First of all, I think what really concerns us about IM is that it allows the denial of being a Christian either outright or partially as in – “Muslim follower of Jesus.” I’m sure it couldn’t be argued that Paul ever would have denied being a “Christian” whether by word or deed. It’s true that Paul used his Roman citizenship on a couple of occasions to save himself a brutal beating. However, many different types of people were Romans. As I understand it, when the Romans began persecution, all they required was that someone acknowledge the Emperor as God – something most world religions could easily do. So Roman citizenship wasn’t really a culture or religion. It might be better understood as analogous to Egyptian or American citizenship. It must never replace Christ.
Much is made of early Jewish contextualization. Christianity is fulfilled Judaism. In fact, Paul often redefines the terms Jew and Israel for us in the NT. The term “Messianic Jew” does have true meaning, because “salvation is of the Jews”. The early apostles wrestled much with this question, and the apostle Paul did make some concessions. It’s also appropriate to note that some of Paul’s most scathing remarks are addressed to “Judaizers” who were telling his converts they had to keep the Jewish law. Whether early Jews still felt obligated to keep the law wasn’t really contextualization as we use the term.

Carl mentioned that “Son of God” meant something different to 1st century Jews than to us. But “Son of God” means something different to different people the world over. To set up a standard that a Word of scripture has to mean the same thing to everyone is a tall order! Can you imagine translating ‘grace’ or ‘faith’! As the author pointed out – “Son of God” is defined in the scripture by the places in which it is used – the relationships it describes, etc. If you remove the Words, you remove the concept. I know it’s so limiting to linguists to say you have to use this word, but you do. The words are defined in scripture. You lose the words and you lose the trinity.

Anyway, I want to reply to your comment. You write:

“I do not appreciate that insinuation (which is an ad hominem attack) that I am Islamophobic and am allowing my “personal prejudice” to dictate my theological reflection.”

You’re absolutely right. I apologize for unfairly criticizing you with an ad hominem. I do think there is prejudice and Islamophobia out there that contributes to much of American evangelicals’ negative view of Muslims. But I did not read that in your article. I unfairly connected your article to things that I have seen in personal experience.

What I meant by “incomplete perspective” (your point #5) on the insider movement, is that in countries where religious persecution is present and dangerous, the insider movement is more likely to spontaneously occur, in my opinion. Right or wrong, that’s reality. You sense that more in countries that are majority Muslim, less in the US.

My desire to see gospel contextualized for diverse Muslim contexts means moving the conversation away from “methodological” conversations like the insider movement, forms of worship etc., on to proper theological conversations about what the gospel looks like from the perspective of Muslims meeting Jesus.

Perry

Perhaps others might want to give some feedback on how much Islam borrowed their culture from Jewish culture, but I’d say probably very little if any. Borrowing stories (mostly incorrect) doesn’t mean borrowing culture.

Certainly there is the praying during certain times of day, which the Jews did also, but I’m not certain that can be considered a significant cultural borrowing. Islam is an Arab religion that is distinctly arab.

In fact, I look at that statement when quoted alone, and it doesn’t seem quite right to me. So let me give a little context. When I say, “Little culture remains that was before Islam. Islam is the culture.” what I mean to say that little culture remains that hasn’t been islamized. I think its obvious Islam is an arab religion, and by saying it is arab, one assumes there is an ‘Arabness’ to it, which is indeed culture. So perhaps I need to qualify what I said by saying all cultures Islam infiltrates, Islam takes over and absorbs what it finds useful, and annihilates what it doesn’t find useful.

As for redeeming culture, that’s not a theology I attest to. I do not believe our job is to redeem culture, but rather to be redeemed by Christ, cleansed by His blood, and renewed by the Holy Spirit, being presented to the Father as adopted children.

As redeemed believers, obviously we impact the culture around us, but our culture is the heavenly culture. We are now aliens to this world. The redemption of humanity’s culture isn’t God’s plan. The replacement of earthly culture with His own is His plan.

So rather than trying to fix culture, we should be bold witnesses for the Kingdom culture, testifying to Christ, and glorifying God through the proclamation of the gospel. The side-effect of that is, yes, culture changes around us. But it isn’t the goal.

But didn’t Islam borrow significantly from Judaism? From your perspective, wouldn’t at least those cultural forms be redeemable and possibly even beneficial?

How about one article, just one, on what’s wrong with embattled churches who withdraw, stay with Western worship and other forms (even as many in the West are abandoning them) and which are satisfied with the status quo?”

This issue has nothing to do with forms of worship. If it were only a matter of form then you would see people objecting to c3 and c4 expressions of faith. People are objecting to the insider movement, not because they object to issue of style, they are objecting to it because it promotes doctrines that are in direct contradiction to those taught in Scripture. If you would like to address specific forms of western worship which you believe are prohibited in Scripture then let’s hear the details of those specific issues. However, it is no more valid to condemn all western expressions of faith, than it is to condemn all eastern expressions of faith found in c4 congregations.

