On the negative side, the Preface (iii-iv) is especially troubling: It contains inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes. A statement in the second paragraph, “… [W]hat is at stake is not our personal relationships with brothers and sisters” suggests it does not matter what we say about fellow-believers, as long as we tell what we think is the truth. A comment in the third paragraph makes a generalization about all IM ministries: “… [N]o churches are planted …” Such sweeping statements set the tone for what is to follow. This book is reactionary, primarily a work of extremes, including an alarmist and inflammatory title.Not all is negative. He does praise the authors of some articles in some of the sections:
On the positive side, sections one and five have the most value: The first section quotes IM proponents extensively, however taken out of context, may give impressions never intended by the authors. Section five gives Muslim converts (mostly Bengali) a voice in expressing strong opposition to IM; however other Bengalis could be called upon for the exact opposite view.I have not read this book, but should I be given the opportunity, I would probably take it with a grain of salt. The topic of Insider Movements hit the Presbyterian Church of America (P.C.A.) earlier this year at their General Assembly when one church presented a motion for the denomination to disassociate itself from organizations associated with the Insider Movement, primarily SIL, Wycliffe, SIM, and the Navigators. What came out of that was a recommendation that churches "could" stop support of such organizations if they wanted to and several churches have, from what I know, even though the missionaries they support may not be involved in Muslim missions or the Insider Movement at all.
After this recommendation came out at the PCA General Assembly, I tracked down an article written by George Houssney, a missiologist and very vocal critic of any kind of contextualization. Basically, he had written a position paper on the Insider Movement back in 2010. The PCA used this position paper as justification for making their recommendation that churches could stop support to certain organizations regardless of what the missionaries being supported were doing. So, who was targeted? Nabeel Jabbour, a Syrian, now American Citizen, who worked in Egypt for the Navigators, now living in Colorado Springs was one. I count him as a friend of mine whom I have also had the pleasure of taking a class from at CIU. Quoted from the paper:
 |
| Dr. Nabeel Jabbour (Image via Wikipedia) |
Nabeel Jabbour, a Navigator leader, believes that Islam as a religion started down the right track but jumped off the rails. (Said to me personally during a three hour meeting in my office.) He mentioned several Muslim reformers whom he admires. These, and many others who have bought into the Insider mentality believe that Islam needs to be reformed, not abandoned.Now, I am almost positive that this is taken way out of context, as is most of what Houssney is offering as proof of syncretism. Phil Parshall does not appear to be targeted, but I'm fairly certain that SIM is targeted because of his association with them, even though he advocates a C3-C4 approach to contextualization. The CAMEL method of the IMB was targeted even though it has been very effective and is more of a C4 level of contextualization. Basically, there were a lot of generalities, quotes taken out of context, and bad research. Incidentally, Dr. Jabbour is now on a study committee for the PCA to look at the Insider Movements as a result of the recommendation at the General Assembly.
I am sure the editors and authors of "Chrislam" are well-intentioned, but we must do careful research and quote people properly rather than have an agenda. This happens too often in Christian circles and people get hurt. I'm providing several links to the papers mentioned in this post here at the bottom for you to do your own research.
Resources:
Jay Smith's Assessment of Insider Movements, C5 Missions Strategies
At The PCA General Assembly – Statement concerning errors of “Insider Movements” translations approved, but stumbles over procedures on approving a study committee
Position Paper on the Insider Movement by George Houssney
I'm a bit surprised that you would agree with Dr Larsen when you haven't read the book. I could understand if you simply said "Good review" or "I trust Dr Larsen," and I suppose that's all assumed, but if you haven't read the book, how can you ask the editors to cite the advocates of IM a) in context (we did; see the first three chapters -- oh, I forgot, you haven't read the book); and b) accuse us of an agenda. Well, actually the last one is true, if by agenda you mean bias. And who doesn't have a bias?
ReplyDeleteBTW, Georges' comments about Nabil jabbour were not taken out of context; nor were Adam Simnowitz's about Dr Jabbour taken out of context either in the book. One may not agree with the comments or even believe they got the information wrong (they didn't), but they were most certainly not "out of context." I am amazed out often we trot out the hackneyed "out of context" claim--and I'm guilty of it too--when we are stampeded by the evidence.
