Dyrness Insider Jesus

See folder: What Came First William A. Dyrness, Insider Jesus: Theological Reflections on New Christian Movements (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016). Introduction: The rise of contextualisation I have in mind movements among people in Islam who call themselves Muslim believers in Isa al Masih; these have appeared in Bangladesh and many places in Southeast Asia. (1) Defined by Scott Moreau as “movements to obedient faith in Christ that remain integrated with or inside their natural community.” Threatening to many Christians: what underlies these concerns are conflicting cultural codes and multiple conceptions of religion, and it is here I think the conversation should begin. I will suggest ways that multiple contexts and religious diversity provide hermeneutical spaces where new understandings of the gospel can emerge. (3) [Note: If the diversity of contexts provide hermeneutical spaces and there is no fabric holding together the diversity in any visible or concrete way, there will only be hermeneutical incoherence. This is Babel not Pentecost. Contra Vanhoozer etc.] In the past, Christianity’s adaptation to diverse settings has been characterised as contextualisation. Needs fresh examination. Contextualisation is inadequate because the movements discussed are not, as with mission, coming from the outside. (4) [Contra early IM and mission testimony from insiders or former insiders] Critical point in the discussion is what happened in the 16th century (5) It is important to remember that the changes instituted by the magisterial reformers were not primarily changes in belief but changes in practices that reflected both the rereading of Scripture and also and more substantially, their changing cultural and historical situation. (5f) Rather than changing belief, the Reformation changed the role and significance of belief, resulting in new ways of practicing religion. (6) From familiar and long-standing set of practices-praying with images of the saints or rosaries, processions and pilgrimages, novenas and so forth-to an emphasis on specific beliefs embodied in a new set of practices-preaching, learning catechisms, and reading Scripture and prayer books. The resulting focus of religious devotion was thus transferred from external objects and practices to internal reflection and faith. The whole person was involved before, but after the Reformation, it was primarily head and heart. The changes were not necessary. Despite the polemics of the Reformers, there was nothing intrinsically superstitious or idolatrous about many of the mediaeval practices. Since the emphasis was placed almost entirely on the break with older practices, in the polemic environment of the century the way was open to contrast mediaeval superstition with the “true religion” of the Reformation. (6f) [Note: Misses the connection of the Reformation with the Renaissance need to rebirth civilisation by rediscovering the ancient past and the late mediaeval desire to begin to reclaim the early church. It was not an erasure of the past; it was its re-instantiation.] instead of providing a holistic frame that determined an entire way of life, religion was on the way to becoming an inward and personal affair. (7) [Note: Misses the entire strand of late mediaeval devotion, mysticism etc.] Appeals to Talal Azad who noted deep affinity between Mediaeval forms of Christianity and contemporary Islam. [Note: Aristotelian thinking?] Sites modern predilection for choosing one’s own religious pathways [Note: IM does exactly that. MBCs see their Christian identities as the centre of their moral formation.] Willie James Jennings (The Christian Imagination) highlighting that post-Reformation missionaries contextualised their beliefs in the places where they worked. That led to an inverted hospitality that focused on teaching rather than listening and learning from indigenous wisdom (8) The Protestant mission that finally got off the ground 200 years after the Reformation left intact the underlying construct of Christendom. (9) Intellectual imperialism. External dimension of culture had been devalued and mostly discarded by the Reformers. [Note: He appears to erase their concern for gospel living. Points out the curious absence of serious attention being paid to ethics by IM proponents.] William Cantwell Smith 1962 The Meaning and End of Religion The result of the Reformation could be seen in the Scholasticism of the succeeding centuries. This means that religion turned into something that was believed not something done. (10) The way was open to understand belief in purely rational and often abstract terms. [Note: Overlooks the very different picture painted by deeper analysis of that period by Richard Muller. This is more the cartoon version] 20th century: From contextualisation to local theology 1960s Catholic inculturation (12) Shaki Coe 1972 “contextualisation” Traction in 1974 Lausanne (Stott and Coote) Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (13) 1979 Kraft, Christianity in Culture: Kraft described theologising as a dynamic discovery process 1984 Sherry B. Ortner argued that individuals are not passively determined by cultural influences; they are agents. [Note: Why then cannot they be agents of Christianity in their cultures?] Hesselgrave and Rommen (1989) argued that contextualisation is necessary because the supracultural gospel must be dislodged from our own (missionaries’) culture while not allowing it to be syncretistically connected to aspects of other cultures that would compromise the message. (15) [Note: Don’t the missionaries still decide what the supracultural gospel is? What is the process of avoiding syncretism and who has oversight of the process? Who defines syncretism?] Still too limited in being a message that the messenger focuses on while the listener is concerned more with his or her own identity. From contextualisation to intercultural theory (16) Dean Flemming argues that the NT unveils a “dynamic and comprehensive process. Understood in this way, the NT provides a chorus of Spirit-inspired contextualisations of Christ’s work, involving engagement that is both constructive and corrective, and that produces a welcome diversity of insights into the gospel. Appropriate Christianity edited by Kraft Francis X. Clooney, Comparative theology (17) The practice of rethinking aspects of one’s own faith tradition through the study of aspects of another faith tradition. [Note: Obviously then, biblical revelation is not exclusive, comprehensive, or authoritative.] Compares Francis de Sales and the Hindu mystic Sri Vedanta Desika (18) [Note: Study of two men’s ideas and not directly two revelatory texts. It compares their opinions concerning their religious traditions but cannot speak constructively about the real relationship between the two revelational sources. Implies however that it can do just that.] German “intercultural theology” (connection to Rudolph Bultmann) Mission must take the form of hermeneutics. That is, Christian witness is, among other things, an interpretive process in which each side becomes open and explores the proposals of the other. Recontextualisation in the free space between missionary and listener Creates space for the life-giving Spirit (19) Klaus Hock and transculturation: the process of “othering” that occur among religious actors. Cultural difference is a creative category, “a discursive creation with a history that can be researched as it is created by processes of othering. Can create shared values, new cultural alignments by mobilising indigenous resources. Not your grandfather’s contextualisation Mentions Scott Moreau’s understanding of contextualisation (20) Communicating the Christian faith with people with other cultural backgrounds. Thinks it is incomplete. The implication that there is some essence, the Christian faith, even broadly understood, that must somehow be made understandable-some essence of Christianity that needs to be brought into a new setting. Missionaries have not given up the notion that there is a single thing –call it the gospel, the Christian faith, or whatever-that must somehow be communicated and received in the local context. This particular focus often restricts the ability to see something new emerging in these places. Two problems The assumption that God works primarily or even solely through the “message” that is being communicated. Can imply that God actually arrived in the luggage of the missionary. The truth is that God was present and working in that culture long before missionaries arrived, and the indigenous values and even the religions of these people pay important tribute to this Presence. (21) Second is the reality that there is no essence of the Christian faith that is ready to received by the hearer-no single version of the gospel that is definitive. In every case it has to be received as a cross-cultural indeed a countercultural reality. What counts as good news in one setting will not necessarily resonate in another. The work of God must be heard and received in terms of the logic of a given culture, even when eventually it will alter that logic in critical ways. A way must be found to hold together the irreducible strangeness of the other and the irreducible togetherness of both as a space for the liberating work of the Spirit. Who gets to define the Christian faith? (22) Christ never required it. He only urged the disciples to make disciples. Notice how the focus is on what is to be done, not what is to be thought. In evangelical missiology, this has come to include, at a minimum, the translation, teaching, and dissemination of Scripture wherever missionaries have supplied something else: their understanding of the beliefs that constitute the “Christian faith” that they have brought with them. The language of contextualisation carries perhaps inescapable colonial baggage and mostly presumes that someone might know better than the people themselves how to contextualise the gospel. (23) Hermeneutics is not culturally neutral, so whose hermeneutics is being employed to discover what should be contextualised? The diversity of cultural perspectives from which history is viewed makes the objective process of discovering what actually happened impossible. (24) Reflects German Higher Criticism Need a theological interpretation of Scripture (25) Joel Green We need to move beyond contextualisation to the celebration of the diverse places where the gospel is being interpreted and lived out, and where we can begin to learn from and correct one another in love. (27) This involves a change of focus from the “message” that we carry with us to the presence and activity of God in these places. [Note: Therefore, it is no longer a word that confronts from the outside but an agreement with the inside. There is no gospel then that breaks into our sinful world and confronts it with light and truth. That must be because there is effectively no fall in this kind of thinking.] How does God work in creation and culture? A Theological proposal One way to think about creation is to see God as the original host carefully arranging things so that creation becomes a welcoming place both for the creatures that live there and, especially, for the human creation that is to tend and care for this divine household. (29) God’s primary work through Scripture is the renewal and restoration of creation. (30) The human call is to reflect and work alongside God Religious activity only begins after Adam and Eve’s disobedience. (32) The language of tending the Garden was liturgical language (33) Christ continues God’s renewing work Christ is the fulfilment of the primary work of creating and renewing. Must hold together the redemptive (or liberative) and re-creative sides to Christ’s work. Christ had to prevail over the powers of evil. [Note: Echoes of Gustav Aulen.] [Note: Very little reference to sin or its effect on the individual or community will, intellect or emotion.] The model I am proposing is not the traditional one of creation-fall-redemption, the U-shaped tragedy that reflects John Milton as often as it reflects the Bible, but rather creation-disobedience-re-creation, with a new opportunity for all the nations to obey God’s summons. (34) [Note: Disdains traditional Christian/Reformational understanding. There is no fall; only disobedience and an opportunity for nations (not individuals, but peoples to get back on track with God’s universal building program. It presents original sin in a way that is roughly compatible with Islam.] Does such a model of theology ignore the terrible sin that Adam and Eve committed and the subsequent damage this caused? By no means, but it does remove it from a place at the centre of the story, where it has too often resided. (35) [Note: To move the fall from the centre, both marginalises it and destroys the historical-redemptive flow of Scripture as a whole.] Sin disorders, evil perverts-they are serious enemies-but these do not have a separate program of their own. [Note: If evil originates in a sensate being who exercises free will, then it is a separate program. He is attempting to not sever God’s redemptive revelation from his fallen creation.] Culture and human stewardship Comprehension of humanity’s role in creation prepares us to understand the theological significance of human culture, and eventually of the religions that lie at the heart of every culture. [Note: First exonerate humanity of fallenness and then exonerate world religions. It is a natural progression.] The question now is how we respond to what God is already doing in a given culture. (36) [Note: You can only assume it is God if you eliminate the fall.] Adam was given a free hand in the Garden to name the animals. Each culture develops its own cultural logic that makes sense of the world for those who live in that place. In the biblical material this human struggle to make sense of life and learn how to get along is featured in what is called the wisdom literature of the First Testament. (37) The created order is deeply marred by human disobedience, thus culture reflects the violence and injustice evident throughout history. This is why God’s activity had to take on a restorative aspect-something missed in calling it redemptive. But this does not keep cultures from, at the same time, developing varieties of wisdom that bring glory to God. God endorses this wisdom as working toward the same goal as the redemptive interventions that make up the backbone of the First Testament narrative. (38) [Note: So, fallen religions works towards the same goal as the Old Testament. God even incorporates this wisdom into the Bible. (such as Egyptian literature into Proverbs 22-23). How then does he explain the OT’s complete opposition to other religions, from the Ten Commandments and throughout? How does he explain Joshua, Judges, Nehemiah 9 etc.?] if it is true that religious traditions reflect a response, however incomplete (or even misguided), to God’s call, they must be in some way capable of being included in God’s project of renewing and restoring the earth.(39) [Note: They are as manifestations of God’s judgment, the vindication of his righteousness, a comfort to the faithful, and a witness to the nations.] Contra the Reformation, every religion has a struggle between good and evil going on , and every religion has something to celebrate (40) It is the Spirit that works in human cultures (and religions) to move people to call Jesus Lord (1 Cor 12:3). (41) [Note: “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.” See Thiselton. There is much to be said for Cullmann’s view that both utterances serve as confessions, characteristically in a persecution setting. The curse, Cullmann insists, cannot be related to inarticulate tongues; both utterances are fully “intelligible assertions.… The primary theme of the verse is not glossolalia but emperor worship and persecution because of the confession Kyrios Christos.” This is probably an allusion, in turn, to the promise of Jesus to give the Spirit in times of persecution, so that through the agency of the Spirit those who are “delivered up to councils … in synagogues … dragged before governors …” (Matt 10:17–19) may be able to confess Jesus is [my/our/the] Lord rather than Jesus is cursed or Caesar is Lord, “the first proving the working of the Spirit, the second proving the absence of that work.”63] it is clear that God is at work reordering a fallen world, and therefore all efforts that contribute to this end will elicit God’s approval. (42) Anyone who responds with thanksgiving and praise to what God is doing must be pleasing to God. [Note: Appears to presuppose that every religious act of thanksgiving or praise is pleasing to God. Therefore all religion is pleasing to God.] These things should through the work of the Spirit draw people to see Christ as the agent of renewal. (43) A proper trinitarian understanding of God’s purposes suggests that the broader working of the Spirit will lead people, eventually, to come see these purposes realised in Christ. People must be called to God in the terms and logic of that culture. Religion in the biblical narrative Cites Helmer Ringgren is noting that Israel adopted religious sites and practices virtually indistinguishable from the Canaanites and other neighbours. (45) Israel at the beginning knew God could be worshiped through forms inherited (46) Melchizedek Is praised in Hebrews as a foreign priest acting in his own beliefs (Robert K. Johnson, God’s Wider Presence) Clearly God’s larger purpose, reflected in this episode, is not to institute some particular religious practice but to bring about an order characterised by righteousness that will issue in the blessing of all. [Note: the whole purpose of Hebrews is to confirm Jewish background Christians in their decision to be Christians as a community apart from the synagogue, to see their religion as the fulfilment of what came before, to understand that backsliding is visible proof of unbelief.] Disagrees with the distinctiveness of Jewish religion as opposed to the nations (47) Appropriation and transformation. It was the God not the forms that matter. A variety of appropriate responses to religion in the OT. Believes that Deut. 32:8 affirmed false worship as an interim acceptance. (49) [Note: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (32:8-9) In vv. 8–9, the sovereignty of God over all men and nations is expressed, but it is stated in such a way as to emphasize his particular concern for his chosen people. God is given the title ‘Elyon (“Most High”),23 which is used only here in Deuteronomy.24 The title emphasizes God’s sovereignty and authority overall nations, whereas in relation to his own people he is called Yahweh or Lord (v. 9). All nations received their inheritance and had their boundaries fixed by this sovereign God (v. 8),25 whose role was in no way restricted to the sphere of Israelite life and history (see also Ps. 74:17). The boundaries were fixed according to the number of the sons of God (v. 8b; see n. 18). The exact sense of the phrase is difficult to determine, but the reference seems to be to the divine council of the Lord.26 His council consisted of “holy ones” (see 33:2 and commentary), who are called “angels” in the LXX; the poetry indicates that the number of nations is related to the number of these Sons of God. Among all these nations, Israel27 was God’s particular portion and allotted inheritance (v. 9). With such a high calling and noble position, the perversity of the people (v. 5) was all the more wretched. (Craigie) At the beginning of history the Most High (‘elyôn) allotted to the nations their own portion of the earth as their home (Gen. 10) and fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel’s numbers. There is disagreement among the textual traditions at this point. The lxx reads according to the number of the sons of God, whereas the mt has the sons of Israel. A fragment from cave four at Qumran agrees with the lxx against the mt, which seems to have modified the original so as to make it mean that God ordained a plan whereby the number of nations corresponded to the number of the sons of Israel.11 However, if the lxx reading be followed, there may be some idea of a supervising heavenly being, a kind of guardian angel, in view. In any case, Israel received special treatment, for Yahweh chose her for himself. His portion was his people and his allotted heritage was Jacob, i.e. Israel. (Thompson) [Note: This has nothing to do with the acceptance of the religion of the nations. It refers to God’s allotment of land to the nations and his priority to Israel.] Limits to tolerance based on things like sexual impurity [Note: Applies a behavioural standard to God’s acceptance or rejection of pagan religion.] Mentions special covenant setting for the religious practices of the Israelites because they lead to Christ. (50) [Note: Ignores the competition of false gods.] The significance of Israel was not in their religion but in the people’s status as witnesses-to the things God has done. (53) [Note: Their religion was at the heart of their witness.] Religion in the ministry of Jesus The key to this is what we call “gospel”-that is, events associated with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. (54) Daniel Boyarin questions whether Jesus’ teaching were so divergent from rabbinic teaching (55) Boyarin thinks Jesus engaged the law through authoritative reinterpretation (56) Religion in the Book of Acts and Paul Jesus’ attitude towards Jewish religion is not easy to comprehend. [Note: It is easy with a covenantal, historical-redemptive framework.] In the midst of confusion, God brings Peter and Cornelius together. (57) In other words, they work things out together. [Note: It appears that he overlooks God’s clear revelation to both. In Peter’s case, that includes theological teaching on the part of God and in Cornelius’, it demonstrates the Spirit’s calling.] Acts 10:34-35. Acts 17 Paul in Athens God places people at specific times and places so that they would have opportunity to search for, and perhaps find, God. (59) The implication is that apart from this search for God, apart from religion, one could not expect the message of Christ to be heard. [Note: conflates general revelation and perhaps common grace with special revelation.] Acts 15 Argues against Timothy Tennent’s argument that the stipulations represent the insistence that believers separate themselves from their previous pagan religious identity (61) But this suggests it would have been possible to separate their religious and cultural identities, something a first-century person would have found it difficult to do. [Note: This is a non sequitur since Paul does it in almost every epistle. He is arguing from his missiological conclusion back into the text.] He prefers Bockmuehl’s suggestion that the Noachian commandments apply to the Gentiles as proselytes or resident aliens. (62) The good news worked through existing cultural patterns and religious structures. Thinks Stein is correct (“Jerusalem” 471) in thinking that Luke in Acts is concerned with social intercourse between Jews and Gentiles, not justification. (65) Conclusion Religions may represent places where Christ can be encountered and God’s project worked out. A space for the Spirit to work. (67) Illustrated with case studies. Case studies of insider movements today Up until this point our conversation has proceeded at a high level of generality. (68) [Note: Unintended irony.] Emergent movements in Asia Sadhu Sundar Singh and M.M. Thomas (83) Thomas: Can we move beyond Christianity? (84) In this way they were making their way toward a Christology that emerged out of the Islamic narrative itself, rather than a one imposed by a master narrative of Christian theology. (95) Footnote 78 J. Dudley Woodberry argues that Muhammad can be understood as a prophet calling the polytheist Arab tribes back to the worship of the one God. Religion and the mission of Christ Religion, then, in its basic sense represents the practices associated with the human search for God, and the times and spaces they employ in this search. (101) I am using religion in the general sense of the particular culture practices that develop to express the inbuilt human longing for God. What if we thought of religion, or religions, including Christianity, not as fixed entities with clearly defined borders but as fluid spaces that reflect particular cultural situations, where people have developed various ways of responding to God (or gods or the spirits)? (104) Reimagining religion And if it is true that religion represents the the core both of people’s identities and of their sense of place, then, in the first instance at least, the news about God’s love in Christ must be framed in terms of that religion-that is, in terms of the search after God by which they frame their identity. (105) Religion as a culturally embedded response to the presence of God Includes cognitive representation, ritual practice, and spatial/visual settings and cues. (107) The religion of Islam and Christian missions Scholars have called the Qur’an a kind of Arabic lectionary of the Bible, not unlike the Jewish Targums (110) The effacement of the mediaeval spiritual traditions at the Reformation has led modern Christians to perceive Christianity in ways that radically diverge from Islam [Note: similar to Siljander and Aramaic. By extension, he implies that the Reformation is responsible for the lack of acceptance of Islam.] The stories overlapped but the embodiments are different. (111) Islam can be understood as a kind of spiritual architecture that structures believers’ lives and gives them a sense of order and direction. A close analysis of the rise and influence of our evangelical practices (of worship as cognitive activity) makes clear that Christian worship of this kind represents an appropriation by a particular stream of the Christian tradition of early modern (and later Enlightenment and Romantic) sensitivities. (114) Sensitive listening to Muslim believers discloses practices that are life giving, even if they are not salvific. [Note: Sounds entirely sentimental. What makes them life giving? In an ontological sense, it is the opposite. Does life giving just mean affirming?] Do Christians and Muslims (and Jews) worship the same God? Refers to shared Abrahamic faith, citing Volf (115) [Note: the parenthetic comment shows that he only views the categories as social or cultural accretions. He ignores the covenantal connection of Jews and Christians, the principle source for religious identity.] Amy Platinga Pauw noted that all confess God as creator of heaven and earth and that by their own admission there can be only one such creator; thus they confess the one creator God. The Trinity Cites rabbinic diversity of opinions about God. The lack of sensitivity to this along with a loss of shared ritual has kept Judaism from recognising Christianity as a legitimate expression of Judaism. (116) [Note: This simply creates Judaizers not Christians. This is what Acts and Galatians set about to counter. The relationship between Judaism and Christianity is not an alternating current. It only runs in one direction. That direction is affirmed by only one revelatory text, the whole Bible.] God’s presence in religion and in the gospel: continuity and discontinuity Calvin and Wesley acknowledge that God has planted in everyone a sense of God, but “that this impulse is often resisted or distorted.” (118) The news about Christ is not indigenous to any culture but God is present everywhere. (119) The role of Talman’s “alongsiders” (missionaries, Bible translators, teachers). The reality is that we cannot simply conflate the work of god in Christ with Christianity. (120) Barth’s famous opposition to human religion or even especially our Christian religion. (121) But what role does Scripture play? Though Scripture is a primary witness to God’s presence and work, it is never read in isolation from other factors. These include not only cultural factors but, for many people, religious traditions as well. (122) As Kang-San Tan argues in his recent PhD dissertation, Scripture does not function as a valid criterion for evaluating other religions if their texts and teachings are not also consulted. [Note: eliminates Scripture as the authoritative revelation of God. It now has to be read in dialogue with other religions.] how did the Christian religion emerge? Many disciples of Christ remained in synagogues well into the 4th century and beyond. (125) Boyarin, Dying for God (126) Also Oskar Skaursaune, In the Shadow of the Temple Jerome thundered at people who remained in the synagogue. Leave or drop your Christian doctrine and the Pharisees will agree to call you a Jew. (127) Boyarin: Fill in the boxes correctly on the checklist, or you are neither a Christian nor a Jew. [Note: So Boyarin, a 21st century Jew lampoons the misconception of Jerome who lives in the period itself and was vastly closer to understanding the covenantal context and conflict than is Boyarin. N.T. Wright disagrees with him. Boyarin then, I suggest, has himself produced (to use his own language) an allegorized and ahistorical reading of Paul, a Platonic or more precisely a Hegelian scheme in which the thesis of ‘Paul’ (ecclesiological monism and ontological dualism) is answered by the antithesis of ‘the Rabbis’ (human pluralism and ontological monism), producing the synthesis of Boyarin’s own bracing and daring contemporary cultural critique, with all its raw agony and brutally realistic assessments of current problems. and possibilities, particularly vis-a-vis feminism and Zionism. Two Radical Jews a review article of Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. [1] (Originally published in Reviews in Religion and Theology 1995/3 (August), 15–23.  Reproduced by permission of the author) by N. T. Wright, Lichfield Cathedral, England, ntwrightpage.com ] The mission of missions A broader understanding of church that is more inclusive. (130) Conclusion: Is God doing something new? He showed me that Jesus confessed God, prayed five times a day, gave alms, and so on. I suppose I should have insisted that he had not properly understood what he read, but I felt glad he was considering Jesus, even if it was on his own terms. (132) Footnote 1 Might have argued like Woodberry that Muhammad developed the five pillars of Islam under the influence of Judaism and Christianity. [Note: Violates directly the first three commandments: “ ‘Deut. 5:7 You shall have no other gods before me. 8 “ ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. 11“ ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.] it is the kingdom that created the church, not the other way around. Moreover, God’s purposes and renewing activity extend beyond the confines of the church. God seeks nothing less than a new creation (133) it is for this reason I have insisted on holding together “insider” and “emergent” movements, for these together in their many forms evince the larger work of God, wherein the Spirit is drawing all things together in Christ. Insider movements as defined by Scott Moreau, we recall, are “movements to obedient faith in Christ that remain integrated with or inside their natural community.” (Contextualisation in mission 161) [Note: That would mean that Islam is natural to them rather than external to their being. That would imply that God created them Muslims.] It becomes an expression of church in that place. [Note: Church is not part of coming to Christ. Remaining within Islam serves the same purpose as long as the person follows Christ. That would necessitate Jesus being at home in Islam.] Believers are not extracted from this setting to become members of the church, and this allows believers to retain their identity as members of their original communities while living under the Lordship of Christ. Emergent movements For various historical and theological reasons, the dominant model of conversion that missions have traditionally embraced involves a clean break with the past-what Willie Jennings has described as creation ex nihilo (The Christian Imagination 2010 81f). (134) [Note: Ignores the OT and crucially the NT context. Demonstrates his own non-biblical perspective of religions and how the Bible considers them.] A primary source for this view is the model of Christianity stemming from the Reformation, described in the first chapter. By this model, faith in Christ, shorn of all ritual and cultural elements, could be fitted into any cultural situation (by the process later called contextualisation). But a subsequent and not unrelated source for this model was an assumption of the superiority of Western culture that missionaries embraced. A new birth theology owes as much or more to its American setting, where people are anxious for the chance to start afresh with a clean slate and live a new life. (135) [Note: Completely skips over its historical context in post-Reformation pietism that itself bridged from the Reformation. This assertion distances mission from the Reformation and places it more in line with his sympathies for organic growth demonstrated within mediaeval Roman Catholicism] The emerging church is as much a goal as it is a reality. (137) [Note: Effectively connects IM to the emergent church movement. Both are about a developing identity that is being worked out with God. In that sense, it is a repudiation of the Reformation with its covenantal framework that assumes one gains a new, overarching identity as the body of Christ that differentiates it from the nations.] Continuation of the historical impetus to renew the structures of the church from mendicants, Reformation, revivals, Pentecostal and charismatic movements. [Note: This presupposes that infusing non-Christian religions with Christ is tantamount to being a Christian renewal movement, but would it not be better to characterise it as a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Native American renewal movement? How can it be a renewal of the church when it is outside of the church?] Acknowledges that the emergent groups still work within the framework of historical Christianity. But is it possible for us to believe that God is at work beyond the confines of Christianity? Is there some sense that the universal body of Christ, and not simply the work of the kingdom, can be present at least in some inchoate form within other religions? [Note: This is bait and switch. You start with a renewal movement that presupposes Christian identity and then substitute that with a theology of religions construct. You end up with manipulating the reader into seeing non-Christian religions as being part of a Christian renewal movement.] Possible estimations of insider movements In the minds of critics, “these groups constitute a serious threat to the purity of the gospel message and the essence of evangelism. (138) [Note: It is likely that by purity he means exhaustive detail and not essence.] In the minds of these leaders, these specific theological commitments (including, for example, certain convictions about the Trinity or specific formulations of the work of Christ are of such paramount importance that unqualified support of these movements is unthinkable. [Note: This sentence obviously refers to the definitions of the faith worked out in Nicaea and Chalcedon and stated authoritatively in the ecumenical creeds. He is attempting to recreate Christianity without these constraints just as did the ancient heresies.] It is not clear to me what such disapproval might mean in practice. Surely we do not mean to actively discourage those who so earnestly seek Christ and desire to follow him. [Note: He has now sided with the heretics.] Prefers to think of insider and emergent movements, in all their various forms and permutations, as places where God is at work and where something new is emerging. (139) [Note: He has now asserted the right of insider movements to be considered as full Christian equivalents, and, therefore, equal to the same ecclesial consideration] Jens Barrett (typo) has found that many of them simply refused to choose between their Muslim and their Christian identities. (140) In another study Barrett has noted that these liminal spaces often become “semiotic battlegrounds, where values are being assessed and a new integration is sought. (141) [Note: Religious identity then is reduced to sign systems or symbols.] People’s dhimmi context is an insurmountable barrier. [Note: this conclusion has no biblical support at all. It therefore, must not presuppose the determining presence of God in the matter. If God is present, he works within the constraints of non-Christian religion and hostile culture. He is constrained to work in harmony with it.] Working with insider believers: Working with their received notions-of the teaching of the Buddha, of Muhammad as prophet, or of popular religious practices-these believers may have eyes to see fresh dimensions of God’s renewing work in Christ that outsiders cannot see. (142) [Note: Their non-Christian religious identities gives them new ways to understand Christ that Christians cannot understand. So, one must be a non-Christian to understand Christ more fully.] The Spirit of God works in these border zones (143) “At his deepest being and self, God hears the call of the Minaret, Temple chants, Buddhist prayers as human aspirations for relationship with the divine. The Christian message is that Jesus is the human face of God welcoming all true religious aspirations. (Kang-San Tan, “Beyond Demonising Religions 192) [Note: I assume human aspirations=equal genuine aspirations. The human face of God=modalism. This is just pluralism. It demonstrates clearly what the ultimate trajectory of IM leads to, whether the practitioners always recognise that or not. It is the logical end to their means] But where is the church? Western theologians, naturally, are likely to defer to historical treatments of the church. On the one hand, these are likely to stress the theological nature of the church, as in the Nicene Creed, which states, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” (144) On the other hand, such definitions may stress the normative functions that define the church, as in Calvin’s famous claim that “wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists.” But Calvin goes on to insist that though this church is dispersed in various places, it “agrees on the one truth of divine doctrine, and is bound by the bond of the same religion.” (IV.1.9) Though these approaches provide helpful starting points, they all reflect their own special cultural and theological situations. The one sought to underline the unity and holiness of the church in the face of heresies that threatened; the other focused on the recovery of the gospel truth the Reformers felt had been lost during the mediaeval period. (144f) But what if insider groups offer challenges that earlier episodes were not prepared for? (145) [Note: i.e. new context needs new ecclesial forms. What, however, is new about the challenge posed by false religion and the communities that serve it? Was that not the entire biblical context?] From an examination of our case studies we can say that these movements are characterised by four common and typical elements (147) Their focus is centred on devotion to Christ, even if in conversation with Buddha or Muhammad. They typically privilege Scripture They all have forms of visible fellowship (NT calls koinonia) (148) [Note: What constitutes a NT koinonia?] Deep desire to witness to their faith in Christ within their natural relationship networks. [Note: Given who they are, how does he know any of this is true? In other words, what makes his anecdotes more trustworthy than anyone else’s?] In accord with the Bridging the Divide ideal, these groups are finding ways to relate to existing churches (148) [Note: Since he relies on anecdotes, can he cite any concrete examples of such relations? Furthermore, if his paradigm works 99% in the opposite direction, is that not significant?] Willie James Jennings. The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. x + 366 pp. £16.99/$27.50 (paper). Jennings, Associate Professor of Theology and Black Church Studies at Duke Divinity School, argues that contemporary Western Christianity suffers from a “diseased social imagination” (p. 6): it is “enclosed in racial and cultural difference, inconsequentially related to its geography, often imaginatively detached from its surroundings of both people and spaces, but one yet bound to compelling gestures of connection, belonging, and invitation” (p. 4). “Race” is a deleterious mutation thoroughly embedded within the doctrinal logic of modern Christianity. Hence, “Christian theology now operates . . . without the ability to discern how its intellectual and pedagogical performances reflect and fuel the problem, further crippling the communities it serves” (pp. 6–7). Jennings analyzes this pathology in four “social performances” of theology that exemplify—and in several instances, actively contributed to—the racial conditioning of church life in general and theological scholarship in particular. They illustrate the claim that when “race” was created by colonial European theologians, missionaries, and churchmen, orthodox Christian theology itself was altered: the ostensibly ideal scholastic “tradition” (Alisdair MacIntyre) became a “traditioned imperialist modernity” (p. 71). Chapters 1–4 examine cases in the Roman Catholic and Protestant history of conquest and missions in which theological ideas were deployed to conceive of and promote novel evangelization, discipleship, and Bible translation practices. Each shows conditions whereby “race”—a discourse that positions the concept of whiteness as central and naturalizes separatistic arrangements within an institutional order—has come to constitute the status quo in the theological academy and the church alike. Theologically, Jennings contends, this process depended upon late medieval European Christians’ use of a supersessionist hermeneutic, enacted, e.g., in the culmination of the Reconquista in fifteenth- century Spain. It was church leaders, theologians, and other intellectual elites who first conferred 586 Themelios theological legitimacy upon—and continued to contribute to the advance of—the nascent nation-states’ projects of colonization and consumption, in the name of the church’s divine commission to bring salvation to the nations. In so doing, the doctrines of creation and Christology (among others) were revised, albeit “not the creedal substance . . . but the way in which [Christianity’s doctrinal] logic would be performed” in the new worlds (p. 71). Jennings locates the root error in the forcible subjugation, dispossession, and removal of non- European peoples from their homelands. Displacement inflicted on them an incalculable loss of identity, which (in Jennings’s account) is fundamentally tied to the land. Trafficked as commodities, they could not resist their captors’ essentially docetic, ascriptive acts: reclassifying them with objectifying categories and monetary value gauged by proximity to whiteness, the entire enterprise allegedly justified by conversions to Christianity. The racial “formation of human identity in modernity . . . the reconfiguration of bodies and space [was performed] as a theological operation . . . heretical in nature, bind[ing] spatial displacement to the formation of an abiding scale of existence” (p. 24). Jennings then sketches connections between past and present, observing numerous ways that the power relations historically expressed and engendered by the paradigms of race and “whiteness” continue to function today in theological scholarship (chapter 5, “White Space and Literacy”), in society (chapter 6, “Those Near Belonging”), and in the world interconnected by globalization. In the former chapter—challenging the positive accounts of Lamin Sanneh and Andrew Walls—the Bible translation and biblical literacy movements, print capitalism, and theological knowledge-production are linked to a largely intact hegemonic system: “Christian theology is trapped in the revised universalism that feigns the legitimation processes of ancient orthodoxy while being deeply committed to the literary supremacy and ‘universal human genius’ of the languages of the central literary powers—French, English, Italian, German (and sometimes Spanish)” (p. 232), such that “the center/margin realities of world literature deeply penetrate [theologians’] evaluations” (p. 233). The point Jennings stresses is that “Christian theology and segregationalist mentalities” are firmly entrenched within “a style of imagining social reality” that is “diseased . . . in the kind of community imagined—its scope, character, and materiality. . . . [These] thwart the formation of Christian community beyond the strictures of nation, language, and peoples” (p. 233). Thus, the first part of the book addresses the question, “How is it possible for Christians and Christian communities to naturalize cultural fragmentation and operationalize racial vision from within the social logic and theological imagination of Christianity itself?” (p. 208). The final chapters outline a solution to the “interrupted social imagination” (p. 7). The “Christian-colonial way of imagining the world” (p. 209) ultimately expresses “loss of [the Christological] horizon and embodiment” of Christian doctrine (p. 106). To recapture a vision “more faithful to the God whose incarnate life established and establishes the contours, character, and content of Christian theology” (p. 10), “place” is thematized to reconstruct separatistic modernist schemes (racial, ethnic, and national identities) by way of Christology. The overall tenor of Jennings’s proposal is seen in the following excerpt (pp. 248–49): A Christian doctrine of creation is first a doctrine of place and people, of divine love and divine touch, of human presence and embrace and of divine and human interaction . . . seeing place in its fullest sense. . . . One of the first factors in rendering the Scriptures impotent and unleashing segregated mentality into [Christians’] social imagination was the loss of a world where people were bound to land. Through this loss the complex revelation of God’s relation to land and people fell on deaf ears. The moment the land is 587 Book Reviews removed as a signifier of identity, it is also removed as a site of transformation through relationship. . . . The right transformation [entails] Christian faith receiving its heretofore undiscovered identities, which are found only through interaction with the social logics of language, landscape, and peoples. The right relationships . . . invite new patterns of life woven through and by means of the deep structures of Christian faith slowly opened through ongoing interpretation and struggle. Those relationships involve deep joining, the opening of lives to one another in love and desire. . . . [M]issing [from the colonial-era church] was the central social reality that constituted a new people in the body of Jesus—their joining to Israel, and the power of that joining on the social imaginary of Christian life. If Christian existence stands on nothing greater than the body of one person, then . . . the only way for Christian communities to move beyond cultural fragmentation and segregated mentalities is to find a place that is also . . . a new person that each of us and all of us together . . . possibly, can become. In Jennings’s explication of the story of Jesus and Israel, “Jesus did not seek to destroy kinship, to undermine its defining power rooted in story, memory, and cultural practice. Rather, he drew it to a new orientation, a new determination” in himself (p. 264). “To follow Jesus’ own trajectory” would result in “an advent of a new form of communion with the possibility of a new kind of cultural intimacy between peoples that might yield a new cultural politic” (p. 265). “These disciples of Jesus love and desire one another, and that desire . . . is the basis of their ethical actions in the worlds of allegiances and kinships . . . issu[ing] in a new network that transgresses life-threatening and life-diminishing boundaries” (pp. 274–75). Practically, broader conversations are required—between academic disciplines; “between those deeply involved in the formation of space and those concerned with identity formation;” and “between Jews and Christians” (pp. 293–94). Such exchanges would consider “the reconfiguration of living space that might promote more just societies,” which, if undertaken, would convey “a compelling new invitation to life together” (p. 294). Narrating “the origins of race” is an ambitious task. While the sample size is small, Jennings’s commentary constructs a multifaceted portrait of the development of racial logic within highly complex sociopolitical, intellectual and material processes. His recounting of the leading role played by the institutional church, theologians, and missionaries in justifying worldwide conquest and consumption and in constructing the fragmented modern world performs the valuable function of ideology criticism. It also strengthens his critique of the MacIntyrean and Milbankean models of Christian tradition. This is a highly original study, “considering concepts, Christian doctrines, and events together that . . . have not been thought together” (p. 10). It is also erudite, appropriating insights in disciplines beyond the usual purview of evangelical theological scholarship (postmodern philosophy; postcolonial theory; critical social theory; cultural studies; and colonial-era political history, church history, and missionary practice). In a study of this extraordinary breadth, it is inevitable that readers will encounter matters of interpretation with which they disagree, and others requiring more argumentation to be persuasive. Several instances of this follow below. Historically, “race” took distinctive forms in differing locales; it thus admits of more than one construal and method of analysis. This narration of its invention in Iberian Christian colonial expansionism needs to be weighed alongside J. Kameron Carter’s assignment of this responsibility to 588 Themelios Kant (Race: A Theological Account [Oxford: OUP, 2008]) and other accounts (e.g., Ivan Hannaford, Race: The History of an Idea in the West [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996]). Other details indicate a conflationary approach to the analysis of race, sometimes running counter to the evidence cited (e.g., the description of Linnaeus’s taxonomy, p. 193). The argument that “race” turns upon the use of “supersessionist” theological beliefs also calls for refinement. Given the existing theological literature addressing the relation of Israel and the church employing differing construals of supersessionism, the sense that Jennings works with is rather loose, especially in his interpretation of Scripture. Other historical examples also are required to sustain this claim, since the Spanish Reconquista is not applicable to the development of “race” in northern European countries or in their colonies. More importantly, compared to his extensive interaction with the Christian intellectual and theological tradition, historical studies, and contemporary theorists, Jennings’s direct engagement with Scripture is limited. In this reviewer’s perspective, his treatment of group identities assigns too high a value to land as such. This is not to diminish the horrendous, highly consequential character of the historical practice of imperialism, enslaving and displacing African peoples on a mass scale, many of whom died en route. It is, rather, to note that a close, extended reading of Scripture as the basis for developing a Christian doctrine of creation leads to a quite different paradigm of the interrelations of God, people, and land (e.g., Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God [Downers Grove: IVP, 2004]). Any estimate of the factor of land must reckon with the biblical depiction of God as Creator and Owner, such that even his own people are but “tenants” whose residency within a designated territory is not a natural birthright but a gift of grace, a blessing that remains contingent upon trust and obedience (Lev 25:23). A thicker canonical description is required to do justice to the distinctiveness, depth, and coherence of the Scriptural discourse, which is the norming norm for the construction of Christian doctrine. Relatedly, in this account, theological anthropology and ecclesiology are not clearly delineated. “Race” belongs to the former, while Jennings’s appropriation of Christology is properly ecclesiological. His program for addressing the racially fragmented social world that Christians and their neighbours inhabit would benefit from further clarification. Nonetheless, on the whole, Jennings’s specification of the paradigm of “race” (and “whiteness” within it) qua ideology is far more substantive and illuminating than other biblical, theological and historical-theological accounts presently available. His account of the active role (beyond mere complicity) of theologians, churchmen and practitioners in its creation and maintenance provides a bracing dose of sober realism. Finally, his call to Christians to move beyond voluntary racial and ethnic self-segregation, to follow Christ in “loving and desiring” and enfolding others—is provocative and inviting. As such, this study is highly recommended. Note: This review draws on material from my forthcoming book: Elizabeth Y. Sung, Humanity Beyond “Race”: A Scriptural, Sociological, and Theological Account. Elizabeth Y. Sung Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Deerfield, Illinois, USA Upgrade My Drive                         Zoom Options                       Automatic                       Actual Size                       Fit Page                       Full Width                                              50%                       75%                       100%                       125%                       150%                       200%                       300%                       400%                      BN 71 Book Reviews The Christian Imagination: Theology and the Origins of Race. Willie James Jennings. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010. 366pp. $35.00. ISBN: 978-0-300-15211-1. Reviewed by Timothy Lim T. N. Regent University School of Divinity, Virginia The Christian Imagination laments the impact of western hegemony on the transmission, translation, and spread of Christianity in non-western soil with a view to recommend a program for theological construction imbued with racial and postcolonial sensibilities. Willie Jennings, associate professor at Duke Divinity School, argues his thesis by retrieving four historic east-west engagements at the political, sociological, economic, and religious fronts, and by showing that the spread of Christianity and the process of theologization in these regions (Venezuela, Peru, India, South Africa, Nigeria) rests on a western colonial paradigm, an unwitting common denominator. As a corollary, a misguided European view that the western white race is superior to all other races creeps into the historic spread and introduction of Christianity and Christian theology to these regions between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries. The upshot of his research is that the unexamined imperialistic paradigm (more blatant then and more subtle now) proves detrimental to Christian imagination. In this review, I summarize Jennings’ retrieval before I proffer some trajectories that one may be expected after Jennings’ contribution. Jennings organizes his project in three parts. In Part 1, Jennings demonstrates how colonialism brings about a displacement of the natives’ identities when the colonizers seized the land and subjugated native beliefs and practices with a supposed superior western ideology. He does so by retrieving history through the lens of Gomes Eanes de Azurara (or Zurara), a royal chronicler of Prince Henry of Portugal since 1444, and Jose de Acosta Porres (or Acosta), a Jesuit theologian to Peru and India from 1572 onwards. Central to part 1 however is not the historical accounts per se even though Jennings’ impressive historiographical retrieval supports his argument on the overbearing relationship between the colonizers and the colonized. At the heart of part 1 is that a supersessionistic view – that Gentile Christian nations have replaced Israel as the elect of God – have unwittingly led western Christianity on the pathway of not only displacing Israel as crucial to its theological pilgrimage, but also the displacement of other nations and peoples of color as insignificant when compared to themselves (the western colonizers, which often operated under the edict of their Christian nation leader) as the elect of God. The result is a hegemony that claims superiority   Page 1 / 4 David H. Greenlee, ed., Longing for Community: Church, Ummah or Somewhere in Between? (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2013). David Greenlee, Introduction: Transformed in Christ For many of us, the normal tendency is to define the faith aspect of our identity in terms of belief. (xiii) In terms of our “in Christ” identity, though, the object of belief is not a set of facts, but a person: Jesus Christ. It is trust in him, not merely assent to truth. As E. Stanley Jones is reported to have said, “In conversion you are not attached primarily to an order, nor to an institution, nor a movement, nor a set of beliefs, nor a code of action— you are attached primarily to a Person, and secondarily to these other things.” (xiiif) “IDENTITY”— A KEY “COMING TO FAITH CONSULTATION” THEME (xiv) As documented in From the Straight Path to the Narrow Way: Journeys of Faith, 2 the focus of research and reflection at the 2004 “Coming to Faith Consultation” (CTFC) tended to be on the processes and factors involved in how our Muslim neighbours are coming to faith in Jesus Christ. Three typical factors emerged: they have generally experienced a touch of God’s love, seen a sign of his power, and encountered the truth of God’s Word. In February 2010, some sixty who serve among Muslims and missiologists gathered near London for the “Second Coming to Faith Consultation” (CTFC2). David Radford, “Fuzzy Thinking and the conversion Process” Religious conversion, from the perspective of sociology, is a social process which includes subjective and rational elements. People both experience and think through religious conversion. Individuals and communities engage in a deliberate, reflective process that inevitably leads to change. The initiative for change and its agents include the person or community themselves as well as external factors such as people, ideas, circumstances and experiences. (2) Kathryn Kraft, “Relationships, Emotion, Doctrine, Intellect-and All that Follows” In broad strokes, there are three processes that a faith changer will go through, but how and when those processes are experienced varies considerably. (11) The first process is that of embracing relationships and doctrine. A person is generally drawn to a new faith first by one and then the other. Some people are attracted by relationships and are eventually convinced of the veracity of doctrine. Others study doctrine extensively but are finally pulled to a faith change through significant relationship( s). That which draws first usually remains the strongest binding factor to a convert’s new faith identity, while the other takes a secondary or possibly contentious role in the process of forming a new identity. (11f) Within the category of relationships, a second process occurs in which a person considering a faith change develops a sense of relationship that is both spiritual and interpersonal. The spiritual relationship is the essence of faith, while the interpersonal relationship is how faith is lived. (12) Third, within the framework of spiritual relationship, there is an experience of the miraculous, which an extensive body of literature confirms is very frequently a key element of Muslims’ religious experience. (12) In any case, he now has a choice: he can have a very personal, intimate love relationship with Jesus, or he can find other people who think like him. He misses his family, so he goes in search of community, thinking a church is the best place. Yet he never feels at home in a church. While it is true that he is not a cultural Christian, at his core he has an aversion to religion and structure and thus has very high expectations of morality and consistency of everyone in the church, which must be entirely devoid of everything he hated about Islam and his family. Since a church is made up of humans, he is disappointed by the experience. He lives frustrated: fully a Christian, but finding it hard to like Christians. If you ever suggest to Ibrahim that “once a Muslim, always a Muslim”— perhaps he might find a more encouraging community among Muslim followers of Jesus— he will be deeply insulted and accuse you of watering down your faith. (13) Samar also looks for community in a church and is disappointed yet, accustomed to loving and being loved by people who think differently from her, she continues to attend. (13) Samar does not think much about whether she is a Christian or a Muslim. In rejecting Islam, she rejected institutional religion (she may or may not realize this) but either way, she does not mind ambivalence. She feels at home in both societies while knowing she is an outsider in each— with the exception of her sisters who now share her faith. (13) 3. Aisha grew up in a Muslim family that did not care if she snuck into the back room to eat during Ramadan and never bothered her about prayers or the way she dressed as long as she was not too scandalous. Yet Eid was a big deal and she memorized half the Qur’an during middle school. She was a Muslim, of course, but took her pharmacy studies at university and her appointments at the beauty salon much more seriously than religion. (13) He then asked her to consider Christianity for herself. He said that while religion was not very important to him, he did love his faith and wanted her to understand. As a girl in love, she agreed; her love for her boyfriend complemented the inspiring stories about Jesus. She was convinced that she wanted this faith for herself. What happened with her boyfriend is irrelevant to this story; maybe they broke up, or found a legal loophole to marry, or even lived in a scandalous secret relationship. Her love for Jesus has stayed strong. She does not want to trouble her family with these details, nor does she feel the need to reject her Muslim identity. (14) She may succeed or she may fail. In stories of women similar to Aisha, their continued loyalty to their Christian faith meant that they moved further and further away from their Muslim identities. Even if Aisha does not reject her Muslim background outright, she never quite figures out how to give equal emphasis to both her Muslim culture and her Christian faith. (1) Mahmoud reads Islamic texts and watches Islamic television exclusively. He feels close to God when he prays. He was always especially fascinated by the Prophet Isa, who spoke as a baby after his virgin mother gave birth to him. Mahmoud loved reading about him. When one of his friends, who also prays regularly at the same mosque, started telling him stories about Prophet Isa, he was fascinated. Some of these stories are not in the Qur’an, others are; but his friend told them with an interesting new twist. Mahmoud read more Islamic texts about Isa and listened to his friend. Eventually he started reading an Injil his friend gave him. He fell in love with “the Christ” (al-Masih) and decided to follow him. He began telling everyone in his family about this new discovery. Regardless of his family’s reaction, Mahmoud is determined to prove his faithfulness to them, while sharing about Christ with other Muslims in a way that they can avoid rejection. He never rejected Islam per se even though, as his relationship with Christ grows, his association with, and his need for, Islam dims to what could be labeled a mute rejection. What happens next depends on where Mahmoud finds a supportive community. Coming from a strong family in a strong faith community, he no longer feels the same connection with either, yet wants a community that is also a family. Ideally, he will find other Muslims in love with Isa but, if no such group exists, he may look for Christians. (14) 5. Ghada could be Mahmoud’s sister, because of her family’s similar social profile. Ghada never studied Islam but was taught to live it: (15) One day, friends wanted to go to a village with a Christian shrine which they said had magical powers. It was famed for being the place where barren women became fertile, but other illnesses were also healed there. (15) Her ear was indeed healed but, more than that, a beautiful feeling took over her entire body. She felt truth enter her heart. She knew it was a Christian thing because she was in a Christian (15) she knew Jesus was Christian, and that was exciting. (15) Twenty years later, a Christian family moved in next door. One day, she was visiting with the wife who showed her a Bible. They read a few passages from the book of Luke together, and Ghada started crying. She was reading on paper what she had known for the past twenty years but had never put into words. Generally joyful before, she now brimmed over with contentment and excitement. Ghada never looked for supportive community and never thought of herself as anything but Muslim. This had not bothered her before and, after meeting the Christian family, it still did not: she saw her faith as a spiritual connection shared with the Christian woman and was happy to define it as simply that. (15) First, when the convert sees his or her faith decision as a careful, well-made choice, questions of identity and community cause more pain. When a convert is ascribed an identity (usually by well-meaning Christians) but is not comfortable with that identity (usually because they feel different), these identity and community struggles are more acute. In contrast, when conversion happens quickly and easily, and/ or the convert is not confronted with moving to a new social profile which may not fit, identity and community struggles are much less intense. (15) People joining a new religious community have high expectations which can lead to discontent when the new group fails to deliver. 32 Many people I met in the course of my research expressed a similar idealistic disappointment with all kinds of Christians, including other converts, Christian-background Arabs, and missionaries. They felt like outsiders in every group, a feeling common to many in a variety of contexts, 33 but which many Muslim-background converts believe is unique to their own experience as they regard their families, Christian churches, and other groups where it seems everyone fits in better than they do. This can easily translate to mistrust and even disdain for other believers. (16) Consider the following quote from one man I interviewed, with a story similar to Ibrahim’s: “I’m not welcomed in my new life— maybe by God, but not in the church. I’ve been going to church for five years but still, there is nothing, no relationship. Through the church I have also attended conferences with children from poor areas. (16) Their expectations of foreign Christians are usually quite idealistic; while some converts could tell me of one or a few missionaries they respected, mostly missionaries failed to meet their standards. 34 (16) Some participants told of friends who had returned to Islam because they found the stress too great. Others told of people who saw the potential for problems and decided not to change faith. (16) My third and final theoretical observation is that there are usually two distinct events in conversion from a Muslim background to a Christian faith: rejection of Islam and embracing of Christian beliefs. (17) One common path explored in literature on conversion involves a decision to abandon one’s heritage (usually Christianity in sociological studies), followed by a period in which the individual avoids any spiritual activity or interest. After several years, this person begins to ask existential questions or has an emotional experience causing renewed interest in religion or spirituality and thus seeks a new religious framework different from what has been already rejected. (17) Similarly, researchers focusing on other religious traditions have found that conversion to a different, mainstream religious group often requires a deliberate renouncing of a previous faith. 36 I have found that a rejection of Islam is generally an essential element in the conversion process for someone from a Muslim background embracing the Christian faith. (17) Many reported that rejection of Islam was a more straightforward, often easier decision than embracing Christianity, which required considerable time and convincing. Ceasing to practice Islam happens much faster and easier than a wholehearted rejection of Islam. (17) However, in other stories, contact with Christianity or Christ often sparks the process of rejecting Islam. For people like Mahmoud rejection is not abrupt; it still happens but gradually and naturally. Even if they remain fully culturally Muslim, the importance of rituals they practice fades. They may continue performing them out of family loyalty or love, or as an expression of their devotion to Christ, not because they are essential to their religious faith or identity. Others, like Aisha and Ghada, can claim they never chose to embrace Islam— although they never doubted Islam either. Though more frequently the case for women, some men also told me that they never rejected Islam because it was only part of their cultural heritage and continues to be so. (17) Most converts I met separate this necessary doctrinal rejection from their cultural identity. Many informed me that, upon rejecting Islam as a faith, they were still Muslim; they did not cease to be Muslim until they chose a new faith. In some ways, they say, they have added a Christian faith identity to their Muslim cultural identity. Nonetheless, a firm rejection of the Muslim creed is an essential part of the conversion process for most Muslims who embrace Christianity as a faith system. (17) A debate has led to division with people staking their claims over what might be a deep misunderstanding and variance in terminology with regards to the issue of rejection: (18) However, it is possible and likely that they are wrong about each other. Mahmoud’s spiritual journey has led him to a place of full devotion to his new faith without being distracted by his previous faith. Meanwhile, Ibrahim talks a lot about rejection with Mahmoud because he cares, not because he is bitter. They have developed different priorities for living out their faith, but their core beliefs are actually complementary. (18) However, all too often, missionaries and well-meaning people of Christian background develop a theological interpretation of scripture that leads them to believe that either Mahmoud’s faith or Ibrahim’s faith in Christ is authentic, while the other’s is not, thus encouraging further division between these two groups. While sociology and theology investigate different issues in religion, there is much to be learned in cross-disciplinary studies. (18) Based on the framework in this paper, people from a Muslim background who have embraced a Christian faith can seek to respect each other’s faith path and together build a community of faith. By remembering that each person’s faith path is unique— whether from a Muslim or other background— some of the pressure to conform to a pre-defined identity can be relieved as converts work out their own sense of identity using the tools and relationships they find most suited to their situation. (18) REFUSING TO CHOOSE: MULTIPLE BELONGING AMONG ARAB FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST JENS BARNETT BLINDED BY THE “C SPECTRUM” A major flaw in Travis’ model is that it is one-dimensional, portraying Muslim and Christian religio-cultural identities as monolithic and mutually exclusive. That is, every step towards a “Christian” identity is presumed to require a step away from one’s Muslim identity. Thani helped me understand that the “C Spectrum” was blinding me to the innovative negotiation of identity that is actually taking place. On this continuum, there is no space for a believer like Thani who expresses belonging to both Christian and Muslim cultural traditions simultaneously, or even for one who has a piecemeal approach of fully belonging in some aspects that do not conflict with his or her faith, while totally rejecting others. (20) SEQUENTIAL BELONGING (21) This lingering sense of belonging to the Muslim ummah (community) and of sharing its linguistic and cultural symbols appears difficult to erase. Regardless of how zealous they— or their mentors— may be, the process in which new believers negotiate their identity in Christ can be fraught with ambiguity and ambivalence due to this sense of dual belonging. Forgetting the internalized grammar of their religio-cultural “mother tongue” is a lengthy, if not impossible, process. Robert Schreiter, a Catholic missiologist who has written extensively on inculturation and identity, calls this sense of dual belonging sequential. It occurs when “a person has moved from one religious tradition to another but retains some traces of the earlier belief … Although his presence was accepted, building a sense of social belonging with the ethnic Christian believers was difficult. (22) Khamis no longer calls himself Christian. “Let me explain,” he says, enthusiastically clearing space to plot imaginary lines on our coffee table: There are two aspects to my identity: horizontal and vertical. Horizontally, I am a Muslim, you see? This line is my life, my community, my family, my history, my culture, and my tradition … It is Muslim; it is me. I can’t deny it. It is a part of who I am. I am happy to follow these traditions; no problem at all. But don’t ask me— or try to force me— to believe it … And here, this is the vertical aspect to my identity, which is my faith, my relationship with God. This is private. It can’t be forced because it is inside … I just don’t believe in what has been sent down to Muhammad. You can’t force me to believe this. You would only be forcing me to lie. (22) THINKING DIALOGICALLY Khamis’ strategy for articulating the Christian and Muslim aspects of his identity avoids language that would elevate one aspect as “primary” or “salient.” Instead, he portrays these aspects as being incommensurable— belonging somehow to different dimensions— while, at the same time, still interacting with each other. (22) Ridgway, for example, distinguishes between spiritual and physical identity43 as does Lewis between spiritual and socio-religious identity. 44 It would be a mistake to interpret these descriptions as promoting a dualistic isolation of physical from spiritual. Rather, they seek to articulate a lively dialogue between two equally strong but different senses of belonging. To illustrate this relationship, Lewis and other insider movement advocates often use the “Kingdom Circles” diagram. 45 While I find this diagram very helpful, the overlapping rings still seem unable to capture the dynamic interaction and tensions I observed between different belongings, or the strange sense that I was eavesdropping on an argument. (22) AWAL Awal (50) has been following Christ for two decades. Enduring imprisonment and harassment, his steadfast faith has won him the trust and respect of local pastors. He emigrated recently, but in spite of good career prospects, relationships, and housing, he eventually returned “home.” (23) A while ago my daughter asked me, “Dad, what am I really? Am I a Muslim or a Christian?” … I said, “You’re a Muslim that follows Christ. Our Muslim identity is written on our identity [cards], it’s our extended family, our heritage, our people— but we follow Christ as a family. (24) But, that is so hard for them. My daughter— who is now a teenager, you know— asked me, “Dad, what is going to happen to me? Will I ever get married?” It’s a very difficult time. They need to find their own way … (24) We are not Christians. … We are Muslims. It is among Muslims we find acceptance and belonging … We have experienced so much love from Muslim (24) society and so much rejection from Christians. Our children have felt this and it is hard for them to understand … I no longer care what Christians think. I care what Muslims think. However, even if our president asked me, “What is Christ to you?” I would tell him my faith. I will not compromise Christ, ever— but I am not a Christian … These stereotypical narratives about the West are commonplace among Muslims here. However, I am surprised to find them prominent in Awal’s inner conversation, since at least “half” of him knows they are inaccurate. (24) The continual pressure to surrender total allegiance to one “primary” cultural identity is matched by the refusal to choose between them. (25) MULTIPLE CULTURAL NARRATIVES How many identities can one have? William James suggests that a person “has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares.” 55 A person typically takes on different roles within each of these groups, and these roles are appropriated from the cultural narratives he or she has internalized. 56 (25) Finally, to follow Christ is to be part of a global multicultural movement that “has received from the past a rich inheritance of Christian theology, liturgy, and devotion. (26) In practice then, a purely Muslim “insider” identity, free from all other cultural influences, is both an impossible and a misguided ideal. Every believer has internalized a unique combination of narratives from multiple cultural sources. Each of these narratives carries its own scripts, roles, and belongings which in turn can appear as a voice of identity within the dialogical self. (26) DEPICTING THE DIALOGICAL SELF It may be helpful at this point to depict some key features of a dialogical paradigm. 59 In Figure 3.1, Awal’s self is pictured as a “stage” where the subjectivities of group belongings and personal roles can be indwelt imaginatively and thus given “voices.” 60 The personal identities “Father” and “Christ-follower,” and the group identities “Tribe,” “Muslim community,” and “Local church” are shown “centerstage,” indicating they are voices in dialogue. Awal is exposed to multiple cultural systems and the models of these he constructs in his mind reflect this complexity. The second process is externalization, where he draws on these cognitive models in order to take part in society, thereby joining the “conversation” that in turn shapes external culture for the next generation. For example, through sharing his tribe’s group identity, Awal is exposed to the narratives, scripts, and symbols that make up his tribe’s cultural system, or worldview. As Awal internalizes these, he constructs a cognitive model of what father means within the tribal context. He then appropriates this model by taking up a father’s role and acting it out in society. (26) Additionally, since Awal is influenced by numerous external cultural systems— each one with its own definition of father— it is quite possible for several distinct “father” voices to be in dialogue with each other. In Awal’s explanation of why he returned home one can almost hear the “tribal father” and “Muslim father” standing in close proximity, arguing with a stereotypical “Western Christian father” on the other side of the stage. (27) Rather, by allowing a healthy dialogue within, believers are able to find creative and synergistic “win– win” solutions to problems that obey the Holy Spirit’s voice and are true to scripture while also “hearing,” or valuing, voices from multiple cultural identifications. (27f) Perhaps this corresponds to Schreiter’s third model, simultaneous belonging, where “a person has moved through sequential belonging but then chooses to go back and reappropriate earlier belongings on a par with current allegiances. (28) CONCLUSION Voices related to ethnicity, geography, religion, and empire often coincide to form singular, sharply-defined identities. However, as globalization, pluralism, and migration continue to unravel and multiply these narrative strands, multiple belonging has become an important issue. While all kinds of hyphenated identities are now commonplace, it is only recently that “multiple religious belonging” has been explored. 68 The phenomenon of multiple religious belonging along the Christian-Muslim border zone, in particular, has had very little attention. 69 (28) While multiple belonging is incomprehensible within these Cartesian models, a dialogical paradigm enables these phenomena to be articulated and thus researched. (28) LIVING A PUN: CULTURAL HYBRIDITY AMONG ARAB FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST JENS BARNETT This refusal to choose between two internalized systems of meaning— each linked to a different sense of belonging— greatly complicates Thani’s life. (29) THIRD SPACE HYBRIDITY In Homi Bhabha’s terminology, Thani is a cultural hybrid. His identity occupies an ambiguous “third space,” where the “incommensurable elements” of multiple belongings are brought into dialogue with each other. 73 Third space can be likened to a volatile fault line located between the tectonic plates of older fossilized cultures. (30) Does the current polarization of opinion over the “C Spectrum” paradigm blind us to something “new and unrecognizable”? (30) THANI’S SISTER Thani and I sit in his car, waiting for the traffic to move. Ahead of us, several taxis veer off into the maze of alleyways and side roads on our right, hoping to avoid the congestion on the main road ahead. Thani begins to tell me of his painful struggle a few years ago when he discovered his sister was secretly dating someone, and how torn he felt between the voice of family honor and the apparently very individualistic voice he understood to be Christianity. Using the imagery of street maps instead of “voices,” Thani describes himself as sitting in his car studying two maps. The first shows a main road heading toward honor killing, while the main road depicted on the second map— individualistic freedom— threatens to lead to immorality and family shame. Which map should he follow? “However, Jesus was in the car with me,” explains Thani smiling, “and he showed me a side road.” Thani proudly tells me how he solved his dilemma: Realizing his sister was anxious to get married, he introduced her to a friend he thought was suitable, and then helped them wed. (30) Talith: My faith makes me a better Muslim (33) Hybridity as liminality: Anthropologists’ description of liminal entities as being neither here nor there (34) From the perspective of psychology, Hermans believes such dialogical processes are foundational to the self’s creativity. Liminal spaces are often spiritual places and can become the site of the prophetic in the sense that a prophet serves as a “gate” between worlds. (Turner Ritual Process) Third space subversion (35) Khamis and Thalith are appropriating Muslim symbols in innovative ways. Khamis claims insider status by invoking Muslim interpretants for church and affirming Muslim modesty narratives. Mazhar Mallouhi contests the meaning of “Muslim”. He appropriates the label but openly rejects two pillars of faith: Shahada and pilgrimage. (35f) Should one complain that Mallouhi is not a “good Muslim,” or should he be applauded for making Muslim good? According to whose definition of Muslim should Mallouhi be judged? (36) How do believers become prophetic bridges of truth without losing their right to speak as “insiders” or straying into syncretism? How should cultural symbols be taken captive and made obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:5)? Developing a theology of semiotics that is approachable for practitioners on the mission field is an urgent need. [Note 2 Cor 10:5 Paul clearly argues for the submission of former pagans to Christ’s rule rather than the maintaining of their former practices.] Tim Green, Conversion in the light of identity theories Tim Green, Identity choices at the border zone Social identity options for believers from a Muslim background (BMBS) Marriage serves as a lock in their identity to their spouse’s community (58) Of the believers who had married Muslims or went on to marry Muslims, most maintain a “switching” strategy, to the extent their spouse permits it. A few have re-assimilated into the Muslim community, thus “suppressing” their Christian identity at the social level, even if they continued to nurture a flickering flame of allegiance to Christ at the core level. [Note: Unbiblical bifurcation of believers into a social and core level. Separates “belief” form ethics] A more mature community: Bangladesh (different groups of believers according to Abu Taher Chowdhury) (59) Christian. They are completely assimilated in the traditional church with its festivals, language, and social relationships. They no longer have any contact with their Muslim relatives. Isai. They mostly live in the Christian community but preserve a little contact with their Muslim relatives, visit them at Eid and so on. They switch terminology based on which group they are with. Isai Muslim. Mostly in the Muslim community but they preserve a little contact with Christians. They use Muslim terminology. Christians consider them fake Christians. Muslims see them as odd Muslims but within the range of Muslim sects. Muslims who follow Jesus. No contact with Christians. Everyone considers them Muslims. Within this last group there are two kinds of people: one kind do not attend mosque or carry out Eid. Relatives just think they are slack. Isai group is large enough to arrange its own marriages (61) How are new collective identities formed? Once critical mass is achieved in terms of numbers or visibility, society grudgingly makes room for the new reality and creates a new label. (63) Identity and the insider movement debate Rephrasing Kenneth Cragg: To what extent can people individually and as a group be faithful in following Jesus Christ while maintaining social, cultural, and even legal identity as adherents of the religion into which they were born? (64) Can Islamic terminology be reinterpreted with new Christ-centred meanings? Has adequate recourse been given to the field of semiotics, or of the social psychology of language? (65) Questions of identity for insider movements At the early stages of an insider movement, it would be helpful to find out how believers are integrating their core identity as Christ’s followers with their social identity as Muslims. As they form parallel communities of believers loyal to their Muslim communities, by what strategies do they resolve the dilemma of dual belonging? Does their Muslim community view them as deviant, deceitful or acceptable. What are its identity markers and how permeable are its group boundaries? (65f) I have argued that the search for an integrated identity is of urgent importance to many believers from Muslim background. Identity is complex and multi-dimensional, but we can start to understand it through a three-layer conceptualisation of “collective,” “social”, and “core” identities. (66) Colin Edwards, Patronage, Salvation, and being joined with Jesus: Socio-Anthropological insights from South Asia Wearing burqa is a symbol of status in villages in Bengal, as only the richer classes can afford to sequester their women. (81) The sufi saint as patron-the pir (82) So what is salvation? The difference between what we were taught and what we believe Because I am in my pir, I will be saved too. (83) “I sat there for a while, stunned at his turn of phrase, and said, “You know, I believe almost exactly the same thing.” [Note: This is syncretism at best. The missionary shapes his own understanding around Sufism] Saved through connectedness to Isa al Masih (84) The first step is an event that attracts attention to Isa al Masih. The second step is to investigate who he is, usually looking to the Qur’an. (85) Word of God, Spirit of God, performer of miracles, born of a virgin, holy and pure, god raised Jesus to himself [Note: The Qur’an provides the interpretive gloss not the Bible] Then introduced to the gospels but most have not read the Epistles (86) [note: How would they read them since MITs avoid translating them and IMers often do not believe that a NT extends beyond the gospels] Who has the highest honour: Jesus or Muhammad? (86) Rick Brown, Sharing the Truth with Courtesy and respect for all cultures God has revealed a set of core values and beliefs that he calls all people to accept and follow, calling them in effect to bring their worldviews into accord with the Bible. (108) [note: This is a world away from incorporating them into a covenantal identity] So while God values cultural diversity and plans to preserve aspects of every culture, he also aims to reform their worldviews by instilling in all people the core values and beliefs revealed in the Bible. (108) [Note: Link to incarnational theology and mission] Therefore, we need to distinguish between worldview and culture. (108) People in the same culture can have different worldviews (core values and beliefs), and people in different cultures can have the same core values and beliefs. Therefore, a person’s worldview can become biblical without that person moving to a different culture. (110) [Note: Attempts to sever foundation of worldview and culture in religious beliefs. Disguises religion as culture] The Bible mandates cultural diversity and hence contextualisation Jesus preached the gospel to Samaritans, to Gentiles in Lebanon and Decapolis, and to Romans in Galilee without demanding that they convert to Jewish customs and identity. (110) He showed James and the Apostles, through key scriptures and the manifest evidence of the Holy Spirit, that Gentile believers everywhere should follow the customs of their own cultural norms rather than adopting Jewish religious practices (Act 15:1-35) (110f) [Note: The text says nothing about maintaining a former religious identity. In fact, abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality, al practices of Gentile religion (David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles PNTC Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009,439f, 445f )] [Note: The council’s main significance was not dealing with contextualisation as a practice but affirming a theological verity, that salvation comes to the Gentiles without circumcision. The Council was more concerned with Christ’s saving work Peterson 445] The result was that believers in different contexts had different ways of worshiping and living out their faith in community with one another, presumably appropriate for ach culture. Yet they shared the same biblical faith. (111) Some Christians have learned to speak the language of a Muslim people group, yet have rejected the group’s names for prophets of the Bible and their terms for religious concepts, insisting on using imported terms. This conveys disrespect for the people by pointedly rejecting their authentic mother tongue. When Christians present the message with disrespect for their audience, by ignoring their sensitivities of language and custom, this often provokes the audience to reject the message. (111) [Note: The terms the Bible itself uses are not imported. People who reinterpret these names and terms through the lens of the Qur’an are importing not just names but alien concepts to the Bible. Christians are being faithful not disrespectful. Muslims disrespect people who try to camouflage altered understandings of Qur’anic concepts. What terms does he refer to? Whose names? Jesus, the Son, the Father?] Insufficient contextualisation breeds syncretism. Example is wearing shoes in worship or placing the Bible on the ground. Since these are considered impious by a particular culture that constitutes syncretism. (112) [Note: Who gets to decide if something is syncretism? Since when does the offending of religious sensibilities constitute syncretism? None of the practices noted stem from Christian beliefs.] Missionaries can foster critical contextualisation Contextualisation complies with God’s plan to redeem every culture. (113) [Note: What is meant by every culture?] David Smith, Concluding reflections Barnabas and the church in Antioch (Act 11:19-26) Despite criticism, there has been so much “evidence of the grace of God” at work that people should just press on with their work. (227) Jesus never made the claim “I am God” or “I am divine” but he used several titles to describe himself all taken from the OT. Son of Man, Son, suffering servant all of which boldly claimed that Jesus enjoyed an “especially close” relationship to God. (228) [Note: Jesus worshiped as God immediately following the resurrection. He also claimed to be “I Am”. See Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ; Richard Bauckham, God Crucified; Martin Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God] Gradual understanding of the complex oneness of God. Took 200 years more for words like “Trinity” and “Person” (229) Why should we expect more from Muslims who have to go through a process similar to Jews [Note: One difference is that Muslims are already faced with both an OT and a NT.] [Note: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had to be affirmed prior to baptism in the Didache] [Note: Muslims are in fact being convinced to remain Muslims not transition into Christians. They are not part of the same covenant as Jews and Christians. Insiders are, when baptism is acknowledged, being baptised as Muslims.] Other criticisms sound to the practitioners as if they come from “armchair” spectators observing what is happening in far off countries from the safety of seminaries or mission headquarters. Too busy analysing the significance of what they have been witnessing. Up to others to engage. (231) [Note: Utter arrogance. Most critics of IM are practicing missionaries and national Christians not being paid by missions organisations. How can others engage when names are falsified as well as locations? How many independent IM nationals write articles defending their practices? Do the armchair spectators include visible churches?] Defines success of contextualisation as less extraction contrasted with comfortable homogeneous Christianity. [Note: Would not less extraction also suggest less conversion or perhaps more syncretism?] Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 978-987). . Kindle Edition. Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 974-975). . Kindle Edition. Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 969-970). . Kindle Edition. Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 966-969). . Kindle Edition. Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 961-962). . Kindle Edition. Greenlee, David (2013-06-19). Longing for Community (Kindle Locations 950-951). . Kindle Edition. David H. Greenlee, “How is the Gospel Good News for Muslims?” The question of identity Rebecca Lewis: “Does one have to go through Christianity to enter God’s family?” (214) Far from advocating inclusivism, she and the Travises are exploring ways that believers in Christ may remain completely faithful to Jesus and to the Bible, yet without unnecessarily rejecting (or giving the perception of rejecting) their families and culture. (214f) Kathryn Kraft: For most Muslims, leaving Islam cannot even be conceived of as a possibility. (215) They do not want this to entail rejecting their strong cultural heritage, which is identified as Islamic. The biggest challenge they face in developing a new identity is determining how to continue to be culturally Muslim while following a Christian faith. How do these followers of Jesus find this new identity? Kraft summarises that while they…generally recognise and feel a sense of commonality with each other, they approach their identity negotiation in a variety of ways. (216) Some reject everything about their past and choose to become fully “Christian.” These are the individuals who are most likely to break off relations with their former communities. Others consider their faith and their ethnicity to be completely separate and consider themselves to be both Muslim and followers of Christ; some of these sought to be socially indistinguishable from their Muslim neighbours. If pressed, most participants admitted to being Muslim in culture, and Christian in creed, although the historical animosity between the world’s two largest religions would preclude them from ever calling themselves “Muslim Christians.” The participants who demonstrated the greatest degree of comfort with a well-developed identity were those who had successfully adhered a Christian religious identity onto a preexistent Muslim ethnic identity. Nonetheless, each participant worked through this process in his/her own way. They negotiated a new identity for themselves. John Jay Travis, Reflections on Jesus Movements among Muslims with Special Reference to Movements within Asian Muslim Communities Cites John W. Wilder, “Some Reflections on Possibilities for People Movements among Muslims” Missiology: An International Review 5, no. 3 (July 1977). (233) Saw messianic Judaism and saw parallel potential for Muslim ministry Postulated one of two possibilities (235) A people movement to Christ which remains within Islam A people movement constituting a new church of Muslim cultural orientation What Travis thinks would have been C4-C5 Postulated four other features of movements to Christ within Islam They would engage in self-theologising They might have different views of the sacraments They might emphasise different parts of the Bible from what Christians traditionally emphasise (235f) Note 13 Wilder stated that, due to the Islamic belief in the Taurat (Pentateuch or Entire OT), Zabur (Psalms), and Injil (the Gospels of the NT), it would be possible that Jesus movements inside Muslim communities would emphasise only those parts of the Bible. (236) They would likely have little contact, if any, with existing non-Muslim background churches. Could have some however through individual initiative on the part of missionaries or nationals. They would retain a strong Islamic cultural flavour They might need the help of cross-cultural workers to decide whether to retain circumcision, on what day of the week to worship, the role of clergy, the use of Muslim wedding customs, the need for and/or method of baptism, the place of women in the church, and how the church is to be governed. Since the publication of Wilder’s article, tens of thousands of Muslims have come to faith in Isa al-Masih Importance of contextualised Bible translations that depart from “churchy” language and tradition for the sake of the Muslims and use vocabulary that is affectively and cognitively meaningful for them (239) Note 30. Culturally appropriate ways to translate the Holy Spirit, Son of God, Lord, Christian, and church need to be discovered. Recent findings of movement in South Asia [Note: No facts, no location etc.] [Note: This is a fraud] J. Verkuyl, Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Trends in the theology of religions Roman Catholicism Vatican II, Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes (345) Lumen Gentium did away with the traditional teaching that the Roman Catholic church and the kingdom of God are identical It also did away with the conquistadors’ interpretation of the adage extra ecclesiam nulla salus The chief interest of the Roman Catholic church is no longer cultures but religions and religious communities in their totality (346) “The church therefore exhorts her sons, tat through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love in witness to Christian faith and love, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.” Raymond Panikkar Aquinas’ thesis that the sacraments are required for a person to gain salvation is true, but in the case of non-Christian religions these are the rites, which function as means of grace. (347f) Protestantism A proper starting point for a theology of religions is the Trinitarian confession (355) Should not one also be open to God’s creational revelation in the history of religions? (356) Melchizedek, Job, Balaam and others outside of the covenant line but had a direct relationship to God What transpired between God and Muhammad when he meditated in the grotto? I believe one must confess that not only is God active in nature and in the history of peoples and religions but also in the history of each and every human being. Does not mean that religious systems that do not know Christ must be acknowledged as means of salvation (357) The Holy Spirit and the theology of religions The Holy Spirit, even as the Father and the Son, is also at work in the world, for he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son (359) The Holy Spirit is latently active in so many ways among those people who live within the context of other religious traditions. This does not mean that a person who leaves his native religion to become a member of the ecumenical church necessarily has to leave everything behind, as though he were a man fleeing his burning house. (360) I am thinking of the sense of divine transcendence which is prevalent among Christians whose roots lie in the Muslim tradition. Henk Prenger “Missiological Reflections for SIL” (Feb 2010) Andrew Walls’ observations in The mission of the Church Today in the Light of Global History. . . Conversion is not about substituting something new for something old; that is the proselyte model. Nor is it a matter of adding something new to something old. It is much more radical than either. It is the steady, relentless turning of all the mental and moral processes toward Christ. In other words, it is turning what is already there; turning to Christ the elements of the pre-conversion setting. (2) The Enlightenment started in the 17th century and ended in the latter half of the 20th century. Man is supreme in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. We can be enlightened and gain all knowledge by applying science and reason. (4) The postmodern paradigm calls for increased ecumenical work, i.e. working in partnerships, in which the western missionary increasingly is seen as expendable. There is a shift from a church-centered mission to a mission-centered church (missional churches). The big missiological breakthrough of the 20th century is the concept of Missio Dei - the mission of God. God is a missional God, and God sends the church. The church is the mission, and we participate in missio Dei. Karl Barth is among the theologians who have developed this concept. Some other teachings that have been derived from the Missio Dei concept are Paul Hiebert's contrast between the centered set (a church centered on Christ) and a bounded set (a church defined by boundaries). The centered set is inclined to be more missional. The emerging "new perspective" church movement, that looks at church as a organism rather than an institution, and likewise places less emphasis on itself and more on its mission, as part of Missio Dei. There is a fresh recognition that "the church is the only society in the world which exists for the sake of those who are not members of it" (375). (5) The Kingdom of God, and the Holistic Christological Framework The Kingdom of God is back in focus, like with Paul. The purpose of Christ's Church is to see God's Glory increase in this world, and to see the beginnings of the restoration His creation and the establishment of His Kingdom. The Church is not the kingdom of God, but the seed and the beginning of that Kingdom. Eschatology plays an important role once again in formulating today's missiology. Bosch has an interesting quote from Snyder (6) Kingdom people seek first the Kingdom of God and its justice; church people often put church work above concerns of justice, mercy and truth. Church people think about how to get people into the church; Kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; Kingdom people work to see the church change the world (378). Missiologists also increasingly realize that God's turning to the world also happens outside of the domain and work of the Church. God certainly is not restricted to work only through His Church. God is at work, through the Holy Spirit, in the entire world. Andrew Walls' third observation that the Christianity faith involves translation includes the inculturation of our faith, which is another aspect of contextual theology. Inculturation is a new concept in missiology since the 1970's. We have always known, of course, that the Christian faith never exists except as "translated" into a culture. (7) The Protestant mission was not mandated by church authority and hierarchy, but because of a strong believes in humankind's total depravity, the Protestant missionaries were suspicious of "non-Christian" human cultures. This low view of other cultures did not allow for an inculturation of the faith in this "undeveloped" setting, but led instead mostly to a reproduction of European models of theology and church (450). (8) Viewpoints changed over time, and especially after WWII, when colonialism started to come to an end and nationalism was on the rise. Some churches in the Third World were maturing. A fourth self was added to the 19th century three-self strategy, namely self-theologizing. This paved the way for the concept of inculturation, which is based on the premise that a plurality of cultures presupposes a plurality of theologies. The Christian faith must be rethought, reformulated and lived anew in each human culture (452). In the process of inculturation, the agents are the local faith community and the Holy Spirit, not the missionary, who is still important, but as a learning participant instead of the answer-man. This process focuses on the local situation and touches on all aspects of the setting: social, economic, political, religious, educational, etc. It follows the model of incarnation as the gospel is being "en-fleshed" and "em-bodied" in a people and a culture. "In this paradigm, it is not so much a case of the church being expanded, but of the church being born anew in each new context and culture." The local expression of the gospel and the church need to feel at home in each culture. Walls does remind us that each local church remains a "pilgrim" as well, realizing that no society can ever absorb the work of Christ painlessly (452-455). We are in need of a postmodern theology of religion. Traditionally, in the Catholic Church the message was, "outside the Church there is no salvation." In the Protestant Church we replaced the Church with the Word. "Outside the Word there is no salvation." In these postmodern days, there is a new openness to spiritual things. At the same time there is a resurgence in nationalism and nation building. Other religions can be fairly aggressive these days in their evangelism, and we are of course all familiar with the militant reactions of some fundamental Muslims, both inside Islam and in the West. How do we deal with and interact with the other religions in the world?(9) Some realize that Christianity has not been very good at inculturation in the past, whereas other religions have been more successful in this, such as Buddism and Hinduism. Bosch is quoting Aloysius Pieris: We should never have transplanted Christianity to Asia without breaking the pot in which the plant came. The recent "inculturation-fever" is a desperate last-moment bid to give an Asian façade to a church which has failed to strike roots in Asian soil, because no one dares to break the Greco-Roman pot in which, for centuries, it has been existing like a stunted bonsai. Maybe Christianity has missed its chance because it arrived too late on the Asian scene. Now its only hope lies not in trying to create (for instance) just an Indian Christianity, but a Hindu Christianity (478). This approach may be somewhat radical, but we need to wrestle with questions such as, "Does God work out his plan through other religions, or is God only at work in Christianity and through the Church? " and, "Is Christianity exclusive in every aspect, and are all other religions satanic?" There seems to be some room today for answers other than the black & white modern doctrines. In postmodern times the Catholic Church has had a shift from ecclesiocentrism (church-centered) to christocentric (Christ- centered). The Protestant church always has had a more Christ-centered view. Adam Simnowitz, Muslim Idiom Translation: Assessing So-Called Scripture Translation for Muslim Audiences With a Look into its Origins in Eugene A. Nida’s Theories of Dynamic Equivalence and Cultural Anthropology Thesis Dec 3 2015 CIU. For this reason, MIT has often been shrouded in secrecy by its proponents yet embroiled in controversy when openly addressed.196) 1 E.g. the online petition, “Lost in Translation: Keep Father and Son in the Bible," and the "Report To World Evangelical Alliance For Conveyance To Wycliffe Global Alliance And SIL International" [or, WEA Report], both of which are addressed in Chapter Two. In spite of my growing awareness of MIT, it was not until the summer of 2008 that I began to realize that MIT was connected to "C5"10 or "Insider Movements" (IM) for Muslims.11 Both of these terms refer to the idea that biblical faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can be maintained (7) 10 See John Travis, “The C1 TO C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-centered Communities’ (‘C’) Found in the Muslim Context,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34, no. 4 (October 1998): 407-408. 11 For example, see my review of Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path Between Two Faiths , by Paul-Gordon Chandler (http://www.answering-islam.org/reviews/chandler_mallouhi.html , accessed May 28, 2014). along with a Muslim identity.12 C5/IM teaches that a "believer" in Jesus can hold to any of the tenets of Islam and engage in any of its practices - including the confession of Muhammad as a prophet.13 This has led to such loaded terminology as "Messianic Muslims,"14 "Muslim follower of Jesus,"15 and "Muslim follower of Christ"16 (which some have adopted seemingly unaware of their origin). Such thinking has also birthed the notion of "Kingdom Circles" in which the "Kingdom of God" is redefined from its biblical usage in the attempt to circumvent identifying a "Muslim Background Believer" (MBB)17 as a "Christian."18 (8) 12 See Becky Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ Within Natural Communities,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 24, no. 2 (Summer 2007): 75-76 ("An 'insider movement' is any movement to faith in Christ where a) the gospel flows through pre-existing communities and social networks, and where b) believing families, as valid expressions of faith in Christ, remain inside their socioreligious communities, retaining their identity as members of that community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible...'insider movements' can take place within any socioreligious context...such as Islamic..."); cf. H.L. Richard, moderator, in commenting on Lewis' definition in “Unpacking the Insider Paradigm: An Open Discussion on Points of Diversity,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 26, no. 4 (Winter 2009): 176 ("You follow Jesus as a Hindu, as a Muslim, as a Buddhist, or as whatever other variety of socio-religious community you might be from.").; Joshua Massey, “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (January-March 2000): 7 ("C5 is much like C4 with the primary difference being self-identity. Whereas C4 believers identify themselves as 'followers of Isa,' C5 believers identify themselves as 'Muslim followers of Jesus'—much like Messianic Jews calling themselves 'Jewish followers of Jesus.'"). 13 This is not to imply that C5/IM teaches that such a person must follow all of the beliefs and practices of Islam. C5/IM advocates differ among themselves as to what aspects of Islam are acceptable for a "believer." What is agreed upon, however, is the retention of a Muslim identity. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, "Muslim," implies an acceptance of the shahāda , or Islamic confession of faith: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger/apostle." According to Islamic teaching, this means that Muhammad is the "Seal of the prophets," that is, the final prophet sent into the world whose message is binding on all of humanity. 14 See Phil Goble and Salim Munayer, New Creation Book For Muslims (Pasadena, Calif.: Mandate Press, 1989); cf. Travis, “The C1 TO C6 Spectrum," 408 ("C5: Christ-centered Communities of 'Messianic Muslims' Who Have Accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior"); John Travis, "Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations," International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 53-59; Charles H. Kraft, SWM/SIS at Forty: A Participant/Observer's View of Our History (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2005), 274 ("The word 'Christian,' for example...is a very negative label in the Muslim world...A real breakthrough has come in winning Muslims to Christ in places where the converts are not required to call themselves by this hated name. They may call themselves 'Muslims who follow Isa,' or 'Messianic Muslims,' or 'lsa followers,' or some other name that has positive rather than negative connotations. And they are saved by following Jesus, not by wearing the name 'Christian.'"). 15 See D.O. "A Jesus Movement Within Islam," Interconnect 5 (Jan. 1991): 15 ("When referring to conversion in our mission reports, could we not speak of 'Abdul, who is a Muslim follower of Jesus?'"; cf. 16, 19, 21). 16 See Paul Gordon Chandler, Pilgrims of Christ On the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path between Two Faiths (Lanham, MD: Cowley Publications, 2007), 4, 69 ("Mazhar Mallouhi, who calls himself a 'Muslim follower of Christ'"...; "groups of Muslim followers of Christ, like himself..."). On August 31, 2008, I had a conversation with Mallouhi in which I was speaking in general terms by saying, "As Christians..." Mallouhi quickly interjected to tell me that he was not a Christian but a "Muslim follower of Christ." 17 MBB is an ambiguous term. It can indicate a former Muslim who has converted to saving faith in Jesus Christ or a "Muslim follower of Christ." In what is perhaps its first appearance in a published article, it is used by a leading IM advocate, Joshua Massey [pseud.]. See his article, "Planting the Church Underground in Muslim Contexts," International Journal of Frontier Missions 13, no. 3 (July-Sep. 1996): 150 ["The fact is that such quiet house-fellowships are often the only option for many Muslim background believers (MBBs) today."] First, too often its proponents are not forthright about the existence of MIT. They often describe MIT in equivocal terms such as translations that are in the "heart language;"20 "meaning-based;"21 "culturally appropriate;"22 etc. Because its distinctive features are not usually divulged it is extremely difficult - if not impossible - for those unfamiliar with MIT to know that such a production will employ any one of, or even all of the following: non-literal renderings for Father and Son terminology; words and phrases from the Quran; Islamic theological terms; and the omission of certain sections of Scripture.23 (10) 20 e.g. see Rick Brown, "Like Bright Sunlight: The Benefit of Communicating in Heart Language," International Journal of Frontier Missions 26, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 86 ("Many ministries in the 10/40 Window use a mixed form of 'local language' that is not the community’s heart language at all...rejecting the people’s own religious terms and names and using ones from outside their socioreligious community...rejecting their vocabulary still conveys rejection of their identity and worth... Muslims may be no more hostile or resistant than anyone else to the biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ but they are quite sensitive to rejection of their language, culture, and social identity. When presented with the biblical Gospel in their own style and vocabulary, open-minded Muslims often respond with exclamations of joy, saying 'This is our Book!'"); ibid., 88, n.5 ("Unfortunately, many Bible translations are produced by and for cultural Christians, with little thought for the Scripture needs of other major cultures, such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., who generally need a version of their own, in authentic heart language and style."). 21 e.g. see Rick Brown, "Translating the Biblical Term 'Son(s) of God' in Muslim Contexts, pt. II," International Journal of Frontier Missions 22, no. 4 (Winter 2005), 140 ("So some of the believers there produced an experimental edition of Mark that uses a synonym approach for the divine sonship terminology...In location B the ‘Beloved’ synonym was used in a translation of the New Testament... [many] people in country Z,,,objected strongly to the term ‘Son of God’, even with an explanation...[but] they could accept ‘spiritual Son of God’, along with an explanation...So far, the results of meaning-based translation have been very positive."). 22 e.g. see SIL Consultative Group for Muslim Idiom Translation, "SIL Internal Discussion Papers on MIT #2: The Relationship between Translation and Theology, version 2," unpublished working document (January 2011), no pagination, page 2 of Word doc. ("The very nature of language and the richness of cultural diversity require Scripture to communicate in linguistically and culturally appropriate ways... The process of exegesis, translation, and culturally-appropriate communication is important so that people can accept the message, and make it their own...Literal translations, that is, those that follow the structure and vocabulary of another language, may lead to serious misunderstandings. So translations should take into account the local language and culture and also address distortions in understanding coming from the local religious worldview."). The following is a list of key terms used throughout this thesis: (15) C5: "Christ-centered Communities of 'Messianic Muslims' who have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior...C5 believers are viewed as Muslims by the Muslim community and refer to themselves as Muslims who follow Isa [i.e. Jesus] the Messiah."31 Dynamic Equivalence (DE): quality of a translation in which the message of theoriginal text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principal is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE.32 Insider Movements (IM): "An 'insider movement' is any movement to faith in Christ where a) the gospel flows through pre-existing communities and social networks, and where b) believing families, as valid expressions of faith in Christ, remain inside their socioreligious communities, retaining their identity as members of that community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible."33 Muslim idiom translation (MIT): "Translations contextualised for M[uslim] people groups in a way which communicates best to them but often not to Western Christians or even traditional churches in the area..."34 31 Travis, The C1 TO C6 Spectrum : 408. 32 Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill; and New York: United Bible Societies, 1969), 200. This is the most precise definition given by Nida for DE even though he had introduced the term prior to this publication. 33 Lewis, “Promoting Movements,” 75. 34 Andy Clark, "Exploring Muslim Idiom Translation," unpublished document (PowerPoint, IALPC [i.e. International and Area Language Program Consultation] 2011), slide 7. Several writings by David Owen, a former American missionary to the Middle East who studied at Fuller Theological Seminary36 in the 1970s,37 begin the category for the advocacy of MIT. From 1986-1988, Owen wrote several articles for Seedbed, then a publication of Arab World Ministries (AWM).38 (17) Two important points are to be noted. First, Owen delineated what would come to be known as C5/IM. This includes his belief in the inseparable connection between "Islamic-styled Bible translations"46 (i.e. MIT), and "a movement for Jesus inside Islam"47 (i.e. C5/IM). Second, SAM is, for all practical considerations, the first MIT which was one of Owen's desires: One of our hopes is that Project Sunrise [i.e. SAM] will stimulate a new movement of Bible translation making use of Islamic-styled Arabic of literary quality in which each piece of work will build on the efforts of the previous one.48 41 David Owen, “Project Sunrise: Principles, Description and Terminology,” Seedbed II, no. 2 (1987): unpublished working document (February 18, 2014). 46 Ibid., 17. 47 Owen, “Project Sunrise: Principles, Description and Terminology." 48 Owen, "Project Sunrise: Principles." The most well-known sources for writings advocating for MIT are found in two publications of Frontier Ventures (FV), a new entity created out of the merger of The Frontier Mission Fellowship and U.S. Center for World Mission, both of which were founded by the late Dr. Ralph Winter.50 They are the International Journal of Frontier Missiology51 (formerly, International Journal of Frontier Missions), both of which use the same acronym, IJFM, and Mission Frontiers (MF).52 (19) The majority of these articles have been written by Rick Brown,53 a member of WBT-SIL since 1973.54 In addition to being a contributing author to IJFM, Brown has also beeconsulting editor for it since 2007,55 coinciding with its aforementioned name change.56 Between 2000-2011, Brown authored and co-authored some very significant articles for IJFM (19) 53 Rick Brown is a variation of the name, Darrell Richard Brown. He has also published under Darrell Richard Brown, D. Richard Brown, Richard Brown, Rich Brown, Rick B., and presumably, R.B. 54 See Jonathan E. Arensen and D. Richard Brown, "Objectives and Priorities in Bible Translation," Notes On Translation 1, no. 113 (1986): 1 ["Richard (Rich) Brown completed a B.S. in Physics and an M.Div. in Exegetical Studies both at Duke University. He has completed course work towards a doctorate in linguistics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He and his wife, Lenore, joined SIL in 1973 and have been working with the Kresh language project in Sudan. Rich serves the Branch as a consultant in translation, linguistics, literacy, and computing."]; cf. http://www.sil.org/biography/richard-brown . 55 Ralph D. Winter, "From the Editor's Desk," International Journal of Frontier Missiology , 24, no. 1 (January-March 2007): 3, accessed September 12, 2015, http://ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/24_1_PDFs/Editorial.pdf . See under "Consulting Editors," on the side bar on the right-hand side of the page. 56 IJFM Editorial Staff, "The New IJFM and ISFM 2006—Atlanta," International Journal of Frontier Missiology , 24, no. 1 (January-March 2007): 4, accessed September 12, 2015, http://ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/24_1_PDFs/Editorial.pdf . that promote and defend MIT (as well as C5/IM).57 Beginning with his article, "The 'Son of God': Understanding the Messianic Titles of Jesus,"58 Brown soon gained a reputation as one of the greatest advocates for non-literal renderings for "Son" and "Son of God" in so-called Scripture translations for Muslims.59 In none of these articles are Brown's roles within WBT-SIL, nor his participation in their production and distribution of LoP/SoP, their "audio panoramic Bible," which employ non-literal renderings for "Father" and "Son" terminology disclosed. (20) Another major advocate for MIT is the pseudonymous, "Leith Gray,"60 a WBT-SIL colleague of Rick Brown. As a frequent contributor to joint-authored articles with Brown and others, he has been a strong proponent and defender of MIT. Two articles involving Gray are particularly important to our topic: "The Missing Father: Living and Explaining a Trinitarian Concept of God to Muslims,"61 and "A Muslim Encounters the Gospel of Mark: Theological Implications of Contextual Mismatch."62 As with Brown, Gray's roles within WBT-SIL, especially his participation in various versions of LoP/SoP, and The True Meaning of the Gospel and Acts in Arabic,63 an Arabic MIT in which "Father" in reference to God is never literally rendered, are not disclosed. Such disclosure is vitally important for the reader to more readily recognize that these articles by Brown and Gray are arguments in favour of the distinctive features for already-existing audio and printed versions of MIT in which they themselves had a part. (20) 57 A search of the IJFM archives page will reveal numerous articles by Brown regarding MIT and C5/IM issues. See http://ijfm.org/archives.htm . 58 Rick Brown, "The 'Son of God': Understanding the Messianic Titles of Jesus," International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 41-52. 59 See bibliography for a number of his articles. 60 He has also signed his name by the following pen names: "Larry Chico," "Larry C.," "L.C.," and "Mansour Ciccarelli." According to Michael Marlowe, "Leith Gray" is a pseudonym for "Larry Ciccarelli." See Michael Marlowe, "Notes to Against the Theory of ‘Dynamic Equivalence’," notes 4 and 13, last modified January 2012, accessed September 12, 2015, http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/turabian_citationguide.html . 61 Leith Gray, "The Missing Father: Living and Explaining a Trinitarian Concept of God to Muslims," Mission Frontiers 30, no. 6 (November-December 2008): 19-22. 62 Leith Gray and Andrea Gray, "A Muslim Encounters the Gospel of Mark: Theological Implications of Contextual Mismatch," International Journal of Frontier Missiology 25, no. 3 (Fall 2008): 127-134. 63 Hadi Jatlaoui, et.al., The True Meaning of the Gospel and Acts in Arabic (Beirut: Dar Al Farabi, 2008). See http://www.al-kalima.com/content/the-portfolio/scripture . The main purpose of these articles is to convince the reader that non-literal renderings for "Father" and "Son" terminology have justification. The authors' assertion is based their claim that there is a need to distinguish between "biological" fathers and sons and "social" fathers and sons: "In most cultures and languages there is a distinction between biological kinship and social kinship."156 It is not insignificant that Nida made these same distinctions in conjunction with "father" on more than one occasion.157 (33) According to the authors, certain languages spoken by Muslims, like Arabic and various Turkic languages lack a set of social familial terms...and it would be inaccurate to translate the Hebrew or Greek word for a social father or son using a word for a biological father or son...This is especially the case with regard to the Father-Son relation, which was generated non-biologically, without procreation.158 155 Rick Brown, Leith Gray, and Andrea Gray, "Translating Familial Biblical Terms: an Overview of the Issue," Mission Frontiers 34, no. 1 (January-February 2012): 26-30. 156 Brown, Gray, and Gray, "A New Look," 106. 157 Eugene A. Nida, Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages (New York: American Bible Society, 1947), 137 ("both the biological and social aspects of the word 'father' are significant"); cf. Eugene A. Nida, Fascinated by Languages (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003), 116 ("Would it not be more helpful to distinguish between biological relations (real and figurative) and sociological roles [i.e. regarding the word, 'father' in Hebrew]"). 