You’re welcome, and I really do understand where you are coming from; I was in the same place about four years ago when I was jumping into the middle of this issue. One of the challenges I found is that C5 missiologists I was discussing this issue with were very skilled at giving very incomplete answers to questions and for a long time I thought I was hearing answers that were very different than what was truly being said. For example, if I asked “What are your thoughts about C5 groups believing that the Qua’ran is the primary source of authority for our faith?” I would hear in response “Believing that the Qua’ran is the primary source of authority for our faith is a heretical belief!” and that is where the comment would end. In hearing that response, I thought I was hearing an agreement with my own convictions, but I was not. The problem was that we were not operating with the same definition of “heresy” nor the same definition of any other theological term. My assumptions in the conversation were that there are “essential beliefs”, “non-essential beliefs”, and “heretical beliefs”. The C5 missiologist had redefined these categories into the following two categories 1) “beliefs that are essential within an individual’s context” i.e. “essential beliefs” may be different in different cultural and religious contexts, and 2) “heretical beliefs” i.e. any belief that is not absolutely true from God’s perspective of truth; a perspective with which we can never fully identify and therefore never truly know. In later conversations, these philosophical differences came to light when I heard statements like “We all hold heretical beliefs, and the heretical beliefs of the Muslim followers of Isa are no worse than the heretical beliefs we has western Christians hold” and “I believe in God’s absolute truth, but recognize that no man can truly know what beliefs reflect God’s absolute truth.” As I listened, I began to realize that underlying the C5 missiological perspective was an acceptance of postmodern evangelicalism and part of the reason it was so difficult to get answers is because there is an underlying belief in postmodern evangelicalism that there are no real answers, only questions; postmodern evangelicals often pride themselves on having “Question and Response” sessions as opposed to “Question and Answer” sessions because they believe there are no definitive “answers.” Within postmodern evangelical circles, this is reflected in a cultural aversion to giving answers that commit oneself to a specific doctrinal position. What this means is that it often feels like “nailing jello to a wall” when you are asking questions in order to understand what they believe and it takes a whole lot of questions before you begin to really understand the details of the perspective they are presenting.

I find it strange that you have taken issue with my use of Eph. 5:10-14. I cannot think of greater examples of “unfruitful deeds of darkness” than the willful mistranslation of Scripture, and denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the Savior from sin (which is what Insider Movements do), coupled with the secrecy and dishonesty of those involved and their leadership.

Second, my original post had nothing to do with WBT-SIL but was a challenge to Piper and BBC. But since you brought up the issue I would encourage you to look at the following charts and judge for yourself if WBT-SIL have been walking in the light:

http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/lop-lk1_26-35.pdf

http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/lives-of-apostles.pdf

http://www.answering-islam.org/fileadmin/reviews/lives-of-prophets.pdf

“This person who wrote the article clearly does not understand insider movements. Insiders come in many shapes and sizes. Insider only means staying inside ones community – nothing more, nothing less.”

Adam, I think that Georges Houssney understands the “Insider Movement” far better than you realize. “Insiders” often present their methodology in the light you have presented it here, but the “Insider Movement” is really defined by C5-C6 contextualization and includes the doctrinal errors described in Georges’ article; the less “contextualized” C3-C4 missiologists do not identify themselves with the “insider movement.” Too often I have found that “insiders” describe their methodology in a way that sounds like C4 while deliberately leaving out the aspects that they know are controversial. They often redefine theological terms in ways that are not compatible with their historical meaning which leaves people with an impression that they have heard commitments to theological positions to which the “insider” has not truly committed. Because of the evasive way in which answers to questions are given, it takes a while to even learn what questions to ask in order to get complete answers to the questions you are asking. In my experience “insiders” never volunteer information that they believe is unknown to the person making the inquiry and that means that a lot of research will be required by the person making an inquiry. I have personally found that it is important to understand the postmodern view of a “narrative” in order to understand what is truly being said. When questions are focused on the narrative of the “Muslim follower of Jesus” rather than the narrative of the c5 missiologist, the answers are always quite different. My suggestion to you is to ask a whole lot more questions and do a little research and find out what c5 looks like in reality so you can ask c5 missologists about how they reconcile the realities of existing c5 communities of believers with the picture they paint for you (which is quite different).

From a philosophical perspective, I think that two of the most fundamental differences are found in how c5 missologists view the idea of a meta-narrative when compared to the biblical idea of a meta-narrative, and in how the c5 missiologist approach epistemology. Understanding these ideas is key to understanding how the c5 missiologist tries to reconcile very contradictory positions.