Actually, if you listen to the tone, emotion, and half-true generalisations in this blogg, my point of view is more like someone questioning the lynch mob whether they really do speak for the whole town, and wondering whether they are just as lawless as the people they want to string up.

-James

1. The document asks great questions. One’s I’d want to be able to answer and would want all those who work with me to be able to answer clearly. So I think the questions themselves were interesting….thus generating discussion.

2. The “Biblical considerations” portion after each question was also interesting. I love seeing how someone else processes and uses scripture.

3. And even though the article was not about IM or C-5 all the questions raised missiological issues, so could lead one way or the other.

I could easily answer all of those questions from the scriptures making different or at least slightly different points.

This discussion has kept my interest because it is good for me! It has sharpened me for sure! i think I come away with three overriding thoughts:

1. Everyone in this discussion (on this forum or not) uses the same Bible to defend their points. Quoting loads of scripture texts to prove a point that the person has already come to, seems the norm (on both sides).

2. Having gone back and re-read many of the posts on this and other articles, I’m noticing that none of us are really listening to the other. We have to admit that our heart attitude must be at least as important as the other things we’re talking about here. I and many of the others have been condescending and rude as we’ve challenged the other. How does that work in your marriages? Not so well in mine! Listening is good doctrine!

3. Generalizations have been the norm. It’s clear that this site has an issue with C-5 (although sometimes I’ve seen C-4 thrown in there) and the Insider Movement. But I’ve seldom seen specific examples used. It’s like saying “I don’t trust politicians.” Just not very helpful. I’d love to see us be more specific, rather then act as of C-5 and IM are a monolith that have all accepted a certain creed.

For instance – I am fully evangelical. (Would accept the Lausanne Covenant – for James’ sake). Am mostly in conservative evangelical circles. Do NOT consider myself part of IM or C-5. But I also find it unbiblical or abiblical to ask Muslims to leave every part of their context and call themselves “Christians.” And I believe they believe in the same God as we do – although with error and without salvific affect without Christ. So what am I…?

I want to hear you guys out. I don’t know James or Andy (the two others that have challenged you). I don’t want to quote scriptures “at you.” And I don’t like seeing them used that way by anyone. (Talking “at” people doesn’t work well in my experience).

Can we be more specific? And maybe do some case studies that we could all work on…?

You are disregarding the contexts from which you quoted me to portray something about me that is untrue. Having spoken with positive regard about Lausanne as to my assumption that it is biblical, you take the opportunity to skew my point of view with my admission that I am ignorant of the substance of Lausanne. What I said is what I meant: to refer this matter to an arbiter when on its face IM is at variance with Scripture, the supreme authority, it does seem superfluous to appeal to a lesser authority. Your point of view is akin to appealing to a district court to hear a matter already decided by the supreme court.

By your replies to me that ignored the heterodoxical and heretical of IM, your interest comes across political and manipulative as if IM’s preservation is an ulterior interest of yours. You seem to be prejudiced against the overwhelming evidence from Scripture on this site that shows IM to be largely syncretistic. Why not appeal to the Lausanne yourself and ask them to read the site and post on it. I would like that. Then we can see if Lausanne’s representatives are according themselves biblically.

I don’t mind you being condescending toward me but don’t lie about me. You have lost this argument.

Yes, I think you have made THAT clear… Its actually called “poor ecclesiology” by theologians.

Come on Douglas. I actually think you will LIKE the LC! Don’t prejudge it. It was Billy Graham’s idea for goodness sake. I am not being unreasonable in my questioning BM on this matter.

Look, here is a free study guide:
http://www.lausanne.org/documents/didasko/Didasko_FTLWL.pdf

I’ll even throw in a small quote from the forward just to get you interested (my caps):

“The Lausanne Covenant has been a great rallying call to the evangelical Church around the world. It DEFINED what it means to be evangelical, that is, what it means to have SCRIPTURE as final authority in what we believe and in how we live. It is a COVENANT with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, and WITH GOD HIMSELF. The covenant form was chosen deliberately, as a solemn and public declaration to the world of the relationship between OUR faith and OUR lives.