All I can suggest is that you read the book and make up your own mind rather than relying on Dr Larsen's review.
Did you even read what I wrote? Most of my reference was to the article that George wrote back in 2010. Dr. Larson's review was only the starting point for my take on this whole agenda against the Insider Movement and, in some cases, what is perceived as an IM.
ReplyDeleteI know both Drs. Larson and Jabbour quite well. My disclaimer is that I have sat under their teachings, but I have also been overseas and used parts of the Camel method (which is not claimed to be an Insider Movement, though some claim it is).
George put used one part of a private conversation with Dr. Jabbour in his office to do what I perceive as a stab in the back. When are we Christians going to stop doing this? It's sickening and not all Christian.
Carl Medearis took George to task quite a bit on that article he wrote. What are we supposed to do? Go stand on the street corners in the Islamic world with a King James Bible and shout, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand?"
I do understand there are valid concerns about some parts of IM and many of those quoted as being advocates of IM have expressed those very same concerns.
As for the book, I do trust Dr. Larson's opinion on this. I think you have taken my post out of context, because frankly, I don't say anywhere that I agree with Dr. Larson's review. I quoted him in my post and maybe you took his quotes as mine.
Sorry that I took you out of context.
ReplyDeleteYou did say the review was helpful (first paragraph). I glossed that to mean "agreement." If my inference was wrong, I apologize. I have read his review so I knew the difference between your comments and his.
I also realize that you mixed together the book with Georges' article. I apologize for not making my own comments more clear, but in defending Georges, whom I know perhaps as well (better?) than you know Dr Larson and Dr Jabbour, I know that what Georges says, has said, writes and has written. He is not against contextualization as you allege, but BAD contextualization. I have been accused of the same thing when what I have done is critique uncritical attempts at contextualization.
Sometimes it seems the holy grail of missiology is contextualization. It must be approached with great reverence. And then if the worshipper takes exception with Contextualization's commandment, the worshipper moves from believer to heretic.
Insider movements is not about contextualization, at least not at it's core. It is simply missionary observations about Muslims coming to Jesus looking for (and not finding) biblical support. It is bad theology first and foremost. It is, in my never to be humble opinion, not just bad theology, but theology that strains at seems of our Faith.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding where George is coming from. I'm not that familiar with George's writings. I am very familiar with Phil Parshall (even taking a class from him), Samuel Zwemer, The Caners (though they are suspect), Colin Chapman, David Garrison, and Carl Medearis. There's probably too many to name, to be honest, but that's beside the point. What defines bad contextualization? At what point does it bleed into syncretism? Most of what I've seen written criticizing the IM is that there is nothing good in it.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to what you think is bad theology about it. Did not Paul stand on Mars Hill in Athens and preach to them about Christ using the illustration of the "unknown god." The early apostles went to the synagogues first to preach Christ. Sounds like the Camel Method to me.
The point is the heart. Critics of IM are presuming to know the heart of those in the IM. Those that I have known in IM are not syncretistic and always encourage the disciples to leave their roots eventually. Yes, there is a lot of bad theology being promoted with some portions of IM, but not all of IM is bad. I think there is a lot of good in it.
What we must look at is, "Is Christ cruicified being preached?" and "Are disciples being made?" I don't believe that IM is the definition of "Chrislam." All of these are just terms and labels that seem to be continued to thrown around without any real meaning just like Evangelical or born-again Christian. What do any of these terms even mean anymore?
I hope I don't sound stubborn on this. Should I get a chance to read the book, I'll examine it carefully as I do most books I read. The problem I see is even in the title of some of the articles. Emir Caner writing on the Camel Method? His and his brother's background in Islam isn't even to be trusted. The only other people I'm familiar with are Jay Smith and Samuel Zwemer, but it appears to me that you all are only taking one segment of IM and expanding it to include all of IM.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteI need to edit my comment. How can I do that please? I thought your review was by Warren. But it turns out you wrote it and you just quoted Warren. So my comment about Warren was not right or fair. Please remove my post and put this one instead. Thank you so much.