158 Brown, Gray, and Gray, "Translating Familial," 27. Rick Brown wrote an article for Seedbed, "What One Must Believe About Jesus InTo Be Saved By Faith In Him."208 It was updated and then published in IJFM by the title (whwas changed from a declaration to a question), "What Must One Believe about Jesus for Salvation?."209 He posed the question, "But what must one minimally believe about the role (name) of Jesus in order to put faith in him adequate to enter the Kingdom and be saved from condemnation?"210 Brown asserted : "It is clear from the Scriptures that a person is saved, not by doctrine per se, but by personal faith in Jesus as Christ his Lord. He then presented a list of selected Scripture passages that he felt upheld his assertion, interspersed with his common them. (44) The following quotes show a number of specific doctrines that Brown considered unnecessary for salvation: 207 Regarding Owen, the author has class notes from 2011 in which the professor, who knows Owen said, "David was one of the first persons that went this far at that time. He went off track. I tried to stop him but he denied the faith, divorced his wife...He has forbidden the use of his Sirat as he no longer believes this." This same professor forwarded an email on September 8, 2001, from another person in contact with Owen who wrote: "David Owen hasbecome agnostic, but he at least believes that the Qu'ran was inspired by the God of Abraham to correct the wrong teaching that God became Man, that Jesus is God. He offered to write a statement that I could share with inquirers. Many know that I have deliberately befriended David and his family, in spite of his headlong rush into what seeto me to be spiritual darkness and unbelief. David offered to sit with me to DEMONSTRATE from the Qu'ran, which is a PLAIN KITAB, that Jesus is not God, the resurrection did not occur, etc. My view is that [Muhammad] correctly understood the Gospel, and the Qu'ran is an introduction of the Torat, Zabbur, and Injil for Arabs. Taken together, the four books fully present the Gospel." 208 Rick B., "What One Must Believe About Jesus In Order To Be Saved by Faith in Him,” Seedbed XIV, 2.17, no. 4 (Winter 2000), pagination removed, accessed May 4, 2014. (1999), unpublished working document (18 February 2014). 209 Rick Brown, "What Must One Believe about Jesus for Salvation?,"17, no 4. (Winter 2000), pagination removed, accessed May 4, 2014, http://ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_4_PDFs/02_Brow 210 Brown 211 Ibid. The Scriptures...do not make an understanding of [Christ's] deity a requirement for salvation, and it is not mentioned in the earliest creed, that of the Apostles.212 ... (45) it is not stated that one must understand the atoning value of Christ's death in order to be saved...The closest thing to mentioning the atonement in evangelism is found in Acts 8...Elsewhere in Acts, the death and resurrection of Christ is presented as an act of power that demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah: it is the sign of Jonah that Jesus foretold but it is not generally proclaimed as a sacrifice for sins. Its redemptive value is explained to believers...(e.g.. John 11:50-51; I John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Rev 1:5).213 There is no statement saying that people must believe that Jesus is God before they can be saved, and...most of the early Christians had little understanding of the Trinity.214 [The Gospel According to Jesus by John McArthur] also mentions facts which are biblical but not basic to the gospel; they are true and beneficial to know but belief in them is not a prerequisite to saving faith. These include the divinity of Christ and the penal substitutionary sacrifice accomplished by the death of Christ.215 Although Paul’s partial summary of the Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-4 includes the fact that "Christ died for our sins," there is no Scripture passage saying that belief in this fact is a requirement for salvation. 216 213 Ibid., footnote 5. 214 Ibid. 215 Ibid. 216 Ibid One of Brown's WBT-SIL colleagues, Henk Prenger, wrote the paper, "Missiological Reflections for SIL."243 Prenger served as Director of Operations and Change Manager for SIL in from "December 1999-March 2014."244 He "directed the SIL operations in Eurasia (N-Africa, Middle East, Central & West Asia, Russia, and Europe),"245 and was specifically mentioned as the WEG Director.246 As WEG director, he had oversight for at least 8 current or future "non-literal 'Son of God'" productions and seven such productions "related to IM" projected to 2025 (it is unknown if there is any overlap between them).247 (50) In his paper, "Missiological Reflections for SIL,"248 Prenger expressed the need for SIL to adapt to postmodernism which is well summarized by the following quote: In our limited understanding we need to point people to salvation through Jesus Christ, but we do not want to presume to limit the saving power of God. There is a tension in that previous sentence, and that tension is welcome. We regard our involvement in mission as an adventure and we are prepared to take risks. We are anticipating surprises as the Holy Spirit guides us into fuller understanding. Our ultimate goal is to become participants in the mighty works of God (Missio Dei). 249 Prenger abandons the exclusive claims of the Gospel for an inclusive view of salvation. He attributes this view to the work of the Holy Spirit by alluding to John 16:13.250 This understanding of "mission" is not only held by SIL leadership but taught with a view to its acceptance among SIL personnel, a number of whom are MIT practitioners. 243 Henk Prenger, "Missiological Reflections for SIL," unpublished working document (February 2010). 244 "Henk Prenger," LinkedIn, accessed September 22, 2015, https://www.linkedin.com/pub/henk-prenger/7b/475/922 . 245 Ibid. 246 SIL, "EAA committee meetings 2011: Report shared with WEG membership," unpublished working document (March 2011). 247 Clark, "Exploring Muslim Idiom Translation," slide 8. 248 Henk Prenger, "Missiological Reflections for SIL," unpublished document (February 2010). 249 Ibid., 9. 250 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." Prenger's allusion to this verse is shown to be incorrect by the very next verse (John 16:14): "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you." The Holy Spirit points people to Jesus who points to Himself (John 10:1-18; 14:6). To argue that there is salvation in something or someone other than Jesus is not in keeping with "He will glorify Me" nor in being faithful to the words of Jesus that include repeated exclusive statements about Himself. The earliest known examples of translations using distinctive Islamic terminology appear in Arabic, some of which date from the ninth and tenth centuries AD. Sidney Griffith, quoting Richard M. Frank, refers to this phenomenon as giving a “Muslim cast” to the language.255 Griffith gives a representative example of this from the “quotation” of John 15:23-16:1 in Ibn Hisham’s,256 Biography of the Prophet [i.e. Muhammad] (Arabic, Sīrat al-nabī), in which: (52) the translator (or his later editor?) has changed words in the passage that might offend Muslim sensibilities, e.g., using 'the Lord' in place of the original 'Father.' This, along with other adjustments, are revealing of early suspicions that the biblical text was corrupt, and of a tendency on the part of Muslim scholars already to 'Islamicize' their cited versions of earlier scriptural narratives.”257 Another example of "Islamicizing" Scripture is from the Zaydi Muslim theologian, al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm al-Rassī. In his polemical work, Radd 'alā al-naṣārā (i.e. Response to the Christians),258 from AD 9th Century, al- Qāsim translated "parts of Matthew's Gospel into Arabic...altering words and phrases and omitting sections in order to make the original conform to Islamic beliefs."259 In Matthew 4:3, "Son of God," is changed to "the less particular 'beloved of God'"260 while in Matthew 6:9, "Our Father," is changed to, "Our Lord."261 David Thomas commented about the thinking behind such changes: "This Islamicization of the Gospel is symptomatic of the confident early third/ninth-century belief that Islam provided the criteria for true teachings."262 Over two decades later, in 1977, TBT published another significant article on how to render "Son" terminology for Muslims, “Jesus, Son of God – A Translation Problem,” by Arie de Kuiper and Barclay Newman.296 The authors argue that “Son of God” in an Islamic context is a “translation problem.”297 This is followed by the assertion that “Son of God” has different meanings throughout the Bible implying that the literal translation of this phrase is unnecessary. According to the authors, faith in Jesus as the Son of God is not essential to become a Christian since “Jesus himself certainly did not call upon the people of his day to believe in him as the Son of God,”298 which is a similar argument made by Brown299 who was certainly familiar with this article as he elsewhere references it.300 (58) 296 Arie de Kuiper and Barclay M. Newman, Jr., “Jesus, Son of God – A Translation Problem,” TBT 28, no. 4 (October 1977): 432-438. The article lists Newman as "a UBS Translations Consultant based in Malaysia." This is the same Newman that edited the Contemporary English Version (CEV) with whom Nida worked behind the scenes. Nida said of Newman: " Another person who Is outs1anding is Barclay Newman.... I contacted Barclay with regard to the possibility of working out an adequate dictionary to go along with the Greek New Testament text...I was very much impressed with him... I think he's done the most creative work of anybody...his work in Indonesia and in Malaysia has been absolutely remarkable... His style in English is far superior to anybody else. His sensitivity to communication is excellent, so I am just delighted to work with him on this new translation for youth [i.e. CEV]...and I think, by all odds, the most creative translation consultant that we have." See Nida, interview by Peter Wosh, 41. One wonders if Nida's praise of Newman's "creativity" included Newman's suggestions for non-literal renderings for "Son" terminology in Scripture "translations for Muslim audiences." 297 Ibid., 432. 298 Ibid., 434. 299 The entire paragraph from which this quote is taken seems to provide much of the basis for Brown's articles, "What One Must Believe" (Seedbed), and "What Must One Believe" (IJFM): "How much does a person have to know or believe in order to become a Christian? Must one believe in the virgin birth, or in the "bodily" resurrection? Must one affirm that Jesus is the Son of God in the full sense of the later Christian confessions and creeds? Jesus himself certainly did not call upon the people of his day to believe in him as the Son of God - his message was the proclamation of God's Rule, not of himself as the Son of God." 300 Brown, “Why Muslims are Repelled," 424, 426, 429. Eugene A. Nida: his life and theory of dynamic equivalence considered. (98) It is no coincidence that three of the MIT versions that were looked at in the last chapter were all led by personnel from WBT-SIL It is also no coincidence that the other four versions were headed up by men who attended Fuller. As will be shown, both groups came under the direct and indirect influence of the person who is the subject of this chapter, Dr. Eugene A. Nida. It is inconceivable that a man with no formal theological training, imbued with the secularism of the pioneers of American Structural Linguistics (American Structuralism) and the ideas of neo-orthodox theologians, would wield his authority over professing evangelicals by subjecting them to the Bible translation empire that he created based upon premises that reject the verbal inspiration of Scripture.418 It is even more unthinkable that he would, at the same time, systematically introduce cultural anthropology with its evolutionary basis and ensuing moral relativism into the teaching and practice of missions among many professing evangelicals. One's amazement is further increased to think that Nida did all of these things while maintaining a reputation, more or less intact, as an evangelical. Dr. Nida passed away on August 25, 2011, at the age of 96, leaving behind an astounding output of books and articles, of which the following publications have enjoyed great success throughout the evangelical world and beyond:450 (102) Bible Translating (1947) Customs and Cultures (1954) Message and Mission (1960; rev. 1990) Toward A Science of Translation (TASOT) (1964) The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT) (1969) From One Language to Another (1986) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (1988; 2nd ed. 1989) United Bible Societies (UBS) Helps for Translators series (various)451 Another important feature of American Structuralism is its view of relativism between cultures and languages.476 The idea that each culture and language is inherently autonomous would form a major presupposition for both Nida and one of his foremost disciples, Dr. Charles H. Kraft.477 Such a view precludes the possibility of any super-cultural (or, supra-cultural)478 standard. (107) The final influence upon Nida's thinking that we will consider is that of "neo-orthodoxy," the theology primarily typified by the German theologian, Karl Barth. During the 1947 SIL session, Nida's "chapel homilies...set off alarms when some of the students became convinced that they could detect strains of ‘Barthianism’ in his irenic messages."494 In Message and Mission, Nida wrote approvingly of Barth495 and other neo-orthodox authors such as Emil Brunner, Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Martin Buber.496 (110) Nida also showed his appreciation for neo-orthodoxy in TASOT: For the most part, [neo-orthodox theology] conceives of [divine] inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor...Those who espouse the traditional, orthodox view of inspiration...often tend to favor quite close, literal renderings...On the other hand, those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who have been influenced by it, tend to be freer in their translating...It would be quite wrong, however, to assume that all those who emphasize fully meaningful translations necessarily hold to a neo-orthodox view of inspiration...497 In light of Nida's disappointment with more literal translations of the Bible, neo-orthodoxy, by "mov[ing] the idea of revelation away from the medium of words to the broader medium of personal encounter,"498 provided him with a theological framework that would allow for greater freedom in its translation. 494 Fredrick A. Aldridge Jr., "The Development of the Wycliffe Bible Translators and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1934-1982" (PhD thesis, University of Stirling, 2012), 99. 495 Eugene A. Nida, Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), xv ("Karl Barth, in his customarily incisive manner"), 239 ("Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936."). 496 Ibid., xvi. 497 Ibid. 27. 498 John Macquarrie, "The Figure Of Jesus Christ In Contemporary Christianity," in Companion Encyclopedia of Theology , eds., Leslie Houlden and Peter Byrne (London, GBR: Routledge, 1995), 920, accessed October 14, 2015, ProQuest Ebrary. Dynamic Equivalence (DE) (111) Nida, along with Charles Taber, provided the fullest definition for DE in The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT): dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principal is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE.499 The decided emphasis on receptor response as opposed to the "message of the original text" is in keeping with Nida's training as a high school debater and orator, his undergraduate studies at UCLA, his education in Linguistics, and the teaching of neo-orthodoxy. While it is understandable how focus on receptor response would encourage others to fulfill Nida's desire for "meaningful" Bible translations hearkening back to his days at UCLA, DE is a radical means to this end since it jettisons the authorial intent of the original texts 499 Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation [TAPOT] (Leiden: Brill; and New York: United Bible Societies, 1969), 200. What mattered most was to provide some means of removing the focus from the texts of the biblical manuscripts themselves. A foolproof theory of translation was less important to Nida than a way to tap into a translator's "creativity"503 and so produce "meaningful translations." DE is effective in this regard. (112) 503 Throughout his published and unpublished writings, Nida, echoing Immanuel Kant, continually praised "creativity" as the gold standard for good translators. For instance, see Nida, ABS Oral Interview, 41 ("And I think he's [i.e. Barclay Newman] done the most creative work of anybody...I think, by all odds, the most creative translation consultant that we have."). 1986 adopted functional equivalence instead of dynamic equivalence. (113) 1989 Now we call it ''functional equivalence" instead of "dynamic equivalence", [sic] but probably it was necessary to use things like "dynamic equivalence" because it caught peoples' attention. And if we'd used "functional equivalence" from the beginning, it probably wouldn't have had much impact on people. But that was, frankly, the reason.516 (114) 516 Nida, ABS Oral Interview, 82. Nida wrote several things about language and communication that need to be considered if one is to understand both his thinking and the implications of his teaching. In his highly influential, Message and Mission, he wrote: Verbal symbols are only "labels" and are of human origin [emphasis original].517 The meaning of the account of Adam giving names to all the cattle, to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field (Gen. 2: 20) is primarily that language is a human convention and that the words used are essentially labels, not divine epithets.518 There are three assertions that Nida made about language that were foundational for him. First, humans are the source of language which is why "language is a human convention." Second, words cannot serve as an exact description of anything, since they are only "labels." Third, words cannot provide us with divine descriptions of reality because they are "not divine epithets." (114f) 518 Nida, Message and Mission , 224. The influence of this book cannot be overemphasized. Charles Kraft used it as a textbook throughout his tenure at Fuller Theological Seminary of which more will be stated below. The major implication of Nida's view of language is that God is not its source. For this reason language cannot be a means by which God communicates. All "God-talk" therefore, is a "human convention" that represents mere "labels," not exact descriptions of truth or reality. Such a framework precludes any possibility of divine, verbal inspiration. A second, closely-related implication is that language is always used subjectively and never objectively. In light of Nida's view of language, the ramifications for how one views and understands the text of the Bible are enormous not least of which concerns its translation. (115) Nida held that this lack of correspondence between words was also true within any given language. This is why he wrote, "there are no true synonyms,"521 and, "No two words in any one language ever have exactly the same meaning"522 (116) Related to this idea of the impossibility of absolute communication, Nida wrote what seems to be a truism: "Language is a part of culture."529 What he meant by this, however, becomes apparent when we consider the following illustration that he was fond of using: (117) a literal translation may be radically misunderstood because of a very different world-view in a receptor culture. The Sadduccees' argument with Jesus about the resurrection...makes very good sense in the biblical culture practicing levirate marriage. But in most African societies the question about "Whose wife will she be?" is simply absurd. In the African world-view any woman who had apparently caused the death of seven husbands would surely be a witch and no one would want her under any circumstances. Footnotes to explain the differences in cultural presuppositions are essential.530 The issue for Nida is not a question of if the Sadducees' question can be literally translated. His concern centers on differing "cultural presuppositions" that result in misunderstanding, or a lack of communication, based on literal translation. This is indicative of a view that holds that each language is a culturally-closed system. In other words, since cultures are relative, language as a subset of culture can never be the means for expressing transcendent concepts in other languages by means of literal translation. Nida's view of culture, however, did not just encompass language but "truth" itself. In a 1994 question and answer session at Asbury Theological Seminary for Darrell Whiteman,531 he told a group of students, "I don’t believe in super-cultural (or, supercultural) truth because truth only is in terms of a cultural context."532 Nida well expressed this conviction in a lecture at Fuller in 2001 which was described by Charles Van Engen, Whiteman, and J. Dudley Woodberry as "vintage Nida":533 (118) ...there's a statement in the Gospels about a person should not be looking on a woman with sexual interest. That's the implication of the passage. But if you don't do that in some societies, or seem to be doing that, they consider you homosexual. Is it better to be considered looking for a woman to have sex with her or be a homosexual?534 By applying DE theory to Matthew 5:27-30, the command to not lust, which is relevant to every human being, is neutralized by appeal to the receptor culture. Ultimately, "equivalence," for Nida was not the use of language to express "super-cultural truth" but rather to find "comparable" cultural features that made sense within that culture's worldview(s).535 531 Stine, Let the Words Be Written , 70 ["Darrell Whiteman tells of inviting Nida to lecture to some of his seminary classes a week after Nida’s eightieth birthday. 'I had him speak in seven different kinds of class opportunities... (Darrell Whiteman, interview with author, 21 Sept. 2000)."]. 532 Eugene A. Nida, "Missions: question and answer session" (classroom lecture, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY, November 16, 1994), accessed October 18, 2015, http://place.asburyseminary.edu/ecommonslectureships/169/ . This statement occurs around 39:50. The background to this statement begins around 38:53. A student mentioned how Charles Kraft talked about super-cultural truth but that others did not believe in it. He then asked Nida for his opinion as this was the key to contextualization. Nida first responded by saying, "I don’t think that there’s such a thing as supernatural truth, because truth is always in terms of context." The student corrected him by interjecting, "super-cultural truth." Nida then adjusted his statement. 533 Charles E. Van Engen, ed., et. al., Paradigm Shifts in Christian Witness: Insights from Anthropology, Communication, and Spiritual Power (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 47. 534 Eugene A. Nida, "Religion As Culture," (second lecture of 2001 Missiology Lectures for the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, November 14, 2001, ~ 27:52-28:27). 535 For two critiques on Nida's role in the introduction of anthropology or "cultural adaptation" into missions see Frederick L. Plastow, "New Wine In Old Wineskins: Trends in Missiological Foundations for Muslim Evangelism," unpublished manuscript, December 1992; and Frederick W. Evans, Jr., "A Statement Of Missionary Concern,” Middle East Resources, accessed October 26, 2015, http://www.levant.info/MER026.html . "Words are merely vehicles for ideas. They are symbols, and as such they usually have no special significance over and above the actual objects which they symbolize."536 Armed with this American Structuralist perspective towards words, Nida consistently disparaged their literal translation as evidenced by his pejorative references to them by such terms as "misleading,"537 "translationese,"538 "idols,"539 and "word worship."540 (119) 536 Nida, Bible Translating , 12. 537 Nida, Message and Mission , 83; Nida, TASOT, 35 (footnote), 170, 213; Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 16; Eugene A. Nida, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible (Today's English Version) (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), 13, 63; Nida and Reyburn, Meaning Across Cultures , 38, 61; Eugene A. Nida, Signs, Sense, Translation (Roggebaai, Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1984), 97; Nida, Christianity Today Interview, 46; Nida, Fascinated By Languages , 54-55, 137-138. 538 Nida and Taber, TAPOT, 13, 28, 100, 124-125, 208 (glossary); Eugene A. Nida, Style and Discourse: With Special Reference to the Text of the Greek New Testament (Cape Town South Africa: Bible Society, 1983), 165. 539 Eugene A. Nida, "Are We Really Monotheists?," Practical Anthropology [PA] 6, no. 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1959): 54; Nida, Message and Mission , 69; Eugene A. Nida, Religion Across Cultures: a Study in the Communication of Christian Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 79. 540 Nida, Christianity Today Interview, 46, 47 (subtitle); Nida, Fascinated By Languages , 76; Nida, "The Paradoxes Of Translation," 6. Nida, nevertheless, advocated for the principle that non-literal renderings for "Father" and "Son" terminology are necessary should the culture (and the language) demand it. (121) A similar response was received by Rev. Francis X. Hezel, "a Jesuit priest who has lived and worked in Micronesia since 1963:"559 (122) I don't know where Eugene Nida, whom I respect for his work on linguistics, got this information, but it is entirely baseless. I lived on Pohnpei for 18 years and I can assure you that the people there have and have always had a word in their language for father and son. Sahm is the word for father, and nau is the word for son or daughter. There was no communal marriage on Pohnpei at any time in the past, as far as I know...Because the word nau means offspring, it is usually followed by another noun to designate the gender--pwutak for boy, and serepein for girl.560 "Are We Really Monotheists?" is an article Nida wrote in 1959 for the stated purpose of explaining the Trinity to Muslims. He asserted that "Father" and "Son" are "anthropomorphic figures,"563 "symbols,"564 and "metaphors."565 Because of this, If...we are to keep people from substituting a Christian "threesome" for a pagan trio, we must interpret the Biblical figures in terms of functions and not form. Since the Scriptures do not explicitly indicate the real nature of God, in terms of substance or form (evidently a fact not communicable in human language), we should be thoroughly Biblical by not presuming to know more than God has chosen to reveal. This means that we must emphasize the essentially functional character of Biblical metaphors and symbols.566 Nida's understood "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" as figurative terminology. Betraying his background in American Structuralism, Nida appealed to his belief in the separation between the function and form of language as support for his understanding of these terms. Their "forms" (i.e. the words themselves) do not have inherent meaning as if they were "epithets."567 "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are merely "labels"568 for Nida, only functioning as "metaphors and symbols." Consistent with this explanation is Nida's statement, "the Scriptures do not explicitly indicate the real nature of God" because it uses "human language" not "divine epithets"569 (i.e. verbally-inspired terms in which the words themselves are indicative of their real nature). (123) 563 Nida, Are We Really Monotheists?, 51. 564 Ibid., 50-54 (in passim). 565 Nida, Are We Really Monotheists?, 52. 566 Nida, Are We Really Monotheists?, 51-52 567 See Nida's quote above, the citation for which occurs in footnote 518. 568 See Nida's quote above, the citation for which occurs in footnote 518. 569 See Nida's quote above, the citation for which occurs in footnote 518. Consistent with his other writings, Nida described "Son" as "human language," "figurative," and "metaphor," while adding that it is a "title."575 He also added, "the concept of sonship is common to all cultures"576 which underlies why literal translations of "Son" terminology can be understood by all. Nida, nevertheless, made an exception for non-literal renderings, especially if the literal translation included "connotations of...physical generation." This is the identical argument presented by many MIT proponents, most notably the previously-mentioned Brown.577 (125) When it came to "Muslim audiences," Nida did not veer from the above exception. We already noted in Chapter 3 his involvement in the reprint of Chowdhury's article in TBT that was misleadingly presented to encourage "translators in Muslim areas" to not literally translate "Son" terminology. Another example comes from Nida's last major work on his theory for Scripture translation, From One Language to Another. In Appendix B, entitled, "Procedures in Publishing Bible Translations," Nida advised Scripture publishers to not include "Son of God" in Mark 1:1 for an "Islamic constituency" (i.e. Muslim audience or receptor): 575 It is quite common to speak of "Son" or "Son of God" as "titles" such as evidenced in the name of D.A. Carson's book, Jesus the Son of God: a Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed . Unfortunately, "title" is ambiguous. It can either be understood as a synonym for "name" referring to one's actual identity or an honorific or official designation that has been conferred, achieved, or obtained. It is clear from Nida's writings that he did not understand the "title" of "Son" (or, "Son of God") to be Jesus' actual identity. 576 This admission runs counter to his example given above from Bible Translating about the unspecified language which supposedly lacked the word for "son" (as well as "father"). 577 E.g. see footnote 120. Nida, in keeping with his belief about receptor response, argued to exclude "Son of God" from Mark 1:1 since it was "Muslim anathema" and "such a stumbling block" for "an Islamic constituency." His reference to Jan Slomp, however, is problematic because it seriously misrepresents Slomp's position. Slomp wrote that the inclusion or exclusion of "Son of God" in Mark 1:1 should not be based on "apologetic concern for the Muslim reader...[but] has to be decided...on the basis of textual criticism."579 The misrepresentation of Slomp aside, Nida's belief about accommodating Scripture translations to Muslim sensibilities is clear. (126) 579 Jan Slomp, "Are The Words 'Son Of God' In Mark 1.1 Original?," TBT 28, no. 1 (Jan. 1977): 143. Nida also leaves out the following significant information in Slomp's conclusion: "From the point of view of textual criticism it is not possible to establish the text of Mk 1.1 with absolute certainty" (p. 146). Charles Kraft He is recognized for having taken Nida's DE theory and "applied the concept to a theory of cross-cultural communication, contextualization of theology, conversion, and ecclesial forms."594 (129) 594 Wilbert R. Shenk, "Dynamic Equivalence," Religion Past and Present , eds. by Hans Dieter Betz, et. al., (Brill, 2012, Brill Online. Univ. of Michigan-Ann Arbor), accessed August 23, 2012, http://0-referenceworks.brillonline.com.wizard.umd.umich.edu/entries/religion-past-and-present/dynamic-equivalence-SIM_03982 . Kraft's first exposure to Nida came through reading Customs and Cultures.595 Before long the two met and Nida included Kraft as part of "a team of linguist-anthropologists...who communicated closely with each other, read each other's works, and formed an 'invisible college' of missiological anthropologists."596 Kraft recalled: During that year at Hartford [i.e. the academic year of 1955-1956], I came strongly under the influence of Eugene Nida, Bill Reyburn and Bill Smalley of the American Bible Society, especially through their writings in the journal Practical Anthropology and the Bible Society Confidential Papers that were made available to a few of us...If McGavran was Wagner's "guru," Nida was mine.597 As a self-professed disciple of Nida, Kraft did not disappoint. Throughout his entire tenure at Fuller, Kraft used Nida's, Message and Mission, as a text book. 595 R. Daniel Shaw, introduction to Paradigm Shifts in Christian Witness: Insights from Anthropology, Communication, and Spiritual Power, Essays in Honor of Charles H. Kraft , eds. Charles Edward van Engen, et. al. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2008), xxxiii ("His formative anthropology began with the reading of Eugene Nida's book Customs and Cultures "). 596 Priest, "Anthropology and Missiology:," in Paradigm Shifts , 26-27. The seven people whom Nida chose for this "team" were: William Wonderly, William Smalley, William Reyburn, Marie Fetzer Reyburn, Jacob Loewen, Charles Taber, and Charles Kraft. 597 Kraft, SWM/SIS at Forty, 100. While Kraft is credited for applying DE to culture, he simply made the cultural relativism of Nida's theory explicit. (130) Conclusion Conspicuously absent from most discussions regarding MIT are the implications it poses for the historic, evangelical belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture. MIT treats the text of Scripture as something pliable to be shaped according to the dictates of Islamic belief as each "translator" sees fit. If thematically-significant scriptural terminology like "Father" and "Son" can be abandoned, or the first half of the Islamic creed can be inserted as if present in the original text of Scripture, the wording of the biblical manuscripts has no super-cultural or transcendent meaning. Such treatment of the text is not only contrary to the absolute claims of Scripture but stands in direct opposition to its explicit claims for divine inspiration which includes specific words which must be literally translated.621 (136) Cornelius Van Til, “E. Stanley Jones” The Banner Vol. 69 72f. 15Van Til, C., & Sigward, E. H. (1997). The works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987(electronic ed.). New York: Labels Army Co. During the morning of December 14, 1933, Dr. E. Stanley Jones was the main speaker at one of the “United Foreign Missionary Conferences” held in Philadelphia. Jones illustrated what he thought should be our attitude to the present missionary problem by explaining what the attitude of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15 had been. He said that when Paul and Barnabas with certain others were sent to this council to ask whether it was necessary for the converts from the heathen to be circumcised, the council decided not to lay a “greater burden” upon these converts than to require them to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” The whole missionary movement of Paul had gone beyond their ordinary doctrinal concepts. So they turned to prayer. Was it a “corporate silence?” After that “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost” and to them to let the heathen make their own interpretation of the living Christ whom Paul had brought to them. So we too ought not to impose a system of interpretation that we have inherited, upon those who have never heard of Christ but we should only bring them Christ himself. This argument seemed to get across very well with the audience. Apparently they did not have enough doctrine in them to be aware of the fact that a new and non-Christian system of doctrine was offered them. After the “corporate silence” they seemed ready to receive anything and to defend nothing. There may have been a “Shorter Catechism Christian” here and there who realized that the Jerusalem Synod did not decide to do anything like substitute a living Christ for a system of doctrine. To say that it did would be to say that Paul had not taught the churches which he founded any doctrine but only given them a living Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. Among the many questions asked were some that pertained to the relation of Christianity to other faiths. Fortunately Jones made a reply to these questions. He said that in the first place our attitude as Christians could not be iconoclastic. If we were iconoclastic we would be flying in the face of facts. There are many beautiful things in other faiths. In the second place he said our attitude could not be syncretistic. If we are syncretistic we merely gather together into one whole what we consider to be the good elements in all faiths. The result of this is that we have nothing in the end but a collection of beautiful things. Jones said that Christianity should be presented as the fulfilment of the faith of other nations. He quoted the words of Jesus when He said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfil them. He said that, though these words were spoken in connection with Jesus’ discourse on his relation to the Old Testament, they had nevertheless a wider, that is, a cosmic application. Here again ordinary but basic doctrinal distinctions were run over rough-shod. Orthodox theology has taught on the basis of Scripture that the Old and the New Testament together tell the one story of redemption and that this story of redemption was not known from any other source but from this Scripture itself. We may indeed speak of a cosmic significance of the gospel but the meaning of this cosmic significance will never be clear to us unless we see that Christ came to fulfil the law and the prophets in order thus to become a blessing to those who had no desire for the living God. When some one in the audience asked whether he would say that Christianity is a way of salvation or whether it is the way of salvation Jones answered that Christianity is a way but that Christ is the way. Christianity, by which he understood the doctrinal statements of the creeds of the Christian church, is after all only one interpretation of the living personality of Christ. Hence we must present to the nations that living Christ himself rather than doctrinal statements about him. If we do this we will find that the living Christ when thus planted on new soil will take to himself the elements that are akin to him in that new soil and create something quite new. As a plant that is set in a new soil takes the elements that are akin to itself and creates out of them a new and beautiful structure so we must plant the living Christ in India. His whole distinction between Christianity as a way and Christ as the way is thoroughly modernist. One could wish that Jones had had a little more of the “advice” that he so greatly despises before he went to India. If he had learned some of the simple distinctions, such as that between common and special grace he would not be in such a muddle now. As it is he must think that there is no qualitative difference between the religions of the nations and Christianity. He says that God was in India before the missionaries. Now that will be granted in a general way by all those who hold to the doctrine of creation and providence and further by all those who in addition hold to the doctrine of common grace. But Jones means that God was in India in a saving way before Christian missionaries came there. He spoke with great piety of those who can so easily condemn people to hell when these people do not agree with them on certain doctrines. He says he believes that the cross was never off the heart of God. But humanity was enveloped in thesensuous and so it became necessary for Christ to reveal the redemptive heart of God more clearly and make men do self-consciously what they were already doing unconsciously. Jones said that it is a law of the human mind that you cannot understand anything that is entirely foreign to you. On this ground he rejects the doctrine of total depravity. Now all this is nothing but a refined form of paganism. The “living creative Christ” which Jones wants to preach to India as the way turns out to be nothing more than an embodiment of an eternal idea. This accords exactly with what Plato taught but is the very reverse of what Paul and Jesus taught. There is no good reason at all for saying that Christ is the embodiment of an eternal principle. If He is no more than the embodiment of an idea He is also no more than an embodiment of an idea. No manipulation of any sort can get away from that. Then the cross has become no more than the Symbol of general suffering in a world that is somehow full of evil. Jones is constantly afraid that the “living Christ” will step out of “our mere web of words” if we spend our time making doctrines about him. Abdul Asad (pen name), “Rethinking the Insider Movement Debate: Global historical Insights toward an appropriate transitional model of C5” St. Francis Magazine 5.4 (August 2009) 133-159. Converts first, then disciples (141) While fears of “Churchless Christianity are certainly valid in that MBBs in C5 fellowships might seem to exist apart from the established church, we must remember that when C5 is practiced properly believers are indeed part of a church (in its barest form) in that they meet regularly with other C5 believers.” In time we should help them move toward a fuller expression of church. [Note: In what way are gatherings of C5 people a church?] Travis, Massey and Bernard Dutch have repeatedly stated that their descriptions of C5 are just that-descriptions of work that is already going on with or without their approval. (143) [Note: Contra testimonies of Half Devil Half Child and Roger Dixon, Insider movement in West Java, Indonesia-A Case Study] Honesty is imperative. Christ must never be denied, even in C5 settings (148) Taqiyyah contrary to bible teaching Bernard Dutch-“ for many Muslim background believers, identity is fluid, taking the most appropriate form for the situation.” (Should Muslims Become Christians? 16). (150) “I can personally attest to the veracity of this claim, having portrayed my religious identity in a variety of ways at different times and among different crowds without ever feeling I had ethically compromised or used deceit. Jesus certainly did not let all his cards show right away, choosing to refer to himself in a variety of ways in different situations. (151) [Note: Did Jesus refer to himself as a pagan or as a Muslim? His covenantal identity as a Jew was always consistent. What difference does it make how guilty you feel about ethical compromise? Your ethics are not judged on the basis of your feelings but by the external biblical criteria.] Proposes Sufism as a suitable identity due to its difficulty in pinning down. [Note: Is it biblical to avoid being pinned down about one’s religious identity?] What’s so bad about being viewed as a strange new sect? It was good enough for the early church. [Note: A sect of what? Becoming a Sufi makes you a sect of a hostile faith system, Islam and not allied in any way to a biblical identity.] Evelyne A. Reisacher, ed., Toward Respectful Understanding & Witness Among Muslims: Essays in Honour of J. Dudley Woodberry ((Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2012). Martin Accad, “Christian Attitudes toward Islam and Muslims: A Kerygmatic Approach For the kerygmatic Christ follower, religions are recognised to be an essential part of the human psychological and sociological needs. At the same time, God is seen to be above any religious system. (38) Therefore, in recognition that social organisation is a natural human phenomenon toward which we are all inclined, the kerygmatic position and attitude does not consist in rejecting one’s religious heritage, for it would soon be replaced by another form of ideology. In the kerygmatic approach it is Christ himself who is at the centre of salvation rather than any religious system. The kerygma is never a message of condemnation, but it brings condemnation to those that are stuck within religious boundaries. One theologian who captured this worldview was Karl Barth. In a chapter he titled “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion,” he said, “We begin by stating that religion is unbelief. It is a concern, indeed, we must say that is the one great concern, of godless man.” The kerygmatic approach we advocate in the equivalent of the Parthian revelation of God. A suprarelgious approach Beth Snodderly and A. Scott Moreau, eds., Evangelical and Frontier Mission: Perspectives on the Global Progress of the Gospel (Eugene: Wipe & Stock, 2011). Kevin S. Higgins, “Missiology and the Measurement of Engagement: Personal Reflections on Tokyo” Ralph Winter’s Unimax peoples: the largest group of people within which the Gospel can spread as a church planting movement without encountering significant barriers. (214) Assumptions: what is a church? What is church planting? What constitutes a church planting strategy or plan or even team? What is evangelical Christianity? What is Christianity for that matter? (215) Wants to move away from calling something an “insider movement,” and prefers “movements to Jesus within Islam.” Spent 20 years in a particular Islamic context and have seen the rise and growth of a movement to Jesus A short story about reaching a people group (216) the movement does not describe itself as a Christian movement. However, at the same time, movement leadership intentionally focuses on obedience to biblical teaching and truth and a deepening discipleship as followers of Jesus (216) Regular training for leaders takes place, based upon understanding and applying the Bible in daily life. During this exercise (in reaching the jedi), we did not specify anything like a description of the form any of the above functions (church planting, when, activities of the church) in order to be a church. (217) Our focus was on functions we found in scripture, not on specific forms that must be taken as universal carriers of these functions. “Churches” in our movement might meet at any time, any day, and with any number of people. While such churches generally grew out of already existing social networks, they might be a nuclear or extended family, or a group of families, or a group of non-related individuals within or without a prior friendship or connection already in existence. My sense is that the forms of church and fellowship that are taking shape in this movement would not fit the criteria most would look for in order to determine whether a people group was reached or not. Proponents of the so-called insider movement approach have been misunderstood as if we were advocating some sort of individualistic expression of the Gospel. In fact, every such movement I have witnessed personally or have seen described by others has developed very clear forms of koinonia among believers. (218) Security-closed There are those who consider someone who converts to Christianity to be an apostate deserving of death or exclusion from family or society. Therefore, while I do suggest that those who seek to track progress on closure, encourage and foster open discussion about what might be happening in and through such movements among the least reached and unengaged on our various lists. I balance that with a counter call: that the information thus shared and discussed remain within the confines of such meetings, safe and secure. (220) A MUSLIM FOLLOWER OF JESUS: A Response to Joseph Cumming’s ‘Muslim Followers of Jesus?’ By Mazhar Mallouhi To facilitate a truly global conversation, we ask Christian leaders from around the world to respond to the Global Conversation’s lead articles. These points of view do not necessarily represent Christianity Today magazine or the Lausanne Movement. They are designed to stimulate discussion from all points of the compass and from different segments of the Christian community. Please add your perspective by posting a comment so that we can learn and grow together in the unity of the Spirit. As a Muslim follower of Jesus, I would like to briefly comment on the current discussion. A Muslim follower of Jesus is someone, like me, who comes from a Muslim family and chooses to maintain his or her culture after being irretrievably transformed by the saving power of our Lord. Being born in a Muslim family automatically makes one a Muslim and part of the Muslim community. I was born a Muslim, not a Hindu nor a Christian nor a Jew. I am a part of the Muslim community even if I do not practice or believe all of it. But the day I reject it outright, I disavow myself of my family, my community and my people. Muslim followers of Jesus are being transformed by the same Holy Spirit that transforms all followers of Jesus. We read the same Holy Bible that Christians throughout the centuries have read. Shouldn’t we believe the Holy Spirit will show us if we need to re-learn how to pray or change our forms and customs? Shouldn’t we be free to follow Christ without being forced to adopt two thousand years of Western religious culture? How can an outsider know the impact of our customs on our hearts? If we say our religious customs do not negate what is in our hearts, how can others negate our faith? Vocabulary is an issue in this discussion. I often hear, “Followers of Jesus shouldn’t call God ‘Allah.’” But Allah is the Arabic word for God, and is the normal and usual word used by Christian Arabs for God. It shares a Semitic root with Hebrew words for God (el, eloah, and elohim). Those who criticize followers of Jesus who want to remain in their largely Muslim culture may not fully understand us. My heart breaks for young believers who receive subtle (and perhaps unintentional) messages from Christians that the way of life handed down to them is ugly. They are given the impression that God cannot be in their culture. If I were a Jewish believer continuing to call myself a Jew and remaining inside my Jewish community, I would be lauded by most of the Christian West. My experience is that most Jewish ideology rejects the entirety of the New Testament and does not honor our Lord. Yet even with those obstacles, believers that remain inside Judaism are able to faithfully follow Jesus, and do not undergo scrutiny by Christians. Can we not honor Muslim followers of Jesus just as we honor Jewish followers of Jesus? Here is something that most people in the West may not understand: Islam is the blanket with which my mother wrapped me when she nursed me and sang to me and prayed over me. I imbibed aspects of Islam with my mother’s milk. I inherited Islam from my parents and it was the cradle which held me until I found Christ. Islam is my mother. You don’t engage a person by telling him his mother is ugly. No matter what your friend’s mother may look like, you don’t say to him, “Your mother is ugly,” or his initial reaction will certainly be to fight you. I notice in some of my Christian brothers and sisters almost a sense of betrayal if something positive is said about Muhammad. They may say, “We also have to be honest about the negative aspects of Muhammad’s life...” Why is this so important? I am allowed to say good things about Oliver Cromwell without being reminded that he chopped off the king’s head. I am allowed to speak positively about Thomas Jefferson without incessant interruptions that he impregnated his slave. Are we somehow admitting defeat, or dishonoring Christ, if we mention positive aspects of Muhammad or the religion he founded? I am convinced that Christians aren’t required to dislike Islam in order to engage it. I long for the day when we can err on the side of preferring and respecting one another, resisting the temptation to search out heresy every time someone disagrees with us or challenges the status quo. I say to my Christian brothers and sisters as they consider the idea of Muslim followers of Jesus, “Show me that you love Muslims! Show me that your attitude is like that of our Lord! Show me that you are acting out of love and not out of the emotions that surface when two civilizations collide!” I am a Muslim follower of Jesus because I was born into a Muslim context and I don’t wish to reject my heritage. I am a Muslim follower of Jesus because I was born into a Muslim context and I don’t wish to reject my heritage. Islam is my heritage and Christ is my inheritance. Mazhar Mallouhi is an Arab Syrian novelist and writer. In 1998 he founded Al Kalima, a publishing association, to print and distribute books that build bridges of understanding between Muslims and Christians. His 50 year journey with Jesus is the focus of Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road by Paul-Gordon Chandler. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 1 of 20   To the Muslim I Became a Muslim?  J. Dudley Woodberry  Today Muslims are coming to faith in Christ and joining or forming a spectrum of fellowships—from traditional churches using a different language than that of the local Muslims to secret or “catacomb” followers of Jesus. The most controversial today are those who follow Jesus and consider the Bible to be their supreme authority but retain their Muslim social and legal identity for the purpose of being salt and light in the community. Since much of the debate is being conducted by people who have never seen the latter type of worshipping communities, I shall give a case study from South Asia while trying to obscure details that would make it possible to identify the persons involved.  We shall then turn to a study primarily of Acts 15 and apply the principles that the Jerusalem Council used to test the legitimacy of an analogous issue that confronted the early Church. My purpose is not to argue for a particular approach but rather to test the legitimacy of what are sometimes called “Insider Movements.” God is working through the whole spectrum of approaches. For an attempt to see the strengths of each in different contexts see the chapter “Factors that Affect the Identity that Jesus-followers Choose” by John and Anna Travis with contributions by Phil Parshall in the recently released From Seed to Fruit: Global Trends, Fruitful Practices, and Emerging Issues among Muslims (Woodberry 2008, 193-205).  Part I: A Case Study from South Asia  As a researcher seeking to update extensive research conducted by the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary over a two year period five years earlier, I felt like one of the birds that alights on the back of a water buffalo in that land, surveys the area, pecks at a few 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 2 of 20  bugs, and flies off. He makes little difference but at least sees more than he would from a distant field and, from the buffalo’s back, may discover a few bugs that the beast beneath does not have the dexterity to see or remove unaided.  At a model farm, I met with the leaders from each of the 41 district of the country where there were congregations. After updating my understanding of the history and growth of the movement, I asked questions on a variety of topics including the following.  Means of Expansion  The avenues of expansion were those commonly identified in church growth studies:  The web of family and friends. When going to a new village people were chosen who had family or friends in that village. If their coming was challenged, they could respond that they were guests.  Talking with the leaders. Since the goal was to be used by God to facilitate a movement rather than just individual decisions, there was a focus on the leaders as decision makers.  Ministries of mercy. The occasion for new holistic ministries of transformational development were cyclones and floods of 1983 and 1988.  Jobs that facilitated belonging. Those who had or acquired jobs like diesel engineering or fishing that were broadly needed could become insiders. Others were looked at as having ulterior motives for being there.  Structures to support ministry. Fish and vegetable farms provided structures for ministry, support, and training of personnel.  Unplanned opportunities. On one occasion when a large revivalist group came to attack the believers, a compromise was reached that three of the leaders of the believers should attend a large gathering of the Muslim group. This led to an opportunity for one of the believers to teach concerning the biblical prophets leading up to Jesus to members of the Muslim group.  2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 3 of 20  The message of the expansion involved scripture presented in various creative ways:  They noted that the Qur’an Sharif spoke of four holy books, all of which they used, while the traditional Muslims used only one.  They used initially the Injil Sharif (the Holy Gospel) and later the whole Bible in Muslim friendly translation.  They used the Sirat al-Masih (the Life of Christ) with Muslim friendly terms in a qur’anic style.  They used audio cassettes and memorized scripture because it was largely an oral society.  Because of the felt need of an intercessor and the common Muslim belief that Muhammad was one, they demonstrated that the Qur’an does not name Muhammad as one, but only one approved by God may intercede (Qur’an 19:87; 20:109; 53:26), and then, they showed how the Injil Sharif stated that God approved of Isa (Jesus) (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22) and that Jesus is the only mediator (I Tim. 2:15).  Contextualization  A number of factors have influenced their forms of contextualization:  • Of the original 25 couples that worked in the villages only the one or two with a Muslim background were considered religious.  • The realization that all of the technical religious vocabulary of the Qur’an and all of the forms of the Five Pillars of Islam, except references to Muhammad and Mecca, were used by Jews and/or Christian first, encouraged them to develop a liturgy using biblical content but “Muslim” forms.  • Almost all stopped using the “Muslim” form of liturgy outside the mosque because:  persecution including a court case specifically noted their use of the national language rather than Arabic in liturgical prayers.  it moved them away from the community.  Those attending the mosque silently or quietly replace the clause “Muhammad is the Apostle of God” with something like the biblical and qur’anic “Jesus is the Word (or Apostle) of God”.  2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 4 of 20  They did not give the call to prayer because that would involve them proclaiming publicly that Muhammad was the Apostle of God.  Those who did not go to the mosque previously did not start. Others were in a transition to attending the mosque only on Fridays or only on the two Ids.  Prayer still normally was in a “Muslim” style of holding one’s palms upward.  Those in Sufi contexts continued to recite/chant the names of God (dhikr) in a Sufi fashion and add the reciting/chanting of the names of Jesus.  There is considerable variation in the styles and times of worship which normally include reading of the Bible, discussion, and prayer.  Identity  A number of questions were asked to show they expressed their identity and how others viewed them:  They called themselves “Muslims,” “real Muslims,” “completed Muslims,” “Muslim followers of Isa,” “Mu’min” (“believers,” a term used by Muslims and Christians), and some “Christians,” especially when they had become the majority.  The traditional Muslims called them “Muslims” if they say so or “Christians.”  Traditional Christians are largely unaware of them.  Some support for the use of the term “Muslim” (one who submits [to God]) and “Islam” (to submit [to God]) for those who follow Christ is that in some qur’anic contexts they refer to all who submit to God (e.g., Qu’ran3:19-20, 85).  Relationships  Some questions sought to determine relationships between congregations (jama‘ats) toward traditional Christians, and toward traditional Muslims:  • Relationships between congregations were supported by the fact that:  the gospel had spread through the web of family and friends.  2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 5 of 20  they frequently married within these webs.  they helped each other when in need.  they knew that they would always be received by the others.  it might be a “denomination” in the making but currently there is considerable variety in polity and style.  • The attitude toward traditional Christians includes:  they are “brothers of the same faith”.  “if we follow their traditions, we can’t work with our own people.”  “they eat forbidden (haram) food.”  “we don’t like them because of their behavior, dress, and food.”  “we must love them 100% but in our culture we must stay separate.”  • The attitude toward the traditional Muslims includes:  “we try to remain within the culture.”  “we attend the mosque, some just on Fridays, some just on Ids.”  “we go to the mosque to stay in the community, society, and family. It’s like being on a bus with T.V. One person has the remote control. If you want to ride the bus, you have to watch the channel.”  Having looked at a case study, we turn now to an evaluation looking through the lens of Scripture.  Part II: The Model of Jesus, Paul, and the Jerusalem Council1  The Apostle Paul stated,  To the Jews I became a Jew, in order to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became as one under the Law (though I myself was not under the Law) so that I might win those under the Law…I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel…. (1 Cor. 9:19-20, 25).  1 Part II of the lecture was drawn from Woodberry (2006, 143-157).  2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 6 of 20  If Paul were retracing his missionary journeys today, would he add, “To the Muslim I became a Muslim”? Or would he and the Jerusalem Council endorse Muslims being free to follow Jesus while retaining, to the extent that this commitment allows, Muslim identity and practices, as these Jerusalem leaders endorsed Jews being free to follow Jesus while retaining, to the extent that that commitment allowed, Judaic identity and practices?  To answer these questions, we shall look through the biblical lens of the incarnation. How was the gospel incarnated in Jesus and Paul, and how was it to be incarnated in the divergent congregations that make up Christ’s Body the Church (Eph. 4:12-13)?  John Travis described the spectrum of Christ-centered communities of Muslim-background believers (MBBs) or Muslim believers (MBs) under six rubrics (C1 through C6) on the basis of : (1) their language of worship, (2) the cultural and religious forms they used, especially in worship, and (3) their identity, whether Muslim or Christian (1998, 407-408). C1 refers to a community that reflects the culture of foreign Christians or a minority indigenous Christian group. The continuum progresses to C4 where participants use their ethnic language or Arabic in worship, use what are considered “Muslim” form of worship but with Christian content, and consider themselves and are considered to be “Christians.”  C5 expresses a group of persons who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior but remain within the Muslim community to lead others to follow Christ in an “insider movement” (in contrast to C6 who are secret believers). Some C5 persons continue to worship in the mosque, but virtually all in the groups with which I am most familiar have their basic worship and Bible study in house gatherings of like-minded followers of Christ. They consider themselves to be, and are considered to be, 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 7 of 20  “Muslims,” at least socially and legally, but of a special kind. They are those who follow Isa (the Qur’anic word for Jesus) and believe what the Bible teaches even where it differs from the Qur’an.  In actual practice the distinctions between the six categories are often not clear or consistent, and Muslims are coming faith in Christ in all of these categories. I have been asked to evaluate C4 and C5. Elsewhere, however, I have documented that the religious vocabulary of the Qur’an and all of the so-called five pillars of Islam, except the references to Muhammad and Mecca, were used by Jews and/or Christians before Islam (Woodberry 1989, 283-312; 1996, 171-186). Furthermore, C4 contextualization is now broadly accepted in mission circles as at least legitimate. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to C5 communities or “insider movements.”  For reasons of security and to honor commitments of confidentiality very little research on “insider movements” has been made available to the general public, but there has been research on and recording of such communities and movements in various parts of Asia and Africa. Much of this has been reported in restricted contexts of expatriate and national missionaries and missiologists – some with authorization and some without. While striving not to violate confidentiality or reasonable security, I shall try in this paper to evaluate “insider movements” by applying biblical criteria to concrete situations which I have seen first-hand. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 8 of 20  The Incarnational Models of Jesus and Paul  With Jesus we see the divine model for incarnating the gospel among people whose world view was similar to that of most Muslims, and with Paul we see how that model was lived out in different religio-cultural contexts.  The Model of Jesus  His incarnation is announced as “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the father’s only son” (Jn. 1:14). He in turn gave us that same glory: “The glory which you have given me, I have given them” (Jn. 17:22). And he gave us a similar mission: “As the father has sent me, so send I you” (Jn. 20:21).  Further, God sent his Son to be incarnated under the same Law that guided the people whom he sought to redeem: “God sent forth his Son…born under the Law to redeem those under the Law” (Gal. 4:4-5). Therefore, as we follow Jesus we might go under a similar Law – or remain under that Law – for the redemption of those under that Law.  A number of observations appear relevant to our topic. First, Jesus observed the Mosaic Law, but rejected the additional traditions of the elders that nullified that Law (Mt. 15:1-9). And he internalized and deepened its meaning in the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, his incarnational model includes following and internalizing the Mosaic Law. Second, qur’anic and Islamic Law in general draw heavily on Jewish Law with its roots in Mosaic Law (Roberts 1925; Neusner and Sonn 1999; Neusner et al 2000; Woodberry 1989, rev. 1996; Torrey 1933). The Qur’an even includes all of the 10 Commandments, although keeping the Sabbath is associated particularly with the Jews (20:8; 22:30; 7:180, 163; 17:23; 6:151; 24:2; 5:38; 4:112, 32). And Islamic Law did not develop the priestly and sacrificial functions and ritual in the same way as Judaism did. Therefore, although 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 9 of 20  there are some differences, much of Islamic Law is similar to Mosaic Law and can be internalized and interpreted as fulfilled in Christ. Thirdly, the leaders of the Temple and synagogues had corrupted Judaic worship and rejected Jesus, but he and his first followers continued to identify with Judaism and to participate in temple and synagogue worship. Therefore a case may be made for Muslims who follow Jesus to continue to identify with their Muslim community and participate, to the extent their consciences allow, in its religious observance.  The Model of Paul  Paul wrote to the church in Corinth where the local religion even promoted immorality:  To the Jews I became a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law…that I might win those who are under the law.…I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some (1 Cor. 9:20, 21).  After showing the outworking of this in specific situations, he passes the model onto us: “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (11:1). The same Paul who argued in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians against bondage to the Law, had Timothy circumcised when he was going to minister among Jews (Acts 16:3) and took converts with him into the Temple to be purified (Acts 21:26). As we have noted Islamic Law is based on the Law of Judaism. Even if it were not, however, Paul teaches adaptability even to a pagan culture like Corinth as long as one is guided by conscience and the desire to glorify God and that people be saved (1 Cor. 10:23-33). 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 10 of 20  The Incarnational Model of the Jerusalem Council  In Acts 15 we see how the early church leaders dealt with a missiological problem that resulted from the gospel crossing a cultural barrier – though it was from those who followed the Law to those who did not rather than the reverse, as in our present considerations. Nevertheless we can identify and apply the criteria they used.  How God is Working  Paul and Barnabas “reported the conversion of the Gentiles...and…all that God had done with them” (vss. 3-4), how “God who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did us, and in cleansing their hearts by faith, he made no distinction between them and us” (vss. 8-9). And they told the “signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles” (vs. 12). Them Simeon told “how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles” (vs. 14).  There are now case studies of insider movements in a number of regions in Asia and Africa that demonstrate how God is working, with phenomenal growth in one South Asian country that we in the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary have been studying with repeated visits for years. This movement and others with which we are in contact give clear evidence that God is working in them. One Protestant denomination now directs most of its ministries among Muslims to equipping members of these movements. In the Spring of 2003, I was privileged to hear first-hand reports of those from each of their regions, and again it was clear that God was at work in these people.  There are significant movements to Christ from Islam in North Africa and Central Asia that are not insider movements nor very contextualized to Islamic culture. The contexts are different. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 11 of 20  Whether or not there was a previous national church and, if so, how much rapport it had with the Muslims are significant. My assignment, however, is to evaluate the insider movements.  The Call of God  At the Jerusalem Council Peter rose and said, “My brothers, you know that in the early days, God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers” (vs. 7). And God through a vision showed him that, for the sake of the kingdom, he should break traditional dietary rules that kept Jews and Gentile apart (Acts 10).  In the case studies that we are following today, followers of Christ have likewise believed themselves called to break the traditional barriers between communities to incarnate the gospel in the Muslim community. In many cases God has confirmed the call by transforming lives through Christ.  Reason Peter in the Council in Jerusalem asks, “Why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bare?” (Acts 15:10). The apostles and elders, with the consent of the whole church, then sent a letter to the disciples in Antioch presenting their decision with the words, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (vss. 22,23,28). Thus they used their own reasoning along with the guidance of God’s Spirit.  When we apply reason to the present discussion we see reasons for and reasons against insider movements of disciples of Christ within the Muslim community. Peoplehood in most Muslim cultures involves a mix of religion, culture, politics, nationality, ethnicity, and family. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 12 of 20  Apostasy then is an act that affects all these. Add to this the fact that the word “Christians” in these contexts often connotes Western (with its aggression and immorality) or some local ethnic group with different (often distasteful) customs.  The question then arises as to whether Muslims may accept Jesus as Savior and Lord while remaining socially and legally Muslim. In the Qur’an itself the word islam just means “to submit” to God (2:112), and Jesus’ disciples bear witness that “we are Muslims” (literally, those who submit) (3:52; 5:111). The Qur’an also speaks of certain individuals who received the book before the Qur’an who said, “We were Muslims before it” (28: 52-53). Muslim qur’anic commentators say they were, or included, some Christians (McAuliffe 1991, 240-246). Thus there is at least some textual rationale for disciples of Christ from Muslim contexts to continue to include “Muslim” in their identity. However, because the word has developed in modern usage a more restrictive meaning, it would seem more transparent to use a designation such as “I submit to God (aslamtu in Arabic) through Isa al-Masih (the qu’ranic title meaning Jesus the Messiah).”  This approach could be seen as following the historical pattern of designating groups within the Muslim community by their founder, such as the Hanbalites (after Ahmad b. Hanbal) or the Ahmadiya (after Ghulam Ahmad) through, as in the latter example, some Muslims may reject the group as heretical or non-Muslim.  Other disciples of Jesus from Muslim contexts have adopted the designation Hanif, which in the Qur’an referred to the religion of Abraham that pre-Islamic monotheists like Waraqa b. Nawfal sought. He was a cousin of Muhammad’s first wife Khadija and became a Christian (Guillaume 1955, 83, 99, 103). The Qur’an says that Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but a hanif, a muslim (3:67) and described him as one who submitted (aslama) to God. (4:125). `Umar, the second Muslim caliph, even used the term to describe himself when he met with a Christian leader (Rubin 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 13 of 20  2002, 403A). Its value is that it is generally an acceptable term which has referred to people like Ibn Nawfal who became a Christian and the apostle Paul calls those who belong to Christ “Abraham’s offspring” (Gal. 3:29).  An advantage of insider movements in that they can provide an opportunity for the gospel to be incarnated into a Muslim culture with a minimum of dislocation of those elements of Muslim societies that are compatible or adaptable with the gospel. And, although they have aroused intense opposition, sometimes instigated by members of traditional churches, they have frequently allowed more opportunity and time for ordinary Muslims to hear and see the gospel lived out than when the new disciples of Christ are expelled upon conversion or join a traditional church with a different ethic and cultural constituency and having little rapport with the Muslim majority. Likewise, it allows faith and spiritual maturity to develop in a context relevant to the new disciples’ background and probable ministry.  On the other hand there can be drawbacks. There is not a clear break with non-biblical teachings of Islam. Discipling raises greater challenges as does building bridges with traditional churches, if there are any.  Theology  Peter, before the Jerusalem Council, raised the theological argument that God “in cleansing their [the Gentiles’] hearts by faith made no distinction between them and us” (vs. 9) and went on, “we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (vs. 11). That is the decisive element, not whether they follow the law or not. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 14 of 20  Theological themes that are relevant to insider movement include that of the faithful remnant, which refers to with a genuine relationship of faith with God (Amos 5:15). Although it originally applied to the faithful remnant of God’s people Israel (Isa. 46:3), it includes those from other nations (45:20; 66:18). Another theme is the kingdom (or kingly rule) of God, which like yeast will quietly transform individuals and groups from within (Mt. 13:33) and salt which likewise influences its surroundings (Mt. 5:13).  The people of the kingdom who form the local churches and the universal Church are, of course, especially relevant. Even the believers who meet in houses are called churches (Rom. 16:5l; 1 Cor. 16:19), and these would correspond to the groups that meet regularly in houses for worship and Bible study that are at the core of the insider movements with which I am familiar. Expressing the universal Church becomes the great challenge for them because it is the body of Christ incarnated in the world today (1 Cor. 12:12-27).  Scripture  James before the Council then shows how the inclusion of the Gentiles also agreed with Scripture (Acts 15:15-17). When we look for scripture that is relevant to insider movements, we see that in the Old Testament God sometimes worked outside the channels of his chosen people – through Melchizedek, for example. We even observe the prophet Elisha apparently condoning Naaman going into a pagan temple with the king he served and bowing with him before an idol (2 Kings 5:17-19).  In the New Testament Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount internalized and deepened the Law (which, as we have noted, was similar in many ways to Islamic Law). At the same time he did not 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 15 of 20  let it hinder his relating with those he came to save (Lk. 7:36-50). Paul, while arguing against the necessity of following the Law, observed it to further his ministry with the Jews as in his circumcising of Timothy (Acts 16:3), having his own hair cut when under a vow (Acts 18:18), and performing the purification rites in Jerusalem when James and the elders there encouraged him to do so because of the Jews (Acts 21:26).  On the other hand the Epistles to the Hebrews, which was apparently written to Jewish followers of Christ who were under persecution were conducting themselves as a form of Judaism – perhaps because Judaism was then a recognized religion by Rome but not Christianity. They are warned of the peril of falling away (6:1-8) and are called to persevere (10:19-39; Green 1989, 233-250).  Guidance of the Holy Spirit  At the Jerusalem Council, Peter noted that God testified to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church by giving them the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8), and in the joint communiqué to the church in Antioch the apostles and elders said that “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” not to impose any further burden on the Gentiles than some essentials (vs. 28). Jesus had promised, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). Many of those that I have met in insider movements have evidenced by the fruit of the spirit, wisdom, and devotion the indwelling Spirit of God. Because of the limitation of formal training opportunities for the believers in insider movements, they are highly dependent on the Bible as interpreted and applied by the Holy Spirit to them. But my questioning of numbers of them and the reports of others I that trust lead me to conclude that, although they are different from traditional Christians, they certainly evidence the guidance of the Bible and the Spirit. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 16 of 20  The Essentials  The apostles and elders in Jerusalem when stating that circumcision was not necessary were dealing with salvation. When they added some “essentials” (vss. 28-29), they were dealing with fellowship and morality. The prohibition of fornication (vss. 20,29) obviously had to do with the low Graeco-Roman morality out of which the Gentiles came. As for food offered to idols, although Christians are free to eat it, the act might cause others to stumble (1 Cor. 8:1-13). Therefore, believers should not exercise that freedom (Act 15:20, 29). The same is true of blood and meat that contains blood. Since the Law of Moses, which forbids the eating of blood, had been so widely preached (vs. 21), eating it might hinder table fellowship with many Jews.  How does all this apply to disciples of Christ within the Muslim community? First, there is freedom to observe the Law or not to do so, since salvation does not come through the Law. But because relationships and fellowship are so important, the disciples of Christ should not use their freedom in a way that might unnecessarily hinder their relationships with Muslims or traditional Christians.  Acts 15 ends with Paul and Barnabas separating in their missionary work because they could not agree on whether to take John Mark (vss. 36-41). Here we see that when we cannot agree we can carry on God’s work in separate spheres until we can agree. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 17 of 20  Some Critical Issues  There are a number of critical issues, some of which have been treated above.  Use of the Term “Muslim”  A case has been made above for the use of the term “Muslim” by followers of Christ, but it is often best to qualify it in some way indicating that our submission is through Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). In any event we are not to deny Jesus Christ. Further, although disciples of Christ from Muslim backgrounds may legitimately retain their Muslim legal and cultural heritage, it is far more problematic for a Christian background person to attempt this. The outsider might be helpful in suggesting biblical guidelines, but those from a Muslim background are in a better position to understand the meaning of labels and identity in their contexts, hence to answer these questions.  Attending the Mosque and Using the Qur’an  Again insiders understand better what attending the mosque or using the Qur’an means in each context; so are in a better position to decide what is best. One factor to consider is the motive. Our research shows that many were first attracted to Christ through the Qur’an. One North African with a number of his family members that he had led to Christ, said that no one would listen to him if he did not continue to use the Qur’an, with the Bible, and attend the mosque. We do know that the early Jewish Christians, like many Messianic Jews today, continued to attend the synagogue (Acts 9:1-2; 23:2). And the Judaic establishment at the time was hostile to Christians (Acts 9:1-2; 23:2) even as many Muslims are today. If people continue in the mosque, however, they must not say or do anything against their conscience (Rom. 14:14). In studying Muslim followers of Christ 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 18 of 20  over a number of years, I have found them less interested in the Qur’an as they read the Bible and less interested in the mosque as they worship with other believers.  Reciting the Confession of Faith  I have enquired of those in insider movements what they do with the shahada, the confession: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Apostle of God.” One answered that some say that in his polytheistic context he was like an Old Testament prophet. This reflects the ambiguity of the Nestorian Patriarch Timothy (d. 823) who responded to the Caliph al-Mahdi’s question concerning what he though of Muhammad with the words, “He walked in the path of the prophets” (Gaudeul 1990, 34-36). Most of those I asked, however, said that they kept quiet when the part about Muhammad was recited or they quietly substituted something that was both biblically and qur’anically correct like “Jesus is the Word of God.”  The Unity of the Church  In the early church, as we have seen, James, Cephas and John were chosen to go to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). Each evangelistic thrust was relatively homogeneous. The Jews and Gentiles could keep much of their own identity and follow Christ. But to express the universal Church, they needed to have fellowship, which was expressed by eating together. This required some additional adjustments. So with the insider movements, there is much freedom for them to retain their identity but over time some adjustments will need to be made for the sake of fellowship in the broader Church. The same Paul who argued for the freedom of the Jewish and Gentile churches to retain their own identity also argued that Christ had broken down the wall 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 19 of 20  between Jew and Gentile so they might be one body, the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12:12-27). The same freedom must be there for the Muslim and traditional Christian churches. This is how Christ is being incarnated on the earth today. 2008 Don McClure Lectures, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary © 2008 - Do not copy without permission Page 20 of 20  References Cited  Gaudeul, Jean-Marie. 1990. Encounters and Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History, vol. 1.  Rome: Pontificio Instituto di Studi Arabi e Islamici.  Green, Denis. 1989. “Guidelines from Hebrews for Contextualization.” In Muslims and  Christians on the Emmaus Road, ed. J. Dudley Woodberry. Monrovia, CA: MARC.  Guillaume, Alfred. 1995. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of [Ibn Hisham’s Recension of  Ibn] Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. London: Oxford University Press.  McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. 1991. Qur’anic Christians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Neusner, Jacob and Tamara Sonn. 1999. Comparing Religions through Law: Judaism and Islam.  New York: Routledge.  Neusner, Jacob, Tamara Sonn and Jonathan Brockopp. 2000. Judaism and Islam in Practice: A  Sourcebook. New York: Routledge.  Roberts, Robert. 1925. The Social Law of the Qoran. London: William and Norgate.  Rubin, Uri. 2002. “Hanif.” In Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Vol.  2, 402-403.  Torrey, Charles Cutler. The Jewish Foundation of Islam. 1933. New York: Jewish Institute of  Religion Press.  Travis, John. 1998. “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Guide for Defining Six Types of  ‘Christ-Centered Communities’ (‘C’) Formed in Muslim Contexts.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4): 407-408.  Woodberry, J. Dudley. 1989. “Contextualization among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars.” In  The World among Us. Dean Gilliland, ed. Pp. 282-312. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. Revised 1996 with additional notes in International Journal of Frontier Missions 13(4): 171-186.  Woodberry, J. Dudley. 2006. “To the Muslim I Became a Muslim?” In Contextualization and  Syncretism. Gailyn VanRheenen ed. Pp. 143-157. First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims For the last twelve years we have been observing what God is doing among Muslims at the close of the twentieth century. We have been amazed at the parallels between the emerging Muslim believing community of today and the believing Jewish community of the first century. These parallels are very instructive as we wrestle with how Muslim background believers desire to express their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior. awud lifted his eyes and examined the group gathered in his home. Ordinary! That was the only word to describe these men. None of them could be called wealthy or brilliant. Yet, when they gathered together to pray, to study the teachings of Jesus, and to share a simple meal together, they sensed a power that surpassed explanation. Each of these men had been raised in religious Muslim families. The idea that Jesus could be God or that the Messiah could be crucified had been unthinkable to them. However, each of them had come face to face with Jesus’ claims about himself. They and their families had decided to become his followers. It never occurred to Dawud and his friends that they were “changing religions.” They continued to be proud of their religious heritage. When the men of their village gathered for prayer, they joined them. They fasted and gave to the poor. In fact, Dawud and his friends thought of themselves as the true adherents of their religion. Little did they know that their expression of faith would be at the center of a missiological controversy. Was Dawud a first-century Jew or a twentieth-century Muslim? Is it appropriate for a Muslim background believer to follow the example of his first-century Jewish brothers in Christ? May a Muslim background believer express his faith in the Messiah in the context of the Islamic religion? Is it acceptable for him to continue to join the Muslim community in prayers at the mosque? Is it legitimate for him to continue calling himself a “Muslim”? For the last twelve years we have been observing what God is doing among Muslims at the close of the twentieth century. We have been amazed at the parallels between the emerging Muslim believing community of today and the Palestinian believing Jewish community of the first century. These parallels are very instructive as we wrestle with how Muslim background believers express their faith in Christ. A Narrow Legalistic Perversion of Truth Some argue, “How can you compare Judaism of the first century with Islam of the twentieth century? The former was a religion received from the true God, whereas the latter is not.” The New Testament reveals great similarities between Judaism as practiced in the first century and modern Islam. The pillars of Islamic religion and the pillars of Islamic faith parallel basic tenets of first-century Judaism. For example, Jesus speaks directly about three of the five pillars in the sermon on the mount: giving, zakat (Mt. 6:2- 4); prayers, salat (Mt. 6:5-7); and fasting, sawm (Mt. 6:16-18). The first half of the Islamic confession echoes the Jewish Shema (Deut. 6:4). Jews also made regular pilgrimages to their Holy City (Acts 5:11), as do Muslims today to theirs. The basic tenets of faith are also common to both religions: Belief in One God, angels, Holy Writings, prophets, and final judgment based on a man’s deeds. Furthermore, in Judaism, as in Islam today, the religion had often degenerated into either an arrogant legalism or a tool for maintaining political control. by Richard Jameson and Nick Scalevich International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 D First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims 34 International Journal of Frontier Missions Jesus gave the following commentary on first-century Jews, You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. —Jn. 8:44 (NIV) This commentary is equally appropriate for twentieth-century Islam. Yet the Eternal Word of God found it necessary to be made like His brothers in all things, but without sin (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). He entered the world as a light in the darkness. To the twentiethcentury Muslim who has become his follower, he also says, “As the Father has sent me, in the same manner I send you” (Jn. 20:21). As followers of Jesus, Jewish believers created a new identity for themselves within their old religious identity. The Palestinian believers clearly perceived themselves to be Jews both ethnically and religiously. Some thirty-five years after Pentecost, James reports that “thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law” (Acts 21:30). Various sects of Judaism interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures in a variety of ways. In spite of their heterodoxy, obedience to the Law produced a certain orthopraxy that united all Jews in a common religion. The Jewish followers of Jesus, who zealously kept the law, maintained their right to be called Jews both ethnically and religiously. As Jewish believers, they adopted for themselves a new self-identity within Judaism. They called themselves, “The Way.” Although Jewish leaders perceived this to be an heretical cult, they did not perceive it to be another religion. Paul’s defense before Felix is instructive. He stated, However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets. —Acts 24:14 Paul is identifying himself as a Jew to other Jews. He will not even concede that he is a part of “a sect,” though he acknowledges Jewish leaders think of Jesus’ followers in this way. It would be more accurate to say that Paul and his Jewish background believing friends saw themselves as the only proper expression of Judaism. Similarly, twentieth-century Muslims are forging an identity for themselves within Islam. Over thirty Muslim families, in two strongly Islamic areas, have become “followers of Isa (Jesus).” Some call themselves “followers of the Straight Way.” They feel, live, and experience a new power. The power of the gospel has gripped their lives, making them very different from their Muslim neighbors. They have believed that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead. They now view Jesus as the incarnate eternal Word of Allah who became man. Not only is their theology different, their lives are different. They experience and demonstrate a new and vibrant love, joy, peace, and patience. They have become “new creations.” However, most of them never considered changing their religion. Some of their leaders, who also became followers of the Straight Way, taught them to remain in their Islamic heritage. After all, the Qur’an teaches that followers of Isa are Muslim (5:111). They are new creations within their old religious environment. New Faith Within Traditional Forms Early believers continued to worship the Lord as Jews. Peter and John went “to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon”(Acts 3:1). Acts 10:9 shows Peter going to the roof to pray at the time of noon prayers. It appears that the early believers continued to observe the times of prayer as practiced by the Jewish community at large. They also worshiped in their usual place of prayer, “day by day continuing with one mind in the temple” (Acts 2:46). Peter and John also went “to the temple” (Acts 3:1). In this very same temple priests were daily offering “up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people” (Heb. 7:27). Jewish believers knew they were saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as Gentiles were (Acts 15:11). Imagine the confusion their worshiping in the temple could have caused. Believers who had trusted in Jesus’ one and final sacri- Among both Jewish believers of the first century and Muslim believers of the twentieth, we observe a boldness to proclaim the gospel, giving full witness to the person and work of Christ. Muslim believers, like early Jewish believers, are forming their own communities within Islam, and learning to love one another in small home fellowships as believers in Isa. fice for sins were worshiping alongside Jews who were still trusting in daily temple sacrifices for their atonement. They worshipped God in the same place where the blood of these daily sacrifices was being offered. Could such a practice lead to syncretism? In some cases it must have. Indeed, the book of Hebrews was written in part to address such syncretistic belief (Heb. 10:1-18). However, twenty-five years after Pentecost, the community of Jewish believers was still maintaining their place in the temple. Their leadership actually requested Paul, the great missionary to Gentiles, to make offerings in the temple as a testimony to the Jews of Jerusalem (Acts 21:23-26). It is safe to assume that the benefit of maintaining a testimony to Jews from within the Jewish community outweighed the danger of syncretism in their minds. Mr. Ali, an imam (priest), has become a follower of the Straight Way. His new faith and character is now vibrant with the Spirit of Christ. Daily he attends his duties at the mosque and leads those who come to perform salat (ritual prayer). When Mr. Ali preaches, he often quotes from the Injil (New Testament). Many who come to the mosque are not yet followers of the Straight Way, but at least fourteen families have confessed faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and many others are very interested in understanding these new teachings from Mr. Ali. All of these new followers still worship Allah through salat, but as one of the new believers stated, “Now I truly enjoy my times in salat. These times of prayer and worship are no longer an obligation but a joyful time with my Savior.” All fourteen families continue to participate in Muslim holidays and activities. Is there a danger of syncretism? Certainly! But like Jewish believers of the first century, these twentieth-century Muslim believers feel that the opportunity to be lights amidst the darkness outweighs this risk. One Body, Two Communities In order for Jewish believers to maintain their position within Judaism, they lived under the Jewish law and apart from Gentiles. James reports that they were “zealous for the Law.” As such, they had to keep their distance from “unclean” Gentiles. In so doing, the early Jewish believers were following the example of Jesus. As far as we know, Jesus never entered a Gentile home. He never violated the Jewish dietary laws. He lived his life as member of a people who had by and large separated themselves from Gentiles. Paul’s writings reveal two distinct categories for the body of Christ: First the Jews, then the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16; 3:29; 9:24). Paul clearly perceived that the single Body of Christ was made up of members from both groups when they put their faith in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). However, to maintain a credible witness to unbelievers from their respective communities, many chose to be one in Spirit yet separate in almost all aspects of everyday life. To reach those living under the Law, the Jewish background believer lived as though he was under the Law, all the while knowing Christ had freed him from the Law (1 Cor. 9:19,20; cf. Fisher 1985). Paul wrote, Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised [i.e. a Jew] when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised [i.e. a Gentile]. Was a man uncircumcised [i.e. a Gentile] when he was called? He should not be circumcised [i.e. a Jew]. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. —1 Cor. 7:17-20 [comments mine.] 35 Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims 36 International Journal of Frontier Missions In order for a Palestinian Jew to “retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God had called him,” he had to separate himself from “unclean” Gentiles, at least to some degree. Similarly, many twentiethcentury Muslim believers are finding it necessary to maintain their distance from the traditional Christian community in order to stay within their Muslim context. Christian dietary practices, dress, and worship styles make it difficult for Muslim believers to freely fellowship with them. To do so would destroy their credibility in their own community, as it would have for firstcentury Jewish believers. Ahmed, a leader of a Muslim community of believers, begged a Christian pastor not to tell other Christians about his movement: “We are seeing new people join us on a regular basis. If the [traditional] church finds out about us, they will want to come see. That will destroy everything we’ve built. Please stay away.” Sharing the Gospel Among both Jewish believers of the first century and Muslim believers of the twentieth, we observe a boldness to proclaim the gospel, beginning with the testimony of the writings held to be authoritative by the unbelieving community, and progressing to a fuller proclamation of the person and work of Christ. In Acts 2, Peter preaches Christ’s death and resurrection with quotations from the prophet Joel and Psalms. In Acts 3, he preaches repentance based on Deuteronomy 18 and Genesis 22. Paul followed this pattern of ministry to the Gentiles. As long as his audience was primarily Jewish, he relied heavily on the Old Testament Scriptures. However, as soon as he found himself in a context where the Jewish Scriptures were not thought to be authoritative, he laid his scrolls aside. In Lystra Paul based his message upon God's revelation of himself in creation, seasons, rainfall, and growing crops (Acts 14:14- 18). When standing before the philosophers of the Areopagus, he quotes not from the Old Testament but from two poet-philosophers (Bruce, pg 357) In many different villages, Muslim “followers of the Straight Way” often sit and share their faith in Christ with friends in the market place, mosque or neighborhood. Most of these men have never been trained in any methods of outreach, they just share what they have read in the Injil (New Testament) or experienced in their lives since believing in Christ. Mr. Yusuf visits relatives in a strong Muslim area once a month. Shortly after he placed his faith in Jesus, the Straight Way, he visited relatives and began sharing the new power he had through Christ. After many hours of discussion and many visits from Mr. Yusuf, four men have also trusted Christ and are now studying the Injil. One of these men in turn started his own study group with five others. Reinterpretation of the Holy Writings Both Jewish believers of the first century and Muslim believers of the twentieth defend their faith with their traditional Holy Book. Moreover, both communities radically reinterpret these writings based upon their knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. The teachings of the apostles contain hundreds of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. Rarely, if ever, would their interpretations of these passages have met with the approval of the Jewish religious leadership of their day. Ironically, New Testament writers often used the same hermeneutical methodology, midrash, as did the Jewish leadership of their day (Ellis 1978:151-162), but they arrived at some very different conclusions. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they found Jesus and his church prophesied throughout the Old Testament. Most Jewish rabbis did not see the same fulfillment of Joel 2 in the events of Pentecost. Similarly, most scribes did not agree with Peter’s use of Psalm 16 to prove the Messiah had to be raised from the dead. If Jesus or the early disciples ascribed to the practice of only allowing the religious elite to determine the meaning of their Holy Scriptures, much of what we call the New Testament would not have been written. Rashid was responsible for preparing the sermons preached in all the mosques in his region. At first he was shocked to hear Rahmat and his friends teaching new ideas from the Qur’an. Rahmat taught Jesus was the eternal Word of Allah (Qu’ran 4:171), born of a virgin, killed and raised again. They quoted Surah 19:33 from the Muslim background believers are forming the vanguard of a new evangelistic thrust into the Muslim world. How will we respond? Will we affirm them? Will we encourage them as they strive to be and do to what God has called them to be and do? 37 Richard Jameson and Nick Scalevich Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 Qur’an, “So Peace is on me the day I was born the day that I die and the Day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”! These “common, uneducated men” now called themselves “followers of the Straight Way,” the very “Way” Rashid was obligated to seek in prayer seventeen times a day! They explained to Rashid that according to the Qur’an (5:68), they are not of the true religion even a little bit unless they “stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” They explained that this verse was referring to the Bible. Also, these men boldly declared, “The Injil (New Testament) was not falsified as taught in the mosque since ‘. . . In the life of the present and in the hereafter: No change can there be in the words of Allah’ (Qur’an 10:64; 6:115).” Many dozens of verses from the Qur’an were interpreted in a new light to Rashid. Looking at the Qur’an through the lens of the Injil was a new experience. These verses prompted Rashid to begin reading the Injil until he too trusted Christ as his sacrifice. Persecution of Muslim Believers It would have been naïve for Jewish believers to assume they could have avoided persecution by remaining Jewish. Jewish believers faced two types of persecution. The first involved arrests, interrogation, and floggings (Acts 4,5). This opposition came because Jewish leadership perceived the apostles to be teaching an aberrant form of Judaism. The apostles were claiming that the crucified Christ had risen from the dead and as such had demonstrated that he was the promised Messiah. Jewish leaders warned and flogged the apostles, but then let them go (Acts 5:40). Though persecuted, the Palestinian believing community was able to stay within the Jewish fold primarily because it continued to worship at the Jewish temple, thereby honoring what was sacred to Jewish leadership. The fact that thousands of Jewish believers remained zealous for the law twenty-five years after Pentecost (Acts 21:20) testifies to their success in maintaining their place within Judaism. When believers began to face this type of persecution, their first and foremost prayer request was not that they would be protected from harm, but that they would be bold to speak the Word (Acts 4:29). It wasn’t the first time Mr. Alim had come to the house physically beaten for the sake of his Savior. However, this was the worst beating he had taken. Black and blue, the whole left side of of his face was swollen from the pummeling. Mr. Alim had once again paid the price for sharing his faith with a group of Muslim men. It all started a few months earlier, when a few seekers had gathered with him to study about Jesus from the Qu’ran. After a few meetings, he began teaching from the Holy Injil (New Testament). Through the Injil they were coming to understand more fully the person who they called the Word of Allah. During one of these meetings, suddenly a man burst in to the room, accused Mr. Alim of being the anti-Christ, and began to beat him mercilessly. They chased him from the village and told him never to return. A few weeks later Mr. Alim came to the house again. His face mostly healed, he excitedly shared about another group of seekers he had found. Over the next few weeks he shared the gospel with the local witch doctor, a man known for his powerful black magic. This man became a follower of Jesus and renounced his black power. Seeing the dramatic change in the witch doctor’s life, two village mosque leaders decided to accept the great sacrifice provided by Allah. Many continue to come from surrounding villages to learn from these three men about Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah), and the number of believers continues to increase. In the early church, the second level of persecution began with Stephen and was characterized by imprisonment and martyrdom. F. F. Bruce contends that the intense Jewish persecution against the church was focused on the Hellenistic believing community, primarily due to their separation from and criticism of the temple (1985:648, 649). In contrast to the Hebraic Jewish believers, the teachings of Hellenistic Jewish believers was a cancer to be cut out and destroyed. Stephen was stoned to death. Saul organized raids on towns throughout Palestine, attempting to eliminate their heresy. In our context, Muslim followers of Jesus who continue to honor their religious traditions, the mosque, prayers, fasting, and the Muslim holidays are still called to give an account for their teaching about Jesus. In most cases they have been able to defend themselves from the Qur’an and were released to continue their witness in the community. However, Muslims who have left the Islamic fold to “become Christians” face persecution at a different level. Some have been First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims 38 International Journal of Frontier Missions killed. Most are evicted from their homes, divorced by spouses, and fired from their jobs. Most flee to a large city, become members of churches and marry Christian background spouses. They grow in the Lord but have virtually no witness to their own people. Building Each Other Up in Small Group Settings As members of a new community within an older established community, healthy interpersonal relations quickly emerge as essential for the life of the group. In Acts 2 and 4 we see small groups gathered for prayer and mutual encouragement; they learned from each other and shared meals together. Within a few years, James, the Lord’s brother, emerged as the leader of this community (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). James begins his letter admonishing Jewish readers to receive trials and persecutions as the building blocks of faith. He then devotes the bulk of his epistle to building and maintaining a community of mutual love and compassion. The extraordinary unity of these believers was attractive to the community at large (Acts 2:47; 5:13b,14). Mr. Nur became a follower of Christ, the Straight Way. He shared the testimony of the Qur’an concerning the Taurat, Zabur and Injil (Bible) with his good friend Latif, who had seen a remarkable change in his life. This, along with the verses from the Qur’an, convinced Latif to begin studying the Bible. They invited four Muslim friends to join them. Almost daily they studied the Bible together, and soon all six were following Christ. The group grew to almost forty, then broke into five groups that met at different times of the week for prayer and Bible study. These “cell groups” decided to meet at times that did not compete with mosque activities. Deep love, concern, and mutual support typify each one of these groups. Miracles in the Name of Isa Both Jewish believers of the first century and Muslim believers of the twentieth gained credibility through miracles. From the linguistic miracle of Pentecost to healings and angelic jail breaks, the miraculous placed a hedge of protection around the early Jewish believers (Acts 3:6-8; 5:12, 17-20). Even the Sanhedrin found it difficult to argue with the miracles that accompanied the faith of early Jewish believers, “But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say” (Acts 4:14). Asgar had long been involved in black magic. He had become crazy over the last few months, possessed by evil spirits. His friends brought him to four Muslim shamans to free Asgar from the spirits, but his condition only worsened. Finally, one Muslim man said in desperation, “Let’s bring him to Mr. Ghafur. He is part of the new sect, the followers of al-Masih (the Christ).” As a last resort, they brought Asgar to Mr. Ghafur, who casts out the demons in the name of Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). Asgar was miraculously freed. To this day, he is “clothed and in his right mind.” Three other demon-possessed men were then brought to Mr. Ghafur, who prayed for them and saw them released from bondage as well. This so impressed the leader of the mosque in Mr. Ghafur’s village, he too put his faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Conclusion The faith of Palestinian Jewish believers described in the book of Acts has given twentieth- century Muslim believers a newfound freedom in the way they express their faith in Jesus. Like early Jewish believers, they are forming their own communities within Islam, and learning to love one another in small home fellowships. They are boldly proclaiming the gospel by beginning with a radical reinterpretation of the Qur’an as it bears witness to Christ, and then moving to a fuller testimony of the person and work of Christ from the Bible. Although they continue to face persecution from the Muslim majority, they have maintained their witness as religious insiders by righteous living accompanied by demonstrations of God’s miraculous power. These Muslim background believers are forming the vanguard of a new evangelistic thrust into the Muslim world. How will we respond? Will we pray for them? Will we support them in love? Will we affirm the unique place in life that the Both Jewish believers of the first century and Muslim believers of the twentieth gained credibility through miracles...The faith of Palestinian Jewish believers described in the book of Acts has given twentieth-century Muslim believers a newfound freedom in the way they express their faith in Jesus. Lord assigned to them in His Kingdom, encouraging them as they strive to remain where God has called them? Or will we brand them as syncretistic heretics, and demand that they conform to the ranks of more traditional and Western Christianity? References Fisher, John. 1985 “Paul in his Jewish Context,” in Evangelical Quarterly. July, pp. 219-223. Ellis, Earle E. 1978 Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Bruce, F. F. 1985 “The Church of Jerusalem.” In Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. Vol. 67, Spring 1985, No. 2. Bruce, F. F. 1954 The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Ali, A. Yusuf. 1997 The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. (9th ed.) Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications. Richard Jameson and Nick Scalevich have been helping to develop communities of Muslim background followers of Jesus in various Asian countries over the last twelve years. Jameson and Scalevich 39 Ad here by InterServe MEE Missiological Training by Extension Get on-the-job on-going training in missions by email. For info contact IJFM editor: Dr. Hans M. Weerstra Email: 103121.2610@compuserve.com cripture shows that God has never been entirely predictable. In God’s passion to crush the serpent’s head and redeem mankind, who could have predicted He would eventually wipe out most of humanity to start over with Noah and his family? Consider Abraham and try to transport yourself back to his time. If we had been present with Abraham and witnessed God’s covenant to make his descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky, who of us could have predicted that God would allow Abraham and his descendants to take multiple wives? Polygamy is surely one way to exponentially multiply a man’s descendants, but why would God allow it to enter into the line of the promised Messiah? That’s not something most Westerners today could have easily predicted. If we say that the patriarchs’ propensity toward polygamy was merely part of God’s permissive will, then why would God tell David in 2 Sam. 12:8, “I gave... your master’s wives into your arms”?1 God is disciplining David through Nathan for taking Bathsheba and appears to be saying, “I gave you so many wives! How then could you do this wicked thing by taking Uriah’s wife?” God gave David more than one wife? This is not something many of us would have expected to hear from God. Unlikely Candidates for God’s Blessing Consider Jacob and try to transport yourself to his household for a moment. If you had seen everything Jacob had seen of his sons, including Judah sleeping with his daughter- in-law Tamar (unknowingly of course, he thought she was a prostitute), from which son’s line would you have predicted the promised Messiah would come? I would have expected Joseph to be the man, and I believe Jacob expected the same. Judah is not the man I would have predicted. But instead, we learn in Matthew 1:3 that the genealogy of Jesus doesn’t just trace back to Judah, but to Judah’s union with his daughter-in-law Tamar! This is not the line many would have expected God to use. And we can be pretty sure, according to Gen. 49:5-7, that Jacob had serious doubts about anything good coming of Levi, a son in whose counsel Jacob would not sit. Yet from Levi came Moses, as well as the entire Levitical priesthood. Offensive Obedience Consider how God asked Isaiah to go around preaching naked for three years, as a sign against Egypt and Cush (Isa. 20:2-4). Do you think Christian leaders today might want to distance themselves from an evangelist claiming that God told him to preach naked for three years? Church planting teams to Muslims frequently write-up MOUs (memos of understanding) to give prospective teammates some idea of their approach to ministry. But who among us would blame a team leader for refusing to believe that God would ask his teammate to preach naked to Muslims? “Maybe to ascetic Hindu holy men or to primitive tribals—maybe,” some might grant, “but to Muslims?” Isaiah was not the only prophet who preached naked. Micah did the same, weeping and wailing; he howled like a jackal and moaned like an owl (Mic. 1:8). This is not the kind of behavior I would predict for a prophet. And does it really matter whether Isaiah and Micah preached fully naked or just in their underwear? However far they stripped, it was clearly intended to foreshadow the humiliation and shame peoples would soon experience as recipients of God’s judgment. It was a divine object lesson God used to get people’s attention. by Joshua Massey International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ How would the mission community respond today if God should ask us to do something strange or even offensive, as He has done throughout biblical history? As familiar as we may be with Scripture, we will never always be able to fully predict how God will work in a given situation. This is definitely the case today as we see God drawing Muslim peoples to Himself in several rather surprising ways. S God’s Amazing Diversity 6 International Journal of Frontier Missions Defilement and Pollution It is not uncommon for peoples of the world to roast food over dried cow or camel dung, especially in areas of the world where firewood is scarce. But it is nowhere common to roast food over dried human excrement. So when God asked the prophet Ezekiel to do this, Ezekiel, understandably, reacted rather strongly (Ez. 4:12-15). He clearly understood that cooking his food in such a way would defile it completely. Of course it would, since God clearly states that this is the very reason he asked Ezekiel to do it, to show the Israelites that they too will eat defiled food among the nations where God will drive them (Ez. 4:13). God asked Ezekiel to defile himself to send a message to the Israelites? Surely, it seems, there could have been another way! (Those less familiar with the account may be relieved to know that God, in his mercy, let Ezekiel use cow dung instead.) So as familiar as we may be with the Scriptures, we will never be able to predict how God will handle a given situation. The Pharisees knew the Scriptures extremely well, but they utterly failed to recognize Jesus (John 5:39-40). Peter did recognize Jesus, but almost missed God’s clear instruction about ritual purity (Acts 10:14). Why? Because God wanted to do something Peter didn’t expect—to lift the ban on unclean foods that Scripture specifically forbade. How did God make his unexpected will known to Peter? He spoke directly through the vision of unclean animals and the clear instruction, “Kill and eat” (Acts 10:13). Abstinence from such meat was so deeply ingrained in Peter’s mind that God had to give the vision three times, and even then Peter still wondered what it meant (Acts 10:17). Remember, at this time Peter had no other Scripture than the Old Testament, so as far as he could see, God seemed to be asking him to do something completely unbiblical. God also wanted Peter to enter a Gentile’s home. This too, Peter believed, was totally against God’s law (Acts 10:28). God’s Ways are Not Like our Ways We could go on and on throughout Scripture, showing example after example of how God frequently does what his people never expect. God has never been entirely predictable. In his passion to draw the nations to the Savior, about the only thing we can predict with confidence is that God will do things we do not expect! In fact, he may even do things that seem so contrary to our understanding of him that we might rally a list of verses to justify our refusal to accept them as being from him at all. We have no trouble supporting our expectations from Scripture, even as the Pharisees and Judaizers had little trouble supporting theirs from Scripture. We must never forget that God is God; and his ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8-9; Job 37:5). Therefore, God may absolutely astonish us sometimes (Luke 11:38; Mark 10:32). But then again, he is God! He can do whatever he wants! In reality, our periodic astonishment more likely reflects our shallow capacity to understand God and his ways: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7). The above examples are in no way intended to challenge our basic hermeneutic of Scripture, nor to undermine what God has clearly revealed in his Word. My only intent is simply to drive home one point beyond question: God has never been entirely predictable. He frequently surprises us! Sometimes it may even appear he is contradicting what he previously revealed. But God never contradicts himself (Num. 23:19). It only to appears that way to us because our understanding is so limited. Whether he asks us to preach naked or roast our food over dried human excrement, we need to accept that God is God. Therefore, we will not always be able to fit his unpredictable ways into our limited understanding without some occasional befuddlement and discomfort. Has God been doing anything lately in drawing Muslims to Christ that we would not have predicted? Most definitely! God has been drawing Muslims to Christ (John 6:44) in so many different ways that one worker, John Travis, developed a spectrum to describe six very different kinds of Christ-centered communities in the Muslim world today. Before I briefly summarize this C1–C6 Spectrum (Travis 1998), we need to understand that the “C” stands for “Christ-centered community.” While both healthy and unhealthy examples can be found for each of the six communities, none are necessarily more Christ-centered than the others. Furthermore, C1–C6 are all Our periodic astonishment with God’s ways likely reflects our shallow capacity to understand Him: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?” Most Muslims have never met Muslims who “follow Jesus,” so the curiosity that results from their identification often leads to open doors to share their faith in Christ realities, not mere theories or positions. Muslim men and women who at one time only knew Jesus as a prophet of Islam now know him as Savior and Lord in a variety of very different communities. C1 is a traditional Christian church which either reflects the culture of foreign Christians or that of the minority indigenous national church. Many English-speaking churches in former British colonies are good examples of the prior, while most Coptic churches of Egypt are good examples of the later. In either case, Travis writes, “A huge cultural chasm often exists between the [C1] church and the surrounding Muslim community” (1998:407). C1 churches speak neither the daily language nor the religious terminology of the local Muslim population. C1 believers identify themselves as “Christians.” C2 is basically the same as C1, except C2 churches use the daily language of the surrounding Muslim population. Like C1, C2 churches avoid Islamic terminology and instead use a distinctively “Christian” vocabulary for religious description. The cultural chasm between C2 believers and the surrounding Muslim community is often still huge. C2 believers identify themselves as “Christians.” C3 churches are essentially the same as C2, except C3 makes use of local music styles, dress, art and other indigenous cultural elements. C3 makes a clear distinction between practices that are purely “cultural” and those which are “Islamic.” Islamic forms are rejected. Travis writes, “The aim is to reduce foreignness of the Gospel and the church by contextualizing to biblically permissible cultural forms” (1998:408). C3 believers also identify themselves as “Christians.” C4 congregations are much like C3 but have also adopted biblically permissible Islamic forms and practices (e.g., praying prostrate, perhaps toward Jerusalem; washing before prayer and before touching the Bible; abstaining from pork, alcohol, or from keeping dogs as pets; using some Islamic terms; wearing some clothing popular among Muslims). To distance themselves from the negative baggage and misperceptions Muslims have about “Christianity,” C4 believers do not call themselves “Christians” but “followers of Isa (Jesus).” However, the Muslim community does not generally regard C4 believers as fellow Muslims. From a Muslim’s perspective, “If they were Muslims, they wouldn’t hesitate to call themselves Muslims. And we’d see them at the mosque on Fridays as well!” C5 is much like C4 with the primary difference being self-identity. Whereas C4 believers identify themselves as “followers of Isa,” C5 believers identify themselves as “Muslim followers of Jesus”—much like Messianic Jews calling themselves “Jewish followers of Jesus.” Islamic theology incompatible with the Bible is rejected. Some C5 7 Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Christ- Centered Community Description A church foreign to the Muslim community in both culture and language C1 in form but speaking the language used by Muslims, though their religious terminology is distinctively non-Muslim C2 using non- Islamic cultural elements (e.g., dress, music, diet, arts) C3 with some Biblically acceptable Islamic practices C4 with a “Muslim follower of Jesus” selfidentity Secret Believers, may or may not be active members in the religious life of the Muslim community Self-Identity “Christian” “Christian” “Christian” “Follower of Isa” “Muslim follower of Jesus” Privately: “Christian,” or “Follower of Isa,” or “Muslim follower of Jesus” Muslim Perception Christian Christian Christian A kind of Christian A strange kind of Muslim Muslim The C1–C6 Spectrum believers remain in the Muslim community for as long as they can to “win Muslims as Muslims” (1 Cor. 9:19– 23). In time, however, their deviance from mainstream Islamic theology may lead to their banishment from the Muslim community. But where whole communities of Muslims begin to follow Jesus, the local mosque may transform into a Messianic Mosque for Jesus. Some C5 believers desire to distance themselves from the mosque and Islam, still preferring to maintain their identity as Muslim followers of Jesus. In contrast to C4, Muslims view C5 believers as Muslim, though perhaps “a strange kind of Muslim.” Most Muslims have never met Muslims who “follow Jesus,” so the curiosity that results from their identification often leads to open doors to share their faith in Christ. A Surprising Progression C1 and C2 best describe the majority of churches in the Muslim world today, which isn’t too surprising. However, C3–C5 believers represent what I believe to be a surprising progression of God’s diversity in drawing Muslims to Christ. I use the term “progression” because the surprises did not start with C5 but with C3. In its day, C3 received plenty of opposition from C1–C2 believers, who insisted, for example, that certain musical instruments are inherently evil and inappropriate for any community of Christ-followers. But in time, C3 became more widely accepted, and in turn laid a foundation for C4. Furthermore, I attribute this progression “to God” (rather than to the contextual experiments of man) based on the firm conviction that no one becomes “Christ-centered” unless God draws them, as Jesus stated so clearly (John 6:44). God’s Amazing Diversity 8 International Journal of Frontier Missions Phil Parshall certainly became the vanguard of C4 fellowships in the late 70s, and he endured an extreme amount of opposition from more than a few C1-3 believers who had serious concerns about the integrity of C4 work. But Parshall took the necessary time and actually wrote a book, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism (1980), to build his case for C4. God used Parshall’s book, along with several others (McCurry 1979; Parshall 1983; Gilliland 1989; Woodberry 1989), to help some of His workers switch gears in their approach to reaching Muslims. In spite of the opposition that Parshall and other pro-C4 workers endured, early adopters of C4 believed it held tremendous potential for Kingdom advance in the Muslim context— even though it did not come without risks in such uncharted territory. Ironically, 20 years after Parshall’s ground breaking publication of New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, C4 is today probably the most common approach used by new missionaries to Muslims. And who could have predicted 20 years ago that God would raise up still another group of messengers who believe God wants to take them beyond C4? C4 surely paved the way for C5, whose major difference is one of identity. Whereas C4 allows any biblically-permissible Islamic form or practice, C5 does not claim to go any further, except in the area of self-definition. C5 practitioners insist that even as Paul argued tirelessly with Judaizers that Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to follow Jesus, Muslims do not have to convert to “Christianity” to follow Jesus. There is no doubt that C5 believers are genuine disciples of Jesus (Acts 15:8, 11), but they do not desire to align themselves with what they perceive as that godless Western institution called “Christianity,” where (from a Muslim perspective) homosexuals enter the clergy, immodest women come to worship in scantily clad summer dresses, and people put the Word of God on the floor right next to their dirty shoes. C5 workers point out that Jesus commanded us to make disciples, not converts (Mt. 28:19). They argue that when Muslims who are drawn to Jesus commit to obey all his commands, bearing witness that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man and that only his death on the cross can pay the price for man’s sin, what does it matter what they call themselves? In reality, much like E. Stanley Jones described “Christ-centeredness” as quite separate from “Christianity” (1925), C5 workers want to convert Muslims to Jesus, not to Christianity. Our mandate is not to “Christianize” the nations with fine-sounding labels of self-identity, but with love for Jesus and obedience to his commands (Mt. 28:20; John 14:15, 21). On the other hand, opponents of C5 argue, “How could anyone who identifies himself as any kind of Muslim be a genuine follower of Jesus? To call oneself ‘Muslim’ means they adhere to certain Islamic beliefs that flatly contradict Scripture!” To this objection, C5 practitioners respond, “That sounds like the same argument Judaizers used against Paul since Gentiles were well known by all Jews to be unclean, uncircumcised, and mostly sexually immoral idolaters—all violating clear Biblical teachings. ‘How is it possible,’ Judaizers must have asked Paul, ‘to be both Gentile and a follower of Jesus? The two terms are mutually exclusive!’ And yet we find this phrase, ‘Gentile believers’ twice in the Book of Acts—which must have been quite disturbing to Judaizers, many of whom no doubt loved the Lord Jesus deeply.” 9 Joshua Massey Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 Opponents of C5 contend, “But to remain a Gentile follower of Jesus is different than remaining a Muslim follower of Jesus since being Gentile is an issue of ethnicity, not adherence to a false religion.” To this C5 practitioners respond, “Tell that to Peter, who, though he could not point at a cohesive body of religious literature describing ‘Gentilism,’ nor an order of priests claiming to represent the offices of ‘Gentilism,’ believed he would be ritually polluted upon entering the home of Cornelius, a God-fearing Gentile (Acts 10:28). Peter knew Cornelius was a God-fearer, a ‘proselyte of the gate,’2 not a typical idolatrous Gentile. Still, Jews like Peter refused to enter such a man’s home lest they be defiled. If the proximity of Godfearing Gentiles was thought to ritually pollute a Jewish follower of Jesus, being Gentile was certainly much more than ethnicity for it included serious implications of religious consequence, deeply ingrained in the psyche of every Jew and Judaizer who objected to the inclusion of Gentiles in the church without them first fully converting to Judaism, i.e., becoming ‘a proselyte of righteousness.’”3 Judaizers, of course, backed their arguments with abundant Scripture. Fortunately for us Gentiles, men like Paul and Barnabas could, at least initially, see God’s purposes much further than Peter and James, who later recognized God’s stamp on the Gentile movement after God went to unusual lengths to convince them (Acts 10). Deceit and “Muslim” Identity Every pro-C5 worker I know sees a huge difference between someone from a Christian background assuming a C5 identity and someone from a Muslim background becoming a C5 believer. In fact, one pro-C5 team I know has a countrywide policy disallowing anyone from a Christian background from becoming C5; their identity can go no further than C4. If someone from a Christian background goes around calling himself Muslim, all they will do (according to popular C5 opinion) is either look like a total phony, or mislead Muslims into thinking they converted to Islam. So when I use the term “C5 believer,” I am always referring to those who were raised Muslim by a Muslim family. This distinction becomes even more significant when considering the question of deceit in a C5 approach. While pro-C1–C4 workers may assert that following Jesus requires one to cease identifying themselves as “Muslim,” pro-C5 workers believe that identity is a matter of both theology and culture. For example, C5 Muslim followers of Jesus see themselves as far more “Muslim” than “Christian,” even though they disagree with the common Muslim belief that the Bible is corrupt and that Jesus was not crucified. How can they possibly see themselves as more Muslim than Christian in spite of these theological differences? To answer this question, we must first ask, “Whom do they see as ‘Christian’?” In parts of the world where significant numbers of C5 believers exist today, they are mostly looking at C1–C2 believers. When C5 believers compare themselves to C1–C2 Christians, they say, “I don’t pray like a Christian, unwashed in a pew with my shoes on; I pray like a Muslim. I don’t dress like a Christian, with Western pants and collared shirts; I dress like a Muslim. I don’t talk like a Christian, with all their strange terms to describe God and his prophets; I talk like a Muslim. I don’t eat like a Christian, consuming uh... you know4 and haram meats (i.e., meat not butchered in the “kosher” way); I prefer halal meats, like a Muslim. I don’t have a Christian name, like John, Tom or Paul; I have a Muslim name.” Thus, C5 believers are being entirely honest when they identify themselves as “Muslim” followers of Jesus. C6 Secret Believers While “C6” accurately describes a certain Christ-centered community of secret believers, it does not fit well on this spectrum in other respects, particularly in the area of contextualization and self-definition. Throughout C1 to C5, we can see a progression in contextual “friendliness” with a Muslim’s culture, Islamic forms, and even Muslim identity. But any sense of contextual progression ends at C5, for the defining factor of C6 is whether or not a believer’s faith in Jesus is made public. Privately, C6 believers surely practice a wide range of self-definition, and if we ask them how they think their fellow Muslim countrymen would best be reached with the Gospel, we would surely hear a variety of replies all along the C1-C5 spectrum. Christian Response to God’s Diversity I see two common responses to God’s unpredictable diversity in drawing Muslims to himself. 1. Accuse brothers up the spectrum of compromise, syncretism and heresy. We should never gloss over the genuine concerns of brothers who sense sigGod’s Amazing Diversity 10 International Journal of Frontier Missions nificant dangers in a pro-C4 or C5 approach. But some, instead of praying for the protection and fruitful labors of those involved in C4–C5, judge them as having crossed from contextualization into syncretism. Still others spread their dogmatic opinions of heresy to engage in what we could well call “missiological gossip.” To be fair, they do not see it as gossip at all, but as alerting God’s people to the sloppy doctrine of compromising saints. I am not referring here to differences on the non-negotiables of the Gospel. Missiological gossip occurs when we elevate disputable matters to such an extent as to condemn our brothers of wrong doing in matters where Christ has given us freedom. Satan’s ancient strategy to divide and conquer is everpresent among missionaries to Muslims who accuse their Christ-centered brothers of watering down the requirements of the Gospel to make it more palatable for Muslim acceptance. They assume they know full well how God draws Muslims to Jesus, and as far as they are concerned, it does not include a C4 or C5 approach. They have forgotten that God is not always predictable. In God’s passion to reach the nations, he may actually surprise us sometimes. 2. Accuse brothers down the spectrum of obstructing the flow of the Gospel with a culturally insensitive and extractionist approach. Pride can easily develop in those who are early adopters of God’s unpredictable ways, as if they are on the cutting edge of a movement of God due to some personal ability of their own. Many fall into a trap of believing the approach God has called them to is the approach for everyone: “If everyone does not get on board,” it is believed, “they will unwittingly contribute to actually hindering the very purposes of God and thereby prevent Muslim souls from drawing near to Christ.” This trap is especially easy to fall into when brothers down the spectrum are stridently dogmatic and condemning of the freedoms they exercise in disputable matters. In their eagerness to, as Paul writes in Rom. 14:16, “not allow what they consider good to be spoken of as evil,” they become overly zealous to prove their point and actually offend their brothers whose conscience simply has not yet permitted them such freedom. Paul offers some incredibly specific instruction on such issues, “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God” (Rom. 14:22). One wonders if Paul’s seasoned advice throughout Romans 14 isn’t rooted in some pretty hard lessons he himself learned when dealing with the Judaizers. The intensity of his debate with these brothers is clearly seen years earlier in his rather harsh comments about Judaizers, “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:12). So if we find ourselves agitated and perhaps even upset at dogmatic Christians who condemn our freedoms to reach Muslims, let us remember that the Apostle Paul wrestled with similar issues. He and Barnabas had already had several “sharp disputes” with Jewish Christians who traveled all the way from Judea just to teach Gentiles believers in Antioch of their need to be circumcised and become Jews before they could follow Jesus (Acts 15:2). When Paul and Barnabas visited the Jerusalem council to settle the matter, the Scriptures state that after “much discussion”—this was no quick and easy matter on which they could reach immediate agreement—Peter finally stood up and reminded everyone how God surprised him with the sheet lowered from heaven with the unclean animals God commanded him to eat (Acts 15:7; 10:13). Peter then recounted God’s instruction to enter the home of Cornelius, a Gentile God-fearer, even though this was a blatant violation of Jewish law (Acts 10:28). James then adds his powerful words which have no doubt provided inspiration to every believer called to contextualize, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). While the issues and the spectrums may change throughout history, Christians have always engaged in such condemnation of brothers for exercising their freedom in Christ. Similarly, pride continues to induce other Christians to look down on those whose conscience does not allow them such freedom. I believe both responses fall far short of Christ’s command to love one another as he has loved us. Furthermore, both responses seem to ignore Paul’s instruction to not pass judgment on one another in disputable matters, nor judge another man’s servant for “to his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4). There is however a better way, a third response to God’s amazing diversity in drawing Muslims to Christ, which I believe Peter and James modeled for us at the Jerusalem council. If we do not accept God’s diversity in drawing Muslims to the Savior, blessing and praying for those who do not exactly share our philosophy of ministry, we will be playing right into Satan’s age old scheme to divide and conquer. 11 Joshua Massey Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 3. Accept God’s diversity in drawing Muslims to Christ, blessing and praying for those who do not share our philosophy of ministry. We can be confident that many Judaizers loved the Lord Jesus deeply (Acts 21:20), but wouldn’t it have been better if they could have acknowledged God’s diversity in drawing Gentiles to Christ and then responded to contextualizers like Paul in an entirely different manner? Imagine the Judaizers writing the following letter to Paul: Paul, as much as your approach seems to contradict what we know from Scripture in the Law, we acknowledge that there is great freedom in Christ and that he has in fact fulfilled all the requirements of the Law in our behalf. It follows then that Gentiles don’t have to actually convert to Judaism to receive the blessing promised to our forefathers; rather, they need to convert to Jesus the Messiah. And you, brother Paul, are doing a great work among them. We believe God has anointed you for this work and will be praying for God’s blessing and protection upon you, to guard your heart and mind through some very challenging issues ahead. It is great to see the Hellenist believers supporting your efforts and we too wish you well. Still, many of us just don’t have the cultural flexibility you have Paul. We love the cherished traditions of our fathers; and frankly, many of us just don’t feel comfortable in Gentile surroundings—especially during meals! Yes, yes, we know God has made all things clean. We heard about the vision Peter had with the sheet from heaven and the visit to Cornelius. Wow! Does nothing stay the same? Anyway, some of us frankly feel nauseous around non-Kosher meats; it’s something we know we need to work through. Meanwhile, we believe God will make the most of our cultural rigidity, for there are millions of Jews who still haven’t believed in Jesus the Messiah. And while we worship Him at the Temple and in the synagogues, we trust that God will give us ample opportunity to share our faith with unbelieving Jews. So let the Gentiles worship Jesus as Gentiles who have been grafted into Abraham’s line by faith, and we will worship Jesus as God has revealed to our forefathers—not because it is the right or best way, or even because it is more comfortable for us, but because we long to see more of our people enter God’s Kingdom. God bless you brother Paul. We’ll be praying for you, daily. With all the accusations of compromise and syncretism on the one side, and accusations of “making it hard for Muslims to enter the Kingdom” on the other, there is one critical point we must not overlook. It will certainly help resolve some of the tensions. Not All Muslims are the Same There are many different kinds of Muslims, each positioned on their own spectrum of how near and dear Islam is to their hearts. Many Muslim countries may well contain all of the groups listed below, and many Muslim people groups will contain individual members who share a greater sense of affinity and belonging to some of these groups than they do to the mainstream of their own ethnolinguistic people. Nominal Muslims: These are Muslims in name only, who only go to the mosque on eid (a major Islamic holiday) once or twice a year. Westernized Muslims: These Muslims, often urban youth, are infatuated with Western culture and MTV. Their parents have provided well for them financially and strive to get them into good universities. They dance at discos and smoke cigarettes with their buddies. Many are eager to learn English and live abroad. Serving God is not usually a big priority to them. Some are disappointed with their religious leaders who, they believe, are living in the past and not taking advantage of all that modernity offers. Liberal Muslims: These are open-minded Muslims who are not intimidated by conservative Islamic fundamentalists. They are often well-educated and financially well off. One such Muslim friend of mine in Asia is a professor of English literature. Because his father, who passed away years earlier, called himself a “Christian Muslim,” this professor’s heart has always quite soft to the mention of Jesus’ name. When his wife was admitted to a Catholic hospital, he took the opportunity to go into the chapel and pray to Jesus for her healing. As he genuflected before the cross, two bearded Muslim clergymen were passing by the doorway. One shouted in stern disapproval, “What are you doing?” He stood up quietly, walked over to the Muslim leaders, looked them straight in the eye and boldly demanded, “Tell me! Where in the Qur’an does it say I can’t pray to Jesus?! Tell me! Where?” They walked away and never bothered him again. M1 M2 M3 M4M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 Muslims Disillusioned with Islam Muslims Ambivalent about Islam Muslims Content with Islam Iranians Kazakhs Arabs, South Asians, Indonesians5 High Dis. Low Dis. High Amb. Low Amb. Low Contentment High Contentment Conservative Muslims: This devout group needs no explanation. Ultra-Orthodox Muslims: Islamic reformists movements, like the Wahhabis (often called “The Protestants of Islam”), frown on what has become of Islam throughout much of the world today: a mix of Qur’anic observance with superstitions, sacred shrines, richly ornamented tombs, divination, omens, and excessive reverence of Muhammad. Modern Muslims: These have successfully integrated Western technology with Islamic devotion and are proud to be part of a global Islamic community. Mystical Muslims: Sufis and other folk Muslims, who, according to Wahhabis and conservative Muslims, are desperately in need of serious reform. Atheistic Muslims: In some parts of Central Asia and other former communist lands, Islamic identity has been almost completely stripped away. They know they should call themselves “Muslim,” but that’s about it. One missionary to Kazakhs described them as never having seen a mosque or Qur’an in their entire life. Needless to say, this is a very different situation from most others in the Muslim world. Rice Muslims: Some poor animistic tribes of sub-Saharan Africa or low Hindu castes of South Asia convert to Islam for material benefit or economic convenience. Muslim Attitudes About Islam This list is by no means exhaustive, but no matter how many kinds of Muslims we list, I believe they will all fit into one of three following categories when examining their attitude toward Islam. Different Approaches Required Which approach will be most effective with Muslims who are perfectly content with Islam? I believe C5 offers great promise. C4 is excellent too, but it isn’t hard to understand why Muslims who are content with Islam would much prefer to learn about Jesus from a “fellow Muslim” than they would from a non-Muslim (i.e., C1– C4). For a Muslim to enter the home of a “Christian” to learn about religious matters is akin to treason. But to enter a fellow Muslim’s home—even though a Muslim following Jesus may seem rather unusual—is much less likely to worry watchful neighbors. In fact, they may even go themselves to see what this study of the Taurat, Zabur, and Injil (the Bible) is all about! Also, when the Muslim seeker after God comes home with some literature about Jesus, it is C5 literature, often printed by well-respected Muslim publishers, not by suspi- The M1-M9 Spectrum: Muslim Attitudes About Islam God’s Amazing Diversity 12 International Journal of Frontier Missions 1. Muslims Disillusioned with Islam. Iranian Muslims are a great example. Many saw what Khomeini did to their country under the banner of Islam and said, “If this is Islam, we want nothing to do it!” When a Persian in the West was asked what her religion was, she said with conviction, “I have no religion!” She, and many like her, are so disillusioned with Islam they do not even want to be publicly identified as Muslim. 2. Muslims Ambivalent about Islam. These Muslims are ignorant and apathetic about Islam. They don’t know much about Islam, and they really don’t care. 3. Muslims Content with Islam. These Muslims love Islam. They believe with all their heart that Islam is the only true path to God. When they look at Christianity, they see countries with the highest divorce rate in the world, where selfish ambition and materialism are at their zenith, where sexual immorality and homosexuality are accepted as commonplace, and whose economic appetites led to the colonization and exploitation of their people and national resources. They are impressed with the person of Jesus, but totally unimpressed with Christianity. Each of these three “Muslim attitudes about Islam” (“M”) has high and low ends on the spectrum. High contentment (M9) could represent devout Muslims as well as propagators of Islam. Low contentment (M7) could represent liberal Muslims who may not be too impressed with, and perhaps even embarrassed by, the dogmatism of many Islamic leaders. Nonetheless, they are very proud to be Muslim. Most communistic and rice Muslims would probably fall somewhere on the ambivalence portion of the spectrum (M4–M6), while westernized Muslims are often found between low ambivalence and low contentment (M6–M7). 13 Joshua Massey Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 cious-looking Christian organizations. Therefore, such literature does not need to be hidden under a mattress. Instead, it can be freely shared with family and friends. Because the C5 believer was raised a Muslim in a Muslim family, he is worlds apart from the peculiar foreigner claiming to be “Muslim.” The C5 believer really talks like a Muslim, observes proper respect for holy books like a Muslim, washes before prayer, and eats food like a Muslim. The dietary habits of C5 believers allow Muslim guests to be at ease during meal times. In non-Muslim homes, by contrast, Muslims often need to create polite excuses to leave before meals lest they be confronted with the uncomfortable situation of being served haram (forbidden) foods. The doors God has opened for C5 workers was certainly seen by one North American brother in Asia who fasted and prayed six months that God would lead him to a Muslim background believer gifted in sharing the Injil (Good News). After finding Rashid in a C3 work and training him in C5, John sent Rashid out to reach Muslims as a Muslim. In less than two years, Rashid started 10 fellowships—they are not called “churches.” God is using C4 in amazing ways too, and Phil Parshall has done an excellent job describing this (1980, 1983, 2000). Which approach will be most effective with Muslims who are totally disillusioned with Islam? It will not be a pro-C4 or C5 approach! Muslims disillusioned with Islam want out! These Muslims are ripe for conversion to “Christianity” and want to be “extracted” from their Muslim communities. C1–C3 churches should, therefore, be most suitable to reach them, depending on their language and cultural preference. Ask any Persian Muslim background believer at an Iranian Christian Fellowship what he or she thinks about C4 contextualization, and you will probably get a confused look followed by the question, “Why in the world would anyone want to do that?” Iranians have experienced a very fanatical expression of Shi’ite Islam and as far as they are concerned, no Islamic forms or elements are worth retaining. To do so, from their perspective, seems rather foolish when so many Persian Muslims are trying to distance themselves from Islam. What about Muslims who are ambivalent about Islam? What approach is best for them? Few from this group tend to come to faith in Christ because their ambivalence about Islam is often rooted in ambivalence about spiritual matters. The contented and disillusioned groups may therefore prove to be much more fertile soil for sowing God’s Word. Nonetheless, ambivalence toward Islam means they might be reached by any community of believers along the C1–C5 spectrum. So with all the accusations of compromise and heresy up the spectrum, and accusations of hindering the flow of the gospel down the spectrum, we may be overlooking the fact that not all Muslims are the same. It should therefore come as no surprise that God is raising up many different kinds of workers who use many different approaches to reach many different kinds of Muslims. If we do not accept God’s diversity in drawing Muslims to the Savior, blessing and praying for those who do not exactly share our philosophy of ministry, we will, I believe, be playing right into Satan’s age old scheme to divide and conquer. Denying God’s matchless diversity in drawing Muslims to Jesus damages the cause of Christ in far greater ways than merely wounding our brothers with accusations which discredit their missiological methods or theological scruples. Denial can damage trust between brothers called to reach the same people. Those who do not trust each other do not generally pray together. Like a cancer, distrust can be quite contagious among coworkers. Rather than rejoice at what God is doing in so many different ways and learning from each other, we avoid sharing valuable information with those who might disapprove—to save ourselves from tiresome controversy. I know brothers who do not feel free to share some thrilling developments in their C5 work with C3 brothers laboring among the very same people group. Because these C3 brothers have judged the C5 work as having “gone too far,” they cannot rejoice that Muslims are being reached with the Gospel and in turn spreading the Good News far and wide. Ground-breaking works like this can be seriously jeopardized by dogmatic C3 brothers who feel it is their duty to alert the saints of what they perceive as heresy or syncretism. Add to this the issue of physical danger such news could cause responsive Muslim participants and their families, and one can begin to see the escalating cost of denying God’s diversity in drawing Muslims to himself. Surely, not all C3 believers are so dogmatic. Numerous C3–C4 workers rejoice with great pleasure over how God is blessing this C5 work, but the vigilance in security that must be taken to keep this news from our more dogmatic brothers can be uncomfortably challenging. Conclusion When you hear a brother engaging in missiological gossip, discrediting another for his or her approach either up or down the C1–C5 spectrum, kindly stop him, and help him see that not all Muslims are the same. For that reason, God God’s Amazing Diversity 14 International Journal of Frontier Missions does not call all his messengers to reach Muslims in the same way. As dangerous or extractionist or unsettling as an approach may seem, God will use a variety of Christ-centered approaches to reach a variety of Muslim peoples. We must all be on our guard! For if God is anything like he has been throughout history, he will surprise us occasionally. May we all heed Paul’s instruction to not judge our brothers on disputable matters for to his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand (Rom. 14). Instead, “rejoice with those who rejoice” (Rom. 12:15) and “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19). When you meet workers who have been called to a different point on the C1– C5 spectrum than you, encourage them. Pray for God’s protection and blessing upon them, acknowledging that God will use them to reach Muslims that you will not likely reach, “for God is not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet 3:9). End Notes 1. All biblical quotations are from the New International Version, except where indicated otherwise. 2. Proselyte of the Gate, a well-wisher of Judaism who worshipped the God of Abraham but did not want to submit to the entire Mosaic Law, requiring, among other things, circumcision, strict dietary habits, and complete obedience to Sabbath restrictions. They were seen as “half-converts” to Judaism, and therefore could not actually call themselves “Jewish.” 3. Proselyte of Righteousness, a circumcised Gentile who has fully converted to Judaism by complete submission to the Mosaic Law. Only these Gentile proselytes were allowed to identify themselves as “Jewish.” 4. Many Muslims have been taught from childhood that to even say the word “pig” or “pork” defiles one’s mouth. Because of this, its sight or smell in a non-Muslim kitchen is enough to make many Muslim background believers nauseous. 5. The peoples suggested as representatives of these attitudes are not intended to be strictly interpreted; they are attempts to discern popular patterns among Muslim peoples at the macro-level. At the micro-level, however, we could surely find numerous Arab and South Asian Muslims who are disillusioned with or ambivalent about Islam. Still, even most non-practicing Arab and South Asian Muslims share a deep pride in Islam. They will defend it before non-Muslims, even though they may complain about it amongst themselves. References Gilliland, Dean S., ed. 1989 The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. Jones, E. Stanley. 1925 The Christ of the Indian Road. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. McCurry, Don M., ed. 1979 The Gospel and Islam: A 1978 Compendium. Monrovia, CA: MARC. Parshall, Phil. 1980 New Paths in Muslim Evangelism: Evangelical Approaches to Contextualization. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. —1983 Bridges to Islam: A Christian Perspective on Folk Islam. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House. —2000 The Last Great Frontier: Essays on Muslim Evangelism. Quezon City: Open Door with Brother Andrew. Travis, John. 1998 “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-Centered Communities’ ('C’) Found in the Muslim Context.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly. 34 (4):407-408. Woodberry, J. Dudley, ed. 1989 Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road. Monrovia, CA: MARC. Editor’s note: An abridged version of this article appeared in Evangelical Missions Quarterly (April 1999) with permission from the International Society of Frontier Missiology. Joshua Massey is a cultural anthropologist, currently coordinating the development of contextualized evangelistic and discipleship literature for Muslim background believer church planters in Asia. He has published missiological articles on church planting and ethnographies on folk-Islamic ritual. Should Muslims Become““Christians”? Issues regarding the identity of Muslim background believers are extremely critical. Our best hope for reaching the vast Muslim populations of the world, with its great variety of Muslim people groups, is to plant flourishing churches of Muslim background believers who remain culturally relevant to Muslim society. uring the Gulf War in 1991, most in the country where I live considered Saddam Hussein a hero. Hearing Saddam praised was common, especially when people mistook me for an Arab. So after entering a shop one day and greeting the shopkeeper with the common Muslim “Assalaamu alaykum” (God’s peace be upon you), his tirade against evil Americans and praise for Saddam came as no surprise. But when I purchased my items, he looked at me more closely, then asked, “Where are you from?” Not wanting to embarrass him for having been so kind and open with “one of the enemy,” I replied, “I’m from Wisconsin.” As expected, he crinkled his forehead and asked, “Where is that? I’ve never heard of it.” I replied, “A small place near Canada.” Smiling and evidently satisfied, he bid me farewell as I left his shop. In my encounter with this Muslim shopkeeper, I downplayed my American identity in favor of my Wisconsin identity to avoid provoking an unnecessary conflict. Consider the much more serious issues facing Muslim background believers: Should they identify themselves as Christians or Muslims? To which community do they belong? Should they feel free to articulate their identity differently in various situations? How will they gain a hearing in their own community? Self-Identity: A Multi-faceted Issue Western Christians tend to place great emphasis on the self-identity of Muslim background believers. Self-identity is a major criteria differentiating several points on the “C1–C6 Spectrum” (as presented by Joshua Massey, John Travis and others in this edition of the IJFM). Some think that a Muslim background believer who continues to identify himself as “Muslim” crosses a line from contextualization to syncretism. In my experience with Muslim background believers, their self-identity is a multifaceted issue that defies simple explanation and often frustrates external expectations. As cultural outsiders, we often see the issue in false clarity, imposing simplistic understandings of terms and relationships. We have great expectations for young believers to “take their stand” in a society hostile to the spread of Christianity within its ranks, where the struggle for survival is more intense than we outsiders will ever understand. But for many Muslim background believers, identity is fluid, taking the most appropriate form for the situation. For instance, where Christianity has strong negative connotations, Muslim background believers may avoid a “Christian” label and identify themselves in different ways according to various perspectives and situations. This is similar to Western Christians who may not want to be put in a “born again” box or want to be seen as “religious fanatics” by unsympathetic acquaintances. We try to distance ourselves of the negative baggage associated with the Jim Bakers, Jimmy Swaggarts, and others who have shamed the name of Christ. We disclaim association with Christian complicity in the historical realities of slavery, colonial exploitation, and paranoid witch-hunts. We, too, adjust elements of our identity to fit our situation. Others have written about the need for multiple levels of contextualization to reach a broad spectrum of Muslims. Contextual approaches are more likely to be effective among Muslims who are content with Islam, or who face considerable social pressure, than with Muslims disillusioned with Islam. This article seeks to examine several issues of self-identity that face Muslim background believers at higher levels of contextualization. I focus on this because I believe that our best hope for reaching the vast Muslim populations of the world is to plant flourishing churches of Muslim background believers who remain culturally relevant to Muslim society. To understand the complex issues surrounding the self-identity of Muslim by Bernard Dutch International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 MUSLIM FOLLOWERS OF JESUS? by Joseph Cumming Believers from Muslim backgrounds are trying to forge new identities in Islamic cultures. The debate over their options has grown furious. Can one be a Muslim and a follower of Jesus? Tens of thousands believe so, and in this article Yale University scholar Joseph Cumming describes the furious debate their example has fueled. The question of following Jesus while remaining within a practicing community of Muslims has great importance in regions where the two faiths contend. It also serves as an important example of a wider challenge. As the gospel moves across cultural boundaries, those who respond will answer its call in different ways. As missions historian Andrew Walls has written, "Conversion to Christ does not produce a bland universal citizenship; it produces distinctive discipleships, as diverse and variegated as human life itself." The gospel must be contextualized, but how far can contextualization go without violating the gospel? And who sets the boundaries? —The Editors In 1979 my best friend decided he saw himself not as a "Christian," but as a "Messianic Jew." John had come from a secular Jewish background and was actually a practicing Hindu before he met Jesus. Then, for three years he was active in a Bible-believing Christian church. But now John felt called to reconnect with his Jewish roots, join a Messianic synagogue, keep a kosher home, and raise his children Jewish. He saw no contradiction between following Jesus as Messiah and identifying—ethnically and religiously—as Jewish. Like most Christians in the 1970s, I initially reacted with skepticism, quoting biblical texts I thought rejected kashrut (the Jewish dietary laws) as contrary to our liberty in Christ. I gradually learned that those texts could be understood differently, and came to respect the legitimacy of the fledgling Messianic movement—but not before I hurt my friend by my hostility to his effort to explore his identity as a Jewish follower of Jesus. The wider Jewish community also reacted negatively. Most saw Messianic Judaism as simply repackaging centuriesold efforts to convert Jews, destroying Jewish identity. To them Messianic Jews were not Jews at all. Recently, however, some Jewish scholars have cautiously suggested that Messianic Jews who faithfully observe Torah and halakha, who participate constructively in the life of the Jewish community, and who pass on Jewish traditions to their children are in error but must be recognized as fellow Jews. In the 1980s a similar movement began among Muslims who had come to faith in Christ. These were Muslims who trusted Jesus as Lord and divine Savior, believed Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and insisted this did not make them ex-Muslims or converts to the Christian religion. They wanted to remain within their Muslim community, honoring Jesus in that context. Reactions from both Muslim and Christian communities have varied widely. On the Muslim side, some have persecuted these believers, while others cautiously accept them within their communities. On the Christian side, defenders see them as "Messianic Muslims" whom we should accept—just as we accept Messianic Jews—as authentic disciples of Jesus. Critics argue that Islam and Judaism are different, that Muslim identity cannot be reconciled with biblical faith. Mixed Faiths, Mixed Reactions When Nabil had a life-transforming encounter with Jesus, he remained within the Muslim community, participating in Muslim prayers. As his love for Jesus became known to family and friends, some followed his example, but others actually attempted to murder him. After being imprisoned for his beliefs, he decided he no longer considered himself a Muslim. He saw Islam as the system responsible for persecuting him. Today Nabil considers himself a Christian. But some who followed him in faith still see themselves as Muslims. Ibrahim was a well-respected scholar of the Qur'an, a hafiz. When he decided to follow Jesus, he closely examined the Qur'anic verses commonly understood as denying the Trinity, denying Jesus' divine Sonship, denying Jesus' atoning death, and denying the textual integrity of the Bible. He concluded that each of these verses was open to alternate interpretations, and that he could therefore follow Jesus as a Muslim. Soon members of his family and community came to share his faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Ibrahim was also imprisoned for his faith, but unlike Nabil, Ibrahim still wanted to follow Jesus as a Muslim. Nonetheless, some whom he led to Jesus no longer see themselves as Muslims. Ibrahim and Nabil are friends and respect each other as brothers, though they disagree about their identity. As Christians from other cultures meet believers like Nabil and Ibrahim, they have mixed reactions. Phil Parshall As Christians from other cultures meet believers like Nabil and Ibrahim, they have mixed reactions. Phil Parshall and John Travis have, between them, worked for more than 60 years among Muslims, and they respectfully disagree with each other. They have published a series of articles in missiological journals, setting forth points on which they differ. Numerous articles by others have followed. In technical terms this is known as the "C4-C5 debate," drawing on a scale designed by Travis to describe various Christ-centered communities (Cs) with which Muslim-background believers in Jesus (MBBs) identify, and the ways they understand their identity: C1: MBBs in churches radically different from their own culture, where worship is in a language other than their mother tongue. C2: Same as C1, but worship is in the MBBs' mother tongue. C3: MBBs in culturally indigenous Christian churches that avoid cultural forms seen as "Islamic." C4: MBBs in culturally indigenous congregations that retain biblically permissible Islamic forms (e.g., prostrating in prayer), investing these with biblical meaning. They may call themselves something other than Christians (e.g., "followers of Jesus"), but do not see themselves as Muslims. C5: Muslims who follow Jesus as Lord and Savior in fellowships of like-minded believers within the Muslim community, continuing to identify culturally and officially as Muslims. C6: Secret/underground believers. The most vigorous disagreement is between C4 and C5 advocates. To help readers understand the issues, I'll set forth concerns expressed by C1-C4 advocates troubled by C5. Then I'll summarize responses from C5 defenders. These concerns and responses are in quotation marks to make clear that these are others' views, not necessarily my own. Then I'll add my own comments. C4 concern: "Scripture (e.g., 1 Kings 18:21; 2 Kings 17:27!41) condemns syncretism. Trying to be both Muslims and followers of Jesus is syncretistic." C5 response: "This is not the syncretism Scripture condemns. C5 believers live under the authority of the Bible (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:19!23; Acts 16:1!3; 21:20!40), reinterpreting or rejecting anything contrary to Scripture." Comment: Both sides of this discussion have done serious exegetical work in Scripture, which they believe supports their view. It is impossible to do justice to either side in this article. Readers would do well to examine articles in Evangelical Missions Quarterly and the International Journal of Frontier Missions, where the biblical issues are set forth. C4 concern: "Islam and Judaism are different: one cannot compare 'Messianic Islam' with Messianic Judaism. The Hebrew Scriptures are recognized by Christians as inspired; the Qur'an is not. The mosque is pregnant with Islamic theology that explicitly denies biblical truths." C5 response: "Islam and Judaism are different, but both are monotheistic. Islam recognizes the Torah and New Testament as Scripture alongside the Qur'an. Rabbinic Judaism sees as authoritative not just the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) but also the Talmud, which, like the Qur'an, contains a mixture of material compatible and incompatible with the New Testament. Traditional synagogue liturgy also seems to repudiate New Testament teachings, but both liturgies can be reinterpreted, and attendance at prayers does not necessarily mean affirming every word of liturgy." Comment: The term "Messianic Islam" is unhelpful. For Jews the messiahship of Jesus is a watershed issue, whereas Muslims recognize Jesus as Messiah but raise other objections to Christian beliefs about Jesus. Most Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted, but some Muslim scholars disagree. C5 believers affirm the Bible as God's Word. Sacred texts must be examined closely, considering whether proposed interpretations are legitimate and honest. C4 concern: "The C5 approach is deceitful. How would you feel if Muslims showed up at your church claiming to be Christians, then tried to convert your people to Islam?" C5 response: "It is not deceitful if C5 believers are transparent with the Muslim community about who they are and what they believe. C5 believers honestly see themselves as Muslims, not as Christians pretending to be Muslims. They are not seeking to convert Muslims to Christianity" Comment: Remember, Travis’s scale describes how believers born and raised as Muslims understand their identity, Comment: Remember, Travis’s scale describes how believers born and raised as Muslims understand their identity, not how people raised as Christians describe themselves. C4 concern: "The Muslim community won't tolerate such aberrant Muslims within their ranks." C5 response: "It's too soon to be certain of that." Comment: The Muslim community can speak for itself. When I have discussed this with Muslim leaders, their primary concern has been whether these people continue to practice the moral and ritual requirements of the Muslim community with which they identify (i.e. what madhhab they follow). They also assert that all Muslims follow Jesus as Prophet and Messiah, just not in the terms Christians draw from the New Testament. C4 concern: "To call oneself Muslim is to affirm Muhammad as a true prophet of God. That is incompatible with the Bible." C5 response: "Actually, 'Muslim' means different things to different Muslims. C5 believers have a variety of views about Muhammad, including: (1) one can be culturally Muslim without any theological affirmation about Muhammad; (2) Muhammad was a prophet, but not always infallible (cf. 1 Thess. 5:20–21 and Caiaphas in John 11:51); (3) Muhammad was a prophet for Arabs, but not for other peoples; (4) Muhammad was a true prophet whose words have been misinterpreted; (5) this question is unimportant either way." Comment: For the overwhelming majority of Muslims, the prophethood of Muhammad is non-negotiably essential to Muslim identity. But the word Muslim (literal Arabic meaning: "submitted to God") does mean different things in different contexts. The Qur'an calls Jesus' first disciples "Muslims" (Q3:52). In some societies, "Muslim" and "Christian" refer more to ethnicity than to religious beliefs. C4 concern: "C5 MBBs retain Muslim identity to avoid persecution for the cross of Christ." C5 response: "That's an unfair judging of motives. The issue is religio-cultural identity, not the cross of Christ, which C5 believers affirm." Comment: If C5 believers are trying to avoid persecution, it isn't working. Many have been terribly persecuted, suffering imprisonment and worse for their convictions. C4 concern: "What about the church? Do C5 believers see themselves as part of Christ's body?" C5 response: "C5 believers form Christ-centered fellowships in which they study the Bible, pray, and celebrate baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are ekklesia in the New Testament sense, though they may look very different from what Christians usually call 'churches.' " Comment: Studying and obeying Scripture helps local fellowships be holy and apostolic. But Scripture also calls fellowships to recognize the unity and universality of the worldwide body of Christ. Some C5 fellowships, and some workers partnering with them, have very negative views of or broken relationships with non-MBB churches. Other C5 fellowships have healthy attitudes toward the wider church. C4 concern: "I have heard some C5 groups have sloppy Christology. This alarms me." C5 response: "Some C5 believers do have fuzzy Christology, but so do many ordinary Christians everywhere. What matters is C5 believers' direction of movement: toward Jesus Christ. They pray in his name, worship him as Lord, and experience his supernatural working in their lives. Their Christology keeps moving higher." Comment: That seems reasonable for new believers. But as this movement grows and its leaders mature, one hopes those leaders will understand sound Christology and articulate it in terms intelligible to their flock. Sensitivity to direction of movement is right, but only with clarity about the ultimate destination of that movement—toward Jesus Christ, not only as Savior and sin-bearing Lamb, but also as eternal, uncreated Logos, God manifest in human flesh. Thoughts Regarding Identity C5 believers like Ibrahim challenge assumptions about what it means to be Muslim or Christian. We all have more than one identity and community. For example, most American Christians assume one can be both a patriotic American (loyal to that community) and a faithful Christian, though they may disagree with some things their fellow-Americans do or teach. Believers like Ibrahim seek to be both authentic Muslims (loyal to the community of their birth) and faithful disciples of Jesus, critically evaluating what their fellow-Muslims do and teach in light of the teachings of Christ – sometimes accepting, sometimes reinterpreting, sometimes disagreeing. Do such disagreements require American believers to repudiate American identity and community, or require C5 believers to disagreements require American believers to repudiate American identity and community, or require C5 believers to repudiate the Muslim community and their Muslim identity? How can believers best be “critically loyal” to the community of their birth and to their family heritage, respectfully critiquing what is unscriptural, while upholding God’s Commandment to “Honor your father and mother”? Ever since the Wesleyan revival and the Great Awakening of the 18th century, evangelicals have insisted that what matters most to God is not one's identity as "being a Christian," but rather whether one has a life-transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. David Brainerd was expelled from Yale University in 1742 for remarking that a certain faculty member (a loyal "Christian") had "no more grace than this chair," because he did not have a personal relationship with Jesus. Does it follow that it is totally unimportant for believers to call themselves Christians? With Messianic Jews, the evangelical community mostly accepts that the label "Christian" is not essential. Is the same true for C5 believers, or is Islam too radically different? If the latter, then what specific differences between the Jewish and Muslim communities prompt us to accept one and reject the other? Let me close with a plea from my heart. In recent months this debate has grown acrimonious. Muslim-background believers like Nabil and Ibrahim are mostly unable to participate directly in the discussion, because doing so would expose them to further persecution. Instead, Christians from non-Muslim backgrounds are holding a debate without them, anathematizing first Ibrahim, then Nabil. But Nabil and Ibrahim themselves respect each other as brothers and are able to disagree in love. As for me, remembering how I hurt my Jewish friend in 1979, I want to be very careful not to hurtfully reject brothers who have already suffered rejection and prison for Jesus. Jesus said that "whoever comes to me I will never drive away." As Nabil and Ibrahim understand their position in the universal body of Christ, they must listen to counsel from others around the world. But if we understand our position in that same body, then we must respect their fundamental human right to sort out—under the authority of Scripture—how they express their identity as followers of Christ. It is they whose lives are quite literally on the line. If they can respect each other after suffering prison for Jesus, then surely we can treat them both with respect. Joseph Cumming and his family lived fifteen years in a Muslim community in North Africa. He currently directs the Reconciliation Program at the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, Yale University, and meets regularly with senior Muslim leaders around the world. More info at www.josephcumming.com. 1 Current Trends in Cross-Cultural Contextualization Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism CEO Conference Dijon, France – May 2005 Wes Taber In the mid-70s “Cross-Cultural Contextualization” came crashing to the forefront of missiology.1 Notable efforts at “indigenization” were in evidence in much earlier missions efforts, of course (and they had their critics!). The growth of the modern Messianic movement coincides with wider contextualization efforts in the last quarter of the 20th century. Indeed, my first conversation with Phil Parshall (widely praised or blamed promoter of what was seen early on as a radical approach in Muslim evangelism in Bangladesh) took place in our home in Miami in the late ‘70s, when, as a novice field worker, I sought to gain understanding on that still-elusive question, “Where does cross-cultural contextualization end and syncretism begin?”2 Those gathered in this forum need no reminder of the ongoing debates – sometimes heated, sometimes divisive – in Jewish ministry circles about the effectiveness, appropriateness, and boundaries of contextualized ministry. In our continuing effort to see less heat and more light 1 Wheaton professor A. Scott Moreau begins his soon-to-be published-by-Baker chapter on contextualization thusly: “Contextualization was first used to express the tension between two realities: 1) the Bible expresses universal truths and 2) we live in a world of diverse and ever-changing cultures. These realities are deeply connected to a central concern all Christians face: what is the relationship between the Christian faith and my own culture? Contextualization is the process in which we wrestle with this and related questions. It is of crucial significance for all Christians—even those who never cross a cultural boundary—for every one of us lives in a cultural setting and has to incarnate the Word of God and the Christian faith appropriately into that setting. “As initially used in 1972, “contextualization” was intended to go beyond the traditional terms such as “adaptation” and “indigenization” (Kinsler 1978). Its coinage was a natural result of the multiple shifts in mission thinking that had taken place during the 20th  century” [Scott Moreau, "Contextualization: From an Adapted Message to an Adapted Life," in The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends , forthcoming. 2 This discussion was not merely theoretical or academic. In the mid-1970s Lori and I were in our first ministry assignment with AMF International, reaching out to elderly (often lonely) Jewish people on Miami Beach, most of whom had migrated down from Northeastern states. We also had Bible studies and discipleship classes with “twenty-something” Jewish young people in Miami – two quite disparate groups. One of our few encounters in our Miami Beach ministry with a “younger” couple (at thirty-something, they were older than us, but decades younger than most at The House of the Prince of Peace) began with their announcing the search for their Jewish roots. The man had hints that his grandfather “may have been Jewish” (a theory strengthened by the fact that “the family never talked about it”; the woman had traced her lineage back to a part of Europe “where Jewish people once lived” and she “just knew” she had to be Jewish. Beginning as unashamed professing believers in Jesus, they increasingly took steps toward a Jewish identity, and encouraged us to check our genealogies for (presumed likely) family connections to Jacob’s lineage. We observed, with concern, as the husband began studying at the local yeshiva; changed his name to “Shmuel ben David”; converted to Judaism; and finally headed up the branch of the Jewish Defense League and actively opposed our ministry, disrupting meetings, stealing files, breaking windows, etc. Where had we missed the boat in encouraging them to maintain loving loyalty to Messiah? added to our discussion, it may prove helpful to widen the lens to see what workers among other people groups have been discovering in their endeavors to “make disciples of all nations.” To that end, I surveyed some of the more recent literature and those working in ministries in various places. As a starting point, Stan Guthrie’s excellent volume, Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for the 21st Century, includes a chapter on contextualization. Methodologies mentioned include: story telling (vs. Western cognitive teaching), adapting communication to fit non-Western sensitivities (e.g., “shame cultures”), use of indigenous music, and understanding community decision-making processes in designing evangelistic approaches. Guthrie commends much of what is taking place in contextualized ministry today, but also shares his – and others’ – concerns. “Gary Corwin, a former missionary to Ghana and the editor of Evangelical Missions Quarterly, has noted the development of ‘super-contextualization,’ which he defines as ‘a new willingness to push the envelope of cultural and religious accommodation way beyond its current practice.’”3 How can we discern where the dangers lie?4 Much can be gleaned by following the ongoing dialogue between proponents of various views as chronicled in the Evangelical Missions Quarterly. While EMQ has substantive articles dealing with contextualization prior to 1998, in keeping with our “current trends” theme we’ll pick up the thread with Phil Parshall’s “Danger! New directions in contextualization” October 1998 EMQ article.5 As noted above, Parshall was an early proponent of what is now referred to in missiological shorthand as “C4" contextualization.6 As he observes contextualization moving toward “C5" and “C6" he raises concerns on several levels, based on results of the “Islampur” study (survey of 72 key people of influence after 15 years of ministry in a remote Asian region 3 Stan Guthrie, Missions in the Third Millennium: 21 Key Trends for the 21st Century  (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2000), p. 107). 4 Gary Corwin in his July 2004 Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ)  article “Telling the Difference” asks, “What’s the rule-of-thumb definition for the difference between contextualization and syncretism? Simple: it’s contextualization when I do it, but syncretism when you do it!” (p. 282). 5 Phil Parshall, “Danger! New directions in contextualization,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly , (October 1998), pgs. 404-406, 409-410. 6 The “C-Scale,” developed by pseudonymous missiologist John Travis (“The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-centered Communities’ Found in the Muslim Context,” EMQ  Vol. 34, Number 4 [October 1998], pp. 407-408), is as follows: C1 - Traditional Church Using Outsider Language C2 - Traditional Church Using Insider Language C3 - Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Religiously Neutral Insider Cultural Forms C4 - Contextualized Christ-centered Communities Using Insider Language and Biblically Permissible Cultural and Islamic Forms C5 - Christ-centered Communities of “Messianic Muslims” Who Have Accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior C6 - Small Christ-centered Communities of Secret/Underground Believers where mosque attendance was encouraged by the outside Christian workers). Areas of concern in the Muslim setting (with application elsewhere in missions) include: Authoritative texts (holy writings): “96 percent [in the survey of Islampur Muslim Background Believers (MBBs in the literature)] say there are four heavenly books, i.e., Torah, Habur, Injil, and Qur’an. (This is standard Muslim belief, i.e., Law, Prophets, Gospels, and Qur’an). 66 percent say the Qur’an is the greatest of the four books. 44 percent feel peace or close to Allah when listening to the readings of the Qur’an” (Parshall, October 1998.) EMQ, p. 406). Christology: “The mosque is pregnant with Islamic theology. There Muhammad is affirmed as a prophet of God and the divinity of Christ is consistently denied” (p. 409). Prayer: “Uniquely Muslim prayers (salat) are ritually performed as in no other religion. These prayers are as sacramental to Muslims as is partaking of the Lord’s supper for Christians. How would we feel if a Muslim attended (or even joined) our evangelical church and partook of communion. . . all with a view to becoming an ‘insider’”? (p. 409). Syncretism: “Bob (pseudonym), a very intelligent, productive, and spiritually oriented missionary to Muslims. . .openly and dogmatically affirmed Mohammad as a prophet of God. . . .Perhaps his motives were pure, but this progression of identification with Muslims had gone much too far” (pp. 409-410). Conversion: “. . .two Asian Christians who have recently undergone legal procedures to officially become Muslims. This was done to become a Muslim to Muslims in order to win Muslims to Christ. Actually taking on a Muslim identity and praying in the mosque is not a new strategy. But legally becoming a Muslim definitely moves the missionary enterprise into uncharted territory. I address this issue with a sense of deep concern” (p. 404). Parshall underscores his concern with these words: “Personally, I can only put conversion (or reconversion) to official Islam as high syncretism. . .regardless of motivation” (p. 405). Deceit: “After worship (in the mosque), the Muslim villagers all came up to Harry (the western missionary who wanted to experience Muslim worship firsthand) and congratulated him on becoming a Muslim. Embarrassed, Harry explained that he was a follower of Isa (Jesus) and that he just wanted to learn about Islam. Immediately, upon hearing these words, the crowd became very angry. Harry was accused of destroying the sanctity of the mosque. Someone yelled that he should be killed. A riot was about to break out” (p. 409). And, “Even C4 is open to a Muslim charge of deceit. But I disagree and see it as a proper level of indigenization. We have not become a ‘fifth column’ within the mosque, seeking to undermine its precepts and practices. C5, to me, seems to do just that and open us up to the charge of unethical7 and sub-Christian activity” (p. 409). As might be expected, Parshall’s article touched off a flurry of responses, including one from John Travis, author of the “C Spectrum.” Among Travis’s points in his October 1998 EMQ article, “Must all Muslims leave ‘Islam’ to follow Jesus?” are these: 1 Study of Islam’s writings can be a useful tool in building bridges. “Holy Book reading sessions” begin with “reading a Qur’anic passage in a respectful manner. . . Unsaved Muslims are more likely to attend Bible reading sessions where they also contain some Arabic Qur’anic passage. Achmad is careful to read Qur’anic passages which do not conflict with the Bible” (p. 412). 2 Theology must be lived, not just assented to: “. . .we need to assess the quality of the new believers’ lives in Christ and not just their theology. Is the fruit of the Spirit evident and do they now show a deeper love for others? Scripture is clear that by qualities such as these we will recognize true followers of Christ (Matt. 7:20, John 13:35)” (p. 412). 3 Sentiment is a secondary concern: “Regarding how Muslims would ‘feel’ about such an approach, I think the question is a bit irrelevant. The majority of Muslims that I have talked to object to any activity they perceive as an attempt to attract Muslims to Christianity. However, the C5 approach, which communicates the message of salvation in Christ without the intent to persuade Muslims to ‘change their religion,’ might in fact be the one most appreciated by Muslims” (p. 413). 4 Tensions are inevitable: “Can individuals be a part of the community of Islam and not affirm standard Muslim theology? Yes, so long as they remain silent about their unorthodox beliefs. . . .However the goal of C5 believers (unlike C6 believers) is not to remain silent about their faith, but rather to be a witness for Christ. As they share, eventually the issue of the prophethood of Muhammad and the inerrancy of the Qur’an will arise. A follower of Jesus cannot affirm all that is commonly taught about the Qur’an and Mohammad. Certain aspects of the role of Muhammad and the Qur’an must be reinterpreted. This will perhaps be the most challenging task of C5; to not do so will in time cause these believers to move toward C4 (contextualized, yet not Muslim) or C6 (underground/silent believers)” (p. 413). 5 C5 may be transitional. “Yet, would it not be much better for Muslim followers of Jesus to share the Good News over months or years with fellow Muslims who may eventually expel them, than for these new believers to leave their families and community by the own choice, being seen as traitors by those whom they love?” (p. 414). 7 Mark Williams of the Society for International Ministries in the Philippines writes in a letter to the editor of EMQ , “I know of a pastor in one area of Southeast Asia who is convinced that he should ‘become a Muslim to the Muslims’ (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20-22) by going on the hajj  (pilgrimage) in Saudi Arabia! Of course, in order to do this he will have to ‘prove’ that he is a ‘Muslim’ – probably by reciting the Shahada  (creed) that affirms that Muhammad is a prophet of God” (April 1999, pp. 236-137). 6 C5 contextualization works: “Last, were it not for the C5 approach used in this [Islampur] church-planting ministry, would there be these many thousands of new believers to analyze in the first place?” (p. 412). As alluded to by Travis (point 2, above), and several authors, contextualization concerns touch both praxis and theology. Which of these is the greater concern is in itself a reflection of one’s world view. Preserving and passing on the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is a vital part of disciple making everywhere, but developing systematic theologies may be more of a Western concern.8 While we passionately desire to communicate biblical truth in ways that are easily assimilated by our audiences, we are familiar with what happens when theology becomes diluted, or worse, polluted. SIM Director Steve Strauss helps frame the issue in his paper prepared for the Evangelical Missiological Society: “If we admit that all theology is contextual, won’t the entire theological process be thrown into a swamp of relativity? Some of the most prominent contextual theologians seem to base their theologies more on culture or political ideologies than on the Bible. The theologies they develop appear to contradict historically accepted orthodoxy and seem to have strayed into syncretism, further confirming that the whole idea of contextual theology is suspect.”9 While the concerns are real, Strauss spends the bulk of his paper advocating for contextualized theologies within the safeguards of a high view of Scripture and a solid biblical hermeneutic. [Elsewhere, Strauss reminds us that having to deal with alternate theologies is both an old issue in church history (witness the divide between Eastern and Western churches because of disagreements over creeds such as Chalcedon) and a very current issue (evangelicals“doing theology” amidst an Ethiopian Orthodox culture).10] Making biblical truth understandable while remaining true to the Scriptures within each societal context is central to our task. That moves us to another area of current controversy in missions: Bible translation. A brother who is coordinating translation efforts in a significant Muslim area recently communicated the following: When it comes to translation we do our best to contextualize the text – both the outside (format) and inside (words used). We design our covers to look attractive 8 Note, for example, the emphasis on practical theology by a brother from the Mid-East: “A Middle Eastern theology will provide a comprehensive understanding of life. Perhaps it will involve writing a Christian Talmud or a Mishnah, that will help Middle Eastern believers apply biblical teaching to their daily lives.” [Ziya Meral, AToward a Relevant Theology for the Middle East,@ EMQ  (April 2005), p. 212. 9 Steve Strauss, “Text and Context: An Evangelical Approach to Contextual Theologizing,” forthcoming. 10 Steve Strauss, “Creeds, Confessions and Global Theologizing: A Case Study In Comparative Christologies,” forthcoming. to Muslims, and make sure the text has a border around it to give it a sense of authenticity. We replace the Christian terms with Muslim terms (Jesus => Isa, Abraham => Ibrahim, etc.). In some languages over here the word “to crucify” has become synonymous with “to Christianize” and the idea of “take up your cross” to a Muslim means to wear a gold cross around your neck on a chain. So we have to change and explicate those overtly Christian words (crucify => to put to death on a wooden cross beam) to get away from the negative connotations/meanings they have acquired. [Many] Christians in the US don't go to Halloween parties anymore, but to Fall Harvest parties because Halloween has taken on a negative connotation. So we explicate the meaning of the term and call it something else – a Fall Harvest party which is neutral and can then take on positive new meaning through teaching. However, in all this translators are very careful to retain the original theological meaning of the text so that the right meaning is understood in the receptor language. That's the foundation of what we do in meaning-based translation. Of course, the real hot one is how we translate “the Son of God.” [Continuing to] insist on a literal translation does much harm around the Muslim world because of the Muslim worldview and limited understanding. That is, in many languages, including Arabic, the word “son” can only be used in the physical sense and not the figurative sense, and so Muslims think we believe that Jesus is the offspring of God and Mary. Again, these issues are not just academic. Here is an illustration of reaction to the use of common Christian terminology in a hostile-to-Christianity setting: Missionaries who live with our special audiences, who are fluent in their languages and culture, and who watch them react to the Jesus film, note that the people misunderstand word-for-word translations of these terms, especially “Son of God”, and that many of them react quite negatively. The result is that the translation of these terms spoils the potential impact of the film and discourages people from sharing it with others. It also discourages people from reading the Bible. Hundreds of examples could be given, but two will suffice. Three years ago a cable television company in the 10/40 window decided to air the Jesus video on one of its channels; viewers were so upset at the film script that nearly half of all subscribers canceled their subscriptions to the cable service. In another country, a multi-agency team sold someone a copy of a Gospel. The buyer wanted to read the Gospel but became enraged when he read the term ‘Son of God’. He told others and a riot ensued. The team’s practice had been to leave locations before trouble arose, but on this occasion they were caught and taken at gunpoint to the police station. They feared for their lives, but the police protected them until the angry mob finally dispersed—after three hours of shouts and threats. This happened because the phrase “Son of God” was translated word for word instead of according to its meaning.11 Those who are committed to “verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture,” and who have labored long over textual criticism, know firsthand the challenge of finding the right word or symbol to correctly represent a biblical concept in another language. At what points would a translator be tempted to “soften” a biblical truth that is sure to meet with opposition in the culture for whom the translation is intended, if only for the purpose of gaining a further hearing? How often are we faced with similar decisions when orally sharing our faith? Even with the best of intentions, careful attempts at contextualization often meet with strong opposition. An anonymous correspondent serving with a ministry reaching Muslims reports, “In the Arab world, an Islamic-sounding translation of the Bible is considered subversive and dangerous to Arab governments. It’s okay for Christians to have their Bibles but if you use an Islamicized translation, they know you are targeting Muslims. This becomes inflammatory. Also, the more translations, the more Muslims accuse Christians of changing the Bible.” Another core issue in contextualization is that of identity – surely one of those hotly debated areas where we will continue to see sparks fly. Joshua Massey, pseudonymous cultural anthropologist, linguist, and missiologist in Asia, joins the running EMQ debate by saying, “C4 surely paved the way for C5, whose major difference is one of identity. Whereas C4 allows any biblically permissible Islamic form or practice, C5 does not claim to go any further, except in the area of self-definition.”12 Further, “C5 practitioners insist that – even as Paul argued tirelessly with Judaizers that Gentiles don’t have to convert to Judaism to follow Jesus – Muslims don’t have to convert to ‘Christianity’ to follow Jesus. C5 believers surely are genuine disciples of Jesus (Acts 15:8,11), but they do not desire to align themselves with what they perceive as that godless Western institution called ‘Christianity,’ where (from a Muslim perspective) homosexuals enter the clergy, immodest women worship in scantily clad summer dresses, and people put the Holy Scriptures on the floor right next to their dirty shoes” (p. 191). And yet again, “C5 workers point out that Jesus commanded us to make disciples, not converts. If Muslims drawn to Jesus commit to obey all his commands, bearing witness that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man and that only his death on the cross can pay the price for man’s sin, what does it matter what they call themselves?” (p. 191). 11 Excerpted from a paper submitted by an anonymous linguist. 12 Josh Massey, “His ways are not our ways,” EMQ  (April 1999), p. 191. Massey touches here on the reality that opinions differ as to the content/meaning of words. “While C1-4 workers may assert that following Jesus requires one to cease identifying themselves as ‘Muslim’ in name, C5 workers believe identity is not solely based on one’s theological position. For example, C5 believers, or ‘Muslim followers of Jesus,’ see themselves as far more ‘Muslim’ than ‘Christian,’ even though they disagree with the common Muslim belief that the Bible has been corrupted and Jesus was not crucified” (p. 192). Massey does, however, make this distinction: “Every C5 worker I know sees a huge difference between someone from a Christian background taking a C5 identity and someone from a Muslim background becoming a C5 believer. In fact, one pro-C5 team I know has a countrywide policy disallowing anyone from a Christian background from becoming C5; their identity can go no further than C4. If someone from a Christian background goes around calling himself a Muslim, all they’ll do (according to popular C5 opinion) is either look like a total phony, or mislead Muslims into thinking they converted to Islam. So when I use the term ‘C5 believer,’ I am always referring to those who were raised Muslim by a Muslim family. This distinction becomes even more significant when considering the question of deceit in a C5 approach.” Phil Parshall returns to identity issues by quoting Ramsey Harris [pseudonym], a long-term missionary among Arabs, who told him, “‘Most of those I have led to Christ do NOT identify themselves as Muslims anymore, but some do. I do not push them either way. . . For most people the word Muslim means “an adherent of the religion of Muhammad”. . . But there is one principle which must be universal: one must always identify oneself with the person of Jesus Christ’ (Mt. 10:33 and 1 Peter 4:16).”13 Recalling Parshall’s earlier “alarms,” one must acknowledge that there is indeed a “slippery slope” aspect to contextualization. In the testimony of one cross-cultural worker, “Here in Africa. . .I clarify to Muslim friends, and other Muslims who ask, that when I do sallat (daily prayers) my shehada (confession) is a little different. At first, I said, ‘There is no god but God, and Jesus Messiah (Isa al-Masiih) is the Word of God.’ The immediate reaction was, ‘Why not Muhammad?’ and I could never get them beyond the subject of Muhammad onto the subject of who Jesus is and his work. But when I went more C-5 and said, ‘There is no god but God, and Muhammad is rasulullah, and Jesus Messiah is the Word of God,’ the immediate reaction is, ‘Why Jesus?’ Then the whole discussion is on a subject that can lead to faith and salvation.”14 One might counter with the argument that, yes, the conversation may have gone further – but only because Muhammad was affirmed as God’s spokesman, in the manner of a devout Muslim. Scripture carries a high standard for one who purports to speak for God (Deuteronomy 13, e.g.); 13 Phil Parshall, ALifting the Fatwa ,@ EMQ  (July 2004), p. 290. 14 Anonymous, AC-5 missionary response@ (letter to the editor), EMQ  (July 1999), p. 270. in what sense would a believer in Messiah Jesus acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet of God?15 In Parshall’s words, “‘I am a Muslim follower of “Isa-al-Masih”’ is much more readily accepted by certain missionaries than just the designation ‘Muslim.’ The word ‘Muslim’ is defined as one who is submitted to God. In practice, however, every Muslim worldwide thinks of this term as referring to those who adhere to Islam’s theological tenants (sic). At this point the charge of deceit kicks in. Are we purposefully misleading? Is integrity at stake?”16 The worker continues his account: “I keep honest by never pretending to be a Muslim instead of a Christian. When asked if I am a Muslim, I answer that I practice Islam, but I follow Jesus Messiah as my Savior. . . If they insist on a definition, I say they can call me a Muslim who believes in the Injil and in Jesus as Savior, or a Christian who practices Islam (fasts Ramadan, does five sallats a day, goes to Friday prayers at the mosque, and affirms belief in God, in his angels, in all his messengers, in all his books, and in the Last Day.) So far, I have encountered good will and many witnessing opportunities with this approach.”17 For those who labor long among a resistant people group, surely the appeal of a strategy that gets results must be strong. But consider the reasoning of Sam Schlorff, retired Arab World Ministries missiologist, as he responds in a letter to the editor with the next salvo in the ongoing EMQ debate. The main flaw in the C5 idea, and indeed in the entire “Spectrum,” is that it has been constructed without consideration of biblical or theological principles that establish parameters for legitimate contextualization. Without such parameters, one’s choice of mode becomes a matter of intuition or personal preference, rather than theological principle. In my own study of contextualization, I have found that there are at least four major theological issues that one must be concerned with in constructing a model. These are its theology of non-Christian religion, its understanding of the objective of mission, its starting point for contextualization, 15 Parshall addresses this by quoting Brian Armstrong [pseudonym for an early C5 theoretician and practitioner for many years in the Middle East]: “I believe that an MBB can repeat the creed with conviction and integrity, without compromising or syncretizing his faith in Jesus. . . .the recognition of Muhammad would be in his prophetic mission as a messenger proclaiming one god and submission to his will in the context of idolatrous seventh century Arabia, or, in the pagan pre-Islamic setting of any given people who have subsequently accepted Islam. Although Muhammad’s mission was chronologically A.D., we should not allow this to cloud the fact that the spiritual milieu to which he spoke was substantially B.C. . . .In a Jesus movement in Islam, Muhammad would be understood as an Old Testament-style messenger. For those Christians who may stumble at certain aspects of Muhammad’s lifestyle, I urge them to study more objectively the lives of the Old Testament prophets where both holy war, in a form more violent than Islam calls for (genocide in the book of Joshua), and polygamy were quite common” [EMQ  (July 2004), pp. 290-291]. 16 Ibid, p. 290. 17 Anonymous, AC-5 missionary response@ (letter to the editor), EMQ  (July 1999), p. 270. and its cross-cultural hermeneutic. These critical issues are interrelated – the position taken on one issue impacts how one responds to the others.18 In addressing the beginning point for contextualization, Schlorff illustrates this way: The C-5 model, for example, considers Islam to be a “neutral vehicle” for contextualization. This entails viewing the objective in terms of a church in which “C5 believers remain legally and socially within the community of Islam. . .” That is, they are committed to Christ and trusting him alone for salvation, but also in some sense still committed to Islam; one writer calls them “Muslim Christians.” As for starting point, the model begins contextualization from within Islam. That is, the Qur’an is used as a source of Truth for presenting the gospel, and certain passages are “reinterpreted” and “filled with Christian meaning.” Muslim cultural and ritual forms, such as the ritual prayer, are imported into the convert church and filled with Christian meaning. . . . Islam is certainly not neutral. And the very idea of a “Muslim Christian” is a contradiction in terms.19 H.L. Richard weighs in with a similar view regarding the importance of identifying beginning points in reaching the challengingly complex (and non-monotheistic) Hindu world. “The most significant point is that how one views Hinduism radically determines the way one thinks about contextualizing the gospel.” He continues the thought: “If Hinduism is an alternate religion to Christianity, one naturally shrinks from suggestions that the gospel should be introduced within the Hindu religion. This is the working definition of syncretism. But if Hinduism is understood as a civilization, the picture changes completely. The gospel of Christ must be incarnated within every civilization.”20 Sam Schlorff also addresses “reinterpreting” Muslim terms and religious acts. “The principle problem with the [C5] model is that it involves ‘reinterpreting Muhammad and the Qur’an’. . .and even many Islamic practices, to give them a ‘Christian meaning.’ . . .Reinterpretation involves what I have called ‘a hermeneutic of synthesis,’ where one interprets the Bible and the 18 Sam Schlorff, “C-5 church revisited,” EMQ  (October 1999), pp. 394-395. 19 Ibid, p. 395. 20 H.L. Richard, ANew Paradigms for Understanding Hinduism and Contextualization,@ EMQ  (July 2004), p. 311. Here also Richard argues for a new paradigm, seeing Hinduism as a civilization with an amalgamation of religions: “More significantly, the Supreme Court of India defined Hinduism in civilization terms. In a 1977 definition the court stated: ‘In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus and non-Hindus – whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion with ceasing to be a Hindu, and the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than as objectionable. . . .Hinduism is, then, both a civilization and conglomerate of religions, with neither a beginning, a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization.” Qur’an, and their respective cultures, in such a way as to try to bring the two perspectives close together in meaning.”21 “The practice of using select Muslim ritual forms (the ‘Pillars’) in Christian worship and ‘filling them with Christian meaning’ faces exactly the same meaning, but this ignores the fact that the medium – the ritual form – is the message,” Schlorff continues. “The ritual prayer, for example, acts out the Muslim concept of submission, reinforcing the notion that the act is ‘necessary to receive forgiveness of sins.’ In a word, the Christian and Muslim concepts of worship are incompatible; one cannot replace the one with the other without creating theological confusion.”22 Jim Romaine of the Zwemer Institute for Muslim Studies concurs in his letter to EMQ: “What does it mean that a C5 believer ‘observes proper respect for the holy books like a Muslim’? A Muslim respects the Qur’an as the eternal word of God, his highest and final revelation, and the Bible as corrupt. What does a C5 believer say about the Qur’an? Is it the eternal word of God? And what about Muhammad? Is he a true prophet of God? Does a C5 believer say the whole creed? Keep the Muslim sacrifice holiday? Go on the hajj?”23 And Schlorff’s final word regarding the kind of religious synthesis that leads to syncretism: “The passage most often cited in support of synthesis is 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, interpreted to mean: ‘become a Muslim to Muslims so that by all means you might save some.’ This is a good example of ‘eisegesis.’ . . .There is nothing about becoming an idolater to reach idolaters, as the argument implies. Indeed, in Chapter 10 he goes on to assert that while a Christian is free to eat meat offered to him without asking questions, when it comes to idol worship, ‘you cannot participate in the Lord’s table and the table of demons’ (v. 21). In a word, these chapters actually oppose synthesis.”24 In bending our efforts to the expansion of the Body of Messiah around the world, we must think in terms of legacy: what kind of Church are we leaving to the next generation? Beyond contextualizing the gospel message so that it can be understood, we must face the challenge of making disciples who think biblically within their own culture. Edwin Walker of World Team emphasizes the need for a transformed worldview based on Romans 12:2, which connects personal transformation with the renewing of the mind. Walker addresses this in his nonpublished paper, “The Importance of Worldview Discipleship in Planting Healthy Reproducing Churches” (a copy of which was received from the author; the quote below is from page four). 21 Schlorff, p. 395. 22 Ibid, p. 395. 23 Jim Romaine, AMuslim followers of Jesus@ EMQ  (October 1999), p. 398. 24 Schlorff, p. 396. Worldview can be likened to colored glasses through which people see themselves and their universe. Everything receives the “tint” or “hue” of whatever particular “worldview glasses” the person happens to be wearing. Moreover, since the vast majority of people are used to one pair of glasses from early childhood, they are not predisposed – even if they were able – to lay those glasses aside (even temporarily) in order to look at the world through another pair. The way people see reality can be termed their worldview or conceptual framework. When someone hears the Gospel even when communicated in their language with accuracy and clarity, their worldview determines to a large degree how they understand or misunderstand the message. In many contexts I find that the Gospel as presented in the New Testament can not be fully comprehended until Genesis and Exodus are taught and understood in such a way that a biblical worldview is grasped. The importance of establishing in the thinking of the disciple an authentic biblical worldview is essential to having an authentic grasp of the Gospel and their growth in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. Therefore to fail to do adequate worldview disciple-making produces weak churches which often lead to rapid recidivism when the church planter leaves the field of service. Everyone surveyed agreed that, despite inherent challenges, the trend in evangelical missions is toward more contextualization. One field director in Latin America identified the following issues being addressed: 1) Identifying social patterns in a culture and communicating through those channels (social networks). 2) Identifying the communication styles that are native to a people, and adapting our communication to those patterns (especially in "body language" or nonspoken communication). 3) Understanding that manifestations of core spiritual issues may differ from one culture to another - i.e., pride in one culture is expressed in ways that are different than pride in other peoples. Fuller Seminary’s Professor of Contextual Theology and African Studies, Dean Gilliland, offers a helpful corrective lens in looking at all of the issues considered above, though here he is speaking specifically of the Islampur survey results. “I must emphasize the critical issue of the context. While the context and contextualization are what this case is all about, too often conclusions about what is right or wrong are generalized without attention to a particular case. A practicable and fitting approach in one place will probably not be appropriate somewhere else.”25 25 Dean Gilliland, AContext is critical in the >Islampur= case,@ EMQ  (October 1998), p. 417. This seems a fitting exhortation with which to close our survey of current trends in cross-cultural contextualization. Obviously not everything being done in Muslim (or Hindu, or Buddhist) evangelism will find a corresponding value in Jewish outreach. Nor is every contextualized approach fitting in every setting. (Some of our internal arguments might abate if we applied just this one principle.) One notes in reading missiological publications the not-infrequent references to the Messianic movement, as well as adaptation of terminology (e.g., “Messianic” mosques). At the October 2004 gathering of the Evangelical Missiological Society in St. Louis, where the theme was Contextualization, several illustrations were taken from current Messianic practices – positive and negative – a reminder that we are not only being shaped by, but in some ways shaping, the wider missiological milieu in which we minister. One Pioneers field leader working among Muslims notes, “My main reservations about inappropriate contextualization in our context are built on what I see as a fundamental error in the C5 approach: treating Islam as if it were Old Covenant Judaism, and Messianic Islam as if it were the same as Messianic Judaism. Messianic Judaism itself is obviously wrestling with slightly different issues.” In Jewish ministry we have at once the advantage of reaching a people to whom God has revealed Himself in truth (the Jewish people “were entrusted with the oracles of God” – Rom. 3:2), yet at the same time a people who “not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3). This makes our task easier on one hand, but requiring even greater discernment on the other. Perhaps more work needs to be done on the “beginning points” (i.e., presuppositions) and contexts in which we minister – and perhaps especially by those of us who have been at the task the longest. Issues of identity, theology, syncretism, lifestyle, evangelism, transition, sacred texts, creeds (“Christian” or otherwise), ecclesiology (forms and structures, including music and worship), terminology (and reinterpretations thereof), authority structures, and (for some, as with The Orthodox Jewish Bible) even translation are the very substance of what we must deal with daily in our ministries. Of special concern is the growing “conversion to Judaism” trend.26 May the Spirit give us wisdom, discernment, joy, and unity as we walk in obedience to His calling, “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that [we] may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). 26 Ben Volman indicates that the forthcoming issue of The Messianic Times  will document what appears to be an increase in Gentile believers converting to Messianic Judaism by undergoing conversion classes and rites. Are we in need of another Acts 15 council? Current Trends in Cross-Cultural Contextualization – Page 14 APPENDIX Important assumptions [Gary Corwin, EMQ (July 2004), p. 282]: 1 God loves cultural diversity and established it for our good (to hinder our tendency to rebel against him). 2 No culture is neutral – all are subject to divine judgment for their conformity or lack thereof to God’s revealed will. 3 The church is (or ought to be) God’s counter-culture within any culture – affirming that which harmonizes with his revealed will, and contrasting starkly with what does not. 4 Contextualization occurs when the church in a culture gets this right; syncretism when it does not.” Principles to be emphasized [Phil Parshall, EMQ, (October 1998), p. 410]: 1 We must be acquainted with biblical teaching on the subject of syncretism. New Testament passages on the uniqueness of Christ should be carefully observed. 2 Islam as a religion and culture must be studied in depth. 3 An open approach is desired. Careful experimentation in contextualization need not lead to syncretism as long as one is aware of all the dangers. 4 Contextualization needs constant monitoring and analysis. What are the people really thinking? What does the contextualized communication convey? What do specific forms trigger in the mind of the new convert? Is there progress in the grasp of biblical truth? Are the people becoming demonstrably more spiritual? 5 Cross-cultural communicators must beware of presenting a gospel which has been syncretized with Western culture. The accretions to Christianity that have built up over the centuries as a result of the West’s being the hub of Christianity should be avoided as far as possible.” “C5” discipleship guidelines [John Travis, EMQ, (October 1998), p. 410]: 1 Jesus is Lord and Savior; there is no salvation outside of him. 2 New believers are baptized, meet regularly with other believers (this may need to be done with great discretion), and take communion. 3 New believers study the Injil (and Torah plus Zabur if available). 4 New believers renounce and are delivered from occultism and harmful folk Islamic practices (i.e. shamanism, prayers to saints, use of charms, curses, incantations, etc.) 5 Muslim practices and traditions (e.g. fasting, alms, circumcision, attending the mosque, wearing the head covering, refraining from pork and alcohol, etc.) are done as expression of love for God and/or respect for neighbors, rather than as acts necessary to receive forgiveness of sins. Current Trends in Cross-Cultural Contextualization – Page 15 6 The Qur’an, Muhammad, and traditional Muslim theology are examined, judged, and reinterpreted (where necessary) in light of biblical truth. Biblically acceptable Muslim beliefs and practices are maintained, others are modified, some must be rejected. 7 New believers show evidence of the new birth and growth in grace (e.g. the fruit of the Spirit, increased love, etc.) and a desire to reach the lost (e.g. verbal witness and intercession).” Wes Taber is Executive Director of AMF International. To contact him, visit www.amfi.org or write to AMF International, P.O. Box 5470, Lansing, IL 60438-5470, (708) 418-0020.  21:2 Summer 2004•5 International Journal of Frontier Missions Islam, Once a Hopeless Frontier, Now? Part II: Living like Jesus, a Torah-Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims by Joshua Massey What follows is the continuation of a paper published in IJFM 21:1, which introduced the need for a radical reexamination of the Mosaic Law when ministering to Muslim peoples since they, like Jesus, his apostles, and early Jewish Christians, share a deep appreciation for its divine origin and practice. Part one surveyed the work of several Messianic Jewish theologians to help correct our view of the Law in the New Covenant, enabling us to preach a gospel with Law, which truly is ‘Good News’ to Muslims. Part one therefore laid the essential theological foundation for what follows: Gentile freedom to delight in God’s Law for incarnational witness to Muslims. Contextual and Incarnational Living Contextualization has become highly popularized in missions today. However, its wide variety of meaning and application has led to confusion among missionaries to Muslims who attempt to apply contextual principles on a vast spectrum of options. Some understand it as the promotion of biblically permissible Islamic worship forms and architecture for Muslim background believers. Others wear local dress and keep a beard. Still others abstain from pork, serve only halal meats, and adopt Muslim prayer postures as they labor to promote indigenous movements of C5 Muslim believers.1 These are all valid applications of biblical principles in contextualization. However, contextualization by its nature often fixes our attention on contexts which vary from place to place, potentially ignoring the inner issues of heart-felt realities and worldview. When the affective inner world of the witness is ignored, the application of contextualization can become trapped in appearances without permeating his heart and soul. In other words, do “contextualized” missionaries adopt these forms (e.g., the beard, diet, prayer postures) only because of their context, but look forward to enjoying a pork chop or shaving their beard when back in their home country? Do they only prostrate in prayer when visiting Muslim homes or mosques, or do they daily prostrate in worship when no one is watching—even when visiting their homeland? If these forms are truly dependent on one’s context (i.e., if they are contextual), they will likely function more like a façade or a cultural concession, without an inner appreciation of their sacred significance before God. If, on the other hand, they are practiced with deep reverence because they are rooted in divine initiative, they become profoundly personal. Joshua Massey is a cultural anthropologist, linguist, and missiologist, laboring among Asian Muslims since 1985. He is currently coordinating the development of indigenous literature to assist Muslim followers of Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom and making disciples in Asia. He has published several missiological articles on discipling Muslim nations and ethnographies on folk-Islamic ritual. Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 5 International Journal of Frontier Missions Being contextual is often accepted under the rubric of “biculturalism”, and some missionaries have become extremely adept at such cultural gymnastics. But after time, even contextual chameleons can suffer from nagging questions that pester the conscience: “If my Muslim friends saw me now, might they feel I misled them to think I live differently than I actually do?” The more contextualized we live among Muslims (i.e., the more Muslim-friendly changes we incorporate into our daily living to minimize barriers of prejudice for the gospel and promote true indigeneity among new believers), the more incongruity we will likely see between our behavior among Muslims and Christians. What can begin as an exciting ‘contextual’ experiment in cultural adaptation may, years later, seem more like a masquerade before Muslims who have now become near and dear friends. Once the discomfort of this incongruity sinks in, questioning our own consistency, and perhaps even our authenticity, is not far behind.2 If these inner issues are not dealt with properly, our life may be strangely inconsistent with our stand on contextualization. For example, we may be pro-C4 or pro-C5 in philosophy of ministry,3 but live and practice our faith like typical Western Christians. Not only can this hinder our personal witness to Muslims, but it can also create a confusing dilemma for Muslim believers we mentor. Verbally, they hear our constant encouragement to remain culturally Muslim. But as any parent knows, children learn more from our example than from what we verbally say. If we encourage Muslims to retain many of their Islamic forms, but live before them as liturgyless Christians, we may well end up hindering the very indigeneity we long to promote by contributing to their “Christianization” and “de-Muslimization.” As Jesus said, “A disciple... when he is fully taught will be like his teacher” (Lu 6:40 RSV).4 By contrast, if one practices these forms with an inner appreciation of their sacred significance before God—if they have become deeply personal—then there can be no charge of masquerade, façade, or incongruwithin or without. Their practice is genuine, as is their witness: true to others, and true to self. Contextual living then, as described above, is actually an unavoidable first step toward incarnational living. The latter is, I propose, a healthier way for field workers to conceptualize how we should live out our faith as servants set apart to disciple Muslim nations. Among many competing christologies articulated by theologians today,5 it is generally acknowledged that the term incarnation refers to the self-revelation of God in Christ: “the Word became flesh” so that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (Joh 1:14; 2 Cor 5:19 NASB). Although no one has ever seen God, Jesus revealed the Father to us. Full of the Spirit and one with the Father, Jesus could boldly proclaim, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Joh 14:9). As John A. T. Robinson put it so well, Jesus is “the human face of God” (1973). The apostle John puts it similarly in his prologue, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Joh 1:18). Because Jesus’ humanity is often eclipsed by our focus on his divine glory, we often miss the profound implication of his prayer in John 17, where he appears to expect the self-revelation of God to similarly occur in us, even as it did in him—because we are in him and he is in us. “Even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (17:21). Jesus proceeds to explain how this mind-boggling translation can possibly occur, “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me...” (17:22–23). Space does not permit us to exegete all that Jesus may have implied by the glory which he received from the Father and now gives to his disciples, even to those who believe through their testimony (17:20). Nonetheless, we cannot help but hearken back to John’s usage of the term in his prologue, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (1:14). The Greek here for “dwelt” is connected with the word “tabernacle”, so that early Jewish readers of John would almost certainly be reminded of the Tent of Meeting, which was filled with God’s glory (Ex 40:34–35). Speaking of the Temple as the “central ‘incarnational’ symbol of Judaism”, N. T. Wright reminds us, It was standard Jewish belief, rooted in Scripture and celebrated in regular festivals and liturgy, that the Temple was the place where heaven and earth actually interlocked, where the living God had promised to be present with his people. [Nonetheless] the Temple, for all its huge importance and centrality within Judaism, was after all a signpost to the reality, and the reality was the resurrected son of David, who was the son of God. God, in other words, is not ultimately to dwell in a human-built Temple, a timber-and-stone house. God will indeed dwell with his people, allowing his glory and mystery to “tabernacle” in their midst, but the most appropriate way for him to do this will not be through a building but through a human being. And the human being in question will be the Messiah, marked out by resurrection. This, I submit, is more or less how the early Christians reasoned. Jesus—and then, very quickly, Jesus’ people—were now the true Temple.... (1999:110) Paul asks, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16). And again, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19). God wants to reveal himself to the nations by tabernacling in those whose hearts are fully his. Clearly then, one does not need to be pre-existent to be indwelt by God, or for his word and wisdom to become flesh. Equally clear,  What can begin as an exciting ‘contextual’ experiment in cultural adaptation may, years later, seem more like a masquerade57 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey however, is the certainty that unlike Jesus, we will often fall far short of manifesting God’s indwelling Spirit. Nonetheless, this does not excuse us from incarnational ministry, nor did it discourage Jesus’ prayer for us in this regard (Joh 17:20–23). Therefore, the questions an incarnational witness must constantly and prayerfully ask in pioneer Muslim contexts are: If the word of God became flesh today not as a Hebrew– and Aramaic–speaking Jew of Palestine, but as a –speaking of (fill in the blanks for your context), what would he say to Muslims? How would he live? How would he dress? How would he teach? What words would he use to describe Kingdom realities?6 Contextualization is concerned with appropriate forms for a context. Incarnation is concerned with the self-revelation of God from the depths of one’s personhood—emptying one’s self to be like his master, who was made like his brethren in every respect (Phil 2:5, 7; Mt 10:25; Heb 2:17). With contextualization, practitioners adjust as their context demands to remove communicative stumbling blocks that can hinder the message. With incarnation, you are adjusted, to the inner core of your being; you are part and parcel of the message, inseparably and organically related to the message, as God’s Spirit tabernacles in you, his Temple. Incarnation is not contextual; it is personal. As you walk in the Spirit, in a very real sense, the word becomes flesh in you. Because the incarnational witness prayerfully attempts to imitate Jesus’ example of becoming like his brethren in every respect, especially with regard to Torah-observant forms ordained by God and practiced by Jesus and his apostles, he soon begins to appreciate God’s purpose for these forms and delight in their practice. Incarnational witnesses therefore need not worry if Muslim friends drop in unexpectedly at any place, in any country. The practice of faith and devotion remains the same, regardless of context. While contextual and incarnational witness share much in common, the contrast is one of consistency and personal depth. And when your personhood is permeated by your calling irrespective of context, greater consistency is likely to result, thereby protecting one from external and internal questions of authenticity and even integrity. Let us now proceed to put all of the above threads together (including part one of this paper) to explore how a proper use of the Law can guide us in incarnational witness to Muslims. To the weekend evangelist or occasional witness to Muslims, what follows may seem unnecessarily excessive. Though all of the Law is good and therefore beneficial for all who want to delight in it, the suggestions below are primarily directed at those whom God has set apart to devote their lives to discipling Muslim nations. Those who have not been set apart as such will also do well to understand these issues in order to appreciate the transformation required in incarnational witnesses. Otherwise, it will be extremely easy to misunderstand them, as Judaizing Christians misunderstood Paul and thereby missed out on a most amazing era in redemptive history as God’s Kingdom broke forth among Gentiles. Observing Kosher Although Jesus opposed various parts of the Oral and halakhic law when they missed the point of Biblical Law, he obeyed both the spirit and letter of the Mosaic Law at every point so that he was without sin (Heb 4:15). This included observance of kashrut (kosher), abstaining from various foods like pork as prohibited in Leviticus 11.7 Jesus’ Jewish followers did the same. Well after Jesus’ ascension, after his disciples were “fully trained”, Peter made it clear his lips had never touched trief (impure) foods (Ac 10:14). Similarly, Acts 21:20 reveals that many thousands of Jewish Christians were zealous for the Law—which certainly included keeping kosher—well after Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19), and after the voice from heaven told Peter to “kill and eat. ... What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (Ac 10:13, 15 NRSV). These verses in Mark 7 and Acts 10 have led many Gentile Christians to conclude that Jews no longer need to keep dietary laws which have since been abrogated by the New Covenant. But does Scripture give any indication that first-century Jewish followers of Jesus came to similar conclusions? Messianic Jewish theologians are quick to point out that the context of Mark 7 is not about kashrut but about ritual washings before meals (n’tilat-yadayim), as is clear from vv. 2–5. Therefore, according to David Stern, when Jesus “declared all foods clean,” he was not declaring treif foods kosher, but saying rather that kosher food is not rendered unclean when touched by hands not ritually washed (1991:160). The ritual washing of hands before meals, as clearly explained in the parenthetical statement of vv. 3–4, was not Biblical Law at all, but Oral Law, a “tradition of the elders”. As we shall see in Acts 10, this tradition of ceremonial cleanliness not only missed God’s intention in the Law, but eventually led to the erection of barriers between Jews and Gentiles that hindered the fulfillment of the very task for which God used the Law to set Israel apart as a holy nation, i.e., to be a royal priesthood to the nations (Ex 19:6). However we interpret Mark 7, the message of Acts 10:13–15 seems patently clear to non-Jews: God asked Peter to eat non-kosher, thereby nullifying dietary law. However, Gentile Christian scholars often overlook the fact that Peter’s understanding of this vision was not clear8—though it occurred three times—until the following day, when he explained inside a Gentile home, You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean (Ac 10:28). Peter is not referring to Biblical Law prohibiting Jews from entering Gentile homes, but Oral Law, i.e., another tradition of the elders. The mistake was easy enough to make. If certain foods are “unclean”, then Gentiles who eat such foods are also unclean, right? Wrong. “Ritually impure” is probably a better translation of the Hebrew amj (tamé), often rendered “unclean,” but really has no English equivalent. A woman does not become intrinsically polluted by going through her monthly cycle which God designed, but this does render her ceremonially or ritually impure for various places and functions that require International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 58 ritual purity, as with men after seminal emissions. Similarly, certain foods were also prohibited as “ritually impure” for Israelites, not because they were intrinsically dirty or unfit for human consumption, but because God also included diet as yet another way to set apart his covenant people as a royal priesthood to the nations. Various foods were, therefore, “ceremonially impure” to them. Each and every time Mosaic Law describes various creatures as amj (impure) for eating, they are always followed by an extremely important qualifier: to you (Lev 11:4–8, 26–29, 31, 35, 38; Dt 14:7–8, 10, 19). In other words, God did not ask all nations to abstain from these foods, just his firstborn among the nations. Everything God made is good! Peter’s vision therefore did not nullify Biblical Law but Oral Law: Jews do not become ritually defiled by entering a Gentile’s home because Gentiles do not become impure by eating ‘clean’ foods prohibited to Israelites. Several oral laws regarding ritual purity, though developed as a “hedge of protection” around Biblical Law, actually served to set aside the commands of God. As Jesus said, You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. ... You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! (Mk 7:8–9). The command of God set aside in this case was the mandate to bless all nations. How could God’s firstborn among the nations serve her intended purpose as a kingdom of priests if she developed laws to ban Jewish entry into Gentile homes? Jews not only can enter Gentile homes without being defiled, they should enter Gentile homes to fulfill their role as priests to the nations. Even though Cornelius was a God-fearer and respected by many Jews (Ac 10:22), Oral Law still prohibited Jewish entry into his home. Because Peter was not only completely Torah-observant but also lived in accordance with Jewish customs, he was not likely to violate this Oral Law without divine intervention. How is it that after spending several years with Jesus, Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, still adhered strictly to so much of the Oral Law? Clearly, Peter’s rabbi was fully Torah-observant, and so were his fellow apostles. The fact that Peter continued to observe kosher long after Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 (Ac 10:14), and the fact that thousands of Jewish Christians remained zealous for the Law well after Peter’s vision (Ac 21:20) is consistent with Jesus’ teaching that no portion of the Law will pass away until heaven and earth disappear (Mt 5:18), including dietary laws mentioned in Leviticus 11 for the Jewish people. Food has no power in itself to defile any man, not even a Jew, since food merely goes into “his stomach and passes on” (Mk 7:19). Rather, it is disobedience to God’s commands that defiles a man, for such is licentiousness, springing from a rebellious heart (Mk 7:22–23). And if God has commanded his firstborn among the nations to abstain from various foods, their consumption does not depend on whether they are intrinsically ‘clean’ or profane. It depends on God’s word. If God sets his firstborn apart with a priestly diet by forbidding various foods, they are forbidden. Nonetheless, they need not fear being ritually defiled by Gentiles who eat such foods (or, more accurately, who have chosen to treat some forbidden creatures as food), for both the creatures and the Gentiles are ‘clean’ (Mk 7:19, Ac 10:28). The incarnational witness to Muslims is therefore free to obey these dietary laws as well, knowing that the Law is good and holy (Rom 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8); and if these laws were suitable for a kingdom of priests set apart to bless all nations, they are equally suitable for Gentiles set apart to bless Muslim nations who esteem and obey the same divine Law. Keeping a Beard Among ancient Hebrews, the beard was considered a sign of manhood, was carefully tended, trimmed, and (in later times) even anointed (Ps 133:2). Its removal was considered a horrific disgrace (2 Sam 10:5), unless done for mourning or purification rites (Job 1:20, Lev 14:9). Orthodox Jews today continue to keep beards as a sign of their faith and obedience to Torah, “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard” (Lev 19:27). Rabbis interpreted this as a prohibition against shaving and forbade the removal of sideburns and hair on certain places of the cheek and chin (Werblowsky 1997:105). Some Jewish groups even ascribed mystical importance to beards. The Hebrew for elder (Nqz, zaqen) literally means “one who wears a beard (Nqz, zaqan)”, likely because the office of elder in Israel, as in other ancient Near Eastern societies, was based on the authority of age and the wisdom that presumably accompanied it. Though the New Testament makes no explicit mention of beards, there is no evidence that Jewish attitudes toward beards changed during the first century, even under Greco-Roman influence. After a brief period when Alexander set the fashion for shaving, beards were ubiquitous among Greeks. In fact, when Emperor Hadrian later broke with Roman tradition to sport a full, well-tended beard (c. 128 CE), historians speculate he may have been trying to “look Greek” (Birley 1997:61). Though shaving had been the norm in Roman society for several centuries before Hadrian, it is highly unlikely that Palestinian Jews adopted this practice during their early occupation, especially given the fact that non-Jewish literature during the Roman period frequently describes beards as typical of Jewish men. Apparently, early Jewish Christians also took a very dim view of shaving. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, Nor may men destroy the hair of their beards, and unnaturally change the form of a man. For the law says: “Ye shall not mar your beards.” For God the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is unsuitable for men. But if thou do these things to please men, in contradiction to the law, thou wilt be abominable with God, who created thee after his own image. If, therefore, thou wilt be acceptable to God, abstain from all those things which he hates, and do none of those things that are unpleasing to him. (1:3)59 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey Somewhat surprising for many Christians today is the fact that this same attitude toward beards, and its biblical justification in Leviticus, seems to have prevailed in the late second century among early Gentile church fathers, who taught that shaving was effeminate and against God’s order of creation. Consider the teaching of Clement of Alexandria (c. 182–202 CE), an early Greek theologian and head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. In his treatise on how to live as a good disciple of Christ, he writes, But for a man ... to shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, ... to shave his cheeks ... and smooth them, how womanly! .... For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoiced in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts—a sign of strength and rule. This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man’s whole body. ... For it is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man’s natural and noble ornament. (Paedagogus 3:3) With such attitudes towards beards among both Jews and Greeks, it is rather difficult to imagine a clean-shaven rabbi entering a first-century synagogue on the Sabbath to read from the scroll of Isaiah (Lu 4:17). Likely for these reasons, in spite of the total absence of any physical description of Jesus in canonical Scripture, both apocryphal writings and later artists depict Jesus with a thick and flowing beard.9 As beards have been common among all religious Jews and remain so today among the orthodox, so too have they signified pietistic faith for Muslims following Muhammad’s example and counsel, “Keep a beard and trim the moustache short” (Bukhari 7:780). Though a large number of God-fearing Muslims today opt not to keep a beard, some even joking that those who do are on their way toward fanaticism, most continue to see beards as signifying a man’s desire to be devout. A Muslim friend of mine (who has not met many Christians) once commented, “Isn’t it amazing how devout men of every faith all keep beards?” “Oh?” I replied. “Oh yes!” he continued. “Devout Jewish, Christian and Muslim priests all keep beards, as do Hindu sadhus, Sikhs, and Buddhist priests, that is, at least those who are genetically able.” “Now that you mention it, this is rather remarkable,” I replied. “However, while some orthodox Christian priests do indeed keep beards, devout Christians don’t necessarily need to keep a beard to symbolize their faith.” “They don’t?” he asked somewhat perplexed. “But you keep a beard.” Clearly, my beard was to him an indication of my faith, consistent not only with his worldview of righteous living, but also with the Torah as practiced by Jews for centuries, and most probably by Jesus and his early Jewish followers. Interestingly, this friend does not keep a beard himself, yet he rises before dawn every day to pray, diligently keeps the fast every Ramadan, gives generously to the poor, and is by all counts what most Christians would consider a devout Muslim. Nonetheless, he does not include himself in his own categorization of ‘devout men’, all of whom are marked out, according to him, by ‘beards’. Of course, not all Muslims are born with genes to grow a beard,10 and most would surely have greater respect for a clean-shaven righteous man who loves his neighbor than a bearded wicked man who pursues only selfish ambition. Nonetheless, when accompanied by righteous living, beards remain a telltale sign to onlooking Muslims confirming a man is devout, more concerned about pleasing God than conforming to present-day trends. Clement of Alexandria would surely concur. So if God has set you apart to reach Muslims and blessed you with genes to grow a beard, you might prayerfully consider letting it grow as a sign of your faith and Torah-observance. And if your wife protests, you can gently tell her, “Honey, it’s the Law.” Circumcision Four thousand years ago, God made a covenant with Abraham which not only involved the multiplication of physical descendants and acquisition of land, but also the blessing of all peoples on earth (Gen 12:1–3). It wasn’t until about twenty-four years later, when Abraham was ninety-nine, that God gave him the sign of this amazing covenant. The Lord said to Abraham, This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.... So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (Gen 17:10–13) Why, it is fair to ask, did God choose circumcision, the cutting away of a man’s foreskin, as a sign of his covenant with Abraham? It is clear throughout Scripture that what God desires most is circumcision of the heart, an even more mysterious metaphor to symbolize a right relationship with God (Dt 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4). Rabbis speak of a hardened outer layer of skin around a man’s heart which must be removed before he can be convicted of sin and sensitized toward God. It is this outer layer of skin that, if not removed, can harden a heart, making it oblivious to sin and hesitant to trust in or obey God whole-heart  Unquestionably, Gentiles were expected to keep some of the Law, but not all of it.International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 60 edly. Although this rabbinic symbolism in consistent with Scripture, it is surely impossible to circumcise the heart of an eight-day-old baby. Instead, he must come of age and decide for himself whether or not he will allow God to remove that outer layer of skin from his heart which prevents him from sensing God’s presence and submitting to his reign. In the church today, circumcision of the heart is often symbolized by adult baptism. But how are we to understand a covenant of God cut into the flesh of a baby only eight days old? Because God’s covenant involved a line of descendants, it was important for those descendants to know they belonged to God. After all, their mere existence is the direct result of God miraculously opening Sarah’s womb at age ninety. And so, according to some rabbis, circumcision on the eighth day can be seen as an arranged marriage ceremony. Vows are made and the agreement is sealed in the flesh of the one betrothed to the groom. Of course, there will be times when the boy does not feel so connected with God, and times when God is not so enamored with him. Yet, the sign of their vows remain, cut in the flesh, a lifelong visible reminder that he belongs to God forever. And if he ever strays from the One to whom he belongs, he need not look far to see that he has been pledged to another, set apart at birth. He was born into this world by God’s miraculous design, to bless all nations. Circumcision became an extremely controversial topic during the first century when some Jewish followers of Jesus insisted Gentile believers be circumcised to be saved (Ac 15:1). Paul condemned such demands in no unclear terms, citing the fact that Abraham’s faith was reckoned righteousness before he was circumcised (Ro 4:9–10). So it is with all people, Jewish and Gentile. Salvation comes by grace through faith, not by circumcision. Neither Jews nor Gentiles need circumcision to be ‘saved’. Nonetheless, circumcision for the Jew remains a matter of obedience to God’s command and everlasting covenant. While God has commanded some Gentiles to be circumcised (i.e., if they desired to keep the Passover while sojourning with the Israelites, Ex 12:48), we certainly have no biblical evidence to suggest God wants all nations circumcised. Nonetheless, Gentiles are clearly free to express their love for God and celebrate his glorious covenant with Abraham by circumcision—not because it is necessary for salvation or even profitable for righteousness, but because by faith they want to honor God with the same sign he chose to commemorate his redemptive work through Abraham’s seed. Two millennia after God established this covenant with Abraham, Paul revealed its marvelous fulfillment among Gentiles: So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ... And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:7, 29) Because all who belong to Christ, even Gentiles, are also Abraham’s offspring by faith, then by faith Gentiles are surely free to obey the same command to Abraham’s offspring. Again I say, Gentiles are free to do this not because of any legal obligation, but because they are thrilled about what it symbolizes: the covenant which ultimately resulted in the coming of Jesus, the Lion of Judah and offspring of David (Rev 5:5, 22:16), and our very redemption in Christ. Though fulfilled in great measure by Christ himself, this covenant is by no means terminated but continues to be fulfilled as his ambassadors bless the nations with good news of God’s kingdom. Of all the signs God could have chosen to symbolize his everlasting covenant to Abraham, he chose circumcision. All nations are therefore free to have a brit milah (covenant of circumcision) ceremony for eight-day-old sons to sanctify, set apart, and dedicate their sons to God. Obviously, circumcision is not the only way to do this, but it surely remains one excellent way as modeled by Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and all his apostles in obedience to God’s divine initiative. And if circumcision was appropriate for our Lord Jesus himself, it certainly remains appropriate for Gentiles who want to celebrate all that God has done and will continue to do through this amazing covenant. To insist otherwise is ultimately to condemn a vast number of Christians in North America who circumcised their sons at birth, albeit for hygienic reasons. If Gentile Christians are free to circumcise for hygienic reasons, how can we oppose those who want to circumcise for covenant reasons? After presenting this material to several church planting teams in Asia, one Western missionary approached me privately and confided that he was not circumcised as a child but felt God prompting him to do so as an adult. Before doing so, adults must carefully consider Paul’s teaching, Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. (1 Cor 7:18–20) In earliest Christianity, decades before any portion of the New Testament was written, most Christians were Jewish. As Gentiles began to put their faith in Jesus, Jewish Christians were then the ‘senior’ Christians, the ‘most experienced’ Christians, and the ‘best’ Christians with the greatest knowledge of Scripture—which many studied from childhood in its original Hebrew form.11 In such an environment, it should come as no surprise that many Gentile believers, desperately anxious to do the right thing, were quite willing to be circumcised in order to achieve full status as ‘God’s people.’ Proselyte circumcision was seen as an essential rite for any full-convert to Judaism.12 Therefore, to admonish the uncircumcised not to seek circumcision was to admonish Gentiles not to convert to Judaism. This appears consistent with Paul’s teaching elsewhere, for as Andrew Walls says, Paul knew that the path of the proselyte [ger tsedeq] was a blind alley for Gentile disciples of Jesus. They had to bring Christ to bear on areas of life of which people who had been observant Jews all their life knew nothing; and if they became proselytes, became in effect imitations of Jewish Christians, they would be disabled from bringing Christ to bear on those areas. (1996:52)61 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey But was Paul actually forbidding Gentiles from circumcision in 1 Cor 7:18, or just discouraging it? David Stern has noted that rabbis of Second Temple Judaism were required by hallakhic law to initially “discourage potential Gentile converts in order to winnow out those who are insincere” (1991:177). Stern is therefore convinced that 1 Cor 7:18–20 is simply an example of this standard rabbinic discouragement and that the New Testament does not forbid Gentile Christians from conversion to Judaism if they want to identify fully with the Jewish people (:178; cf. Fischer 2001:141–149; Wolf 2001:133–139). This conclusion is further supported by the context of 1 Cor 7 where Paul apparently allows for exceptions to all of his admonishments. Paul admonishes singles to remain as they are (i.e., unmarried, vv. 8, 27); but if they cannot control their passions and choose to marry, they have not sinned (vv. 9, 28). Similarly, Paul admonishes slaves to remain as they are, for even freedmen are slaves of Christ; but if they can obtain their freedom that too is acceptable (vv. 21–24, cf. NRSV, Lamsa). And so, most Gentile believers should also remain as they are and not convert to Judaism to follow Jesus; however, if they insist and persist after repeated discouragement from Jewish church leaders, and if they really want to fully identify with the Jewish people even in circumcision, then they have not sinned.13 For our purposes, however, no one is advocating that incarnational witnesses to Muslims convert to Judaism! Instead, any man who feels led to get circumcised either to celebrate God’s covenant to Abraham, or even to win the more for the sake of the Gospel,14 needs to ask himself whether or not Paul was prohibiting this in 1 Cor 7:18. I, and it seems David Stern, do not believe Paul was. Rather, 1 Cor 7 suggests that Paul does not forbid marriage to the unmarried, freedom to the slave, nor circumcision to the uncircumcised—though all are admonished to contentedly remain in the state they were in when called. When circumcision is sought in order to become Jewish, Paul discourages it; he does not forbid it. However, it is an entirely different matter to seek circumcision in order to advance the cause of the gospel among the circumcised. Actually, I expect Paul would have applauded any missionary willing to get circumcised in order to advance the cause of the gospel among Muslims. In fact, Paul expected nothing less from Timothy. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Ac 16:3) Timothy was yet another early Christian who took the Law very seriously. Timothy’s father was Gentile, but his mother Eunice was Jewish. And because Jewishness travels through the mother’s line, not the father’s, Timothy was halakhicly (legally) Jewish. Nonetheless, Timothy’s Gentile father evidently opted not to circumcise him on the eighth day. He may have reasoned with Eunice, “What if our boy wants to compete in the Greek games or conduct business with Gentile clients? Hellenistic Jews are paying a great deal of money nowadays to remove the marks of their circumcision15 so they won’t be excluded from such activities.” What is known with certainty is that Timothy made it to adulthood without being circumcised, that is, until Rabbi Paul arrived! Remember that Paul was a Pharisee, and Scripture testifies that he continued to identify himself as a Pharisee when proclaiming the gospel (Ac 23:6). He therefore may also have continued wearing the uniform of a Pharisee throughout his ministry (Friedman 2001:48). Imagine the scene when Rabbi Paul broached the subject to Timothy: “Shalom! My son Timothy, I’d really love for you to come along and join our team, but there’s a delicate matter we must first discuss. Please, have a seat. I’m referring, of course, to the fact that I’ll need to circumcise you first.” Timothy may have gulped, “Really? With all due respect Rabbi Paul, are you sure this is absolutely necessary?” “Yes of course!” Paul may have replied. “Would I even mention it if it wasn’t? I wouldn’t joke about a thing like this. We’re talking about your brit milah (covenant of circumcision). You may have missed out after completing your first week of life, but it’s never too late! I’d be happy to perform the procedure myself if you like. Who would you like to be your sandek (the Jewish male who holds down one’s legs during the procedure)? Actually, you’d better choose two.” And so Paul circumcised Timothy—an adult! Bear in mind this is the same Paul who told Galatian Gentiles, “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal 5:2). Why circumcise Timothy in Lystra then discourage Gentiles from circumcision in Galatia? While we can safely assume Timothy’s Jewish mother was a significant factor in his circumcision, Scripture does not cite this as Paul’s rationale. Instead, according to Acts 16:3, Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek”. While Galatian believers had been “bewitched” by Judaizers to believe circumcision was necessary for salvation (Gal 3:1, 5:4), Timothy was circumcised for the right reasons: to remove any stumbling block that might hinder their witness among the circumcised. Though all Gentiles are free to get circumcised for the right reasons, Galatian believers had clearly been seduced by a perversion of the Law. Furthermore, as evidenced by the large number of Gentile God-fearers (half-converts to Judaism) in comparison to the relatively small number of full-proselytes, Paul surely knew that a campaign of circumcision was not likely to promote a viable and indigenous church planting movement within Greco-Roman society, where circumcision was seen as both vulgar and shameful.16 Non-Jews simply do not need to be circumcised to be an heir of the covenant symbolized by circumcision. Nonetheless, if a believer freely chooses to obey the Law of circumcision for the right reasons, as Timothy did, then I believe Paul Iexpect Paul would have applauded any missionary willing to get circumcised in order to advance the cause of the gospel among Muslims.International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 62 would not hesitate to circumcise him, as Timothy experienced firsthand. Tracing their ancestry to Abraham through Ishmael, Muslims also regard circumcision with great importance. Stuart Caldwell, a church planting missionary in Asia, recounts, After entering a village mosque at the invitation of a Muslim friend, there was great anxiety about my presence as a foreigner. I soon learned that they were not worried about my faith, but about whether or not I was circumcised. If not, their mosque would be desecrated and their prayers nullified. They were much relieved to hear I too bore the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, and I was much relieved they did not demand proof! (2000:26) Although many North American Christians have been circumcised in hospitals at birth for hygienic reasons, it’s difficult for us to understand how such a commotion could break out at a mosque over this issue. Nonetheless, according to Islamic tradition, the importance of circumcision to Muslims is rooted in its practice by Abraham and all subsequent biblical prophets (Bukhari 8:312; Muwatta 49:4). Regarding salvation, circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing. But regarding the covenant to Abraham, circumcision remains the sign chosen by God and practiced by Jewish followers of Jesus from the inauguration of Christ’s reign till today. Our very calling to bless Muslim nations is ultimately rooted in the covenant symbolized by circumcision. Circumcision, therefore, is not a meaningless ritual invented by Abraham, but the sign God chose to commemorate his glorious covenant to bless all nations. Let us treat it as such as we seek to disciple Muslim nations who also welcome this same divine sign. Liturgical Prayer Toward Jerusalem Set Times of Prayer The institution of three daily prayer services is legendarily ascribed by Jewish sages to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and clearly practiced in the time of David and Daniel at evening, morning and noon (Ps 55:17, Dan 6:10).17 Scripture suggests these prayer times were also observed by Jesus and his apostles, as would be common for all pious Jews (Mk 1:35; Ac 3:1, 10:9). Furthermore, as we shall see below, the apostles apparently taught new Gentile believers—unfamiliar with praying at set times—to also pray three times daily (Didache 8:3). The Direction of Prayer Solomon set the direction of prayer toward the Temple in Jerusalem when its construction was complete. May your eyes be open day and night toward this house, the place where you promised to set your name, and may you heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place. And hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel, when they pray toward this place; may you hear from heaven your dwelling place; hear and forgive. (2 Chr 6:20-21 NRSV) That this direction of prayer became customary is seen in Daniel’s example, with “windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God...”(Dan 6:10). Even today, when Jews pray, and especially when reciting the Amidah (prayer liturgy), they turn in the direction of Jerusalem and the Temple mount. Similarly today, Messianic Jewish congregations also pray toward Jerusalem, even as we look forward to the new Jerusalem, which will come down out of heaven from God, with no need for the sun or moon to shine on it, “for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp” (Rev 21:2,23). However, after Emperor Hadrian outlawed the practice of Judaism in 135 CE, Gentile Christians found it rather dangerous to continue praying toward Jerusalem three times daily. Unlike Daniel, they chose to differentiate themselves from Jewish custom by praying toward the east seven times daily, citing Psalm 119:164 and other verses as their rationale (Woodberry 1996:175). Before Jesus’ birth, Zechariah prophesied that Jesus would be the “rising sun” (Lu 1:78), which, of course, always appears in the east (cf. Rev 22:16). This new eastern direction of prayer for Gentile believers was further bolstered by the fact that the entrance to the Temple faced toward Eden in the east. It is striking to consider how ‘contextual’ praying toward the rising sun in the east would have been alongside pagans who also prayed toward the east to worship ‘Eostre’ (‘Ostara’), the Teutonic goddess of the rising sun. Freedom in Liturgical Worship We previously noted Gentile freedom to innovate in liturgical practice, both for reasons of indigeneity and surely for survival amidst an increasingly anti-Jewish Roman empire. However, it is noteworthy that both Jewish and Gentile believers prayed at set prayer times and in a set direction, even after Jesus’ teaching in Samaria that the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ... when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. (Joh 4:21, 23) Evidently, this teaching did not deter early believers from liturgical observance of prayer at set times and in a sacred direction. In spite of popular modern attitudes toward liturgy as vain, meaningless and mechanical ritual, many branches of the church have retained some form of liturgical prayer. On the one hand, liturgy can tutor the soul with words we long to say to God but need help articulating. As Phillip Yancey wrote: The Psalms supply me with the words I need and sometimes want to say to my God. Words that celebrate his reality: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Words that confess his action in my life: “You have turned my mourning into dancing.” Words that express my utter dependence: “In my mother’s womb, you formed me.” Words that convey my hoped-for intimacy: “This one thing I desire, that I might dwell in the house of the Lord  _ The apostles apparently taught new Gentile believers–unfamiliar with praying at set times–to also praythree times a day63 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey forever.” The Psalms tutor my soul in my love for God. (Yancey 1999:124) On the other hand, liturgy can become rote and void of the intimacy it attempts foster. In spite of the tendency for liturgy to degenerate among the masses, rabbinic leaders constantly called people to worship God with all their heart. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Even after the introduction of fixed liturgical prayers, rabbis emphasized the need to retain an element of spontaneity. One should pray only in a devout and reverential frame of mind (Mishna Berakhot 5:1), and “he who makes his prayer a fixed, routine exercise, does not make his prayer a supplication” (Berakhot 4:4). The Mishna condemns prayer undertaken as a burden to be discharged or prayer that contains no original thought (Berakhot 29b). In rabbinic tradition, prayer was primarily the fulfillment of a commandment, that is, part of the wider discipline of serving God: God wants the person praying to bring personal fears and wishes to him, as a child would to his or her father. (Werblowsky 1997:541) Ismar Elbogen’s classic book Jewish Liturgy illuminates the scene further. In Second Temple Judaism, The liturgy became common property; every individual Jew knew it and repeated it daily. Not only was the synagogue visited at times of prayer, but artisans and laborers would interrupt their work at times of prayer (Mishna Berakhot 2:4); people prayed while walking on the road; and some liked to stand at a street corner or in a lane and pray in public (Mt 6:5). (1993:196) Liturgical Prayer as Worship Whether or not the incarnational witness comes from a Christian tradition that values liturgy, we must be aware that Muslims do—as did Jesus and his Jewish followers. However, many missionaries arrive on the field with only one category of prayer in mind: the spontaneous prayer that comes from the heart as the Spirit leads on any given occasion. Although both Judaism and Islam practice their own varieties of spontaneous petitions and praises, they don’t generally major in this branch of prayer. Instead, they see liturgical prayer as a true act of worship. According to Jacob Neusner, the distinguished scholar of Judaism, In Judaism and Islam, prayer is liturgy in the classic sense of the word, that is, labor: it is work to be done for God. People recite prayers because they are commanded to do so, out of religious duty, in Judaism. And to that conception, the notion that one prays when the spirit moves the person, or one fabricates a prayer for the occasion, is alien. True, the Judaic and Islamic liturgies make provision for informal and idiosyncratic prayer, even for individual prayer, outside the framework of the quorum representing the holy community of the faithful. But both Islam and Judaism concur that fixed obligations govern the recitation of prayer, and much law encases the performance of those obligations in set rules and definitions. Prayer conforms to a fixed text. It is carefully choreographed, body movements being specified. It takes place at set times, not merely whenever and wherever the faithful are moved, or indeed, whether they are moved at all. It is an obligation that God has set, because God wants the prayers of humanity. And while Protestant spirituality judges that the letter convicts but the spirit revives, Muslim and Judaic faithful attest to the contrary: the requirement of regular, obligatory prayer provokes piety despite the recalcitrant heart. (2000:1) Does God really want us to pray liturgically at set times, in addition to varied and spontaneous prayers? Rabbis found the theological essence of prayer expressed in the biblical phrase “serving God with the heart.” And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Dt 10:12) Therefore, in a very real sense, obedience to the greatest commandment of the Law includes prayer. To bow down and adore God is quite literally to worship him. In fact, the primary Hebrew word for worship hxv (shachah) is translated as worship ninety-nine times in the Old Testament. However, sixty-three times this same term is also translated as bow, bow down, fall down, obeisance, or crouch. In other words, the Hebraic understanding of “worship” is virtually synonymous with reverential postures of homage. It’s no wonder then that God’s anger and jealousy in Scripture is often directed at those who bow down to idols, “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Dt 5:9). Could it be that God’s jealousy here is partially related to the fact that he actually wants his people to bow down to him? It appears God may have answered this question long ago through the prophet Isaiah, Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow....’ (Isa 45:22–23) The Psalmist also calls us to bow in humble adoration of our Maker, O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps 95:6–7) Unlike previously discussed matters of incarnational witness above, liturgical prayer at set times is not, in the strictest sense, an obligatory matter of explicit Biblical Law. It was, on the other hand, a rabbinic application of what Jesus called the greatest commandment, “to love the Lord with all of your heart” (Mt 22:37). Surely, it is good and right that we should regularly bow down in true worship and kneel before the Lord our Maker, for he is our God. Our Text for Liturgical Prayer If incarnational witnesses to Muslims decide to introduce liturgical prayer into their devotional life at set times daily, what should be the text of our prayer? If we were to sit down with Jesus and ask him to teach us to pray, what might he say? Fortunately, his disciples asked this very question, and Jesus responded, “When you pray, say...” (Lu 11:2). Say? Does this sound like Jesus is introducing a four point model after which we should pattern an endless variety of prayers? Or might he be introducing an specific prayer he wants his disciples to pray? Remember, Jesus is speaking to Jews for whom prayer is liturgy. It’s therefore no accident that the prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray, the International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 64 so-called “Lord’s prayer,” has been well known and well prayed, word for word, by countless Christians for nearly two thousand years. As N. T. Wright has said, when you take these words on your lips, you stand on hallowed ground (1996:4). If Jesus’ disciples did understand him to introduce a new liturgical prayer in Luke 11:2-4, we might expect to find some historical evidence of early Christians praying it as their “liturgical text” at three set times each day—consistent with the Judaic tradition of praying in the evening, morning and noon. Interestingly, this evidence is found in the Didache, also known as The Teachings of the Apostles, which most scholars agree dates back to the late first century (Draper 1985:269). The Didache is an orientation manual for new converts, portions of which appear to be adapted from Jewish documents used to initiate proselytes into the synagogue. It consists of instructions derived directly from the teachings of Jesus. Early teaching on prayer preserved in the Didache reads, ... pray as follows as the Lord bid us in his gospel: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven; give us today our bread for the morrow; and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but save us from the evil one, for yours is the power and the glory forever. You should pray in this way three times a day. (8:2–3, Ehrman 1998:315) Didache 15:4 adds, “Say your prayers, ... and do everything just as you find it in the gospel of our Lord” (Ehrman 1998:317). The Didache affirms not only that the Lord’s Prayer was in common liturgical use in the first century, but that early Christians also taught it should be prayed three times daily. Unfortunately, anti-Semitic church history has not always enabled us to see the deep richness of this prayer in its Jewish context. Those who would use the Lord’s Prayer for their daily liturgy will therefore greatly benefit from studying The Lord and His Prayer by N. T. Wright (1996) and The Jewish Background to the Lord’s Prayer by Brad Young (1984), both of which do a masterful job of unpacking its historic and Judaic treasures. Postures of Prayer As to how early Jewish Christians might have choreographed this prayer, we have already seen how worship and bowing down were virtually synonymous in Hebraic thought. However, a description from a sixth century monk-traveler John Moschos may also be helpful. In 587 CE (twenty-three years before the birth of Islam), Moschos left home to tour the entire Byzantine world, staying in caves, monasteries, and remote hermitages along the way. He wrote up the details of his journey in a book called The Spiritual Meadow, which William Dalrymple used in the 1990’s to retrace his steps. Dalrymple describes the prayer service he witnessed at the Syrian Orthodox monastery of Mar Gabriel in southern Turkey, The entire congregation began a long series of prostrations: from their standing position, worshippers fell to their knees, and lowered their heads to the ground so that all that could be seen from the rear of the church was a row of upturned bottoms. All that distinguished the worship from that which might have taken place in a mosque was that the worshippers crossed and recrossed themselves as they performed their prostrations. This was the way the early Christians prayed, and is exactly the form of worship described by Moschos in The Spiritual Meadow. In the seventh century, Muslims appear to have derived their techniques of worship from existing Christian practice. Islam and Eastern Christians have retained the original early Christian convention; it is the Western Christians who have broken with sacred tradition. (Dalrymple 1998:105) Islam not only derived its salat prayer liturgy from Christian forms of worship, but also from Jewish forms, as Woodberry has shown (1996:176–177). The salat standing posture (qiyam) is seen in both Old and New Testaments (1 Kgs 8:14,22; Neh 9:2; Mk 11:25). The bowing posture (ruku) is equivalent to the Jewish keri’a and communicates a sense of humble servitude. Islamic prostration in prayer (sujud) is also seen in both Old and New Testaments (Gen 22:5; Num 16:22; 1 Sam 24:9; Neh 8:6; Mt 26:39) and is equivalent to the Jewish hishtahawaya, similarly practiced by Eastern Christians. Though these prayer postures are rich in meaning and still used by many Jews and Christians today (as Dalrymple reminded us above), they are not often part of the liturgical tradition of most evangelical missionaries to Muslims. However, if we return to a liturgical use of the Lord’s Prayer—as Jesus may well have intended and the apostles apparently taught (Didache 8:2–3)—then we can naturally return to the use of biblical postures of prayer to choreograph it for liturgical worship. The biblical postures mentioned above are therefore a rich source from which we can draw. Doing so will not only effectively equip us for incarnational ministry to Muslims, but it can also serve to deepen our own intimacy with God as we begin to recover the pietistic disciplines of the prophets and earliest Christianity. Ablutions Before I describe a specific way to choreograph the Lord’s Prayer with biblical worship postures, let us also consider the matter of preparation for such prayer. God gave very specific guidelines about how priests were to prepare before entering his presence in the tabernacle: Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, lest they die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, lest they die: it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his descendants throughout their generations. (Ex 30:19–21) As strange as such ritual washings may seem to Western Christians today, they were in fact commanded by God in the Scriptures. The penalty for disobedience was also rather severe. Furthermore, it was not only priests 65 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey who consecrated themselves with ablutions before entering God’s presence. After Samuel arrived in Bethlehem, he said to Jesse and his sons, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD; consecrate yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice” (1 Sam 16:5). To “consecrate oneself”, commentators acknowledge, involved preparing oneself spiritually as well as making oneself ceremonially clean by washing and putting on clean clothes (Ex 19:10,14; Lev 15; Nu 19:11-22). In spite of modern Christian freedom to attend church services in extremely casual or vogue attire, many Christians firmly believe that entering God’s sanctuary with offerings of praise and worship is a most sacred act. When done properly, ablutions serve to consecrate ourselves with water to symbolize the washing away of impurities that can hinder our fellowship with God. In this way, God asked all Israelites to consecrate themselves with ritual washing before he would descend on Mount Sinai to meet them, And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments, and be ready by the third day; for on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people’” (Ex 19:10–11). The Jewish order of ablutions began by washing the face, then the hands, then the feet—the same sequence practiced in Islam (Woodberry 1996:175; Sura 5:7). Naturally, washing our feet requires we remove our shoes, as God commanded Moses when entering his presence on Sinai (Ex 3:5). If incarnational witnesses freely choose to prepare for liturgical prayer by following God’s commands above, they need not do so in a rote way but can meaningfully prepare their hearts for true worship. For example, when washing our face, we can silently pray that God will clear away the things that cloud our vision, giving us eyes to see. As we wash our ears, we can pray that God will give us ears to hear his voice clearly, despite all the noise of this world crying out for our attention. As we rinse our mouth, we can reflect on words spoken throughout the day, dedicating our tongue along with its every utterance to God’s glory and the edification of others. While washing our hands and forearms, we can reflect on how we have used them throughout the day, dedicating them for God’s holy use alone. While washing our feet, we can reflect on where we have recently been or expect to soon go, dedicating them to take us only where God leads. The Lord’s Prayer as Incarnational Liturgy Now let us bring all these threads together to see a specific way we can choreograph the Lord’s Prayer with biblical postures. Please remember, however, that ‘incarnational’ does not mean ‘contextual’. This is not suggested as something done only in Muslim lands or when with Muslim friends. That might be contextual, but not incarnational. Rather, the incarnational witness is the same, no matter where he or she is. This liturgy is therefore suggested as a format for genuine and deeply intimate worship which can help keep us centered on seeking God’s kingdom first when daily circumstances tempt us to live according to the flesh. To better comprehend the richness of this prayer in its Judaic context and thereby enhance our experience of worship by recovering the fullness of meaning implied by Jesus, I again recommend the invaluable works of Young (1984) and Wright (1996). We are obviously free to choreograph the Lord’s Prayer however the Spirit may lead. The following page shows one example of how some incarnational witnesses have been led to pray, in the direction of Jerusalem, three times daily, after ablutions. By no means does this suggest we discontinue spontaneous prayers of petition and praise that uniquely reflect the work of God’s Spirit in each believer’s life (Eph 6:18). Keep giving thanks at meals for this is how our food becomes kosher or halal (1 Tim 4:4–5). Keep laying hands on Muslim friends to pray for healing and blessing. Non-liturgical prayers need not cease in any way. However, if God has set you apart to disciple Muslim nations and you have not already adopted some form of daily liturgical worship (shachah), bowing down and kneeling before your Maker, you might prayerfully consider doing so as he leads. After such prayer becomes a genuine part of a kingdom worker’s life, no matter how discreet he or she intends to be, Muslim friends will notice. They know the tell-tale signs: a wet sink; excusing yourself a bit longer than usual; a folded prayer carpet neatly set in some inconspicuous place. In fact, as long as one does not pray liturgically to be seen by others, there’s nothing wrong with being seen in prayer. Surely, Jesus’ disciples saw him praying on many occasions. One devout Muslim friend, who has lived in my home and I in his, has often commented with appreciation how much he respects my example of seeking after God. On one occasion, he declared that he knows the Bible I read must be “the true book” (i.e., uncorrupted) because of the Torah-observant way I live: “You pray regularly, eat no unclean foods, have no images of Jesus or Mary in your home, and your wife always wears long sleeves.” Righteous living, according to Muslim categories of righteousness, communicates an apologetic far more powerful than words. Disappointed that his eleven-year-old son was not praying regularly, he also requested I speak to him about prayer. Of course, I was glad to oblige. Religious Identity and Forms Torah-observant incarnational living also helps solve the puzzling issue of religious identity facing most pro-C4 and pro-C5 missionaries. Given the irreparable damage done to the term ‘Christian’ in most Muslim lands, many young missionaries experiment with numerous creative alternatives to describe their religious identity, some even going so far as to call themselves some kind of Jesus-following ‘Muslim’. The problem, of course, is that most Muslims do not have so many categories for religious identity. People are either Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. If one waffles on such basic questions, suspicions tend to rise. When Christians dabble with calling themselves ‘Muslim’, but speak and live more like Gentile Christians, things do not add up for Muslim International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 66  T_h_e_ _L_o_r_d_’s_ _P_r_a_y_e_r_ Hallowed be thy name. Our Father who art in heaven, Stand with hands cupped around ears, signifying desire to hear God’s voice. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, Give us this day our daily bread; Palms up and cupped, as in dua prayers, signifying expectation to receive blessings of sustenance from above. On Earth as it is in heaven. And lead us not into tempation, But deliver us from evil , for Thine is the Kingdom, Point right index finger up at “Thine.” And forgive us our debts, As we have also forgiven our debtors; forever and ever, Amen. and the power, and the glory All photos courtesy of M. Brandon 67 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey onlookers. At best, they may conclude the missionary is a recent Christian convert to Islam; at worst, a spy or member of some radical Muslim cult whom police should quickly deport. However, if we delight in God’s Law to guide our incarnational witness to Muslims, there is no need to call ourselves anything other than ‘Christian.’18 Who else would pray the Lord’s Prayer three times daily? Nonetheless, Muslim acquaintances will quickly see that we do not fit into their stereotypes of unclean, pork-eating, clean-shaven, non-praying, scantily-clad, immoral ‘Christians’. Torah-observant incarnational living is completely biblical and Muslim-friendly, without having to be ‘Muslim.’ Although this practice of our faith may seem unusual when compared to Gentile Christianity at large today, it is in fact quite similar to earliest Christianity before the acute Hellenization of the church occurred among non-Jewish believers. Our practice is therefore easily explained by the Bible, encoded in Biblical Law, and modeled by Jesus and his apostles. Such a patent contrast to typical Gentile Christianity will surely not escape Muslim notice. Nonetheless, merely practicing the externals of Torah-observance will not necessarily endear Muslims to the gospel. Rather, the second greatest commandment of the Torah must also be observed from the heart, for the royal law is the law of love: “If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Jas 2:8). The law of love (Lev 19:18) is called ‘royal’ because it is the source of all other laws governing human relationships, and their summation (Mt 22:36–40; Ro 13:8-10). Rabbi Isidore Epstein, an orthodox Jewish scholar, puts this royal law into perspective as he discusses the essential meaning of the Torah in three steps: Justice, Righteousness, and Love (1968). Quoting Hillel, Epstein simply defines justice as “not doing unto others what is hateful to ourselves” (:7). Justice is merely the avoidance of doing wrong, obedience to the basic laws of the land. Nobody gets rewarded for stopping at red lights or paying a proper wage to employees. To be just is to do the minimum required by the law. While justice demands we not do what is bad unto others, righteousness teaches we must do good unto others. Contrary to common Christian understanding, righteousness in Jewish thought is not an illusory state of sinless perfection, but rather it is humble service and charity rendered to the needy in obedience to God (Mt 25:37,46). Justice requires we not do to others what is hateful to us, while righteousness requires we “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Lu 6:31). Righteousness therefore demands intentionality, initiative, and deliberateness, often going out of our way to do good. But it is not enough to practice justice and righteousness alone; we must practice both with love. What does it profit a man who callously dispenses food to the hungry or aid to the poor but despises them in his heart and speech (cf. Mt 5:44–46; Lu 6:32–33)? Epstein observes, Love is the height of goodness. It cannot be reached unless we have learnt thoroughly and well the lessons of Justice and Righteousness. Where there is no Justice and Righteousness, there can be no Love. But at the same time, Love is greater than Justice and Righteousness put together. This becomes clear when we compare the meaning of Love with that of Righteousness and Justice. Justice demands that we do not harm others. Righteousness commands that we do good to others. Love makes us want to do good to others. Love has only one motto, from which all the rest follows. This motto has been proclaimed by our Torah in its command: “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev 19:18). (1968:47) Torah-observance then, as I have used the term, is not merely limited to external forms. I agree wholeheartedly with Bradford Greer, author of “Free to Live Under the Law: A Model for Islamic Witness” (2002), who wrote, The adoption of ‘forms’ by a follower of Jesus will not ultimately compel Muslims to consider the claims of Christ. However, forms remain very significant. When a worker is sensitive to ‘forms’, this helps remove barriers created by stereotypes because by their use common negative stereotypes are contradicted. When confronted with this contradiction the observer is challenged to think beyond the stereotypes. Charles Kraft speaks about the importance of not confirming stereotypes when he talks about factors that facilitate diffusion and social change [1991:49]. Contradicting such stereotypes is essential in communication that is going to effect change.19 Conclusion As we have seen, the Law is good when used properly. God’s good and holy Law should not be confused with its perversion by legalists. The Law is no burden, but rather it can be our delight. And, as previously stated, I believe the Law is crying out to be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path for incarnational witness to Muslims. Like the Jewish authors of Scripture who penned countless praises of the Law, Muslims also appreciate God’s Law more than most of us can imagine. Proclaiming “freedom from the Law”, therefore, does not necessarily sound like Good News to God-fearing Muslims. More often it sounds like antinomianism, a lawless, chaotic existence that demands unbridled freedoms and eventually results in what we see today in the ‘Christian’ West: the virtual rebirth of Sodom and Gomorrah. Young missionaries to Muslims often naively assume that once a Muslim learns how few restrictions will be upon them if they become Christian, naturally they will convert. However, just the thought of eating pork, for example, is enough to nauseate many Muslims. A dear Muslim friend wanted to welcome our relatives visiting Asia. She was wondering what kind of meal to prepare for them, then asked, “Do they eat..., you know?” I knew what she meant but tried to divert her inquiry and avoid a direct response. Nonetheless, she persisted, “Do they eat..., you know?” ‘You know’ was her way of not defiling her tongue by saying the name of the animal which God explicitly forbid his people to eat in the Torah (Lev 11:7)—the same animals into which Jesus sent International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 68 a legion of demons then watched them drown after rushing down a steep bank into the sea (Mk 5:13). Unfortunately, I knew these relatives did eat it, and, well, frankly, there was just no easy way to say it. So I quietly replied, “Well..., I think they might... occasionally.” The look of absolute horror and shivering disgust that came over her face surely illustrates a reality that seems inconceivable to many Gentile Christians: most Muslims simply do not care about such dietary freedoms! Elsewhere in Asia, C5 Muslims were translating Mark’s Gospel into their vernacular. They were perplexed at how to handle the parenthetical statement in Mark 7:19, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” No one showed them, as we saw earlier, that the context of hand washings indicates Jesus was not declaring treif foods kosher but rather that kosher foods are not defiled when touched by ritually unclean hands. Nonetheless, they found another way to deal with this verse. They first wondered if it was a later insertion by Gentile scribes which should be omitted—what some scholars call “orthodox corruptions of Scripture”(Ehrman 1993). Could Jesus really have abrogated the Law? They could find no biblical evidence that any of Jesus’ Jewish disciples began eating non-kosher foods after this teaching. The most difficult thing for them to imagine, however, was: How could Jesus have declared pork clean? This, to them, was unthinkable. After prayerful consideration, they decided not to omit the phrase but translate it directly. When the foreign translation consultant (committed to an insider model of having them determine the direction of translation) asked how they arrived at this conclusion, they said, “It was simple. Pork is not ‘food’ for us. Do you eat fried scorpions, beetles, and locusts when you visit Bangkok? No, because that is not food for you, just as pork is not food for us.” Does God’s declaration that reptiles are clean in Acts 10 mean we should all eat snakes and lizards to demonstrate our freedom in Christ? We started with the premise that a better understanding and appreciation of the Law is critically important for four salient reasons: 1) Knowing the difference between legalism and being free to obey the Law will help prevent the inconsistencies of “contextual chameleons,” whose behavior oscillates according to the people they are with at any given moment (e.g., Muslims or Christians), often resulting in a nagging incongruity that can pester missionaries about their own authenticity, i.e., “if my Muslim friends saw me now, might they feel I misled them to think I live differently than I actually do?” 2) Rooting incarnational witness in the Law frees a missionary from the occasional discomfort of wondering whether or not it is healthy to adopt Islamic forms if they are ultimately rooted in flawed theology. When Torah-observance guides our personal liturgical practice and diet (among other things), it becomes clear that we are actually living more like our Lord and his Jewish apostles, who are surely good examples to emulate. 3) Similarly, Torah provides a much firmer foundation to explain our lifestyle adjustments to accusing Christians who think we have abandoned the faith or succumbed to syncretism. 4) Fourthly, understanding the Law as interpreted by the world’s preeminent rabbinic theologian (i.e., Jesus Christ our Lord) will not only help us live incarnationally among Muslims, but it will help us preach a Gospel with Law that truly is good news to Muslims. We also mentioned a fifth reason for the Law to guide our incarnational living among Muslims, especially for pro-C4 and pro-C5 workers who want to promote truly indigenous church planting movements. Living like a non-Torah-observant Christian can actually hinder the very indigeneity we long to promote as we mentor Muslim believers. Though they hear our constant encouragement to remain culturally Muslim, students are more likely to follow the example we live out before them. Living as liturgyless Gentile Christians, therefore, may well end up contributing to their “Christianization” and “de-Muslimization” which we strive to avoid. As Jesus said, “A student... who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Lu 6:40). All of the Law is good if used properly, including dietary laws, the law of keeping a beard, the law of circumcision, and even liturgical developments surrounding observance of the law to serve God with all our heart. So while Gentile Christians are surely free to let the Gospel permeate their own society according to the categories of thought dominant in their worldview, incarnational witnesses to Muslims are similarly free to delight in the Law like the Psalmists, not pervert it into burdensome legalism like Judaizers. The comparative analysis of Judaism and Islam by Jacob Neusner underscores why such a choice may be wisdom for incarnational witnesses to Muslims. When we examine how Judaism and Islam portray the critical relationships that people maintain—between themselves and God, among themselves in the community of the faithful, and between that community and the outsider—we find a striking fact. It is that Judaism and Islam concur on a great many practical matters, using different language with the same result time and again. (Neusner 2000:vii) Neusner elsewhere concludes, Judaism and Islam concur that culture and society cohere with religion, so there is no distinction between secularity and religiosity, state and church such as Christianity from Constantine’s time forward contemplated. Both are religions of law... both place heavy stress upon  Does God’s declaration that reptiles are clean in Acts 10 mean we should all eat snakes and lizards to demonstrate our freedom in Christ?69 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey the formation of a society that conforms to God’s will, expressed in verbal revelation having to do with social norms, and both set forth through jurisprudence an elaborate and articulated message . ... Judaism and Islam in one important way [actually] stand closer together than either does to Christianity. That way is their conviction that law embodying public policy as much as theology sets forth religious truth. (1999:3, 5) When the Gospel permeated the Western world, Gentile Christians began to ignore a great deal of Mosaic Law which they called ceremonial. This may have been appropriate for Gentiles who clearly did not want to live within its guiding light, but it is unnecessary for those who claim Abraham as their father through Ishmael and delight in many of the same divine Laws given to Israel. Because most of us have been reared on sermons which tend to belittle the Law or confuse it with legalism, we clearly have much to learn about Torah-observance within the New Covenant from our Messianic Jewish brethren. The issues presented above are only a brief sampling which require significant development. How might incarnational witnesses to Muslims apply the Law of wearing phylacteries of Scripture as memorials of God’s commands (De 6:8, 11:18)? What about laws regarding hospitality to strangers (Lev 19:34; Heb 13:2), respect for the elderly (Lev 19:32; 1 Tim 5:1), caring for the poor and needy (De 15:7–11; Lev 19:9–10; Gal 2:10; 1 Jo 3:17; Jas 1:27, 2:15–16), justice for the oppressed and downtrodden (De 24:17,19; Mal 3:5; Mt 23:23; Ac 24:25), conservative dress (De 22:5; 1 Tim 2:9), sacred handling of the Biblical text (Ex 25:16; Lu 4:20), and fasting (Lev 23:27; Is 58; Zec 8:19; Mt 6:16–18)20? Surely, Jesus and the apostles had a great deal to say about many of these issues. However, reading these New Testament teachings with greater appreciation of their Judaic religio-legal context may better illuminate principles for application as we strive to disciple Muslim nations. Are these teachings optional ‘good things’ to do, or legal ‘commandments’ of the New Covenant contract, part and parcel of what it means to follow Jesus as Lord (Hettinga 1996)? Although Jesus often used the language of Law when calling disciples to himself—“If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Joh 14:15; cf. Lu 6:46)—we do not always hear legal tones in his Great Commission, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). Some may argue that many Islamic similarities to Judaism are in fact similarities to legalistic Jewish perversions of the Law, not to biblically proper delight in the Law. In some cases, this may well be. But now that David Stern has helped us see what Paul likely meant by being “under the Law”—i.e., to be “in subjection to the system that results from perverting Torah into legalism” (1991:129)—we are in a better position to read the classic passage which has inspired so many contextualizers. As rendered in Stern’s Jewish New Testament (1989), Paul writes, With Jews, what I did was put myself in the position of a Jew, in order to win Jews. With people in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah, I put myself in the position of someone under such legalism, in order to win those under this legalism, even though I myself am not in subjection to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. ... Don’t you know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one wins the prize? So then, run to win! Now every athlete in training submits himself to strict discipline, and he does it just to win a laurel wreath that will soon wither away. But we do it to win a crown that will last forever. (1 Cor 9:20,24–25) Paul, we see, did not just observe Torah according to its proper usage, but at times he even subjected himself to a legalistic perversion of Torah when ministering to Jews who lived under such legalism. Perhaps the time has come for missionaries to Muslims to become zealous for the Law, similar to early Christians of Jerusalem (Ac 21:20). As Paul said, this will require strict training. As a Pharisee, Paul could handle it. Can we? Should we? I believe many of us should, as many as can learn to delight in God’s Law as he intended for his firstborn among the nations. Muslim nations need to know that Jesus is much more than a prophet. He is the promised king, whose rule and reign will never end, the only mediator between God and man, the Lamb. I do not want to meet Paul in glory only to hear him say, It’s really a shame more Muslims aren’t here. Why didn’t more missionaries to Muslims just obey the Torah? I did! That would have made sense to Muslims. It was right in front of you all along. Wasn’t its observance by all the prophets and the Messiah enough for you? Our Lord himself never ate pork. How could so many Christians let mere food and ritual purity hinder their witness in reaching Muslim peoples? Regarding circumcision, our Lord himself also received this sign of God’s covenant, the same covenant that resulted in your missionary calling in the first place. And why did so many among later Gentile Christians frown upon regularly washing up and bowing down before God in sacred worship? Why didn’t more Christians just live according to the Torah? Why not indeed. IJFM Bibliography Birley, Anthony R. 1997 Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. New York: Routledge. Brown, Colin 1991 “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu 7:83-100. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. Caldwell, Stuart 2000 “Jesus in Samaria,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 25–31. Dalrymple, William 1998 From the Holy Mountain: A Journey Among the Christians of the Middle East. London: Flamingo. Draper, Jonathan 1985 “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache,” Gospel Perspectives V. ed. D. Wenham, Sheffield: JSOT Press. Dunn, James D. G. 2003 Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Dutch, Bernard 2000 “Should Muslims Become Christians?” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 15–24.International Journal of Frontier Missions Part II: Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 70 Ehrman, Bart D. 1998 The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings : A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press. Elbogen, Ismar 1993 Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Epstein, Isidore 1968 Step by Step in the Jewish Religion. New York: Soncino Press. Fischer, John 2001 “The Legitimacy of Conversion,” Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues Facing a Maturing Movement, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbock. Baltimore: Lederer Books. Friedman, David 2001 They Loved the Torah. Baltimore: Lederer Books. Greer, Bradford 2002 “Free to Live Under the Law: A Model for Islamic Witness” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 38(4): 444–452. Hettinga, Jan David 1996 Follow Me: Experience the Loving Leadership of Jesus. Colorado Springs: Navpress. Kraft, Charles 1991 Communication Theory for Christian Witness. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Lamsa, George M. 1990 Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Massey, Joshua 2000 “The Amazing Diversity of God in Drawing Muslims to Christ,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 5–14. 2004 “Living Like Jesus, a Torah-Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims (Part 1),” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21(1): 13–22. —— “Misunderstanding C5 and the Infinite Translatability of Christ,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 40(3): Forthcoming. Neusner, Jacob and Sonn, Tamara 1999 Comparing Religions Through Law: Judaism and Islam. London: Routledge. 2000 Judaism and Islam in Practice: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. Robinson, John A. T. 1973 The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: Westminister Press. 1987 The Priority of John. Oak Park: Meyer Books. Stern, David H. 1989 Jewish New Testament. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications. 1991 Messianic Jewish Manifesto. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications. Travis, John 2000 “Messianic Muslim Followers of Jesus: A Closer Look at C5,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1):53–59.Walls, Andrew F. 1996 The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi 1997 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Witherington III, Ben 1997 The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Wolf, Michael 2001 “Conversion of Gentiles—No Way!” in Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues Facing a Maturing Movement, ed. Cohn-Sherbock, Dan. Baltimore: Lederer Books. Woodberry, J. Dudley 1996 “Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 13(4): 171-186. Wright, N. T. 1996 The Lord and His Prayer. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1999 The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Yancey, Philip 1999 The Bible Jesus Read. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. Young, Brad H. 1984 The Jewish Background to the Lord’s Prayer. Tulsa: Gospel Research Foundation. Endnotes 1 “C5” refers to Christ-centered communities of Muslims who follow Jesus as Lord (cf. Massey 2000; Travis 2000) and retain their Muslim identity, in contrast to “C4” Muslim background believers who no longer identify themselves as Muslim. 2 “Bicultural” missionaries who never question themselves accordingly might truly be living ‘consistently’ among both Muslim and Christian communities (both abroad and in their sending countries), perhaps because the Muslim and Christian communities in which they mix are more similar than in other parts of the world, or possibly because they have not actually adopted many significant Muslim-friendly changes into their lifestyle. Certainly, the contrast would be minimal if one’s Muslim friends are mostly Westernized, “liberal”, “progressive”, or not actually practicing Islam. The test, of course, would be to let one’s Muslim friends fully observe the missionary in his other context. 3 “Pro-C4” and “pro-C5” refers to missionaries who favor the use of biblically permissible Islamic forms by “C4” Muslim background believers and “C5” Muslim followers of Jesus (cf. Massey 2000; Travis 2000). 4 All biblical citations are from the RSV, unless otherwise noted. 5 Workers among Muslims will appreciate the profoundly relevant christological work of Colin Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy” (1991); James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2003); and John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973) and The Priority of John (1987). 6 The words God might want to use today among Muslims may not necessarily be the same words selected by Bible translators in existing translations of Scripture. In other words, archaic or non-Muslim-friendly Bible translations can be a poor source for learning how to describe biblical truth in a given Muslim vernacular. 7 In Jewish understanding, kashrut also involves observance of many dietary oral laws. See Friedman (2001:21–27) for a fuller discussion on Jesus’ dietary practice as recorded in Scripture. 8 See Ac 10:17, 19. 9 See Acts of John 88-9, 93, and one of the earliest pictorial renderings of Jesus on a fourth-century sarcophagus found in Rome (Witherington 1997:59). 10 Given that all men do not have genes to grow beards, God’s Law regarding beards (Lev 19:27) is perhaps one of the clearest attestations that God never expected all 71 21:2 Summer 2004 Joshua Massey nations to obey the entire Mosaic Law (cf. Massey 2004:17; Stern 1991:156), but rather it was given primarily to God’s firstborn among the nations whose genetic composition made this commandment relevant. 11 The Bible Jesus read was eventually referred to by Gentile Christians as the “Old Testament” perhaps as early as the late second century. 12 See The Clash of Jewish Missiologies in part one of this paper for additional rites and privileges associated with full-converts to Judaism during the Second Temple period (Massey 2004:16). 13 For a fuller discussion on the context of 1 Cor 7:18–20 and its application to C5, see Massey (forthcoming). 14 1 Cor 9:19,23. 15 A delicate surgical procedure known as epispasmos was performed on some Hellenized Jews to “remove the marks of circumcision” beginning around 133 BCE and persisting throughout much of the Greco-Roman period. Hellenistic and Roman societies widely practiced public nakedness in Greek gymnasiums and Roman baths, where politics were discussed and business negotiations completed. However, both Greeks and Romans also considered that baring the tip of one’s penis (i.e., the glans) was both vulgar and shameful. Such attitudes effectively barred Jews from these social arenas, thereby excluding them from significant business with Gentile clientele. Participation in athletic contests and exhibitions, also performed in the nude, was often required for social advancement. Here again, circumcised Jews dare not participate only to become amusement for Gentile spectators. Epispasmos reached its peak of popularity in the first century CE, in spite of strong Jewish opposition. The apostle Paul was among these Jewish opponents, and discouraged Jewish Christians from undergoing such a procedure (1 Cor 7:18). See also http://ww.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1.html 16 See previous note for more on Greco-Roman attitudes toward circumcision. 17 As in Islam, the Jewish ‘day’ begins with evening (Gen 1:5). 18 The ‘Christian’ self-identity of foreign workers is, of course, an entirely separate matter from the ‘non-Christian’ self-identity of C4 Muslim background believers or the ‘Muslim’ identity of C5 believers, both of whom are far more adept at genuinely maintaining a ‘non-Christian’ identity since they have never lived or spoken otherwise (cf. Dutch 2000). 19 Personal email correspondence, January 7, 2004. 20 Cf. “Fasting” by Werblowsky (1997:251) and Jewishencyclopedia.com.September 7–8Orientation for residents. Orientationbegins Tuesday morning. Dr. Jonathan J.Bonk, OMSC executive director. A publicreception to welcome the 2004–05OMSC international community ofresidents will be held Wednesday at 4:00p.m. All are invited.September 9–10U.S. Churches Today. Rev. Geoffrey A.Little,pastor, St. James EpiscopalChurch (New Haven) and director of theChurch Mission Society U.S.A., providesan overview with a guided tour of churchlife and churches in New Haven,Connecticut. There is no registration feefor this seminar.September 13–17How to Develop Mission and ChurchArchives. Ms. Martha Lund Smalley,research services librarian, YaleUniversity Divinity School. Eightsessions, $145.September 20–24The Internet and Mission: GettingStarted. Mr. Wilson Thomas, WilsonThomas Systems, Bedford, NewHampshire, and Dr. Dwight P. Baker,program director, Overseas MinistriesStudy Center, New Haven, Connecticut.Eight sessions, $145.October 11–15Doing Oral History: HelpingChristians Tell Their Own Story. Dr.Jean-Paul Wiest, research director, JesuitBeijing Center, visiting professor ofChristianity, Tsinghua University, andformer director of the Maryknoll historyproject, all in Beijing, China, and Dr. JanBender Shetler, assistant professor ofhistory, Goshen College, Goshen,Indiana. Eight sessions, $145.October 18–22Nurturing and Educating Trans-cultural Kids. Dr. David C. Pollock andMs. Janet Blomberg, InteractionInternational, Houghton, New York. Eightsessions, $145.October 25–27Leadership, Fund-raising, and DonorDevelopment for Missions. Mr. RobMartin, director, First Fruit, Inc.,Newport Beach, California. Five sessionsin three days, $145.November 8–12Missions and Consequences. ProfessorAndrew F. Walls, honorary professor,University of Edinburgh, former directorof the Centre for the Study of Christianityin the Non-Western World, and emeritusprofessor of religious studies, Universityof Aberdeen. Eight sessions, $145.November 15–19The Nature and Mission of the ChurchAfter 9/11. Mr. Patrick Johnstone, authorofOperation World, 21st Century Edition(2001), former director of research, WECInternational, Buckinghamshire,England, and OMSC senior missionscholar in residence. Eight sessions, $145.December 6–10Peacemaking as Mission. Dr. RichardDeats, editor of Fellowship, TheFellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack,New York. Eight sessions, $145.WITNESSESTOTHE ENDSOFTHE EARTHM_i_s_s_i_o_n_ _S_e_m_i_n_a_r_s_—F_a_l_l_ _2_0_0_4_Overseas Ministries Study Center490 Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 USA(203) 624-6672, Ext. 315 study@OMSC.org Register online at www.OMSC.org􀀅􀀃􀀂􀀄   International Journal of Frontier Missions 21:1 Spring 2004•1 Islam, Once a Hopeless Frontier, Now? Part I: Living like Jesus, a Torah-Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims by Joshua Massey Introduction Christian missionaries have a serious problem when trying to proclaim good news to devout Muslims. Without major life adjustments, even the most spiritually vibrant among us tend to appear to orthodox Muslims as unclean pagans, whose devotion is often mistaken for irreverence toward God. Many of these Muslims would not dare enter a Christian home lest they become ritually defiled. Missionaries who embrace contextualization and adjust their diet accordingly may grow a beard and don local clothes, but the actual practice of their faith often does not always communicate holy living to onlooking Muslims. Such missionaries generally do not pray liturgically in a particular direction, perform ritual ablutions before prayer, or pray at set times throughout each day. In short, most missionaries to Muslims, even pro-C4 and pro-C5 workers,1 simply do not live and worship according to Muslim categories of righteousness, which we typically perceive as legalistic and works-oriented. As a result, most missionaries ultimately fail to earn the spiritual respect needed to be effective witnesses among devout Muslims. This, of course, does not imply that most missionaries fail to earn the respect of all Muslims, or even the spiritual respect of nominal or less devout Muslims. The emphasis here is on God-fearing, devout and orthodox Muslims, whose religious worldview is deeply immersed in ritual purity and other Islamic categories of righteousness. Ironically, however, these categories of righteousness are extremely similar to Jewish Torah-observance as practiced by Jesus and his earliest followers. Therefore, if Gentile missionaries to Muslims begin to live more like Jesus and his apostles lived—like Torah-observant Jews—we will be far more likely to earn the spiritual respect of Muslims, and thereby be more effective messengers of the Gospel. In order for Gentile Torah-observance to be genuine, and not some kind of contextual façade or legalistic delusion, we need to take a fresh look at the role of the Law in the New Covenant, and Gentile freedom to obey it. We will be greatly helped in this task by surveying the theological work of several Messianic Jewish theologians. Joshua Massey is a cultural anthropologist, linguist, and missiologist, laboring among Asian Muslims since 1985. He is currently coordinating the development of indigenous literature to assist Muslim followers of Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom and making disciples in Asia. He has published several missiological articles on church planting and ethnographies on folk-Islamic ritual. Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 1 International Journal of Frontier Missions Why spend so much time building a foundation for incarnational living on the Torah when Paul’s example of becoming all things to all men is far simpler and more than adequate? A cursory look at Paul’s example in 1 Cor 9 may suffice for ministry to Gentiles, but we must go much deeper into Paul’s understanding of the Law if we want to minister effectively to peoples whose worldview is dominated by divine law and religio-legal categories of thought, as is the case with both Jewish and Muslim peoples. In ministry to Muslims then, we need to look less at Paul’s approach to Gentiles, and closely study how he, Jesus and all Christ’s apostles lived amongst and ministered to Jews. A better understanding and appreciation of the Law is therefore critically important for four salient reasons: 1) Knowing the difference between legalism and being free to obey the Law will help prevent the inconsistencies of “contextual chameleons,” whose behavior oscillates according to the people they are with at any given moment (e.g., Muslims or Christians), often resulting in a nagging incongruity that can pester missionaries about their own authenticity, i.e., “if my Muslim friends saw me now, might they feel I misled them to think I live differently than I actually do?”  2) Rooting incarnational witness in the Law frees a missionary from the occasional discomfort of wondering whether or not it is healthy to adopt Islamic forms which are ultimately rooted in flawed theology. However, when Torah-observance guides our personal liturgical practice and diet (among other things), it becomes clear that we are actually living more like our Lord and his Jewish apostles.  3) The Torah provides a much firmer foundation to explain our lifestyle adjustments to accusing Christians who think we’ve abandoned the faith or succumbed to syncretism.  4) Fourthly, understanding the Law as interpreted by the world’s rabbinic theologian (i.e., Jesus Christ our Lord) will not only help us live incarnationally among Muslims, but it will help us preach a Gospel with Law that truly is good news to Muslims. A gospel without Law may have been good news to Gentiles in the first century who didn’t want to keep the Law in the first place, but it is not good news to most Muslims, who share a Jewish appreciation of delighting in the Law as “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps 119:105). A gospel without Law is to most Muslims more akin to antinomianism, a lawless, chaotic existence that demands unbridled freedoms and eventually results in what we see today in the “Christian” West: the virtual rebirth of Sodom and Gomorrah.  “The Law,” Paul taught “is good if one uses it properly”2 and doesn’t pervert it into burdensome legalism. How then are we to understand the Law in order to use it properly? Understanding the Law “The Law,” according to David Stern, author of The Messianic Jewish Manifesto, “is the great terra incognita (the unexplored territory) of Christian theology” (1991:126). Stern maintains that the church hardly knows what to make of the Torah or how to fit it together with the New Testament, then concludes that Gentile Christianity has gone far astray in its understanding of the Law. Therefore, according to Stern, the most urgent task of theology today is to correct its view of the Law (:125). How could Christian theology have strayed so far in this matter of the Law?  First, we have confused an abuse and perversion of the Law (called legalism) with the beauty of the Law as God intended it. The Psalmist sings of his love for and delight in the Torah in Psalm 119, 1. Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD!18. Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.34. Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and observe it with my whole heart44. I will keep thy law continually, for ever and ever;51. Godless men utterly deride me, but I do not turn away from thy law.53. Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked, who forsake thy law.55. I remember thy name in the night, O LORD, and keep thy law.61. Though the cords of the wicked ensnare me, I do not forget thy law.70. their heart is gross like fat, but I delight in thy law.72. The law of thy mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces.77. Let thy mercy come to me, that I may live; for thy law is my delight.92. If thy law had not been my delight, I should have perished in my affliction.97. Oh, how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day.113. I hate double-minded men, but I love thy law.126. It is time for the LORD to act, for thy law has been broken.136. My eyes shed streams of tears, because men do not keep thy law.142. Thy righteousness is righteous for ever, and thy law is true.150. They draw near who persecute me with evil purpose; they are far from thy law.153. Look on my affliction and deliver me, for I do not forget thy law.163. I hate and abhor falsehood, but I love thy law.165. Great peace have those who love thy law; nothing can make them stumble.3 Jesus also made his attitude toward the Law crystal clear in Matthew 5:17–18, Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an   In ministry to Muslims we need to look less at Paul’s approach to Gentiles, and closely study how he, Jesus and all Christ’s apostles lived amongst and ministered to Jews.15 21:1 Spring 2004 Joshua Massey  iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Strangely, these verses are often understood by Gentile Christians to mean that Jesus did abolish the Law after he fulfilled it with a perfect life. However, even a cursory look at this verse makes it clear that Jesus taught the Torah will retain its validity “till heaven and earth pass away.”  Furthermore, no Jew would ever accuse a rabbi of putting “an end” to the Law for his very vocation was to teach the Law. Instead, the Greek terms for “abolish” and “fulfill” are technical terms in rabbinic argumentation. An accusation of “abolishing” (kataluo) the Law was levied against one who misinterpreted it as a poor exegete. The term “fulfill” (plerosai) implies “to cram full, bring to full expression, show forth the intended meaning” (Fischer 1990:23). Therefore, the end of the Law, as Christians often suppose is being discussed, is not at all the issue here. Instead, Jesus is saying he has not come to give yet another misleading interpretation of the Torah, but rather to help people understand it fully.  David Bivin, director of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, has accurately paraphrased Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17–18, “Never imagine for a moment,” Jesus says, “that I intend to abrogate the Law by misinterpreting it. My intent is not to weaken or negate the Law, but by properly interpreting God’s Written Word I aim to establish it, that is, make it even more lasting. I would never invalidate the Law by ... removing something from it through misinterpretation. Heaven and earth would sooner disappear than something from the Law. Not the smallest letter in the alphabet, the yod, nor even the decorative spur,4 will ever disappear from the Law.” (1983:115) “Filling” the Law with all the meaning God intended was actually a commonly expected role of the Messiah in Second Temple Judaism, as articulated by the Samaritan woman at the well. Jews everywhere were arguing whether Shammai or Hillel’s interpretation of the Torah was correct. Some favored one sage, while others favored another. How was the common person to sort out so many divergent views among Torah commentators? “When the Messiah comes,” the Samaritan woman said, “he will explain everything to us” (John 4:25 NIV). This same verse in the ancient Aramaic Peshitta makes this expectation even clearer, “... he will teach us everything” (Lamsa 1990). And that is exactly what Jesus did. As seen in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ commentary on the Law didn’t really lower any of its requirements at all; it heightened them. The Law simply stated one must not commit adultery; but Jesus taught that if a man merely looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed it (Mt 5:29). The Law states one must not commit murder; but Jesus taught that anyone who is angry with his brother or insults him will be in danger of hell fire (Mt 5:22). In short, Jesus taught people that the Law is concerned with the attitude of our hearts, not just what is acted out in behavior. Jesus surely showed contempt for some of the Oral Law, also known as the “tradition of the elders” (Mt 15:2), which was believed to have been given by God orally to Moses on Sinai.5 According to rabbinic interpretation, God enjoined Moses not to record these additional laws, maxims, and explanations of the Written Law, but to deliver them to the people by word of mouth. They therefore remained unwritten for centuries before finally being recorded in the Mishna at the beginning of the third century CE. This Oral Law was believed to provide a hedge of protection around the Written Law. Unfortunately, it sometimes missed God’s purpose in the Law and therefore, according to Jesus, hindered proper obedience to the Law, e.g., regarding ritual purity, Corban, and Sabbath observance (Mt 5:2–9, 12:2). Jesus also disagreed strongly with more than a few halakhic laws (a form of rabbinic legislation derived from biblical texts) when these, like the Oral Law, misinterpreted God’s intention in the Law. We should not conclude therefore that all oral and halakhic law missed the mark. Indeed, as we shall see later, Jesus and his apostles fully observed many of these traditions and extra-biblical laws. Furthermore, where Jesus does take issue with oral or halakhic misinterpretations of the Law, as Arthur Patzia notes, “it is important to realize that Jesus is not condemning the Law of Moses as such—a law that he too would have regarded as divine revelation,” (1995:38) retaining its validity till heaven and earth pass away (Mt 5:18). This is, in fact, the position of a great number of Messianic Jews today. The Law of Moses, they say, remains in full force today—for Jewish people. This was clearly the position of early Jewish Christians, as seen in Acts 21:18-26, where Luke writes, ... Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them. For James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Council, Paul’s course of action was clear. Paul not only had to show Jewish believers that he was Torah-observant, but that he was also still living according to Jewish customs.  Paul’s epistle to Galatians clearly taught Gentiles not circumcise their sons or live according to Jewish customs. Nevertheless, Gentiles aren’t Jewish, and need not convert to Judaism or live like Jews to follow International Journal of Frontier Missions Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 16  Jesus. The Jerusalem Council had already made this clear in Acts 15, as James reminded us above. However, James knows it is inconceivable that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, would teach Jews not to circumcise their sons or live according to the Torah. Such baseless slander needed to be exposed, so Paul did not hesitate to do exactly as James prescribed so many thousands of Jewish Christians—all zealous for the Law—could see that Paul himself was living in observance of the law (Ac 21:20,24). We could add countless biblical examples showing that Jesus, Peter, Paul and other apostles remained Torah-observant throughout their lives (Friedman 2001; Young 1995, 1997; Stern 1991), and more will be mentioned below as we explore how the Law guides us in incarnational witness to Muslims.  The Clash of Jewish Missiologies However, if Jesus and his apostles remained Torah-observant and believed that the Law would retain its validity until heaven and earth passed away, how then could Christian theology have strayed so far off the path of exegetical integrity and confused proper Torah-observance with a perversion of the Law called legalism? Acts 15:1 reveals the source of an early conflict that arose between various Jewish followers of Jesus, “Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” Paul and Barnabas took the matter directly to the highest authority, the Jerusalem Council, where “some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses’” (15:5). To process what happens next, we need to review some basic Jewish missiology during the Second Temple period, before Jesus was born. Jewish missionaries acknowledged two different kinds of Gentile converts. Proselytes of righteousness (ger tsedeq) were full converts to Judaism, adopted Jewish identity, were baptized in a miqveh,6 circumcised if male, and required to obey all the Law of Moses. They were considered like “a new-born child,” given a Hebrew name, and called a son or daughter of Abraham. By contrast, proselytes of the gate (ger ha-sha’ar) were half-converts, also called “God-fearers”, and did not assume Jewish identity (Ac 10:22, 13:26). These were not baptized, circumcised or required to obey all the Mosaic Law. Instead, they were only required to obey the seven Noahic Laws, which were believed to have been given to Noah and therefore binding upon both Jew and Gentile.7 These were to abstain from (1) idolatry, (2) blasphemy, (3) murder, (4) sexual immorality, (5) theft, (6) eating a portion of a living animal, and (7) to establish a legal system administering justice and enforcing the prior six commandments when living in lands where they are not already codified as law. God-fearing Gentiles (i.e., half-converts) were therefore free to remain uncircumcised, eat non-kosher, and do “as they please” on the Sabbath. As you might imagine, absence of a circumcision requirement alone was enough to insure that the number of God-fearers far exceeded that of full-proselytes.  But if Jewish missionary practice already had two categories of Gentile converts, and one was not required to be circumcised and obey all the Mosaic Law, why then did these believing Pharisees insist before the Jerusalem Council that all Gentiles do so? The answer may lie within their understanding of the Great Commission itself, where Jesus clearly taught that baptism was to be part of discipling all nations (Mt 28:19). Given the two categories of proselytes already operational at the time, and the fact that proselyte baptism was reserved only for full converts to Judaism, who were also circumcised and required to obey all of the Law, it is highly likely that many Jewish Christians naturally concluded Jesus was not interested in making half-converts to Judaism. Surely, they may have reasoned, Jesus wants Gentiles to enjoy and delight in all of the Law. Did he not teach, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:19)? One can almost hear these believing Pharisees put forth their case to James and the elders: How did the Lord reply to the rich young ruler who asked how to inherit eternal life? Did Jesus not reply that he should ‘keep the commandments’?8 Do not the Scriptures tell us that Gentiles must first be circumcised before they celebrate the Passover with us? As it is written, ‘No uncircumcised male may eat of it.’9 How then can Gentiles eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, our Passover lamb, without first being circumcised?10 Even if Jesus left room for two kinds of converts to Messianic Judaism, why should Gentiles settle for becoming half-converts when they can delight in and benefit from all of God’s glorious Law? Circumcision is not just Law; it precedes the Law by several centuries! It is the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham to bless all nations of the earth! Why should those nations not also carry the same sign of the covenant in their flesh after they have been blessed by him who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, who was himself circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law of Moses?11 God almost struck Moses down when he failed to circumcise his son.12 Rabbi Paul, you yourself circumcised Timothy before allowing him to journey with your team.13 Why such inconsistency? You teach the Law is good if used properly,14 so why should we water down the expectations for following the Messiah, endorsing a position that will encourage Gentiles to live without the glorious guiding light of God’s Law? As the Psalmist wrote, ‘Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.’15 The Law is no burden; it is a light unto our feet! Clearly, there were no easy answers to settle this dispute. “After there had been much debate,” Peter reminds them that God fully accepted the Gentiles who believed, as evidenced by “giving them the Holy Spirit” (Ac 15:7–8), even though they had not become Jewish or submitted to the whole Torah. Peter then adds another jaw-dropping statement regarding Jewish identity, 17 21:1 Spring 2004 Joshua Massey  “God made no distinction between us and them”(15:9), showing their distinction between God-fearers and full-proselytes to be superfluous. Therefore, Peter could boldly baptize Gentiles without them first becoming Jewish (10:47).  James then pronounced the Council’s final decision on the matter, requiring Gentile Believers to abstain from (1) food polluted by idols, (2) sexual immorality, (3) the meat of strangled animals, and (4) blood (15:19–20). The first two prohibitions seem clear enough, but the third and fourth often require clarification for Gentile readers. A common Greek delicacy involved roasting an animal which had been killed without the shedding of blood, usually accomplished by strangulation or drowning. If the blood of an animal does not drain according to Biblical Law, it congeals in veins and makes the meat illegal to eat. God commanded Moses, If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood…. (Lev 17:10-13) According to Mosaic Law, eating blood was illegal for both Jews and Gentiles. The penalty for such an offence would not only result in being “cut off from among his people,” but God himself testifies, “I will set my face against that person”—a punishment reserved throughout Scripture only for those who offer their children to Molech (Lev 20:3), turn to mediums and wizards (20:6), and reject God’s Law or spurn his commandments (26:15–17).16 Naturally, with such severe consequences for both Jewish and Gentile offenders, the Jerusalem Council forbade Gentile believers from eating the meat of strangled animals. But if eating the meat of strangled animals was forbidden because of blood, why then is abstinence from blood repeated as a fourth item? In view of the fact that the Greek for blood åima (haima) is sometimes used idiomatically for murderous “bloodshed,”17 some scholars believe this may be a reference to murder. Others believe it refers to the eating of blood, e.g., Greek dishes cooked in blood stew. Risking redundancy, the council may have mentioned blood directly because Gentiles unfamiliar with Torah needed both kinds of blood cuisine spelled out clearly to avoid confusion.  Either way, the Jerusalem Council’s ruling helps us see that the apostles did not expect Gentile Believers to keep all of the Mosaic Law—opposing Judaizing believers who insisted otherwise—but did expect them to keep some of it. Why? “To keep peace when fellowshipping with Jews,” is a typical Gentile Christian understanding of this ruling, as if we can now enjoy blood sausage and blood stew18 at church pot lucks, especially given the unlikelihood that Jews might visit on any given Sunday. Unfortunately, this understanding doesn’t explain the additional command to abstain from sexual immorality. Can we now be sexually immoral if Jews don’t attend our congregations? Surely not. Unquestionably, Gentiles were expected to keep some of the Law, but not all of it. In fact, the Law that the Jerusalem Council expected Gentiles to keep is remarkably similar to the Seven Noahic Laws. If blood is understood as bloodshed, the council then affirmed four of the six prohibitions—the seventh, you will recall, is not a prohibition but an injunction to establish a legal system to administer justice. The two omitted by the council were theft and blasphemy, which hardly needed mentioning since theft was already illegal throughout the empire and blasphemy was rather obvious, even for Gentiles, since “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times” (Ac 15:21 NIV). If the Law is indeed still in full force for Jews today (as many Messianic Jewish scholars firmly believe), and if the Jerusalem Council did not require Gentile believers to keep it all, are we to conclude that God still expects Jews to keep all of the Torah—as interpreted by Jesus and his apostles—and Gentiles to keep only some of it? A growing number of Messianic Jewish theologians agree that the testimony of Scripture does point in this direction. David Stern, author of the Messianic Jewish Manifesto and the Jewish New Testament, reminds us, The Jerusalem Council made no change whatever in the Torah as it applies to Jews, so that a number of years later there could still be in Jerusalem “tens of thousands” of Messianic Jews who were “zealots for the Torah.”19 It should not surprise us if New Covenant Torah specifies different commandments for Jews and Gentiles. The Five Books of Moses have commands which apply to some groups and not others—to the king but not to his subjects, to cohanim (priests) but not to other Jews, to men but not to women. [Similarly], the New Testament too has different commands for different categories of people—men and women, husbands and wives, parents and children, slaves and masters, leaders and followers, and widows as distinct from other women. (1991:156)  Different contexts and parties require different laws. Surely the Israelites, God’s firstborn among the nations, are a unique party in a unique context of God’s plan for redemptive history.20 Therefore, it is not difficult to conceive that God may desire this “holy, set apart nation” to observe unique laws which are not required for all peoples. To insist otherwise is to disregard the plain meaning of terms like “everlasting” and “forever” which God used   Unquestionably, Gentiles were expected to keep some of the Law, but not all of it.International Journal of Frontier Missions Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 18  to describe the Israelites’ contractual obligation to, for example, laws of circumcision and Sabbath.21 It is interesting to note which commandments of the Decalogue are missing from the Noahic Laws: (1) Honor your father and mother. (2) Do not covet your neighbor’s property or wife. (3) Do not bear false witness or give false testimony. (4) Keep my Sabbath day holy by doing no work. Which of these four commandments are Gentile Christians exempt from obeying? Is it permissible for Gentile Christians to dishonor their parents, covet their neighbor’s wife and property, lie, or profane the Sabbath? There is surely a wide range of Christian opinion about the Sabbath, coverage of which would take us far from the focus of this paper.22 However, few would argue that Gentiles would do well to obey more of the Mosaic Law than what is contained in the Seven Noahic Laws, especially laws affirmed by Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels. In fact, Gentiles are free to obey as much of the Mosaic Law as they like. As long as Gentile Christians understand that they will gain no extra points with God for self-Judaizing, and they do not allow their Torah-observance to inhibit fellowship with other believers (Gal 2:12), they are completely free to delight in all of God’s Law because, as Paul wrote, “the law is holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12), and “the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Tim 1:8). The Law was never meant to save anyone. Abraham’s righteousness came by faith before he was circumcised. Circumcision was merely the sign of God’s covenant with him. A renowned Pharisee of the first century wrote, “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith...” (Gal 2:15–16). Justification never came through Torah-observance, but rather, the Torah is God’s detailed answer to two very crucial questions: (1) How does God want to be loved by his firstborn among the nations, a holy priesthood set apart to bless all nations? And (2) how does God want them to love their fellow man? God’s concise answer is what Jesus calls the two greatest commandments,  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets. (Mt 22:37–40)  God’s expanded and detailed answer is the entire Law of Moses, a comprehensive extrapolation of these two great commandments. Would it not be wonderful to know how God wants to be loved, and how he wants us to love one another? Then meditate on the Law day and night, especially as taught by the world’s preeminent rabbinic theologian, Jesus Christ our Lord. As the Psalmist said long ago, “Blessed is the man... [whose] delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his Law he meditates day and night” (Ps 1:1–2). Judaizers and Legalism If all Jewish Christians had been in agreement with the Jerusalem Council, early church history would have been different—very different. Unfortunately, we know the story does not end here. Some Jewish Christians, perhaps citing Jesus’ command to baptize Gentiles, continued to insist that Gentiles convert fully to Judaism, be circumcised and required to obey all of the Law. Ebionite Jewish Christians rejected Paul entirely, accusing him of watering down the requirements of the Gospel to make it more appealing to Gentiles.23 They also rejected the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John, preferring a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel,24 in addition to the Bible Jesus read, the Old Testament. Nazarene Jewish believers in the late second century appear to have accepted the four canonical Gospels as sacred Scripture, but did not accord Pauline epistles with similar approval (Bauer 1971:259–260). In short, some Jewish followers of Jesus (though by no means all) seem to have been unable to accept the legitimacy of “Gentile believers.” Given that the Hebrew term ywg (goy) is sometimes translated in the Bible as pagan, sometimes heathen, and sometimes Gentile, we often have little comprehension of just how stigmatized and paradoxical the phrase goyim believers must have seemed to early Jewish followers of Jesus. Though most Bible translators diplomatically render its Greek equivalent as “Gentile believers” (Ac 15:23, 21:25), it could just as well have been rendered “pagan” or “heathen believers”—and doubtless would have by some first-century Jewish Christians. How else could they explain the propensity of Greek believers to eat blood cuisine? Interestingly, recent scholarship has shown that the Judaizers of Scripture may not all have been Jewish followers of Jesus, but non-Christian Jews who preyed upon Gentile believers as easy converts to Judaism (Nanos 2002). Whatever the case may be, Scripture is clear that some Jews (be they all followers of Jesus or not) were teaching that Gentile followers of Jesus needed to follow the whole Law to be saved. Paul was quick to correct such legalistic perversion with very strong language.  Under the Law, Works of the Law, Curse of the Law In Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians, we find ten occurrences of the phrase “under the law” (upo nomon), ten occurrences of “works of the law” (erga nomou), and one occurrence of “curse of the law”. Whatever Paul was trying to communicate with these phrases, he clearly believed they had potential to ensnare or deceive. To be under the law is not to be led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18). We are justified by faith, not by works of the law (Rom 3:28). And the curse of the law is something from which Christ freed us (Gal 3:13). It may therefore seem that in contrast to Jesus’ teaching on the Law, Paul taught that the Law is of little value to us today—as   Ebionite Jewish Christians rejected Paul entirely, accusing him of watering down the requirements of the Gospel to make it more appealing to Gentiles.19 21:1 Spring 2004 Joshua Massey  many Gentile Christian scholars have concluded. However, such conclusions are incongruous with Paul’s teaching that the law is “holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12), and that “the law is good if one uses it properly” (1 Tim 1:8). How then are we to understand these apparent contradictions? David Stern explains that Greek language in Paul’s day had no single term like “legalism” to easily distinguish between a proper use of the Law and its perversion. Therefore, Paul used creative terms like upo nomon (under the law) and erga nomou (works of the law). Unfortunately, literal translations of these phrases do not really help us Gentiles understand the vital distinction Paul was trying to make. Though at first, they appear to belittle the Law, many modern scholars believe they are not actually directed against the Law itself but against its misuse and abuse.25 In his Jewish New Testament, Stern therefore renders erga nomou (works of the law) as “legalistic observance of particular Torah commands.” Similarly, he renders upo nomon (under the law) as “in subjection to the system that results from perverting Torah into legalism.” Stern is convinced that if Bible translators used these renderings in the twenty verses where erga nomou and upo nomon occur, it would radically alter Christian theology of Torah for the better (1991:130). Paul writes that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13). With a confused understanding of Torah, it’s no surprise later Gentiles understood this to say that the Law was a curse. However, a moment’s reflection on the covenant curses in the Law (Deut 27:14–30:19) make it clear Paul is teaching that Christ redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah by becoming cursed for us. In other words, Christ himself suffered the covenant curses so others would not. If all of these New Testament passages are so clear, how then could church history have failed so miserably to understand the Law properly? The Rise of Christian Anti-Semitism The issues leading to the rise of anti-Semitism among early Gentile believers are complex and disturbing. Emperor Hadrian outlawed Judaism and expelled all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE after crushing the Second Jewish Revolt. After the practice of Judaism became illegal, living or worshipping in a way that might appear Jewish became very dangerous. Gentile Christians therefore began to systematically purge the church of any observance or symbol that might look Jewish. This intentional differentiation from all things Jewish was understandable for survival, and surely within the rights of Gentiles who were free to magnify Christ within the richness of their own culture. However, Gentile exercise of freedom soon led them to challenge the Apostolic tradition itself, which in turn paved the way for unsettling developments in Gentile Christian attitudes toward Jews, Judaism and the Jewish context of the Gospel. Sometime after 135, a dispute broke out at the church in Jerusalem about whether or not to celebrate Jesus’ crucifixion on 14 Nisan, the eve of Jewish Passover when paschal lambs were slain. Prior to 135, all fifteen Jewish bishops of the Jerusalem church celebrated Passover with all other Jews on 14 Nisan (the date of Jesus’ crucifixion, which didn’t always fall on “Friday”26), followed by the Feast of Resurrection on 16 Nisan (which similarly didn’t always fall on “Sunday”27). But after the exodus of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem in 135, some Gentile Christians no longer wanted to observe Passover on 14 Nisan (also called the Quartodeciman Passover), lest they be accused of being Jewish. Others insisted they should, based on the example and teaching of the Apostles, later documented in Apostolic Constitutions (an apparent compilation of apostolic instruction and tradition), which reads, “you shall not change the calculation of time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren who came out from the circumcision. With them, observe the Passover”(5:17). Who had authority to settle such a dispute?  In 135 when Jerusalem was evacuated by Jewish Christians—many fleeing east beyond the reach of Roman oppression—Christianity essentially lost its center for church authority. Many Western Gentile Christians later alleged this authority shifted to Rome, though both Greek and Aramaic-speaking Eastern Gentile Christians insisted otherwise, as they do today.28 Nonetheless, Western Gentile Christians were determined to break dependence on the Jewish lunar calendar by eventually developing their own solar calendrical system to calculate alternate dates for Passover (renamed “Good Friday”29) and the Feast of Resurrection (renamed “Easter”30). Throughout the second century, all churches of Asia Minor continued to commemorate Christ’s crucifixion (called “Passover” by Jewish Christians) on 14 Nisan. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp (69–155) left Asia in 150 to visit Rome, where Pope Anicetus tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to relinquish his Quartodeciman Passover observance. Polycarp insisted his observance of Passover on 14 Nisan was learned directly from the Apostle John himself (Eusebius, Church History 5:24). Nevertheless, Pope Victor (c. 189-99) rashly condemned Asian Christians as heretics for their unwillingness to abandon Quartodeciman observance. Latin propensities to break all ties with Judaism made little sense to most Eastern Christians. By the fourth century Gentile Christians throughout Syria and Mesopotamia continued to observe Passover on 14 Nisan, causing Constantine no small concern since Easter was then celebrated in the important city of Antioch on a different day than in the West—as it is today. Nicene efforts to reconcile these differences ultimately failed. But when Eastern bishops were coerced at the Council of Antioch (341) to accept the Western system of reckoning Easter after the spring equinox, the break from the Jewish calendar was complete. Good Friday and Easter became solar dates for Gentile Christians, whereas Passover has always been lunar for Jews and Jewish Christians—on the fourteenth day of the new moon of Nisan. Nonetheless, International Journal of Frontier Missions Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 20  many Messianic Jews today still do not celebrate Jesus’ resurrection according to a western or eastern solar-reckoning of “Easter”, but by the lunar Sfirat Haomer, the Feast of First Fruits (sometimes called Yom HaBikkurim) on 16 Nisan (Kasdan 1993:39–47). Concurrent with paschal reckoning debates in the second century, a strident anti-Semitism began to permeate the Gentile church, albeit gradually and with significant regional variation. Gentile church fathers—mostly Western—like Tertullian and Hippolytus wrote lengthy polemics entitled “Against the Jews” to show their Roman rulers that they were upstanding citizens of the empire, while Jews persisted in violent national aspirations and superstitions. Cyprian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and many others continued this adversos Judaeos literary tradition in subsequent centuries. The tension between Gentile and Jewish Christians wasn’t goaded only by ongoing efforts of Judaizers, but also by strong opposition from non-Christian Jewish leaders. After vast numbers of God-fearing Gentiles left the synagogues to join Christian churches, Jewish leaders opposed Christians in open debates. Hebrew-knowing rabbis would often humiliate Gentile Christians who could only use the Greek Septuagint to advance their arguments. Any non-Arabic-knowing Christian who has tried to use a translation of the Qur’an to evangelize an Arab Muslim will understand when I say that Jews were less than impressed with Gentiles quoting a questionable Greek translation of the Old Testament to convince them that Jesus was Messiah.31 But unlike Paul who was willing to be “cursed and cut off from Christ” if it could save his Jewish brethren (Rom 9:3), many Gentile Christians did not respond to Jewish hostility by “loving their enemies.”  Ironically, by the third century anti-Semitism led Gentile Christians to repeat the same errors of early Judaizers whom Paul loathed so much. Instead of Judaizing Gentiles, Christians began Gentilizing Jews. By the fourth century, Christians demanded that Jews renounce all things Jewish as satanic before they could follow Christ (Parkes 1974:397). When the christological controversies heated up in the fourth century, a common strategy to mock one’s opponent was to accuse them of using “Jewish ideas”. The church had become so thoroughly purged of its Jewish heritage by the fourth century that many Gentile church fathers believed Jewish followers of Jesus were not “true Christians.” In his exhaustive refutation of eighty heresies, Epiphanius of Salamis (315–403), a bulwark of Nicene theology, describes fourth-century Nazarenes whom he credits as being heirs of first-century Jewish Christianity, but maligns as “nothing but Jews” in Panarion 29:7–9, The Nazarenes are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do. They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion—except for their belief in Christ. They acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things. They declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. They are different from Jews, and different from Christians. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law—circumcision, Sabbath, and the rest—they are not in accord with Christians. Today, Nazarenes are found in Beroea, near Coele-Syria, in the Decapolis near Pella, and in Bashanitis at the place called Khokhabe in Hebrew. For that was their place of origin, since the disciples had settled in Pella after... Christ told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it because of its coming siege. People like these are refutable at once ... they are nothing but Jews. Yet they are very much the Jews’ enemies. The Jewish people have a hatred of them. Three times a day they say, “God curse the Nazarenes,” for despite their Jewishness, they preach that Jesus is the Christ. (Williams 1987:117ff) Epiphanius concludes his description of Nazarenes by likening them to an insect, “though small yet still causes pain with its poison” which he has “squashed with the truth” of his refutation (Williams 1987:119). Who among first-century Jewish followers of Jesus could have imagined the irony that lay ahead when “orthodox” Gentile church fathers would be unable to accept the legitimacy of “Jewish believers”? Christian hatred toward Jewish “Christ killers” escalated to unbelievable levels, then became codified in the anti-Jewish edicts of Emperor Theodosius in 378. Harnack comments, Such an injustice as that done by the Gentile church to Judaism is almost unprecedented in the annals of history. The Gentile church stripped it of everything; she took away its sacred book; herself but a transformation of Judaism, she cut off all connection with the parent religion. The daughter first robbed her mother, and then repudiated her! (1962:69) Sadly, this repudiation continued for many centuries.32 Hitler need only quote the writings of German-born Martin Luther, father of Protestantism, to sell his holocaust to German Christians. “What then shall we Christians do,” Luther asked, “with this damned, rejected race of Jews?” Luther’s answer still haunts us today: First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down. Thirdly, their prayerbooks and Talmuds should be taken from them. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. Fifthly, you ought not, you cannot, protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination. Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. Seventhly, we ought to drive the rascally lazybones out of our system. To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden—the Jews. (Pelikan 1962:268) Elsewhere, Luther wrote, “Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew” (1543). Hitler extolled Luther not only as a great reformer, but also as a “one of the great warriors in this world who ... [was] pre21 21:1 Spring 2004 Joshua Massey  pared to carry the fight for their ideas and ideals to their end” (1971:213). Naturally, such events and attitudes toward the Jewish people and Judaism greatly affected the way later Gentile Christians understood the Jewish context of Jesus, his apostles, and the New Testament. Furthermore, these misunderstandings were not only reflected in the theology of post-second-century Gentile church fathers, but they also inevitably affected countless Gentile Bible translations which fail to help the reader distinguish between the proper use of Torah and its perversion. This unfortunate reality prompted David Stern, among others, to retranslate the entire New Testament to “restore its Jewishness” (1989). It has also prompted a refreshing and vigorous scholarly quest today for what has been termed “the historical Jesus.”33 According to N. T. Wright, whom Tim Stafford of Christianity Today profiled in 1999 as one of five “new” theologians (new in the sense of replacing scholars in top academic positions) who have something of importance to say to the church, Many Christians have been, frankly, sloppy in their thinking and talking about Jesus, and hence, sadly, in their praying and in their practice of discipleship. We cannot assume that by saying the word Jesus, still less the word Christ, we are automatically in touch with the real Jesus who walked and talked in first-century Palestine.... Nor will it do to suggest that because we have the Gospels in our New Testaments, we know all we need to know about Jesus. ...Christian traditions have often radically misunderstood the picture of Jesus in those Gospels, and only by hard, historical work can we move toward a fuller comprehension of what the Gospels themselves were trying to say (1999:10). Delighting in the Law then is not to be “under the Law” or to submit to its legalistic observance. Both Messianic Jews and Gentile missionaries to Muslims, must, of course, be careful not to pervert the Law into legalism. The liberating Gospel of the Kingdom is meant to permeate every culture and put its worldview to the service of the Gospel without need to Judaize, Gentilize, or Westernize (Bosch 1991:50–51; Walls 1996:7–8). However, because the worldview of Muslims is ultimately Semitic and extremely similar to Hebraic categories of thought, we may be wise to exercise our freedom by living more like Jesus and his apostles, emulating their deep respect for and observance of the Torah. The Law is good if one uses it properly (1 Ti 1:8). For incarnational ministry to Muslims, I submit, the Law is crying out to be used properly, and truly is, as the Psalmist wrote, “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps 119:105). IJFM To be continued in Volume 21:2 of IJFM. Bibliography Bacchoiocchi, Samuele 1977 From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press. 1988 Divine Rest for Human Restlessness: A Theological Study of the Good News of the Sabbath for Today. Berrian Springs: Biblical Perspectives.  Bauer, Walter 1971 Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Mifflintown: Sigler Press.  Bivin, David and Blizzard, Roy 1994 Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. Dayton: Center for Judaic-Christian Studies. Bosch, David J. 1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Missions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.  Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L.  1970 The Septuagint Version: Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.  Brown, Michael L. 1992 Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People. Shippensburg: Destiny Image Publishers.  Carson, D. A.  1999 From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan 1997 The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Cranfield, C. E. B. 1981 Romans (International Critical Commentary) Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Ltd.  Daniélou, Jean 1964 The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminister Press. Dunn, James D. G.  1990 Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: John Knox Press. 1998 The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2001 Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2003 Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Fischer, John 1990 “Jesus and Early Judaism,” Messianic Outreach 9:4 (Summer 1990).  Friedman, David  2001 They Loved the Torah. Baltimore: Lederer Books.  Harnack, Adolf (von) 1962 The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. New York: Harper and Brothers.  Heschel, Abraham Joshua 1996 The Sabbath. New York: Noonday Press.  Hitler, Adolf 1971 Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Online edition: <http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1 ch08.html> Kasdan, Barney  1993 God’s Appointed Times: A Practical Guide for Understanding and Celebrating the Biblical Holidays. Baltimore: Messianic Jewish Publishers.  Lamsa, George M. 1990 Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Luedemann, Gerd 1989 Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.  Luther, Martin 1543 On the Jews and Their Lies. Translated by Martin H. Bertram <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html> Massey, Joshua  2000 “The Amazing Diversity of God in Drawing Muslims to Christ,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1):5–14. Nanos, Mark D.  2002 The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.  Parkes, James  1974 The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. New York: Atheneum.  Patzia, Arthur G.  1995 The Making of the New Testament: International Journal of Frontier Missions Living Like Jesus, a Torah Observant Jew 22  Origin, Collection and Canon. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.  Pelikan, Jaroslav (ed.) 1962 Luther’s Complete Works, vol. 47. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Poliakov, Leon 2003 The History of Anti-Semitism, Vols 1–3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sanders, E. P. 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.  1987 Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Stern, David H. 1989 Jewish New Testament. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications. 1991 Messianic Jewish Manifesto. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.  Travis, John 2000 “Messianic Muslim Followers of Jesus: A Closer Look at C5,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1):53–59. Walls, Andrew F. 1996 The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.  Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi  1997 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.  Williams, Frank (trans.)  1997 The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1. New York: Brill Academic Publishers. Wright, N. T.  1992 The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1997a Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1997b The Original Jesus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1999 The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Young, Brad H.  1995 Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.  1997 Paul the Jewish Theologian. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.  Footnotes 1 “Pro-C4” and “pro-C5” refer to missionaries who favor the use of biblically permissible Islamic forms by “C4” Muslim background believers and “C5” Muslim followers of Jesus (cf. Massey 2000; Travis 2000). 2 1 Tim 1:8 NIV. 3 All biblical citations are from the RSV, unless otherwise noted. 4 The tittle of the yod is the small point projecting from its upper edge. 5 Jesus evidenced strong disagreement with this rabbinic theory that the entire corpus of tradition termed “Oral Law” was of Sinaitic origin (Mt 15:6–8), as have many other Jews based on Deut 4:2. However, according to Jeremiah, God had previously given specific commands regarding Sabbath observance, commands which are not found in the Pentateuch (Jer 17:21–22). Nehemiah reports the same (Neh 10:29–31). Therefore, it may well be that some Oral Law does indeed legitimately originate from God, which would explain why many early Jewish Christians continued to obey much of the Oral Law, alongside Biblical Law. 6 A collection of “living water” (rain, spring, or running water from a flowing river) for the purpose of immersion for ritual purification (Lev 11:36). 7 Modern Jewish scholars are divided on the date when Noahic Laws gained prominence in Jewish missiology. Some argue these seven laws were formulated during the Hasmonean period (166–37 BCE), while others assert they originated in ancient Hittite law (Werblowsky 1997:504). 8 Mt 19:16–17. 9 Ex 12:48. 10 Joh 6:53–56; 1 Cor 5:7, 11:27. 11 Mt 28:18; Lk 2:21. 12 Ex 4:24–26. 13 Ac 16:3. 14 1 Tim 1:8. 15 Ps 1:1–2. 16 cf. Jer 21:10, 44:11. 17 e.g., Mt 23:30, 27:6; Rev 19:2. 18 Dinuguan, for example, is a Filipino delicacy of cow intestines cooked in blood stew. 19 Ac 21:20, Jewish New Testament. 20 Ex 4:22. 21 Gen 17:12–13; Ex 12:17, 31:16. 22 Several excellent studies of the Sabbath deserve review (Bacchoiocchi 1977, 1988; Carson 1999; Heschel 1996). 23 See Jean Daniélou’s classic work on Ebionites (1964:55–64), as well as Gerd Luedemann’s Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (1989). 24 Some scholars assert that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts were in fact originally written in Hebrew, then immediately translated into Greek (Bivin 1994:1–65). Still others have insisted for centuries that the entire New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his apostles, and that many discrepancies in Greek manuscripts are a consequence of their being translations of the Aramaic originals, preserved today in the ancient Peshitta text (Lamsa 1990:ii,vi). 25 See the stimulating work of David Stern (1991:129ff), C. E. B. Cranfield (1981:853), James D. G. Dunn (1990:219ff; 1998:140–43,354-66; 2001), and E. P. Sanders (1977:474ff), whom N. T. Wright credits as “probably the most influential NT scholar in the English-speaking world” (1997b:155). 26 Unlike the Julian calendar operational at the time, Jewish “weekdays” did not have names but numbers, one through seven. 27 See previous note. 28 Namely, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East <www.cired.org>. 29 Western Gentile Christians emphasized the Julian weekday “Friday” on which the crucifixion occurred, not the lunar day of the Jewish month reckoned significant by Jewish and Eastern Gentile Christians due to its proximity to Passover and its theological relation to Jesus’ crucifixion (Joh 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7).  30 Space does permit a fuller discussion on the etymology of Easter from Eostre (Ostara), the Teutonic goddess of the rising sun, or from aster, the Greek for “star” in Revelation 22:16. However, the growing anti-Jewish climate of the day and the potential for “contextual” wordplay surely would have contributed to its perceived suitability among Gentile Christians eager to differentiate their faith from Judaism. 31 Given widespread acknowledgement that the quality of translation in the Septuagint was sorely lacking in many texts, three new Greek translations of the Old Testament were done in the second century CE—two by Ebionite Jewish Christians, Symmachus and Theodotion, and one by a non-Christian Jew named Aquila (Brenton 1970:v). 32 For the sordid details of Christian anti-Semitism over the centuries, see the work of Dan Cohn-Sherbok (1997), Michael Brown (1992), and the voluminous work of Leon Poliakov (2003). 33 In addition to the formidable work of N. T. Wright (1992, 1997a), see E. P. Sanders’ celebrated volume, Jesus and Judaism (1987), and James D. G. Dunn’s phenomenal study, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2003), about which Christianity Today said, “This book needs to be read. Dunn combines immense erudition with deep Christian commitment. Those who would correct Dunn have their work cut out for them.” Misunderstanding C5 and the Infinite Translatability of Christ Why C5 has been so misunderstood by its critics By Joshua Massey magine for a moment that your best friend has been given the responsibility of writing your biography. How accurate do you think he can write about your love life? Is there anyone who could really put your private story into words accurately on paper? The heart is infinitely complex, as is any love relationship. How much more difficult is it to describe the fullness of a love relationship between man and God? Add to this complexity an even greater hurdle: the lover and his audience of readers are rooted in two radically different cultures. Such is the challenge of describing a C5 Muslim follower of Jesus1 (the lover) to most Christians (the readers) today. Even the most sincere Christians can easily misunderstand C5 when judging it from: (1) Greco-Roman categories of orthodoxy, instead of a Jewish understanding of Christ’s mandate; (2) a distance, and not in relationship with C5 Muslim believers who follow Christ whole-heartedly as Lord; and (3) ecclessiocentric rather than christocentric missiology. Christianity: A Greco-Roman Translation. It is difficult to overestimate the powerful influence of Greco- Roman thought on Gentile Christianity today. As Andrew Walls observes in his celebrated The Missionary Movement in Christian History, Jewish identity has always been concerned either with what a person is and what he does rather than what he believes. But when the Christian faith [i.e., ‘Jewish Messianism’] began to penetrate the Hellenistic Roman world, it encountered a total system of thought [with] a certain inbuilt arrogance, a feature it has never quite lost despite the mutations through which the Hellenistic Roman legacy has gone in its transmission over the centuries to other peoples, and despite the penetration effected by the Christian faith. Basically, it maintained that there is one desirable pattern of life, a single “civilization” in effect, one model of society, one body of law, one universe of ideas. Accordingly, there are in essence two types of humanity: people who share that pattern and those ideas, and people who do not. There 1 “C5” refers to Christ-centered communities of Muslims who follow Jesus as Lord (cf. Massey 2000; Travis 2000). are Greeks—a cultural, not an ethnic term—and there are barbarians. There are civilized people who share a common heritage, and there are savages who do not (1996:18). Christian penetration of this total Greek system of thought put its traditions of codification and organization to work for the service of the Gospel. According to Walls, The result was orthodoxy: logically expounded belief set in codified form, established through a process of consultation, and maintained through effective organization. Hellenistic-Roman civilization offered a total system of thought, and expected general conformity to its norms. The Christian penetration of the system inevitably left it a total system (:19). Conformity to codified doctrine determined by the ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451) became supremely important—no matter how foreign or strange such doctrine would have sounded to Christ’s Jewish apostles. Non-conformity led to ostracism and exile, sometimes even rioting and death (Moffet 1998:174). The ‘in-built arrogance’ of Greco-Roman thought can surely be seen throughout Western church history, such as in Martin Luther’s teaching that the Book of James is “an epistle of straw… which contradicts Paul by teaching justification by works.” Luther’s audacious claim about this most basic component of Jewish life and identity led others to question the canonicity of James altogether. How could the revered founder of the Protestant Reformation so misinterpret James’ statement, deeply rooted as it was in the Jewish origins of our faith? Asked another way, how could a Gentile, born nearly 1500 years after Jesus and his apostles, question with bold impudence the teaching of James (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Council) regarding a most central and core biblical teaching—the mitzvah of doing of good works—replete throughout Scripture in both the Bible Jesus read and the New Testament?2 Could it be that Luther actually believed his system of doctrinal codification held together so well that it enabled him to pass judgment on James, the very one who boldly 2 See Lev. 19:18,34, 25:35; Isa. 58:7; Mic. 6:8; Mt. 3:8, 5:16, 1 Pet. 2:12, 1 Ti. 2:10, 3:14, 6:18; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 10:24. I EMQ 2 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 declared before the Jerusalem Council that Gentiles need not convert to Judaism to follow Jesus as Lord (Ac. 15:13–20)? Who among the early Jewish disciples could have imagined the irony that lay ahead when future Gentiles like Luther would question the teaching of the very leader who legitimized Gentile believers as full citizens of the Kingdom at a time when most believers were Torahobservant Jews (Ac. 21:20)? Could it also be that many Gentile Christians today, like Luther, are similarly constrained by our own theological constructs (largely inherited from our Greco-Roman, not Jewish, fathers in the faith) that we are quick to filter every expression of cross-cultural love for God through an elaborate grid of doctrinal codifications to determine whether or not they are ‘orthodox’? And what does it tell us about our grid if even Messianic Jewish believers today, when judged by its standard, don’t quite measure up to ‘our orthodoxy’?3 When one empirical study of a large C5 movement reported that more than half of the Muslim believers interviewed said God is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” concern was expressed about those who said otherwise, especially because (1) the movement is over fifteen years old, (2) many respondents were leaders, and (3) they had access to the New Testament (Parshall 1998:406). Understanding theos (God) as triune was surely common among Gentile Christians in the fourth century, but only after, in Walls’ terms, the gospel had penetrated and permeated a rather arrogant Greek system of thought which applied its traditions of codification and organization to theology, culminating in the development of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Given the severe penalties over the centuries for those who did not conform to the elaborate and highly nuanced language of doctrinal fidelity, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to learn that the New Testament provides little evidence to suggest this understanding of theos was widespread or common in earliest Christianity. In fact, few biblical scholars who affirm the Trinity would dispute the statement of William Rusch, who writes “No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament” (1980:2). They are quick to add, however, that evidence of a ‘threefold pattern’ is present in the New Testament, probably originating from Jesus himself (Mt. 28:19). Nonetheless, the fact that not one biblical writer felt it necessary to extrapolate from this threefold pattern that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit should cause us to pause in the above-mentioned evaluation of the C5 movement. Are we evaluating movements of Christ-followers by asking questions the apostles never asked, using criteria the apostles never used? Such criteria become even more suspect when we consider the work of several eminent Christian theologians who have dedicated a good portion of their lives to researching the christology of earliest Christianity before the gospel permeated Greco-Roman categories of thought. 3 Most Messianic Jews today have a radically different understanding of circumcision, Sabbath, and the Mosaic Law than most evangelicals (cf. Stern 1991; Massey 2004:14–21). Numerous theologians have shown that Second Temple Jewish listeners would not likely have heard any claims to deity in the messianic title “son of God”, but rather a claim to kingly authority anointed to rule and reign as the promised son of David, who, along with Solomon, was also called God’s son (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chr. 17:13; Ps. 2:7, 89:27).4 Though rarely mentioned in churches or programs training missionaries to Muslims, this is nothing new in theological circles. Even The NIV Study Bible documents the rationale for such an understanding in a note on Psalm 2:7, In the ancient Near East the relationship between a great king and one of his subject [vassal] kings, who ruled by his authority and owed him allegiance, was expressed not only by the words “lord” and “servant”, but also by “father” and “son.” The Davidic king was the Lord’s “servant” and his “son” (2Sa 7:5,14). According to N. T. Wright, whom Christianity Today profiled in 1999 as one of five ‘new’ theologians (new in the sense of replacing scholars in top academic positions) who have something of importance to say to the church, It is commonly supposed among Christians and non- Christians alike that the word Messiah carries connotations of “divinity,” so that if Jesus is shown to have thought of himself as Messiah, that means he thought of himself as divine. This is simply not the case. The would-be Messiahs of Second Temple Judaism did not, so far as we know, think of themselves in this way, nor did their followers attribute divinity to them. And, since the phrase “son of God” in this period functioned as a messianic title, it did not carry in and of itself the overtones of “divinity” that later Christian theology would hear in it. (1999:107) Wright is not trying to strip Christ of his greatness or uniqueness, for Christ alone is the way, the truth and the life (Joh. 14:6). Nonetheless, as we try to understand how God’s kingdom is advancing among Muslim nations, we must not overlook the way earliest Jewish Christianity perceived Christ’s supremacy, especially when their understanding might be somewhat different from that of later Gentile Christianity. It is interesting to ponder how comfortable James, Peter, and other Jewish leaders of the Jerusalem Council would have been with the language of later Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds—a language which continues to dominate our own perception of orthodoxy, as evidenced by Parshall’s critique above. For a variety of complex reasons, Gentile church fathers felt it necessary to describe Jesus in ways that New Testament writers never did: “true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father; actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body; of the same reality as God regarding his deity and of the same reality as we ourselves regarding his humanity; the properties of each nature are conserved and 4 See the profoundly relevant work of Rick Brown (2000), Colin Brown (1991:87–90), and James D. G. Dunn (2003:12–64). EMQ 3 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 both natures concur in one person and in one reality; born of Mary the virgin God-bearer.” Peter, the first leader of the first church in Jerusalem, chose to describe Jesus quite differently as “a man attested by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him” (Ac. 2:22, RSV).5 Peter also opened his first epistle with an interesting distinction between God and Jesus, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1 Pet. 1:3). If Peter shared the same christology expressed in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, why would he describe the Father as Jesus’ God? Paul also seemed to distinguish between God (Greek theos) and Jesus: “there is one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6); and “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Ti. 2:5). Of course, the verses above are generally not used to prove Christ’s deity. Several commentators have stated that if Romans 9:5 is translated correctly, it is the clearest proclamation of Christ’s deity in all the New Testament. Accurate translation in this case is actually a matter of correct punctuation. Because the earliest New Testament manuscripts do not contain punctuation, scholars who compare and contrast ancient copies must determine where to put commas and periods before publishing a Greek New Testament. Obviously, choices in punctuation can radically affect the meaning of a given sentence. Many punctuate Rom. 9:5 so as to portray Paul calling Jesus ‘God’. However, the RSV punctuates Rom. 9:5 quite differently. Bruce M. Metzger (clearly among the preeminent Biblical Greek scholars today) and the majority of the United Bible Societies’ Committee on the Greek New Testament explain why in their Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: ...nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate o Cristov [Christos] as yeov [theos]. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology, it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed forever. (1971:522) Tantamount to impossible? How could the majority of such an elite team of biblical scholars reach such a strong and sweeping conclusion? When observing how many English Bible translations differ from the RSV on this verse, it becomes obvious that translators are far from united on this point. Nonetheless, the fact that these New Testament scholars know their Greek better than most of us ever will should probably cause us to pause and ask: Has the language of Nicea and Chalcedon (the “traditions of our fathers”) become more familiar to us than the language of Paul himself, such that we are quick to assume his phraseology is more like our own when in fact it is not? A different but related question must also be asked at this point: Does the language of Nicea and Chalcedon (and our understanding of it) form the universal litmus test for orthodoxy which all nations must follow? Or is the biblical 5 All biblical quotations will use the RSV, unless otherwise noted. language of Paul, James and Peter adequate in and of itself for the nations to describe Christ’s greatness as Lord and Savior, whom God exalted above all rule, power and dominion, now seated at the right hand of the Father with all authority in heaven and on earth (Ac. 5:31; 2 Pet. 1:11; Eph. 1:21; Col. 3:1; Mt. 28:18)? Interestingly, James D. G. Dunn believes that the argument on the punctuation of Romans 9:5 “certainly favours a reference to Christ as ‘god’”; however, Dunn adds, The punctuation intended by Paul and the meaning of the doxology is too uncertain for us to place any weight on it. Paul’s style is notably irregular and a doxology to Christ as god at this stage would be even more unusual than an unexpected twist in grammatical construction. Even if Paul does bless Christ as ‘god’ here, the meaning of ‘god’ remains uncertain.... Is it a title of exaltation, like ‘Son of God’ in the then parallel Rom. 1:3? — a status of honour (‘god over all’) accorded to Christ at his resurrection, like ‘Lord’ (cf. Acts 10:36; 1 Cor. 15:24–26; Phil. 2:9–11) which however Paul uses to distinguish the exalted Christ from God? Or is there a deliberate echo of Psalm 45:2 and 6, where the king is addressed as god? Or is it another way of saying ‘God was in Christ...’ (2 Cor. 5:19)? Whatever the correct rendering of the text, it is by no means clear that Paul thinks of Christ here as pre-existent god. (1996:45) Regarding the hymn of Philippians 2:6–7 describing Jesus, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men”, Colin Brown, editor of the respected New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, writes, I have to say that I agree with those scholars who say that the point of the hymn is not a comparison between Christ’s pre-existent state as the divine Son in glory and his state of humiliation as a servant. Rather, it is a comparison between Christ and Adam in which the term “form of God” is the equivalent of saying “image of God.”6 Whereas Adam who was made to be God’s image refused to be content with that and sought to be “like God” (Gen. 2:5), Jesus as God’s Christ, the anointed messianic Son, chose the role of a servant. ... The emptying of Phil. 2:6 does not seem to me to have anything to do with a supposed metaphysical change of states, but has everything to do with the life of servanthood, which Paul calls upon his readers to practise in following the servant Paul (Phil. 1:1, 3:17), and, above all, Christ Jesus, the servant par excellence whose self-emptying culminated in the outpouring of his life on the cross (cf. Isa. 53:12). (1991:92) 6 The synonymous nature of these two phrases is evident in the Septuagint. See also Brown’s detailed exegetical discussion on this passage in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (1998:6–42). EMQ 4 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Recent evangelical scholarship has challenged so many traditional assumptions about Paul’s christology that Gordon D. Fee, though he acknowledges that the New Testament contains no explicit doctrine of the Trinity (1999:49), felt it necessary to present a paper at an international “Trinity Summit” in 1998 to, in his own words, “examine the Pauline christological and pneumatological data once again, with a view towards seeing Paul as a latent trinitarian” (1999:51). If top evangelical scholars can at best only demonstrate Paul was a latent trinitarian, how can we demand that all peoples, no matter their worldview, be blatant trinitarians? Though it took Gentile Christian fathers several centuries to formulate Trinitarian doctrine, is the faith of Muslim Christ-followers to be doubted if they don’t blatantly arrive at the same conclusions after only fifteen years? If the majority of the UBS Committee on the Greek New Testament believes it is “tantamount to impossible” that Paul would have called Jesus yeov [theos], on what basis can we insist all that peoples must affirm Jesus is “God”? John 1:1 is often cited as evidence that John equated Jesus with God. However, according to Colin Brown, It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: “In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God” (John 1:1). What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning. But if we follow carefully the thought of John’s Prologue, it is the Word that preexisted eternally with God and is God. The same Word that made all things and is the light that enlightens humankind “became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14; cf. vv. 3 and 8). In other words, Son-language in John denotes the Word made flesh in Jesus who as such speaks God’s Word to human beings on earth. (1991:89) Although many Gentile church fathers clearly understood this distinction, Brown explains how patristic talk of the Logos as the “only begotten” became a source of endless problems in thinking about the Trinity. One is left wondering whether the thorny questions of later ages might have been avoided if the church fathers had not embarked on the language of the “eternal generation” of the Son. How things might have been different, if the fathers had kept strictly to the language of John’s Prologue as their paradigm for speaking of Trinity and Incarnation. What pre-exists is not the Son per se, but the Logos. In John the Logos is not begotten or generated. The Logos was with God and was God, and in the course of time became flesh as the Son. (:90) Furthermore, if John wanted his readers to understand that Jesus is ‘God’, why would he write in 1:14 that we have beheld Jesus’ glory then say in 1:18 that “No one has ever seen God”? When writing this, John was doubtless not only mindful of Jesus’ testimony in 14:9 (“He who has seen me has seen the Father”), but he appears to have provided in 1:18b his own commentary on its meaning, “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” In other words, while no one can see God in all his fullness, the fullness of God so dwelt in Jesus that he showed the Father to us, making God known to mankind more fully than any prophetic utterance or vision ever could. Paul puts it similarly, “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God .... For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things” (Col. 1:15, 19–20). For this reason, many theologians describe the incarnation (the Word became flesh) not as the human birth of an eternally pre-existent Son within the Godhead, but as the self-revelation of God in Christ. Or some put it, Jesus is the human face of God (Robinson 1973). Being “one with the Father” (Joh. 10:30) does not necessarily imply a proclamation of eternal preexistence, especially given Jesus’ prayer that all believers are to be one (en) “just as (kaywv) we are one” (17:21–23). If we become one, just as Jesus is one with the Father, do we somehow become each other? While we may differ with John A. T. Robinson on several important points, his description of Jesus’ oneness with the Father in The Priority of John is most helpful: A man’s best agent is his son, as in the parable of Mark 12:6, for no one else could be better guaranteed to represent him and his interests. Everything the father was and had was his. And John makes explicit even more than the Synoptists this Hebraic understanding of sonship. To be a ‘son of’ means to do the ‘works of’, to reflect the nature of (‘like father like son’), whether this be of God or Abraham or the Devil (8:31–47; cf. 1 John 3:7–12). And this functional understanding is brought home in 10:31–38, where the Jews charge Jesus with blasphemy: ‘You, a mere man, claim to be a god.’ He replies that their own Scriptures (Ps. 82:6) call those to whom the word of God came ‘gods’—referring probably either to Moses, who is described as being ‘as God’ to Pharaoh (Ex. 4:16; 7:1) and who is boldly called ‘God’ by Philo, or (as the thrust of the psalm would suggest) to the judges of the Old Testament, to whom men were to go ‘as to God’ (Ex. 21:6; 22:8f, 28): they represented God, acted in his place, just as Jesus is claiming to do. ... the conclusion is assumed (in the rabbinic manner) for it forms the presupposition of what follows: “Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I ... said I am God’s son.” (1987:373–374) Given that Jesus is “is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb. 1:3 NASB), he is clearly far greater than any prophet, judge or former ‘representative of God’ as mentioned above. Nonetheless, Jesus’ citation of Psalm 82:6, in essence, seems to frame his defense in their biblical inconsistency and logical incongruity: “You are going to stone me for making myself elohim? The Torah bears witness that God himself addressed the judges and rulers of this world as elohim, but I EMQ 5 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 have only called myself his Son” (i.e., his royal representative and agent). Jesus apparently denied the charge. Surely, however, Thomas clearly addressed Jesus as “my God” (Joh. 20:28). But what might Thomas have meant as a monotheistic Jew who from childhood recited the shema (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”, Deut 6:4)? Unlike strict Christian usage of the term ‘God’ in English today, Hebrew usage of the corresponding term elohim was radically different throughout Jewish history. While English-speaking Christians would not dare call a normal human being ‘god’, the Old Testament bears witness that Hebrew-speaking Jews could not only refer to kings and judges (God’s special agents and representatives) as elohim, but as mentioned above God himself also identified such men as elohim (Ps. 45:6, 82:6; Ex. 21:6, 22:8; cf. Isa 9:6f; Ex. 4:16, 7:1). This is, Dunn notes, “a significant factor when we recall how these Psalm passages are used in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 and John 10:34f. respectively” (1996:17). Dunn continues, More striking still is the degree to which despite its monotheism Judaism in the first century AD and thereafter could accommodate talk of some of its great figures of the past in terms approaching deity. Josephus twice reports the possibility of speculation that Moses had been taken or had returned to the deity. (Ant. III.96f,; IV.326; cf. Philo, Mos. II.288). Philo expounds Ex. 4:16 and 7:1 in several places and does not scruple to say such things of Moses as ‘He (God) appointed him as god’ (Sac. 9), or of one as ‘no longer man but God’ (Prob. 43; see also Som. II.189; Mos. I.158; Qu.Ex. II.29). And in the ‘Moses Remembrance’ of Artapanus (first or second century BC) Moses is said to have been deemed worthy to be honoured like a god .... (Frag. 3.6, in Eusebius, Praep.Ev. IX.27). (:17) Given the first-century Jewish context of the term elohim, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what Thomas may have meant when calling Jesus “my elohim”. What is clear, Dunn states, is that the language of divinity was widespread and varied in the ancient world, and would have been familiar to the contemporaries of Jesus, Paul and John in a wide range of applications. When used in reference to individual human beings it could denote anything from a righteous or pious man, one who lived in close accord with the divine, to a heavenly or semi-heavenly being, including on the way particularly kings and rulers and especially wise or gifted or inspired men. (:17–18) Dunn later states that centuries of Christianity have made us hesitate to be quite so free in our use of the term ‘god’ when speaking of other men. “What we must try to reckon with,” Dunn adds, “is the fact that the contemporaries of the first Christians were not so inhibited” (:18). Once again, Dunn is also not trying to strip Christ of his uniqueness or supremacy, but he has labored with the limitations of biblical exegesis and historical research to understand how earliest Christianity perceived Christ’s incarnation. Dunn’s work therefore is of great relevance to those observing what God is doing among C5 Messianic Muslim movements, where believers are not coached or taught the doctrines of fourth-century church fathers. Instead, all they have is the Bible. And because C5 Messianic Muslims do not filter the Bible through the Neoplatonic worldview of our Greco-Roman church fathers, but through a strict monotheistic worldview not unlike that of Second Temple Judaism, they may not see in the Bible all that our fourth-century church fathers saw. They may even arrive at some different conclusions—some of which may be more similar to earliest Christianity than we can imagine. Jesus’ ability to forgive sin is commonly understood to imply his eternal membership in a Triune Godhead, since only God can forgive sin (Mk. 2:7). Strangely, we often overlook the fact that Jesus apparently delegated this same ability to his disciples, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven” (Joh. 20:23). Obviously, our Christ-given ability to forgive sin does not put us on his level. Only Christ has been exalted as Lord with a name above every name. Nonetheless, the immediate context of this profound declaration is instructive. The resurrected Christ had just breathed on his disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (20:22). It is the presence of God’s Spirit that enables humanity to forgive sin. So along with the revival in christological scholarship over the last several decades have come numerous volumes on Spirit Christology.7 According to Colin Brown, John’s Gospel presents an explicit Word (Logos) Christology accompanied by an implicit Wisdom and Spirit Christology; whereas Matthew, Mark and Luke present an explicit Spirit Christology with an underlying Word Christology. All three [synoptic Gospels] highlight the baptism of Jesus, the consequent descent of the Spirit upon him, and the identification of him as God’s Son (Mk. 1:9–11; Mt. 3:13–17; Lk. 3:21–22). In light of what we have already said about the meaning of the term “Son of God,” Jesus has now been installed with authority as God’s anointed Son-king, his vice-regent. The anointing by the Spirit is not some kind of extra boost to enable him to function better. It is the act which makes him the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed one. It is constitutive for his identity as the messianic Son. Prior to this event, he was the Messiah designate; the anointing makes him the anointed one, the Messiah. ... Matthew and Luke forestall the question of adoptionism with their accounts of the role of the Spirit in the conception of Jesus (Mt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:35). Jesus was who he was because of the role of the Spirit from the first. But he did not enter into his messianic office until his anointing by the Spirit. (1991:94) In our quest to understand how the first Jewish believers understood Christ’s supremacy, Ebionite Jewish Christians8 of the second and third century provide an 7 See e.g., Jesus and the Spirit (1975) and The Christ and the Spirit (1998) by James D. G. Dunn. 8 See Jean Daniélou’s classic work on Ebionites (1964:55–64), Gerd Luedemann’s Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity EMQ 6 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 interesting case-study. While they firmly believed Jesus was the promised Messiah and Savior foretold throughout the Law and the Prophets (Dt. 18:18, Isa. 53, Dan. 7:17), they rejected later Gentile insistence on Jesus’ eternal preexistence. Ebionites clearly affirmed Jesus’ pre-existence in the Hebraic sense (i.e., in the mind, plan, and intentions of God ‘before the foundations of the earth’), consistent with Jewish belief in the pre-existence of the Torah and of Moses. 9 Nonetheless, this to them did not imply an eternal, conscious, personal pre-existence of Jesus as Gentiles later interpreted New Testament documents written by Christ’s Jewish disciples. According to Jesus, the kingdom is also pre-existent, “prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mt. 25:34), as are the names of the righteous “written in the book of life from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 17:8, cf. 13:8). Jesus also said that the blood of the prophets was “shed from the foundation of the world... from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” (Lk. 11:50–51). Shed when? Really? The more we think about when the blood of Abel and Zechariah was actually (dare I say ‘literally’) shed, the more Jesus’ statement assaults our Western sensibilities as an anachronistic impossibility. However, when interpreted from a Jewish understanding of pre-existence (i.e., things foreknown and foreordained in the mind, plans, and intentions of God before creation), Jesus’ statement makes perfect sense. According to Paul, God also chose us in Christ “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4, cf. 1 Pet. 1:20; Heb. 4:3). Is it necessary for us to have personally existed either eternally or consciously to be chosen by God before creation? Surely not, but this does not negate the truth of Paul’s statement within the framework of a Jewish worldview. So is it possible that thousands of Jewish followers of Jesus in earliest Christianity might not have defined the one God of Israel as three co-eternal Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Given that no verse of the New Testament comes close to explicitly describing God in this way, it is not only possible but probable. This obviously should affect the way we process what God is doing in pioneer contexts among Muslim followers of Jesus. However, as seen above, respected evangelical scholars go much further. When James D. G. Dunn’s Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation first came out in 1980, it was chosen by Christianity Today as one of the year’s “Significant Books.” They added, “This book needs to be read. Dunn combines immense erudition with deep Christian commitment. Those who would correct Dunn have their work cut out for them.” Given the praise Dunn received by such evangelical reviews, it is somewhat startling to read him declare that if we limit ourselves to the biblical record—without the traditions added by later Gentile church fathers—and “build (1989), and Bart Ehrman’s insightful synopsis (2003:99–103; cf. 1993:48–118). 9 Cf. “Preexistence” by Kaufmann Kohler and Ludwig Blau, JewishEncyclopedia.com. our theology only with the bricks provided by careful exegesis, we cannot say with any confidence that Jesus knew himself to be divine, the [eternally] pre-existent Son of God” (1996:32). As baffled as we might be by the apparent audacity of such a statement, we must ask: If eminent evangelical theologians can come to such conclusions after decades of comprehensive biblical research in the original languages, be praised by evangelical publications, and hold their theological ground against an onslaught of Christian criticism, how can we condemn C5 Messianic Muslims for simply sticking to the biblical language of Christ’s apostles to describe Jesus as Lord and Savior of all? This brief christological survey in no way intends to suggest that Christ is not divine or that Trinitarian doctrine should be disregarded. The same work of Colin Brown quoted above also states, Let me pause here to stress what exactly I am trying to do. A social Trinitarian might wonder if this line of thought tends to diminish the personal divinity of Christ. My point is exactly the opposite. I am trying to understand how the New Testament presents Jesus as the Christ, and on that basis construct our understanding of Jesus’ divinity and of the Trinity. It is not the title “Son of God” which defines Jesus, it is Jesus who redefines the title in view of who he was and what he did. (1991:89) Similarly, Dunn states, For it was only at Nicea that the hitherto dominant Logos-christology gave way to the dominance of Son of God language. With Logos-christology the emphasis is essentially the same as that in John’s Gospel—on the continuity between Father and the Son, since the Son is the Word, the self-expression of God. ... An emphasis on Christ as the Son, independent of that earlier Logoschristology, can easily become in effect an expression of the very bitheism or tritheism of which Judaism and Islam accuse Christianity. It is of crucial importance for a right appreciation of Christian orthodoxy, therefore, to bear in mind that Father/Son Trinitarian language has to be read and understood within the context of Christian monotheism. If the creedal Son of God language is not understood as an expression of Logos-christology it is misunderstood... [as in] for example, the assumption that the Logos of John 1:1 can be substituted by ‘Christ’, or the argument that Col. 1:15 would have been intended by Paul as a description of Christ. In contrast, classic orthodoxy is that Jesus Christ is he whom the Word of God became in the incarnation. The mistake, or so it seems to me, is the equivalent of treating ‘person’ in the Trinitarian formula (‘one substance, three persons’) as ‘person’ in the sense that we now understand ‘person’, or, more to the point, in the way that Jesus of Nazareth was a person. If the preexistent Word of God, the Son of God, is a person in that sense, then Christianity is unavoidably tritheistic. And if we take texts like Col. 1:15ff as straightforward EMQ 7 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 descriptions of Jesus who came from Nazareth we are committed to an interpretation of that text which has broken clearly and irrevocably from monotheism. Likewise if we assume that the Father/Son language of John’s Gospel has in view more the relationship between the Father and the Son (of Nicene and post- Nicene concern) than the continuity of Logos christology (of pre-Nicene concern), we lose sight of the primary monotheistic control which prevents such language slipping into polytheism. (1996:xxxi) Clearly, scholars are not in agreement on many of the points mentioned above. Articulate rebuttals abound but are beyond the scope of this paper to explore. Nonetheless, the diversity of christologies among many devout and eminent Christian theologians today reveals a profound reality that is easily overlooked when trying to understand C5: translation and worldview wield enormous influence in our perception of Christ, sometimes virtually determining it. Andrew Walls again puts us in his debt by articulating a primary source of christological diversity. Translation is the art of the impossible. Exact transmission of meaning from one linguistic medium to another is continually hampered not only by structural and cultural difference; the words of the receptor language are pre-loaded, and the old cargo drags the new into areas uncharted in the source language. In the end, the translator has simply to do his best and take risks in a high risk business. Translation involves the attempt to express the meaning of the source from the resources of, and within the working system of, the receptor language. Something new is brought into the language, but that new element can only be comprehended by means of and in terms of the pre-existing language and its conventions. In the process, that language and its system is effectively expanded, put to new use; but the translated element from the source language has also, in a sense, been expanded by translation; the receptor language has a dynamic of its own and takes the new material to realms it never touched in the source language. (:26, 28) As the Gospel began to permeate Greco-Roman society in the third and fourth century, their whole system of thought (their history, traditions, corpus of recognized literature, oral and written) and the commanding heights of their national life had to, Walls states, go to school again with Christ. The process altered the expression of the Christian faith completely; for the word of Christ had now to be introduced into areas of thinking, and brought to bear upon ideas that Peter, John and James the Just never dreamed of and that Paul himself barely glimpsed. It was impossible either to ignore the previous system of ideas, or to abandon it, or to leave it as it was. It had to be penetrated, invaded, brought into relation with the word about Christ and the Scriptures which contained it. The process meant a new agenda for Christianity. Matters which had never troubled the heads of the apostles and elders of Jerusalem became matters of life and death as the word about Christ encountered the established metaphysic of the Hellenistic world, while many things which were vital to the first generation of Christians in Jerusalem just dropped out of sight. (:53) In other words, Gentile church fathers, enmeshed in the world of neo-Platonism, began to ask questions early Jewish Christians never asked, and found answers in the Scriptures that the apostles likely never saw, because their questions were so radically different. The Palestinian Jewish ‘original’ was first added as ‘new material’ to a total Greek system of thought. But after three centuries of rising like leaven through Greco-Roman society, Gentile Christianity also added something new to this original, taking it to realms it never touched in the apostolic era. Walls illustrates the dynamic role of worldview when the ‘Jesus Act’ is seen in the human auditorium of life. Everyone in the packed auditorium can see the stage, but no one sees the whole of it. People seated in one place can not see the entrances left.... Seated somewhere else, the view is obstructed by a pillar, or an overhanging balcony. As a result, though everyone sees the same play and hears the same words, they have different views of the conjunction of word and action, according to their seat in the theatre. Those on one side get a sharply focused view of certain scenes which those placed elsewhere do not have to the same degree, and people in the balcony are puzzled to hear laughter in the stalls when they themselves have seen nothing to cause it. But the position is reversed when the scene changes, and the main action is on another part of the stage. (:43) What each person sees in the ‘Jesus Act’ is clearly governed by where they are sitting. People view the part of the stage most open to them from their seat in the auditorium. Our seat is determined by a complex of conditions: where we were born, where our parents came from, what language we speak at home, what our childhood was like, and so on. People who share broadly similar conditions form culture blocks—rather like blocks of seats in the theatre, from which the view of the stage is very similar. Culture is simply a name for a location in the auditorium where the drama of life is in progress. Viewing the Jesus Act in that drama will involve some reading or hearing of Christian Scriptures. Once again what we see or hear in the process will be affected by where we are sitting in the auditorium. People seated [elsewhere] will see some things we cannot, and be unable to see some things that seem important to us. They cannot see them, not through blindness or willfulness, but because they have been sitting in a different place. (:44) The christology surveyed above can seem to some an abandonment of cherished orthodoxies. However it is not terribly difficult to arrive at such conclusions when historical theologians genuinely attempt to ‘sit in the seat’ of EMQ 8 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Second Temple Jewish readers of the New Testament. As James D. G. Dunn states in his second edition of Christology in the Making, “Several critics and exegetes seem to have thought that a straightforward appeal to the ‘obvious’ or ‘plain meaning’ of the text was sufficient response to my discussion of such passages as Col. 1:15–20.” Dunn wisely responds, ‘Obvious’ to whom? ‘Plain’ in what context? Obvious to us who look back to the text with the much developed hindsight of nearly two millennia. But the question is surely whether that understanding of the text was equally as obvious to the original author and readers, equally obvious when the text is set into the context within which it is framed. (1996:xvii) As the above-mentioned study of C5 Muslim believers illustrates so well, it is also not so obvious to them, given the seat from which they are viewing the Jesus Act. Perhaps the more amazing fact of that study is that more than half of those interviewed did affirm Allah as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” In order to understand what God is doing among C5 movements of Christ-centered Muslims, we must be careful not to evaluate them according the doctrinal confluence of their theology with ours. Walls warns, It must not be assumed that themes which have been primary in the Christian penetration of former cultures will remain primary for the new ones. They may not possess the points of reference which made for orthodoxy, for instance, or the primacy of the individual conscience, absolutely crucial to the capture by Christ of other world views. Various early Jewish Christians would have found their Greek successors strangely cold about Israel’s most precious possession, the Law of God and its guide to living. Many of them would have been equally disturbed by the intellectual complexities into which christological discussion was leading Greek Christians (:24). Dunn’s closing remarks in Christology are similarly relevant: If all this has any normative significance for modern christology it is that christology should not be narrowly confined to one particular assessment of Christ, nor should it play one off against another, nor should it insist on squeezing all the different NT conceptualizations into one particular ‘shape’, but it should recognize that from the first the significance of Christ could only be apprehended by a diversity of formulations which though not always strictly compatible with each other were not regarded as rendering each other invalid. (:267) Primary in Jesus’ mandate to disciple the nations (Mt. 28:19–20) was not a highly nuanced system of codified doctrine, but obedience to all he commanded. As Jesus said, “He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (Joh. 14:21). Jesus also indicated that authentic followers can be distinguished not by how they articulate their theology or christology, but by whether or not they do what he tells them: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Lu. 6:46; cf. Mt. 7:21, 21:28–32; Ac. 10:34–35; Js. 2:24). Membership in any kingdom has always involved allegiance and obedience to its king. Primary in our evaluation of Christ-centered movements among Muslims then should not be conformity to the language of Greco-Roman orthodoxy, but whether or not they are striving to obey all that Jesus commanded. C5 from a Distance or in Relationship. As for confidence in our theological conclusions as meticulous students of Scripture, we must humbly admit that, according to Jesus, honoring popular interpretations of Scripture can sometimes be the very root of our inability to see clearly, “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me…” (Joh. 5:39–40). While all things must indeed be tested by Scripture, Jesus’ statement here suggests that intensive study of Scripture itself will not guarantee a correct perception of its meaning or intended application. Without the quickening of the Holy Spirit, Scripture can be a series of endless parables about which we can be “ever hearing but never understanding; ever seeing but never perceiving.” Christians of all persuasions may sincerely believe they have seen and understood, but it is “the hour of our visitation” which truly tests us, because the ways of God, unlike doctrine, can not be put into a tidy, codified box. John Travis, architect of the C-Spectrum (1998), rightly states that our theology of mission to Muslims “can only properly be developed through a dynamic interaction of actual ministry experience, the specific leading of the Spirit, and the study of the Word of God” (2004). In his soon to be published chapter on C5 insider movements, Travis explains, It is instructive to see in Acts 15 how the early church determined God’s will regarding Gentile believers and what they must do in order to “be saved” (15:1). One group of born-again Pharisees, based upon their interpretation of Scripture [and Jesus’ commands], contended that Gentiles “must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” (15:5). By describing the events leading up to the council and its actual proceedings, Luke informs us how the early church settled this most crucial matter. As we shall see, it was an interaction based upon experiences from the field, the leading of the Spirit, and an understanding of Scripture. Note that as the delegation of Paul and Barnabas traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria to Jerusalem, they told believers along the way “how the Gentiles had been converted” (15:3). Their case studies and testimonies of God’s work among Gentiles made all the believers “very glad”. Upon arrival in Jerusalem, case studies continued as Paul and Barnabas told the elders “everything God had done through them” in their EMQ 9 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Gentile ministry (15:4). Then Peter offered his case study of Gentile work (Ac. 10) and related how, to the utter astonishment of his born-again Jewish companions, the Holy Spirit was “poured out” in front of them upon Gentiles who began “speaking in tongues and praising God” (10:46). This, along with the vision he received from God (10:9-16) was all the apostle Peter needed to declare, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?” (10:47). Jewish proselyte baptism, it should be remembered, was reserved only for full converts to Judaism, called “proselytes of righteousness” (Hebrew ger tsedeq). These were circumcised, required to obey all the Law of Moses, considered like “a new-born child,” given a Hebrew name, and called a “son or daughter of Abraham.” Unlike Godfearers (half-converts to Judaism, also called “proselytes of the gate” (ger ha-sha’ar), who were only required to obey the seven Noahic laws10), “proselytes of righteousness” adopted Jewish identity. In other words, according to Jewish missionary practice at the time, proselyte baptism was seen as one of several rites for Gentiles to obtain Jewish identity and full membership in the Jewish community. Therefore, Jesus’ teaching that baptism was to be part of discipling all nations (Mt. 28:19) likely led many of his Jewish disciples to conclude he never intended them to make half-converts of Gentiles but only full-converts who would also submit to the additional rites associated with conversion to Judaism— i.e., circumcision and obedience to the entire Torah (Ac. 15:5). One can almost hear how these born-again Pharisees might have presented the ‘obvious’ and ‘plain’ meaning of Scripture to support their ‘biblical’ conclusions before the Jerusalem Council: How did the Lord reply to the rich young ruler who asked how to inherit eternal life? Did Jesus not tell him to “keep the commandments”?11 Do not the Scriptures tell us that Gentiles must first be circumcised before they celebrate the Passover with us? As it is written, “No uncircumcised male may eat of it.”12 How then can Gentiles eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, our Passover lamb, without first being circumcised?13 Even if Jesus left room for two kinds of converts to Messianic Judaism, why should Gentiles settle for becoming halfconverts when they can delight in and benefit from all of God’s glorious Law? Circumcision is not just Law; it precedes the Law by several centuries! It is the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham to bless all nations on earth! Why should those nations not also carry the same sign of the covenant in their flesh after they have been blessed by him who has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and who was himself circumcised 10 For a fuller discussion on the Noahic Laws within Second Temple Jewish missiology, see “Living Like Jesus, A Torah- Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims” (Massey 2004:14–18). 11 Mt. 19:16–17. 12 Ex. 12:48. 13 Joh. 6:53–56; 1 Cor. 5:7, 11:27. on the eighth day according to the Law of Moses?14 Even Moses was nearly struck down by God when he failed to circumcise his son.15 Rabbi Paul, you circumcised Timothy yourself before allowing him to journey with your team.16 Why such inconsistency? You teach the Law is holy, just and good;17 so why should we water down the expectations for following the Messiah, endorsing a position that will encourage Gentiles to live without the glorious guiding light of God’s Law? As the Psalmist wrote, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.”18 The Law is no burden; it is a light unto our feet! Clearly, there were no easy answers to settle this dispute among the earliest believers. “After there had been much debate,” Peter reminds them that God fully accepted the Gentiles who believed, as evidenced by “giving them the Holy Spirit” (Ac. 15:7–8), even though they had not become Jewish or submitted to the whole Torah. Peter then adds another jaw-dropping statement regarding Jewish identity, “God made no distinction between us and them”(15:9), showing their distinction between God-fearers and full-proselytes to be superfluous. Therefore, Peter could boldly baptize Gentiles without any intention of them becoming fully Jewish (10:47). Travis continues, At this point in the Acts narrative the entire Jerusalem Council became quiet as the floor was handed back to Paul and Barnabas to offer more case studies on the “miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles” through their ministry (15:12). Only at this point does the Council leader James arise, affirm the value of case studies, and state that what has miraculously already happened experientially on the field among Gentiles is in fact supported by Scripture (15:13-18). The Scriptural basis was there all along for the acceptance of Gentiles, but it took firsthand experience and the unmistakable work of the Holy Spirit for the early church to properly interpret Scripture in light of their present day context. (2004) An important point often missed by critics of C5 is that first and foremost, C5 is not a strategy to reach Muslims, it is a reality effected by the Holy Spirit among numerous Muslim peoples. In other words, Muslims are meeting Christ as Savior and Lord and being transformed as they study the Bible and strive to obey all the commands of Christ. However, unlike C4 Muslim background believers (MBBs), C5 Muslim believers (MBs) don’t see their Muslim identity as part of their background. Even as Walls speaks of ‘Greek’ as a cultural, not an ethnic term, so too ‘Muslim’ is also a cultural term. Ironically, the Muslim 14 Mt 28:18; Lk. 2:21. 15 Ex. 4:24–26. 16 Ac. 16:3. 17 Rom. 7:12, 1 Tim. 1:8. 18 Ps. 1:1–2. EMQ 10 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 culture enjoyed by most C5 believers is far more ‘Jewish’ than the ‘Christian culture’ observed in most Gentile churches today, and therefore much more similar to the piety and liturgy observed by Jesus and his apostles than that of Gentile Christians today (Ac. 21:20; Woodberry 1996; Massey 2004; Neusner 2000). C5 Messianic Muslims do not want to turn their back on their culture or their nation, as Walls describes, Often, people with the highest motives have wanted other Christians to be scrupulous about all the things that mattered to themselves, that came out of the encounter of the word of Christ with their own history. And sometimes converts, desperately anxious to do the right thing, have been very ready to oblige; just as in New Testament times there were Gentile Christians quite ready to submit to circumcision in order to achieve full status as God’s people. To do this was to follow the way of the Jewish proselyte [ger tsedeq]; the pagan who, in order to cleave to the God of Israel, had turned his back on his nation and entered the nation of Israel. Paul knew that the path of the proselyte was a blind alley for Gentile disciples of Jesus. They had to bring Christ to bear on areas of life of which people who had been observant Jews all their life knew nothing; and if they became proselytes, became in effect imitations of Jewish Christians, they would be disabled from bringing Christ to bear on those areas. What were you to do if a pagan friend invited you to dinner, and the meat might—or might not—have previously been offered at a temple sacrifice? (Cf. 1 Cor. 10:27ff.) A devout Jewish believer was not going to be invited to dinner anyway; nor was a proselyte. If they simply copied Jewish believers—the senior Christians, the experienced Christians, the best Christians of the time—there was no way left in which the word about Christ could enter Greek family and social life. (:52) The same applies to Muslims who convert to “Christianity”. Many have been quite willing to oblige—especially those who were only nominally Muslim or disillusioned with Islam—and we will further discuss the dynamic freedom of Muslims to do this below. Nonetheless, a growing number of Muslim followers of Jesus have chosen not to follow the way of the Jewish proselyte. They want to follow Jesus as Muslims. And when you personally meet some of these believers firsthand, their Christ-centeredness is unmistakable. Like Peter who saw the Holy Spirit poured out on Gentiles, we are forced to reevaluate our Christianizing tendencies, even as Peter and James were forced to reevaluate their Judaizing tendencies. Reading empirical case-studies on paper might help somewhat, but they are no substitute for actual relationships with C5 Muslim believers. It is terribly easy to misunderstand what God is doing among C5 movements of Christ-centered Muslims if we attempt to evaluate them from a distance, based solely on the feeble attempts of witnesses to describe (orally or in writing) a C5 Muslim believer’s love for God and the Lord Jesus. Rather, we must get to know some C5 Muslim believers personally ourselves, hear directly from them how they have handled the challenges of following Christ as a Muslim, and see their passion to draw their fellow Muslims to the throne of Christ. Christ-Centered vs. Church-centered. Although the C-Spectrum was originally developed to describe six different kinds of Christ-centered communities (i.e., Greek ekklesia) found in the Muslim world today, C5 nomenclature was quickly adopted by those whose theology of mission is more christocentric than ecclesiocentric; more focused on encouraging Christ-centered ‘insider movements’ of Muslims within Islam than merely contextualizing Western Christianity; more convinced that Jesus wants his disciples to plant the leaven of God’s rule and reign directly within Muslim communities, letting it rise through society to permeate the very Islamic institutions that guide the faith of Muslim peoples. Trying to describe why Christianity has not been very successful among peoples who are adherents of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, David Bosch found the explanation of Aloysius Pieris particularly illuminating. Pieris, an indologist, theologian, and the first non-Buddhist to earn a doctorate in Buddhist Studies at the University of Sri Lanka, argues that our failure is rooted in Latin Christianity’s practice of separating religion from culture. “What is really called for,” he says, “is not just inculturation but inreligionization” (Bosch 1991:477). Though such a statement seems to smack of syncretism, Pieris explains, We should never have transplanted Christianity in Asia without breaking the pot in which the plant came. “Inculturation-fever”19 is a desperate last-moment bid to give an Asian façade to a church which has failed to strike roots in Asian soil, because no one dares to break the Greco-Roman pot in which, for centuries, it has been existing like a stunted bonsai. (Bosch 1991:478) Advocates of C5 insider movements are equally concerned about the dangers of syncretism and lazy tolerance, but they are also more concerned about true Christ-centeredness than conformity to Gentile Christian traditions and doctrinal codifications developed centuries after the apostolic era. Jesus promises that he will not turn away anyone who comes to him—not Jewish tax-collectors, drunkards, prostitutes or members of the Sanhedrin; not syncretistic and promiscuous Samaritans; not even Gentile ‘dogs’ who wait around for scraps off his table (Mk. 7:28). “All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out” (Joh. 6:37). “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). Unlike many Jewish missionaries of his day, Jesus did not ask Samaritans or Gentiles to convert to Judaism. Jesus did not call people to religion, but to himself. What mattered most was faith in him, worshiping God in spirit and truth, submitting to Christ’s rule and reign as God’s only anointed king. Christ-centeredness has less to do with religion, and 19 Inculturation is a model of contextualizing theology popular in both Protestant and Catholic missiological circles (Bosch 1991:447). EMQ 11 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 everything to do with Jesus. Because most Samaritan believers did not become Jewish, they likely continued with some of their Samaritan religious practices—loathsome as they were to most Jews. Nonetheless, God poured his Spirit out on them even as he did upon the Gentiles, to the great astonishment of Jewish believers (Ac. 8:17, 10:46; cf. Caldwell 2000). We tend to assume that if people come to Christ, they will also be with us. Aren’t we his disciples and representatives? However, we must never forget that the kingdom of God is not about us. Though obvious at one level, this fact was not immediately apparent to Jesus’ first disciples, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us” (Mk. 9:38). Jesus could have easily asked in reply, “Since when did the kingdom of God become about following you?” Instead he graciously replied, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us” (Mk. 9:39-40). The reason Jesus cites for not stopping them has nothing to do with their relationship with his disciples, but everything to do with their relationship to himself. One need only read David Stern’s Messianic Jewish Manifesto to see that many Jewish believers today are still not with us on many important theological issues. The Law, says Stern, is the great terra incognita (unexplored territory) of Christian theology (1991:126). We agree that Christ is Savior and Lord, to be sure. However, Stern (among others) shows just how far away from the Jewish teachings of Jesus our Gentile theology has taken us. In fact, it is the very ‘Gentilization’ of the Gospel with its Greco-Roman translation that ultimately makes even our “contextual” efforts at reaching Muslims quite foreign. If, however, workers among Muslims begin to live more like Jesus lived, i.e., like a Torah-observant Jew, we will likely be at a much better place to begin sowing God’s rule and reign among Muslim peoples (Massey 2004). Not only is Christ-centeredness not about us and our missiological comfort zone, it is also not about “Christianity.” As David Bosch writes in Transforming Mission, Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. Those who followed him were given no name to distinguish themselves from other groups, no creed of their own, no rite which revealed their distinctive group character, no geographical center from which to operate. The community around Jesus was to function as a kind of pars pro toto, a community for the sake of all others, a model for others to emulate and be challenged by. Never, however, was this community to sever itself from others. …In the course of time [however] the Jesus community simply became a new religion. …It ceased to be a movement and turned into an institution. There are essential differences between an institution and a movement: one is conservative, the other progressive; one is more or less passive, yielding to influences from outside, the other is active, influencing rather than being influenced; one looks to the past, the other to the future... one is anxious, the other is prepared to take risks; one guards boundaries, the other crosses them (1991:50–51). Though Gentile believers initially adopted this pars pro toto model from non-Judaizing Jewish believers like Paul, Gentile Christian attitudes toward Jewish people gradually deteriorated to unbelievable levels, then became codified in the anti-Jewish edicts of Emperor Theodosius in 378. The issues leading to the rise of anti-Semitism among early Gentile believers are both complex and disturbing. Sadly, unthinkable atrocities have been committed by the church against Jewish people over the centuries.20 Hitler need only quote the writings of German-born Martin Luther, father of Protestantism, to promote the holocaust among German Christians. “What then shall we Christians do,” Luther asked, “with this damned, rejected race of Jews?” Luther’s answer still haunts us today: First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down. Thirdly, their prayerbooks and Talmuds should be taken from them. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. Fifthly, you ought not, you cannot, protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination. Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. Seventhly, we ought to drive the rascally lazybones out of our system. To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden—the Jews. (Pelikan 1962:268) Elsewhere, Luther wrote, “Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew” (1543). Hitler extolled Luther not only as a great reformer, but also as “one of the great warriors in this world who ... [was] prepared to carry the fight for their ideas and ideals to their end” (1971:213). Given this unseemly context of church history, it is not difficult to see why some Messianic Jews today are still not with us, especially, some say, in light of Genesis 12:3, “…whoever curses you I will curse.” Only within the last century did the Gentile church begin again to accept the presence of Jewish followers of Jesus retaining their Jewish identity, thus challenging the ecclesiocentrism which dominated Christianity for over eighteen centuries. Ecclesiocentrism traditionally held that membership in the [Gentile] Christian church was required for salvation. While Protestants have always claimed to be christocentric and not ecclesiocentric, we have essentially continued the ecclesiocentric tradition by relaxing official church membership in favor of doctrinal congruity, granting our paternal stamp of approval only after new movements 20 For the sordid details of Christian anti-Semitism throughout Gentile church history see the work of Dan Cohn-Sherbok (1997), Michael Brown (1992), and the voluminous work of Leon Poliakov (2003). EMQ 12 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 agree with the body of doctrine and practice we hold as indispensably part and parcel of being ‘Christian’. Even contextualization and indigenization, Bosch comments, “never included modifying ‘prefabricated’ Western theology” (1991:448). A christocentric view, by contrast, asserts that the fullness of divine revelation and the finality of humanity’s redemption ultimately centers upon Christ. And because Muslim peoples are sitting in different seats in the human auditorium to view the Jesus Act, they may not see all that our Western church fathers saw, or add all that we added to the Palestinian Jewish original. But as they obey Jesus’ commands and follow him as Lord, they will see him incarnate within their own society as Christ is introduced into areas of thinking and brought to bear upon ideas that we can scarcely glimpse (Joh. 14:21). Paul’s Apparent Ban on “Religious” Conversions. Some critics assert that the greater context of marriage in 1 Cor. 7 disallows application to C5-related issues. Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. (1 Cor. 7:18–20) Paul’s mention of slavery (vv. 21–23) followed by yet another statement to remain in whatever state one was in when called (v. 24) clearly shows repetition of the principle that Christians should live contentedly in any station of life in which God places them: married or unmarried (v.17), Jew or Gentile (v. 20), slave or free (v. 24). This understanding is affirmed in such popular commentaries as The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, which states regarding vv. 17–19, It is best to translate the ei me [of v. 17] as “but” (KJV) or “nevertheless” (NIV), meaning that Paul is expanding his thought of the Christian’s call to other areas besides that of marital status. The Christian should live for the Lord wherever he is. This, Paul says, is the principle that he orders to be followed in all the churches (cf. Eph. 5:21-6:9; Col. 3:18-4:1)—a principle that transcends all boundaries. The apostle’s first application of this principle is to the religio-national distinctions related to being Jews or Gentiles, being circumcised or uncircumcised. In a Gentile situation like that in Corinth, some Christian Jews may have tried to obliterate the OT covenant mark of circumcision (cf. 1 Macc. 1:15). On the other hand, Judaizers tried to force circumcision on the Gentile Christians (cf. Ac. 15:1-5; Gal. 3:1-3; 5:1). Paul argues that this outward sign of circumcision with its stress on the Jew versus the non-Jew now has no significance. If a person was a circumcised Jew when he was saved, he should not become uncircumcised. If he was an uncircumcised Gentile, he should not be circumcised in order to become Jewish. Circumcision and uncircumcision now make no difference (Rom. 2:25, 29; Gal. 5:6), but keeping God’s command is essential (v.19; cf. John 14:15). (Gaebelein 1990) Anyone familiar with the rites of passage for Gentile converts to Judaism can not miss the implications of Paul’s disallowing circumcision to Gentile believers. Paraphrased another way, Paul was essentially saying in vv. 19–20, “For neither Jewish identity counts for anything nor Gentile identity, but keeping the commandments of God is what counts. Everyone should therefore remain as they were when called.” Therefore, several Messianic Jewish leaders cite these verses as evidence that Paul clearly prohibited Gentiles from “full conversion” (in contrast to the abovementioned “half-conversion” of God-fearers) to Messianic Judaism (Stern 1991:177)—an issue of great relevance today as more and more Gentile Christians are attending Messianic Jewish synagogues. But was Paul actually forbidding circumcision to Gentiles in 1 Cor. 7:18 or just discouraging it? David Stern has noted that rabbis of Second Temple Judaism were required by halakhic law to initially “discourage potential Gentile converts in order to winnow out those who are insincere” (1991:177). Stern therefore believes that 1 Cor. 7:18–20 is simply an example of this standard rabbinic discouragement and that the New Testament does not forbid Gentile Christians from full conversion to Judaism if they want to identify fully with the Jewish people (:178; cf. Fischer 2001:141–149; Wolf 2001:133–139). This conclusion is further supported by the context of 1 Cor. 7 where Paul apparently allows for exceptions to all of his admonishments. Paul admonishes singles to remain as they are (i.e., unmarried, vv. 8, 27); but if they can not control their passions and choose to marry, they have not sinned (vv. 9, 28). Similarly, Paul admonishes slaves to remain as they are, for even freedmen are slaves of Christ; but if they can obtain their freedom that too is acceptable (vv. 21–24, cf. NRSV, Lamsa). And so, most Gentile believers should also remain as they are and not convert to Judaism to follow Jesus; however, if they insist and persist after repeated discouragement from Jewish church leaders, and if they really want to fully identify with the Jewish people even in circumcision, then they have not sinned for this also is acceptable.21 Potential ramifications of this rabbinic practice to discourage potential converts may also help calm tensions between missionaries who want to convert Muslims to ‘Christianity’ (i.e., C1–C3 advocates), missionaries who do not (i.e., C4 and C5 advocates), and missionaries who would prefer that Muslim believers remain in their Muslim community with their Muslim identity (i.e., C5 advocates). Just as the New Testament does not appear to forbid Gentile Christians from full conversion to Messianic Judaism if they want to fully identify with the Jewish people, so too 21 For a fuller discussion on the context of 1 Cor. 7:18–20 and its application to C5, see Massey (2004b:60–62). EMQ 13 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Muslims are free to convert to Messianic Judaism or Gentile Christianity if they want to fully identify with either people. Nonetheless, such conversion is not only unnecessary, but atypical. As Paul’s example in 1 Cor. 7:18 illustrates, consistent with aforementioned halakhic requirements, such conversions to Messianic Judaism would only have been allowed to Gentiles who persisted and insisted after initial discouragement from Jewish church leaders. By default, however, most should remain as they are, i.e., as Gentile followers of Jesus. Now that the church is predominately Gentile and not Jewish, the corollary remains true: most Muslim believers should also, by default, contentedly remain in the state they were in when called, i.e., as Muslims who now follow Jesus as Lord. Otherwise, they will, in Walls’ terms above, “follow the way of the Jewish proselyte, turning their back on their own nation” in exchange for a ‘Christian’ identity, thereby rendering themselves disabled from bringing Christ to bear on those areas of Muslim life about which the Christian community knows virtually nothing (1996:52). Ironically, many Christians find “Muslims for Jesus” more acceptable after reflecting on the acceptability of “Jews for Jesus”. Nevertheless, given that Jesus and his apostles were all Torah-observant Jews, reality is converse. Muslims for Jesus are legitimized not so much by the acceptability of Torah-observant Jews for Jesus, but by Paul’s tireless insistence that Jewish believers accept as legitimate non-Torah-observant Gentiles for Jesus. Unfortunately, Paul met with little success in this agenda (Ac. 21:19–31; Luedemann 1989), and many C5 advocates do not expect to fare much better among most Christians today. Be that as it may, some contend it is inaccurate to compare Gentile believers with Muslim believers, since the prior term is ethnic and the latter religious. Such a view is surely more likely to come from Gentiles than first-century Jews. Given that the Hebrew term ywg (goy) is sometimes translated in the Bible as pagan, sometimes heathen, and sometimes Gentile, we often have little comprehension of just how stigmatized and paradoxical the phrase goyim believers must have seemed to early Jewish followers of Jesus. Though most Gentile Bible translators diplomatically render its Greek equivalent as ‘Gentile believers’ (Ac. 15:23, 21:25), it could just as well have been rendered ‘pagan’ or ‘heathen believers’—and doubtless would have by many first-century Jewish Christians. How else could they explain the propensity of Greek believers to eat blood cuisine or the flesh of swine? We will later see how the infinite translatability of the Gospel makes allowance for Jewish, Goyim and Muslim believers as ‘discipled nations.’ But for now, suffice it to say that just as most Gentiles want to follow Jesus without becoming Jewish, so also many Muslims want to follow Jesus without becoming Jewish or ‘Christian’. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the distinction Jews made between fulland half-converts to Judaism was superfluous, since in Christ there is no distinction between Jew or Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, C5 Muslim believer (MB) or C4 Muslim background believer (MBB): “the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him” (Rom. 10:12; Col. 3:11, Gal. 3:28). Similarly, the distinction we make between full Muslim converts to Christianity (i.e., C1–3 MBBs who adopt Christian identity) and what could well be called God-fearing ‘half-converts’ to Christianity (i.e., C5 Muslim believers who retain their Muslim identity) is also superfluous. C4 is omitted from such comparisons for it provides neither Christian nor Muslim identity. The “Christian” Direction of C4. It would appear that C4 advocates accept the fact that the kingdom of God is not about ‘Christianity’, since they generally avoid the term ‘Christian’ because of irreparable damage done to its meaning in Muslim lands. However, despite all its contextual friendliness, C4 attitudes toward Muslim identity reveal underlying beliefs about the direction Muslims should go: out of Islam, though not necessarily int o ‘Christianity’. Theoretically, this works nicely, and neatly gives Muslims permission to withdraw from all ‘biblically impermissible’ Islamic forms (or at least from forms the missionary cannot permit). Sociologically, however, things are not so nice or neat. When a C4 MBB shares his faith, Muslims may ask, “Are you Christian?” “Oh no!” he replies, “I am a follower of the True Path” [or something else creative]. “Oh,” the Muslim responds, “you’re a Muslim!” “Well, uh…, not actually,” he replies and masterfully crafts some acceptable identity for his context—or does he? Actually, it can be extremely difficult to establish necessary trust in relationship if one waffles on such basic questions about religious identity. Even as Christians do not have a religious category for a Christ-follower who is neither Christian nor Messianic Jew, Muslims also do not have a religious category for a Christ-follower who is neither Muslim nor Christian. A follower of Jesus must belong to some religion—unless, of course, he belongs to some strange and peculiar cult. Furthermore, many C4 MBBs spend years going back and forth between Christian and Muslim communities like a sociological chameleon, trying to maintain acceptance in two different worlds. C4 identity (being neither ‘Christian’ nor ‘Muslim’) is frankly a very difficult position for MBBs to maintain long term. The more they behave like Gentile Christians, the more they will be trusted by C1–3 Christians but distrusted by Muslims. Unfortunately, the more they retain their Muslim culture (e.g., diet, dress, beard, language, liturgy, etc.), the more suspect they tend to be in Christian communities. Theoretically, C4 MBBs should not have to enter C1–3 communities at all. Practically, however, their paths tend to cross more often than C4 advocates would prefer, and so begins the process of Christianization which inevitably pulls Muslims out of their community and into some form of ‘Christianity’, as illustrated in the diagram below. EMQ 14 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Christianity ? Islam C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 The “Christian” Direction of C4 C5 Muslims, by contrast, don’t have to bother with such religio-cultural gymnastics. They know they are Muslims, and they know they have been transformed by the Spirit of God. Like the Hellenistic-Roman world, the Muslim world represents a total system of thought which must be penetrated with the Gospel of the kingdom, rising through Muslim society like leaven. C5 advocates believe that after thorough study of the Bible, Muslim believers are best equipped to make judgments about what is biblically permissible or not. Rather than cloud their judgment with centuries of Gentile interpretations of Scripture through a Greco-Roman filter, cultural outsiders (pro-C5 missionaries) keep pointing C5 Muslim leaders back to prayer and the Bible for answers, confident in Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit will “guide them into all truth” (Joh. 16:13). This does not imply that C5 advocates never point Muslims to specific Scriptures for study, for the New Testament surely provides precedent for such directive discipleship. Nonetheless, efforts to promote true indigeneity are not just limited to various forms of worship, liturgy, sacramental rites, architecture, and book cover art. Instead, their understanding of Scripture itself is also a prime candidate for indigeneity as C5 advocates encourage Muslim believers to view the Jesus Act from their seat in the human auditorium. The Prophethood of Muhammad. One major concern of C5 critics is recital of the shahada by Muslim believers, confessing Muhammad is a rasul (messenger) of God. As outsiders who were not raised Muslim, nor educated by our parents how God used Muhammad to turn our pagan ancestors away from vain idols, such concern is understandable. Nonetheless, this tends to be almost entirely an outsider question. While many pro-C5 Christian outsiders may not feel entirely comfortable reciting the shahada themselves, many (though by no means all) Muslim followers of Jesus have no trouble affirming Muhammad is a rasul because, they say, Muhammad was the one who taught me and my ancestors to worship the One true God when they were bowing to idols of stone and wood; Muhammad taught me that Jesus is the Word of God who brought the Good News; Muhammad taught me to believe in the Bible, to respect the prophets of the Bible, to learn from their example, and to care for the orphan and widow—what James called “true and undefiled religion” (Jas 1:27). We learned all this from Muhammad, not Christians. If this is not ‘prophetic’, what is? Christians tend to be very uneasy with such an understanding of Muhammad, assuming he may take Christ’s place of ultimacy. The C5 Muslim asks, “Do you believe John the Baptist was a prophet? Of course you do, as do we. But this does not mean you follow John as Lord, does it? Rather, you follow the one to whom John pointed, as we follow the one to whom Muhammad pointed: Jesus the Messiah, the Word of God.” It is because the Qur’an is so full of references to the matchless wonder of Jesus that many C5 Muslims testify, “The Qur’an led me to Christ.” This is the testimony of Gambian born Lamin Sanneh, professor of history and missiology at Yale, and author of Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (Orbis 1989)—a foundational text for many C5 advocates. When asked by Christianity Today what made him interested in Christianity, Sanneh replied, “Reading about Jesus in the Qur’an piqued my curiosity. I had no access to the Bible or to a church at the time, and so the Qur’an remained the authoritative and only source of Jesus...” (2003:112). “But what about …?” we all want to ask, virtually pelting C5 believers with a barrage of questions about Islamic views and teachings incompatible with Scripture (or at least with our Greco-Roman Gentile understanding of Scripture). The point, however, is that it’s not about us and our theological comfort zone. It’s about their submission to Christ’s reign as the Holy Spirit tabernacles among them. His ways are not our orthodoxy. Remember, we are talking about a love life here, the hearts of Muslims loving God and serving Jesus as Lord, the only anointed king whose rule and reign will never end. “The hour is coming, and now is,” Jesus declared, “when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him” (Joh. 4:23). Rethinking Islam. C5 Muslim believers are, of course, rethinking and redefining Islam according to the authority of the Bible. Some are even calling their Muslim countrymen “Back to the Qur’an,” since most unbiblical Islamic beliefs are more rooted in Islamic traditions (hadith) or in poorly interpreted verses of the Qur’an. Once Muslims see that Qur’anic verses alluding to corruption in the Bible were rightly and only leveled against entrepreneurial Jews selling thrice-targumated phylacteries (Sura 2:79), they can better understand why the Qur’an commands all Muslims to believe the Bible, and many other verses proving the Bible could never have been corrupted (5:47, 10:94, 4:136). Though scholars of textual criticism may beg to differ (Ehrman 1993), the Qur’an itself is proving to be a powerful apologetic in the hands of Muslim believers for restoring Muslim confidence in the inerrancy of Scripture. Rethinking Islam in the light of Scripture is no light task, but our role as outsiders, if we really want to promote indigeneity by discipling their nation (and not just a few individuals within their nation), is not to do their thinking for them. Fact is, as outsiders, we are scarcely qualified to re-think Islam since most of us were never reared to think EMQ 15 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Muslim in the first place. Our role is to keep pointing them to Jesus and the Scriptures, and to resist the temptation to filter their reality through our own tradition. Walls notes, This is likely to mean the appearance of new themes and priorities undreamt of by ourselves or by earlier Christian ages; for it is the mark of Christian faith that it must bring Christ to the big issues which are closest to men’s hearts; and it does so through the structures by which people perceive and recognize their world; and these are not the same for all (:24). For example, when C5 Muslims were translating Mark’s Gospel into their vernacular, they were perplexed at how to handle the parenthetical statement in Mark 7:19, “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Clashing with their own worldview about dietary cleanliness, which agrees with the Torah and Jesus’ own dietary practice, they wondered if this was a later insertion by Gentile scribes—what Bart Ehrman provocatively calls “an orthodox corruption of the Scripture” (1993). Did Jesus abrogate the Law? They could find no evidence that his Jewish disciples began eating non- Kosher foods after this teaching (cf. Ac. 10:14). Of course, it was virtually unthinkable for them to imagine Jesus declaring swine flesh ‘clean’. No one pointed out to them that the context of hand washings in Mark 7 indicates that Jesus was not declaring treif foods kosher, but rather teaching that kosher foods are not ritually defiled if touched by ritually unclean hands (Stern 1991:160; cf. Massey 2004b:57–58). Nonetheless, they found another way to handle this verse. After prayerful consideration, they decided not to omit the phrase but to translate it directly. When the foreign translation consultant (committed to an insider model of having them determine the direction of translation) asked how they arrived at this conclusion, they said, “It was simple. Pork is not ‘food’ for us. Do you eat fried scorpions, beetles, and locusts when you visit Bangkok? No, because that is not food for you, just as pork is not food for us.” Does God’s declaration that reptiles are clean in Acts 10 mean we should all eat snakes and lizards to demonstrate our freedom in Christ? Regarding doctrinal orthodoxy, in addition to what has already been stated above, we must remember that not until the third century did Gentile theologians begin to distinguish the Godhead as more than one “Person”—in spite of church fears that this endangered the unity of God (Rusch 1980:7). Nonetheless, the response of modalist monarchianism did not stop the theological trend in Alexandria and Antioch (so very near to Athens) to wed a biblical theology of God to the categories of Neo- and Middle Platonism “to explain Christianity to their pagan neighbors [and] prove that it was intellectually respectable and not injurious to the Roman Empire” (Rusch 1980:16). In pre-Christian Judaism, Ruah Ha-Qodesh (The Holy Spirit) was another way to refer to YHWH without uttering the Divine Name. As with many other synonyms for God’s name, it was used to avoid risk of violating the third commandment (Ex. 20:7). “God is spirit” (Joh. 4:24), so ‘The Holy One of Israel’ is also called ‘the Holy Spirit.’ Additionally, Ruah Ha-Qodesh was also used to signify a manifestation of God’s inspiring or sustaining presence. God is present everywhere at all times, but sometimes he manifests his presence in unmistakable ways. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, such manifestations occur when God imparts superior wisdom and valor to human beings, or leads a prophet to utter divine speech (Werblowsky 1997:592). Although such an understanding of the Holy Spirit is completely consistent with the New Testament, later Gentile church fathers eventually conceptualized the Holy Spirit as a distinct ‘Person’ of the Godhead. An English translation of these Greek conceptualizations has in turn led some Christian leaders to teach today that our relationship with the Spirit suffers because our prayers focus more on the Father and Jesus (Hinn 1997). “We need to get to know the Spirit,” they say, “by praying directly to the Spirit”—causing some to feel as though they really do need to pray to Three, not One. In spite of the intellectual complexities inherited from our fourth-century church fathers, which certainly contribute to our concern regarding the above-mentioned study in which nearly half of those interviewed did not describe God as ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, these same Muslim believers do not hesitate to baptize new followers of Jesus “in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit”, just as Jesus commanded. Perhaps fifteen years of baptizing in this way was the defining factor that led more than half of those interviewed to conclude this threefold formula does describe God. If so, they seem to be well ahead of our Greco-Roman church fathers, given the length of time it took them to draw such conclusions. Some may advocate that all pioneer missionaries should strive to present the Palestinian Jewish ‘original’ Gospel to the nations instead of the fourth-century translation we have inherited. After all, when translating literature, it is obviously best to start with the original text than a translation of the original. If we are going to spend our lives translating the message, is it really appropriate to give the nations a translation of a translation? If not, would it be best for us to return to a completely Jewish understanding of God and Christ’s teaching? Or is it the very diversity of Christ-centered humanity that allows us to glimpse the infinitely complex glory of God that no one culture can fully comprehend on its own due to the shallow limits of our various worldviews? Walls helps us process the historic transformations to Christ-centered faith across cultural frontiers: In each case what was happening was the working out of Christian faith within accepted views of the world, so that those worldviews—as with the conversion of believers—are transformed, yet recognizable. (:24) Perhaps an even greater challenge for those of us separated by language, history and culture is to recognize each other in Christ. Herein may lie the greatest difficulty for critics of C5. Those of us who whole-heartedly endorse C5 do so because, like Peter and James mentioned above, our theology has been informed by some rather unexpected field experience, personally knowing C5 Muslims who deeply EMQ 16 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 love the Lord Jesus and desire to spread the saving knowledge of him to fellow Muslims. Critics of C5 do not have such relationships, and so base their objections on various biblical points of reference without having seen “the Holy Spirit poured out upon them.” Case studies can be helpful (Jameson and Scalevich 2000; Travis and Workman 2000; Dutch 2000), but they are ultimately not an effective substitute for such personal relationships, even as many Judaizers remained unconvinced after the testimonies of Paul, Barnabas, Peter and James (Ac. 15:1–29, 21:18–26). Furthermore, after seeing how some have abusively used and even published confidential case studies of C5 work, many are understandably hesitant to distribute such reports widely. The very research that my esteemed colleague and friend Phil Parshall reviewed on paper and quoted as evidence for concern was later personally reviewed on site by Dudley Woodberry, whose eyes welled up with tears when summarizing his findings: “This is one of the most amazing works of God I have ever seen in the Muslim world”—yet another illustration of how important it is to withhold judgment of a movement until we are up close and in relationship with those we attempt to evaluate. Nonetheless, “recognition of others in Christ,” according to Walls, “is not based on one adopting the ways of thought and behavior and expression, however sanctified, of the other; that is Judaizing [or Christianizing], and another Gospel” (:25). And it is ‘another Gospel’ we must be vigilant to reject at all costs. For this reason, some have commented that those who malign C5 have not only misunderstood it, but they have misunderstood the very gospel of the kingdom and its infinite translatability. Christ must rule in the minds of his people; which means extending his dominion over the very corporate structures of thought that constitute a culture. The very act of doing so must sharpen the identity of those who share a culture. The faith of Christ is infinitely translatable, it creates “a place to feel at home.” But it must not make a place where we are so much at home that no one else can live there. (Walls 1996:25) If our own history is any indication, this Messianic Muslim movement will not be so tidy. The christological controversies of the fourth century were so heated that scholars are quick to acknowledge their so-called ‘settlement’ involved “personal feuds between bishops and theologians, conflicts between traditionalism and unrestrained speculation, and the politics of Roman emperors who needed a united church to preserve a united empire” (Rusch 1980:17). We must therefore give Muslim followers of Christ the same freedom enjoyed by our Greek fathers to work out their own theology of how Christ-centeredness will transform their worldview. It may well be as different from ours as the fourth-century Gentile translation was from the Palestinian Jewish original. So let us not oppose them or be suspicious of their Christ-centeredness, “For he that is not against us is for us” (Mk. 9:40). Rather, let us embrace them with open arms “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). Finally, let us guard against the dogmatic judgementalism that fueled the agendas of Judaizers who could not see beyond God’s work in their own religio-cultural history. Though convinced their arguments were solidly biblical, Judaizing Jewish Christians ultimately missed a most amazing era in redemptive history as God’s kingdom broke forth among Gentiles. Let us not similarly miss what God is doing among Muslim followers of Christ today. Joshua Massey is a cultural anthropologist, linguist, and missiologist, laboring among Asian Muslims since 1985. He currently resides in the Middle East and coordinates the development of indigenous literature to assist Muslim followers of Jesus proclaiming God’s kingdom and making disciples. He has published several missiological articles on church planting and ethnographies on folk-Islamic ritual. EMQ 17 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Bibliography Bosch, David J. 1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Missions. New York: Orbis. Brown, Colin 1986 New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1991 “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu 7:83- 100. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications. 1998 “Ernst Lohmeyer’s Kyrios Jesus” in Where Christology Began : Essays on Philippians 2. Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd (eds). Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press. Brown, Michael L. 1992 Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church” and the Jewish People. Shippensburg: Destiny Image Publishers. Brown, Rick 2000 “The ‘Son of God’ : Understanding the Messianic Titles of Jesus” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 33–39. Caldwell, Stuart 2000 “Jesus in Samaria” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1):25–31. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan 1997 The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Daniélou, Jean 1964 The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminister Press. Dunn, James D. G. 1975 Jesus and the Spirit. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1996 Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1998 The Christ and the Spirit, Vol 1 Christology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Dutch, Bernard 2000 “Should Muslims Become ‘Christians’?” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 15-24. Ehrman, Bart D. 1993 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press. 2003 Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press. Fee, Gordon D. 1999 “Paul and the Trinity: The Experience of Christ and the Spirit for Paul’s Understanding of God,” in The Trinity by Stephen T. Davis and Daniel Kendall (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. Gaebelein, Frank E. 1990 The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Hinn, Benny 1997 Good Morning, Holy Spirit. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Hitler, Adolf 1971 Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Online edition: <http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/m kv1ch08.html> Jameson, Richard and Scalevich, Nick 2000 “First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 33–39. Luedemann, Gerd 1989 Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Luther, Martin 1543 On the Jews and Their Lies. Translated by Martin H. Bertram. <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543- Luther-JewsandLies-full.html> Massey, Joshua 2000 “The Amazing Diversity of God in Drawing Muslims to Christ” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1):5–14. 2004 “Living Like Jesus, A Torah-Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims, Part 1” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21(1): 12–22. 2004b “Living Like Jesus, A Torah-Observant Jew: Delighting in God’s Law for Incarnational Witness to Muslims, Part 2” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21(2): 55–71. EMQ 18 - Unabridged Online Edition July 2004 Metzger, Bruce M. (ed) 1971 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament : A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (third edition). Stuttgart: United Bible Society. Moffet, Samuel Hugh 1998 A History of Christianity in Asia: Beginnings to 1500. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Neusner, Jacob 2000 Judaism and Islam in Practice: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. Parshall, Phil 1998 “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4): 404-410. Pelikan, Jaroslav (ed.) 1962 Luther's Complete Works, vol. 47. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Poliakov, Leon 2003 The History of Anti-Semitism, Vols 1–3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Robinson, John A. T. 1973 The Human Face of God. Philadelphia: Westminister Press. 1987 The Priority of John. Oak Park: Meyer Books. Rusch, William G. 1980 The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Bonk, Jonathan 2003 “The Defender of Good News: Questioning Lamin Sanneh” Christianity Today Vol. 47, No. 10, p. 112. Full text of the interview available online: <http://www.christianitytoday.com/go/sanneh>. Stern, David H. 1991 Messianic Jewish Manifesto. Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. Travis, John 1998 “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-Centered Communities’ (‘C’) Found in the Muslim Context” Evangelical Missions Quarterly. 34(4): 407- 408. Travis, John and Workman, Andrew 2000 “Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17(1): 53-59. Travis, John and Anna 2004 “Appropriate Christianity for Muslims” Appropriate Christianity (forthcoming) by Charles Kraft, ed. Pasadena: William Carey Library. Walls, Andrew F. 1996 The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi 1997 The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Woodberry, J. Dudley 1996 “Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars” International Journal of Frontier Missions 13(4): 171-186. Wright, N. T. 1999 The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Should Muslims Become““Christians”? Issues regarding the identity of Muslim background believers are extremely critical. Our best hope for reaching the vast Muslim populations of the world, with its great variety of Muslim people groups, is to plant flourishing churches of Muslim background believers who remain culturally relevant to Muslim society. uring the Gulf War in 1991, most in the country where I live considered Saddam Hussein a hero. Hearing Saddam praised was common, especially when people mistook me for an Arab. So after entering a shop one day and greeting the shopkeeper with the common Muslim “Assalaamu alaykum” (God’s peace be upon you), his tirade against evil Americans and praise for Saddam came as no surprise. But when I purchased my items, he looked at me more closely, then asked, “Where are you from?” Not wanting to embarrass him for having been so kind and open with “one of the enemy,” I replied, “I’m from Wisconsin.” As expected, he crinkled his forehead and asked, “Where is that? I’ve never heard of it.” I replied, “A small place near Canada.” Smiling and evidently satisfied, he bid me farewell as I left his shop. In my encounter with this Muslim shopkeeper, I downplayed my American identity in favor of my Wisconsin identity to avoid provoking an unnecessary conflict. Consider the much more serious issues facing Muslim background believers: Should they identify themselves as Christians or Muslims? To which community do they belong? Should they feel free to articulate their identity differently in various situations? How will they gain a hearing in their own community? Self-Identity: A Multi-faceted Issue Western Christians tend to place great emphasis on the self-identity of Muslim background believers. Self-identity is a major criteria differentiating several points on the “C1–C6 Spectrum” (as presented by Joshua Massey, John Travis and others in this edition of the IJFM). Some think that a Muslim background believer who continues to identify himself as “Muslim” crosses a line from contextualization to syncretism. In my experience with Muslim background believers, their self-identity is a multifaceted issue that defies simple explanation and often frustrates external expectations. As cultural outsiders, we often see the issue in false clarity, imposing simplistic understandings of terms and relationships. We have great expectations for young believers to “take their stand” in a society hostile to the spread of Christianity within its ranks, where the struggle for survival is more intense than we outsiders will ever understand. But for many Muslim background believers, identity is fluid, taking the most appropriate form for the situation. For instance, where Christianity has strong negative connotations, Muslim background believers may avoid a “Christian” label and identify themselves in different ways according to various perspectives and situations. This is similar to Western Christians who may not want to be put in a “born again” box or want to be seen as “religious fanatics” by unsympathetic acquaintances. We try to distance ourselves of the negative baggage associated with the Jim Bakers, Jimmy Swaggarts, and others who have shamed the name of Christ. We disclaim association with Christian complicity in the historical realities of slavery, colonial exploitation, and paranoid witch-hunts. We, too, adjust elements of our identity to fit our situation. Others have written about the need for multiple levels of contextualization to reach a broad spectrum of Muslims. Contextual approaches are more likely to be effective among Muslims who are content with Islam, or who face considerable social pressure, than with Muslims disillusioned with Islam. This article seeks to examine several issues of self-identity that face Muslim background believers at higher levels of contextualization. I focus on this because I believe that our best hope for reaching the vast Muslim populations of the world is to plant flourishing churches of Muslim background believers who remain culturally relevant to Muslim society. To understand the complex issues surrounding the self-identity of Muslim by Bernard Dutch International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 D Should Muslims Become Christians? 16 International Journal of Frontier Missions background believers, we need to take a closer look at Muslim perceptions of Christianity, the identity of the gospel in contextual approaches, and the believers’ perception of their own identity. We will then look at historical usage of the term “Christian,” options for believer identity in Muslim society today, and how society perceives these various kinds of believers. Understanding local perceptions of Christianity is crucial to appreciate a Muslim background believer’s selfidentity. The Muslim society where I live has a long and skewed acquaintance with Christianity. Missionaries targeted animist peoples here for well over a century. The resulting church naturally developed with animistic customs and traditions. I use the term “animist background Christian” to describe this church and its adherents. The religious vocabulary of animist background Christians and Muslims are totally different and mutually offensive. For example, Christian vocabulary for worshiping God sounds, to Muslim ears, like bringing an offering of flowers and fruit before an idol. Animist background Christian religious practice also appears to Muslims as pagan and idolatrous. Burning incense before a crucifix and pictures of Jesus look, to Muslim eyes, like idol worship. This animistic flavor in the church and among Christians has created major barriers to reaching Muslims. In addition to these difficulties, Muslim clerics have preached against Christianity for generations and fostered numerous malicious misconceptions about Christians. To the average Muslim here, “Christian” means someone who worships three gods, believes Jesus is the product of a sexual liaison between God and Mary, drinks wine, eats pork, defiles himself with ritually unclean habits, betrays his cultural heritage, and uses religion to procure assistance from Westerners. This local understanding of the term “Christian” works against the spread of the gospel when it is called “Christianity,” and is understandably not a label by which Muslim background believers desire to be identified. Historical Considerations We should remember that the term “Christian” does not come as a God-ordained label for followers of Jesus. The name arose as a local—and probably derisive—name for Jesus’ disciples in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Most early believers, at least Jewish believers, preferred to identify themselves as following or belonging to “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:23; 24:14). This was true both before and after the term “Christian” had been coined in Antioch, indicating that the early believers did not quickly accept the label “Christian.” In other words, there is no Biblical mandate for followers of Jesus to call themselves “Christian.” Accordingly, when the term “Christian” causes serious misunderstanding and creates unnecessary barriers to the gospel, it seems appropriate to discard its use in favor of an identity that will communicate more effectively. In some parts of the world, it has not been expedient for believers to call themselves “Christian” due to serious misconceptions about the term. Prior to evangelical missionaries arriving in Ethiopia, the Orthodox Church existed for centuries and promoted many non-scriptural practices. As non-orthodox Ethiopians came to faith in Jesus, they knew they could not be identified as “Christian” because that meant Ethiopian Orthodox Christian. So they identified themselves simply as “believers” and have become a huge and vibrant church today. Similarly, Christians among the Hausa, a largely Muslim people group in northern Nigeria, refer to themselves as “Masu Bi” (trans. “those who believe”). In a slightly different vein, some Catholics in Ireland, who have come to an evangelical understanding of salvation through faith in Jesus, refuse to identify themselves as Protestants because of its negative connotations. Historically, believers have often adjusted their spiritual communal identity away from the supposed “universal” designations that have negative local connotations. Gospel Identity in Contextual Approaches Most who work in contextualized outreaches to Muslims seek to gain a hearing by starting with things we hold in common. Christianity and Islam share many spiritual disciplines, a similar cosmology, and most all of the same prophets. Much in the Qur’an supports a high view of Jesus and the so called “previous” Scriptures. This common ground is fertile soil for sowing seeds. Thus, a contextualized approach begins from an Islamic context, then bridges across our common ground to Jesus and the “previous” scriptures. The gospel is therefore initially perceived as harmoni- In some parts of the world, it has not been expedient for believers to call themselves “Christian” due to serious misconceptions about the term. Let’s follow in the footsteps of the early church fathers, and not impose unnecessary requirements and changes to the identity of Muslim background believers. ous with—and to some extent supported by—Islamic scripture. Some may ask, “Isn’t this a deceitful blurring of two religions? Doesn’t this run the risk of deceiving Muslims into becoming Christian without them realizing it?” In my experience, Muslims are not that naive. They all know that anything to do with the Injil (New Testament) is essentially Christian, but this approach provides them an acceptable “window” through which they can investigate the previous scriptures without turning traitor to their society. As Muslims come to faith, they accept baptism when they confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, they acknowledge that salvation is by God’s grace through faith, and believe that the Bible (Taurat, Zabur, Injil) is God’s Word. I have yet to meet a Muslim background believer who failed to realize that what he believes is basically Biblical, and in that sense Christian. We therefore do not hoodwink or manipulate Muslims into believing Biblical truth. We merely present it in a manner they can understand, making palatable to Muslims what they know to be essentially Biblical Christianity. Paul utilized a similar approach in Athens. After noting their altar to “an Unknown God,” Paul pronounced, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23 NIV). He then proceeded to use quotes from their pagan poets (including a hymn to Zeus) as stepping-stones to the Gospel. In other words, Paul built a bridge for the Gospel with redeemable elements of Athenian paganism. This did not win the entire crowd or obviate theological hurdles, but it opened the way for several to come to faith in Christ (Acts 17:34). Believers’ Perception of Faith and Community When a Muslim comes to faith in Christ as his savior, he knows he is making a religious change. In my experience, Muslim background believers do not perceive themselves as Muslim reformers following a “purified Islam.” However, a true Islamic perspective would hold that the religion revealed by all prophets (e.g., Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad) was originally the same, but later changed by Jews and Christians. From this viewpoint, some Muslim background believers could possibly consider that they are returning to the “true Islam” as revealed through Jesus. But even in this case it would be understood that this “true Islam” is what real Christians believe. Muslim background believers continue to see themselves as members of Muslim society. They keep their Islamic names, avoid consuming pork and wine, and do not (publicly at least) malign the Qur’an or Muhammad. They feel comfortable with the familiar rhythms and flow of life in Muslim society, and continue to meet social obligations to Muslim friends and relatives. Muslim background believers do not see themselves as having become animist background Christians, and do not make highly visible links to the animist background Christian community. However, they do realize that animist background Christian believers are their brothers in Christ. They do not feel the same bond with people in the church who are Christian in name only, or with Christian sects who deny the essentials of the faith. So the fraternal bond between Muslim background believers and animist background Christians is therefore one of faith, not of community. Debate on the unity of faith and community has troubled the church for centuries. The early church wrestled through the religious and communal identity of Gentile background believers. Judaizers wanted Gentiles believers to make 17 Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 Should Muslims Become Christians? 18 International Journal of Frontier Missions a complete break from their pagan traditions by embracing Judaism along with Jesus, and they no doubt insisted on circumcision along with the entire Law of Moses. This all must have seemed to have clear Biblical support. The Jerusalem Council discussed the matter at great length. Finally, James articulated their decision of the early church, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19ff). Gentile believers were not required to join the Jewish community, attend synagogue services, become circumcised, change their names, or maintain the ritual cleanliness prescribed by the Law. After two thousand years and a Protestant ethos that emphasizes theology over community, it is easy to think in only theological terms and completely overlook the massive communal identity issues being addressed in the Jerusalem Council decision. Believers from a Muslim background are in a similar situation to that of early Gentile believers. I also believe that we should not make it difficult for the Muslims who are turning to God. Following the example of our early church fathers, we should not impose unnecessary changes to the cultural identity of Muslim background believers. Problems Associated with a “Christian” Identity Muslim background believers face many problems identifying themselves as “Christian.” In my region of the world, this is understood to mean animist background Christian. As noted above, they feel no affinity to the animist background Christian community. From their perspective, becoming a “Christian” is to betray one’s family and community by following the polytheistic path of animism. With such an understanding of the term, who can blame the Muslim community for ostracizing a “Christian” and his family from the life of the community? The “Christian” child will have no playmates, and his marriage will be almost impossible to arrange. A “Christian” identity actually communicates the very antithesis of what it means to be a Christ-follower. In addition to suffering social ostracism, a “Christian” identity precludes the Muslim background believer from gaining a hearing in his own community. A mature believer—and effective evangelist—sadly told me how he ruined his chances of reaching his family for Christ because, as a new believer, he shared the gospel using animist background Christian language and identity. Twenty years later they are still offended. Where I live, Muslim society is broad and inclusive of many different faiths and practices. Muslim youth join communist parties and espouse atheistic dogma, but are still considered Muslims. Some Muslims never stop to pray except for Friday noon prayers. Others only pray on Islamic holidays. Mainstream Muslims belong to a bewildering number of mystical sects. Sufi pirs (holy men) lead groups of disciples through many unorthodox practices in their quest for a mystical experience of God—some of which are animistic and some even erotic. Of course, there are orthodox, bearded Muslims with prayer caps, and modest women covered from head to toe. Surely there is room for Muslim background believers underneath this broad umbrella of Muslim society. Looking at the Various Options 1. Animist background Christian. This option generally results in social ostracism, and therefore can not establish a local witness relevant to Muslim society. 2. Christian with Muslim culture. Some groups have taken a “Christian” identity and retained much of their Muslim culture, such as language, dress, names, etc. However, few are able to establish a witness in their home areas. Most receive outside funding to engage in witness away from their home areas, and they are seeing some Muslims come to Christ. It is yet to be seen whether or not this outreach can result in fellowships led by local believers who remain positively engaged in their community. 3. Neither Christian nor Muslim. Some set themselves out to be followers of Jesus— outside Islam and outside animist background Christianity. This is a difficult identity for young believers to take, as there is no supporting community and no such legal category. The government only recognizes major religious communities (i.e., Christian, Muslim, Tribal Animist, etc.), so an individual cannot just create a new legally recognized religious community known as “followers of Jesus.” The most effective prevention against syncretism is found in a good understanding of Scripture. 19 Bernard Dutch Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 4. Jesus Muslims. A few believers try to identify themselves as a new sect of “Jesus Muslims.” Some find this a viable identity, but most are not deeply involved in their communities. Muslims generally regard it as a disguise for Christianity, albeit a more palatable form of Christian than the animist background form. 5. Mystical Muslims (Sufi). Some believers have come from mystical Sufi backgrounds. The Sufi tradition is quite popular where I live. Adherents come to a pir (holy man) expecting him to be their mediator before God. The pir will dispense special wisdom or power to help the person cope with life’s problems. Sufi brotherhoods are outside of orthodox Islam, but accepted as part of Muslim society. Believers from these traditions have perhaps the easiest job determining their identity. They say they belong to a special Sufi brotherhood called “The Way”. Their specific teaching and path of salvation involves Jesus as their mediator before God. This identity is only an option for those with Sufi leanings—those whom society will recognize as Sufi-type people. Believers from mainstream traditions will not take this identity, as the trappings of a Sufi brotherhood would be problematic for them. 6. Muslims with non-mainstream beliefs and practices. Where I live, most Muslim background believers keep a general Muslim identity, but incorporate several nonmainstream practices in prayer, celebration of Muslim holidays, and Scripture reading. Like believers in the West who are effective in sharing their faith, they tailor their identity according to the openness of their audience. People who ask questions in a belligerent or ridiculing manner are usually shown a mainstream, God-fearing Muslim identity with few differences. This avoids wasting precious opportunities to bear witness on people not ready to hear (Matt. 7:6). If accused of apostasy, a believer can often deflect charges by pointing to the positive changes in his life. Those who inquire more sincerely are usually shown a distinctive identity that melds Muslim elements with a disclosure of faith in Jesus. The more an inquirer progresses towards faith in Jesus, the more he/she is shown an identity that deviates from mainstream Islam. There are no hard and fast rules for this matter, but this practice of testing motives and responding accordingly is an integral part of behavior in the culture at large. 7. Full Muslims. Some Muslim background believers tried to remove any trace of difference between themselves and an orthodox Muslim identity. They advocated full Ramadan fasting, recitation of the Qur’an in corporate worship, and confession of Muhammad as prophet. One even made plans for an off-season pilgrimage to Mecca. They were trying to take the identity of highly religious Muslims—more religious than they had before coming to faith in Jesus. Other believers opposed these steps, as they believed this was syncretistic and undermined any effective witness. After all, if believers are totally the same as orthodox Muslims, they have nothing about which to bear witness. This identity, like the animist background Christian identity, makes no progress toward establishing a local witness relevant to Muslim society. Additional Factors Several additional social factors affect the way Muslim background believers identify themselves to others. Testing a questioner’s motives and responding accordingly (as mentioned above) also governs openness to animist background Christians, many of whom are deeply critical and suspicious of Muslim background believers. Around this type of Christian, Muslim background believers may disclose their faith, but not emphasize the essential unity of their faiths. Some animist background Christians are thrilled with the emerging fellowships of Muslim background believers, so relationships in this context can be open and cordial. Another factor influencing a believer’s identity is his social status relative to the person with whom he is interacting. If the believer comes from a higher stratum of society, then he is more free to share the distinctives of his faith. Higher social standing provides greater importance to one’s views, and insulates them from trouble- making attempts of social subordinates. If the believer is of lower status, he generally keeps a lower profile around people of high position. Whatever the audience and circumstance, believers should not deny Christ and his work on the cross (Mark 8:38, Heb. 10:39). Denial of Christ may happen due to fear of persecution or death, which we consider a weakness of faith. However, a strategy that denies Christ in order to maintain a Muslim identity crosses the line into syncretism. New believers need help to work through what constitutes a denial of Christ in their context. Should Muslims Become Christians? 20 International Journal of Frontier Missions For most believers where I live, this means not affirming Muhammad as their prophet, and not participating in the sacrifice of an animal for eid. Habitual mosque prayers are considered inappropriate for believers, but time is given for a new believer to accept this position. Occasional mosque or eid prayers are deemed acceptable as a sign of belonging to Muslim society. My experience suggests that rules imposed by outsiders are not likely to be followed. Believers need to work through the Scriptures and apply them to their own situation. Outsiders can and need to help in this process, but cannot do it for local believers. The most effective prevention against syncretism is found in a good understanding of Scriptures. Proper discipleship of new believers is, therefore, far more basic, and in that sense far more important, than the degree of contextualization used in the approach. Societal Perceptions Muslim background believers are perceived as different from mainstream Muslims. Where believers have given bold witness, they are commonly perceived to be Christians—though not as negative as animist background Christians. Physical beatings and being cut off from government assistance often results. Where believers take the identity of a Muslim with non-mainstream beliefs and practices (option 6 above), they are often suspected of being Christian, but still perceived as more similar to Muslims than animist background Christians. Oppression in these cases is usually mild or non-existent, unless the community spots any telltale signs of apostasy to animist background Christianity— taking a Christian name, drinking wine, eating pork, maligning the Qur’an and Muhammad, and not attending the Muslim festivals. When a believer’s life changes for the better, local perceptions of him also improve. Muslims hold in high regard any person who believes in one God, prays, reads the Scripture, is sensitive to the needs of others, and lives an honest life—regardless of their religious affiliation. A friend of mine from Europe—well known as one of those rare Christians who lives out the above life—was recently with some Muslim friends who joked about arranging his marriage. When he questioned whether it would be acceptable for a Christian man to marry a Muslim woman, they laughed and said, “No problem! You are a good man and believe almost the same as us!” We have seen fellowships of Muslim background believers remain in their communities for years without significant difficulty. Their low profile provides time for maturity to develop, and for quiet growth to gradually spread through their community. A few such fellowships tried later to take on a more Christian identity, joined a church denomination, and put up a public signboard. Community opposition mounted swiftly, an angry mob broke down the signboard, and leaders were intimidated. Subsequently, oppressive scrutiny was imposed on the fellowship, causing the believers to avoid meeting together for three years. Witness to the community was completely curtailed. The “flash points” that galvanize community opposition to Muslim background believers seem to be their visible adoption of animist background Christian practice. These include erecting a church building (especially one with a signboard), adopting “Christian” names, legally changing one’s religion by affidavit, eating foods that defile, and disrespecting the Qur’an and Muhammad. However, if believers avoid these affronts and live increasingly transformed lives, they are able to gain both the respect of and a hearing in their own community. Low Profile Ministry in Hostile Societies In societies hostile to the Church, the self-identity of believers is no trivial matter of little consequence. High profile approaches involve taking a public stand, facing strong opposition, suffering persecution, and displaying strong spiritual vitality under duress. Such courage attracts people to Christ. Even amidst such boldness, cultural sensitivity is crucially important. Little is gained by needlessly provoking public opposition. Publicly maligning the Qur’an and Muhammad are rarely helpful approaches for reaching Muslims. “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,…” (1 Peter 3:15, 16) 21 Bernard Dutch Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 In Acts 19, we see that Paul had an extremely effective ministry in Ephesus for over two years. Local silversmiths, who made and sold small replicas of Artemis, the patron goddess of Ephesus, were fearful of losing customers. They instigated a riot against Paul because he was leading many astray and claiming that “man-made gods are no gods at all” (Acts 19:26). Note that Paul’s reported claim was not against the goddess herself, whose image was a meteor that had fallen from the sky (v.35). In defusing the situation, the city clerk argued, “You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess” (v.37, emphasis added). Some might expect Paul would have spoken out publicly against such idolatry, but he apparently avoided making public attacks on the city’s goddess. Even during his high profile ministry in Ephesus, accompanied by exorcisms and healings, Paul was sensitive to local culture and sentiment, choosing his battles carefully. Low profile approaches involve remaining in society; identifying those who are open; appropriately arousing people’s interest; and wooing them toward Christ. Low profile does not mean huddling in fear and failing to give any sort of witness. It means giving sensitive witness appropriate to a situation, all in the context of maintaining relationships in one’s family and community. “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, …so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders…” (1 Thess. 4:11-12). In the Muslim society where I work, maintaining good relationships is perhaps the strongest factor influencing a person’s behavior and is unabashedly valued more than truth, honesty or wealth. Those who treat social responsibilities lightly communicate disdain to others around them. Paul was not the only Apostle who advanced the Kingdom with sensitivity to and respect for the sentiments of pagan peoples. Peter advocated a similar approach, “Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:17) “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect....” (1 Peter 3:15, 16) Effective low profile ministry occurs as the transformed life of a believer abides in community. When positive change is lived out for all to see, respect is earned and questions are asked. These are the priceless opportunities to penetrate a hostile society with gospel truth! Such a personal witness spreads easily to others because it values people and relationships. Modern missions, on the other hand, tend to be unreasonably biased toward high profile approaches when its participants know nothing of spilling their blood for Jesus. We read biographies of high profile missionaries that transformed cultures, and of spiritual giants that overcame astounding obstacles. We read stories about the impact of the martyrs’ witness, and are filled with wistful notions about taking bold stands ourselves. Then we expect young believers to make a bold and public witness, facing consequences that we have never known. Somehow we miss the fact that most ministry is low profile: lay people living out Christ’s life in the daily gaze of everyday people. This slow, steady growth ministry is an effective way for the gospel to penetrate a hostile society, and enables the church to build a local foundation. Twenty years ago in the country where I work, Muslim background believers were so few they could almost be numbered with the fingers on two hands. Then a low profile, contextualized ministry was begun by several organizations. Numbers began to increase. Muslim background believers stayed in their communities and witnessed to others. Given the low profile and lack of centralized statistics, no one is certain of the number of Muslim background believers today. But even conservative estimates put the number in excess of ten thousand. These are true believers from Muslim backgrounds who continue to live in their communities, and work through the issues of identity much as I have described. Some have taken higher profiles and won people to Christ—along with significant persecution. Most took low profiles and are quietly winning friends and relatives to believe in Jesus. It seems God only equips some believers to take high profiles. We should not try Should Muslims Become Christians? 22 International Journal of Frontier Missions to fit everyone into this pattern. Believers should have the freedom to respond to God’s leading regarding the profile they should take. Let us thank God for those whom He leads into high profile ministry; we need these people who make a wide impact for the gospel. Thank God also for those whom He leads into low profile ministry, “common” believers with the extraordinary task of bringing Christ into the daily life of their community. And thank God for those whose profile falls somewhere in between. Questions and Problems When high contextualization and low profile ministry are considered, several questions arise. 1. How does this fit with the need to give verbal witness as mentioned in Matthew 10:32-33 and especially Romans 10:10, “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved”? This matter to confess Jesus as Lord came at a time when it was treason to confess anyone other than Caesar as lord. Thus, the argument goes, Muslim background believers need to make a strong verbal confession even if it leads to their social ostracism or martyrdom. Verbal confession is an important biblical mandate for personal growth, but to whom is it given? Is it given to anyone on any occasion? Certainly a believer confesses Christ as Lord at his baptism, in the local congregation, and in the presence of other believers. I encourage verbal witness to unbelievers whenever appropriate opportunities are created. But reckless or disrespectful witness in a hostile context is not to be encouraged. I doubt many early Christians walked up to Centurions on the street and provokingly declared, “Jesus is Lord, not Caesar!” No, most chose low profile ways to witness as well as low profile places to meet. Their transformed lives created many opportunities to share their faith. If caught, many were uncompromising in their faith and refused to deny Christ. I have similar hopes for Muslim background believers: transformed lives creating opportunities to witness, and firm resolve never to deny Christ. 2. Does not this approach run counter to the believer’s call to suffer for Christ? (Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet 2:21, 4:13) There is no easy answer. Should we encourage new believers to find ways to suffer? Do we ourselves seek ways to encounter suffering for Jesus? I think all Muslim background believers will experience some suffering, and should learn to see how God uses suffering for His purposes. But there is surely little merit in suffering for insensitive and disrespectful witness, particularly if it is performed to satisfy ill-informed outsiders’ notions of “proper” witness. Whether under the oppressive communist regimes of Mao in China, or the sinister plots of Nero to exterminate all Christians who would not bow to him as a god, or the persecution by a Muslim majority, low profile witness should be motivated by a strategic concern to see the church established in a hostile society—not by a desire to avoid suffering. If a believer embraces the difficulties that come with low profile witness, he will learn that God is faithful to provide all our needs, eroding the fear that can paralyze faith and witness. 3. How and when do Muslim background believers become part of the worldwide body of Christ? This is a challenge for any church of believers from a particular socioethnic group. But it is a particularly acute problem for Muslim background believers who wish to distance themselves from the animist background Christian community. I do not expect Muslim background believers to worship with animist background Christians in the same local fellowship. Why should I? In Western countries we consider many options when selecting a local fellowship in which to worship. We often look for churches of people with similar socio-economic class or ethnic background who share our views of “proper” worship style, preaching style, sermon length, and so on. I expect and encourage Muslim background believers to exercise similar freedom. Still, we have high hopes for Muslim background believers to fellowship with others. Where I work, we see friendships forming between Muslim background believers and animist background Christians. For instance, in our organization, we remain convinced that members from both backgrounds must attend staff conferences together. We see organizations from both backgrounds conferring with one another on common issues. A good example of this is the regular conference of Bible correspondence schools where believers from both backgrounds share strategy and discuss common challenges. As the Muslim background church organizes and grows in confidence, I foresee them working with the animist background Church in joint ministry opportunities. Representatives of the Muslim background church in my country relate to national church leaders in other countries through an association fostered by our sending agency. In this way, they gain a sense of belonging to the worldwide church. 4. Can believers flourish and grow without a distinct identity and community? This is a profound question without a simple answer. When a community of believers is small and weak, it is difficult to meet together regularly and meaningfully. Individual 23 Bernard Dutch Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 believers then have difficulty retaining their passion for Christ. I have seen many believers fall out of fellowship and then lose all signs of spiritual life. Many believers are concerned about their children: When will they have opportunity to have believing peers? Can they keep their faith without such friends? These are not problems associated with Muslim identity per se, but with small churches struggling to survive in a hostile society. Where I live the spiritual battle is not so much for individual Muslims coming to faith in Jesus; it is for Muslim background believers forming themselves into local fellowships. I have heard similar comments from colleagues working with Muslims elsewhere in the world. Believers in the church have a collective strength for spiritual victory that individuals do not (Matt 16:18). I believe Satan knows this and opposes the formation of the church at every opportunity. This spiritual opposition confirms to me that forming local fellowships of Muslim background believers is the right strategy. The Apostle Paul wrote, “I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me” (1 Cor. 16:8, 9). Similarly, opposition can strengthen our sense of urgency and God’s guidance. We must persist in prayer for breakthroughs in establishing the church among believers of Muslim backgrounds. We must continually encourage and teach them about the crucial role of the local church in God’s plan for His Kingdom. Why These Issues Really Matter There is more at stake here than correctly splitting missiological hairs; the eternal destiny of millions of Muslims hangs in the balance. Are we serious about giving the 850 million Muslims in the world a chance to hear the gospel in a manner that they can understand and accept? Missionaries from Christians lands will never be numerous and effective enough to win the Muslim world ourselves. The task is far too great. We need more witnesses who are located throughout Muslim society. If we insist or suggest that Muslim background believers boldly identify themselves as “Christian,” the usual result is expulsion from their society. They go from accepted insider to social pariah. The tragedy of this is not so much the personal suffering of that, but that an opportunity to penetrate Muslim society with the gospel is lost. Outsiders lack the social respect and interdependence needed for the church to take root. Our goal in outreach needs to be the establishment of a local witness relevant to Muslim society. The majority of Muslims in the world seem fairly content with Islam—especially when compared with the “Christianity” they see portrayed in Western media. I believe that these Muslim masses will never be reached by evangelism that results in converts being extracted and expelled from their society. We will never see significant numbers come to Christ through outsiders making forays into Muslim society to abduct a few responsive people. To reach significant numbers of Muslims, we need growing numbers of vibrant, Biblically based churches that remain in and relevant to Muslim society. The Muslim world will only be reached through indigenous church planting movements that explode far beyond what outsiders can direct or fund. Concluding Vision The identity of Muslim background believers is a crucial and complex issue. Outsider expectations are often based on a poor understanding of the issues involved and unrealistic aspirations for young believers. Identity is fluid and takes different forms in different contexts. Believers need the freedom to work out how high a profile God is calling them to take in their community. Muslim background believers struggling to establish the church in their locality need significant prayer support to accomplish this humanly impossible task. Perhaps these identity issues are temporary concerns, until the resulting Muslim background church grows bigger and stronger. Where I work, the Muslim background church is growing, but it has not yet attained adequate size to earn its own identity and presence in the community which can openly draw interested Muslims. The day will come when this church becomes large enough to have its own identity within Muslim society, and some of these earlier concerns will likely fade into insignificance. In my vision for the people group in which I work, I foresee the gospel deeply penetrating Muslim society. Most believers will increasingly share with relatives and neighbors through sensitive low-profile witness and transformed lives. Upon this foundation, ever increasing numbers of people will come to faith in Jesus without being ostracized from Muslim society. With increasing numbers I foresee a growing number of believers engaging in high-profile witness that will challenge society’s basic assumptions about Islam. This will not be regulated or inspired by outsiders, but will be the result of the Holy Spirit working to Should Muslims Become Christians? 24 International Journal of Frontier Missions expand the Church in the Muslim world. I believe that in this way the Muslim background church will eventually grow so large and have such a powerful vitality that Muslim society will no longer be able to contain it. The early church could not be contained within Judaism; similarly the Muslim background church will eventually break out from Muslim society to form its own distinct community. When this happens, God will be seen triumphantly extending His reign among precious Muslim peoples everywhere. Concerns about the early believers retaining a Muslim identity will be a thing of history as we behold the greatness of God’s kingdom fully established among them. Bernard Dutch (a pseudonym) has worked in church planting and community development among one of the world’s largest Muslim people groups for the past twelve years. Ad here by Baker BookHouse Tuesday, 19th February, 1974. 