Covenants are SERIOUS matters, not to be entered into lightly. They are BINDING agreements, and we need to read ‘the small print’ carefully, and ensure we have understood all the implications before we prepare to sign.

The Lausanne Covenant was drawn together with great care, balancing the right words and phrases and emphases, to reflect what the Lausanne participants believed to be the weight of SCRIPTURE. When John Stott, chief architect of the Covenant, addressed the Congress to present it in its final form, he urged participants not to get out their pens (though it seems a few had already done so, perhaps too quickly). The better response would be to meet with the Lord in an unhurried way, and only then, if they wished to do so, to sign the Covenant.
…
…
The Covenant’s genius is that it came out of a gathering of 150 NATIONS focusing on mainstream, BIBLICAL, and primary issues, while avoiding controversial secondary issues. This is how it has managed to bring ALL EVANGELICALS together, and become so widely-used as a FOUNDATION FOR PARTNERSHIPS across the world. The need to link arms and work together has never been more critical if we are to see Christ’s gospel made known in this generation and beyond.

We trust your study of the Covenant will help you to enter into a new covenant with God, and that this re-publication of the document will spur further initiatives and partnerships with fellow evangelicals, for the sake of the Lord we love.”

So as you see it is no “superfluous” thing. I would even say you are on dangerous ground to thumb your nose at it as you do. “Covenants are SERIOUS matters, not to be entered into lightly” Not to be scorned lightly either. You should probably try seeing what it says. After all your church (if you have one) and therefore YOU are probably covenanted to God through this too! (Rom 13)

Hope you take my question more seriously Mark. Looking forward to BM’s response.

-James

Hope all is well with you today.

I hasten to affirm the biblical ecclesiology you speak of: Amen! And, as members of the body of Christ we are fitly joined to facilitate the functionality of its members and the whole. So here we are in agreement as we engage church authority and functionality under the headship of Christ. But the headship of Christ cannot be claimed by IM when their methods diminish the Son with syncretized missiologies. Furthermore with that in mind, why would Biblical Missiology (BM) be the one you call to reckon with the Lausanne Covenant when it is the Insider Movement that is running contrary to what is biblical? It does appear to me that you are using Lausanne as context for creating biblical parity between the difference in the methods endorsed by BM and IM respectively.

There is no parity of authority between Lausanne and Scripture. I acknowledge that Acts sets a biblical precedent for ecclesiastical councils and conventions and my assumption is that Lausanne is biblical in its statement. But if those with biblically correct missiologies are at variance with Lausanne they necessarily are engaging the headship of Christ by conforming to his word.

On the contrary, I believe it is BM that is providing opportunity for repentance for those at variance with the Spirit of truth whose missiologies are not thoroughly biblical. You said, “But, how can we all be sure BiblicalMissiology are not like this group that went out from Jerusalem?” My answer to this question is, compare them with the Bible and see! That’s exactly what we are doing here and the folks you seem to be defending are showing themselves to be in error.

You said “Of COURSE this covenant is more authoritative to speak on behalf of the worldwide church than Mark and the Houssneys!” You said this based on Lausanne’s “… prayer, fasting and discussion…” Why did you not mention Lausanne’s ‘searching the Scriptures’? Why wouldn’t that be included as naturally in that list? I’ll tell you, no matter the prestige of a global Christian organization, it is subject to God’s word first and foremost. May God bless all who seek to serve his Word. Mark, the Houssneys, and others have in the course of things here proven their theology is biblical but at the same time as we debate these issues, as many here have plainly seen, IM folks are consistently prone to readily cite their philosophical views but with a deficit of biblical founding.

I see IM as post-modernist philosophy and its bristle at the plenary authority of God’s word, the Bible. It’s more complex than that but it is that nonetheless. James, you seem to overlook how God’s word is being used on this site to prove what is truth and what is error. I think you prefer we do this at some council or arbiter. The idea seems superfluous to me.