Chris, I do advise you to get the book Chrislam. Then we can talk more seriously. But for now, Jeff knows me well. I do not preach against contextualization per se. But what if I did? Is contextualization a holy cow that cannot be touched? Who came up with this idea anyway?
To contextualize or not contextualize is not the question my friend. My paradigm is Transformation. The question must not be: How much of the culture Muslims can keep and still be Saved? It would be like someone asks: How much can I continue to sin and still be saved? Romans 5-6 deals with that. When Jesus confronts any man even as holy as Nikodemus or as blameless as Saul of Tarsus his whole world is shaken. All the good of the PHarisees was not good enough. Nikodemus and Paul needed a complete 180 degree turn around. This is called repentance in the Scriptures. When we repent we do not go half hearted. We give it all to Him. This is the heart of the gospel. We must preach a transformational message. Then we can talk about issues of culture.
Chris, you ask what is bad contextualization? Thank you for asking. In the last four decades contextualization has focused on the superficial issues of cultural practices. The heart of the gospel is not about practices. It is about identity in Christ and a joining of a new community, the church.
It was unfair for you to say that I am a very vocal critic of any kind of contextualization. You have never heard me say this and I have never written anything like this. I am for good contextualization that addresses the core of the context and not the surface. Good contextualization is not accommodation, adaptation or conformity. It seeks to analyze the context and address it biblically. One example of good contextualization is a bold witness. Muslims are bold about their Shahadah. They repeat it many times and they are never shy about their identity. Courage is a high value in Islam. When a missionary with "great contextual ideas" hides his faith and tries to infiltrate Muslim culture as an insider when he is in fact an outsider, this is viewed as cowardly and deceptive. This is BAD contextualization. How much more do you want to know? I am limited by time and space.
Chris, I invite you to come to my training school which has helped hundreds know how to contextualize biblically and effectively. If you need a scholarship we can consider giving you one as finances allow. Check it out on http://engagingislam.org. You can call our program a rehabilitation from bad contextualization. We teach a paradigm shift in favor of transformation.
Georges,
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing.
I agree with you that we must be aiming for transformation. This is what the Gospel does, it transforms and changes a person. This is what it means to make disciples.
I have taken many classes and read many books on contextualization. My problem with what you have written, most notably in your position paper, is that you seem to be painting IM and a lot of contextualization with a broad brush.
You have written your own summary of the C1-C6 scale to make it more biased toward your point of view. There is much to like in your position paper, but I think you're being too highly critical of some of the paradigms and movements. There is a lot of bad theology out there, yes, but there is a lot of good theology, and there is a lot of good stuff going on with the church growing, being led by nationals.
I know some missionaries that have lost support from churches because of your position paper and what organization they work with, even though they don't even work with Muslims. Their organization has denied being part of the Insider Movement, but because of an affiliation with one former missionary to Muslims (who criticized much of the syncretism going on), the organization got painted with that brush.
How broad a brush must we use here? It seems that you're not separating out much meaning from form here. Is it wrong to use Allah in the Arabic Bible for God? What about using the term Isa Al Masih for Jesus the Messiah?
I have talked and witnessed to Muslims on the streets of Amman, Cairo, and Bamako. Nothing may have been "contextualized" so to speak, except maybe my style of dress. They knew I was a Christian. I've used verses from the Qur'an in a way that pointed them to the Bible and ultimately to Christ. I've seen fruit come out of such approaches.
I'm curious as to how much fruit Jay Smith has from standing on a soapbox and yelling at Muslims. Does it work? Are lives being transformed? Is the church growing? I think apologetics has it's place, but what's working and what isn't?
I agree that we must reject what is not Biblical, but we also must not reject what seems to be working. Even Gamaliel acknowledged that if it is not God's work, then it will fail. That's not to say we must approve of all approaches in IM, but I do believe that we must examine whether or not the Holy Spirit really as at work there or not. The Camel Method has been refined based on criticism of it since it first came about. They are actively working to ensure that they do not cross the line too much into syncretism. Now, I do agree with you that the tract you were talking about is too superficial, but much of what the Southern Baptists have done over the years with "sinner's prayers" is superficial. I don't put much stock in "sinner's prayers."
