the same definition for any word no matter how well those words have been historically defined. I believe that a large part of the reason this has gone under the radar for so many years is because theological terms have been so thoroughly redefined by those advocating “insider” methodologies that many end up believing they have heard commitments to Christian doctrine that have never really been made. Here are some examples of the kinds of redefinitions I have encountered in discussions with insider missiologists:
Omniscience: Knowing all that is possible to be known; however, there is much that cannot be known by God i.e. the future for example.
Omnipotent: Having the power to do everything that can possibly be done; however, there is much that God has no power to control.
Absolute Truth: that which is true from God’s perspective but completely unknowable by man, the Muslim, the Christian, the Hindu, and the Buddhist all have the same access to God’s absolute truth.
Heresy: any doctrinal error no matter how minor.
Essential belief: That which is essential within my own socio-religious context. Belief’s that are essential to my own socio-religious context may be very different than beliefs that are essential within other socio-religious contexts.
Given these redefinitions, one can hear an insider state that, “Belief in Christ’s divinity and his atoning work on the Cross is essential to the Christian faith. There is one absolute truth that comes from God, the God who is sovereign, all knowing, and all powerful. Rejecting any of these beliefs is heresy!” and THINK that they have just heard an affirmation of Christian orthodoxy when nothing could be farther from the truth.
To John Piper (in the chance that you might be reading this blog),
Frontier missions, to my knowledge, is still defending and promoting the "insider movement" methodology, and still appears to have your endorsement of their ministry (http://www.frontiersusa.org/site/PageNavigator/about/about_endorsements). How do you reconcile your rejection of the "Insider methodology" with the endorsement of a ministry that is still advocating that position? What am I missing?
WHY C4 IS NOT BIBLICAL IN MANY RESPECTS
If one uses the definition found in Appropriate Christianity, p. 400, C-4 is open to interpretation and people could disagree with me. I think this is John Travis' latest definition for C4 : "Contextualized Christ-centered Community using the mother tongue and biblically acceptable socio-religious Islamic forms."
While Travis states that the C4 lifestyle usually lasts about 4 months before the community realizes that they are no longer Muslims, the use of "socio-religious" (Islamic forms) has been defined by Rebecca Lewis as a movement where believers in Jesus "remain inside their socioreligious communities..” (“Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities” IJFM 24:2 Summer 2007:75). They retain "their identity as members of their socioreligious community while living
under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible” (“Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community” IJFM26:1 Spring 2009:33).
I understand this to mean that they continue in their religious context following the practices of that context. In the case of Muslims, Travis mentions that they would continue to celebrate the
fast month & dietary practices of the former religion (Appropriate Christianity, p. 400) which I would consider not biblical, not based on biblical theology, and thus altering the gospel message because they are primarily works toward salvation. The Islamic theology of the fast month and dietary rules are quite different from biblical fasting and, in the Christ, there are no dietary rules except possibly those in Acts 15.
While I realize that many converts move slowly from their former theology and world view, I do not think it is biblical to authenticate their practices even when we understand that it is natural for this
transition to take some time. We would not force converts to move into what we consider a valid biblical lifestyle but we would teach & encourage them to do so.
That is why I believe that C4 teaching by nature does alter the gospel message in significant ways.
I don't recognize the C1-C6 categories as authentic contextualization models or even normative
descriptive models. They are too simplistic and dichotomistic (if that's a word) to be so. I think comprehensive contextualization can take place in any of the C1-C3 categories but it usually would span several of them and it would be far more expansive than the spectrum describes covering a great many features of the culture besides religious forms & practices. Blessings
Roger,
First, I would agree with your concerns about the limits of the c1-c6 scale for accurately describing contextualization. Further complicating this issue is that what defines c1-c6 is continually being updated by different groups in different ways (For example, above I was given a new definition for c1 that I have never seen in print before). That being said, it is the only scale that has at least a general (but foggy) understanding shared by most involved in this discussion, so it has some value even if limited.
Given the fogginess of the scale, I do not think it is easy to rule out c4 congregations entirely as being unbiblical i.e. simply adhering to a Halal diet would not be enough to cause concern, one first must understand why one adheres to a Halal diet. For some, they find non Halal foods (like dog and pork) repulsive and while they recognize their freedom in Christ to eat these foods, they just cannot get past the "yuck factor." Others see adherence to Halal as a means to obtaining God's grace and that is something that should raise concern.
P.S. when thinking about the adherence to a Halal diet, think about how difficult that it would be for many in our culture to eat foods like frogs, dog, horse, slugs, etc... All foods for which, in Christ, we are free to eat but for which most would have as much difficulty eating as a MBB might have when being presented with foods that are not Halal.
Benelchi, I have to concede this point as my emphasis was not in the actual foods eaten but the reason for following the dietary rules which is linked to merit theology. The fast being one of the "pillars" in following the religion with sincerity, I assume it is an "idol" that must be abandoned when one follows Christ. My point is not that the actual foods eaten are determined by faith in Christ. There is no problem in not eating or in eating as Paul points out in 1 Cor.
Some of the IM people in C4 missiology/theology whom I have known teach or require "converts" to stay in fasting and other religious disciplines of Islam as part of their devotional life.
Blessings,
Cody Lorance has a great response to Piper at this post: http://codylorance.blogspot.ca/2012/08/responding-to-john-pipers-response-to.html
I feel Piper (who is AWESOME!) has some missiological falacies in his arguments, that Cody does a good job of explaining.
[...] Bible translators in predominately Muslim contexts render the term “Son of God”? Is the so-called Insider Movement an example of missiological sensitivity or overcontexualized carelessness? Organizations [...]
Wow, this is a really vigorous conversation!
I have just published a short article on the historical roots (possibly) of Insider thought. Please check it out if you are interested:
http://tinyurl.com/bqczrp8
D A Miller, Nazareth, Israel