You say: “The body of Christ does not need a consensus derived from some specifically identified group and that you would argue such is a concern to me”

Sorry Douglas, this statement is just not biblical. Please re-read Acts 15, especially with this situation in mind. Some went out from the Jerusalem church claiming authority to speak on behalf of the WHOLE Body of Christ and came into conflict with Paul etc.. How was the situation solved? Lets pick it up at Acts 15:22:

“Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the rulers and all the church, to send men… And they sent a letter by them, saying… ‘we have knowledge that some who went from us have been troubling you with their words, putting your souls in doubt; to whom we gave no such order; It seemed good to us, having come to an agreement together, to send these men to you…. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to put on you nothing more than these necessary things…”

So seeking the Lord together as a community, submission to authority, church councils, unity, and consensus are very Biblical. Perhaps “seemed good” even implies there was some plain old human wisdom involved as well! In the west we tend to have a very poor ecclesiology. I think sometimes we read “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” and don’t realise that the “you” here is plural. Welcome to the Church! Like I said: we need each other.

You say: “it seems like you want to in the minds of your readers validate a context that has greater authority””

Douglas, BiblicalMissiology claims to speak up for the whole church, for the international community – ESPECIALLY for the national churches and the converts who have no voice against these powerful western neo-colonialist IM advocates. But, how can we all be sure BiblicalMissiology are not like this group that went out from Jerusalem? Well, step one is really very simple (sorry you think this is mental gymnastics – just wait till we start on the theology! ;-): You see, BiblicalMissiology have no such authority IF (again this is hypothetical) their theology shows them to be outside a covenant that the global Evangelical movement, through prayer, fasting and discussion has built its very unity upon. Of COURSE this covenant is more authoritative to speak on behalf of the worldwide church than Mark and the Houssneys! It would be absurd to think otherwise.

One only has authority if one is under authority. I’m merely inquiring if they are also under authority. No mental gymnastic here, although, yes, I do confess that I want to make sure it is not just a “lip-service” to the covenant. I am not defending IM at all here. I just believe we need to watch the watchdogs – perhaps even more closely! The excesses of IM need critique. But only from people that are willing to be under authority themselves. Again, any ministry that can’t subscribe to the LC would be either “outside the fold” of the worldwide Evangelical movement, or perhaps “Evangelical” but in a very narrow and culturally blinkered sense with respect to the voices of their brethren from other cultures.

I’m not saying BiblicalMissiology can’t write on their blogg what ever they like. I am just saying they need to be open and honest about where they stand with the Evangelicalism as a global movement if they want to leverage the discussion here to bring accountability (which they clearly are attempting to do).
-James

Thank you for your reply.

I must be frank with you and all who read this: I am very skeptical about those who have embraced methods of ministry that straddle worldliness and Christianity. When Christians have to employ mental gymnastics to explain and defend their ministries, I can’t help but see an ulterior. By worldliness I mean a willingness to syncretize God’s word to fulfill a carnal purpose whatever the case may be. By Christianity, as it pertains to missions, I mean the body of Christ whose purpose is the fulfillment of the ministry of reconciliation (2nd Cor. 5.19).

I think the spirit of the age is in the church seducing with worldly wisdom whom it may. The upshot of that is methods of ministry that are not of the Spirit of God, methods that are all men can do without Him. The body of Christ does not need a consensus derived from some specifically identified group and that you would argue such is a concern to me. The Bible says, “But we have the mind of Christ” (1st Cor. 2.16). Is the Lausanne Covenant an improvement over the Holy Spirit and the Bible? No, and I’m not saying this event (LC) and its decisions are wrong (I don’t know what it is) and I’m not saying you think it’s an improvement. When you appeal to the LC it seems like you want to in the minds of your readers validate a context that has greater authority, one that can effectively be used to render less authoritative those who write in disagreement with IM. By the “mind of Christ” I don’t mean something spiritually psychological and I don’t mean a license to elitism. Gordon Fee said it this way: “[the mind of Christ] leads to a deeper understanding of God’s profound mystery—redemption through a crucified Messiah” (p. 120). How can the crux of the gospel be found on the periphery of a biblical missiology? But I read things from IM like the following:

“Nobody has said that the God of Islam is the true God. But that he is redeemable.” (by Andy)
“Here’s the “God” that Muslims believe in: He is the creator of the heavens and the earth.” (by Carl Medearis)
“The only reason Kevin starts with the Qur’an, Roger, is because that’s where you find Muslims.” (David Garrison)

Then, upon further investigation into this matter, I find that IM, in its attempt at indigenizing the gospel message, allows the crucial elements of the gospel to be assimilated by Islam. For instance, translators of a Bible in Arabic are dropping “Son” for non-offensive terminology. Fast and loose is all that this is. Of course the articulate among us are able to talk circles around any and all objections but to no real avail. God is not mocked.