4:45 p.m. GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING MESSAGE GEARED TO HORIZON OF RECEPTIVITY Dr. C. Kraft (. .. ) By way of introduction, I'd like to just deal a bit with something that's well-known to you, and that's the diversity within what we call the "l1uslim community". There's something about that generalization that strikes me as a bit much. The latest estimate I've seen, rightly or wrongly, is something like 650 million Muslims - these add up to 560 - .600 million is a ball park .igure; it's an extremely large number. But how. easily we generalize on it. "How does one approach the l1uslim?", we ask. Which Muslim? Which group of Muslims? Saudi Arabian Muslims? Iranian Muslims? North African Muslims? West African Muslims? Urban Muslims? Rural Muslims? Westernized University Muslims? Nomadic camel-herding Muslims? Religious Muslims? Secularized Muslims? What are we talking aoout? Who are we talking about? Well, for radio we are talking about a good many, perhaps most of these varieties. An adequate radio ministry has to take this whole spectrum of diversity into' account. For printed literature, however, the audience is much more limited. I'm not sure what figures you would give for literacy over the whole area. I've seen something like 25%. There are some areas that are much higher than that, and there are some areas that are much lower than that. At least we can say that for literature we are talking about a much more restricted group, in terms simply of those who are literate and those who are not. But within , the percentage of those who are literate, how many will be able to - 2 - buy whatever we provide them with? And how many will read it? And how many who read it will understand it? C.ommunication through . literacy is to many people a Very foreign kind of communication. It's a medium that they may like, they may like to have it around, but' th~y may never expect to be cqmmunicated to through it. And what kind of impact will what they read have on them? Perhaps it will be regarded as mere information. Perhaps the co~tl~t will be so foreign that it won't really have much of an impact at all. Will it stimulate them to action? So the area we need to cover· is impossibly large, .and yet hopeful~y ~e can deal with some things that will be useful in terms of general principles, and then I'll invite you to interrupt as often as you feel necessary. Media and Specificity Now what about this matter of Media and Specificity? Hebrew culture Greek cultUI'le Fig. 2 God Greek culture 2 HebreH culture Fig. 1 1 Interpretation: The original message from God (1) is taken by Hebrews to Greeks (2) and the Greeks are expected to become Hebrews (culturally) in order to be considered Christians .(3). Interpretation: This is the right way according to Acts 15. Hebrews hear God.' s message ,( 1 ) , take it to Greeks (2) who then. can respond directly to God (3) . without having to get circumcised and. convert to.Hebrew culture. Some of you are acquainted with books like Eugene Nida's "Hessage and Nission", whe.re he tries to use geometric forms "like - 3 - this to represent a cultural diversity that the target popul~tion is divided into • The one difficulty with mass media that is increasingly being recognized is the fact that you are more likely, to hit somet~ing if ~ou aim at something. That's not really a profound principle, but it has been ignorep often enoggh that perhaps it ought to be reiterated, and with all this diversity the question is, what to aim at? A lot of people have assumed, or allowed it to be assumed without ever investigating it, that it is possible to hit everybody. And yet a basic principle here is that, the mo~e people we try to hit at the same, time with a single approach, the more likely we are to miss nearly everybody. When you have a message that looks . IT. (~~Ä, • . l~ke that _~nd~cates diagra~1 that you want to h~t somebody w~th, if you want to hit all those groups with that message, then you have got to thin it out, so that you get a very, very thin but broad kind ,of voverage in reaching those people. That is, wheQ you increase the spread of your message, you decrease the specificity, you decrease the depth or the,appropriateness tJith which that m~ssage can reach any of these groups. And the result so often is that .the aim is X~ dulled. This is one reason why sermons are so notoriously ineffective, or many sermons are, because they aim so generally that'they fail to really grab anyone. I am speaking of sermonS in general. I am not at this point attacking the problem that I understand exists, that a good bit of what has gone out over the radio is in sermon form. The sermon generally deals with topics of relatively mild concern to most of the people, but s~ldom of real pressing concern to anyone, since they aren't,usually prepared with the specific needs of any specific group in mind. Occasionally - 4 - you get a serm.0n that violates this particular generalization, and it does hit somebody. This fact, with regard to this kind of communication, has prompted any number of statements like that that John V. Taylor quotes his son as having nade. He says, "11y son, when he decided to give up on the church,made this statement to me: 'Father, that man, that preacher, is saying all of the right things, but he isn't saying them to anyone. He doesn't know where I am, .and it wouldn t t occur to him to ask'''. Now this kind of a comment has been made so often, and I guess one way of summing it up is, "Nothing aimed at, nothing hit ll • Th~re are, of course" situatioRs where we aim at something and miss it, but it's probably better to miss something aimed at, than to miss something'not aimed at. So I am suggesting it is far better a use of media that designates specific audiences, researches the approaches most appropriate to each group, and employs the most effectiv.eapproach to reach one group at onetime and another at another time. I'll say more about this later. We've still got this body of material to try arid communicate. The thing to do is to take that body of material, and if we are ~~ndicates diageam7 going to try and reach the people in "Squaresville ~iBexiip!xxix~ulllC gt , the way to reach them is to frame the message in a shape that cOl"'l"'esponds with the shape of that society. ( ••• ) It has to be not only in the language but in the conceptual framework of the group• .That body of truth can be communicated to some extent but cannot be' communicated perfectly or absolutely. There is no such thing as absolute communication in the sense that the totality of lithat is in one language and one cultural frame of reference can be communicated . into the other langjage and'other form of reference without any loss _ - 5 - of information or any gain of information. There is no such thing as total communication in that sense. Failing total communication, we want to get whatever can be gotten of the basic message into the framework that is appropriate so that it can be communicated specifically. No,!;J there is a second difficulty here, beyond this one difficulty of getting the message specific enough to reach the diverse selJll*mts, and t& difficulty is at least asimportant as the previous one, 8l1d that is that radio and literature are, to many of these segments, foreign communicational techniques. These people may be acquainted with them; they may even be fascinated by them; they may have transister radios with them wherever they go, or books, btlt there may be. yery little expectation that anything vital .*." will be presented in these ways. Entertainment, yes; information, yes; but anything as vital as the kind of message that we are dealing with, that is. specifically a1.med at transformation of life first, and thought patterns as a concomltant, and behavior patterns as a further concemitant. So the fact that these media are noted in their minds as foreign may provide a further hindrance to them. For these groups that feel this way, therefore, we must either write off these groups, or adapt our use of the media to appeal to them. Now here t s the focus on __ use, for, as McLuhan has established, the message is greatly affected by the medium employed to present it. I think that Hcluhan perhaps over-stated his case, but he has made a point, that the medium employed ~atly affects the way the message comes through. I mentioned previously that if the words used, or the concepts in terms of which the ideas are framed, call attention to themselves, they can impede the flow of the messaqe. Likewise with respect to written presentations or radio presentations, if at any time ·the hearer or reader is more aware of the medium in terms of which that message is ceming to him than he is of the message itself, there is static in the system, there is noise, and this .. ,' - 6 - is a very great probitem. This principle that the medium affects the meS13age is perhaps doubly tnte when cultural barriers are crossed, especially in the case of Christian1ty, where our message is always to some extent foreign. There is an intrusiveness about our message. The message ceme from God. It is not a message that is indigenous to any culture in the sense that it sprang from that culture. .It has come from outside. So that we have a certain aDl0unt of foreignness of the message that we always have to deal Wf:th and take account of. Now, if you put a foreign .message in a foreign med,ium, there are, all kinds of possibilities for miscommuniaatiQn; tha:t: is, the possibilities for miscommunication and skewed cemmimication are increased. The aim, then, is not to ask "What are Muslims in general hearing when we tl,Be mass media'?lt, but, "What is such and such a ~PeCific group of JIlusllms hearing when we use such and such a medium in such and such a way?" - the diversityQf the groups, the diversity of the media, and the diversity of the communication that comes across the media. For what they hear is 611important to the message; and what they hear is affected in a major wet:! both by where they are (that is, by what group they belong to), and how they hear it. As Don Smith has told us, "~here is No Magic in the Media". So how we use it is all-important. Guid~3:~~s and Competitiveness Now, having said that, turn aside a little bit 11;) what I think is a very important characteristic of the cultures in which most of us Participate. Tnere are three general areas that we deal with as Chrtstian anthroJlO~$.sts, or areas intro which we get insight,; One, of oourse, is the insight that we get into.the cultures that we regard as the receptor cultures for our missionary activity, so we look for insight into these cultures. A se(::ond area that we g~t insight into is this marvellous eross-c.:ultural book that we call the Bible. It is a cross-eultural operation to tl'y and - 7 - understand the Scrhptures, to understand the message that came at other times, in other place~, in terms of other cul'hural orientations. A third area, then, 1s that we begin to .HJUiu: learn quite a bit about ourselves, and our involvement in our culture, and it's from this latter area blat I want to spend a little time concerning one of the primary cultural characteristics of those of us who are involved in western culture. It f s perhaps eo ;u.ttle more exaggerated in the United States than in some ·of the other segments of western eNlture, but I think it' attaches to all of us. And that is, we seem to see the task of mission largely in competiUve terms. We are ~petit1ve, and this unbridled competitiveness is destrOying our culture. It enters into our h-. life, as we, within the marriage relationship, compete with each other. We compete with our children, and our children are carefully' taught in our schools to compete with and best their parents. The business competition, of course, is well-knOwn, Nt what I am maY suggesting is that we/have gone out of our native countries, but our native countries have not gone out of us. And we take this competitiveness with us. We go as missionaries to an area, and set up a medical system which is specifically designed to be a competing medical system, often without regard to the indigenous meiical system. Perhaps our medicine is bett8i, but that is not the point. The fact that we set it up often without reference to the indigenous system is the point that I am making, and that we design it to run the indigenous practitioners right out of business. Now I may be speaking a bit more out of my African background than out of any real understanding of what the situation is in the Middle East, but this :lis not my main point, but it is an illustration of hOW, in the medical aspect of our missiQnax:y work, we manifest this competitiveness. Educationally likewise. We set up a competing educational system. I frequently ask missionaries, priIIlilri;l.y in African or Asian or Latin American tribal cultural areas, tfWhat do you - 8 - know about the ecNcational system of these people?", and not infreqwmtly they will say, "What educational systeat? I didn't know they had one". "You didn't know they had one?" What a ftti disaster, to be workinq with a peop::l.e 0010. not even know that they have an educational system•.and furth;er not eVGrl to know that some of the basic principles of that educational system are just beinq discovered by our educational specialists. 1.t has taken usa long time to discover that learner-centered discovery-orj.ented educat10n is the best kind, rather than our western teacher-eentered p:'edigesti. an }dna of educational system, Where, as a professor in a western insUi:Ilt1..on, :t _ supposed to pre-digest all the information ItIlCl thea bring it wt and P\1sh it over this lectern, and IIr:f eager students pick up the_ pearls of wisdom and then they've 90t it. But our competitive approach to missionaty work bas gone in with an educational system that is ag«1n desi~ to run the ~digenous educational system riqht out of business. We ~ ·wt a formal system in place of their informal system. We set up an informat.1o.nbased sys~ to displace their behavior-based system, a teacher-eentered system to replace their learner-eentered system, and so on. '!'here is a lot more t.o be said on this. But the impact of this is to train their c::h1ldren out of th.eir world into ours; rather than training them to more effectively p&X.'ticipa:te in their world, there is this extraction process. Lik.ewise religiously we see Christianity in competition with the religion of the people ~d us, and all over the world we have imported our f~ of r(;!llgion, ow: doctrine, our worship, our church organisation, our leadership: .1t suys, "Made in U.S.A.··, or "Made in Europe·'. Designed. to run their previous syStem out of business. NclW if we are talking about communications, I'IY observation is tnat, with r€~spect to communication systems, likewise we often see ourselve. 1a competjltion with competin(] communication systems. Systems that are ~d! - 9 - systems rather 'than personal systems. Quite often the indigenous systems are person.-to-person-based; ours are mechanical. OUrs generally are broad and general, rather than specific; this breadth factor rather than depth. OUr communication systems are constantly there, rather than related to special times and places. Now each of these things throw people off balance to some extent. The forms of these cOIllllUnicationU systems are dicatated from outside of their experience, rather than developed from within. They have no control over them, perhaps no feed-back, perhaps 11ttle varie'by. That is, forei~ess in these ways is a primary characteristic, and even those that hawe offer the last cQuple of decades gotten fairly f'am1liar with some of these techniques, may still be quite orf-balance with respect toth.em. Think of the utter foreignness of reading and writing, not only to illiterates but to those who are minimally literate or who perhaps use literacy is a way that d6esn·t appear to us to be literacy, such as memorization of something that is written, whether or not they can undel':stand it, such as memoriziI)g the Qur'Bl or whatever. But think of the foreignness of this kind of communicational system, which fO<i:Use.s on an impersonal cane-way C0nversation. The people who are being approached in this way may never guess th,at t~ messages that come ecross or the information that comes across is intended to be conmrunicational, that it is intended to stillUlate any ldnd of activity on their part. The sination~may be a bit better for radio if indigenous oral forms are used, 11$ with respect to radio you have the dual possibility. You have the foreign medium that goes out over the air-wa.ys, but then within that medium you can do certain things that are perhaps less foreign than other things. Thus quite often we are found to be presenting competitive messages by means of competitive forms of communication. ( ••• ) But do we really mean to bomb t:hent right out of t~e water? Sub-conscio\1sly perhaps yes; this is' (Joyce) (Kraft) - 10 - our the Euro-American way. But should we want to? Does tkb Gospel require this utter destruction of both the functions and the forms of the cultures ~a~ people :.II:iIlB% we seek to reach are involved in? Is this a necessary concomitant of our Gospel? Again I think: our cult~re-bound western Christianity says, "Yes", but does God say, ItYes"? Does the God who became a Hebrelrl to win Hebrews, add everyone else, the God who said, tt1 am not come to destroy but to fulfill"', really approve of bombing these people out of the water? These are the qusttions that lie behind this kind of consideration, at le.ast in mym mind. _:xm_lOl'i:~:.Dn[pRWckB~_( ••• ) I!'he next thing I want to deal with is the use of this kin.dbfl\led.i.l;i.as an extension of their communicational systems rather than in competition 'to. . ~;~.. I'll break right here, and perhaps you will want to ask ques-ti~s oni;'~!n~:.';' . . .. " .. : ..:., .. points. I want to then proceed to a technique perhaps of e';'aluating''" s~;;<-····.··.' , .0" ,;"". :"'.r:~: :;~ culture, He says, God is aijJainst culture, failing to recognize that John, in wrif§.n~1.}~~R.~,Ä?};.,; ,: words, was not fighting against his culture, but usirt~ iti"~/;~~.~"~' . ':'~l~""~'; • 0" ,:."•••j•••• ~ .. ~ .. ~.::.'.: :.<~~J~t;~;~:<:·>.:;·~~>:::::1', ...;::;.~.::" .. _: meant by ftLove not the world" was that we shouldntt lov~ and.~end(>.+.~i!a,tld'.Ä,:';:'<;..i:.' , . ".':;; ,i, '!i:--)Y',;d,,:!,,:Ä:~,~):'Ä:" become a part of the Satanic use of culture. Rather,We$1:l9u14.Äts.>~~;.:;,~_:.:,· vehicle for God. And so the principle that I see1D'~h'f~;i~l:h:~;~;; ;:';r.;.'.:;.:.;f,~:J;~' to use human cmlture in order to reach people withi~"'tha~>~lM~',;Ä': - .... ; " part waa ,', :... ,11- to what I think is a very .im~tantStrai9htening,out of another, cultural problem that we haveiis: ~ei';i~ans.. The impression that I have gptten ,. ' :::l::ernin :::~iZ=~::t:.~:e::~s:v::~:fO::;~Slook . at the Bibl~ is~to ~~',~'·~~',~av.e the Pentateuch and the historical boo)<s and the wrltingsau:~~r;~()~.~s",and the New, Test8Il\ent, and at last we get" :.~;.. :........ ,.... .: .. . '- rOU'nd;f." then' the next stal;e. ' , "d.;~,;.:~~' ~o:.~n. , And L think, 'one, ' ~::·:;::·~)}<t ·>:~::·Ä:.:~;~:·:f~···:: . ,it·;': ~ .. :':: .: ...::. ...... . result of thi;$' :r.i6f,ttie'Scriptures ,in ,'aHvery . . . . . . ~.' .. ': ~f~id..~s;::'"'and to. su~ges: that ,the real differ';;;' " '..;" .:;. , ,'ftihe: Scripture are not difreren~es in ,theplogy\ :::Ä::;~~t~!i~i,::::e::~~:~:odof . was eeaJ..in9Wi~/~~~;~~nct·';:ifiterms of their eulture,thenfrollLNoahto , - 12 - a contemporary sense, because I can say, "If God worked in terms of this kind of Hebrew culture back at that period in history, and I go to some part of the world Bnd find a culture very similar to that culture, perhaps God" very wants to \vork in a/similar way in this contemporary culture". So that vThen ,,' the Africans that r have worked with ••• we tried to teach them Romans Qt)e···· • time ( ••• h •• these guys said, Ii "What's all this stuff?" "That's Romanlii.,~ ( ••• ) "'We want Esther, Ruth, Psalms, Proverbs •••" "But tho~~ aren't~ve!Ä in . the New- Testament". It's got to be New Testament, Gospels. I'm pizzllng , over this. What's the problem? Obvious.ly it's a cultural problept.. '!'hese .' ... ·v.~.;'.:: did exactly what he should do, there ir. the $criptures we s pace He \>lasted lit cultures that are very concerned .. : . . .... " ..;...... , ... ~:;:.. :.'" ~.:.. :~ ::u::ho by .::::::d ~::d:::~!,~r~i:~"7;; of culture, worning through more clf!'a¢l.Yeven in the;g~nlt~~ea.~f·,~e:·':: just don't grab~. and I used to .~,~~ irith~~;~~!~~t;~;~~:~il":.:),, limited time anc limited space, p.1t this stuff iriihe;t:'Et;t,:,]lf*a;;;~~i~l;Ä:~::' .'j::,.: .....* •••••• to wotk in terms of whatever culture the Peoplij ·ari·ln;tQ~~' '~'.:" ;~;;; ~ " " ! " . ~*' , ~ ~,* *, . it:{.:::··. ),:~;.:~:" create a slX'Cial Hebrew culture. He t"i~'4~~'~~!~~;,.f~~" .and worked in terms of it, and then prQdtieed" .• ~~$fo.~.t.i;i)n.,i':, . '.' '" ,; "','.-' .,':' .,:";:""". ".' ..:';"."3'::.':'.; ,'.::··.·:~.i;i - 13 - that was very marvellous. He didn't produce Greek culture. ( ••• ) Well, this is just part of the background. One of the things I'm going to come to is that I think a Muslim church, interpreting the term -Mu.slimtt as a cultural term primarily, which I think we have to do, is going to _ look more like Old Testament kinds of things than like Epistles kinds of things, if it is going to be culturally relative, and it should be. -00000-  International Journal of Frontier Missions Identity, Integrity and Insider Movements: A Brief Paper Inspired by Timothy C. Tennent’s Critique of C-5 Thinking by Kevin Higgins I am privileged to have been invited to comment on the recent article by Timothy C. Tennent in which he offers a careful biblical and theological assessment of the C-5 or “insider” approach to work among Muslims. His article is clear, well written, and addresses a number of the important issues in the ongoing discussion. There is much in Tennent’s piece with which I agree. And I believe he has identified a number of important issues in the discussion. One such issue is the question of “identity” and it is upon this issue that my own essay will focus. Specifically, I will examine two sides to the identity question. One side concerns the question of a new identity as a follower of Jesus, including the relationship of this new identity to the “church.” The second is the question of maintaining one’s old identity as a Muslim. In his opening paragraph Tennent refers to followers of Jesus who retain “their identity as Muslims”, and he asks the question whether one can “say ‘yes’ to Jesus and ‘no’ to the church.” Tennent’s paper lays out a well ordered biblical and theological rationale for the point of view that would assert, in my words, that a person can not maintain a dual identity. One is either a Christian or a Muslim. My thesis is that one can maintain a dual identity and be a fully biblical disciple of Jesus. It would take a full book to properly defend that thesis so this paper will actually serve as an introduction. In order to describe my thesis, I intend to do two things. First, I will describe how being a member of the church does not require a denial of one’s other identities, but is actually lived out within them. Then I will also seek to describe several ways in which one’s identity as a Muslim may be maintained with integrity as a follower of Jesus, and provide a brief rationale. As a part of this paper, I will take some time along the way to focus on the meaning of two key terms: ‘Muslim’ and ‘church.’ These are assumed, but not Kevin Higgins, involved with Global Teams as a missionary since 1990, developed a work in a majority Muslim country that has resulted in creative evangelism among eight language groups and emerging people movements in four of those. Kevin now serves as Executive Director of Global Teams, recruiting missionaries, training, and coaching pioneer missionaries. 23:3 Fall 2006•117 Identity, Integrity and Insider Movements 118 International Journal of Frontier Missions defined by Tennent. In fact, while in this article I cannot document this assertion, I would add that this fact holds true throughout most of the discussions of “C-5” today. People on both “sides” use both terms without clearly defining them.Identity One: Follower of Jesus and a Member of the Church Tennent suggests in his article (pg. 106) that the church began after the early Jewish believers realized that Israel (and her religious expressions of Temple and synagogue) was not going to accept their Messiah. They then decided, in Tennent’s view, to form a separate entity called “the church”.1 This viewpoint seems to underlie his subsequent conclusion that church membership requires a break with one’s old identity in order to embrace a new identity as a Christian in the church. Perhaps Tennent’s language is not clear. However, taking his writing at face value he seems to be suggesting that the church began after Jewish followers of the Messiah realized that their fellow Jews were not going to accept the Messiah on a large scale.2 In fact I would argue that the early church began to take life and expression much earlier than Tennent seems to suggest and that its development as something separate from Judaism was not solely or even primarily a decision made by the believers. First, we see in Acts that “the church” emerged very early, and within the religious expressions of the people of Israel and the members of “the church” continued to attend Temple and synagogue3 as well as meeting in homes and in public places such as the Temple courts for gatherings designed apparently for believers in Jesus.4 In fact, many denominational traditions look back to Pentecost as the “birthday” of the church. Also, the separation of Jewish followers of the Messiah (the Way) from the Temple and synagogue was not simply a decision based on the awareness that the rest of the Jewish population was not accepting the Messiah. The rise of active persecution, excommunication, and the introduction into the synagogue liturgy of curses apparently aimed at followers of Jesus were the precipitating factors.5 Up to that point, it can be argued from the New Testament that the church was a movement within the social and religious life of the Jewish people. This movement took structural or formal expression as it met in separate homes or public gatherings and as its members continued in the Temple and synagogue. They did not cease to be the church in the Temple worship, and they did not cease to be Jewish in the home meeting. There was a dual identity.6 I would like to clarify here that I do not intend to suggest that this dual identity was anything like what some people might mean when they accuse another person of living a double life. I do not mean to communicate the idea that these two identities (Jewish and follower of Jesus) were somehow unrelated or did not overlap. As I seek to make clear in the preceding paragraph the two identities are more like two circles that overlap to a great degree (though not fully). So, to summarize my thinking up to this point, the break between church and the religious structures of the Jews was not as clear-cut as some seem to assume. And when that break did occur, it seems to have been primarily due to issues of persecution.7 This is not to say that theology did not play a part. However, the theological differences that certainly emerged and intensified between Jewish followers of Jesus and Jews who did not accept Jesus as Messiah were present from the very first day. These differences were present within Jesus’ own ministry and indeed resulted in His death on the Cross. We see these differences clearly articulated in the earliest sermons of Acts. And yet, for perhaps 50 years or more a total separation did not occur.8 One simple example may be helpful. Shortly after Pentecost, Peter himself is said to be going to the Temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3). The Temple leadership was part of the machinery that had crucified Peter’s Messiah and Lord. There were severe theological differences between Peter and the Temple leadership. However, the early Jesus movement maintained a dual identity even in the face of those theological differences.9 I am suggesting here that the biblical definition of “church” does not necessarily refer to a “bounded” or “closed” set social grouping which prevents a member of His Body, the church, from also being a “member” of another social or even religious structure or expression. However, a clarification is needed lest I be misunderstood. On one side, I do see church as a closed set, for only those who are born from above and incorporated by the Spirit in His Body are members of the church! But as such, they are not thereby excluded from living in and among other social and religious structures as yeast in the dough.The Church At this point let me offer a brief outline of my understanding of church. The summary below is derived from the following texts: Acts, Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, and the letters to Timothy and Titus. None of what I will write is presumed to be new. I will highlight points I see as pertinent to the question of C-5 movements. 1. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the assembly of believers who have been saved by grace through faith. The Church is therefore a creation of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is  The break between church and the religious structures of the Jews was not as clear-cut as some seem to assume. Kevin Higgins 119 T not a human organization or institution, although clearly forms and structures do factor in as tangible ways in which this community expresses itself visibly. No human being can “make” a church or join the Church except by being born again by the Spirit. Every believer is a member of the Church and as such, is called to live out their membership in the Body of Christ, the Church, as a full time lifestyle in every venue of life. Key Point: Being a member of the church is not simply a question of leaving one social structure and joining another. Because one is not attending mosque and is attending a gathering of believers does not equate with being a disciple. And on the other side, one’s identity as a born again member of the Body can and does overlap with one’s identity in other spheres of life, including one’s religious life. (Note: the question of if and how this can be done with integrity will be dealt with below). 2. Every local “church” body is an expression of the Church body. And every time believers meet together, they are an expression of the Body. Of course, not every gathering of believers contains all of the elements of all that the scriptures teach regarding “church”. The primary marks of a mature expression of the Church include these functions from Acts 2:42-47: The church exists where there is apostolic teaching, fellowship, breaking bread (both as real meals, and the Lord’s Supper), prayer/worship, the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, radical generosity in community life, intentional gathering together (publicly in the “Temple,” and as believers house to house), and the ongoing addition of new believers.10 Key Point: Saying ‘yes’ to C-5 does not require a ‘no’ to church11, although some C-5 proponents seem to think so. Some form of community of believers will need to take shape in an insider movement. However, the forms and degrees of maturity of such a “church” will vary. Acts 2 portrays the early members of the church being church in separate gatherings for believers, and in the religious life of the Temple (where the official leadership was opposed to the Gospel). I would call this a dual identity, and I suggest in the next section of this article ways in which such a dual identity can be held with integrity. 3. We can see in Acts 14:21-28 that a mature church is also marked by having elders in each local congregation, duly selected and appointed by recognized apostolic leadership. Further, in 1 Corinthians 11 to 14 we see that a mature church is marked by regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the use of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, exercised under the leadership of the Holy Spirit for the edification of the Body. Some specific churches are farther along or less far along in the process of fully expressing the nature of the Church. Key Point: The functions in number 3 clearly require some form of “gathering” and a process of developing leadership. While Scripture gives examples of how and when churches gathered it also reveals a variety of forms, times, places, and models (polities) of leadership. None of this precludes an ongoing identity as a Muslim. There are movements in Islam today which function outside of the official structures, develop their own leadership and membership “forms” and whose members have a dual identity. Again, how this might hold true for a movement in Islam which seeks to follow Jesus is something I will seek to describe below. 4. The Church’s ultimate purpose is to participate in, and be the first fruits of, the transformation of the universe under the headship of Jesus Christ. The Church’s primary “strategy” to fulfill its purpose is to multiply itself through functions such as those listed in Acts 14:21-28: evangelizing the lost; discipling those who believe; strengthening/encouraging the disciples; selecting and training and appointing elders in every church; and connecting with and participating with other churches in the ongoing expansion of the Gospel. I have intentionally left traditional language in place, but those same biblical functions can take place as an insider movement albeit with altered forms and vocabulary. I have said several times that I would add to this argument below. Before moving on to that let me address one possible question. Since I am suggesting that C-5 does not necessarily equate with ‘no church’, some might ask how my view differs from C-4. That is, in my thinking, how does C-5, or an insider movement among Muslims, differ from a highly Muslim-“friendly” movement of church planting? My reply is that what I advocate here is a movement to Jesus in which disciples are added to the church by the Holy Spirit as they are born again, live out that membership in forms of life that are fully biblical but culturally shaped, and do so without denying their identity as Muslims within their society. C-4, as I understand it and as most people employ the term, implies a greater degree of separation from one’s Muslim identity in terms of religious, and to varying degrees, social forms and structures.12Summary I have argued for the possibility that “dual identity” is not only possible but indeed is modeled within the New Testament. How can this dual identity be maintained? That leads us to a discussion of the second “identity” in my essay.Identity Two: Follower of Jesus and a Muslim One gaping hole in the C-5 discussion is that, in my view, both “sides” rarely define what they mean by the words Islam and Muslim. Thus, beginning from our respective assumptions or in some cases settled conclusions about Islam, we proceed to argue from the Scripture, our experiences, or perhaps from history to bolster our positions. Acts 2 portrays the early members of the church being church in separate gatherings for believers, and in the religious life of the Temple. 23:3 Fall 2006International Journal of Frontier Missions Identity, Integrity and Insider Movements 1 20 Certainly the discussion about C-5 needs to be a biblical, theological, and historical discussion. And it needs to include conversations about “church” as I have sought to summarize briefly above. However, this conversation needs to be equally a discussion about our varying paradigms and assumptions of Islam. Let me cite two radical extremes as a way to make my point. If I am convinced, for example, that Islam is a demonic and deceptive lie conceived by Satan, this will certainly affect the biblical, theological, and historical material I draw from and how I apply it. On the other hand if I conclude that Islam is the final truth from God, or an equally valid expression of “truth”, this too would affect how I look at the Bible, the early development of Christian theology, and the history of the church. Again, these are purposely given as two extreme poles. I am certainly not suggesting that either Tennent or myself hold one of these positions. The point is that part of the C-5 discussion needs to be a discussion about Islam itself and not just the (very valid) biblical debate about contextualization and how far it can go. That biblical discussion needs to happen, and the fruit of it needs to be applied, but applied to a real and defined understanding of Islam. Without a discussion as to what Islam is and was, we cannot do actual contextualization. In fact, I believe that many of the differences among missiologists and practitioners concerning the validity of “C-5” among Muslims is in fact not primarily a difference about how we read the Bible. I believe the differences are primarily due to examined or unexamined differences about how we understand Islam itself. I do not have the space to develop my position in detail here. I cannot go in depth into all of the Quranic and historical reasons behind the position I hold concerning Islam. Since this is an essay about identity, and since I have already tried to outline biblically how one might be a member of the church and also maintain other “identities”, let me here simply try to describe three ways that this dual identity might happen with integrity in a C-5 movement among Muslims. In each of the four sections below, I will include a brief description of a position or conclusion about Islam. I will not be able to offer evaluation of those positions, but they represent three positions on Islam that I have heard proponents of C-5 express (both insiders and workers among Muslims). I believe all three of these positions can be held with integrity depending upon the conclusions one makes about Islam’s origins, early history, and subsequent development. Again, the three positions below are only seeking to describe potential C-5 points of view about Islam and Muslim identity vis-à-vis one’s identity as a follower of Jesus. I would once again ask my reader to please keep in mind that I have not provided any of the background on Islam or Quran that would support the different positions described below. The same is true for biblical rationale to support them. The place for that is in another paper.A Few Caveats I am assuming my reader is familiar with Islamic terminology so I use it here without definitions. For the same reason I refer without explanation to the C-scale. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and do it solely for the sake of brevity. I have presented much of the following in the first person. Each variety of possible “identity” is intended to describe a broad possibility, not exact detail. I am not writing to advocate any particular position as “the way” for every person or context. None of the descriptions below are intended to be “definitions” or “boxes” into which I think positions need to fit neatly. Every individual and every context will vary greatly, and as stated above, people might well find themselves in any, all, or none of these exact descriptions! For convenience, I will use three “I’s” to refer to each of the three identities. The parallel to the C-scale will be obvious, though my numbering in no way seeks to correspond to that instrument whose purpose was to describe something very different than what I am doing here. One more caveat before I begin to describe these identities. I am only going to focus on one aspect of identity here and that is the issue of religious identity. I am not touching on important and related issues of social identity and the overlap of cultural issues with the religious issues in Islam. Those are important. However, the focus of Tennent’s article was largely addressing the religious and theological appropriateness of C-5. Thus I have focused upon that question here as well. Having said that, it may be helpful to acknowledge that even limiting this to the “religious” question is a gross oversimplification. Doing so begs the question, “Which Islam is in view here?” Are we addressing Shiite or Sunni, and/or Sufi Muslims? Within those are we addressing those who might also be described as folk or liberal/secular or orthodox or fundamentalist or radical Muslims? The list could go on. The following “I’s” therefore should be seen as being written with an orthodox Sunni mindset. In the particular list below not much would change if we replaced Sunni with Shiite (though if we went deeper in this direction, significant differences would certainly emerge).  Part of the C-5 discussion needs to be a discussion about Islam itself . . .121 23:3 Fall 2006  The Three I’s: Three Identities I-i I can say I am a Muslim because the word Islam means submission and a Muslim is one who submits. So, I can tell others in the Muslim community that I have submitted to God ultimately in His Word, Isa, and the Word of God in the Taurat, Zabur, and Injil which the Quran confirms.13 Within an I-i movement of followers of Jesus, there might be no in depth engagement of the Quran, or Islam, or Muhammad. In fact, opinions towards the Quran and Muhammad can be quite negative. Occasional, pragmatic visiting of mosques for the purpose of relationship or sharing is perhaps a part of I-i practice, especially if spending time with Muslim friends when the prayer time occurs. Saying the shahadah, without any additions or changes, is probably not even entertained as a possibility, though I know examples where it has been recited for pragmatic reasons without agreeing with it.14 I-ii I can say I am a Muslim because the word Islam means submission and a Muslim is one who submits. So, I have submitted to God ultimately in His Word, Isa, and the Word of God in the Taurat, Zabur, and Injil which the Quran confirms. In addition I can accept and affirm the earliest teaching of Muhammad, especially during the early Meccan period, and can say honestly that in that early period he had a prophetic role in calling Arab, Christian, and Jewish people of his time to repent. In this sense, I can call him a prophet. I believe that as time went by, however, Muhammad developed ideas and teachings with which I do not agree. Some of these are found in the Quran itself.15 For an I-ii believer, mosque attendance might be not only pragmatic, but could go deeper, becoming a meaningful worship form. Saying the shahadah is possible for some, though probably with a qualified meaning such as understanding it to mean that Muhammad had a prophetic role in his earlier, Meccan years. It is possible for I-ii’s to see themselves as part of a reformation in Islam, a “back to the early Muhammad” or “back to the Mecca period” movement.16 I-iii I can say I am a Muslim because the word Islam means submission and a Muslim is one who submits. So, I have submitted to God ultimately in His Word, Isa, and the Word of God in the Taurat, Zabur, and Injil which the Quran confirms. In addition I can accept and affirm all of the teaching of Muhammad as I find it in the Quran, and can say honestly that he had a prophetic role in calling Arab, Christian, and Jewish people of his time to repent. I can call him a prophet. I can say the shahadah with integrity because I believe Muhammad was called by God to a prophetic role. I read the Quran through the interpretive key of the Gospel and the previous books. When I read the Quran through that lens and filter I find that it agrees with the Bible and that perceived contradictions are due to misunderstandings of the Quran (and in some cases there has been misunderstanding of the Bible as well by Christians).17 It is possible for I-iii’s to see themselves as part of a reformation in Islam, a “back to the Quran and the Books” movement.18 Some I-iii’s might not include the Hadith in their understanding of the doctrines of Islam, but follow it in practice. Others might accept more of it. Some who come to this position might still use words like “full Muslim” or another qualifier, but some might prefer to simply say they are Muslim. Some, indeed most, I-iii proponents will not be accepted as Muslims by “normal” Muslims due to their views on the Hadith.19Concluding Thoughts To summarize, I have sought to show how a biblical understanding of “church” does not preclude also maintaining one’s identity as a Muslim. I have sought to show several ways in which one might, with integrity, understand what it means to be a Muslim who also follows Jesus as Lord. I have sought to articulate the fact that in addition to careful biblical and theological discussion there also needs to be a more focused attempt to clarify among ourselves what we each mean by Islam when we write. I want to conclude with a caveat. I am in full support of C-5 movements, insider movements, among Muslims. This approach is, in my view, one of the things God is doing among Muslims. I believe He is blessing this approach and will continue to do so. However, I do not believe that this paradigm is the only way. I do not believe that God is only blessing C-5 approaches, or that we should advocate them as an exclusive strategy for the mission movement today. May God grant us grace to continue to further this discussion and discover more of God’s truth in His Word. And, may God grant us grace to honor one another in the process. IJFMEndnotes 1 In Tennent’s own words, “it became clear that they had to form a new religious identity; namely the church, which would properly celebrate their identity in Jesus Christ.” Italics are in the original. 2 Again, see his opening paragraph under Scenario #1 on p. 106. 3 Tennent acknowledges that they did so for a time (p. 106 also). Where he and I disagree is primarily over the question of what or who initiated the eventual separation, why it took place, and whether the church only came into being as a result of the separation (Tennent) or had been birthed prior to that (my view) while still also remaining within Judaism. The question of whether C-5 could or should be a permanent “position” is in some ways a separate issue, or at least sub-category within the issue addressed in this paper. My own position would be that the answer will depend on the specific context of a given C-5 movement and that no blanket answer can be given here. 4 See Acts 3:1 and also 9:2 where Paul clearly expects that in Damascus he will find followers of “The Way” in the synagogues. This is why he seeks letters Ido not believe that God is only blessing C-5 approaches, or that we should advocate them as an exclusive strategy for the mission movement today.Kevin Higgins International Journal of Frontier Missions Identity, Integrity and Insider Movements 1 22 to recommend him to the synagogue leaders. Later, in Acts 21:17ff., Jewish leaders (who follow Jesus as Messiah) express their concerns about the large numbers of Jewish believers who have heard that Paul no longer keeps the Law. So they urge Paul to make a public expression of his Jewishness. 5 See the discussion of this development in Whitacre’s commentary on John’s Gospel (John, IVP New Testament Commentary Series). On p. 244 Whitacre concludes that the separation from the synagogues took place in the second half of the 1st century. That is, about one generation following many of the events of Acts. 6 Returning for a moment to Acts 21, it is worth noting that James clearly is aware of and affirms that there are two Jesus movements. One was a Jewish identity Jesus movement, and one was a Gentile identity Jesus movement. Using my terminology, both movements maintained a dual identity. 7 Also, it is worth noting that the break was likely not instantaneous. Whitacre, in his doctoral thesis indicates that a number of scholars feel John’s Gospel was addressed to a mixed community including some who had been excommunicated or had left the synagogues, as well as some who still remained within. Both groups were followers of Jesus. Johannine Polemic, SBL Dissertation Series 67, 1982, p. 19. Raymond Brown’s discussions in his introduction to the commentary on John are also worth consulting, as is his book on John’s community (The Community of the Beloved Disciple, Paulist Press, 1979). 8 It is important here to address the question of whether the “Jewish Religion/Follower of Jesus” link we have been discussing is actually a parallel to the “Islamic Religion/Follower of Jesus” connection that C-5 argues for. There is not room in this paper to treat this in detail. I refer the reader to an earlier article I wrote (under a pseudonym). In that article I argue for a parallel between Samaritan religion and Islam, and thus for a parallel between Jesus’ ministry in John 4 and our ministry to Muslims. The Samaritans were viewed as heretical and indeed, demonic by most Jews of that period. And yet Jesus’ ministry results in what I would say is certainly a C-5 movement. See Caldwell, Stuart, “Jesus in Samaria: A Paradigm for Church Planting Among Muslims”, International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1, 2000. 9 The point of this line of argument is, I hope, clear. I fully agree that Judaism is a different case in many ways than Islam. However, the fact is that at a very practical level, the early, Jewish followers of Jesus faced much the same situation as do Muslim followers of Jesus today. Some who object to C-5 do so, in part, on the basis of the fact that new believers will not receive true teaching if they attend the mosque and in fact, new believers who attend the mosque will hear things in direct opposition to the Gospel. This is certainly true, but it was also true in the Temple and the synagogues of the 1st century AD, and yet, the early movement did not stop attending solely for that reason. 10 It may be worth noting here that the “church growth movement” has helped to contribute to a particular misunderstanding of the references to meeting in the Temple courts, especially in Acts 2. This may cause us to miss some of the importance of this passage for our discussion here. The tendency in church growth related works has been to see Acts 2:42-47 as a model of the cell and celebration (small group and large worship gathering) gatherings in a church. A case can be made for that position, but it misses the fact the Temple was more than a public gathering place for the believers. It was that. It was also significant that they met as believers in the courts of this specifically religious place, even though the “religion” as practiced and believed then was not in agreement with or even friendly to the Gospel as taught and believed by the apostles. 11 Tennent asks this question at the outset of his article. He suggests that C-5 (or “insider movement”) thinking would lead one to assume that it is possible to say “yes” to Jesus but “no” to the church. As I will argue in this essay, the answer to this depends entirely on one’s definition of “church.” It is important to note however, that even in his seminal piece describing C-5 (actually C1 through C6), John Travis himself clearly stated that C1 through 6 described varying expressions of ekklesia, church, or in his preferred term, “Christ centered communities”. See his restatement of this in “Contextualization among Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists: A Focus on ‘Insider Movements’”, Mission Frontiers, Vol. 27:5, p. 12. Thus while some proponents of C-5 or insider movements seem to suggest that these movements are “churchless”, this does not represent the entire picture. I also argued for a definition of insider movements that clearly included intentional community among believers (see International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 21:4, “The Key to Insider Movements”, pp. 155 and following). Again, the crux of this discussion concerns one’s understanding and usage of the word “church.” 12 Tennent’s article contains a chart that illustrates his understanding of the differences between C-4 and C-5 graphically. C-4 is pictured as a circle that is mostly inside a bigger circle called “Christianity” but also touches a circle called “Islam.” The C-5 circle is completely inside the circle called “Islam.” The difference between Tennent’s position and mine could be illustrated by the fact that: a. I would change the title of the Christian circle from “Christianity” to Jesus Movement. b. I would then have the C-5 circle overlap both the “Islam” circle and the Jesus Movement circle to express that in C-5, one can be “inside” both movements. 13 On the meaning of the words Islam and Muslim as “submission” and “one who submits” (i.e., to God) any number of books could be cited. One example: Islam: The Straight Path, by John Esposito, p. 23. On Jesus as the “word” see Surah 3:45. On the role of the Quran in confirming the previous Books there are numerous references. One example is Surah 2:41. The word translated as “confirm”is musaddiq. This word speaks of verifying and establishing the truth of what another has said (I am using the Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, compiled by John Penrice, published in Delhi by Low Price Publications, p. 83). Thus, the Quran’s own self-understanding is that it verifies the truth of the previous books. Later Muslims would argue that this only applied to the original (and lost or perverted) versions of the previous Books, and they cite verses in the Quran which they say prove the Books were twisted or corrupted. However, the passages they cite are more likely to refer to the misuse of the existing Books rather than their corruption. So, for example, Surah 3:78 clearly refers to misquoting or twisting the meaning of the texts while orally citing them, rather than changing the texts themselves. Taken at face value, Muhammad’s view as expressed in the Quran would seem to be that he is merely restating and in fact verifying whatever the previous Books taught. Applying this assumption as a con  I fully agree that Judaism is a different case in many ways than Islam.123 23:3 Fall 2006 Kevin Higgins sistent hermeneutic when reading the Quran results in some very significant changes in the meaning of the texts, especially the more controversial ones. 14 I personally would not advocate such a position. I am merely reporting here. 15 That there seems to be a major shift in Muhammad’s thinking reflected in the so-called Meccan and Medinan Surahs is a common theme in Islamic scholarship. Pickthall’s introduction in his interpretation of the Quran is a good, concise example. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman by Montgomery Watt is a more extended but very readable description as well. Indeed the title itself indicates a good summary of Watt’s view that Muhammad’s “hijrah” or migration from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D. resulted in a shift from functioning as a “prophet” to functioning instead, or in addition, as a statesman. If one peruses the briefer (and primarily earlier, Meccan) Surahs, one does come away with a very different “feel” than in the later, Medinan and generally longer Surahs. The former exhibit something much more akin to the biblical prophetic imagery and tone and emphasize the call to repent. The latter are more concerned with establishing a community and with clarifying the emerging “Islamic” ummah or “people” in distinction from the Jews and Christians who are referenced more frequently in the latter Surahs. 16 For example, it was after the move to Medina that Muhammad shifted the Qibla (or direction for prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca. Some would see this as one example of a shift that demonstrates Muhammad was no longer functioning in a prophetic role. Others might cite verses such as those in the fourth Surah which apparently deny the death of Jesus (though that is a debatable passage and other interpretations are possible). 17 I know this paragraph begs for far more discussion than space allows. Again, I am not necessarily advocating any of the “I’s” as the right path. The positions described in each of the “I’s” all assume two key points: a. The Bible is the lense through which the Quran is read and interpreted. Each position assumes Biblical authority and Biblical truth. b. The “I’s” differ on how much of the Quran can be accepted or agreed with by a believer. The Quran, in varying degrees depending on which “I” is referred to, is re-interpreted in light of the Bible. Each “I” position accepts or rejects or re-interprets different amounts of the Quran. An I-iii believer, then, would accept more of the Quran than an I-i believer, but would also re-interpret more of it. Thus, an I-iii believer would also find themselves in major disagreement with the majority of the Muslim world. This is similar to the situation in Acts in which the early Jesus movement, and indeed Jesus Himself, developed a very different hermeneutical key for the Old Testament and subsequently read the Old Testament very differently from the majority Jewish community and leadership. I am suggesting that in an insider movement in Islam, it is possible to re-read the Quran with the hermeneutical key of the Old and New Testaments and develop an entirely new interpretative result. I have argued for this in more detail in International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 21:4, “The Key To Insider Movements”, see especially pp. 160 through 163. 18 In distinction from the believers who would see a shift in Muhammad as he moved from Mecca to Medina, those who are closer to what I am calling I-iii would see Muhammad’s prophetic calling continuing into the Medina period. I cannot go into many examples here. One possible instance that gives some believers grounds for seeing Muhammad as continuing his role as one who called people back to the Books—and indeed, even back to Jesus Himself—is an incident related by Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of the Messenger). In Guillame’s translation we find the story of Muhammad’s return to Mecca following the Medinan period. He went to the Ka’aba and cleaned out all the pictures and idols except a picture portraying Jesus and Mary. That picture was allowed to remain inside the Ka’aba itself. For some this indicates Muhammad’s intention that Jesus be the center of Islamic devotion. See Guillame, The Life of Muhammad, p. 552. See also his introduction to Islam in which he mentions that eye witnesses saw this picture inside the Ka’aba as late as 683 A.D., though it was destroyed by fire later. Guillame, Islam, Penguin Books, 1954, p. 14. 19 As most practitioners have discovered, while the vast majority of Muslims would say they follow Hadith, there is a wide variation among Muslims in terms of their knowledge of the Hadith and their application of what they do know. An I-iii believer need not be a “Hadith Fundamentalist” in order to maintain an Islamic identity with integrity.ISFM2_0_0_6_ _AtlantaY_o_u_ _a_r_e_ _i_n_v_i_t_e_d_ _t_o_._._._PresentersJ_._ _D_u_d_l_e_y_ _W_o_o_d_b_e_r_r_y_T_i_m_o_t_h_y_ _C_._ _T_e_n_n_e_n_t_K_e_v_i_n_ _H_i_g_g_i_n_s_G_a_r_y_ _C_o_r_w_i_n_J_o_h_n_ _R_i_d_g_w_a_y_B_r_i_a_n_ _P_e_t_e_r_s_o_n_ _LocationC_r_o_w_n_e_ _P_l_a_z_a_ _H_o_t_e_l_ _A_t_l_a_n_t_a_-_A_i_r_p_o_r_t_A_t_l_a_n_t_a_,_ _G_e_o_r_g_i_a_Date & TimeS_e_p_t_._ _1_7_-_1_8_,_ _2_0_0_6_Registration begins Sunday, Sept. 17 @ 6:30pmF_o_l_l_o_w_e_d_ _b_y_ _E_F_M_A_S_e_p_t_ _1_8_-_2_1_For more info / to registerw_w_w_._i_j_f_m_._o_r_g_/_i_s_f_m_Registration$_2_0_Free Student TrackF_o_r_ _m_o_r_e_ _i_n_f_o_,_ _c_o_n_t_a_c_t_:_ _i_s_l_c_f_m_@_g_m_a_i_l_._c_o_m_I_n_t_e_r_n_a_t_i_o_n_a_l_ _S_o_c_i_e_t_y_ _f_o_r_ _F_r_o_n_t_i_e_r_ _M_i_s_s_i_o_l_o_g_y_Jerusalem Council Applied:A_p_o_s_t_o_l_i_c_ _I_n_s_i_g_h_t_s_ _i_n_t_o_ _T_o_d_a_y_’s_I_n_s_i_d_e_r_ _M_o_v_e_m_e_n_t_s_ St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 74 INSIDE WHAT? CHURCH, CULTURE, RELIGION AND INSIDER MOVEMENTS IN BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE BY KEVIN HIGGINS 1. INTRODUCTION The discussion about so called ‘insider movements’ has become more and more an item on the agenda of missiologists and practitioners and has attracted an understandable degree of controversy. This brief paper addresses three major elements in the ongoing conversation: church, culture, and religion. I will address those by exploring five questions which form the outline for the paper: What are insider movements? What is church? Can we separate religion and culture? What is religion? What does this mean for mission practice? 2. WHAT ARE INSIDER MOVEMENTS? The years between 2004 and 2007 saw a great increase in the volume of discussion concerning insider movements. A number of significant articles on both sides of the issue, including some published in several editions of the International Journal of Frontier Missiology, were dedicated to the topic of insider movements. An entire gathering of the International Society of Frontier Missiology was devoted to the consideration St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 75 of how the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 applied to the subject. The results of that discussion were also published.1 This process has served to refine the way insider movements are described, and also produced two published attempts at definition. I developed a longer definition: A growing number of families, individuals, clans, and/or friendship-webs becoming faithful disciples of Jesus within the culture of their people group, including their religious culture. This faithful discipleship will express itself in culturally appropriate communities of believers who will also continue to live within as much of their culture, including the religious life of the culture, as is biblically faithful. The Holy Spirit, through the Word and through His people will also begin to transform His people and their culture, religious life, and worldview.2 A shorter definition has recently been put forth by Rebecca Lewis: Insider movements are best defined as any movement to faith in Christ that remains integrated with or inside its natural community. They have these two distinct elements: 1) The gospel takes root within pre-existing communities or social networks, which become the main expression of ‘church’ in that context. 2) Believers retain their identity as members of their socio-religious community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible.3 I would suggest that the main insights shared by both definitions might be summarized as follows: Insider movements combine the insights of people movement or mass movement thinking concerning the church with the point of view often referred to as C5.4 1 See especially the papers by Tennent, Timothy, ‘Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques: A Closer Examination of C-5 “high spectrum” contextualization’, in IJFM (24:1, Spring 2007); Gary Corwin, ‘A Humble Appeal to C-5/InsiderMovement Muslim Ministry Advocates to Consider Ten Questions’, in IJFM (24:1, Spring 2007). Kevin Higgins, ‘Identity, Integrity, and Insider Movements: A brief Paper Inspired by Timothy C. Tennent’s Critique of C-5 Thinking’, in IJFM (23:6, Fall 2006). 2 Higgins, Kevin, ‘The Key To Insider Movements: The Devoteds’ of Acts’, in IJFM 21:4; Winter 2004, pp. 155 ff. 3 This is an unpublished version submitted for comment to the author. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 76 While the religious assumptions are clearly the most open to debate, the understanding of church described in both definitions is not without controversy. This leads to the second question in the outline. 3. WHAT IS CHURCH? The insider definition suggested by Lewis includes the concept that churches can be planted into pre-existing social structures, or, putting it another way, that pre-existing social structures can become the church. While this concept has generated discussion5 it is not new to missiology. Mass movements and people movements in missiological literature are described in similar ways, seeing existing structures (families, villages, clans) coming to faith as groups.6 Frequently cited as biblical background are the famous cases of group conversions in the New Testament: Cornelius, Lydia, the jailer in Phillipi, the village if Sychar. However, the ecclesiology of insider movement thinking is questioned, rightly, in at least two directions. One line of questioning addresses the contention by insider movement advocates that not only are insiders now members of a new entity or reality called ’church’, but being so does not necessarily imply that they must separate from other social identities, including religious ones. The second line of questioning concerns the relationship of believers in insider movements to the wider church, and thus the nature of the Body of Christ and its unity. 4 The C-Scale is described in John Travis, ‘The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Guide for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-Centered Communities’ (‘C’) Formed in Muslim Contexts’ in Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4): 1998, pp. 407-408. Most practitioners are moving away from the C-Scale, including Travis himself, or at least distinguish between C-5 and ‘insider movements’. I refer to C5 here as a convenience. 5 For a particularly aggressive critique see Bill Nikides, ‘Evaluating Insider Movements’, St. Francis Magazine Number 4, (March 2006). Nikides addresses Lewis’ viewpoints directly on p. 11.ff. A more sober critique is that of John Piper in discussion with John Travis and others in Mission Frontiers. See John Piper, ‘An Extended Conversation About Insider Movements: Responses to the September-October 2005 Mission Frontiers’, in Mission Frontiers (January-February 2006). 6 See for example, McGavran, Donald A., The Bridges of God (New York, Friendship Press, 1955); Pickett, J. Waskom, Christian Mass Movements in India (New York, Abingdon Press, 1933) St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 77 I will turn first to the question of identity in the Body and identity in the prior religious context. Here I do not want to anticipate the later discussion concerning religion, but merely offer some comments concerning the possibility of multiple identities.7 First, the Church is made up of believers who have been saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-10). In one sense it is true to say that no one can join the Church. People are spiritually born into it by God. Every believer is a member of the Church and, as such, is called to live out their membership in the Body of Christ, the Church, as a full time lifestyle in every venue of life. Therefore, one’s identity as a member of the Church can and does and, indeed, should overlap with one’s identity in other spheres of life. This is what is behind New Testament injunctions to work with our hands, do everything as unto the Lord and, in Ephesians, the instructions for slaves and masters. Second, the Church’s ultimate purpose is to participate in, and be the first fruits of the transformation of the universe under the headship of Jesus Christ. The Church’s primary strategy’ to fulfill its purpose is to multiply itself through functions such as those listed in Acts 14:21-28: evangelizing the lost, discipling those who believe, strengthening/ encouraging the disciples, selecting and training and appointing elders in every church, and connecting with and participating with other churches in the ongoing expansion of the Gospel. I have intentionally left traditional language in place, but those same biblical functions can take place as an insider movement albeit with altered forms and vocabulary. 8 Third, we see in Acts that although the Church developed the kind of structures we just noted in Acts 14, members also remained within the religious expressions of the people of Israel, continuing to attend the 7 I have attempted to address in more detail and from other perspectives the question of the church in relationship to insider movements. Kevin Higgins, ‘Identity, Integrity, and Insider Movements: A brief Paper Inspired by Timothy C. Tennent’s Critique of C5 Thinking’. Kevin Higgins, ‘Acts 15 and Insider Movements Among Muslims: Questions, Process, and Conclusions’, in IJFM (24:1, Spring 2007). 8 In my view, insider movement does not imply that no form of church takes shape. I addressed this subject in my replies to Tennent’s paper, see Higgins, IJFM (Fall 2006). St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 78 Temple and synagogues.9 They also met in homes and in public places such as the Temple courts for gatherings designed apparently for believers in Jesus.10 The believers did not cease to be members of the church in the Temple worship, and they did not cease to be part of the Jewish religion in the home meeting.11 There was a dual identity.12 Related to this we should note that the separation of Jewish followers of the Messiah (the Way) from the Temple and synagogue was apparently precipitated by the rise of active persecution, excommunication, and the introduction into the synagogue liturgy of curses aimed at followers of Jesus.13 The break was instigated, then, by the other members of the prior religious community, not by the believers. It took time for the break to take place, and even when it did occur it was not instantaneous. 14 9 Tennent acknowledges that they did so for a time. Where he and I disagree is primarily over the question of what or who initiated the eventual separation, why it took place, and whether the church only came into being as a result of the separation (Tennent) or had been birthed prior to that (my view) while still also remaining within Judaism. 10 See Acts 3:1 and also 9:2 where Paul clearly expects that in Damascus he will find followers of ‘The Way’ in the synagogues. This is why he seeks letters to recommend him to the synagogue leaders. Later, in Acts 21:17ff., Jewish leaders (who follow Jesus as Messiah) express their concerns about the large numbers of Jewish believers who have heard that Paul no longer keeps the Law. So they urge Paul to make a public expression of his Jewishness. 11 Luzbetak describes groups within cultures that function within the society but as alternative structures. This needs to be explored further. See Louis J. Luzbetak, S.V.D., The Church and Cultures (New York, Orbis, 1988). 12 It is important here to address the question of whether the ’Jewish Religion/Follower of Jesus’ link we have been discussing is actually a parallel to the ‘Islamic Religion/Follower of Jesus’ connection that insider advocates argue for. There is not room in this paper to treat this in detail. I refer the reader to a subsequent footnote in this paper (note 15) and to an earlier article where I seek to address this more fully, The Key To Insider Movements: The Devoteds’ of Acts, IJFM (21:4; Winter 2004). 13 See the discussion of this development in Whitacre’s commentary on John’s Gospel (in the IVP series). On page 244 Whitacre concludes that the separation from the synagogues took place in the second half of the 1st century. That is, about one generation following many of the events of Acts 14 Whitacre indicates that a number of scholars feel John’s Gospel was addressed to a mixed community including some who had been excommunicated or had left the synagogues, as well as some who still remained within. Both groups were followers of Jesus. Rodney Whitacre, Johannine Polemic (SBL Dissertation Series 67, 1982), p. 19. See also Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist Press, 1979). St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 79 Fourth, the disciples remained in the structures of the Temple in spite of theological differences. It is sometimes suggested that the insider approach encourages dishonesty because remaining within the structure communicates agreement with the religion and theology of the structure. 15 The theological differences that certainly emerged and intensified between Jewish followers of Jesus and Jews who did not accept Jesus as Messiah were present within Jesus’ own ministry, and indeed resulted in His death on the Cross. We see these differences clearly articulated in the earliest sermons of Acts. And yet, for 50 years or more a total separation did not occur.16 Finally, what I am suggesting here is that the biblical definition of Church does not necessarily refer to a bounded or closed set social grouping which prevents a member of His Body, the Church from also being a ‘member’ of another social or even religious structure or expression.17 We will return to the religious question below. The second line of questioning concerns the unity of the wider Body. Acts 15 asks a very important question concerning unity and fellowship ‘between movements’. When we seek to apply this passage from Acts 15 two ‘simple’ answers to the unity question could be posited. One possible position is that since God was working among Jews and gentiles to create one new Body, then we should not seek the development of separate movements among insiders. Certainly some texts point to this. (see Eph 2, Gal 3) 15 See for example, Nikides, 2006. 16 I agree that in many respects Judaism is a different case from Islam. However, the fact is that at a very practical level, the early Jewish followers of Jesus faced much the same situation as do Muslim followers of Jesus today. Some who object to insider approaches cite the fact that new believers will not receive true teaching if they attend the mosque and in fact, will hear things in direct opposition to the Gospel. This is certainly true, but it was also true in the Temple of the 1st century A.D. and, yet, the early movement did not stop attending for that reason. It is also worth noting in this connection that Paul refers to the Corinthians’ continued participation in the act of ‘dining in an idol’s temple’ as an activity he seems to assume is taking place (1 Cor 8:10). His correction of the behavior is due to its potential affect on another, weaker, believer and not, apparently, because of actually being at table in a pagan temple. 17 Clarification is needed lest I be misunderstood. In one sense, I do see Church as a closed set: only those who are born from above and incorporated by the Spirit in His Body are members. However, they are not thereby excluded from living in and among other social and religious structures as yeast in the dough. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 80 On the other hand, some argue for two totally separate movements. Passages such as Paul’s self description in 1 Cor 9:19 ff. might be cited to support such a position, though Acts 21:17 ff. with its description of Torah observant Jews who follow the Messiah is more directly applicable. Acts 15 can be read as support for either position: one new movement in which Jews and gentiles are granted freedom to live as Jews and gentiles, or two separate movements that each recognized the other as a valid work of God. However, clearly there were cases where gentile and Jew, followers of Jesus, met together not only occasionally but in the same fellowships. Rom 14 and 15 provide an extended discussion of solutions to the difficulties posed by this reality. Thus, at a bare minimum, insider advocates need to recognize that a good deal of material in the Epistles of the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, continues to address the problem created not by the separateness of these movements but by how they should interact with each other. How they do so is open to question, but doing so seems biblically assumed. Given the security issues prevalent in so many contexts in which insider movements are reported, there will need to be careful thought about the context in which true, living unity might take expression. I know of at least one annual gathering that includes insiders from various countries and outsiders from multiple denominational backgrounds, meeting together for a week of bible study and discussion. In another context I know of an insider movement that intentionally sought out quiet, low key but formal links with an international Christian denomination. The nature of the link was mutual recognition of each others’ ministry and ethos. The insiders were not asked to stop being insiders. The denominational leadership recognizes the ministry and ‘ordinations’ of the insiders. There was no financial dimension to this link.18 This seems to me a fruitful way forward, and a viable expression 18 While it may seem odd to add this point, I felt it important to make clear that the incentive of the insider leadership was a desire to be linked in some official and recognized way to the historic, global people of God. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 81 of a more faithful ecclesiology of the ‘glocal’ church, a church that is at once and in essence both local and global, both particular and catholic.19 I have surveyed the questions concerning church from the viewpoints of identity and unity. My sketch suggests that insider movements express a paradigm of church that is a complex blend of local, incarnational identity in the Body and in the religious and cultural life of their context. At the same time we see a need to think more carefully and practically about the biblical theme of unity. This still leaves us needing to address the religious question. 4. CAN WE SEPARATE RELIGION AND CULTURE? It is generally assumed among mission practitioners that encouraging new disciples to remain within their cultures, balanced with critical application of biblical truth,20 is sound practice. For the purposes of this paper, it is not necessary to repeat in depth the particular theories about this assumption and the history of discussions about accommodation, indigenization, enculturation, and contextualization.21 Since it is not as widely accepted that remaining in one’s culture involves remaining in the religious aspects, or some religious aspects, of that culture, and since this difference of views is due to differing viewpoints as to the relationship of religion to culture, I need to address the culture/religion link before looking at religion exclusively. There are nearly as many definitions of culture as there are anthropologists. One simple definition sees culture as ‘the tradition of a particular human group, a way of living learned from, and shared by, the 19 A term that seems to have been first applied to the church by Leonard Sweet. Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsumani: Sink or Swim in the New Millennium Culture (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1999). A helpful discussion of the need for keeping the church catholic in view in missiological reflection can be found in a brief article surveying the life of David Bosch. Timothy Yates, ‘David Bosch: South African Context, Universal Missiology – Ecclesiology in the Emerging Missionary Paradigm’, in IBMR (Vol. 33, Nr. 2, April 2009), pp. 72ff. 20 Hiebert’s critical contextualization model has become a standard reference point, for example: Paul Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization’, in IBM (11(3): 1987), pp. 104-111. 21 For helpful discussions from a Roman Catholic viewpoint, see Robert J. Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies (New York, Orbis, 2007). And from a Protestant perspective see Andrew J. Kirk, What is Mission? (Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 2000). St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 82 members of that group.’22 This definition is focused primarily on behavior. A more cognitive orientation to culture is seen in Spradley’s definition, ‘Culture is the acquired knowledge people use to interpret experience and generate behavior.’23 Such broad pictures are typically further categorized into sub-systems. This is done in several ways, but includes categories such as customs, economics, social-structures, values, worldview, and more.24 These two views are not mutually exclusive as there is clearly an inter-relationship between behaviors and the cognitive frameworks that produce and interpret them. Where does religion fit in this discussion of culture? Not every language has a word for religion. In the English language and in European languages generally, the word religion comes from Latin and refers to binding one to the gods. Yet, in many languages there is no distinct word. If we agree with Lamin Sanneh in seeing language as the ‘intimate, articulate expression of culture,’25 then the lack of a distinct word for ‘religion’ suggests that in at least some worldviews religion and culture are in some sense inseparable.26 Although religion and culture may be inseparable in at least some worldviews, it does not mean that we can not distinguish them. Malefijt, in a section entitled ‘Religion as Culture’, defines religion as ‘systematic patterns of beliefs, values, and behavior acquired by man as a member of his society.’27 In this view, religion is certainly intimately intertwined with culture, and yet the fact that Malefijt’s book is entitled ‘Anthropology of Religion’, leads one to assume that the author sees religion as a distinct enough reality to warrant a book of its own rather than addressing religion as a chapter of a book entitled merely, ‘anthropology.’ Daniel Shaw outlines several sub-systems of culture including economics, ideology, kinship, social structure, and political organization. Ideology is defined as ‘a system of beliefs and observances relating to 22 Annemarie de Waal Malefijt, Religion and Culture (New York, Macmillan, 1968), p. 3. 23 James P. Spradley, Participant Observation (New York, Hol, Rinehart, and Winston, 1980), p. 6, quoted in Daniel, R. Shaw, Transculturation (Pasadena, William Carey Library, 1988), p. 25. 24 As one example, see Shaw, 1988. 25 Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message (New York, Orbis Books, revised edition, 2009), p. 3. 26 Kirk, What is Mission?, 122ff. 27 Malefijt, Religion and Culture, p. 6. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 83 origins, present conditions, and the future.’28 Further, while ideology includes expression in religious beliefs, practices, and structures, these peculiarly religious forms of ideology are extensions of an underlying cultural reality.29 Thus, we may speak of religion as a sub-system (religion) of a sub-system (ideology) of culture. Let us look more carefully then at religion as a cultural sub-system.30 Both Malefijt and Shaw describe religion in cognitive and behavioral terms. Shaw adds another element: social structure. For ease of discussion, I will summarize these three aspects of religion as beliefs, behaviors, and belonging. My purpose in doing so is to highlight the fact that the question, ‘Can a disciple remain in their religion?’, needs to be asked with all three aspects of religion in view. Does ‘remain’ mean at the level of belief, behavior, belonging, or some combination? And to what degree can one remain?31 First I turn from the question of culture and religion to the question of religion itself. 5. WHAT IS RELIGION Many evangelicals make use of a three-fold typology to discuss other religions: exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist.32 I will present definitions 28 Shaw, Transculturation, p. 24. 29 Ibid., p. 57. 30 Kraft suggests another way to describe the overlap but distinguish-ability of religion and culture in his discussion of religion and worldview. In Kraft’s view, religion is more and less than worldview. It is more than worldview because it includes behaviors and rituals not included in worldview. But religion is less than worldview because it includes some but not all of the beliefs and assumptions providing basic perspectives for life. Charles Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness (New York, Orbis, 1996), p. 199. Hiebert offers a viewpoint that sees religion and culture as less separable. Paul Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1983), pp. 371ff.). 31 Van Engen takes a different approach to the religion and culture question by speaking instead of faith and culture. The shift is not insignificant, for it enables Van Engen to speak of the Gospel and faith as separable from culture and thus as contextualizable in any culture. Following Charles Kraft, Van Engen agrees that God uses culture like a vehicle, a vehicle that can then carry faith as a passenger (1995, p. 192ff.) 32 Van Engen traces the history of this typology and offers a modification by adding a fourth category in which he seeks to balance the best insights of each and which he terms the ‘evangelist’ paradigm. Kirk suggests changing the terms to particular, general, and universal, but follows the same basic typology. Bosch sees two major paradigms that seem to reflect the exclusivist on the one hand and a combination of the inclusivist and pluralist St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 84 of each, with specific interest in their respective approaches to other religions: 33 Exclusivist: tends to see all non-Christian religions as either mankind’s rebellious attempt to find their own way or as the result of demonic activity.34 Inclusivist: tends to assume that since Christ is Lord of all and is the light that gives light to all, He is at work in other religions and cultures even when people do not know it is Jesus. Christianity is sometimes seen as ‘fulfilling’ the best insights of other religions.35 Pluralist: sees all religions as equally legitimate pathways to God. For some pluralists, Christianity can be said to be the unique path, but only ‘for me’.36 It is tempting to proceed by asking simply, ‘Which of these three is the biblical position?’ This assumes that one of the three does adequately articulate what the Bible says. But is this a fair assumption? First, we find biblical evidence that religion is seen as the rejection of the truth of God, a rebellion masked within the form of ‘religion’. This is part of the argument in Rom 1:18ff. The prophets bore witness to idols as man-made artifacts and as such they are the objects of worship only for the foolish (Isa 40 as an example). on the other (though he does not use those terms). Bosch suggests a third option that would balance the two. Hans Kung adds a fourth paradigm to the typology which I would title the atheist paradigm, and while the exclusivist and pluralist paradigms are evident in his writing (though his terminology is not exactly the same), where one might expect to see inclusivism he suggests the idea of all religions participating in the truth of the one religion. See Van Engen, The Uniqueness of Christ in Mission Theology, in Edward Rommen and Harold Netland, eds., Christianity and the Religions (Pasadena, CA, William Carey publishers, 1995); Kirk, What is Mission?, pp. 118ff.; David Bosch, Witness to the World (Eugene, Oregon, Wipf and Stock, 1980). Hans Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium (New York, Doubleday, 1988), esp. pages 230 and 235. 33 As opposed to also examining the equally important and related theological perspectives of Christology and soteriology and revelation that each position implies. Van Engen’s discussion provides a good overview of these other topics (1995: 183ff.). See also Kirk, What is Mission? pp. 118ff.), and Smith, (1995: 9ff.). 34 With the exception of Van Engen, this seems to be the dominant position of the contributors to Christianity and the Religions, cited above. 35 See the discussions in Van Engen, and Kirk in particular. 36 An excellent example of this position is expressed by Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium, p. 254. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 85 Second, in some passages religion is said to involve the activity of demons and demonic bondage. 1 Cor 8-10 builds the case that although idols themselves are nothing, idol worship involves the worship of demons. In Gal 4, Paul argues that the Galatians had previously been under the bondage of ‘those that are not gods’. (vs. 8) Paul’s evaluation of Jews under the Law is also spoken of as bondage under the elemental spirits (v. 2). Eph 2 opens with an evaluation of all humanity living under the control of the prince of the power of the air, seen as forces at work among the disobedient gentiles, and describes these forces as those ’among whom we (Jews) also walked’. Third, the Bible describes ways in which God is at work in other religions, and suggests in at least some cases that members of other religions are in relationship with God Himself. Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek (a pagan priest of ‘God Most High’) shows us that the author of Genesis sees El and Yahweh as the same Being.37 The fact that Abraham offers a tithe suggests an acceptance of the validity of Melchizedek’s priesthood and thus, religion. This acceptance is confirmed by the New Testament view of Melchizedek as one of the crucial precursors of the Messiah. This is an astonishing acknowledgement of God’s work in another religious tradition. Amos describes God’s relationship to the non-Jewish peoples in terms parallel to His redemption of Israel in the Exodus event (Amos 9:7). God has initiated relationship with these nations. The pagan prophet Balaam used omens and divination as a seer but communicated directly with, and heard directly from Yahweh (Num 22 through 24). He is in relationship with Yahweh, and this relationship is actually facilitated by his practice of divination (Num 23:1ff.).38 In the book of Jonah it is ironically not the Hebrew Jonah who hears and obeys God. In addition, it is the pagan sailors’ prayers that are heard by Yahweh. When they cast lots, it is Yahweh who directs the answer. They are in relationship with Yahweh. 37 See the discussion in Ed Mathews' contribution to Christianity and the Religions in his article, Yahweh and the Gods, p. 33. Mathews draws a different conclusion, but shows the background to El and the Melchizedek event nicely. 38 I am in no way suggesting that every act of divination is a means of relationship with Yahweh, only that it was so in Balaam’s case. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 86 The pagan Magi, in Mat 2, follow a star and are correctly led by it to people who can consult the scriptures and guide them more accurately to the place of Christ’s birth. But we should note that the star led them accurately. Acts 17 describes God’s sovereign design of the times and places in which humans are born. The intention of God behind this is that men and women would seek after Him and actually find Him (see 17:27). This implies that people in other religions can be in relationship to the true God. My conclusion from the above biblical material is that none of the three positions in the common typology of religions actually fit the biblical perspective.39 I will first summarize my understanding of the biblical position and then evaluate each of the three standard positions. First, humans do rebel, distort, and reject the revelation of God whether that is found in ‘general’ or ‘special’ revelation. This is true of pagan religions and, according to Paul, it is also true of those claiming to be biblical (this is the force of his argument in Rom 1 through 3). The fact that people in other religions may potentially be in relationship with God, and the fact that some actually are in such a relationship, does not mean that all people are. Second, there is a spiritual enemy who is a living and deceiving force. This deceptive and corrupting influence is at work in the world, including in the religious dimension. These first two points suggest that although people in other religions may potentially be in relationship with God, and some actually are in such a relationship, we can not therefore assume that all people are in relationship with God. Third, the texts above also show us that God is at work in the world, including the religions of the world, and God is drawing people to Himself beyond the confines and boundaries we normally refer to as ‘His people’. Fourth, several of the texts suggest that acknowledging that God is at work and in relationship with people beyond the borders of Israel and the Church, does not necessarily imply that such a relationship is a saving relationship. In Matthew 2 the Magi are rightly led by the star, but they 39 Gordon Smith also questions whether the three standard categories are asking the right question or helpful in approaching the subject. See his opening chapter in the Christianity and the Religions volume, especially p. 16. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 87 are led to a place where the Bible is used to guide them further. Cornelius’ prayers are answered by God sending Peter to explain the Gospel. I would summarize this description of the biblical data by calling it a Kingdom Paradigm’ for understanding God at work in the religious life of mankind. The Kingdom of God includes the Church, but is bigger than the Church. The Kingdom refers to the whole range of God’s exercise of His reign and rule in the universe. This includes religions. The Kingdom paradigm acknowledges there is another kingdom as well, and takes seriously the battle for the allegiance and hearts and minds of people. How does this Kingdom paradigm compare with the three-fold model that has become typical in the discussion of other religions? What aspects of the three fold model fit and do not fit the biblical data? The exclusivist model rightly acknowledges the unique place of Jesus Christ as the only path to salvation and as the ultimate revelation of God. But it typically fails to address adequately the affirmations in the third biblical perspective above, and might also fail to see the potential for human rebellion and satanic bondage within the so called ‘true religion’. (Galatians is important for us here.) The inclusivist paradigm rightly acknowledges the way that God and the Risen Jesus Himself may be at work visibly and invisibly in the religious life of human beings beyond the contours of the covenant people. But it can fail to take due note of the fact that frequently in the Bible such examples as the Magi and the interaction in Acts 17 conclude with an explicit encounter with the Gospel and the Person of Jesus. The pluralist position can point to examples such as Melchizedek in which the Canaanite ‘El’ and the Jewish ‘Yahweh’ are recognized by Abraham as the same Being. However, the pluralist conclusion that therefore all religions are leading in the same direction breaks down on the wealth of biblical material we have also cited to the contrary. This position tends to underestimate the power of human sin and the reality of spiritual evil.40 40 Van Engen suggests a different way to bring together the best insights in each paradigm, which he calls the evangelist paradigm: faith particularist, inclusivist in ecclesiology, pluralist in our approach to cultures. Van Engen, 1995, 197ff. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 88 My contention is that in most cases, the particular religious expression we will encounter in mission will require a response that acknowledges some combination of all three elements we have discussed. Each specific religious context will vary. No template can be applied to every situation in the same way. This will also affect our answer to the question, ‘Can a disciple remain within his prior religion?’ The discussions above suggest that the answer to this will need to be nuanced by both a through evaluation of the specific religious context, and also by the fact that “remaining in” implies at least three dimensions: believing, behaving, and belonging. 6. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR OUR MISSION PRACTICE? I will seek to apply the preceding discussion by suggesting several implications for our practice of mission: 6.1 Maintain the Centrality of the Gospel None of the discussion above diminishes seeing evangelism’s central place in mission practice. Indeed, our entire discussion leads to a reaffirmation of the conclusion that Jesus is the only way of salvation. God uses many things to bring people to Jesus, even things in other religions, but the Gospel is unique. 6.2 Engage in Concrete Critical Reflection If God is at least potentially at work in other religions, then the contention of insider movement advocates that disciples can remain within their religious context is potentially true in any situation. Whether it is actually true in a given situation, and to what degree, will depend on the unique context and the degree to which there is evidence of rebellion, bondage, or God’s direct self-revelation. If God is active in other religions, then to at least some degree His truth can be found and responded to within the context of those other religions. In some cases, along with ongoing biblical input and appropriate forms of fellowship, this will enSt Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 89 able disciples to remain within their religious context.41 Discerning all of this will require critical reflection on and in the actual context. 6.3 Keep Conversion in Perspective The preceding discussion leads to an important reminder. We need to hold firmly to a Biblical understanding of ‘conversion’ as the reorientation of the heart and mind (e.g. Rom 12:1ff.), rather than as an institutional transfer of religious affiliation. 6.4 Encourage ‘Glocal’ Expressions of Church Encouraging practical and meaningful ways for leaders of insider movements to develop relationships of mutual blessing is in keeping with biblical descriptions of church. Finding ways to do this securely, and finding non-insiders with whom to relate who will approach such encounters with respect and brotherly humility, are challenges worth trying to overcome. 6.5 Develop Biblical Theology in Context In accord with my own definition of insider movements cited at the outset of this article, our missionary practice will need to include clear thinking regarding helping ‘insiders’ to develop the capacity for developing ongoing biblical theology in the context of their culture.42 Such efforts involve adequate translations of the scriptures, intentional processes for critical reflection, and the empowerment of insiders themselves in such a process. Biblical theology in context will provide the means by 41 Even in such cases, I assume a great deal of reorientation and even re-interpretation of their prior religious worldview and beliefs will be required. I attempted to address this in prior articles. See The Key to Insider Movements, and, Identity, Integrity and Insider Movements, cited above. 42 A number of possible models exist for this. Hiebert’s critical contextualization model is perhaps the best known. A more complex and extensive model is developed in the work of Shaw and Van Engen. See Paul Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization’, in IBMR (11(3): 1987), pp. 104-111, and Daniel Shaw and Charles Van Engen, Communicating God’s Word in a Complex World (Boulder, CO, Rowan and Littlefield, 2003). St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 90 which the Spirit of God will continue to shape and correct His people, and is the safeguard against syncretism.43 6.6 View Religion as a Matrix of Belief, Behavior and Belonging I have referenced this three-part taxonomy several times. I want to conclude with a brief outline of how it might be applied. As a biblical example, I will take just one text commonly cited by insider advocates, the story of Naaman in 2 Kings 5.44 Beliefs: Naaman clearly changes at least some of his beliefs. He now acknowledges that there is no God in all the earth except ‘in Israel’. (v. 15) Yet, some of his old ways of thinking remain: since there is no God except in Israel, he asks for some of Israel’s dirt that he might take it with him to Aram (v. 17). The Prophet allows him to remain in this belief about the connection between the dirt of Israel and the God of Israel. The process of change in an insider’s belief system will be a dynamic one. However, there is a clear and fundamental change of Naaman’s belief about God. Behavior: Insider advocates tend to make much of the permission Naaman receives to continue attending the temple of Rimmon (v. 18, 19). This is indeed behavior, and does speak to the issue of remaining in the religion. However, there is also a change of behavior. Naaman states clearly he will no longer offer sacrifices to any other gods (v. 17). This too is behavior, and speaks to the fact that not all behaviors will be kept. 43 Nikides argues that without the deductive teaching of doctrines such as the Trinity, believers will not arrive at the truth with the study of the bible alone, ‘The use of Manuscript Bible Studies and other inductive tools without the instruction of the church is no way to learn these’ (2006, p. 8). While the proper place of inductive and deductive approaches in discipleship is a valid question, Nikides overstates his case. One wonders how the church fathers arrived at those doctrines if it was not from their study of scripture over several generations as they reflected on culture and did so in the heat of clarifying heresy as new teachings clamored for attention. 44 Naaman is not the only example. The woman of Samaria is another example. See Stuart Caldwell, ‘Jesus in Samaria: A Paradigm for Church Planting Among Muslims’, in IJFM, (17:1, Spring 2000). For more on Naaman see Higgins, The Key to Insider Movements, cited above. St Francis Magazine 5:4 (August 2009) St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 91 Belonging: Naaman remains an Aramean, certainly. He does not become a Jewish proselyte by remaining as one of the aliens for whom the Law made provision. He goes back to Aram (v. 19). He goes back to being the commander of the Army of Israel’s enemy (clearly implied in v. 18). What of specifically religious belonging? On his return to Aram and to the temple of Rimmon, the other Arameans will certainly still see him as ‘belonging’ to the people who belong to Rimmon. In Naaman we see a complex situation. Some of his beliefs and behaviors change while others remain the same. At the level of belonging, he seems to have continued just as before. This should sensitize us to the possibility that our wisest response in some situations could be the same as that in 2 Kings 5:19, ‘Go in peace.’ 7. CONCLUSION Charles Kraft tells the story of a Nigerian Christian’s words to him evaluating a prospective group of new western missionaries. The Nigerian was from a traditional, tribal religious background. He referred to the older missionary view that emphasized the difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Nigerians and then went on to say that he and his people came to realize that ‘our God had brought the missionaries to add to our understanding and commitment.’45 His hope was that the new missionaries would come to realize this as well. What is truly at the heart of the insider movement paradigm is the God Who is at work directly among the nations, including their religions, to make in each a people for Himself. These are His movements, and He is the true Insider. 45 Charles Kraft, Christianity in Culture (New York, Orbis, 2005), p. 16. Emphasis in original.   International Journal of Frontier Missions 21:4 Winter 2004•155 Proceedings of the ISFM 2004 Meeting: Insider Movements The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts by Kevin Higgins This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversation among missionaries about Insider Movements, movements to Jesus that remain to varying degrees inside the social fabric of Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or other people groups. Ours is a highly controversial topic, and emotions sometimes run high, no matter which side of the contextualization “aisle” we find ourselves on. While many of us differ (even strongly) on many points, we can do so knowing that we all serve the same Master and all desire to see the gospel of Jesus Christ received, welcomed and embraced by all nations, tribes and tongues! And in this we can rejoice! I write as a “thinking practitioner” who has worked among Muslims in North America, East Africa, and South Asia. In South Asia I have been honored to be a part of an emerging movement to Jesus that is gaining significant momentum among four people groups. In my role I have made many mistakes and will continue to make more. But my mistakes have always driven me back to the Scriptures and prayer, to further reflection and readjustment. So are Insider Movements just a missiological fad? Are our conversations about these movements simply about the appropriateness of certain pragmatic, tactical approaches to contextualizing the gospel? Or are they actually conversations about the nature of the gospel itself?  I believe that the debate about Insider Movements actually is a debate about the gospel, one as potentially earth-shaking as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Anabaptist reform movements of the 16th century. Those movements were driven by the recovery of basic, foundational biblical truths such as justification by faith, a gospel of grace, the priesthood of all believers, and the place of the Bible in the life of the church and of the believer. And they forced church leaders to re-evaluate church practice and doctrine.  Similarly, I see Insider Movements as fueling (and being fueled by) a rediscovery of the Incarnation, of a thoroughly biblical approach to culture and religion, of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading God’s people to “work out” the gospel in new ways, and of an understanding of how God works in the world Involved with Global Teams as a missionary since 1990, Kevin developed a work in a majority Muslim country that has resulted in creative evangelism among eight language groups and emerging people movements in four of those. Kevin now serves as Executive Director of Global Teams, recruiting missionaries, training, and coaching pioneer missionaries.  The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts 156 International Journal of Frontier Missions within and beyond His covenant people. And we may be forced to re-evaluate some widely held ideas and practices of our own.  Scope and Approach  This paper cannot address every facet of what I see as an emerging reformation. Nor is it my purpose here to defend or develop that thesis. Rather, I will focus on two basic issues that must be addressed in the discussion of whether catalyzing “Insider Movements” is an appropriate aim of mission effort in the first place. We will consider those questions from two perspectives: 1. “Insider Movements” in the Bible? Does Scripture provide any models and dynamics of healthy, vital movements to Jesus? This question forces us to articulate and address valid concerns about how such movements to Jesus develop on a foundation that is grounded in God’s word. 2. Can a “movement to Jesus” be an “Insider Movement”? What is the relationship between the emerging Jesus movement (and its biblical worldview and discipleship) and the worldview, religious life, and cultural context inside of which the movement is “moving,” so to speak? This question forces us to articulate and address valid concerns about how such movements to Jesus develop within the cultural and religious framework of their particular context. Here we need a biblical theology of culture and of God’s involvement in it. Insider Movements: A Working Definition Before addressing those two major questions, we need to be sure what it is we’re talking about. I know of no generally accepted definition for an “Insider Movement,” so I will try to define how I use the term. Let us begin with some background. The question of whether Insider Movements are an appropriate goal of mission effort is actually part of an older missiological conversation. In the second half of the 20th century, thinkers such as McGavran and Tippett began to popularize the idea of “people movements.” One assumption of the people movement concept was that people in many parts of the world made decisions together rather than as individuals, and that such “togetherness” included tribal, caste, and other types of unity.1  As I use it, the phrase “Insider Movements” encompasses not only these earlier descriptions of people movements but adds “religion” to the above list of aspects of “togetherness” or unity. In other words, I suggest that followers of Jesus can continue to embrace at least some of their people’s religious life, history, and practice without compromising the gospel or falling into syncretism.  Indeed, I will attempt to show from the Scriptures that, at least in some sense, the gospel can actually fulfill or complete certain aspects of the religion of a people group. The exact nature of such fulfillment will vary greatly from context to context, and more specifically from religion to religion. Now, let me offer a summary of the above points to serve as a working definition of the term “Insider Movement.” Insider Movement: A growing number of families, individuals, clans, and/or friendship-webs becoming faithful disciples of Jesus within the culture of their people group, including their religious culture. This faithful discipleship will express itself in culturally appropriate communities of believers who will also continue to live within as much of their culture, including the religious life of the culture, as is biblically faithful. The Holy Spirit, through the Word and through His people will also begin to transform His people and their culture, religious life, and worldview.  Such movements to Jesus will develop “church” forms, leadership structures, and theological work. The specific forms of community, leadership, worship, and theological discourse that develop within such movements will emerge as leaders within the movement discover biblical functions and express them by adopting and adapting existing cultural forms from within their culture and religion. Part I: Jesus Movements in the Bible Now, I want to begin to address our two major issues. First, what are the models and dynamics of a healthy, vital movement to Jesus? Every movement to Jesus is in some way an Insider Movement. Every movement to Jesus is inside of some culture or some aspects of a culture. In addition, movements to Jesus, no matter what culture they are “inside,” are movements that bring families, tribes, groups, and individuals into a saving relationship and new experiences of community in Jesus.  But what exactly would that look like? How do we know there is a movement? What biblical model or models can we discover that describe healthy movements? Can the dynamics of such a movement be described in such a way that we can use the model to assist us in our own ministries among the unreached? Or to avoid “killing” such movements (by failing to develop them fully or by inadvertently squelching a key dynamic and thus not allowing an emerging movement to blossom)? The question of whether “Insider Movements” are an appropriate goal of mission effort is actually part of an older missiological conversation.157 21:4 Winter 2004 Kevin Higgins  I believe the Book of Acts provides such a model, and gives us clear descriptions of the dynamics of such a movement. I refer to these dynamics as “keys” and see at least some of those keys in Luke’s use of the Greek word proskartereo.  Usually translated “devoted” in our English Bibles, this interesting word is used in a number of other ways. For example, in Acts 10:7, proskartereo refers to the devotion of one of Cornelius’ servants to Cornelius and could be rendered as “service.” The word can also have the sense of “continuing with” or “staying with” someone or something, as in Acts 8:13 where Simon is said to “continue with Phillip” following his baptism. Of the seven uses of the word in Acts, six seem to describe dynamics of the emerging Jesus movement, and I will focus on those.2 The various things or practices to which the early church was “devoted” describe, in my view, the key dynamics of a vital and healthy movement.  The First “Devoted”: Prayer The word “devoted” first appears in Acts 1:14 where we find the 120 devoting themselves to united prayer as they wait for the promise referred to in Acts 1:8. Indeed, in the movements to Jesus that we see exploding in Acts among the Jews of Jerusalem, Hellenized Jews, and Gentiles, devotion to prayer is a key dynamic. In fact it seems clear in Luke’s overall design that devotion to prayer was a lesson first learned by the disciples in their walk with Jesus Himself.  Biblically authentic Insider Movements are not primarily a missiological strategy or a program. They are a spiritual phenomenon driven by the Sovereign Lord through the prayers of His people. Prayer will be a major dynamic in authentic movements to Jesus.  In missions, we have increasingly and rightly emphasized intercession for movements to Jesus, but this “devoted” refers to passionate and consistent prayer by people within the movement as well. Prayer is both a sign of an authentic movement, and a source of the spiritual vitality unleashed in such movements. The Second “Devoted”: The Apostles’ Teaching and Fellowship The English text of Acts 2:42 might lead us to assume there are four “devoted’s” in this one verse. However in Greek the word proskartereo is only used twice. First, the church was devoted to “the apostle’s teaching and fellowship” and secondly, it was devoted to “the breaking of bread and the prayers.” Here we will deal with the first of those two “devoted’s.” The early church in Acts was devoted to the teaching or doctrine of the apostles and to being in fellowship, or koinonia, with them. This refers not only to a commitment to apostolic truth, but also points to a relational partnership with the company of the apostles. It refers to learning from the apostles, joining with the apostles, and receiving from and sharing with the apostles’ ministry.  Authentic Insider Movements will be devoted to the apostolic witness to Christ as we find it in the New Testament. Insider Movements will develop leaders and tools to facilitate the process of plumbing the depths of Scripture so as to apply it to new situations in keeping with the message and example of the apostles and their writings.3  This “devoted” includes a commitment not only to right apostolic doctrine, but also to right apostolic ministry. It is not only the message of the apostles that we’re to learn and embrace but also their method of ministry. How did they communicate the gospel, plant churches, and build leaders? Being devoted to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship means seeking to do apostolic work the apostolic way. This also implies that Insider Movements will not be isolated from—and independent of—other movements to Jesus. Being in the apostles’ fellowship would seem to imply some sort of connection to other apostolic movements. This is certainly the pattern we see in Acts: a connection between the emerging Jewish and Gentile movements flowing respectively from Jerusalem and Antioch. The Third “Devoted”: The Breaking of Bread and the Prayers The second coupling in Acts 2:42 refers to the closely linked “breaking of bread” and “the prayers.” The context seems to support the interpretation that the former term refers to early celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, probably within the context of a real meal, rather than a separate and isolated religious ceremony apart from a meal (as is commonly practiced in the West and in western-influenced church movements around the world).4 That “breaking bread” is closely linked in the grammar of the Greek text with “the prayers” shows us the importance already being placed upon the Lord’s Supper in the early church. “The prayers” are best understood, not merely as a general reference to “prayer” as a spiritual discipline (private or corporate), but more specifically as prescribed prayers in the Temple. The early believers were devoted to expressions of worship that included the   Insider Movements will not be isolated from—or independent of—other movements to Jesus.International Journal of Frontier Missions The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts 158  Lord’s Supper and Temple prayers, though clearly not in the same event or ceremony. There is an important point here that could easily be missed. On the one hand, proponents of Insider Movements might point to this devotion to “the prayers” as a biblical model of a community of disciples that remains within the religious forms that shaped its life prior to conversion to Christ. Whether that is a right application is a question to which we will return below. This question involves the complex issue of how far the model of a movement that emerged within Judaism can authentically be applied within other religious contexts such as Islam or Hinduism. However, the fact that Luke links “the prayers” with the Lord’s Supper here shows us that even as the new community continued to embrace the Temple prayers, it also added major new emphases and interpretations. The early church was devoted to “the prayers” but in same breath reference is made to the radically reinterpreted Passover supper that had been inaugurated by Jesus Himself.  The practice of this meal by the early church transformed the Jewish rite in at least two ways. First, its meaning was dramatically altered. Second, the frequency of observance changed and eventually came to be a weekly event, rather than an annual Passover celebration.  We can draw an important conclusion from this. Insider Movements, even as they continue to embrace old forms and expressions, also bring in radically new meanings and truths. The Fourth “Devoted”: Meeting in the Temple and House to House This “devoted” continues a theme introduced in “devoted” three. Acts 2:46 says that the early church was devoted to meeting in the Temple and from “house to house.”  First, we will examine the issue of meeting in the Temple. In light of Peter’s habit of going to the temple at set times for prayer (Acts 3) and the believers’ devotion to “the prayers,” clearly the best reading of Acts 2:46 is that the early church not only continued in Temple and synagogue worship, but they were “devoted” to this. Proponents of Insider Movements, especially among Muslims, have pointed to possible parallels here. They have argued from this passage and others that a biblical precedent exists for new believers from Islam to remain in the mosque and continue to practice other religious expressions of Islamic life. Opponents of this position argue that the parallel is ill conceived because Islam (or, say, Hinduism) does not occupy the same position in salvation history as Judaism. This debate cannot really be settled on the basis of the Acts texts alone. One might ask if there are any other biblical precedents for movements to Jesus that remain in some way inside of another religious “skin.” Of particular interest will be examples in which new believers remained connected to a culture within a religious context that was not Jewish. This discussion requires a slight excursus at this point to examine just two possible examples. Excursus: Two Biblical Precedents Namaan and the Temple of Rimmon In 2 Kings 5 we read the fascinating story of Namaan and Elisha. Namaan is the commander of the armies of Israel’s enemy. He is a pagan Assyrian whose king worships the god Rimmon. Relevant to our discussion is the interaction between Namaan and Elisha following Namaan’s healing. The miracle convinces Namaan that the God of Israel is the true God. He wants to reward the prophet but upon being refused this honor he makes a twofold request instead.  First, he asks for two bags of dirt. Why Naaman makes this request is not clear from the text. It may be that Namaan still has a territorial understanding of the gods and thus, while he genuinely desires to honor Israel’s God as the true God, he may see the dirt as a way of somehow “bringing God” with him to Assyria. If so, we have an example of a believer who is genuinely “converted,” but is still undergoing the long process of having his worldview fully transformed by his new faith and experience. Namaan’s second request is even more directly related to our question about possible biblical precedents for Insider Movements. Namaan asks Elisha to forgive him because when he returns to Assyria he will accompany his king into the temple of Rimmon to bow down in worship there. Elisha’s response? Go in peace. Now Namaan is one “convert,” not a movement. And Elisha’s “Go in peace” is given in response to a request for forgiveness. But the text is an example of a follower of another religion who becomes a believer in the true God and yet continues to worship the true God within the religious life and practices of his prior religion. Not only is it a description, but also the text includes the clear blessing of the prophet upon the practice. In this text we find at least one case where God blesses “remaining inside.” The Samaritan Woman and the Two Mountains John 4 describes the familiar story of the woman at the well. I have written in greater detail about this in another article5 and will not repeat  They have argued from this passage and others that a biblical precedent exists for new believers from Islam to remain in the mosque.159 21:4 Winter 2004 Kevin Higgins  the details here. But this story makes at least two relevant points.  The first point concerns the woman’s question about worship. Jesus’ answer to her question is rather shocking if we put ourselves in Jewish shoes. He replies that true worship will not be found in Samaria or in Jerusalem. Instead, He calls the woman (and us) to embrace the worship of the Father in spirit and truth. But later in John we find Jesus Himself in the Temple. So, what of His statement that true worship would not be in Samaria or in Jerusalem? Clearly His vision of “worship in spirit and truth” (that is neither in Samaria or Jerusalem) did not preclude Him from continuing to worship in Jerusalem, one of the locations He said would not be a place for true worship.  And it is logical to assume that the Samaritans did the same after Jesus left their village. After their conversion recorded in John 4, they worshipped in spirit and in truth. But they did so in Samaria (in their prior place of worship) just as Jesus worshipped the Father in spirit and in truth in Jerusalem, in the Temple. That this episode is an example of an Insider Movement is further suggested by a second feature of the passage. After Jesus spends two days in the Samaritan village, the villagers affirm that they now believe Jesus is the Savior of the world. Then Jesus leaves. What does He leave behind? A group of believers.6  It is impossible to question John’s intention in making that point. In the drama of his Gospel, John compares the response of the Samaritans (and later of the Greeks who seek for Jesus at the festival in Jerusalem) with the responses to Jesus from among the Jews. The Samaritans are examples of people who believe and accept Jesus.  The believing but “young” community Jesus leaves behind after only two days will presumably continue in its prior Samaritan religious life with a major difference: Jesus’ revelation of Himself has changed them. Back to Acts and the “Devoted’s” As we have seen, Acts 2:46 is not the only example in Scripture where people came to authentic faith in the true God and yet remained in some way connected to their prior religious practices and culture. So, while I would grant that Judaism is in fact a different case than, say, Islam, the parallel still holds. When we consider that the worship in the Temple was led by priests who did not follow Jesus (and in fact many of them had likely voted to condemn Jesus to death), the opposition that the early believers would have encountered in the Temple provides a strong parallel to Islamic contexts (more on that in the second half of this paper). Not only did the Insider Movement of the early chapters of Acts meet in the Temple (where worship was not led by believers and was not supportive of the new community’s faith in Jesus as the Messiah and Lord), it was also devoted to meeting in homes. So a new structure for fellowship and community and nurture emerged to sustain the believers in the movement.  The Fifth “Devoted”: Leaders Devoted to the Word and Prayer In Acts 6, we find the apostles wrestling with the problems of growth within the emerging Jerusalem movement. Verse 4 shows that they clearly understood an important principle of their calling and of movements. They saw that for the movement to grow, their leadership would need to remain devoted to prayer and “the word.”  In the context of Acts, “the word” refers not simply to the internal teaching of the word to believers, but to the spreading of the word to not-yet-believers. This is confirmed by Act 6:6, where the result of this “devotion” is that the word “grew” and “spread” (it is also worth noting that a great number of priests became obedient to the faith). Movements to Jesus will remain “movements” if they embrace this principle of keeping key leadership focused on the spread of the word. If, as we nurture a new movement we neglect this important dynamic, we risk cutting off the flow of new believers, thus choking off the growth of the movement.7 The Sixth “Devoted”: Relational Discipleship In Acts 8, Simon, a new convert, is baptized. Phillip, himself a fairly new convert, has evangelized him. This, in and of itself, is a key movement dynamic. Phillip was appointed in Acts 6 to serve tables, then used by God to share with the Ethiopian, then whisked away and then used of God in Simon’s life. Phillip has baptized Simon. And he has baptized him rather quickly.8 Note that this is a new convert baptizing another new convert. And the model of discipleship? Simon “continues with” Phillip (Acts 8:13), showing that the movement continued to follow Jesus’ own highly relational model for making and multiplying disciples. New disciples make new disciples, including baptizing and mentoring them through a relational, “life-on-life” process. So far we have identified six keys or dynamics of movements to Jesus in   [T]he opposition that the early believers would have encountered in the Temple provides a strong parallel to Islamic contexts. International Journal of Frontier Missions The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts 160  the book of Acts. These six keys can be described and measured; they’re either happening in a movement or they’re not. In our work it has become a regular part of ministry evaluation and planning to occasionally ask ourselves whether we’re doing these things and whether we see others doing these things in the movement. To summarize, these six dynamics are: 1. Prayer  2. Apostles teaching and fellowship 3. Breaking bread and the prayers 4. Remaining in “the Temple” and meeting “from house to house” 5. Developing structures that keep key leadership focused on the spread of the word and prayer 6. Relational Discipleship. In my own organization, Global Teams, we have been trying to find ways to describe movements and their dynamics in practical and tangible ways so that our work and prayers can be focused on doing the things that actually promote the kind of movement Acts decribes. In several contexts we have been working with the following four “markers” of healthy and vibrant movements to Jesus: 1. Self-Propagating: Leaders from within the movement are planning and doing Evangelism, Church Multiplication, and Cross-Cultural Mission Sending. 2. Self-Governing: The movement regularly and intentionally multiplies its own leadership, and is responsible before God for all decisions concerning the work. 3. Self-Supporting: The movement, through the stewardship of its disciples and/or other enterprises governed by leaders in the movement, funds its own internal operations and ministries. 