I do believe in transformation and that is where discipleship comes in. I'm all about discipleship. That was Jesus' final command before he left this earth. Make disciples of all nations. It's not about yelling at them from a street corner or about ensuring their Muslim identity stays intact. It's about their heart.
Chris:
ReplyDeleteYour closing words to Georges mentioned “the heart.” This is a great close, but might I invite you to think a bit more broadly of the concept of the heart? It really has to do with our mind, will and emotions. In this day and age, however it has mostly the connotation of the emotions.
Georges mentioned a fact about Dr. Jabbour and his statement about “Islam going off the rails.” You appear to take this and re-interpret it as Georges having a bad heart to Jabbour, i.e he has bad-will, bad-feelings, and bad-thinking. Yet, this quote as to the sanitization of Islam is quite representative of IM’rs. I would be so bold as to say, it is an indication of the Islamization of Chrisitianity. Likely you are aware that Islam says that “it the primordial religion, and Christianity and Judaism went off the rails, and now it is the duty of Islam to call people back to the “pure” religion.” As long as Islam can be seen as benign as IM does to various extents, IM has a leg to stand on. When Islam is observed from a Biblical theology of religions, as the book Chrislam does, it comes short, and this, I believe is the area of controversy—which is all about theology, I might add.
Now you might assert that I too have a bad heart. Just as I wrote to Dr. Larson, I have written no less than 15 articles which take pains to examine IM writings in context. (Please see my article in the St. Francis Magazine on the Areopagus.) IM writings exhibit a common theme: Take a few observations from the field, take these descriptions and turn them more or less into prescriptions, call these methodologies new moves of the Holy Spirit, find texts that will justify the methodology, and voila you have your new missiology. Charles Finney did it in the past—as well documented by the article “How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism” by Nelson (www.founders.org/FJ33/article1.html) and it is being done today.
Let me know when you have read the book and also my chapter on the Kingdom.
John Span
John,
ReplyDeleteMy issue with this is the broad brush that seems be used to paint "IM". Mission Frontiers has addressed this in an entire issue dedicated to IM last year. They acknowledged, as I have, that there is some extremely bad movements out there. There is also good stuff out there. I know exactly where Dr. Jabbour is coming from. I have taken his class and I count him as a friend. In fact, I think he is in town this week or next, but I haven't been able to touch base. That's a side note, but my point is that there is more to Dr. Jabbour's statement than what was quoted. I quite feel sure of that.
So, I come back to, what constitutes a bad IM or a good IM? It seems that "Chrislam" is stating there is no good IM.
Thanks for the reply Chris.
DeleteAs to good IM or bad IM. I think we need to examine starting points and presuppositons. The starting point of the common theme that I described above is sociological and not theological. This opens the door widely to theological experimentation, pragmatism and the like. Surely you know of the article in the Trinity Forum called "The De-Theologizing of Missiology" by Rommen. Excellent material written in 1993.
The second area is presuppositons. If I presuppose that the basic problems that Muslims suffer is information or lack thereof, then I will use my best abilities to tweak information that they might like. I might even go down the road that Charles Finney went to say that "moral suasion" is all that is needed. Both of these are semi-Pelagian or Pelagian assumptions, and again will quickly derail the missions enterprise.
I suggest that an examination of both the sociological starting points (see a comment by Roger Dixon on Larson's blog)and the presuppositional base of IM with its Chrisianizing of Islam and Islamizing of Christianity, along with a seemingly Pelagian (semi or full)theological bent, makes all of IM highly suspect. My only concession is that there are among them missionaries who have wrestled long and hard with how best to see that their Muslim friends will be in the New Jerusalem with them. Their intentions may be noble, but when ideas about conversion, kingdom, other religions are all sold out for this desire, then something has gone off the rails. This is hugely problematic. I hope you can see that.
As to the Mission Frontiers issue, this is written by "evangelists for the Insider Movement." Let them examine their own presuppositons in the light of scripture, rather than in the light of the social sciences. There is a huge emotional commitment to IM by its advocates--I have seen it first hand on the field--and that is why, all niceties aside, let's get down in the dirt and look at the foundations.
Again, let me know when you read the book and the article.
John