When I think about the incarnation I see how the Son has come to all mankind for all time inclusive of all races and ethnicities. He came curbing nothing about himself or his message yet somehow IM thinks it’s okay to curb both. I’ve been labeled “dull”, failing to appreciate the nuance and intelligence of IM methods, but I think IM is devoid of the “mind of Christ”. All that is inclusive of man at the expense of the exclusiveness of the truth about Christ I will protest. When we’ve been shown the way of truth why do we seek to find another? There is but One.

James, I don’t know you and I wish you well. May we all remember this: “each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done” (1st Cor. 3.13).

As Evangelicals we have no Pope. We believe in “Sola Scripture” yet one of the major problems we face as Protestants is that without a system of authority (without listening to the Body of Christ) heresy is a very real danger. Just look around you will see 1000s of denominations and many more cults all claiming to be “biblical”. Everyone claims to be biblical. Douglas, You cut and pasted half your Bible to Carl, and yet I believe he already has one… I can only guess that you are also frustrated by this problem.

What this blogg is calling for is accountability and that is a noble cause. Accountability to what? The scriptures of course, but more than that; an orthodox Evangelical interpretation of scripture. They ask a very reasonable question: Why should Evangelical donors, churches, missions etc. UNKNOWINGLY support something that claims to be “Biblical” and yet (in their opinion) is far from Evangelical. There is a danger donors have been deceived (Mark emphatically says they have) Where people stand should be made clear so people know what they are investing in.

The reason these Bethlehem Baptist guidelines are being presented is that they are a practical example of accountability. Suggesting them on this blogg is raising them up as a inspiration or perhaps a model of how one expression of the Body of Christ can hold missionaries and agencies accountable to a good scriptural principles.

Does that mean these guidelines are at the level of scriptural authority? No! Not at all. But it does mean that missionaries that want the spiritual and physical blessings of working within the fold (and under the covering) of the Bethlehem Church MUST submit themselves to them or find another spiritual covering. Such is life. Ideally we would all agree and such a paper would not be needed perhaps, but that is how evangelicalism works. All denominations have similar guidelines and policies for all areas of ministry. And actually I find it biblical myself and I assume most other evangelicals do too or we would have found another solution.

These policies, theologies, and guidelines go all the way up to the Lausanne Committee for Evangelicals. This is biblical. Not perfect, but the best we have managed. Even more important is that the Holy Spirit DID speak through and to the representatives that were part of drafting that covenant. Go read their website. You will find it hard to deny the presence of God on this. It is not scripture, but it is no small thing either. Certainly nothing to rebel against without very good reason.

I am not manipulating BiblicalMissiology. I am just showing them where the path they are taking is logically headed and calling them to hold the same standard. If that is manipulation then BiblicalMissiology is also manipulative. Your judgement of me falls equally on them. I am only asking them if they are willing to apply their standards to themselves.

BiblicalMissiology claim often to speak for the global church, to be international etc. etc. well… how can I, from miles away, possibly know if that is true? Well, if they do not submit to the authority of the LC then they obviously do not speak for the global Evangelical church. As simple as that. If their theology conflicts with the very broad (as you can imagine) guidelines the LC has then they are very very far from the authority they claim. And people SHOULD know this. THEIR names should be named to use Marks phrase. Their donors and partners do need to know that they are not in the fold.

If you want to redefine heresy by all means write a dictionary. Until that is published, you will find that all definitions of heresy are linked with heterodoxy ie non-orthodox. You see the problem of “just me, the Bible, and God” has always existed. Theology is a man made product and so the Holy Spirit also speaks through the Body in order to lead us to all truth. We need each other.

Douglas, I’m not saying to be outside the fold of the Global Evangelical Missions movement is to be lost or even necessarily wrong (indeed we need to be challenged from outside), but the simple fact is that if BiblicalMissiology want to benefit from the spiritual and physical blessings of working within the fold of Evangelical Missions they have a responsibility to submit themselves to what that community believes to be true or find another spiritual covering. This is what they are in effect aiming at for IM. And if they have integrity they MUST apply the same standards to themselves.