4. Self-Theologizing: The movement is actively engaged in the ongoing process of doing thorough biblical theology “in culture.” The above four markers describe insiders (people from within the movement) from the point of view of their actions, as well as the dynamics of a movement. The first three “selves” (borrowed from Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson) are an attempt to summarize the material from Acts, while the fourth marker or “self” describes critical contextualization carried on by insiders. Drawing upon these four “selves,” we have developed a tool with more detailed descriptions of these four dynamics, which we incorporate into an annual re-examination of the ministry of each pioneer team.9 Summary: Part I So far we have attempted to outline six dynamics or keys to healthy and vital movements to Jesus. We tried to show some of the biblical bases for such movements remaining, to some degree, within the religious context in which they are birthed and spread. Now we need to examine the question of Insider Movements more closely from the perspective of the religious context inside of which we’re arguing that they take can place. We need to engage the issue of how a biblical movement to Jesus can be in any sense also an Insider Movement. Part II: Insider Movements: The Relationship to Culture and Religion Let’s assume a healthy movement to Jesus is emerging among people “Z”. What is the relationship of the emerging Jesus movement (and its biblical worldview and discipleship) to the worldview, religious life, and cultural context inside of which the movement is “moving”? Can any of the culture (especially religious culture) be incorporated and kept? Beyond that, can any of the culture be seen as in any way preparatory for the gospel, and thus in some sense “fulfilled,” when the gospel is embraced? I would like to begin here by offering some introductory thoughts towards a biblical theology of God’s work in cultures and religion. In view of space constraints, I will focus on one passage: Acts 17. A Theology of Culture and Religion in Acts 17:16ff. First, let me attempt to dispel what I consider a “myth” about Paul’s visit to Athens in Acts 17. A widespread opinion seems to be that Acts 17 represents a sort of anomaly for Paul; that is, Paul experimented in Athens with a “contextualized” approach to presenting the gospel. Disappointed in the results, he returned to a straight and simple proclamation of the Cross, according to his own testimony in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians. However, this viewpoint founders on two counts. First, Acts 17 is not an anomaly; Paul had used almost the same method of presentation in Acts 14 as well. Luke presents this as a method Paul used regularly, depending upon his hearers and his context.10 Second, the Corinthian correspondence itself contains the clearest and perhaps best known of Paul’s statements on “contextualization.” The famous “Jew to the Jew” and “Greek to the Greek” passage (1 Cor 9:19-22) is descriptive of Paul’s ministry “habit.”  In today’s western church culture we might refer to this as Paul’s vision and mission statement. His vision was to see all saved. His mission was to become all things to all men that by all means he might save some. Far from “rethinking” his approach in Athens, he seems to reaffirm it. The promotion of Insider Movements does not imply that the missionary or “insider” leader assumes everything in a culture is pleasing to God.161 21:4 Winter 2004 Kevin Higgins  Now we turn to Acts 17.  First, Paul is clearly disturbed by the religious worldview and life in Athens. Contextualization and the promotion of Insider Movements does not imply that the missionary or “insider” leader assumes everything in a culture is pleasing to God. Acts 17 forces us to wrestle with the issue of sin and darkness in other cultures and religions, including our own.  There is a personal challenge in the passage as well. Is my heart as sensitive as Paul’s? Do I care at a deep and passionate level about the people I am called to reach? How easy it is for our missionary call to descend to the level of a job, and our passion to settle into an intellectual interest in “truth.” Paul was deeply disturbed by what he saw, and it moved him to act. Second, Paul takes this passion and inner turmoil, and communicates it in a very focused way. Here is a summary of the main points: a. Paul begins by affirming what he can truly and honestly affirm: “I see you are religious in every way . . . for you have an altar TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” (vss. 22, 23) b. But Paul goes beyond this. There is a sense in which he sees the altar to the unknown god as preparation for what he will say about the gospel. Whether this is mere pragmatism and opportunism remains to be seen. We will address that in a moment. For now we need to remind ourselves of what is really taking place. A Jewish monotheist (Paul) is using a pagan altar as a sign that the people he addresses are religious and that they have in fact been worshipping the true God without knowing it. This is not the same thing as saying that this “anonymous worship” is salvific. I am not arguing that, nor do I believe it. But Paul is assuming they have been worshipping the true God without knowing Him. c. From the altar Paul moves to creation. Here again Paul’s approach is not merely to affirm what he sees in the Athenians, but to point out areas that will need correction in the light of God’s truth. So, although he clearly sees the altar as preparing the Athenians for his message about the true God, he does not take that to mean that everything in their religion and culture is preparation that can be fulfilled. Some things will need to be corrected or discarded, polytheism being an obvious example. d. To support his creation arguments, he cites sources and texts from the Athenians’ literary background. One text is taken from a hymn dedicated to Zeus. But since it says something Paul knows is true about the true God, he uses it while changing its reference point.  e. It is interesting to note that while Paul never cites Scripture directly in this encounter, he does speak biblical truth, using poets and writers to support the biblical truths he proclaims.  f. Paul closes his argument by calling for a worldview change and repentance. In context this would mean accepting monotheism specifically and, minimally, accepting Paul’s general argument about a day of judgment and a coming Judge who has been raised from the dead (this Person is unnamed in this sermon, though Paul may be assuming his hearers will connect the reference to Jesus, whom he had named in Athens prior to being invited to the gathering of philosophers). It is almost like offering a “sample” to see if the Athenians want more. Some clearly did not, while others clearly did. g. Finally, we return to the question raised (but not addressed) under point “b” above, as to whether Paul’s use of the altar and the poets was merely a pragmatic move or was based instead on a deeper understanding of God’s ways in the cultures and religions of mankind. In these verses Paul argues that God has created every nation, every culture, “pan ethnos.” And not only did He create them, He also determined the era of history in which they would live and the geographical area they would inhabit. This is very careful, sovereign planning on God’s part, and encompasses, again, every nation and people. But there is a purpose for this careful planning and design; verse 27 makes this very clear. The purpose is so that they (the nations) should “seek God,” “feel after Him,” and indeed “find Him,” although in fact “He is not far from us.” This latter phrase includes the nations. Paul’s use of the altar and the poets is very logical outworking of his worldview, which can be be summarized in this way: The true God has designed the cultures, seasons, and locations of the nations to further the process by which all peoples might seek after and actually find Him. Based upon this reading of Paul’s message to the Athenians, it is biblical to speak of the gospel as a fulfillment of the “seeking, feeling and finding” process in every culture and religion. This is true not only in the Jewish religion (where we can point to direct Old Testament prophecies and “types” that are fulfilled in Christ) but also in a pagan religious culture such as that found in Athens.11 Thus, Insider Movements can be said to relate to their religious   This is not the same thing as saying this “anonymous worship” is salvific.International Journal of Frontier Missions The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts 162  context from this perspective of fulfillment, as well as from the perspective that the gospel will correct and change the culture. The preceding is a brief and incomplete attempt to outline a biblical theology of religion and culture. A fuller treatment would need to examine texts and themes such as: a. The Bible’s clear and steady stance against idolatry and polytheism as at least “empty” in some circumstances and as “demonic” in others.12 This needs to be part of the discussion among those of us more disposed to approve of the idea of Insider Movements. b. God’s jealousy for His people, which would need to be taken into account in any exposition of His work among other nations. c. The covenants or claims to “ownership” in relationship to non-Jewish people: Ishmael in Genesis, Edom and Moab and Philistia in Psalm 108, for example. d. The theology of “natural revelation” in Romans 1. e. John 1:9 and the light that enlightens every human being. There is much more that needs to be explored in this important area. A Look Back Before Moving On Our first main question addressed the “movement issue.” In that section we attempted to show biblical precedents for believers in the true God remaining within the cultural (and even religious) forms in their context. My point here is to attempt to outline a framework for a biblical understanding of how a movement to Jesus could claim to be in some sense a fulfillment of the religion (or aspects of the religion) inside of which it remains.  At this stage it might be helpful to summarize what I think the implications of Acts 17 are for Insider Movements. I will focus on just three. Implications for Insider Movements First, Paul does not claim that all of paganism is a preparation for Jesus. He challenges the thinking of the Athenians and argues from inside of their worldview framework in order to change that framework. Implication: An insider approach to Islam or any other religion will need to address the areas that must be transformed by biblical truth. The six keys from Acts outlined earlier are thus of critical importance in this regard. Those keys serve to keep an Insider Movement rooted in the canonical Scriptures. The “fourth self” is also largely dedicated to this end. Second, Paul assumes that altars and poets and other such things will be found that agree with biblical truth, and he uses them freely, without trying to show that he is only using them because they show the Bible to be true. His theology sees God as the designer who has placed each nation in its era and area in order to find Him. Also, he is not afraid of being misunderstood and taken for a pagan simply because he uses pagan altars and poets to prove his point. Implication: An insider approach can freely use religious and secular aspects of the culture to communicate biblical truth. This includes the texts and ceremonies of the religion one is seeking to reach. Missionaries should not fear that doing so might cause others to confuse them as being “Muslim” or “Hindu.” The Athenians frankly were still not sure what category to place Paul in, and he did not seem to worry about that issue. This is not a lack of integrity on Paul’s part.13 I believe Paul was attempting to elicit among the Athenians what I would call a “hermeneutic of curiosity.” Third, Paul’s teaching indicates that he believed God had actually designed the locations and times and indeed cultures in which people lived so that they could seek God and find Him. There was an intentional design on God’s part. This design, in Paul’s view, accounts for why the Athenians would have an altar to an unknown god. In the context of the scene in Athens, we should conclude that God’s own hand was involved in the Athenians making that altar and that He did so in order that they would seek and question and someday find Him. This is in contrast to the idea that the altar was a convenient accident that Paul used. Paul’s theology of culture as articulated in Athens shows us that the altar was no accident. Implication: Missionaries among peoples of other religions can and should approach their work with the same expectations Paul had. I should expect, in my work among Muslims, that I will find in the Quran, the Hadith, worship in the mosque, and indeed in the Hajj itself the Islamic equivalents of “altars to an unknown god” and “poets” that I can quote to proclaim biblical truth. This is true of Islam generally, but would have additional “altars” and “poets” in each of the widely varying cultural expressions of Islam. These things are not accidents; they are there by God’s design. They are, we might say, the fingerprints of God within the religions of the world. One Final Question  Before concluding this section, we need to address one final question about Insider Movements. At the beginning of this section we raised the question of the relationship between Insider Movements and the religious context in which they emerge. So far we have focused our attention on developing a biblical  An insider approach to Islam or any other religion will need to address the areas that must be transformed by biblical truth.163 21:4 Winter 2004 Kevin Higgins  perspective for understanding culture and religion and how a movement to Jesus might relate to them or indeed be “inside” of them.  It is also important to ask whether it matters how non-believing members of the religion view the movement. For example, there will be Muslims who do not follow Jesus and are not part of the “Insider Movement.” If they do not accept the insider’s interpretation of the Quran or if they reject the so-called “altars” and “poets” the movement claims are fulfilled by the truth of the gospel, does this mean the Insider Movement’s claims are invalid? In other words, whose criteria, indeed whose hermeneutic, will determine the validity of the interpretation of the Quran or Hadith offered by a Muslim Insider Movement? The simplest answer would be to ask another question. Whose hermeneutic of the Old Testament determined the validity of the Jewish Insider Movement to Jesus in Acts? It is clear that the apostles and Jesus Himself had a much different hermeneutic than the prevailing religious establishment when they read and taught the Old Testament.  The apostles were using a new interpretive “key” to the Old Testament:Jesus Himself. In my view, prior to Jesus it would have been impossible to understand the meaning of the Old Testament passages as they were used in apostolic preaching.  In the same way, Paul used a different hermeneutic of the altar he discovered in Athens and of the poets he quoted. Before Paul’s sermon, who would have guessed that the altar to the unknown god was really an altar to the God of the Old Testament? And yet, in both examples, one can see the logic and the “fulfillment” after the fact once one accepts the hermeneutic. Clearly not all of the Athenians who heard Paul did in fact accept this hermeneutic. But that did not cause Paul to question his interpretation of the altar in Athens. Neither Jesus nor the apostles assumed that their hermeneutic of the Old Testament was invalid because the other Jewish leaders did not accept it Similarly, the fact that not all Muslims will accept my reading of the Quran in the light of Jesus does not mean that my reading is wrong or invalid. I have a different starting point and a different hermeneutic, shaped by a worldview that has Christ at the center. Reading the Quran with Christ as my starting point and with the assumptions of Acts 17 shaping my expectations, there will be many discoveries of “altars” and “poets.” This will be true for other Islamic writings, rites, and practices. This will be true in other religious contexts as well.  Summary In this paper I began with a working definition of Insider Movements. I linked such movements to the wider conversation about people movements, but added the religious factor to the mix of what it means to be “inside” a culture. I have attempted to wrestle with the Insider Movement issue from two major perspectives, each with its own questions. I will restate those perspectives and questions here: 1. “Insider Movements” in the Bible: What are the models and dynamics of a healthy, vital movement to Jesus? This question forces us to articulate and address valid concerns about how movements to Jesus develop on a biblically grounded foundation. 2. Can a “movement to Jesus” be an “Insider Movement”?  What is the relationship of the emerging Jesus movement (and its biblical worldview and discipleship) to the worldview, religious life, and cultural context inside of which the movement is “moving”? This question forces us to articulate and address valid concerns about how movements to Jesus develop within the cultural and religious framework of their particular context. A major factor in this question will be the issue of developing a biblical theology of culture and God’s involvement in it. In both sections I have focused my attention on the fundamental issue of whether Insider Movements can be called biblical. This involved us in a discussion of Acts to uncover the biblical dynamics of movements generally. We examined six keys in Acts based on Luke’s use of the word “devoted.” In that section we also took a slight detour to discuss the issue of biblical precedents for religious insiders. We focused on both Namaan and the Samaritan woman as models for this phenomenon.  In the second section we sought to discuss the relationship of Insider Movements to their religious context. We examined Acts 17 and uncovered a theology of culture and religion that further supports the idea that a movement to Jesus can be an Insider Movement. This includes crucial assumptions based on Paul’s teaching in Athens, that such a movement will find areas to correct in the religion and culture, but also areas of fulfillment in the religion and culture. The latter become visible when we read a culture and religion through a new Jesus-cen  Before Paul’s sermon, who would have guessed that the altar to the unknown god was really an altar to the God of the Old Testament?International Journal of Frontier Missions The Key to Insider Movements: The “Devoted’s” of Acts 164  tered hermeneutic for interpreting the texts and practices of the religion and culture. If space permitted, the next logical step would be to outline some examples of such altars and poets from Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist or other contexts. In a future paper I would like to develop an exegesis of the Quran, for example, based upon a new “Jesus Hermeneutic,” and address the areas of correction and fulfillment that such a hermeneutic would surface in the text.  A new “Jesus” reading of the Quran is of course just one piece of what an Insider Movement would develop in its life and practice. There are many facets of culture and religion that are not a part of the official texts or forms of Islam. The same is true for Hindus and Buddhists.14 These too need to be addressed by the movement.  Conclusion In my introduction, I said that I believe the issue of Insider Movements is as important a question as the rediscovery of certain aspects of biblical truth in the Protestant reformations. Let me conclude by explaining that a bit. I believe that the Lord is enabling His people to rediscover gems of biblical truth that have always been in front of us but which we have not seen fully or applied consistently. The Reformations of the 16th century were fueled by a rediscovery of the biblical texts (and especially the biblical truth of justification by faith), then shaped by a consistent application of that biblical truth to church practice, polity, worship, and even Scripture translation. In the same way, I believe we’re on the brink of a similar wave of reformations15 that will be fueled by the rediscovery of a thoroughly biblical theology of culture and religion, one shaped by a consistent application of that biblical truth to mission practice and the movements that emerge among Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists as a result of that reformation.  If I am right, then the mission movement will need to keep looking not only for better ways to recruit and train and send missionaries, but to acknowledge the need for a paradigm shift.  The harvest is indeed vast and the laborers too few. But we don’t just need more laborers; we also need a new paradigm of what we’re sending them into the harvest to do. It is my hope that this paper has articulated some of the biblical bases for that paradigm shift and thus in a small way helped to enable us, with God’s help, to catalyze new “Six Devoted” Insider Movements to Jesus. IJFM Endnotes 1 A good introduction to the people movement conversation is found in the Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions under “People Movements,” an article contributed by David Hesselgrave. 2 The reference in 10:17 might help us understand something of the range of usage, but it does not directly relate to a dynamic in the movement itself, so I do not include it as a seventh dynamic, as tempting as it would be to have seven keys! 3 I am suggesting here a radical departure from much of the theological education that is established in “the field.” Instead of attempting to teach correct theology (based on whatever school or books the missionary has been influenced by), I am proposing a model in which emerging leaders within the movement are guided into a process of engaging Scripture and their culture in a “conversation” that leads to the long term goal of a thoroughly biblical theology in culture.  4 This is certainly the background of the Lord’s Supper as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 11. That this was a real meal is clear from the necessity Paul felt of reminding the Corinthians that they should not eat all the food before other members of the church arrived. Doing so, says Paul, means it is no longer the Lord’s supper. By separating the Lord’s Supper from the context of a real meal we eventually came to the logically absurd practice in the West of holding a “Lord’s Supper” in the early morning and thus having a meal that is not a “supper” in any but a symbolic sense. 5 In an article entitled “Jesus in Samaria: A Paradigm for Church Planting Among Muslims,” in IJFM, Vol. 17:1, Spring 2000 under the name, Stuart Caldwell.  6 Since writing the article cited in footnote 5, my thinking has progressed. I would now put more emphasis now on the fact that Jesus clearly had thought long term about the Samaritan “mission.” For example, Luke 10 can be argued from the context to be an intentional and specifically Samaritan mission. I recognize the complex issues involved in dating events in the Synoptics and in John. But my assumption would be that John 4 took place before Luke 10, which could thus be said to be another step in the strategy of “church planting” or “kingdom sowing” in Samaria. Acts 1:8, when read in this context, shows that Jesus was still clearly intentional about further work in Samaria to follow up and “establish” what had begun in John 4 and expanded in Luke 10. However I would still defend my basic thesis that Jesus’ work in Samaria is a model and example of what we’re referring to here as an Insider Movement. 7 Acts 6 is often used by proponents of various church “polities” to support their particular viewpoint. But Luke is not giving us a once and for all structure. His intention is to show how the community was led to adopt and adapt new forms as needs arose in order to stay focused on their purpose.  8 That this is a common practice in Acts seems clear from Acts 2; the   I believe we’re on the brink of a similar wave of reformations . . .165 21:4 Winter 2004 Kevin Higgins  acounts of the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon the Sorcerer, Cornelius, the Philippian jailer; and other examples. 9 To obtain a copy of this tool, please contact the author at: khiggins@global-teams.org 10 To counter this point, it could be argued that Paul does not use the same method again after Acts 17. However, Paul’s letter to the believers in Rome, written after his ministry in Athens, lays a foundation in its opening chapter that is very much in keeping with the thought and assumptions in his sermon in Acts 17. 11 I am not in any sense equating the Old Testament revelation with the work of God among the nations as described in Acts 17. I do not believe this argument places all other religions on the same footing as the Old Testament. I once heard a missionary whose work had been in a Buddhist context suggest that the teachings of Buddha could in fact replace the Old Testament functionally for Buddhists. This is not an uncommon suggestion in certain missiological traditions. I am not making that argument here. I do agree that Paul uses the pagan culture and religion of the Athenians in the same way he uses the Old Testament among Jews and Gentile God-fearers. But that is not the same thing as suggesting a replacement for the Old Testament.  12 Exegesis of each passage would be needed to determine when “empty” would best fit the author’s intention and when “demonic” would best fit. Both are taught in Scripture. 13 This is a frequent accusation leveled at those who promote Insider Movements. Sometimes the accusation is aimed at cross-cultural workers who adopt the term “Muslim” for themselves (for example), or allow themselves to be thought of as Muslim. Sometimes the accusation is aimed at “insiders” who do not extract themselves from, say, Islam. Th e question of integrity and religious labels is worthy of a paper all its own. 14 And Christians! 15 While my focus in this paper is on the Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist contexts, the same recovery of biblical truth is seeding new thinking about church planting among “post-moderns,” among others. Hence, I refer to “reformations” in the plural. NEW FAITH, RENEWED IDENTITY: HOW SOME MUSLIMS ARE BECOMING FOLLOWERS OF JESUS By David Greenlee1 From the time of Ubaidallah ibn Jahiz, who in Ethiopia became “the first Muslim . . . to discover and embrace the truth” (Maximov 2004) and until recent days, the number of Muslims reported as coming to faith in Jesus Christ was small.2 Something, however, has changed. That Muslims in significant numbers today are, in a biblical sense, coming to faith in Jesus Christ is no secret.3 Given this fact, why are more and more of our Muslim neighbors running the risks of “apostasy” and turning to faith in Jesus Christ? How do questions of personal and social identity affect this process? In this paper I will briefly address these questions, focusing on representative published research and writing mostly from the Protestant tradition.4 LENSES TO CLARIFY OUR VISION Conversion is a complex phenomenon we will never fully describe. However, as Paul Hiebert often said, “We see in part, but we do see” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Aware of (and intending to avoid) its negative connotations, I will use the word “conversion” following Andrew Walls’ (2004): “the idea of turning…the specifically Christian understanding of the response to God’s saving activity.” Seven “lenses” can help us reflect on conversion. Like filters that pass only certain colors of light, observing conversion through these lenses draws out aspects lost in the glare of other factors. Valuable as individual images, we should also attempt to recombine them into an enhanced, multi-dimensional whole. The Psychological Lens Andreas Maurer (1999; 2006, 106), having studied conversion in South Africa, notes that we should look at humans “holistically as [people] with different needs, all of which play a role in the movement to conversion.” Muslims come to faith in Christ – and Christians turn to Muslim faith – not just for “religious” or intellectual reasons. Various relational, experimental, mystical, and other motives may push or pull them toward change. Hannes Wiher, drawing on experience in Guinea, observes that “the content of every conscience is close enough to God’s norms in order to be an initial reference point (Romans 2:1–16).” If our message is based on issues irrelevant to the local conscience, Wiher warns, it may cause “misunderstanding in the audience and [represent] a call to accept the culture of the missionary” leading to refusal, or a merely opportunistic, outward change. “Conversion, 1 David Greenlee has served with Operation Mobilisation for over 30 years in various ministries and, since 1998, as the mission’s International Research Associate. He holds a PhD in Intercultural Studies from Trinity International University (Deerfield, USA), and resides near Zürich, Switzerland. 2 See, for example, Griffith (2008) concerning the early centuries of Islam and Sharkey (2008, 6, 63) regarding Egypt until the mid 20th century. 3 BBC coverage of Abdul Rahman of Afghanistan (2006), and Lina Joy and “Maria” of Malaysia (Pressly 2006) are typical of this open reporting. 4 From the Roman Catholic perspective, see Gaudeul (1999) and, at a popular level, Paolucci and Eid (2007). which bypasses the indigenous conscience,” he warns, “may lead to superficial conformity or to compartmentalized conformity, that is, syncretism” (2003, 367). The role of dreams in drawing Muslims to faith in Jesus Christ has been frequently reported. Seppo Syrjänen (1984, 132, 137), is among the few to move beyond phenomenology and consider psychological aspects of how God works in this way. In the search for meaning and identity, many dreams have a role as the culmination of an inner struggle granting license to do that which is otherwise prohibited. Richard Kronk builds on the thought of Carl Jung who “upholds the possibility that some dreams have an outside source both in their content and in the occasion of their occurrence.” Dreams are significant because they are “sources of religious significance for the Muslim . . . [who] relies heavily upon such to define reality, answer ultimate questions and guide his day-to-day activities” (Kronk 1993, 14, 22, 25–26). These writers complement Jean-Marie Gaudeul’s (1999, 225) who observes that we should not “overlook the fact that the obscure mechanisms of the human psyche are also subject to divine action . . . [God] speaks to us in the kind of language we can understand, and it is not surprising if he uses dreams and visions and healings to people who believe in them.” The Behavioral Lens Paul Hiebert often reminded us that conversion must involve all levels of culture, including the outer layer of behavior. There is a danger of deception or misinterpretation, but “transformed behavior is . . . a sign of inner transformation and a testimony to the world of that transformation” (Hiebert 2006, 29). Observed behavior in itself attracts others to faith in Christ. Khalil and Bilici, unusual as Muslim researchers writing about conversion away from Islam, make reference to only one attractive factor of the new faith (along with several negatives), a factor that has to do with Christian behavior (2007, 118). They quote a Christian priest who never observed a Muslim “who confessed that he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour” because of theological arguments. Instead, “it is always through a small deed of brotherly love done by a Christian that the heart of a Muslim is moved.” Participation is a third part of the behavioral aspect of conversion. Mary McVicker observes that “while physical and cognitive experiences of Jesus tend to differ according to social, economic, or educational backgrounds of the women, behavioral experience is a significant aspect for most Muslim women growing in relationship to God.” Her point has to do with moving beyond the logical, cognitive level in order to communicate with Asian Muslim women who “taste behavioral experience that impacts their journey of coming to faith” (McVicker 2006, 133–34). The Sociological Lens The sociological lens is broad, and helps us consider groups such as migrants. Hasan Abdulahugli finds that those most open to the Gospel in Central Asia are “those who have tasted hard economic conditions in traditional villages and have moved to the city, away from the social pressures of family, neighbors, and the mosque and into the freedom and love of Christian communities located in urban areas” (Abdulahugli 2006, 162). Mogens Mogensen (2007) found “a pattern that links the conversion of immigrants to Christianity closely to their integration into the Danish society.” Perhaps a negative confirmation of this, Gabriël Jansen, reporting only a handful of Moroccan believers in Christ in the Netherlands, finds that “integration [into Dutch churches] . . . has turned out to be a disappointment for many...” (Jansen 2000, 133). Evelyne Reisacher (2006) describes important gender differences between North Africans in France. Women’s social status, limitations on freedom, and the impact of rejection by family set them apart from men in coming to and growing in faith in Christ. Further, the women she interviewed perceived that, once having come to faith, women are more resilient and likely to persevere than are men. Robert L. Montgomery observes that “the religions that have spread often seem to have offered a resource to leaders or to people as a whole in resisting threats to continued existence” (1991, 50) while conversion is less likely when no advantage is perceived. Complementing this thesis, Robert Hefner found that “With Christianity [Javanese Muslim youth of the 1960s] declared their independence from a village social order that, in their eyes, had brought their families pain and humiliation” (Hefner 1993, 116). Conversely, as a researcher from the Caucasus wrote about “not-yet-believing” youth in his country, their “minds have been blinded to understand the true personality and work of Christ because this knowledge has been limited and distorted over the years and the person of Jesus Christ still remains as [the] ‘God of Russians.’” Andrew Bush (2009, 149) reports that although there are close friendships between Christian and Muslim students at a Palestinian territories university, these relationships are “hindered by the perception of the Muslim community that Christians in the West hate Palestinians . . . [and] Palestinian Christians become guilty by association.” In comparison, Anthony Greenham notes that political instability played only a contributory role in the conversion accounts of Palestinians, and even that in only a minority of cases he analyzed. “For most of the Palestinians, political instability may be too common a factor in their lives to suggest itself as an avenue for the transforming encounter of conversion” (2004, 190-91). Finally, under the sociological lens we consider group conversions and movements. Lowell DeJong describes the need for patience, avoiding pressure to quickly plant a church that almost certainly will be marked by the messenger’s culture rather than leading to a culturally imbedded church (DeJong 2006, 217, 224–28). This may help avoid problems Mogensen found in a related setting where, “Almost all the [approximately 500] Fulbe converts still had a strong identity as Fulbe and as Christian Fulbe, but the majority of them had serious problems being accepted by their Fulbe community.” He concludes that this is evidently because “the primary method of evangelism used among this tribe has been ‘extraction evangelism’” (Mogensen 2000, 273, 275). In a tribal setting in West Africa, Dan McVey (2006, 208-13) asked why, after an initial period of significant growth, a movement reached a plateau. “The single greatest obstacle to church growth among the Jijimba,” he found, was in clearly “communicating the concept that one can be a follower of Jesus while maintaining identity as a Jijimba.” The Cultural Lens McVey’s comment leads us into consideration of the cultural lens and with it, the question of how questions of identity – individual and group – affect the process of conversion.5 Lewis Rambo notes that, “The more consonant the cultural systems [of messenger and receiver] the more likely it is that conversion will transpire. The more dissonant, the less likely it is that conversion will occur” (Rambo 1993, 42). A recent study confirms this point, noting that the reason only a small number of Turks in Germany have “committed their lives to Jesus Christ” may be many Christians’ lack of awareness of “the multicultural character of the Body of Christ,” their conventional forms and traditions “creating barriers between Germans and foreigners.” Further to this, John Leonard (2006, 292) observed in France, that since “immigrants from the same population [choose] different strategies in acculturation, we can not take the example of any one group and make it normative for the entire population. The church must develop an approach that values what the immigrant values even if this is not what the church believes is best for the immigrant.” Mogensen (2000, 270) reports a similar barrier in northern Nigeria where “a significant percentage of the Fulbe converts complained that they felt that the Christians did not welcome them in the church during the decision and incorporation phases.” The German study further observes that “conversion to the Christian faith does not end in betrayal of the oriental culture [nor] threaten Turkish identity” but, in fact, it holds a high chance for the development of a healthy Turkish or Kurdish identity. This reaffirmed my own finding that a byproduct of coming to faith in Christ among young Moroccan men was a heightened, positive sense of national identity (Greenlee 1996, 125–27). This question of identity has been increasingly explored in recent research. “Does one have to go through Christianity to enter God’s family?” asks Rebecca Lewis (2009). Far from suggesting religious inclusivism, she along with others such as John Travis (2008) are exploring ways that believers in Christ may remain completely faithful to Jesus and to the Bible, yet without unnecessarily rejecting (or giving the perception of rejecting) their families and culture.6 Approaching the subject from the perspective of history of religions, cultural anthropology, and Christian theology, Jonas Adelin Jørgensen studied followers of Jesus in Dhaka and Chennai who have not openly become part of the existing churches. Jørgensen supports the authenticity of the faith of these groups, for whom Jesus Christ is central, arguing that “the practice of the imandars (faithful to Jesus) and bhaktas (devotees of Christ) could be viewed as new and creative manifestations of Christianity in a global age.” He concludes that “the resemblance with the larger Christian tradition and community ensures Christian identity. At the same time, the differences enlarge our understanding of what actual and lived Christian life and Christian theology might include in globalized Christianity” (Jørgensen 2008a. See also Jørgensen 2008b and Jeyaraj 2009). Kathryn Kraft explored the question of identity among Middle Eastern Muslims who had become followers of Jesus including many who encountered difficulties in integrating into 5 “Identity” could of course be fruitfully considered through other lenses, such as psychology. 6 The International Journal of Frontier Missiology frequently explores this “identity” question with regard to Buddhists and Hindus, as well as Muslims, who have come to faith in Jesus Christ. See especially Vol. 24, focused on “insider movements,” available at <www.ijfm.org/archives.htm>. and being identified with the existing churches. She notes that “for most Muslims, leaving Islam cannot even be conceived of as a possibility. While choosing to follow Christ involves for most . . . consciously rejecting the Muslim creed, they do not want this to entail rejecting their strong cultural heritage, which is identified as Islamic. The biggest challenge they face in developing a new identity is determining how to continue to be culturally Muslim while following a Christian faith” (Kraft and Atallah 2008). How do these followers of Jesus find this new identity? Kraft summarizes that while they . . . generally recognize and feel a sense of commonality with each other, they approach their identity negotiation in a variety of ways. Some reject everything about their past and choose to become fully “Christian.” These are the individuals who are most likely to break off relations with their former communities. Others consider their faith and their ethnicity to be completely separate and consider themselves to be both Muslim and followers of Christ; some of these sought to be socially indistinguishable from their Muslim neighbours. If pressed, most participants admitted to being Muslim in culture, and Christian in creed, although the historical animosity between the world’s two largest religions would preclude them from ever calling themselves “Muslim Christians.” The participants who demonstrated the greatest degree of comfort with a well-developed identity were those who had successfully adhered a Christian religious identity onto a pre-existing Muslim ethnic identity. Nonetheless, each participant worked through this process in his/her own way, usually using careful analysis and critique of his/her own beliefs and circumstances. They expressed a great deal of identity frustration but also agency to negotiate a new identity for themselves. (Kraft 2007, 204) The Spiri tual Warfare Lens The spiritual warfare lens (Ephesians 6:12) is especially relevant where “folk Islam” with its various mystical and at times occult practices is prevalent (Love 2000). Interested in issues of power, a Norwegian researcher considered Indonesians who had come to faith in Jesus Christ. His findings point to the role of miracles in providing clear answers to genuine needs. They often serve as punctual events in the process of conversion, revealing the divine will and demonstrating the superior power of Jesus Christ over the spirit world. Although his research focus was on issues of power, he found that “assurance of salvation remains the most significant reason for the conversions, even among those informants who fervently exalt the power aspects of the Gospel.” The Human Communicator Lens The process of conversion is intimately linked with divinely-enabled human witness (Acts 1:8). Reinhold Straehler (2005, 103-104) reminds us that “Holistic ministries or non-verbal ministries alone will not communicate to the Muslim that an alternative world-view is possible for him or her” since “there needs to be some verbal communication or communication via media (audio, visual or print).” As Gabriël Jansen observed (2000, 80), among Moroccans who had come to faith in Amsterdam “the most prominent shared factor [in witness] appears to be the continued personal friendly contact with one or more individual Christians, and most often with a living, loving Christian group.” The role of media and the methods of our witness vary and should not be seen in isolation from other factors in the process of conversion (Greenham 2004, 193). However, as Tobias Rink observes, “The way in which the gospel is communicated, from the convert’s viewpoint, is as meaningful as the content of the presentation” (Rink 2006, 126). It may also affect the ability of the new believers to become fruitful witnesses themselves, especially where issues of literacy and orality are involved (Greenlee 2003, 27; Gupta 2004, 17). The Lens of God’s Divine Role Christian conversion is initiated and enabled by God (2 Corinthians 5:18, Titus 3:3-7). All of the other factors I have discussed are the ways and means by which he draws us to himself. I limit my comments here to two factors. Numerous studies refer to the importance of Bible study in the process of conversion. Not all who read the Bible come to faith in Jesus Christ, however, for those who do, personal Bible reading, Bible correspondence courses, observing Luke’s Gospel in the form of the Jesus film, and chronological Bible storying are reported in many studies as significant factors in the process of conversion (see, for example, Greenham 2004, Greenlee 1996, Gupta 2004, McVicker 2006). Finally, Abraham Durán (2006, 274) speaks of the “beauty of Jesus.” We must follow Jesus’ own example, “a gradual approach that will lead people to discern the truth and beauty of Jesus’ personality, teachings, and life motivating them to be his followers.” Or, in the words of Jean-Marie Gaudeul, “The formulas of faith only begin to make sense, either suddenly or little by little, when Jesus has been recognized as one who loves us and saves us” (Gaudeul 1999, 52–53). SUMMARY FACTORS How is God at work in drawing Muslims to faith in Jesus Christ through these diverse circumstances? Each person is unique; God’s grace is creative. Those Muslims who now follow Jesus came to and live out their faith in many different ways. Prediction and prescription are to be avoided. However, three summary factors are independently referred to by several researchers (Greenham 2004, 193; Gupta 2004, 13; Smith 2006, 287–88; Syrjänen 1984, 171–72). Muslims who have come to faith in Jesus Christ usually have: • Encountered the truth of God’s Word; • Received a touch of God’s love through his people; and • Seen a sign of God’s power. God’s mercy is deep; his love is wide. The Gospel is good news—for all people! To God be all the glory! Works Cited Abdulahugli, Hasan. 2006. “Factors Leading to Conversion among Central Asian Muslims.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 157–166. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2006. “Afghan Convert was ‘Ready to Die.’” March 28. <news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4852426.stm> Bush, Andrew F. 2009. “The Implications of Christian Zionism for Mission.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 33,3 (July): 144-50. DeJong, Lowell. 2006. “An Insider Movement among Fulbe Muslims.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 215–228. Durán, Abraham. 2006.”The Beauty of Jesus as an Evangelistic Factor.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 265–74. Gaudeul, Jean-Marie. 1999. Called from Islam to Christ: Why Muslims became Christians. Crowborough, England: Monarch. Greenham, Anthony. 2004. “Muslim Conversions to Christ: An Investigation of Palestinian Converts Living in the Holy Land.” Ph.D. diss., Wake Forest: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Greenlee, David. 1996. “Christian Conversion from Islam: Social, Cultural, Communication, and Supernatural Factors in the Process of Conversion and Faithful Church Participation.” PhD diss., Deerfield: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. ________ (ed.) 2006. From the Straight Path to the Narrow Way: Journeys of faith. Waynesboro, GA: Authentic and Secunderabad: OM Books India. Griffith, Sidney H. 2008. The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gupta, Prakash. 2004. “Servants in the Crucible: Findings from a Global Study on Persecution and the Implications for Sending Agencies and Sending Churches.” Privately circulated ms. Hefner, Robert W. 1993. “Of Faith and Commitment: Christian Conversion in Muslim Java.” In Robert W. Hefner, ed., Conversion to Christianity: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives on a Great Transformation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 99–125. Hiebert, Paul. 2006. “Worldview Transformation.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 23–34. Jansen, Gabriël. 2000. “Reaching Moroccans in Amsterdam (the Netherlands) with the Gospel.” M.A. thesis. Bad Hoevedorp, the Netherlands: Tyndale Theological Seminary. Jeyaraj, Dasan. 2009. Followers of Christ Outside the Church in Chennai, India. Zoetermeer, the Netherlands: Boekencentrum. Jørgensen, Jonas Adelin. 2008a. “Global Christianity, Contextual Religious Identity and Local Theologies: Isa Imandars and Khrist Bhaktas in South Asia.” Lausanne World Pulse. <www.lausanneworldpulse.com/themedarticles.php/895/02-2008>. ________. 2008b Jesus Imandars and Christ Bhaktas: Two Case Studies of Interreligious Hermeneutics and Identity in Global Christianity. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Khalil, Mohammad Hassan and Mucahit Bilici. 2007. “Conversion Out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims.” The Muslim World 90,1 (January): 111–24. Kraft, Kathryn Ann. 2007. “Community and Identity Among Arabs of a Muslim Background who Choose to Follow a Christian Faith.” PhD. diss., Bristol: University of Bristol. Kraft, Kathryn Ann and Abu Atallah. 2008. “The Lives of Arab Muslims who Choose the Christian Faith.” Mishkan 54, pp.16-24. Kronk, Richard. 1993. “Non-Literary Personal Revelation: The Role of Dreams and Visions in Muslim Conversion.” M.A. thesis. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary. Leonard, John. 2006. “Oasis: An Ethnography of a Muslim Convert Group in France.” PhD diss., Deerfield: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Lewis, Rebecca. 2009. “Insider Movements: Honoring God-given Identity and Community.” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 26,1; 16-19. <www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/26_1_PDFs/26_1_Lewis.pdf>. Love, Rick. 2000. Muslims, Magic and the Kingdom of God: Church Planting Among Folk Muslims. Pasadena: William Carey Library. Maurer, Andreas. 1999. “In Search of a New Life: Conversion Motives of Christians and Muslims.” Th.D. diss. Pretoria: University of South Africa. ________. 2006. “In Search of a New Life: Conversion Motives of Christians and Muslims.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 93–106. Maximov, Yurij. 2004. “A History of Orthodox Missions Among the Muslims.” <www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MaximovMuslims.php>. McVey, Dan. 2006. “Hindrances to Evangelistic Growth among Muslim Background Believer Churches of the ‘Jijimba’ People of West Africa.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 199– 214. McVicker, Mary. 2006. “Experiencing Jesus: Reflections of South Asian Women.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 125–136. Mogensen, Mogens S. 2000. “Contextual Communication of the Gospel to Pastoral Fulbe in Northern Nigeria.” Ph.D. diss., Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary. <www.intercultural.dk/index.php?mainid=51&subid=571>. ________. 2008. “Migration and Conversion: The Conversion of Immigrants to Christianity in a Danish Context.” In Tormod Engelsviken and Thor Strandenæs (eds.), Mission to the World: Communicating the Gospel in the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Knud Jørgensen. Oxford: Regnum Books. Montgomery, Robert. 1991. “The Spread of Religions and Macrosocial Relations.” Sociological Analysis, 52(1): 37–53. Paolucci, Giorgio and Camille Eid. 2007 Cristianos Venidos del Islam: Historias de Musulmanes Convertidos al Catolicismo. Madrid: LibrosLibres. Pressly, Linda. 2006. “Life as a Secret Christian Convert.” BBC Radio 4, “Crossing Continents.” <news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6150340.stm> Rambo, Lewis R. 1993. Understanding Religious Conversion. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Reisacher, Evelyne. 2006. “North African Women and Conversion: Specifics of Female Faith and Experience.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 109–123. Rink, Tobias. 2006. “Eine Multidimensionale Methodik zur Analyse von Bekehrungsmotiven.” M.Th. thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Sharkey, Heather J. 2008 American Evangelicals in Egypt: Missionary Encounters in an Age of Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Smith, David. 2006. “Looking Ahead.” In Greenlee, Straight Path: 285–304. Straehler, Reinhold. 2005. “Conversion from Islam to Christianity in the Sudan.” M.Th. thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa. ________. 2008. “Coming to Faith in Christ: Stages and Transitions in Conversion Processes of Muslims.” International Conference on Mission and Conversion, University of the Freestate, Bloemfontein, South Africa, September 18-19. Syrjänen, Seppo. 1984. In Search of Meaning and Identity: Conversion to Christianity in Pakistani Muslim Culture. Vammala: Annals of the Finnish Society for Missiology and Ecumenics, 45. Travis, John and Anna Travis. 2005. “Appropriate Approaches in Muslim Contexts.” In Charles H. Kraft, ed., Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 397–414. ________. 2008. “Factors Affecting the Identity that Jesus-Followers Choose.” In J. Dudley Woodberry, ed., From Seed to Fruit: Global Trends, Fruitful Practices, and Emerging Issues among Muslims. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 193-205. Walls, Andrew. 2004. “Converts or Proselytes? The Crisis over Conversion in the Early Church.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 28,1 (January). Wiher, Hannes. 2003. Shame and Guilt: A Key to Cross-Cultural Ministry. Bonn: Edition IWG, Mission Academics, Band 10, Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. or the majority of the world’s one billion Muslims, “changing religions” is never seriously contemplated. Even nominal Muslims tend to see Islam as a single fabric weaving together tradition, culture, and customs related to dress, diet, family life, morality, worship, and in some contexts, even economics and politics. Having lived in the heart of a Muslim community for the past thirteen years, my family and I have had the privilege of praying for and patiently sharing with many Muslim friends about Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). I am convinced that many Muslims are drawn to the person of Jesus, and some long to accept him as Savior, though “changing religions” is for them unthinkable. I personally know many Muslims who have put their faith in Jesus. Some have formally converted to Christianity and worship at local (often Westernized) denominational churches, or in small home fellowships with other Muslim background believers (MBBs). Fearing persecution, others worship underground. Still others, often called “Messianic Muslims,” follow Christ but remain within the Muslim community. These Messianic Muslims reject or modify unbiblical Islamic teachings (e.g., they insist Jesus did die on the cross), yet still see most aspects of their lives woven together by the social fabric of Islam. They are not silent about their faith in Jesus, though they are discerning about when and where to share. They strive to form groups with other like-minded Muslim followers of Jesus to study the Bible, pray for each other, and fellowship in Christ. Yet they do not view or call themselves “Christians.” I designed a simple chart called The C1-C6 Spectrum to graphically portray these different expressions of faith by MBBs (Travis 1998; see chart on page 5 in this edition). It must be noted that each “C” on the spectrum represents a particular type of “Christ-centered community” or follower of Christ, differentiated by language, culture and religious identity. While this spectrum helps us distinguish several different kinds of MBBs, it also raises many questions, particularly about the C5 “Messianic Muslim” expression of faith. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at C5 by examining its background and several present-day case studies. However, three points must be emphasized at the onset. First, most of these case studies chronicle the very first penetrations for the Kingdom of God among a particular Muslim people group. Consequently, these newly emerging bodies are very much in process (see Gilliland 1990 concerning “process”). Hiebert (1994), in his theory of “bounded and centered sets,” also reminds us that the direction in which a believer or group of believers is headed is extremely crucial. For any group of Christ-followers, it needs to be asked whether or not they are becoming more or less Christ-like and Biblical over time. Second, there are inherent limitations in how much non-Muslim outsiders like ourselves can dictate what happens in C5 fellowships. We proclaim the Gospel, lead Muslims into relationship with Jesus, and invite them to immerse themselves into the Word of God with us. How they view Islam is not prescribed by us, but left to them as they are guided by the Word and the indwelling Spirit. Finally, Muslims are coming to faith in many different contexts worldwide all along the C1-C6 spectrum. C5 is neither the greatest nor the only thing by John Travis International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations Our team has prayed for and patiently shared with many Muslim friends about Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). Some have become Messianic Muslims who reject or modify unbiblical Islamic teachings, yet they still see their lives woven together by the social fabric of Islam. They strive to form groups with other like-minded Muslim followers of Jesus to study the Bible, pray for each other, and fellowship in Christ. Yet they do not view or call themselves “Christians.” F Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa 54 International Journal of Frontier Missions God is doing in the Muslim world, but it is something about which we must know, rejoice and pray. What is Meant by the Word “Christian”? The term “Christian,” when coined two thousand years ago in Antioch, originally meant “those belonging to Christ” (Barker 1995). Today however, the word means different things to different groups. To American evangelicals, “Christian” is a positive word meaning one who knows or is committed to Christ. More than mere religious affiliation, this term describes one’s heart-faith and relationship with God. Therefore, it is not uncommon for evangelicals to say, “I went to church regularly as a child, but became a Christian in high school.” Here “becoming Christian” refers to the time he experienced salvation and lifechanging faith in Christ. Using this understanding of the word “Christian,” some evangelicals might say the United States is not a Christian country, since the majority of the population has not experienced this lifechanging faith in Christ. Nevertheless, Johnstone indicates that over 86% of those residing in the United States consider themselves “Christian” (1993:563). In contrast to evangelical use of the term, many within this 86% define “Christian” in terms of tradition, nominal religious affiliation, ethnic heritage, or, most of all, by not belonging to another religion (e.g., Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism). To those holding this definition, it sounds peculiar for one raised in the church to proclaim later in life, “I have become a Christian.” In the Muslim context, the word “Christian” is now largely devoid of its original spiritual meaning in Acts. It now connotes Western culture, war (the Crusades), colonialism and imperialism. While some Muslims may associate Christianity with the love and selfless living of Mother Teresa and relief organizations, most tend to focus on negative aspects of present day Western culture like immodest dress, sexual promiscuity, disrespect of elders, indulgence in alcohol, Hollywood violence, narcotics and pornography. With such negative perceptions of the Church rooted in negative stereotypes of the West, it is little wonder that “joining Christianity” is often seen by Muslims as betraying one’s family and community to join the heretical camp of their enemies. Consider, therefore, how different listeners will perceive the news, “Achmad (a Muslim) became a Christian.” Evangelicals hear a spiritual message of supernatural encounter with the living God: “Achmad is now a born-again follower of Christ!” Nominal church members hear a religious or administrative message: “Achmad has become a member of a church.” Muslims, however, hear a message of betrayal and apostasy: “Achmad has forsaken the faith of his forefathers and joined with immoral infidels.” Because of the above semantic misunderstandings, we never speak of Muslims “becoming Christians” in our ministry. Instead, we speak of those who have “experienced life-changing faith as followers of Isa.” Still, is the problem only one of semantics, easily corrected with a change of terminology? Could the problem of old and new religious community run much deeper? In these days, for the sake of the lost, might the Holy Spirit be moving the hearts of some Muslim background believers to live out their new faith in Christ while remaining in the Muslim community? C5 Believers and Congregations C5 believers are Muslims who have been drawn to faith in Christ by the Spirit of God, often through reading the Bible on their own, hearing a radio broadcast, receiving a dream or vision, experiencing a miraculous healing in the name of Isa, or seeing the loving, patient, incarnational witness of a believing friend. C5 believers understand that good works and religious observance cannot remove sin; that the sacrifice of the Word made flesh, the Messiah, is God’s only provision for salvation; that the Torah, Zabur and Injil (the Old Testament, Psalms and New Testament) are the Word of God; and that obedience to Christ was God’s original plan for true “Islam” (Arabic for “submission to God”). Heart attitudes, family relationships and communication with God change radically, as the indwelling Holy Spirit produces his fruit in their lives. Just as early Jewish followers of the Way enjoyed fellowship in homes and in the temple with the larger Jewish community, so many C5 believers gather in small home fellowships and in the mosque with the larger Islamic community. Just as early Jewish followers of Jesus changed few of their outward Jewish religious In the Muslim context, the word “Christian” is now largely devoid of its original spiritual meaning. It now connotes Western culture, war (the Crusades), colonialism and imperialism. forms, so too C5 believers change little in their outward Muslim religious forms— most of which, incidentally, are derived from ancient Jewish and Christian traditions (Woodberry 1989 and 1996). Objections and Responses Phil Parshall, respected missiologist and pioneer in contextualization, expressed objections related to C5 (1998). Massey (1999), Gilliland (1998), Travis (1998) and Winter (1999) responded briefly to some of Dr. Parshall’s concerns, three of which are as follows: 1) Deception in Christians posing as Muslims to reach Muslims (i.e., “C5 missionaries”). 2) Danger in ongoing mosque attendance past a transitional period for new believers since “the mosque is pregnant with Islamic theology” (Parshall 1998:409) and exalts Muhammad as a prophet. 3) Affirming the prophethood of Muhammad by recitation of the Muslim creed (shahada): “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.” On Parshall’s first concern, I agree. C5 was never intended to be a “missionary approach,” but rather to describe how some MBBs live out their faith in Christ. I personally cannot endorse Christians claiming to be Muslims for outreach. However, I want to add a word of caution. Missionaries to Muslims are also “in process.” Although there have been some very noble and fruitful attempts at Muslim outreach in previous centuries, on the whole the Church worldwide has only recently begun a concerted effort to bring the light of the Gospel to the Muslim world. With so few Muslims responding to the Gospel, it is premature for anyone to conclude that they have arrived at the correct way to reach the Muslim world. If a believer truly feels called of God to somehow enter a certain sect or local expression of Islam, and if he can with integrity share the identity of those Muslims and maintain his witness for Christ, then I will not condemn him. Theoretically, I suppose it is possible that some types of folk or Sufi Muslim groups, or other localized forms of Islam, may be conducive to such an approach, but officially converting from Christianity to any variety of orthodox Islam involves so many complex theological and cultural hurdles that it is most unwise for the typical young, aspiring missionary who is eager to contextualize. On point two concerning mosque attendance, I have known some C5 believers who attend prayers in the mosque, some who only attend occasionally and some who never go at all. In much of the Muslim world, there are many nominal Muslims who seldom attend the mosque anyway. Returning again to Gilliland and Hiebert’s emphasis on process and direction, mosque attendance may only be a transitional part of some C5 believers’ spiritual journey. For others, they may attend with the mindset of Naaman in 2 Ki. 5:18, where he asked Elijah’s permission to still enter the temple of Rimmon in his home country. Still other C5 believers may attend the mosque like evangelical Catholics who attend mass but no longer pray to saints or exalt Mary. On the other hand, it is not unusual for some C5 believers to avoid mosque attendance all together, especially if they did not attend prior to following Christ. As followers of Jesus, C5 believers understand that they must never disown or deny Christ as Lord, no matter the circumstance (Mt. 10:32-33). They must also never stray from the core components of the Gospel (e.g., the atoning death of Christ, his resurrection, salvation through Jesus only, his divinity, 55 Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 The interaction of C5 believers with outside Christians and theologians is very limited. They rely heavily on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. We must pray for them and trust the Holy Spirit will give them supernatural wisdom and guidance. Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa 56 International Journal of Frontier Missions and the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God). How much of orthodox Islam they can affirm is determined as they study the Word of God together and are guided by the Holy Spirit. What various C5 communities affirm in Islam will vary in different contexts. Irrespective of mosque attendance, however, most C5 believers remain acceptable members of the Muslim community by continuing to give alms, keep the fast, pray daily, wear local dress, and use their customary religious vocabulary and worship style. Affirmation of these acceptable Islamic forms not only allow MBBs to keep their place in the Muslim community, but they also build bridges for effective witness to their family and community. Regarding Parshall’s third concern, being C5 does not insinuate that the creed (shahada) is recited. Some C5 believers I know change the creed when performing their prayers to exalt Isa rather than Muhammad, proclaiming “there is no god but God, and Isa is the Straight Path” (see case studies below). Others whisper prayers in the name of Jesus or remain silent when the shahada is recited in public worship. I have heard of some C5 MBBs who say the creed because they feel it is an important sign of solidarity with their community, and they consider Muhammad to be a sort of “prophet” or religious leader, at least inasmuch as it was his words about Jesus in the Qur’an that first stimulated them to find a Bible to learn more about Christ in the Gospels. Some C5 believers adopt Samuel Zwemer’s approach toward Muhammad by affirming all the truth Muhammad brought and never speaking disrespectfully of him. They emphasize that Muhammad was a great statesman and religious reformer, bringing Arabs from pagan polytheism to Abrahamic monotheism. They are quick to add that Muhammad spoke of Isa the Messiah (his virgin birth, miracles and sinlessness) and acknowledged that the Torah, Zabur and Injil are God’s Word and must be obeyed. When it becomes clear that the Muslim listener is ready for more, they, like Zwemer, share Jesus as Lord and Savior. My observation is that over time, without dictating how new MBBs should view Muhammad, he becomes less and less important to them as they grow in their love and obedience to Jesus. The interaction of C5 believers with outside Christians and theologians is very limited. They rely heavily on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. We must pray for these groups and trust the Holy Spirit will give them supernatural wisdom to respond to the inherent religious and social tensions which arise in their families and communities. The following four case studies will attempt to illustrate the principles discussed above. I have been personally involved in the first three case studies, while the final one comes from my colleague, Andrew Workman. Case Study 1: Taufik Taufik comes from one of the most fanatic Muslim areas of the country. Now in his early 50s, Taufik was led to Christ over ten years ago by a foreign Christian coworker. We first met soon after his profession of faith and have fellowshipped together many times since. His family, most of whom don’t yet believe, have stayed in my home. To my knowledge, he has only attended one church service, and that was while he worked abroad. He faithfully keeps the fast of Ramadan, and in his clothing, diet, and vocabulary seems outwardly like any other Muslim in the community. However, he reads God’s Word daily, especially the Zabur (Psalms) and the Injil (New Testament). For several years the desire to succeed financially—not Islam—drew him away from his walk with Christ. But in recent months he has been faithfully meeting weekly for Bible study with a foreign believer, our coworker. Taufik enfolded another Muslim man into this small Bible study group, who in turn occasionally brings his adult son. The verses Taufik shares from the Zabur and Injil with Muslims in his community are well received as a blessing from a fellow Muslim. Taufik faithfully carries out his daily prayers, experiencing the presence of the Lord as he uses a small booklet with verses from the Torah, Zabur and Injil to accompany the motions of his Muslim prayer ritual. To date neither his wife nor his two teenage children have come to faith in Christ, but Taufik continues to share his faith with them regularly. He never thinks of himself as being a “Christian,” but reads many Christian devotional books. He sees himself as being a good Muslim, called to share salvation in the Messiah with fellow Muslims. While we must guard against syncretism, we must also be mindful that ascent to perfect theological propositions is not the apex of the coming Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed. 57 John Travis Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 Case Study 2: Achmad Achmad lives several miles from my home. Unlike Taufik, who is an upper-middle class university graduate, Achmad is poor and the father of eight children. He came to Christ in 1996 through several dreams and the witness of another foreign coworker. He is now being discipled by a national MBB on our team. Achmad and most of his family were baptized with several other MBBs in 1997. Before coming to the Lord he made a living as an Islamic shaman. His economic situation has worsened since coming to faith, having left his practice of sorcery and divination. He faithfully attends a weekly C4/C5 MBB fellowship and may soon be appointed one of its first elders. Achmad frequently brings Muslim friends and relatives to the fellowship. He perceives himself as a Muslim who knows Isa, and faithfully shares Christ with fellow Muslims. Before coming to faith he rarely attended the mosque, and has not changed this pattern since his decision to follow the Messiah. Case Study 3: Abdul On a recent taxi ride through town, my colleague and I enjoyed a brief conversation with the driver, Abdul. Having mentioned early on that he was a Muslim, Abdul astonished us both when he asked, “Did you know that Isa can forgive sin? Look at the hair on my arms,” he said, “every time I say the name of Isa, the hairs stand up! Jesus is the King of kings!” We asked how he knew so much about Jesus, then Abdul described his search for freedom from his sins. After someone gave him a New Testament years ago, he began reading it frequently. He now regularly shares what he reads with fellow Muslim taxi drivers, and plans to become a Christian, along with his two daughters, in five years’ time. Abdul wondered out loud, “What if I die in my sins before I become a Christian?” We asked why he wanted to wait. He explained that his two daughters, when older, could stand up against the persecution they may receive from their mother and other relatives. I responded, “Abdul, if you really believe the Injil (Gospel), and the promises of God for salvation in Christ, then you can be saved this very day.” He started weeping— while we were driving! As we neared our destination, we pulled over, stopped the car, and prayed together in the taxi. He confessed his sins and received Christ. An MBB coworker and I visited Abdul several times since then. God is using Abdul to draw a whole group of fellow taxi drivers to Christ. One of these, a haji (a respected Muslim who has performed the pilgrimage to Mecca), was moved to tears when he read portions of the Torah, Zabur and Injil (the Bible). Abdul’s wife recently heard from an acquaintance that Abdul must be thinking about changing religions. She suddenly began opposing Abdul’s faith with great vehemence. At this time, she does not seem open to the Gospel at all. What kind of fellowship would be best for Abdul? A congregation of C5 drivers? Case Study 4: Soleh, (by Andrew Workman) Soleh is a respected member of a remote village community. In order to provide income and employment for his extended family, he works as the foreman of a construction crew from his village, buys goods from local farmers to resell in the city, and raises chickens. Soleh also teaches religion at the local mosque, mostly by helping children learn the Arabic alphabet so they can eventually recite the Qur’an. Soleh received an opportunity to construct a dormitory at a small Christian boarding school in the city. He had worked for this school before and was confident they would be good employers. So he took the contract, gathered his crew, and left the village for a few months to do this work. During construction, Soleh and his crew interacted with the school’s students and staff. The students, mostly from poor villages, spent break times with Soleh and his crew, trading stories about village life. They brought tea to the crew, shared what little food they had, and even spent personal money to buy them cigarettes. The students also shared their testimonies, especially about answered prayer. On several occasions the students prayed in front of the crew for their families and situations. The crew felt cared for and began to bond relationally to the students. Soleh once saw how the students prayed for God to supply their need when they had no food. Miraculously, food was donated to the school. Soleh had neither experienced such faith, nor ever seen God answer prayer so dramatically. He was deeply moved. Soleh also wanted this sort of relationship with God, but kept quiet. Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa 58 International Journal of Frontier Missions One day Ali, a student, sat down to talk with Soleh, unaware Soleh had been desiring such a relationship with God. Having recently studied contextualized ways to share his testimony with Muslims, Ali began asking questions and listening. Soon Soleh opened his heart and asked how he could join the students, learning to pray in faith like them. Soleh was ready to become a traditional Christian (C1). This would have almost certainly resulted in social ostracism from his village and great difficulties with his family. Soleh was willing to undergo these trials to obtain the kind of relationship with God he saw these students had. Ali explained that Soleh could have this same relationship with God by praying for forgiveness through Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). Soleh accepted this invitation and prayed with Ali. Ali then explained that if Soleh wished to reach his family and crew for Christ, he might consider becoming a “follower of Isa” (C5) instead of a “traditional Christian” (C1), because staying in his community as a Messianic Muslim would likely increase his ability to share his faith with them. Soleh agreed. He would remain in his Muslim community, instead of joining the C1 Christian community. The two agreed to keep this matter private until Soleh could study more about following Isa. This all took place in December, 1996. Within a few weeks Soleh shared his new faith with his son, who worked in the same city. His son wanted to read the Gospel but was too afraid to enter the Christian bookstore to buy a Bible, since a Muslim acquaintance might see him and cause trouble. Ali arranged to get him a Bible, and now he is reading it. Since Soleh became a follower of Jesus, he has read the Bible, met with Ali for prayer and study, and witnessed to many coworkers on his crew. In fact, many crew members and heads of households in his village have also prayed for salvation through Isa al-Masih! Of those who attend prayers at the mosque, many have changed their creed. They now proclaim, “God is great. God is great. There is no god but God and Isa is the Straight Path.” No one suggested that Soleh change the creed; he did so on his own and tells his friends. He is convinced that true prayer is only through Isa, and that before putting his faith in Christ, he had no connection to God. Soleh and his wife recently had a baby boy, whom they named after Isa. His in-laws asked if this meant Soleh was a Christian. He denied it, but later felt uncomfortable that he had not explained things more fully. Soleh therefore invited all heads of households in his village, including elected community and religious leaders, to attend the customary ceremony for his infant son. This ceremony of thanksgiving and prayer for God’s protection on the newborn is usually officiated by the head of the mosque or a Muslim shaman. However, on this day Soleh officiated himself. And in the presence of all the leaders, Soleh announced that he was a Muslim who now followed Isa. Not only did nobody seem upset, but many people were very interested, including the village chief who also became a follower of Isa soon thereafter! As of June 1999, twenty male heads of households have become followers of Isa. It is unknown how many women and children also believe. Recently they asked for advice regarding a village tradition of visiting ancestral graves. Their conscience was bothering them not only about ancestor worship, but also about certain animistic aspects of marriage and burial ceremonies. Like many Muslims around the world, their folk Islam condoned the continuance of many ancient rites to appease the spirit world. Now, however, many have turned to Isa to protect them from the spirit world. Furthermore, the village heads have asked the Christian students to come and pray against the plague of rats that has destroyed their crops for many years. A team gifted with faith and experience in this kind of ministry went to the village to pray. While we wait on God’s answer to these prayers, the village is growing in faith as they pray in the name of Isa al-Masih. Concluding Observations Some Muslims who receive Christ as Savior deliberately choose a C5 expression of faith, not for their own sake (e.g., Soleh was prepared to join a church), but for the Let us pray for these infant, emerging C5 congregations and believers. In particular, please join us in praying for Taufik, Achmad, Abdul, Soleh and the thousands of other Messianic followers of Isa. Pray for all those whom their witness touches. sake of the lost who would be far less likely to receive truth from outsiders (i.e., “Christians”). Others, like Taufik and Achmad, love Jesus, but simply see staying in the Muslim community as something natural. There are surely points at which C5 believers must reject the theology of non-Messianic Muslims. Clearly, one can’t affirm two completely opposite statements as true (e.g., “Jesus died on a cross,” and “Jesus didn’t die on a cross”). Therefore, C5 believers will be found to have “aberrant” beliefs. However, when confronted by family and friends with their deviance from Islamic orthodoxy, we have seen the Holy Spirit empower C5 believers to reply with amazing answers (Col. 4:6; Mt. 10:19,20). They often present reinterpretations of particular Qur’anic verses, bringing much glory to Jesus. Furthermore, it should be noted that the “aberrance” of C5 Messianic theology almost pales in comparison to the “aberrance” of numerous folk beliefs and shamanistic Muslim practices that saturate popular Islam in our context. Therefore, the way in which C5 believers are received by the larger Muslim community will depend on a variety of factors such as tolerated Islamic heterodoxy, country, ethnicity, local politics, size of the local mosque, and so on. C5 may be appropriate in certain milieus, but not in others. Again, we need to affirm the diversity found throughout the C1-C6 spectrum. It is possible that C5 may only be a temporary option. Few case C5 studies have been documented, and none go back far enough to watch C5 dynamics across several generations of time. C5 may prove to only be a transitional stage, ending when believers choose, or are forced by the Muslim community, to leave Islam, thereby moving to another point on the C1-C6 spectrum. The first century Jews gathered regularly in the temple with non-Messianic Jews, and in homes with fellow Messianic Jews (Acts 2:46-47). However, in time Jewish authorities began expelling any Jew who believed Jesus was the Messiah. It is noteworthy that this separation of the two communities was not initiated by Jewish believers. Still, many Jews and Jewish leaders came to faith in the intermittent years. The same sequence of events could eventually happen to today’s Messianic Muslims. Meanwhile, MBBs like Soleh who stay in their community may be used of God to usher millions of Muslims into His Kingdom. While we must be careful to guard against syncretism, we must also be mindful that ascent to perfect theological propositions is not the apex of the coming Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed. All our work must be judged according to Scripture. So let us pray for these infant, emerging C5 congregations. In particular, please join us in praying for Taufik, Achmad, Abdul, Soleh and all the people whom their witness touches. 59 Vol. 17:1 Spring 2000 57 John Travis References Barker, Kenneth (Ed.). 1995 The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Study Notes: “Acts 11:26,” p. 1670. Gilliland, Dean S. 1998 “Context is Critical in Islampur Case.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4):415-417. Hiebert, Paul. 1994 “The Category ‘Christian’ in the Missionary Task by Paul.” Anthropological Insights on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Pp. 107-136. Johnstone, Patrick. 1993 Operation World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Massey, Joshua. 1999 “His Ways Are Not Our Ways: God’s Amazing Unpredictability in Drawing Muslims to Jesus.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 35(2):188–197. Parshall, Phil. 1998 “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34 (4):404-406, 409-410. Travis, John. 1998. “Must all Muslims leave Islam to follow Jesus.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34(4):411-415. Winter, Ralph. 1999 “Going Far Enough: Taking Some Tips From the Historical Record.” Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. Pp. 666–667. Woodberry, J. Dudley. 1989 “Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars.” In The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today, Dean S. Gilliland (ed.). Dallas, TX: Word Publishing. Pp. 282- 312. Also reprinted in IJFM, vol. 13:4, 1996. John Travis and Andrew Workman minister among Muslims in Asia. 24 July-August 2010  Mission Frontiers USCWM • 1605 E. Elizabeth St. • Pasadena, CA 91104 • 626-797-1111 In Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:20 Jesus likens the Kingdom of God to yeast, a substance that transforms from the inside out. In the days surrounding His death and resurrection, Jesus instructed His followers to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom to all peoples of the world. Today numbers of Muslims have accepted this good news, allowing the yeast of the Kingdom to transform their lives and their families, while remaining a part of their own Muslim communities. Since there is a variety of perspectives on this phenomenon, even among the Islamic Studies faculty where we teach, we here seek to address some frequently-asked questions about it. 1. What are some examples of this type of movement to Jesus within Muslim communities?1 In one such movement, a middle-aged Muslim woman read the New Testament with a Christian friend for a number of years. During that time, her son was dramatically healed of a serious disease after receiving prayer by her friend’s husband. A year later she came to faith in Jesus as a Muslim. Soon thereafter she felt God calling her to take the message of Jesus to her Muslim family and friends. She was known as a devout woman with true concern for her community. Due to the empowering of the Holy Spirit and her gifts as a communicator and community organizer, she led dozens to faith and began many small Jesus fellowships, primarily through her own extended family, neighborhood and work associates. Th e message of Jesus and the Kingdom continues to multiply like yeast, Muslim follower of Jesus to Muslim, through a number of social networks. Another such movement began with a high-ranking Muslim leader who had a dream that involved Jesus. He sent some of his followers to a group of local Christians to see if someone could help him understand the dream. Over time this Muslim leader felt God was calling him to follow Jesus. He did not believe, however, that God was calling him to change his religious community. He shared the dream and his subsequent experiences with a number of people under his spiritual care. Many of them became followers of Jesus as well. Th e yeast of the Kingdom continues to permeate this large Muslim network. John J. Travis (pen name), Ph.D., has lived for more than 20 years in Muslim communities in Asia and has traced the development of a number of Jesus movements around the world. J. Dudley Woodberry, Ph.D., has served in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and is currently Dean Emeritus and Senior Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Th eological Seminary. Woodberry gave oversight to a multi-year research investigation of a movement of Jesus followers among Muslims in South Asia. JOHN J. TRAVIS AND J. DUDLEY WOODBERRY When God’s Kingdom Grows Like Yeast: Frequently-Asked Questions About Jesus Movements Within Muslim Communities www.missionfrontiers.org  Mission Frontiers July-August 2010 25 In another Jesus movement, a young Muslim man boarded with a Christian family, and came to faith as he joined them in their daily reading of the Bible. He came from an infl uential family and, once saved, committed himself to sharing the gospel with family members in a way they would understand, Muslim follower of Jesus to Muslim. Th e entire family accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, and through them the gospel spread to in-laws and distant family members. Th ese Jesusfollowing Muslims gather regularly in their homes to study the New Testament. Due to natural networks created through marriage and careers, this Jesus movement has spread to a number of nearby ethnic groups. In yet another case, the scholars running a qur’anic academy began studying the Bible, and God confi rmed His Word to them through dreams, visions, and answers to prayer. Th ey believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior and began off ering Bible instruction in their academy, in addition to instruction in the Qur’an. Th ey also encouraged the formation of home groups for study and prayer. Th is launched a movement that has grown quite rapidly. A very diff erent example is the movement that began when a Muslim Sufi master was praying earnestly to be shown the way of salvation. He was told in a vision to travel to a particular town, to a specifi c house, where he would meet a man of suchand- such ancestry, who would show him the way of salvation. In the end, the man’s Sufi movement became a Jesus movement.2 Another movement was started by a convert from Islam who, after years of rejection by both the traditional church of a diff erent ethnicity and by his community of birth, apologized to his father and began witnessing within his community of birth. A large movement has resulted. 3 2. If Muslims confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, why would they not simply want to join the Christian religion? In some cases, they do. Numbers of Muslims accepting Christ leave Islam and take on a Christian religious identity. For many, however, religious identity is strongly linked with all other aspects of life, so that a change of identity would make it nearly impossible to remain a part of their own family and community. Martin Goldsmith expresses this well: Islam is within the whole warp and woof of society – in the family, in politics, in social relationships. To leave the Muslim faith is to break with one’s whole society. Many a modern educated Muslim is not all that religiously minded; but he must, nevertheless, remain a Muslim for social reasons. . . . This makes it almost unthinkable for most Muslims even to consider the possibility of becoming a follower of some other religion.4 It is because of this strong fusion of family, community and socio-religious identity that some Muslims who have received the gospel, in an eff ort to keep their family and social networks intact, choose to remain Muslim, so long as they can be true to Jesus, the Bible and the leading of the Spirit. Th e dynamics of witness then become Muslim follower of Jesus to fellow Muslim. Where Muslims fi nd a way to do this, Jesus movements within their communities become viable. 3. Why is the phenomenon of Jesus movements within Muslim communities only being observed in recent years? Essentially, the fi rst 2,000 years of church history has been the story of reaching peoples from animistic or pagan backgrounds,5 devotees of what are called minor religious traditions.6 As for those in the major religious traditions such as Islam and Judaism, few have ever embraced the good news of Jesus. Today, however, numbers of adherents of the world’s major religions are turning to Jesus, some of them sensing no call of God to leave the religious community of their birth.7 For example, some Jews have accepted Jesus as Messiah, while retaining their Jewish socio-religious identity.8 A similar trend is happening among some Muslims who have become sincere followers of Jesus and the Bible, and have remained within their own religious community, without joining a branch of the traditional Christian community. 4. It is an interesting idea that the Kingdom could move like yeast within a person’s original religious community. However, are there not risks associated with Jesus movements remaining inside such communities? Yes, it would be naive to suggest there are no risks associated with Jesus movements remaining within original religious communities. At least fi ve areas of particular concern exist for Jesus movements within Muslim communities. Th e fi rst is that folk or popular Islamic practices (the use of charms, amulets, divination, numerology or occult rituals to obtain spiritual power) are deeply 26 July-August 2010  Mission Frontiers USCWM • 1605 E. Elizabeth St. • Pasadena, CA 91104 • 626-797-1111 ingrained in many Muslim societies, though largely forbidden by formal Islam. Th ese must be renounced by followers of Jesus in order to experience spiritual freedom. If still practiced, Jesus movements would become syncretistic. (Syncretism, as often understood in Christian circles, refers to the incorporation of values, beliefs and practices contrary to the Scriptures, resulting in a sub-Biblical faith and a compromised message.) All movements, including those that take place in Christian denominations, have the potential to become subbiblical or syncretistic if they do not adhere closely to God’s Word and the leading of his Spirit. Th e second concern is that although many Muslim beliefs are compatible with biblical revelation, some commonly-held Muslim teachings and interpretations of the Qur’an contradict the gospel. If these are retained, the gospel message would be compromised. (See question 5 below.) Th e third is that the presence of strong family and community solidarity may interfere with ultimate allegiance to God through Christ. Th is solidarity is a strength for Jesus movements, when extended families embrace the good news together. On the other hand, community pressure can overwhelm new followers of Jesus, making discipleship diffi cult and witness tenuous. It follows that they must walk in both wisdom and boldness, with great sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. Th e fourth is that in some Islamic communities, violence may await any who deviate from locally established norms and teachings. In these situations, the lives of Jesus-followers are sometimes at risk. Th e fi fth concern is that the phenomenon of Jesus movements can, and often does, raise confusion among and opposition from traditional Christians in the same region and thus could lead to divisions within the Body of Christ. 5. How do movements remain faithful to Jesus and the Bible when Islam contains teachings that are not compatible with biblical revelation? Among groups of Muslims who follow Jesus, a three-fold pattern is observed: they reject certain traditional beliefs and practices that are contrary to the Bible; they reinterpret others in accordance with the Bible; and they minimize others. To understand this, it may be helpful to look at a similar phenomenon within Judaism, another monotheistic Abrahamic faith. Judaism traditionally holds, for example, that Jesus is not the Messiah, that forgiveness of sins is not granted through his death on the cross, and that the New Testament is not the Word of God. Jews who follow Jesus, however, affi rm that Yeshua9 is the Messiah and Savior of the world, and that the New Testament is the Word of God. Th ey interpret the traditional 18 Jewish prayers in ways compatible with their belief that Jesus is the Messiah, and celebrate Hanukkah and other traditional Jewish holidays in light of New Testament understanding. A similar process is happening among Jesusfollowing Muslims. Most Muslims interpret the Qur’an to say that Jesus did not die on the cross and that the biblical text has been corrupted. However, the meaning of certain qur’anic verses is unclear, and historically Muslim commentators have given interpretations of the Qur’an that affi rm the accuracy of the Bible and allow for the death of Christ.10 Bornagain Muslims fully believe in the bodily death and resurrection of Jesus (‘Isa)11 and affi rm the authority of the Bible12 as the Word of God. Th ey reject the pursuit of spiritual power through mystical or magicoriented practices that are common in many Muslim contexts. Similar to Yeshua-following Jews who celebrate Hanukkah, many Jesus-following Muslims keep the Ramadan fast and daily prayers, yet interpret their meaning in a way compatible with their faith in Jesus. Th ey do not view the fast and daily prayers as a means of salvation and forgiveness of sin, but as a means to draw near to God. Just as with all followers of Christ, as whole-hearted allegiance to Jesus is realized in obedient lives, the relative importance of some components of their background is minimized. 6. By not calling oneself a Christian, could not this be viewed as a form of denying Christ, the very thing Jesus warned of in Mark 8:38 and in Matthew 10:32-33? Th e answer depends on what is meant by the word “Christian.” In most parts of the Muslim world, it does not mean what it does to Western evangelicals. For evangelicals, it has a spiritual meaning: one has experienced new birth in Christ and follows Him www.missionfrontiers.org  Mission Frontiers July-August 2010 27 as Lord. In most of the Muslim world, however, “Christian” has an almost exclusively cultural, ethnic or political meaning: Christians are either Westerners (often seen as immoral) or members of local non-Muslim ethnic minorities. Th ey have their own calendar, rituals, holidays, clergy, terminology, diet and dress. Historic animosity over a thousand years (e.g., Christianity in light of the Crusades) taints the word “Christian.” If asked whether they are Christians, Jesus-following Muslims rightly say no: they are Muslims, not Christians. If asked, however, whether they follow Jesus as Lord and Savior, they say yes, and give an appropriate explanation. Th ough they retain an offi cial, social and/or cultural identity as Muslims and do not identify with “Christianity” as a socio-religious institution, they do identify with Jesus, and this is the very point of the Mark 8 and Matthew 10 passages. Th ey are not ashamed of Christ. 7. What does it mean to retain an offi cial, social and/or cultural Muslim identity? Retaining offi cial Muslim identity means that Jesus followers have not legally or publically taken steps to remove themselves from Islam. In some Muslim countries, one’s religious identity is determined by law, and often laws specify that people born of Muslim parents are legally Muslims and cannot change their religious identity. In other Muslim countries, religious identity is determined only at the community level. Retaining a social and/or cultural Muslim identity means that followers of Jesus see themselves, and are seen by others in society, as Muslim.13 However, like genuine disciples of Christ in all societies, they clearly hold some new values and beliefs not shared by all their neighbors. Th ere is already great variance throughout the Muslim world in beliefs and practices. Many Muslims lean toward belief systems technically incompatible with Islam, such as secularism, communism, occultism or even agnosticism. Yet they identify with the Muslim community and are considered full members of it. A well-known Muslim follower of Christ notes that Muslims do not have to perform all practices or believe all doctrines of Islam to be Muslims. But the day they choose to renounce their identity as Muslims is the day they are no longer seen as part of the Muslim community. 8. Are Jesus movements within Muslim communities the only type of movement among Muslims today? No. Jesus movements within Muslim communities are not the only thing God is doing, they may not happen everywhere, and they may not be what many Muslims choose for association when they receive the gospel. A variety of large and small movements to Christ are taking place. Th e C1-C6 spectrum was developed to help describe various expressions of faith in Jesus among Muslims. 9. What is the C1-C6 spectrum? Th e spectrum, also referred to as the C-scale, describes six basic types of Christ-centered communities or fellowships that exist in the Muslim world, in terms of language, culture, religious forms and religious identity.14 A particular fellowship may or may not be part of a movement. Movements are characterized by a multiplication of fellowships, where the gospel has a life of its own as it moves through existing communities and networks. Jesus movements of all types refl ected on the C-scale are found in the Muslim world. Points on the scale are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and dynamic rather than static. A given Jesus fellowship or movement may take on diff erent expressions over time. 10. How do these movements start? Individuals become followers of Jesus in a variety of ways, with the most common factors being 1) reading or hearing about Jesus in the Gospel narratives; 2) hearing the experiences of fellow Muslims who are disciples of Jesus; 3) seeing the message of Jesus confi rmed through answered prayer; and 4) dreams and visions given directly by God, often following the personal witness of friends. For example, a Muslim hears the story of a friend at work who has just become a Jesus follower; he then has a dream about Jesus; he fi nds a Bible and reads it, and then takes the message directly to his family and friends. Of course, outsiders often have been instrumental in leading the fi rst few Muslims to faith, and also have been involved in such endeavors 28 July-August 2010  Mission Frontiers USCWM • 1605 E. Elizabeth St. • Pasadena, CA 91104 • 626-797-1111 as Bible translation, translating the JESUS Film, or protracted intercessory prayer for a particular people group. What allows Jesus movements to launch, however, is that Muslims themselves become convinced that this good news of Jesus is for their family and friends and that they communicate the gospel, person to person, with God confi rming the message in multiple ways. 11. Scripture teaches that in Christ we are “one body” (Ephesians 4:4-6). Even though Jesus-following Muslims do not join traditional Christian churches or denominations, do they see themselves as part of the Body of Christ? Based on comments from Muslim followers of Jesus as well as colleagues who know these believers well, we can affi rm that the great majority of Jesus-following Muslims view all people who are truly submitted to God through Christ, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, as fellow members of the Kingdom of God. Th e presence of the Spirit of God in both born-again Christians and born-again Muslims points to realities — the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God — that go beyond socio-religious labels and categories. Th is reality was apparent in the Acts 10 account of Peter’s visit to Cornelius’ Gentile home, and it later prompted his magnifi cent declaration in Acts 15:11, “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we [Jews] are saved just as they [Gentiles] are.” Jesus-following Muslims are saved today by the same grace that saves those who identify themselves as Christians. 12. Fellowship and commitment in a local expression of the Body of Christ is central to life in Christ. Do Muslim followers of Jesus gather together, or are they simply individuals who have believed in Jesus? Normally they meet in their homes for prayer, fellowship and the study of God’s Word, and are highly committed to one another. Th ey become an expression of the Body of Christ in that locale. Having said this, however, they must be discreet and wise in how and where they meet. In some cases they meet like the underground church of China; in other locations they are more open. In some contexts the interpersonal or social skills of Jesus-following Muslims signifi cantly impact neighborhood reaction and freedom to meet. 13. Some have said that Jesus movements within Islam exist so that Muslims can avoid persecution and suff ering for their faith in Christ. Is this true? By far the most common reason Jesus-following Muslims give for staying inside their original religious community is their burden and desire to see their loved ones experience the good news in Jesus. Th eir hope is that Jesus movements among Muslims would be like the earliest Jesus movement described in Acts 2:46-47. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. While we rejoice whenever the Lord is daily adding to the number of Jesus followers, and whenever Jesus movements are experiencing the favor of the Muslim community, we realize that movements are not static. As the biblical record of the fi rst Jesus movement shows, seasons can change. Not hoping that any movement would move out of a season of favor, we pray earnestly for these believers to be prepared for any suff ering that may come.15 While a certain stigma of “changing religious communities” is avoided in these movements, in many Muslim contexts pressure is still exerted (from either family or religious leaders) on members of the community who have diff erent spiritual ideas. In some cases this pressure increases to full-blown persecution. A recent tragic case occurred in August 2009, when a leader in one Jesus movement died as a martyr, poisoned by his own family. Villagers said this leader was killed because he would not stop talking about Jesus, and this was an embarrassment to the family. Other Jesus movements have similar stories. 14. It has been said that some Christians have assumed a Muslim identity in order to relate to and have an audience with Muslims. Does the existence of Jesus movements within Muslim communities suggest that Christians should take on a Muslim identity in order to reach Muslims with the Gospel? No, not at all. Th ese are two separate issues. Th e movements we are discussing here involve Muslims who were born inside those communities. Th ere have been rare instances where Christians www.missionfrontiers.org  Mission Frontiers July-August 2010 29 have assumed varying degrees of Muslim identity in an eff ort to “become all things to all men” to “win as many as possible” (I Cor. 9:19-23). Th ough the decision of a Christian to change socio-religious identity is entirely diff erent from the decision of a Muslim to retain socio-religious identity, some critics of the type of Jesus movements discussed here have attempted to link the two. 15. What about the traditional Christian sacraments of baptism and communion? Are these followed in Jesus movements within Muslim communities? In some movements it seems to be a common practice to remember the sacrifi ce of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins during a meal shared together. Most Jesus-following Muslims practice some form of water baptism as well, not to indicate a change of religious affi liation, but as a sign of identifying with Jesus, who has opened the way for the cleansing of sin and for new life in Him. Some Muslim disciples of Jesus who do not yet practice outward water baptism consider themselves to have been baptized spiritually because of their relationship with Christ, who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.16 16. Would Jesus-following Muslims still repeat the confession, “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is God’s Messenger”? Th e following explanations are given by some Jesus-following Muslims who continue to recite the confession: Muhammad called his people to turn from polytheism to the God of Abraham; he commended to them the Holy Books of the Jews and Christians, and he warned of an impending day of God’s judgment, for which all people must be prepared. For these reasons, he is honored. It is of interest to note that in one large movement some Jesus-followers explained that they do not repeat the second part of the Islamic confession, choosing instead to substitute something that is both biblically and qur’anically correct such as “Jesus is the Word of God.”17 Th e issue of repeating the confession looms large in the minds of some Christians (including Christians who have converted from Islam). However, it does not seem to arise as a matter of such importance in fellowships of Jesus-following Muslims. Th ey do not share the antagonism that many Christians feel toward Muhammad and Islam. It should be noted, however, that in these Jesus movements, Muhammad is not viewed as a mediator or intercessor. 17. Do Jesus-following Muslims still refer to God as Allah? Yes. Not only do Jesus-following Muslims use the term Allah, but all Arab Christians use Allah as their term for God, as do millions of Christians in various parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the Middle East.18 Even before the rise of Islam, Arabic-speaking Christians called God Allah, since the name Allah pre-dates Islam.19 Jews used the term Allah in their Arabic translation of the Old Testament.20 Following in the tradition of Arab and Christian use of the term Allah, the Qur’an uses Allah to refer to God, the creator of heaven and earth, the God who revealed himself to Abraham, the God of the Bible, indeed the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. A person’s accurate understanding of God is a separate issue from the term used for God.21 18. How do Muslims who follow Jesus communicate with fellow Muslims about Jesus and the Bible? Jesus Muslims who share their experience of Jesus with other Muslims are convinced that Jesus is for them — He died for them and is on their side. Th ey know that Jesus is not only the Savior of Christians, but that He is the Savior of every person who calls on His name. Th ey believe that salvation truly is through the sacrifi ce of Jesus alone and is not dependent upon a particular religious affi liation. Th ey are also convinced that salvation is only through Christ, and are therefore determined to fi nd a way to explain this to family and friends. It is this Muslim-to-Muslim communication of the good news and personal testimony, with divine confi rmation, that fuels the growth of Jesus movements. Muslims know that the Qur’an affi rms the holy books that came beforehand to the Jews and Christians,22 and this is one of the six basic articles of Islamic faith. So when Jesus-following Muslims talk about their reading of the “neglected” holy books of Islam, some of their friends become interested in joining them. Once seekers begin to ingest the Word of God, especially the accounts of the life of Jesus, and see it confi rmed in the lives of their friends, the power of God is released in their lives, often resulting in them coming to Christ in faith. While miracles of healing and provision draw Muslims to the gospel, the greatest attraction is the 30 July-August 2010  Mission Frontiers USCWM • 1605 E. Elizabeth St. • Pasadena, CA 91104 • 626-797-1111 changed lives of Muslim followers of Jesus, who are growing in love and holiness, within the religious communities of their birth. f Endnotes 1 Th e authors are acquainted with the following examples, along with others, but actual names and locations have been omitted. 2 See “Brother Jacob and Master Isaac: How One Insider Movement Began,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 24/1 (2007): 41-42. 3 For another such case study, see J. Dudley Woodberry, “Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars,” in Dean Gilliland, ed., Th e Word Among Us (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1989), 303-306. 4 Missiology: An International Review 4 (1976): 317-323. 5 Peoples of animistic backgrounds who have turned to Christ during the last 2,000 years include peoples of Europe (e.g., Goths, Saxons, Celts, Vikings, etc.), peoples of Africa, peoples of Asia, indigenous peoples of North and South America, and others. 6 Typically these new believers linked with various branches of Christianity. Th is has meant moving from a minor to a major tradition – from a locally-known religion to the global religion of Christianity. 7 Various terms have been used to describe these types of Jesus movements, such as “insider movements,” “Messianic movements” or “Christ-centered movements.” 8 Some of these Jews are quite integrated into the traditional Jewish community and synagogue life; others maintain a more nominal Jewish identity. 9 Many Jews who follow Jesus refer to Him by His Hebrew name, Yeshua. 10 For major Muslim Qur’an commentators who allow for a real crucifi xion, see Joseph Cumming, “Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Refl ections in Muslim Commentaries” in J.D. Woodberry, O. Zumrut, and M. Koylu, eds., Muslim and Christian Refl ections on Peace: Divine and Human Dimensions (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2005), 32-50. 11 Many Jesus-following Muslims refer to Jesus by His qur’anic name, ‘Isa, which is commonly understood to be an Arabized form of the name Syriac-speaking Christians used (see A. Mingana, “Syriac Infl uence on the Style of the Koran,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 11 (1927): 84). 12 Many Jesus-following Muslims refer to the Bible using the terms Taurat, Zabur and Injil. Th e Taurat (which literally is the fi rst fi ve books of the Old Testament but is often interpreted as referring to the entire Old Testament), Zabur (Psalms) and Injil (Gospel, although it is often used for the Gospels or the entire New Testament) are understood to be the Word of God in the Qur’an. Muslim scholar Abdullah Saeed’s article “Th e Charge of Distortion of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures” shows how both the Qur’an and Islamic tradition support the view that the texts of the Taurat, Zabur and Injil have not been corrupted and are still to be regarded as holy books by Muslims (Muslim World 92 [2002]:419-436). 13 Th e particulars of retaining Muslim identity vary according to the given Muslim context. 14 Here is a brief summary of the C-scale (see John Travis, 1998, “Must All Muslims Leave Islam to Follow Jesus?” EMQ 34(4):411-415), showing various expressions of faith used by believers in Jesus of Muslim background: C1 – Believers in traditional Christian fellowships where worship is not in the mother tongue C2 – Same as C1, but worship is in the believers’ mother tongue C3 – Believers in culturally indigenous Christian fellowships that avoid Islamic forms C4 – Believers in culturally indigenous fellowships that retain biblically permissible Islamic forms, but not identifying as Muslims C5 – Muslim followers of Jesus in fellowships within the Muslim community, continuing to identify culturally and/or offi cially as Muslims, though a special kind C6 – Muslim followers of Jesus in limited, underground fellowship 15 Th e very movement described in Acts 2-4 moved into a season of persecution a number of years later, as recorded in Acts 5 onward, especially noted in Acts 8:1-3. 16 Th is is similar to the position on baptism and communion held by Quakers and the Salvation Army. 17 It is worth noting that Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111), Islam’s most celebrated theologian, on two occasions gave a confession that both Christians and Muslims can affi rm: “Jesus is the Apostle of God” (Al-Qustas al-Mustaqim, ed. V. Chelhot, 68, in Chelhot, “La Balance Juste,” Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales, 15 (1958); al-Munqidh min al-dalal (Th e Deliverer from Error), ed. Jamil Saliba and Kamal `Ayyad (3rd ed., Damascus, 1358/1939), 101, trans. W. Montgomery Watt, Th e Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali (London: Allen and Unwin, 1953), 39. 18 In Indonesia alone, the entire Christian population of over 30 million uses the term Allah for God. 19 See P.K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, 6th ed. [London: Macmillan, 1956], 101. 20 Sa’adiah Gaon bin Joseph, a 9th- and 10th-century A.D. Jewish scholar, translated the Jewish Scriptures from Hebrew into Arabic, using Allah for God (Kenneth J. Th omas, “Allah in Translations of the Bible,” Th e Bible Translator: Technical Papers Vol. 52:3, July 2001, pp. 301-305). 21 See J.D. Woodberry, “Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?” Christian Century (May 18, 2004): 36-37. 22 Over 40 times the Qur’an refers to the Bible (Taurat, Zabur, or Injil – the books that came beforehand) as holy books.  660 Chapter 97 Must all Muslims Leave “Islam” to Follow Jesus? John Travis For the past decade, my family and I have lived in a close-knit Muslim neighborhood in Asia. My daughter, who loves our neighbors dearly, asked one day, “Daddy, can a Muslim go to heaven?” I responded with an Acts 15:11-type “yes”: “If a Muslim has accepted Isa (Jesus) the Messiah as Savior and Lord, he or she is saved, just as we are.” We affirmed that people are saved by faith in Christ, not by religious affiliation. Muslim followers of Christ (i.e. C5 believers) are our brothers and sisters in the Lord, even though they do not change religions. Can a Muslim truly accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, thereby rejecting some elements of normal Islamic theology, and yet (for the sake of the lost) remain in his or her family and religious community? Due to the extreme importance Islam places on community, its nearly universal disdain for those who have become “traitors” by joining Christianity, and our desire to see precious Muslims come to Christ, finding the answer to this question is essential. I agree with Dr. Parshall; it is time for missiologists, theologians, and others, especially those who work face-to-face with Muslims, to seriously seek God’s will over this C5 issue. The Islampur case study The results indicate that nearly all of the leaders of this movement hold firmly to biblical teachings about the identity and work of Christ. Not only is their basic theology solid, they are active in their faith through prayer, scripture reading and listening, and coming together for worship. The fact that over half understand the Trinity well enough to affirm God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is actually astounding considering it would be considered apostasy by most Muslims! How many American pastors would be delighted to find the same vitality among their own congregations? Regarding the retention of some Islamic practice and belief, we should not be surprised that nearly half feel close to God when hearing the Qur'an read. Since they don't understand Arabic, it may be the familiar melodious chanting that touches their hearts. (Some C4 and C5 believers where I work sing a beautiful worship song which sounds a great deal like Muslim chanting.) It is also not surprising that half continue to worship in the mosque in addition to attending weekly C5 gatherings. This practice is reminiscent of the early Jewish followers of Christ meeting both in the temple John Travis (a pseudonym) has been involved in planting congregations among Muslims in Asia for the past 12 years. He is currently working on a Ph.D. through an American university. Used by permission from “Must all Muslims leave ‘Islam’ to follow Jesus?,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 34:3 (October 1998), published by EMIS, P.O. Box 794, Wheaton, IL 60189. JOHN TRAVIS 661 and in homes (with the old community and the new). One village C5 group I know prays at the mosque at noon on Friday, then meets afterwards in a home for Bible study and prayer led by "Achmad" (a pseudonym), a C4 pastor and former Muslim teacher. In this case these believers actually find mosque gatherings shallow and lifeless, and, for a time, stopped attending. Their absence greatly threatened the mosque leader and he tried to stamp out their Friday afternoon meetings. Achmad suggested they go back to the mosque, meaningless as it was for them. The imam’s face was saved and the new believers have continued to meet for over a year. New Muslim inquirers (even two Islamic teachers) have attended. Concerning the high regard for the Qur’an among Islampur believers, an apologetic response concerning the Qur’an must be developed whereby the truth in it can be affirmed (especially for purposes of a bridge for witness), yet it is not put on equal (or superior!) status to the Injil. Fortunately, until such an apologetic is developed, the Islampur believers are regularly reading the Injil rather than the Qur’an. Returning to the case of my friend Achmad, he holds evening “Holy Book reading sessions” in his home. He often opens by reading a Qur’anic passage in a respectful manner, then proceeds to the heart of the evening reading from the Torah, Zabur, and Injil (the Bible). Unsaved Muslims are more likely to attend Bible reading sessions when they also contain some Arabic Qur’anic reading. Achmad is careful to read Qur’anic passages which do not conflict with the Bible. Three final points concerning the Islampur study: First, these C5 Christ-centered communities consist entirely of new believers from a highly resistant people group. They are very much in process, and their struggles are not unlike what many first century congregations faced. We must pray that the same Holy Spirit whom Paul so relied upon to guide and purify those first groups of believers is active as well in these new Islampur groups. Second, to attain a more accurate perspective, we need to assess the quality of the new believers’ lives in Christ and not just their theology. Is the fruit of the Spirit evident and do they now show a deeper love for others? Scripture is clear that by qualities such as these we will recognize true followers of Christ (Matt. 7:20, John 13:35). Last, were it not for the C5 approach used in this church-planting ministry, would there be these many thousands of new believers to analyze in the first place? C5 missionaries (Christians becoming Muslims to reach Muslims) This perhaps is Dr. Parshall’s greatest concern, and overall I agree. Christians becoming Muslims to reach Muslims (i.e. C5 Missionaries) is a step beyond simply urging new believers to remain in the religious community of their birth (i.e. C5 believers) for the sake of their unsaved family and friends. In our current situation I have counseled my own Christian background co-workers, especially the expatriates, to take on a C4 expression of faith, and not enter Islam to reach Muslims. Yet I could imagine that in some instances God may call uniquely gifted, wellprepared individuals, whose ministries are firmly backed by prayer, to C5 outreach and religious identity. These C5 missionaries would be Muslims in the literal Arabic sense of the word (i.e. “one submitted to God”) and their theology would, of course, differ from standard Muslim theology at a number of key points. They would have to be ready for persecution, and it would be best if these believers were of Muslim background. If over time they made their beliefs clear, and the surrounding Muslim community chose to allow them to stay, should we not praise God for the opportunity they have to share the Good News in a place few would dare to tread? It would appear that neither “Abdul,” the Muslim convert, nor “Harry,” the Western missionary, were called and prepared for this kind of work. Regarding how Muslims would “feel” about such an approach, I think the question is a bit irrelevant. The majority of Muslims that I have talked to object to any activity they perceive as an attempt to attract Muslims to Christianity. However, the C5 approach, which communicates the message of salvation in Christ without the intent to persuade Muslims to “change their religion,” might in fact be the one most appreciated by Muslims. By 662 Chapter 97 MUST ALL MUSLIMS LEAVE “ISLAM”? separating the gospel from the myriad of legal, social, and cultural issues implied in changing religious camps, a more straightforward, less encumbered message can be shared and (we hope) embraced. On the question of how Christians would feel if Muslims entered a church with the purpose of winning converts to Islam, I personally would not be fearful. Indeed, for a variety of reasons, non- Christians often grace the doors of churches, and many in the process come to Christ! Reinterpreting Muhammad and the Qur’an Can individuals be a part of the community of Islam and not affirm standard Muslim theology? Yes, so long as they remain silent about their unorthodox beliefs. Indeed, there are millions of “cultural Muslims” who have divergent beliefs or know virtually nothing about Islam, yet who, because of birth and the fact they have not formally left the fold, are seen as a part of the community of Islam. However the goal of C5 believers (unlike C6 believers) is not to remain silent about their faith, but rather to be a witness for Christ. As they share, eventually the issue of the prophethood of Muhammad and the inerrancy of the Qur’an will arise. A follower of Jesus cannot affirm all that is commonly taught about the Qur’an and Muhammad. Certain aspects of the role of Muhammad and the Qur’an must be reinterpreted. This will perhaps be the most challenging task of C5; to not do so will in time cause these believers to move toward C4 (contextualized, yet not Muslim) or C6 (underground/silent believers). Reinterpretation goes far beyond the scope of this brief article and would require the input of Muslim leaders who have put their faith in Christ. A tremendous starting point toward reinterpretation is found in Accad’s excellent book Building Bridges (1997). As an Arab scholar and pastor, he suggests ways that Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Qur’anic verses which seem to deny the crucifixion can be reinterpreted (pp. 34-46; 138-141). He cites, as well, examples of Muslims who have successfully remained in the community of Islam after accepting Christ, some referring to themselves as “Muslims who are truly surrendered to God through the sacrifice of Messiah Isa” (p. 35). Guidelines for avoiding syncretism in a C5 movement The idea of Muslim followers of Jesus or messianic mosques has been suggested by a number of key missiologists (see Winter, 1981; Kraft, 1979; Conn, 1979; Woodberry, 1989). We do need guidelines, however, so that a C5 expression of faith does not slip into a harmful syncretism. Those working with new believers should emphasize at least the following in the discipleship process: 1. Jesus is Lord and Savior; there is no salvation outside of him. 2. New believers are baptized, meet regularly with other believers (this may need to be done with great discretion), and take communion. 3. New believers study the Injil (and Torah plus Zabur if available). 4. New believers renounce and are delivered from occultism and harmful folk Islamic practices (i.e. shamanism, prayers to saints, use of charms, curses, incantations, etc.). 5. Muslim practices and traditions (e.g. fasting, alms, circumcision, attending the mosque, wearing the head covering, refraining from pork and alcohol, etc.) are done as expressions of love for God and/or respect for neighbors, rather than as acts necessary to receive forgiveness of sins. 6. The Qur’an, Muhammad, and traditional Muslim theology are examined, judged, and reinterpreted (where necessary) in light of biblical truth. Biblically acceptable Muslim beliefs and practices are maintained, others are modified, some must be rejected. 7. New believers show evidence of the new birth and growth in grace (e.g. the fruit of the Spirit, increased love, etc.) and a desire to reach the lost (e.g. verbal witness and intercession). We must bear in mind that C5 believers, at some point, may be expelled from the community of Islam. C5 may only be transitional, as Dr. Parshall suggests. Yet, would it not be much better for Muslim followers of Jesus to share the Good News over months or years with fellow Muslims who may eventually expel them, than for these new believers to JOHN TRAVIS 663 References Accad, Fouad Elias. Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam (Colorado Springs, CO.: Navpress, 1997). Conn, Harvey. “The Muslim Convert and His Culture” in The Gospel and Islam. Don McCurry, ed. (MARC, 1979), pp. 61-77. Kraft, Charles It., “Dynamic Equivalence Churches in Muslim Society” in The Gospel and Islam. Don McCurry, ed. (Monrovia, Calif.: MARC, 1979), pp. 78-92. Winter, Ralph and David Frazier. “World Missions Survey” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Steve Hawthorne and Ralph Winter, eds. (Pasadena, CA.: William Carey Library, 1981), pp. 198-201. See also Chapter 52 of this book. Woodberry, J. Dudley. “Contextualization Among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars” in The Word Among Us. Dean S. Gilliland, ed. (Word Publishing: Dallas, Tex., 1989), pp. 282-312. Study Questions 1. Does "Travis" feel that the greatest hindrance to faith in Christ among Muslims is a theological one or that of cultural identity? 2. What does the author suggest as guidelines for treatment of the Qur'an and of Muhammed for Muslim followers of Jesus? 3. What difference is there between C5 missionary and a C5 movement in terms of credibility with Muslim culture, fidelity to Biblical faith, or viability of church planting? leave their families and community by their own choice, being seen as traitors by those whom they love? Conclusion If perhaps the single greatest hindrance to seeing Muslims come to faith in Christ is not a theological one (i.e. accepting Jesus as Lord) but rather one of culture and religious identity (i.e. having to leave the community of Islam), it seems that for the sake of God’s kingdom much of our missiological energy should be devoted to seeking a path whereby Muslims can remain Muslims, yet live as true followers of the Lord Jesus. The issues involved in such an approach are thorny and complex and require consideration from a number of different disciplines (e.g. church history, Islamics, theology, missiology). A consultation comprised primarily of people involved in sharing Christ with Muslims, which would grapple with the implications of C5, would be beneficial. Any type of ministry undertaken in the Muslim world involves great risk. But for the sake of millions of souls bound for a Christless eternity, and for the glory of God, the risks, efforts, and tensions are worth the price. 􀁃􀀩􀀮􀀱􀀨􀀗􀁊􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀀩􀀧􀀨􀀧􀂛􀀫􀀨 Concerns have arisen over the emergence of “insider movements” across the non-Christian world. For many of us, it seems that the very nature and integrity of the gospel is at stake in this discussion. We have been led into this debate by the need to respond to developments on the field. Individuals, families and communities are claiming to know and submit to Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but refusing to identify themselves as “Christians” in the common sense of the word. Some of these people are Muslims, who claim to have found that Jesus Himself is the “straight path” that they have pleaded with God to show them five times each day. Others are Hindu or Buddhist, seeking a personal relationship with Jesus in the midst of cultures similar to the idolatrous pantheon of the Greco-Roman world or the stoic philosophers of the first century. Though most people in these insider movements believe in the supreme authority of the Bible and the absolute lordship of Jesus Christ, they are remaining members of their communities, including most aspects of their religious culture. If these were just a few people, they could be overlooked. However, when movements to faith in Christ of this nature develop, with followers numbering in the hundreds or thousands, some assessment is necessary. Are these movements to Christ from God or not? Do they advance His Kingdom on earth or do they hinder it? Will they bring the power of the gospel into these cultures like yeast in the dough? Or will the gospel be diluted or contaminated to the point of ineffectiveness, overwhelmed by religious and cultural syncretism? Should we pray for, protect, and emulate these fledgling movements? Or, should we warn, correct, and if necessary, disown them? I believe there is ultimately only one thing that matters at the heart of this debate, and it is not contextualization. The core issue is this: Is the very nature and integrity of the gospel being revealed and upheld, or is “a different gospel” being preached and believed, as Paul warns? by Rebecca Lewis 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰 􀁆􀁥􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁀􀁛􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁫􀁰 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁪􀁠􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪 Rebecca Lewis has been working in this field since 1981, as well as dialoguing for the last several years with those in other organizations dealing with similar issues. 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰 􀀫􀀩 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁪􀁠􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪 To answer this question, we must turn to the Bible as the authority for our faith and practice, especially to the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul. 􀁎􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀀻􀁦􀀗􀁀􀀗􀁄􀁜􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁙􀁰􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀶 As Paul sought to fulfill his calling, we see two important facets in his defense of the gospel for the Gentiles. I believe that both facets are required for the integrity of the gospel to be maintained.1 1) First, Paul emphasized the unchanging content of the gospel message. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the living God was reconciling the world to Himself. Adam and Eve brought upon all mankind the curse of sin and death by rejecting God’s command out of desire to become like gods. Jesus, the second Adam, turned this upside down, and “though being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). Instead he walked Adam’s path without sin, yet paying the price of sin, thereby establishing by grace a means for us to know and enjoy the living God forever. This is the unchanging message we proclaim in all contexts. Christians who are supportive of insider movements are concerned that this message not be altered by adding additional requirements such as adherence to Christian religious traditions, thereby clouding or encumbering the gospel. Others, however, are concerned that without requiring adherence to traditional practices and theological formulations, this central truth cannot be preserved. Both sides are concerned that the gospel message is getting lost. 2) The second facet of the gospel that Paul emphasized is the unchanging scope of God’s plan—the power of the gospel itself to penetrate and transform families within all cultures. Today we believe that God will fulfill His plan to “bless all the families of the earth.” But, like the first century believers, we are not in agreement about how this is going to happen. Again, the integrity of the gospel is at stake. 􀁄􀁘􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁘􀁠􀁥􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁎􀁟􀁜􀁥􀀗􀁀􀁫􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁝􀁩􀁦􀁤􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁩􀁜􀁜􀁢􀀗􀁎􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁛 From the time God first proclaimed the gospel to Abraham, He made it clear that His plan was to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham’s descendents (Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8). But what did this mean? Did this mean that they were to go out and make proselytes, cultural and religious converts, of all peoples? Did it mean that “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven” would hear and believe the Good News, then take it back home with them, as happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:5)? In the book of Acts we read that the apostles began proclaiming the gospel with the assumption that it was only for the Jews. Evidently, they thought they that by doing so they were maintaining the integrity of the gospel. Since circumcision was the sign of the covenant God had made with Abraham, and Pentecost was the celebration of the giving of the law on stone tablets to Moses, the gospel as a new covenant, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, were the fulfillment, not the abrogation, of all God’s promises in the Hebrew Scriptures. So, it would have made sense to the disciples that those coming into the Kingdom of God would be Jews, saved by faith in Christ and discipled through the God-given Jewish religious framework within which all the disciples lived. Therefore, the disciples began to confidently spread the message of Christ inside the Jewish religious community. They preached in the temple and synagogues—even though their own religious leaders repudiated Jesus as the Messiah, actively persecuted them and other followers of “the Way,” and forbade them to preach. They believed their religious tradition to be the right one, and the only one acceptable to God. The result, as Acts 6 reveals, was that Hebraic Jews, Hellenized Jews, converts to Judaism and “a large number of priests” of the Jews were coming to faith, but no Gentiles. These Jewish believers remained in their Jewish communities, or fled to other Jewish communities when persecuted, taking their faith with them.2 􀀹􀁬􀁫􀀗􀁎􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀀿􀁘􀁧􀁧􀁜􀁥􀁜􀁛􀀗􀀗 􀁎􀁟􀁜􀁥􀀗􀁅􀁦􀁥􀀤􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁪􀀗􀁊􀁫􀁘􀁩􀁫􀁜􀁛􀀗􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗􀀺􀁦􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀀽􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀶􀀗 The first non-Jews to turn to Christ in large numbers were the Samaritans. Jesus had given Samaritan believers the freedom to worship “in spirit and truth” without requiring them to become proselytes or to come to the Jewish temple or synagogues (John 4), where Jewish believers were congregating. Jesus affirms this non-Jewish version of faith in himself as “the kind of worshippers the Father seeks” (v. 24). The Samaritans themselves grasped both key aspects of the gospel, exclaiming, “We know that this man really is the Savior of the world!” (v. 42). Jesus revealed both the power and the scope of the gospel by saving the Samaritan villagers, without requiring Samaritan believers to enter the Jewish religious framework. The disciples seemed to accept this inclusion of the Samaritans into God’s kingdom, even though the Samaritans followed a “heretical” version of the Jewish religion. When Philip won many Samaritans to faith in Christ, Peter and John came to pray that they would receive the Holy Spirit. Then they preached the gospel in 􀁃Should we pray for, protect, and emulate these fledgling movements? 􀀫􀀪 􀀩􀀮􀀱􀀨􀀗􀁊􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀀩􀀧􀀨􀀧 􀁉􀁜􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁚􀁘􀀗􀁃􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪 many Samaritan villages on their way back to Jerusalem. These Samaritan believers remained in their Samaritan villages, as they would not have been welcomed into Jewish villages, but they were accepted as fellow believers by the Jewish believers and the apostles, who visited them. Perhaps it was easy for the Jewish believers to accept these Samaritan believers following Jesus, apart from becoming Jewish proselytes, because the Samaritans were circumcised, tried to follow the God of Abraham in the Torah, and had similar religious laws. 􀀺􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁋􀁩􀁘􀁥􀁪􀁝􀁦􀁩􀁤􀀗 􀁇􀁘􀁞􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁮􀁠􀁫􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁘􀁤􀁜􀁮􀁦􀁩􀁢􀀗 􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀀗􀁃􀁘􀁮􀁪􀀶 Unlike the easy acceptance of Samaritan believers, a heated theological debate arose over the very nature of the gospel itself when pagan Romans and Greeks began to come to faith in Christ. The message of the gospel was not in question, but the scope of its application was a matter of contention. Did the gospel message bring grace only to those who join the family of faith as it was then construed (the circumcised believers who kept Mosaic Law) or could the gospel bring salvation to all, regardless of their social and religious context? Two events brought this question to a head: 1) God showed Peter the power of His gospel to save the Gentiles, apart from adopting Jewish identity, by introducing Peter to the Roman centurion Cornelius, and his household. Before Peter could even finish his presentation of the gospel, God’s Holy Spirit came on all of them, much to Peter’s shock. Though other Jewish believers criticized Peter for associating with Romans, upon hearing that the Holy Spirit had come upon Cornelius and his family, they exclaimed, “So then, God has granted even unto the Gentiles the repentance unto life!!” (Acts 11:18). They were beginning to understand that there are two necessary facets of the gospel, both the message and its ability to save people in all cultures and contexts. Until then, their understanding of the gospel had been incomplete. came to Antioch and began teaching the Greek believers (the “Christians”) that their salvation was not yet complete. Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to resolve the matter under debate: Is conversion to the identity and religious traditions of the Jewish believers necessary for salvation for those coming out of Greek pagan background? At this juncture, it was not the content, or message, of the gospel that was under debate.5 What was under debate was the scope and nature of the gospel: Did the message of Jesus Christ only have the power to save those who also accepted the religious framework in which Christ himself was incarnated, or could the gospel save those in an alien context as well? By defending the power of the gospel to save believers who retain their Gentile culture and identity, Peter sought to preserve the integrity of the gospel. He made a plea to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem on behalf of the Gentiles, saying: 􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀣􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁦􀀗 􀁢􀁥􀁦􀁮􀁪􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁟􀁜􀁘􀁩􀁫􀀣􀀗 􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁮􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀀿􀁜􀀗􀁘􀁚􀁚􀁜􀁧􀁫􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁒􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁣􀁜􀁪􀁔􀀗 􀁙􀁰􀀗􀁞􀁠􀁭􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀿􀁦􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁊􀁧􀁠􀁩􀁠􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀣􀀗􀁡􀁬􀁪􀁫􀀗 􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁛􀁠􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁬􀁪􀀥􀀗􀀿􀁜􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁛􀁜􀀗􀁥􀁦􀀗􀁛􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁥􀁚􀀤 􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁫􀁮􀁜􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁬􀁪􀀗 􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀣􀀗 􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗 􀀿􀁜􀀗 􀁧􀁬􀁩􀁠􀃆􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗 􀁟􀁜􀁘􀁩􀁫􀁪􀀗 􀁙􀁰􀀗 􀁝􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀥􀀗 􀁅􀁦􀁮􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁰􀀗􀁛􀁦􀀗􀁰􀁦􀁬􀀗􀁫􀁩􀁰􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁜􀁪􀁫􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀗􀁙􀁰􀀗􀁧􀁬􀁫􀁫􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗 􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁚􀁢􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁒􀀾􀁩􀁜􀁜􀁢􀁔􀀗􀁛􀁠􀁪􀁚􀁠􀁧􀁣􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁘􀀗 􀁰􀁦􀁢􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁠􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁮􀁜􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁦􀁬􀁩􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁪􀀗 T he message of the gospel was not in question, but the scope of its application was a matter of contention. 2) Greeks were coming to faith as well. In Antioch the Greek believers were called “Christians”3 (Acts 11:26). Although these Greek believers did not convert to the Jewish form of faith in Christ, they nevertheless felt a sense of unity with the Jewish believers and sent a benevolent donation for needy Jewish believers to the elders in Jerusalem through Barnabas and Saul. The Jewish believers seem to have tolerated a few pagans who had become believers in Christ without accepting their religious framework, but they were alarmed when it became a movement.4 The Greek believers must have seemed pagan and syncretistic to the Jewish believers whose religious traditions had been practiced by Jesus and the apostles and had their roots in over a thousand years of scripture and tradition. So some Jewish believers argued that the Greek believers must adopt circumcision, which was the distinctive mark of the covenant between God and His people, as well as the religious traditions given through Moses, which were followed by the Jewish believers. 􀀿􀁦􀁮􀀗􀀻􀁠􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁩􀁬􀁪􀁘􀁣􀁜􀁤􀀗 􀀺􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁣􀀗􀁄􀁘􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁘􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗 􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀶 By Acts 15, a sharp dispute broke out between Paul and Barnabas and some Jewish believers from Judea who 􀁆􀁥􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁀􀁛􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀱􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀼􀁘􀁩􀁣􀁰􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀀽􀁘􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁪 􀂻􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁜􀁘􀁩􀁣􀁰􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀀽􀁘􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁜􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁚􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁰􀀗􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁩􀁬􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁬􀁩􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁪􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁪􀀥􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁛􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁞􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁦􀁮􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁪􀁬􀁚􀁟􀀗􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁜􀁯􀁫􀁜􀁥􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁫􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁢􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁧􀁩􀁜􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁤􀁜􀁘􀁥􀁠􀁥􀁞􀁪􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁜􀁥􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁘􀁞􀁜􀀣􀀗􀁪􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁛􀁜􀁚􀁠􀁛􀁜􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁘􀁚􀁚􀁜􀁧􀁫􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁡􀁜􀁚􀁫􀀥􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁞􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁪􀁦􀀗􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀤􀁜􀁥􀁚􀁦􀁤􀁧􀁘􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁣􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁧􀁣􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁜􀁥􀁘􀁙􀁣􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁬􀁥􀁛􀁜􀁩􀁪􀁫􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀁪􀁜􀁣􀁭􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁧􀁘􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁬􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀣􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁘􀁬􀁪􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁞􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁮􀁦􀁩􀁫􀁟􀁰􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁧􀁘􀁪􀁫􀀣􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁠􀁣􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁫􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁧􀁦􀁫􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁬􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀥􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁫􀁬􀁛􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁥􀀤􀁎􀁜􀁪􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁜􀁛􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁮􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁪􀁠􀁤􀁠􀁣􀁘􀁩􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁛􀁜􀁜􀁧􀀤 􀁜􀁥􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁘􀁮􀁘􀁩􀁜􀁥􀁜􀁪􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁠􀁤􀁧􀁘􀁚􀁫􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁚􀁬􀁣􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁥􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀁫􀀣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁧􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁞􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁫􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁘􀁫􀁫􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁩􀁠􀁙􀁬􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁮􀀗􀁣􀁘􀁥􀁞􀁬􀁘􀁞􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁜􀁯􀁧􀁜􀁩􀁠􀁜􀁥􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁢􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁛􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁣􀁦􀁧􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀀗 􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀁫􀀥􀂼􀀗 􀁂􀁮􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀀹􀁜􀁛􀁠􀁘􀁢􀁦􀀣􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀀣􀀗􀁧􀁧􀀥􀀗􀀯􀀨􀀤􀀯􀀩 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰 ÷ˇ____i˛ü􀀫􀀫 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁪􀁠􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪 Paul explained that God had demonstrated that all those who have Abraham’s faith are Abraham’s children, apart from any outward religious requirements. God had revealed this truth by calling Abraham “father of many nations” and by crediting to Abraham righteousness on the basis of his faith alone (Romans 4:16-18). This message of inclusion in God’s family on the basis of faith alone was good news to the Gentiles, but it was disturbing to many Jewish believers who felt Paul was dismantling their religious traditions. These Jewish believers did not understand why God would want Gentile believers to set aside the religious framework He had established for the Jews. Likewise, it is disturbing today for Christians who value their religious traditions, to see believers arising in other cultural contexts set these aside as optional or inappropriate for their context. The message of inclusion is good news to us also as long as we are the Gentiles getting included. It starts to get more difficult to accept when we recognize that we are now in the position of those Jewish believers, with 2000 years of our own valuable teachings and traditions that we want everyone to build on. We doubt that God would bypass the collective wisdom of our religious writings and traditions, building his church afresh in new cultures as he did among the first century Greeks. Are the foundations of the Bible and the Holy Spirit sufficient for God to build His church without going through traditional Christianity as we know it? Could it be that God is once again starting movements of true faith in Jesus Christ, making new people groups into “children of Abraham,” by faith in the gospel alone? These are questions we would rather not ask. Why would God bypass traditional Christianity? Perhaps because it would astonish the world, revealing the true power of the gospel. Perhaps 􀁟􀁘􀁭􀁜􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁘􀁙􀁣􀁜􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁘􀁩􀀶􀀗 􀁅􀁦􀀘􀀗 􀁎􀁜􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁜􀁭􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁩􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁞􀁩􀁘􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀁦􀁬􀁩􀀗􀁃􀁦􀁩􀁛􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁮􀁜􀀗􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁘􀁭􀁜􀁛􀀣􀀗􀁡􀁬􀁪􀁫􀀗 􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀣􀂼􀀗􀀟􀀸􀁚􀁫􀁪􀀗􀀨􀀬􀀱􀀯􀀤􀀨􀀨􀀠􀀥􀀗 The apostles and elders agreed that the Scriptures had predicted that God’s salvation was for all peoples, not just Jews and proselytes. They also agreed that God had shown His acceptance of the Gentile believers by giving them His Holy Spirit. So, using these two criteria to justify their decision, they decided “not to make it difficult for the Gentiles turning to God” (Acts 15:19) by adding on to their faith in Christ a requirement of conversion to the Jewish religious forms. In order to promote a peaceful co-existence between Jewish and Greek believers, the council asked the Gentiles to follow a few laws given in Leviticus6 to outsiders residing among the Jews: no eating of blood, strangled meat, or food polluted by idols, nor any practice of sexual immorality. However, all of these laws, except the last one, were removed before the end of the New Testament by Paul,7 who reduced them to a matter of conscience (Romans 14). 􀁇􀁘􀁬􀁣􀀗􀁇􀁜􀁩􀁪􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀀽􀁠􀁞􀁟􀁫􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣 Paul’s battle for the gospel seemed over, but it was not. The apostles had made a pivotal decision: the movement to Christ among the Greeks was from God and the Greek “Christians” should not be required to adopt the religious traditions of the church in Jerusalem. However, the written pronouncement from the Jerusalem apostles was clearly not the end of the issue. In his subsequent letters, Paul had to argue repeatedly that the gospel must move into the Gentile people groups unhindered by external religious expectations. The integrity of the gospel was at stake. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel message precisely because he had seen its power to save, apart from religious traditions, not just the Jew but also the Gentile (Romans 1:16-17). As a result, Paul could confidently proclaim that the gospel has revealed a righteousness that is by faith alone. So he hammered this point in through several chapters of Romans, a letter written to believers in Rome where faith in Christ was still seen as a sect of Judaism (Acts 28:22): 􀂻􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀗 􀁛􀁦􀁜􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁮􀀗 􀁝􀁘􀁭􀁦􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁠􀁪􀁤􀀥􀂼􀀗 􀀟􀁉􀁦􀁤􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗 􀀩􀀱􀀨􀀨􀀠􀀗 􀂻􀀺􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁤􀁜􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁬􀁫􀁮􀁘􀁩􀁛􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁧􀁟􀁰􀁪􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁣􀂲􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁥􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁮􀀗 􀁠􀁝􀀗 􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁤􀁜􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁰􀀗 􀁦􀁥􀁜􀀗 􀁦􀁬􀁫􀀤 􀁮􀁘􀁩􀁛􀁣􀁰􀀥􀀗􀁅􀁦􀀣􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁮􀀗􀁠􀁝􀀗􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁥􀁜􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀁮􀁘􀁩􀁛􀁣􀁰􀀲􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀀤 􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁘􀁩􀁫􀀣􀀗􀁙􀁰􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁧􀁠􀁩􀁠􀁫􀀣􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗􀁙􀁰􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁮􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁫􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁛􀁜􀀥􀂼􀀗 􀀟􀀩􀀱􀀩􀀯􀀤􀀩􀀰􀀠􀀗 􀂻􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁪􀀗 􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀀾􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁣􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁠􀁢􀁜􀀗􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁬􀁥􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁪􀁠􀁥􀀥􀂼􀀗􀀟􀀪􀀱􀀰􀀠􀀗 Before circumcision and before the giving of the Law, Abraham was made righteous by faith alone, so “he is the father of all those who believe but have not been circumcised” (4:11). Paul had changed the mark of the covenant from an external mark (circumcision, Genesis 17:13) to an internal mark (“circumcision of the heart by the Spirit not a written code,” Romans 2:29). What a shock this teaching must have been to Jewish believers! What? Abraham is the father of uncircumcised believers (Romans 4:11)? Abraham is the father of Gentiles refusing to adopt the Abrahamic sign of the covenant and the Laws given through Moses? Paul had declared that the mark of belonging to God’s people was not external but internal— a changed heart. 􀁃The written pronouncement from the Jerusalem apostles was clearly not the end of the issue. 􀀫􀀬 􀀩􀀮􀀱􀀨􀀗􀁊􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀀩􀀧􀀨􀀧 􀁉􀁜􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁚􀁘􀀗􀁃􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪 because the integrity of the gospel itself is at stake. 􀁎􀁠􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁊􀁠􀁤􀁧􀁣􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁣􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀁀􀁤􀁤􀁘􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀗􀀻􀁠􀁪􀁚􀁠􀁧􀁣􀁜􀁪􀀶 A valid concern about insider movements today is that a simple faith like Abraham’s, a faith in Christ and the Bible without a religious framework drawn from historical Christianity, will not give these new groups of believers enough guidance for mature discipleship. Paul spoke to this concern himself. Having shown that the gospel is powerful enough to save anyone, regardless of their religious context, Paul went on to prove that Gentile believers would be transformed even if they did not have the benefit of the Mosaic Law and the existing discipleship system of the Jews. First, Paul showed that the religious traditions of Jewish believers had not delivered them from their sinful nature (Ephesians 2:3), nor from bondage to demonic forces (Galatians 4:3). Therefore, neither would these traditions deliver the Gentiles from sin, and could merely lead to a new type of bondage (4:9). Second, Paul delineated in Romans, chapters 6-15, that it is the gospel that is the transformative power in the life of a believer. The believer’s “old self was crucified with Christ” (6:6), so he is “ freed from sin” (6:7), and now he is “alive to God in Jesus Christ” (6:11), the benefit reaped “ leads to holiness and the result is eternal life,” (6:22), so that “…those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (8:14). Third, Paul summarized the result, or fruit, of having the Holy Spirit in ones life in Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These characteristics are unique signs of the Holy Spirit’s work in a believer’s life in any culture or context.8 Paul concluded that it is the Holy Spirit that delivers believers from their sinful nature so that the moral law of God is fulfilled—holiness without legalism. Paul was teaching that the Holy Spirit will accomplish in the life of a believer something no religious tradition or institution can ever accomplish. 􀁎􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀀻􀁦􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀂻􀁄􀁰􀁪􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀂼􀀗􀁄􀁜􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁋􀁦􀁛􀁘􀁰􀀶 In his letter to the Romans, Paul systematically demonstrated that it is the gospel itself, apart from all the God-given traditions of the Jews, that brings the transformation of obedient faith into the life of believers from any background. He recognized that God was doing something significantly different in his day, calling it a “mystery hidden in God who created all things,” (Ephesians 3:9). When moving the gospel into the Greek world, God did not overturn His Word, but He did overturn the religious traditions His people had built upon it. The mystery He revealed to Paul was that the Greeks did not have to adopt the religious form of the Jewish believers to become joint heirs and “children of the promise” with them. Paul said: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6). Some take this to mean that the Greek believers and the Jewish believers had homogenized or fused together into a new “Christian” culture. They assume the first century believers neither had the Torah-abiding forms of the Jewish apostles, nor the cultural forms of the Greek believers so prominent in later Christianity (statues, mosaics, and endless discussions of philosophical/ theological nuances). It is more accurate to recognize that in the first century there were in existence at least two radically different religions based on Jesus Christ. There was the Jewish version, breathing life into the Laws of Moses and Jewish ritual holy days, and there was the Greco-Roman version, turning their philosophy-loving hearts into theology-loving hearts, that explored the nuances of the Trinity and the incarnation. Today people of many different cultures are becoming followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they are claiming their biblical right to live out their faith in diverse ways that are nevertheless grounded on the supreme authority of the Bible. Are we ready to accept them as joint heirs with us if they belong to Muslim or Hindu cultures and do not adopt the religious forms and traditions we have constructed over time and do not even take on a “Christian” identity? Paul affirmed that in spite of their different cultural and religious practices, these Jewish and Greek believers were all made one, joint heirs in Christ. The gospel had destroyed the “dividing wall of hostility,” that is, their prejudice and enmity toward one another (Ephesians 2:14,16). It did not destroy their respective cultures. Having recognized that they were received by God equally, without merit, they had no right to boast over one another, or to consider their own religious expression of faith in Christ to be more salvific than the other. Therefore, we can likewise expect today that allowing radically different expressions of faith in Christ will break down walls of hostility while preserving distinct cultural identities. This humility and freedom of expression of faith are integral to maintaining the integrity of the gospel, so that the power of salvation is always clearly by faith and not by outward works. 􀁎􀁟􀁰􀀗􀀻􀁦􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁇􀁘􀁬􀁣􀀗􀀽􀁦􀁩􀁙􀁠􀁛􀀗 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀁤􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁘􀁥􀁞􀁜􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗 􀀼􀁯􀁧􀁩􀁜􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀀽􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀶 It is difficult to understand Paul’s teaching on these issues. It is easy to accept that he was trying to gain a freedom for the gospel to move unhindered into new cultures. That seems P aul was teaching that the Holy Spirit will accomplish in the life of a believer something no religious tradition can ever accomplish. 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰 􀀫􀀭 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁪􀁠􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪 compassionate. But why would he get upset if some of the new Greek believers wanted to become Jewish proselyte believers? That seems harsh. After all, conversion to Judaism had been going on for centuries. What would it matter if the Greek believers wanted to take the full step into joining the Jewish apostles in their version of faith in Christ? Again, Paul’s main concern was clearly for the integrity of the gospel. He did not want it to appear that there is more merit with God to be a believer within the religious stream of Israel than to be a believer within any other context. Therefore, Paul emphasized the importance of the gospel not being linked to changing cultures, even religious cultures. He said, 􀀽􀁦􀁩􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁜􀁠􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀀗 􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀀤 􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁰􀀗􀁭􀁘􀁣􀁬􀁜􀀥􀀗 􀁎􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁫􀁪􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁜􀁯􀁧􀁩􀁜􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁠􀁫􀁪􀁜􀁣􀁝􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀁣􀁦􀁭􀁜􀀥􀀗 􀀟􀀾􀁘􀁣􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗 􀀬􀀱􀀭􀀠􀀗 􀁅􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁩􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁣􀁜􀁪􀁪􀀣􀀗 􀁜􀁘􀁚􀁟􀀗 􀁦􀁥􀁜􀀗 􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗 􀁩􀁜􀁫􀁘􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁧􀁣􀁘􀁚􀁜􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀁣􀁠􀁝􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁃􀁦􀁩􀁛􀀗􀁘􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁞􀁥􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁟􀁠􀁤􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁠􀁚􀁟􀀗 􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀗 􀁟􀁘􀁪􀀗 􀁚􀁘􀁣􀁣􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁟􀁠􀁤􀀥􀀗 􀁋􀁟􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁩􀁬􀁣􀁜􀀗􀁀􀀗􀁣􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁛􀁦􀁮􀁥􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁟􀁬􀁩􀁚􀁟􀁜􀁪􀀱􀀗 􀁎􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁛􀁰􀀗􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁮􀁘􀁪􀀗 􀁚􀁘􀁣􀁣􀁜􀁛􀀶􀀗 􀁒􀁘􀁣􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁛􀁰􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁮􀀗 􀁦􀁩􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁭􀁜􀁩􀁫􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁁􀁬􀁛􀁘􀁠􀁪􀁤􀁔􀀗 􀀿􀁜􀀗 􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁦􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀥􀀗􀁒􀁫􀁟􀁩􀁦􀁮􀀗􀁦􀁝􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀀗 􀁣􀁘􀁮􀀗 􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀁚􀁬􀁣􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀁔􀀗 􀁎􀁘􀁪􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁤􀁘􀁥􀀗 􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁮􀁘􀁪􀀗 􀁚􀁘􀁣􀁣􀁜􀁛􀀶􀀗 􀁒􀁘􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁥􀀤􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁔􀀗􀀿􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗􀁙􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀀤 􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀥􀀗 􀁒􀀿􀁜􀀗 􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁭􀁜􀁩􀁫􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁧􀁘􀁩􀁫􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁟􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁔􀀗 􀀺􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗 􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀥􀀗 􀁂􀁜􀁜􀁧􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗 􀀾􀁦􀁛􀂾􀁪􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁤􀁤􀁘􀁥􀁛􀁪􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁫􀁪􀀥􀀗 􀀼􀁘􀁚􀁟􀀗􀁦􀁥􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁤􀁘􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁠􀁫􀁬􀁘􀀤 􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁜􀁥􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀗􀁚􀁘􀁣􀁣􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁟􀁠􀁤􀀥􀀗 􀀟􀁀􀀗􀀺􀁦􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀀮􀀱􀀨􀀮􀀤􀀩􀀧􀀠􀀗 At first it appears that Paul was saying that the Lord has assigned to each of us the family and people group we are born into,9 and when He calls us to Himself, He also calls us to reach out to those around us in that community and not remove ourselves from that situation.10 However, the crux of Paul’s argument is actually that no one should consider one religious form of faith in Christ to be superior to another. “What counts,” Paul emphasized, is “ faith expressing itself in love,” “ keeping God’s commands,” and becoming “a new creation.” As believers we need to be able to look past differences in religious culture and see the Holy Spirit working in the lives of our fellow citizens of the Kingdom. Paul considered this point so crucial to the integrity of the gospel that he laid it down as a rule for all the churches (I Corinthians 7:17). He said it even more forcefully in Galatians, 􀁋􀁟􀁦􀁪􀁜􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁦􀀗 􀁮􀁘􀁥􀁫􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁤􀁘􀁢􀁜􀀗 􀁘􀀗 􀁞􀁦􀁦􀁛􀀗 􀁠􀁤􀁧􀁩􀁜􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁦􀁬􀁫􀁮􀁘􀁩􀁛􀁣􀁰􀀗 􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀗 􀁫􀁩􀁰􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁤􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗 􀁰􀁦􀁬􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀀗 􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁒􀁠􀀥􀁜􀀥􀀗 􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁭􀁜􀁩􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀁤􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁔􀀥􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁪􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁥􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁛􀁦􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗 􀁫􀁦􀀗 􀁘􀁭􀁦􀁠􀁛􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗 􀁧􀁜􀁩􀁪􀁜􀁚􀁬􀁫􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁚􀁩􀁦􀁪􀁪􀀗 􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀀥􀀨􀀨􀀗 􀁅􀁦􀁫􀀗 􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁥􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁦􀁪􀁜􀀗 􀁮􀁟􀁦􀀗 􀁘􀁩􀁜􀀗 􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁦􀁙􀁜􀁰􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁣􀁘􀁮􀀣􀀗􀁰􀁜􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁥􀁫􀀗􀁰􀁦􀁬􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁙􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀀤 􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁜􀁛􀀗 􀁪􀁦􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁰􀀗 􀁤􀁘􀁰􀀗 􀁙􀁦􀁘􀁪􀁫􀀗 􀁘􀁙􀁦􀁬􀁫􀀗 􀁰􀁦􀁬􀁩􀀗􀃇􀁜􀁪􀁟􀀥􀀨􀀩􀀗􀁄􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁀􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁙􀁦􀁘􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁜􀁯􀁚􀁜􀁧􀁫􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗 􀁚􀁩􀁦􀁪􀁪􀀗 􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀀥􀀥􀀥􀁅􀁜􀁠􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀀗 􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁥􀁦􀁩􀀗 􀁬􀁥􀁚􀁠􀁩􀁚􀁬􀁤􀁚􀁠􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗 􀁤􀁜􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁰􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀲􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁫􀁪􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁥􀁜􀁮􀀗 􀁚􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀥􀀗􀁇􀁜􀁘􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁤􀁜􀁩􀁚􀁰􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁣􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁦􀀗 􀁝􀁦􀁣􀁣􀁦􀁮􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁩􀁬􀁣􀁜􀀣􀀗􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁪􀁩􀁘􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀀾􀁦􀁛􀀗􀀟􀀾􀁘􀁣􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀀭􀀱􀀨􀀨􀀤􀀨􀀭􀀠􀀥􀀗 Paul considered this rule so important, he gave his signature to it, saying: “See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!” Paul stood at a very crucial juncture in history—a critical point when the gospel could have easily become locked within the Jewish community. So Paul spoke very forcefully to ensure that the gospel was not limited to Jews, and their proselytes. He called any “gospel” that denies the power of Christ to save those from every people group, without proselytism, “a different gospel, which is really no gospel at all.” He warned that those trying to add to faith in Christ a conversion to specific religious forms were “throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel” (Galatians 1: 6-7). In Galatians 5:2 Paul became even more vehement: “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves become circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all…. You who are trying to be justified by law [outward religious expressions] have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” Wow! Why was Paul so upset and so insistent that the very integrity of the gospel was at stake? Because the Judaizers13 were not preaching a gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Instead they were adding the requirement of religious conversion (change of outward forms and religious identity) to the inner transformation, implying that the work of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient by itself. 􀁀􀁪􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁠􀁪􀀗􀀻􀁠􀁪􀁚􀁬􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁙􀁦􀁬􀁫􀀗 􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀶 When people start turning to Christ in large numbers but refusing to identify with traditional Christianity, we should be cautious. It is important to analyze these Jesus movements just as carefully as the apostles and elders in Jerusalem analyzed the Greek movement to Christ. We should not trivialize this discussion as a new radical contextualization14 or a new missiological strategy designed to make it easy for Muslims to come to Christ.15 Something much more profound is at stake: the integrity of the gospel itself. Can we apply Paul’s insights from God about Gentile believers to today’s insider movements? God revealed to Paul that His promise of salvation by faith in Christ alone extends to all people. Grasping this “mystery,” Paul 􀁃We should not trivialize this discussion as a new radical contextualization or a new missiological strategy. 􀀫􀀮 􀀩􀀮􀀱􀀨􀀗􀁊􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀀩􀀧􀀨􀀧 􀁉􀁜􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁚􀁘􀀗􀁃􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪 ‘Pompeianians’ and so forth.” (See reference under listing for Acts 11:26.) 4 The term “Christians” was not a widespread term for Greek/Roman followers of Christ in the early centuries, with Roman historians often referring to believers as “atheists” because they did not believe in the Greek gods or the Emperor as a god. There is no indication that the term “Christians” was applied to the Jewish believers during the first century. 5 Paul may have seen that the content of the gospel of grace could not be preserved apart from the scope being preserved. In his letter to the Romans (chapter 14), Paul speaks of the “weak in faith” as those who trust in God plus dietary and festival laws, or who lean on observance of particular customs and not on God alone. In other words, those who demanded Jewish customs and identity from non-Jewish followers of Christ were making Jewish religious rites and traditions as a condition of God’s acceptance, thus “nullifying the grace of God” (Gal. 2:21; see also Gal. 3:17). 6 Fitzmeyer in his commentary on Acts notes that the rules James proposed “seek only a modus vivendi of Gentile among Jewish Christians and imply no salvific purpose in them. The four things that James would impose are derived from part of the Holiness Code in Lev 17-18, which proscribed certain things not only for “anyone of the house of Israel,” but also for “the aliens that sojourn among them” Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Yale Bible groups. Let us boldly affirm that apostolic decision and say: “God who knows the heart shows that he accepts Muslim and Hindu believers 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 heart by faith…We believe that it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are…therefore, we should not make it difficult for people in other religious cultures who are turning to Christ.” 􀀻􀀼􀀸􀀿 􀀼􀁥􀁛􀁥􀁦􀁫􀁜􀁪 1 Let me explicitly state that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the sole authority for our faith is the canonized Bible, and the body of Christ consists of all who put their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. 2 At the very end of Acts ( 28:17-29), Paul is in Rome talking to non-believing Jews who still view faith in Jesus as the Messiah to be a sect of Judaism. 3 Craig S. Keener in the IVP Bible Background Commentary on this verse notes that the term “Christian” was used not in a religious sense but a political one: “ ‘Christians’ occurs here as a nickname given by outsiders, and in 1 Peter 4:16, as something like a legal charge. The title is formed on the analogy of adherents to a political party: the ‘Caesarians,’ the ‘Herodians,’ the advocated for a Greek movement to God through Christ, spreading inside Greek culture, just as the Jewish movement to Christ was spreading inside the Jewish networks. He saw that the marvel of the gospel is that it has the power to save and transform people within any socio-religious context. That power brings far more glory to God than would be the case if God could only transform believers within a single religious construct. Rather than simply presenting a missiological strategy, Paul was setting a template for how the gospel penetrates radically different cultures. Today we have the opportunity to reaffirm the power of the gospel to move into other cultures and other religious frameworks, and transform them from the inside out. But if we demand that all believers adopt our own religious traditions and identity,16 then we are actually undermining the integrity of the gospel. We are subtly communicating that Jesus Christ cannot save people and gather them into His Kingdom without using other religious traditions and institutions of godly men who have gone before. We are saying that the gospel alone is not powerful enough to save to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:24-25 KJV). Today God is granting faith in Jesus Christ to Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in increasing numbers. They are believing in His death and resurrection on their behalf, receiving Him as their Lord and Savior, accepting the supreme authority of the Bible, and being transformed by the Holy Spirit. But they are not becoming “Christians” in name or adopting traditional Christian religious forms or identity. Could the gospel, stripped of 2000 years of godly writings and traditions, really be that powerful? I hope we can make the same decision that the apostles did in Acts 15. They welcomed Greek pagans as followers of Christ without requiring the Greek believers to adopt their own religious expression of that faith, opening the way of faith for all non-Jewish people Could the gospel, stripped of 2000 years of godly writings and traditions, really be that powerful? 􀁆􀁥􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁀􀁛􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀱􀀗􀁋􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁉􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗 􀀼􀁥􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩 􀂻􀁊􀁠􀁥􀁚􀁜􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰􀀗􀁛􀁜􀁭􀁜􀁣􀁦􀁧􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁘􀁣􀁪􀁦􀀗􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁪􀁧􀁦􀁥􀁪􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁎􀁜􀁪􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀀗􀁭􀁠􀁜􀁮􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀀤 􀁧􀁩􀁜􀁫􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁜􀀤􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁩􀁘􀁛􀁠􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀣􀀗􀁠􀁫􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁙􀁜􀀗􀁮􀁦􀁩􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁜􀁯􀁧􀁣􀁦􀁩􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁮􀁟􀁜􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁩􀁞􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁜􀁭􀁘􀁥􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁦􀁚􀁜􀁪􀁪􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁰􀁦􀁥􀁛􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀂲􀁎􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗 􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁠􀁤􀁧􀁦􀁩􀁫􀁘􀁥􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁚􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀀼􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁧􀁜􀀗􀁪􀁟􀁘􀁩􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁮􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁜􀀤􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁤􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁠􀀤 􀁫􀁘􀁞􀁜􀂲􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀼􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁧􀁜􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁪􀁫􀁦􀁩􀁰􀀗􀁪􀁬􀁞􀁞􀁜􀁪􀁫􀁪􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁤􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁞􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀼􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁧􀁜􀀗􀁨􀁬􀁠􀁚􀁢􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁚􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁥􀁫􀀗 􀁝􀁦􀁩􀁚􀁜􀀥􀀗􀁐􀁜􀁫􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁥􀁬􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁥􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁛􀁘􀁰􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁮􀁜􀁜􀁢􀀗􀁘􀁝􀁫􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁜􀀤􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁛􀁜􀁠􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁪􀀣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗 􀁧􀁩􀁜􀀤􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁜􀁣􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁛􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁮􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁜􀁣􀁜􀁙􀁩􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁝􀁜􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁭􀁘􀁣􀁪􀀣􀀗 􀁠􀁥􀁛􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁜􀁝􀁪􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁛􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁫􀀗􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁩􀁜􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁣􀁦􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀁟􀁦􀁣􀁛􀀗􀁬􀁧􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁧􀁜􀁦􀁧􀁣􀁜􀂾􀁪􀀗􀁤􀁠􀁥􀁛􀁪􀀥􀀗􀁀􀁫􀀗􀁤􀁘􀁰􀀗􀁙􀁜􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁧􀁧􀁦􀁩􀁫􀁬􀁥􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁣􀁦􀁪􀁫􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀀼􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁧􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀀗􀁘􀀗􀁪􀁜􀁩􀁠􀁦􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁚􀁩􀁜􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁭􀁜􀀗􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁜􀁥􀁚􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀀗 􀁙􀁜􀁫􀁮􀁜􀁜􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁤􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁫􀁩􀁘􀁛􀁠􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁪􀀣􀀗􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁙􀁜􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁞􀁘􀁠􀁥􀁜􀁛􀂲􀀥􀀽􀁦􀁩􀀣􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁭􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁙􀁜􀁜􀁥􀀗􀁝􀁦􀁩􀁚􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁛􀁦􀀗 􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁝􀁘􀁚􀁜􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁠􀁩􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁝􀁘􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁧􀁜􀁩􀁜􀁥􀁥􀁠􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁪􀁧􀁠􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁬􀁘􀁣􀁠􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁪􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗 􀁧􀁩􀁠􀁤􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁟􀁜􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁘􀁞􀁜􀀣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁭􀁠􀁥􀁞􀀗􀁫􀁦􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀁠􀁱􀁜􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁘􀁫􀀗􀁛􀁠􀁘􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁬􀁜􀀗􀁮􀁠􀁫􀁟􀁠􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁤􀁪􀁜􀁣􀁭􀁜􀁪􀀣􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀀤 􀁞􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁪􀀗􀁟􀁘􀁭􀁜􀀗􀀗􀁩􀁜􀁪􀁫􀁦􀁩􀁜􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁚􀁟􀁘􀁩􀁘􀁚􀁫􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰􀀗􀁘􀁪􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁠􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁣􀁣􀁜􀁚􀁫􀁬􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁚􀁫􀁠􀁭􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁥􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁝􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗 􀁮􀁠􀁫􀁟􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁥􀁦􀁥􀀤􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀀗􀁮􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁛􀀣􀀗􀁘􀁪􀀗􀁜􀁪􀁪􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁣􀁣􀁰􀀗􀁚􀁦􀁤􀁤􀁬􀁥􀁠􀁚􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁭􀁜􀀣􀀗􀁜􀁭􀁘􀁥􀁞􀁜􀁣􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁚􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁤􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁩􀁰􀀥􀂼 􀁂􀁮􀁘􀁤􀁜􀀗􀀹􀁜􀁛􀁠􀁘􀁢􀁦􀀣􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁪􀁬􀁪􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁠􀁥􀀗􀀸􀁝􀁩􀁠􀁚􀁘􀀣􀀗􀁧􀀥􀀬􀀯􀀤􀀬􀀰 􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁫􀁠􀁦􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁘􀁣􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀀽􀁩􀁦􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁠􀁪􀁪􀁠􀁦􀁣􀁦􀁞􀁰 􀀫􀀯 􀁋􀁟􀁜􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁫􀁜􀁞􀁩􀁠􀁫􀁰􀀗􀁦􀁝􀀗􀁫􀁟􀁜􀀗􀀾􀁦􀁪􀁧􀁜􀁣􀀗􀁘􀁥􀁛􀀗􀁀􀁥􀁪􀁠􀁛􀁜􀁩􀀗􀁄􀁦􀁭􀁜􀁤􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁪 ^^`bcedb_{15 This is exactly the charge Paul faced in Galatia. Longenecker notes: “Evidently the Judaizers were claiming that Paul only presented half a gospel in his evangelistic mission in Galatia, purposely trimming his message so as to gain a more favorable response.” Op. cit., S. 18 16 All through history the church has tended to slip into the mode of thinking that new people groups coming to Christ need to end up joining our form of the faith and looking like us. The Reformation broke the gospel loose from the Catholic stranglehold on the religious form of faith in Christ, much to their shock. Now we Protestants run the risk of being equally convinced that all new believers must follow Jesus the way we do, be “Christians” like us. Paul essentially said to the Jewish believers, “Let’s be honest, we are not even that good at our own version of the faith.” Let’s be humble and acknowledge that even our own evangelical Protestant forms of Christianity are not free from syncretism with our cultural values. And yet Christ is able to save us in the midst of it through our faith in Him. 11 Non-Jewish Christians were being more heavily persecuted in the Roman Empire than Jewish believers, who had an imperial exemption from emperor worship. Also Jewish believers experienced less persecution from fellow non-believing Jews if their sect was leading Gentiles to convert to Judaism. 12 The Judaizers wanted to be able to boast about conversions to their version of faith in Christ as if it were better, though they were not even practicing their own rules very well. Longenecker notes regarding this verse: “Probably, therefore, what Paul means here in 6:13 is that despite the loftiness of their assertions and their rigid theology, the Judaizers, at least in Paul’s eyes, fell short of keeping all the law scrupulously themselves.” Longenecker, Richard N.: Word Biblical Commentary : Galatians. electronic ed. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 1998 (Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary 41), S. 293 13 The term “Judaizers” was used only to refer to Jewish believers who added on to the gospel that conversion to Jewish religious forms and a Jewish religious identity was a requirement for salvation. Some today similarly teach that a conversion to Christ also requires a conversion to “Christian” religious forms and identity is a requirement for salvation. 14 The existing Jewish believers were focused on contextualization issues while Paul was trying to uphold the integrity of the gospel. The Jewish believers found it hard to accept it as a gospel issue. They wanted to add things on, like becoming kosher or getting circumcised, to ensure the Greeks were become true believers in their Messiah. It was hard for them to see how being better believers would undermine the gospel. They wanted to make sure that when the gospel went into the Greek culture it did not become syncretistic. They did not understand how that concern showed a lack of faith that the gospel by itself, through faith alone, was sufficient to not just save but transform those who believed it—to circumcise their hearts. Paul spends far more time warning believers about syncretism with their own perceived ideas of what “righteousness” looks like, a righteousness from any source other than faith in Jesus alone, than he spends warning about syncretism with pagan practices or beliefs. Why? Perhaps because it is this kind of ethnocentric syncretism that makes us unable to recognize and to receive as brothers those who are believing in Jesus, but staying significantly distinct from us. Commentaries, Yale University Press, 1998, p.557. These four laws were required in the Old Testament Law for those foreigners living among the Sons of Israel. It seems that James believed that only a few Gentiles would join the community of faith, and would be subsumed under and live among the Jewish community. 7 (Romans 14, I Corinthians 8, and 10:23-11:1) The rules concerning kosher food were necessary if Greek believers wanted to eat with Jewish believers; however, they would likewise hinder Greek believers from eating with their non-believing relatives, so Paul makes it a matter of doing what least offends the conscience of the person you are eating with, noting that idols are nothing and therefore meat offered to them is not significant either. It seems clear that Paul does not consider it “syncretistic” to adapt in this way. 8 Jonathan Edwards argued that all religions demonstrate characteristics like mystical experiences, miracles, speaking in tongues, rules for pious behavior, etc. He pointed out that the fruit of the Spirit, in particular the ability to love your enemy, is the only religious experience that Christ alone can produce (see his works: Treatise on Religious Affections, and The Nature of True Virtue). Neither “right doctrine” nor “right practice,” apart from the rebirth through the Holy Spirit, are transformative. 9 Does this mean people born into bad situations must remain there? No, because Paul makes clear that a slave should take the opportunity to become free. Today people group barriers are breaking down, and some people have lived in multiple cultures and are descended from many people groups, so the rule to remain in ones situation must be viewed in that context. 10 There are exceptions, Paul himself taking on the missionary call to incarnate in another culture. Missionaries adapt to the language and culture they are entering so that those they are witnessing can understand without knowing the missionary’s language or culture. Paul became like the Greeks culturally in order to reach them. He did not spend his time denouncing the goddess Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus, the center for worship of her. Instead he lifted up Christ. Paul did not ask the Greek believers to take on any of his religious forms or culture. He knew that the power for salvation lay in the gospel message itself. The transformed life came from the power of the Holy Spirit in ones life, which was dependent on hearing and believing the truth (Romans 15:17-21). Everything else was a distraction at best, “a different gospel” at worst._ 26:1 Spring 2009•16 All movements to Christ are amazing works of God! But not all movements are the same. How Is an “Insider Movement” Different from Other Movements to Christ? Three distinct types of movements to Christ among unreached peoples have been described in the last century: “insider movements,” “people movements,” and “church planting movements.” Insider movements can be defined as movements to obedient faith in Christ that remain integrated with or inside their natural community. In any insider movement there are two distinct elements: 1. The gospel takes root within pre-existing communities or social networks, which become the main expression of “church” in that context. Believers are not gathered from diverse social networks to create a “church.” New parallel social structures are not invented or introduced. 2. Believers retain their identity as members of their socio-religious community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible.1 In contrast, people movements—identified by J. Waskom Pickett (1933), then analyzed by Donald McGavran (1950)—are mass movements in which whole communities decide as a group to leave their former religious affiliation in order to become Christians. People movements, like insider movements, keep the community intact, but unlike insider movements, the community’s religious affiliation and identity are changed. Believers in the third type of movements, church planting movements (CPMs), as described by David Garrison, also “make a clean break with their former religion and redefine themselves with a distinctly Christian identity.” 2 CPMs promote movements by simplifying church structure and empowering local leaders, but they do not require3 either of the two key elements of insider movements. Usually CPMs consist of newly created fellowships with a clear Christian identity, which tends to associate them with Western Christianity. In all three types of movements, those coming to Christ share a new spiritual identity as members of the kingdom of God and disciples of Jesus Christ. But by Rebecca Lewis Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community International Journal of Frontier Missiology TRebecca Lewis has worked with her husband in Muslim ministries for 15 years, eight of which were spent in North Africa. She has also taught history at the university level for the last 8 years. Additional Perspectives 17 26:1 Spring 2009 Rebecca Lewis in the case of insider movements alone, this new spiritual identity is not combined with a change of socio-politicalreligious identity. The Scriptures seem to indicate that this identity, and the community a person is born into, were determined in advance by God. For example, Paul declares to the Athenians that God “made every nation of men . . . and determined the times set for them and the exact places they should live” (Acts 17:26). When we encourage believers to remain in their families and networks, and to retain their birth identities, we honor these God-given relationships. Let us examine more closely the two elements of an insider movement, as well as their biblical basis. 1. Pre-existing Communities Become the Church How can the gospel take root within pre-existing communities, in such a way that the community or network becomes the main expression of “church” in that context? To understand why this factor is important in insider movements, let’s contrast planting a church with implanting a church.4 Typically, when people “plant a church” they create a new social group. Individual believers, often strangers to one another, are gathered together into new fellowship groups. Church planters try to help these individual believers become like a family or a community. This pattern of “aggregate church” planting (also termed the “attractional model” 5) can work in individualistic Western societies. However, in societies with tightly-knit communities, the community is undermined when believers are taken out of their families into new authority structures. The affected families frequently perceive the new group as having “stolen” their relative, and the spread of the gospel is understandably opposed. Even if the new fellowship group is very contextualized to the culture, the community feels threatened and the believers feel torn between their family and the group.6 By contrast, a church is “implanted” when the Gospel takes root within a pre-existing community and, like yeast, spreads within that community. No longer does a new group try to become like a family; instead, the God-given family or social group becomes the church. The strong relational bonds already exist; what is new is their commitment to Jesus Christ. Believers within the pre-existing family or community network gradually learn how to provide spiritual fellowship for each other and testimonies and praise arise within their everyday interactions (as in Deuteronomy 6:6-9). The joy of the believers begins to infect the whole group. This type of church (also termed the “transformational model” 7) was birthed in many households in Acts, such as those of Cornelius, Lydia and the Philippian jailer. The redemption of pre-existing communities is a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:3, 28:14). When the gospel is implanted in this manner, the families and clans that God created are redeemed and transformed, instead of broken apart. The larger community and society are also blessed in significant ways, as believers mature spiritually while remaining within their relational networks. The gospel is not seen as a threat to the community, and an insider movement develops as the gospel flows into neighboring relational networks. Because believers remain in their families and networks, insider movements honor God-given community. 2. Believers Retain Their Socio- Religious Identity In many countries today, it is almost impossible for a new follower of Christ to remain in vital relationship with their community without also retaining their socio-religious identity. In these places, the term “Christian” does not mean a sincere believer in Jesus Christ. In India, for example, “Christian” has become a socio-religious-political category (like Muslim, Hindu, Tribal, etc.) written on one’s identity card at birth. Though the categories may vary, similar practices exist in other countries as well. Changing one’s identity from “Muslim” or “Hindu” to “Christian” is often illegal or is viewed as betrayal by one’s family and friends. However, the gospel can still spread freely in such places when insider believers gain a new spiritual identity, living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible, but retain their socio-religious identity. Retaining Identity: Is It Biblical? Does one have to go through Christianity to enter God’s family? The New Testament addresses a nearly identical question: “Do all believers in Jesus Christ have to go through Judaism in order to enter God’s family?” It is important to realize that, for both questions, the nature of the gospel itself is at stake. The woman at the well in John 4 at first refused Jesus’ offer of eternal life because, as a Samaritan, she followed an Abrahamic religion that the Jews reviled as corrupt. As a result, she could not go to the temple or become a Jew. But Jesus distinguished true faith from religious affiliation, saying God was seeking “true worshipers who worship the Father in spirit and truth” (v. 19-24). Realizing that Jesus was “the Savior of the world” (v. 42), not just of the Jews, many Samaritans in her town believed. Later in Acts we see that Samaritan believers remained in their own communities and retained their Samaritan identity (Acts 8:14-17). But at first the disciples did not understand that just as they could remain Jews and follow Jesus, the Samaritans could also remain Samaritan. Let’s contrast planting a church with implanting a church. International Journal of Frontier Missiology 18 Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community Kingdom Circles This diagram distinguishes between two kinds of identity: spiritual and socio-religious. The center circle represents the Kingdom of God. People gain a new spiritual identity by entering God’s Kingdom through transforming faith in Jesus Christ. The other circles represent various socio-religious identities. Figure 1 shows that many Jews in the book of Acts followed Jesus as Lord and thus entered the Kingdom of God (A). These early disciples gained a new spiritual identity but retained their Jewish socio-religious identity, continuing to follow the Jewish law and worship at the temple alongside non-believing Jews (B). Figure 2 likewise shows that many Gentiles in Acts followed Jesus as Lord and entered the Kingdom (C), though most Gentiles remained non-believers (D). In Acts 15, some Jewish believers insisted that non- Jews had to join the socio-religious system of Judaism to be saved (E). Paul disagreed and brought the issue before the apostles in Jerusalem. The apostles became convinced, by both the Scriptures and the fact that God gave the Holy Spirit to these Gentile believers, that non-Jews did not have to “go through” Judaism to enter the Kingdom of God. Figure 3 shows the situation we face today. Over the centuries, “Christianity” has become a socio-religious system encompassing much more than simply faith in Christ. It involves various cultural traditions, religious forms, and ethnic or political associations. While many people who call themselves Christians have truly believed in Christ and entered the Kingdom of God (F), others have not, though they may attend church (G). The Acts 15 question is still relevant today: Must people with a distinctly non-Christian (especially non-Western) identity “go through” the socio-religious systems of “Christianity” in order to become part of God’s Kingdom (H)? Or can they enter the Kingdom of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone and gain a new spiritual identity while retaining their own community and socioreligious identity (I)? that God promised Abraham that all people groups would receive the Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Galatians 3:8-26). As a result, Paul publicly rebuked Peter and Barnabas for “not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel” when they “forced Gentiles to follow Jewish customs” (Galatians 2:11-21). Paul warned that to add religious conversion to following Christ would nullify the gospel. He also affirmed that not through any religion but “through the gospel the Gentiles are made heirs together in the promise of Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6). Thus, the gospel reveals that a person can gain a new spiritual identity without leaving one’s birth identity, and without taking on a new socio-religious label or going through the religion of either Judaism or Christianity. The “Kingdom Circles” sidebar below Christ, and the guidance of Scripture (Acts 15:5-19). First, they heard that the Holy Spirit had descended on believers from a pagan background who were not practicing the Jewish religion. Second, they realized the Scriptures had predicted that this would happen. These two criteria were sufficient for the apostles to conclude that God was behind this new movement of believers who were remaining Gentile. Therefore, they did not oppose it or add on demands for religious conversion. If we use the same two criteria today, insider movements affirm that people do not even have to go through the religion of Christianity, but only through Jesus Christ, to enter God’s family. Paul wanted people to understand that this truth has been part of the gospel from the beginning. He pointed out Then the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles that even the Gentile believers from pagan backgrounds did not have to go through Judaism in order to enter God’s family (Acts 15). In Antioch, Jewish believers were telling Gentile believers they must become Jews to be fully acceptable to God. Paul disagreed and brought the issue to the lead apostles in Jerusalem. The issue was hotly debated because the Jews had believed for centuries that conversion to the Jewish religion was required to become part of the people of God. But the Holy Spirit showed the Jewish apostles they should not “burden” Gentile followers of Christ with their religious traditions and forms (Acts 15:19, 28). Two Criteria To make this decision, the apostles used two criteria: the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles coming to 􀀺 􀁁􀁬􀁛􀁘􀁠􀁪􀁤 􀁁􀁬􀁛􀁘􀁠􀁪􀁤 􀁁􀁬􀁛􀁘􀁠􀁪􀁤 􀀻 􀀼 􀀾􀁜􀁥􀁫􀁠􀁣􀁜􀁪 􀁋􀁟􀁩􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀀗􀁁􀁜􀁮􀁠􀁪􀁟􀁚􀁬􀁣􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀶 􀀿 􀁋􀁟􀁩􀁦􀁬􀁞􀁟􀀗􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥 􀁚􀁬􀁣􀁫􀁬􀁩􀁜􀀶 􀁅􀁦􀁥􀀤 􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥 􀂻􀀺􀁟􀁩􀁠􀁪􀁫􀁠􀁘􀁥􀁠􀁫􀁰􀂼 􀀽 􀀾 􀁀 􀀸 􀀹 􀁁􀁬􀁛􀁘􀁠􀁪􀁤 Kingdom of God Kingdom of God Kingdom of God Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 19 26:1 Spring 2009 Rebecca Lewis illustrates this issue. Because believers retain their birth identity, insider movements honor God-given identity. A New Creation in an Old Environment So, what do we do when working in unreached people groups with strong community structures? Can we see that the Muslims are like our Samaritans, with their Abrahamic religion, and the Hindus are like our Gentiles, with their idols and temples? Yet, like the Samaritans and the Gentiles, through the gospel alone they can be made heirs together with us in the promise of Christ Jesus. So how can we emphasize the gospel, not religious conversion? How can we encourage the gospel to take root within their God-given communities, redeeming and transforming them? Here are some suggestions: 1. When entering a community, look for a person seeking God who wants to invite you into their family or community to talk about Jesus. Invest in those people as a group. “Do not move around from house to house.” (Luke 10:7)8 2. When witnessing, tell people they do not have to join a “Christian people group” in order to be saved. Instead, point them directly to a relationship with God through Christ. Many have been taught that Jesus is only the Savior of the “Christians,” instead of the Savior of the world. Help them understand this idea is not true, like Jesus did in John 4:23. 3. If well-meaning Christians tell seekers that they must come to God not just through Christ but also through Christianity, help the Christians understand this requirement is “not in line with the truth of the Gospel” (Galatians 2:14-21, 3:6-9,14, 5:6, 6:12-16; Ephesians 3:6; I Corinthians 7:17-19; Colossians 2:16-23, Acts 10 and 15). 4. When discipling, encourage believers to remain within their God-given communities. Show them that Jesus said they will be like “yeast in the dough” or “a light that illumines the whole household.” Help them become the church within their own pre-existing communities, instead of isolating themselves by joining a group outside their community for fellowship. Encourage believers to study the Word together within their communities and to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit (John 16:14, Acts 20:32). Trust the Holy Spirit, as the apostles did, to guide the new believers and to redeem their pagan or heretical religious practices as He chooses, which may vary from one insider movement to another. Let the nations be glad that they too have direct access to God through Jesus Christ! This is the power of the gospel! IJFM Endnotes 1 Lewis 2007, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,” p. 75, IJFM 24:2 2 Garrison 2004, Church Planting Movements vs. Insider Movements, p. 154, IJFM 21:4 3 Garrison points out that using family networks to spread the gospel is a common, but not universal, factor in CPMs. See Garrison (2000), Church Planting Movements booklet, Office of Overeseas Operations, International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, pp. 37-38. Note however that in CPMs, the formation of new structures is assumed. 4 In both cases, the assumption is being made that “a church” is not a building, institution, or meeting, but a functional local community of mutually supportive believers under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. 5 See Andrea Gray and Leith Gray, “Paradigms and Praxis: Part I: Social Networks and Fruitfulness in Church Planting,” p. 20, this issue of IJFM. 6 Some people equate C5 churches with insider movements. However, not all C5 communities result in insider movements. For an insider movement to occur, C5 believers must remain genuine members of their family and community networks, not creating odd or competing religious institutions or events. 7 See Gray and Gray, p. 20, this issue. 8 Frequently in insider movements, an individual will believe first and then invite the “outsider” witness into their community, as happened in John 4. Sometimes, however, the insider believer will spread the gospel through their networks by themselves, and the outsider will never enter their communities. 24:2 Summer 2007•75 Toward Defining Insider Movements An “insider movement” is any movement1 to faith in Christ where a) the gospel flows through pre-existing communities and social networks, and where b) believing families, as valid expressions of the Body of Christ, remain inside their socioreligious communities, retaining their identity as members of that community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. Two Distinctives 1) Pre-existing families and social groupings develop into fellowships of believers as they become followers of Christ; so the pre-existing community becomes the church, rather than a new social group being created or “planted” as a church. Current church-planting methodology has inadvertently tended to promote a modern Western paradigm of church formation based on Western individualism. This model, which consists of gathering together individual believers (often former strangers) into new “communities” of faith, results in what can be called “aggregate churches.” While the aggregate-church model works well in highly individualistic Western cultures (e.g., the US), most of world, including most of the remaining unreached peoples, live in cultures that have strong family and community structures. In such societies, the process of forming aggregate churches tends to extract believers from their families and pre-existing networks of relationships, significantly harming these relationships. The new aggregate church of extracted believers is rarely able to either provide the community support thereby lost or to continue to spread the gospel through its members’ families, who now perceive the “church” as having “stolen” their relative or friend. Meanwhile, the New Testament also affirms an alternative church model, the oikos or household-based church, where families and their pre-existing relational networks become the church as the gospel spreads in their midst. The God-given family and clan structures are thereby supported and transformed from unbelieving communities into largely believing communities. Decisions to follow Christ are often more communal rather than individual (see NT examples in Acts: Cornelius, Lydia, Crispus, etc.) The destruction of the families and the creation of by Rebecca Lewis Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities International Journal of Frontier Missiology Insider Movements: The Conversation Continues Editor’s Note: In April 2007, the IJFM sponsored a face-to-face discussion on “insider movements,” involving over twenty participants, most of whom have personal acquaintance with these movements. Following that meeting, Rebecca Lewis, with input from the others, formulated the following definition and distinctives of “insider movements” in an attempt to clarify the discussion. Rebecca Lewis is instructor of History at William Carey International University. She has worked with her husband Tim in Muslim ministries for 15 years, eight of which were spent in North Africa. International Journal of Frontier Missiology Promoting Movements to Christ within 76 Natural Communities semi-functional, extracted, new communities of believers-only is thereby avoided, and the gospel continues to flow along preserved relational pathways. The movement to Christ has thus remained inside the fabric of the society and community. In “insider movements,” therefore, there is no attempt to form neo-communities of “believers-only” that compete with the family network (no matter how contextualized); instead, “insider movements” consist of believers remaining in and transforming their own pre-existing family networks, minimally disrupting their families and communities. These believing families and their relational networks are valid local expressions of the Body of Christ, fulfilling all the “one another” care seen in the book of Acts, and so they do not need to adopt the meeting and program structures common in Western aggregate churches. 2) The believing families in insider movements remain inside their socioreligious communities by retaining their given birth identity while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible. The new spiritual identity of believing families in insider movements is in being followers of Jesus Christ and members of His global kingdom, not necessarily in being affiliated with or accepted by the institutional forms of Christianity that are associated with traditionally Christian cultures. They retain their temporal identity in their natural socioreligious community, while living transformed lives due to their faith in Christ. As Jews, the Apostles initially thought that conversion to the Jewish religion, including physical circumcision, was required to follow Jesus. Learning otherwise was a paradigm shift. Through a vision, Peter was the first to understand that they were no longer to call the Gentiles unclean. All of the Apostles later came to a unity of understanding that it was not necessary for Gentiles to convert to the Jewish religion. Further, it was preferable that they not convert, but remain as they were when God called them (I Cor. 7: 17-24). Jesus Himself had previously affirmed to the Samaritan woman, and later to her whole town, that true faith is not limited to Jewish religious forms, but consists in worshipping God in spirit and in truth. Followers of Jesus were first called Christians (meaning, of the Anointed One or Messiah) in Antioch (Acts 11:26) in the first century when Gentiles were coming to Christ. However, Christianity—as a variety of traditional practices, religious systems and institutions— developed over the centuries that followed. The colonial power of Roman Catholic and Protestant “Christian” nations gave political and ethnic meanings to the words “Christian” and “Christianity” globally, making the terms increasingly unacceptable to some major blocs of unreached people groups around the world. Just as the Apostles freed the Gentiles from any perceived need to convert to the Jewish religion, today we should likewise free people groups from the counter-productive burden of socioreligious conversion and the constraints of affiliation with the term “Christianity” and with various religious institutions and traditions of Christendom. We must once more affirm with Paul and the Apostles that the obedience of faith in God through Christ alone is sufficient for salvation and that His Word, His Spirit, and the fellowship of the saints is sufficient for spiritual growth. IJFM Endnote 1 “Movement”: Any situation where the Kingdom of God is growing rapidly without dependence on direct outside involvement. Please note that Garrison (2004) has defined “church planting movements,” as opposed to “insider movements”, in the following manner: “Church Planting Movements, though opting for indigenous house church models rather than traditional church structures, nevertheless make a clean break with their former religion and redefine themselves with a distinctly Christian identity. The resulting movement is indigenously led and locally contextualized.” (Garrison 2004, “Church Planting Movements vs. Insider Movements, p.154, IJFM 21:4). So the main differences between “insider movements” and “church planting movements” lie in the nature of the “house churches” (pre-existing social networks turning to Christ rather than artificial aggregate groupings) and the social identity of those involved (retained versus changed). In both movements the churches are not institutionalized, and the people in both movements share a new spiritual identity as members of the Kingdom of God and disciples of Jesus Christ. In the case of “insider movements”, however, this new spiritual identity is not confused or eclipsed by a new social identity. A Note about the C-scale, by Rebecca Lewis In 1998, John Travis proposed a scale, C1-C6, six types of “Christ-centered Communities,” found in Muslim contexts. Since then, many have interpreted the “C” to stand for contextualization—which was not the original intent—because these fellowships were compared to Western churches and how much they retained Islamic identity, forms and practices as opposed to Western Christian identity and forms. In my view, “insider movements” are distinct from the C-scale in that, regardless of how Western or non-Western their forms, all that matters is that no new communities (no “aggregate churches”) are formed to extract believers from their pre-existing families and networks, so that they naturally retain their former identity. As such, “insider movements” can take place within any socioreligious context, Western or not (such as Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese Communist, etc.), as long as believers remain inside their families, networks and communities, retaining the socioreligious identity of that group. So, while their new spiritual identity is in following Jesus Christ, and they gladly identify themselves with Him, they remain in their birth family and community and retain the temporal identity of their familial socioreligious context. A C5 church might or might not have developed along the lines of natural social networks, and it might or might not be part of a movement and is therefore distinct from “insider movements.” “Messianic synagogues,” for example, though highly contextualized in forms to religious Judaism, are not an “insider movement” because they are neither flowing through Jewish family networks nor have they succeeded in retaining an acceptably Jewish identity among Jews. Messianic mosques and messianic ashrams often suffer the same fate, following an aggregate model of fellowship formation instead of letting the gospel flow through pre-existing natural communities.  by Rick BrownWhile Evangelicals are basically united in their proclamation of salvation bygrace through faith, and while most agree that faith is a personal relationshipwith Christ rather than a belief in a list of doctrines, there seems to be some disa-greement and confusion among field workers (missionaries) about what one mustactually believe about Jesus in order to put faith in him sufficient for salvation. Forsurprisingly many people, saving faith is a belief in the vicarious substitutionarypunishment of Christ, i.e., Anselm’s theory of the atonement. If one accepts this doc-trine, one is saved, otherwise one is lost. One mission has expanded this to a list oftwenty doctrines that one must believe to be saved, almost all of them concernedwith mankind’s guilt and Jesus’ vicarious punishment. Although this doctrine can befully justified from Scripture, it wasn’t developed until the 11th century, and it is notpart of the public proclamation of the Gospel recorded in the Bible.1 If belief in itwere essential to salvation, then the Apostles failed to preach the Gospel and no onewas saved until Archbishop Anselm propagated this doctrine in the church.the sinner’s prayer myself, I haveAnother large mission had a list of doctrines which a person must believe before he ornoticed that there is nothing remotelysimilar to it in the Bible, in spite of theshe can be considered saved, including the inerrancy of the Bible and the Trinity, butmany accounts of preaching and con-not Anselm’s theory of the atonement. For one group the focus was on Jesus as asubstitutionary sacrifice, in the second the focus was on Jesus as the second personversion. This leads one to suspect thatGod could save people without it. Theof the Trinity.2curious thing is that God does saveA person with a third group said the critical doctrine was to believe that Jesus is God. Iwithout it. Particularly in the Muslimasked what Scripture that was based on and was given John 8:24: “for you will dieworld, many people want to knowin your sins unless you believe that I am he.” This popular interpretation ignores thewhom to follow. They want to knowfact that (1) when Jesus was subsequently asked who he is, he called himself “thewhere the truth lies. It is scandalous inSon of Man” (8:25-28), and (2) the similarity between this verse and Exodus 3:14their society even to ask this question,exists only in the Latin and certain English translations, but not in the Greek nor infor it is considered apostasy even tothe Hebrew. So even though Jesus is God, he was not saying “You must believe thatdoubt the religion into which they wereI am Yahweh to be saved.”born. But these brave people ask God tolead them to the truth, Jesus appears toThere are yet others who believe that one cannot be saved without saying the “sinner’sthem in a dream or vision and callsprayer.” Christians in this stream will not distribute the Jesus film or tapes of thethem to follow him, and they becomeGospels unless they conclude with something like the four spiritual laws and the sin-followers of Christ, sometimes at greatner’s prayer. The reason for this position is that without them the Gospels them-cost. But some missionaries remainselves, whether on tape, video or print “do not include the Gospel.” Although I useuncertain about the salvation of these What Must One Believe aboutJesus for Salvation?There seems to exist considerable disagreement among field workers about what one must actuallybelieve about Jesus in order to put faith in him sufficient for salvation. Here the author describes beliefs necessary and unnecessary for saving faith. These are based upon a list of Scripture passages thatexemplify sufficient as well as insufficient faith in Christ the Lord. International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 17:4, Winter 2000  International Journal of Frontier Missionsnew believers, even if their lives aremust believe before one can exercise faith in Christ adequate for salvation? Johnfull of testimonies of God’s grace,Murray (1977:259) writes, “To require of sinners that they give assent to the propo-because they have not said the sinner’ssitions is to contradict truth and the consciousness of the sinner himself. ... Faith isprayer. So the missionaries seek, notin its essence commitment to Christ that we may be saved”. What he means is thatjust to teach these precious believers,sinners are unable to understand Christian doctrine until after they have been bornbut to reconvert them in accordanceagain through accepting Christ as Lord. Charles Hodge appears to disagree. Hewith their own traditions regarding cri-notes that while faith is trust in Christ, there are certain facts one must believe aboutteria for salvation.him before one would be willing to trust him. He discusses accepting Christ for allthat he claims to be, but ends up with the following conclusion:The Scriptures teach that one is saved byfaith in Jesus, but what does savingSo what the penitent sinner believes is that God for Christ’s sake is reconciled tofaith entail? It is clear from the Scrip-him. It may be with a very dim and doubtful vision he apprehends that truth; buttures on the one hand that a person isthat is the truth on which his trust is stayed. (1874:102)saved, not by doctrine per se, nor byBoth men were great and godly Evangelical theologians and should be taken quite seri-special prayers, but by personal faith inJesus as Christ his Lord.3ously. C. H. Dodd (1936) analyzed all of the New Testament passages that report “But to allwho received him, who believed in histhe content of the Gospel that was preached by the Apostles. He notes a large num-name, he gave power to become chil-ber of common elements, usually in the same order. Basically they proclaimed:dren of God” (John 1:12).4 Faith thusthe fulfillment of prophecy in Jesus the Messiah, involves both a belief about the namethe inauguration of God’s Kingdom with his ministry, of Christ (meaning the role of Christ),the basics about his life and death, and a relationship with him based onhis resurrection and exaltation to power at the right hand of God, receiving him in that role. One believeshis second coming as king to judge all people, that Jesus is who he says he is, and oneand to usher in the new age for those who are saved from wrath, trusts him and personally accepts himfollowed by a call to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.in that capacity. So the question is,But the Apostolic preaching did not always include all of these points, and some of“What must one minimally believethem are clearly not essential to the same degree as others. The object at hand is notabout Jesus, about his name and role,to discover all the elements of the Gospel message that should be preached, asin order to put faith in him adequate toimportant as that is, but to identify the core beliefs about the “name” (role and posi-enter the Kingdom and be saved fromtion) of Jesus which are essential to believe for salvation. Fortunately there are manycondemnation?” Scripture passages that state what people should believe about Jesus to be saved orwhat they did believe when they were saved. These passages will be presentedBeliefs Necessary for below, but the conclusion to which they lead is a simple gospel indeed: what isSaving Faithrequired for salvation is a personal decision to accept and follow Jesus as (1) theLord Christ, who conquered death, who now rules from heaven and is coming againAre there propositional truths which oneto judge the living and the dead, and (2) who will save his people from hell andusher them into the eternal Kingdom. Those who put their faith in him receive theforgiveness of sins, the rebirth and guidance of the Holy Spirit, salvation from hell,We need to and assurance of eternal life in the Kingdom of God. These essential beliefs can beidentify the coresummarized by subsuming part (1) under the title ‘Lord’ or ‘Christ’, if these areunderstood, and (2) under the title ‘Savior’, if understood. In this form, we can statebeliefs about thethe required belief for salvation as the belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and theÒnameÓ (role andrequired faith as a personal acceptance of him in that capacity. This constitutes sav-ing faith.position) of Jesuswhich are essentialBeliefs Unnecessary for Salvationto believe for What beliefs are not essential to salvation, even if they are important for discipleship?salvation.There is no verse that says one must understand the divinity of Jesus to be saved.Biblical passages on the divinity of Christ are addressed to those who have already There is no statement that one must believe Jesus is the Lamb of God or Word or Wisdom of Godor God himself incarnate. There is no requirement forbelief in the virgin birth or the Trinity. . . Seekersmust simply receive Him as their Lord and SaviorÑan act which also implies repentancefrom what is contrary to his lordship. believed in Jesus as the Christ their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, it is not statedthat one must understand the manner in which Christ’s death atoned for man’s sins.His atonement is effective for his believing followers whether they understand it ornot. The closest thing to mentioning the atonement in evangelism is found in Acts8, where it says that Philip began his message with the text in Isaiah 53 that thenot mention what one must believe aboutEthiopian official was reading. Elsewhere in Acts, the death and resurrection ofJesus, and therefore is not included.6Christ is presented as an act of power that demonstrates that Jesus is the ChristMessiah; it is the sign of Jonah that Jesus foretold, but it is not generally pro-Jesus tells the woman in Luke 7:50 that herclaimed as a sacrifice for sins or as a punishment for sins. Its redemptive value isfaith has saved her, but the content of theexplained to people after they have believed, as seen in the Epistles and in John’sfaith is not mentioned (although it mustwritings (e.g., John 11:50-51; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Rev 1:5).5have been directed towards Jesus). InLuke 10:20 he assures his disciples thatThese doctrines about the deity of Jesus and his substitutionary punishment are won-their "names are written in heaven" butderful parts of the Good News, and it is worthwhile discussing them with seekers,there is no accompanying statement ofas Paul demonstrated in Romans. But the overwhelming Biblical witness is thatwhat they believed. although these doctrines are important for the disciple to understand, an under-standing of them is not required for salvation. If we tell people that they cannot be[NB: It would not be useful to present thissaved until they know and have been convinced of these additional doctrines, thenlist of passages to an inquirer. Thesewe are creating obstacles for them. (Jesus warned us about that.) How can theyverses use technical terms that needunderstand these things before they are born again? God’s prevenient grace is suffi-explanation, and they have been removedcient to convict people that they should accept Christ, but they really need the Holyfrom their contexts. Seekers need to beSpirit to go further, and that is not received in full until one actually receives Christexposed to extended passages of Scrip-as Lord and Savior.ture, so that it can work its powerfulgrace in their hearts and minds. ThesePassages Exemplifying Sufficient Beliefsverses are presented so that you, theChristian worker, can thoughtfully exam-The main passages are presented below, in Biblical order, for the reader to examine. (Iine them, preferably in their original con-would encourage the readers, if they have not already done so, to read my articletexts.]on the Messianic titles in IJFM Vol. 17:1, pages 39-50 before reading the Scrip-tures below.) These passages were chosen, not just because they gave names toBut the centurion answered him,"Lord, I am not worthy to have youJesus or talked of someone’s faith, but because in some way they indicated criteriacome under my roof; but only sayfor salvation with regard to faith in Christ Jesus. The focus is on saving faith, notthe word, and my servant will befaith to be fruitful or move mountains, nor on beliefs about other issues. Statementshealed. For I am a man underabout Jesus are included only if they bear on the issue of beliefs essential for salva-authority, with soldiers under me;tion. Criteria such as repentance and baptism are not included unless they bear onand I say to one, `Go,' and he goes,what one must believe about Jesus. For example, in the long ending to Mark itand to another, `Come,' and hesays, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believecomes, and to my slave, `Do this,'and he does it." When Jesus heardwill be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This verse teaches salvation by faith, but it doesVol. 17:4, Winter 2000 International Journal of Frontier Missionshim, he marveled, and said toTruly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me,those who followed him, "Truly, Ihas eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death tosay to you, not even in Israel havelife. (John 5:24 and 6:29; 16:30). [One is required to believe that Jesus isI found such faith. I tell you,whoever he says he is.] many will come from east andwest and sit at table with Abra- Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words ofham, Isaac, and Jacob in the king-eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holydom of heaven, while the sons ofOne of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and onethe kingdom will be thrown intoof you is a devil?” (John 6:68-70) [In Acts 4:30 Jesus is called God’s Holy Ser-the outer darkness; there men willvant.]weep and gnash their teeth." Andto the centurion Jesus said, "Go;‘for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.6’ They said to him,be it done for you as you have‘Who are you?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Even what I have told you from the begin-believed." And the servant wasning.7 ... When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I amhealed at that very moment. (Matt.he, ...’ As he spoke thus, many believed in him. (John 8:24-30).8:8-13)[Jesus asked the blind man he had healed] “Do you believe in the Son of man?’[The thief on the cross] “said, He answered, ‘And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?’ Jesus said to him,‘Jesus, remember me when you‘You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.’ He said, ‘Lord, I believe’;come into your kingdom.’ And heand he worshiped him.” (John 9:35-37)said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you,today you will be with me in Para-Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me,dise.’” (Lk 23:42-43) [i.e., thethough he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall neverthief believed that Jesus is Christdie. Do you believe this?” She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are thethe King]Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.” (John 11:25-27)And as Moses lifted up the serpentbut these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son ofin the wilderness, so must the SonGod, and that believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)of man be lifted up, that whoeverbelieves in him may have eternalLet all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him bothlife. For God so loved the worldLord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this theythat he gave his only Son, thatwere cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren,whoever believes in him shouldwhat shall we do?”And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every onenot perish but have eternal life.of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall(John 3:14-16) [titles equivalent toreceive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36-38)‘Lord Christ’] the Holy and Righteous One ... the Author of life ... his Christ ... the Christappointed for you, Jesus.... God, having raised up his servant, sent him to youThe experience of first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness.” ... Butmany of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came tomany Christianabout five thousand. (Acts 3:14, 4:4)workers is that afterBut when they believed Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdomseekers accept Christof God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.(Acts 8:12)as their personal LordYou know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace byand Savior,Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), (Acts 10.36)10... And he commanded us toeverything changes.preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judgeof the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that every oneTheir old objectionswho believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” While Peterwas still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. (Acts 10:42-begin to melt away as44) ... “... God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed inthe Lord Jesus Christ ... “ (Acts 11:17)they embrace theirSavior for everythingAnd they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and yourhousehold.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were inHe is. his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed theirwounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family. (Acts 16:31-33)9 Vol. 17:4, Winter 2000“The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men every-where to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world inrighteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assu-rance to all men by raising him from the dead. But some men joined him andbelieved....” (Acts 17:30-34)When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for hepowerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christwas Jesus. (Acts 18:27-28)testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance to God and of faith in ourLord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the peopleto believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this,heaven and theirs is the kingdom.they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4-5)These passages present the Gospel butif you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Goddo not answer our specific question.raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)There are also a number of passageswhere the "name" of Jesus is pro-[We] know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith inclaimed and where the context sug-Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified bygests that belief in this "name" shouldfaith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall nobe sufficient grounds for saving faith,one be justified. (Galatians 2.16) .... I have been crucified with Christ; it is nowithout saying as much. Some of theselonger I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh Iare as follows:live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gala-tians 2:20)And the angel said to them, "Benot afraid; for behold, I bring youIndeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowinggood news of a great joy whichChrist Jesus my Lord. ..., not having a righteousness of my own, based on law,will come to all the people; for tobut that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that dependsyou is born this day in the city ofon faith; (Philippians 3:8-9)David a Savior, who is Christ theLord. (Luke 2:10-11)Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every onewho loves the parent loves the child. (1 John 5:1) .... Who is it that overcomes theAnd it had been revealed to himworld but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:5)by the Holy Spirit that he shouldnot see death before he had seenThe reader can see that salvation is offered to those who put their faith in Jesus as theirthe Lord's Christ. And inspired byLord Messiah, the Christ, where ‘Christ’ means the Savior-King sent by God. Theirthe Spirit he came into the temple;faith in Jesus as their Lord the Christ can be expressed using a number of differentand when the parents brought inthe child Jesus, to do for himMessianic titles. These include the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into theaccording to the custom of theworld, the Son of Man, the Lord, and others. All of these Messianic titles refer to thelaw, he took him up in his armsroles of Christ. There is no statement that one must believe Jesus is the Lamb ofand blessed God and said, "Lord,God or Image or Word or Wisdom of God incarnate or even that he is God himselfnow lettest thou thy servantincarnate. There is no requirement for belief in the virgin birth nor the Trinity ordepart in peace, according to thyother such teachings. There is no statement saying that people must use one particu-word; for mine eyes have seen thylar title for Jesus in order to be saved. They must simply receive him as their Lordsalvation which thou hast pre-and Savior, an act which also implies repentance from what is contrary to his lord-pared in the presence of all peo-ship. These other doctrines although true and important, can make the Gospel moreples, a light for revelation to theappealing in many cases, but we should not confuse importance with necessity.10Gentiles, and for glory to thy peo-ple Israel." (Luke 2:26-32)Passages Implying Sufficient Faith And many more believed becausebut Lacking Detailsof his word. They said to thewoman, "It is no longer becauseIn the Gospels, Jesus calls people to trust him as sent from God and become his disci-of your words that we believe, forples, and this seems to be the basis for their salvation. Their names are written inwe have heard for ourselves, and International Journal of Frontier Missionswe know that this is indeed theHim as Christ their Lord. That was enough. Although Jesus’ disciples marveled atSavior of the world." (John 4:41-His God-likeness, they did not understand His divinity or his being the Word until42)they had received the Holy Spirit. Some passages affirm the salvation ofI am not suggesting that we should not present the whole work and person of Christ,those whose lives show that they haveonly that we should not tell people that they cannot be saved until they understandaccepted Jesus as their Lord: and accept it all. Why not? Because this is not the way the Bible does it. If we dosay it then it puts up obstacles which will discourage many people from acceptingAnd every one who has leftChrist by telling them they don’t qualify. Seekers struggle with these issues, espe-houses or brothers or sisters orcially Muslims, and they get sidetracked by them from the central issue—their rela-father or mother or children ortionship with Christ. If seekers reach an impasse on these issues but believe thatlands, for my name's sake, willJesus really is God’s provision as Lord and Savior, then it is best to encourage themreceive a hundredfold, and inheritto put those other issues on the shelf for a time and simply pray to receive Christ aseternal life. (Matthew 19:29)their Lord and Savior. The experience of many Christian workers is that after theThen Jesus told his disciples, “Ifseekers accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, everything changes. Theirany man would come after me, letold objections begin to melt away, sometimes rapidly, and they embrace their Sav-him deny himself and take up hisior for everything he is, whether they understand it all or not. As they attend to thecross and follow me. For whoeverWord and prayer and fellowship, the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to an increasingwould save his life will lose it,understanding and belief in the more difficult doctrines. and whoever loses his life for mysake will find it." (Matthew16:24-25; cf. 10:37-39)Passages that Exemplify Insufficient BeliefDoes Salvation PrecedeThere are also Scriptures that describe what is insufficient for salvation. Usually thisUnderstanding?has to do with refusal to accept Jesus as Lord, even if lip service is paid to him. Thatis to say, there is no relational faith, even if there might be some belief on whichIt seems unlikely that many people wouldsuch a faith could have been founded. Basically, those who reject the King cannotbe able to understand the divinity ofbe in the Kingdom:Christ before their minds have beenregenerated and enlightened by theNot everyone who says to Me “Lord, Lord”shall enter the kingdom of heaven;but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)Holy Spirit. They need first to receiveChrist personally as their Lord theOne thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, ... and come, follow Me. (LkMessiah, and then the Holy Spirit can18:23; cf. Mt 19:21)11help them understand His divinenature. Jesus hinted at this when HeBut as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bringsaid, I have yet many things to say tothem here and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27). you, but you cannot bear them now.When the Spirit of truth comes, he willHe who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shallnot see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (John 3:36)guide you into all the truth.... He willglorify me, for he will take what isAnd it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall bemine and declare it to you. (Johndestroyed from the people. (Acts 3:23)16:12-14) ... the Spirit of truth ... willbear witness to me (John 15:26)Paul said as much when he wrote, “Andwe impart this in words not taught byhuman wisdom but taught by theThere is no greater disservice one can render toSpirit, interpreting spiritual truths topeople than to tell them they are saved whenthose who possess the Spirit.” (1 Cor.2:13)they are notÑthat they can belong to the kingdomJesus accepted his disciples and the thiefof God while refusing to become subjects on the cross because they acceptedof the King. Vol. 17:4, Winter 2000And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heavenThis, then, is the gospel we are togiven among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)proclaim: That Jesus Christ, whois God incarnate, humbled Him-Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found itnecessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once forself to die on our behalf. Thus Heall delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some whobecame the sinless sacrifice tolong ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervertpay the penalty of our guilt. Hethe grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord,rose from the dead to declare withJesus Christ. (Jude 3-4)power that He is Lord over all,The Importance of Belief in Jesus’ Resurrectionand He offers eternal life freely tosinners who will surrender to Himin humble, repentant faith. (210)If Jesus died but did not rise, then he could hardly be “Lord of all.” As Paul said, “IfChrist has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1This last statement is more Christocentric;Cor 15:14). So after the ascension of Jesus to the throne in heaven, faith in his sav-ing, Messianic lordship generally required faith in his resurrection as well:it mentions the facts one must believeabout Jesus, including His lordship,and it mentions the saving act of faithThe God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.one must take on the basis of theseGod exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance tofacts. It also mentions facts which areIsrael and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5:30-31; cf. Acts 2:32-33) Biblical but not basic to the Gospel;they are true and beneficial to knowif you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Godbut belief in them is not a prerequisiteraised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) [repeated fromto saving faith. These include theabove]divinity of Christ and the penal substi-tutionary sacrifice accomplished by theNow I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel,death of Christ.which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold itfast—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importanceBy contrast, the articles of faith listed in 1what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scrip-Timothy 3:16 focus entirely on Christ,tures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance withwho is the subject of every clause. the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)Great indeed, we confess, is theAdditional Theological Formulationsmystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,The presentations of the Gospel found in the Scriptures are all Christocentric; they[i.e., his incarnation]focus on the role of Jesus as Savior and Lord. By contrast some modern traditionsVindicated in the Spirit, [i.e., hisin evangelism are quite anthropocentric—they focus on the human condition and onresurrection]the benefits of salvation. As for the minimal facts about Jesus which one mustSeen by angels, believe in order to be able to accept Him with a saving faith, most books on system-Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, atic theology and soteriology fail to say anything, Murray and Hodge being notableTaken up in glory. [i.e., his ascen-exceptions. Hoekema (1989), in his book on soteriology, provides just one sentencesion]on this topic, and that sentence gives the traditional anthropocentric focus on humansinfulness and redemption:This creed-like statement makes littlemention of Christ’s divinity12 or deathWe must have enough knowledge to realize that we are sinners who needor substitutionary sacrifice. What itredemption, that we cannot save ourselves but that only Christ can redeem usdoes mention is the vindication of Hisfrom sin and from the wrath of God, and that Christ died and arose for us. (142)claim to be the Lord Messiah whichoccurred with His resurrection and HisMacArthur (1988) concludes his book on soteriology with a much fuller statement thatascension to His throne in glory. Hisemphasizes acceptance of Christ as Lord:exalted position as Lord is implied bythese statements.13 In Conclusionrificial passover lamb with which God sealed the new covenant and saved those towhom the blood was applied (as in 1 Cor 5:7; 11:25 ; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19; cf. Ex.12:5). Most of them did not explicitly mention Jesus bearing the full punishment dueIt could be said that the Gospel’s messageto sinners for their sins, although we can see it suggested in Col. 2:13-14 and Heb.concerning getting saved is very simple9:28. In many passages Paul describes Jesus death as a sacrifice but not as a punish-and does not require one to have a greatment, and it is Christ's lordship and resurrection that continues to be significant fordepth of theological understanding.saving faith (Rom. 10:9). In the Gospel of Luke, 24:7; 25-27; 45-47, Jesus presentsThat may come afterwards, but it is nothis sufferings as a fulfillment of Scripture, without elaborating on the purpose fora prerequisite for salvation. What isthose suffering, but in Luke 22:20 and parallels he describes his death as a covenantsacrifice. John quotes the Baptist calling Jesus "the Lamb of God," which evokesrequired is simply to put one’s faith per-ideas of blamelessness and sacrifice. John relates Jesus to the Passover lamb sacrificesonally in Jesus as the Christ, the Mes-by highlighting the fact that Jesus was slain at the time when the Passover lamb wassiah, meaning one’s Lord and Savior.sacrificed (John 18:28; 19:14, 30-31) and by identifying Jesus' death with the Passo-Saving faith, in both its propositionalver lamb (John 19:36). John's frequent use of the term 'Lamb' in Revelation is clearlyand relational aspects, is simply sayingsacrificial and most commentators assume that image is that of the Passover lamb."Yes" to Jesus. After that there can beThe main scripture supporting the substitutionary punishment theory of the atone-ment is Isaiah 53, which Peter refers to in 1 Peter 2:21-25 and which Philip usedgrowth in the Christian life and under-(Acts 20:28). One is left with the conclusion that the death of Jesus fulfilled a num-standing.ber of purposes.6. NIV: “if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die inEndnotesyour sins.” See the discussion about this passage in the introduction.1. Please see footnote 5.7. Note that what Jesus had called himself from the beginning is ‘the Son of Man’.2. It is interesting to note that in the East-8. While there were many kings in the Roman empire, there had been only one lord—ern tradition of Christianity, it is the res-Caesar. Now Jesus was recognized to be—not just “King of the Jews”—but “Lord ofurrection which has always been con-all.” In the context this is based on Psalm 110:1, the most quoted verse in the Newsidered the key salvific event. ButTestament: “The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your ene-Protestantism is much more rooted inmies your footstool.’” “LORD” is of course a translation of God’s name in Hebrew,the Western (later on Roman Catholic)YHWH, but in the New Testament “Lord” becomes a Messianic title.tradition. 9. MacArthur (1988:28) judges that Acts 16:31 and Romans 10:9 provide “the two3. “Therefore, it is clearly contrary to theclearest statements on the way of salvation in all of Scripture....” He goes on to addNew Testament evidence to speak aboutActs 2:36 as well.the possibility of having true savingfaith without having any repentance for10. Those who deny what they call "lordship salvation" usually claim that "acceptingsin. It is also contrary to the New Testa-Jesus as Lord" would require perfect obedience, which is not possible. I do not know,ment to speak about the possibility ofhowever, of any proponent of "lordship salvation" who claims that Jesus cannot besomeone accepting Christ “as Savior”one's Lord unless one is sinless. Jesus compared himself with a shepherd who caresbut not “as Lord,” if that means simplyfor his sheep and rescues them when they go astray, but he did say they we’re depending on him for salvation but notsheep, that they belonged to him. Accepting Jesus as Lord means acknowledging thatcommitting oneself to forsake sin and tohe is one's rightful king and trustworthy master. It means recognizing that "You arebe obedient to Christ from that pointnot your own; you were bought with a price" (1 Cor. 6:19-20), and so you owe Jesuson” Grudem 1994:714. See MacArthuryour loyalty and obedience. It does not mean that one is always in perfect harmony(1988) for a thorough discussion of thewith Jesus, for that is the goal of sanctification.need for personal acceptance of theWe need to heed the Bible's warning about "ungodly persons who pervert the gracelordship of Christ.of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ"4. Biblical quotations are quoted from the(Jude 4). Jude says they are designated for condemnation. Jesus, speaking a parableRevised Standard Version, 2nd editionabout the rewards and punishments that will accompany his second coming, said,1971, except where otherwise indicated."But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bringthem here and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) There is no greater disservice one5. In general the apostles present the deathcan render to people than to tell them they are saved when they are not and that theyof Jesus as a perfect and glorious obedi-can belong to the kingdom while refusing to become subjects of the king. The ofference to God (as in Jn. 12:32, Phil. 2:8,of the Kingdom is pure grace, and acceptance into it requires no works; it onlyHeb. 2:9-10), as an ensnarement of therequires that one say "Yes" to Jesus, and even that is a work of grace. But one doesdevil (Heb. 2:14, 1 Cor. 2:6-8, Col.need to say "Yes".2:15), and as the perfect sacrifice, bothas a propitiation acceptable to God (as11. The case of the rich ruler warrants further comment. He was trusting in his own obe-in Rom. 3:25 ff; Eph. 5:2) and as a sac-dience to God's commandments, but he lacked a relationship to Jesus. The Lord said International Journal of Frontier Missions  Vol. 17:4, Winter 2000he lacked one thing, but was that to give away his possessions or to become a fol-12. Actually, this passage only mentionshis preexistence, which was expected oflower of Jesus? Looking at the Gospels as a whole, we see that what is necessary is athe Messiah anyway, but later manu-relationship to Jesus. The man's refusal to obey Jesus is evidence that he refused toscripts made the incarnation explicit byaccept Jesus as his Lord.changing “he” to “God” in the firstclause.13. Romans 1:1-4 elaborates on the themethat the resurrection proves that Jesus is“Son of God ... Jesus Christ our Lord.”Paul may have intended us to under-stand the resurrection and ascensiontogether, as in Hebrews 1. R.C. Sproulwrites that he has come to the conclu-sion that the ascension is the mostimportant event in the Gospel account(1999:101). Of course, all of these ele-ments were vital. There could be noascension of Christ to his throne with-out the resurrection, no resurrectionwithout his death, no death without hisbirth, no birth without his incarnationaldescent from heaven.ReferencesC. H. Dodd. [1936] 1980. The ApostolicPreaching and its Developments. GrandRapids: Baker.Grudem, Wayne. 1994. Systematic Theol-ogy; An Introduction to Biblical Doc-trine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Hodge, Charles. [1989] 1874. SystematicTheology. Vol. 3: “Soteriology”. GrandRapids: Eerdmans.Hoekema, Anthony. 1989. Saved byGrace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub-lishing Company.MacArthur, John F., Jr. 1988. The GospelAccording to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zon-dervan.Murray, John. 1977. Collected Writings ofJohn Murray. Volume two: Select lec-tures in systematic theology. Banner ofTruth Trust.The author is a Bible scholar andmission strategist who has beeninvolved with outreach in Africa andAsia since 1977. He has publishedarticles in several fields and ispresently writing a book on the titles of Christ.Ad here by OMSC(Ad rerun, same as in Vol 17:3, page 40) Full page ad herebyAsbury Theological Seminary(Ad rerun, same as onpage 48 of Vol 17:3)International Journal of Frontier Missions