Please realise Douglas that I am not calling them heretics. I have not even begun to bring up theology yet. THIS WAS HYPOTHETICAL. I am just wanting to know that they are serious and not like all the other “biblical” websites out there that are basically a law unto themselves. My questioning whether they are really willing to be accountable should not bother them in the slightest (how can it be manipulative then?) — unless they don’t really want to be.

Anyway, lets wait and see, shall we?

-James

You speak of the Lausanne Covenant as if it rises to a scriptural level of authority. The LC is not The Truth from which heresy is at variance, the Bible is. Yet you seem eager to use the LC as some kind of trip wire for winning an argument. I find your way of speaking very manipulative and removed from a biblical point of view.

You speak of the Lausanne Covenant as if it rises to a scriptural level of authority. The LC is not The Truth from which heresy is at variance, the Bible is. Yet you seem eager to use the LC as some kind of trip wire for winning an argument. I find your way of speaking very manipulative and removed from a biblical point of view.

Marks says: “I think it would be hard for anyone in evangelical circles not to meet the Lausanne Covenant”.

Yes, and that is my point. As I said earlier, any ministries that can’t subscribe to the LC would be either “outside the fold” of the worldwide Evangelical movement, or perhaps “Evangelical” but in a very narrow and culturally blinkered sense with respect to the voices of their brethren from other cultures.

Marks says: “As for accountability, there is no such thing as not being accountable, so I’m not certain why that even came up. You comments themselves are a form of accountability.”

Again, its quite clear that BiblicalMissiology is encouraging a higher level of accountability than just a few words on a blogg. I guess what I want to know is: are you willing to submit yourselves to these higher standards of accountability too? I think that for the sake of integrity you must. So again, are you willing to be held accountable to the Lausanne Covenant in the SAME way as you are attempting to hold other ministries, missions and missionaries accountable?

Lets take a totally hypothetical example: IF it was to be shown that BiblicalMissiology’s special brand of theology conflicted with the spirit and theology of the Lausanne Covenant, I think for the sake of your integrity you would need to hold yourselves accountable it the same way as you desire to see others held accountable.

Let me spell out more clearly what that might look like using your own blogg as a guide: (again this is only a hypothetical IF. I am not accusing. Like I said I am still trying to figure out if theology is worth discussing on this site)

1) The word heresy is bandied about a bit here. However the word means “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine”. That means that IF it could be shown that your theology (specifically you Mark as editor and Georges as founder) conflicts with the Lausanne Covenant then you would need to face the fact that you yourselves are the heretics in the proper meaning of the word.

2) I think IF this proved to be the case, it would be wise for you all to stop and take a long, hard and prayerful look at what you are doing here on this blogg. In the end you would need to decide whether you wish to stay within the fold of Evangelical Missions or carry on as a small independent movement.

3) IF you discovered your theology is non-orthodox with respect the global evangelical movement and you chose stay in the fold then I think you would have a few responsibilities (sorry to be so hypothetical here but it seems I had not earlier managed to communicate this “accountability” idea well enough). I think some of these responsibilities would involve:

a) To publicly confess the heresy and repent from it
b) To re-edit EVERY post and comment BiblicalMissiology staff have submitted pointing out your error and that you no longer believe that. (or perhaps take the whole blogg down if it proves to be unsalvageable)
c) Apologise to those who have been falsely accused of heresy if it happens that they were orthodox
d) To withdraw from circulation books, videos, training courses etc. that express the heretical theology in any form. (obviously real integrity in accountability would cover more than this blogg, it would include personal ministries, books etc…)

etc.. etc.. I think you get the idea. I used your blogg for ideas here and it seems this is what you would hope any believer or teacher that discovers themselves to be in heresy to do and so your integrity would demand the same from you.

4) OR, IF you discovered your theology is non-orthodox with respect the global evangelical movement, and yet you decided that they are all mistaken and to carry on alone. Then I think this also has some responsibilities (again gleaned from your blogg):
a) You would need to clearly say you do not subscribe to the LC. This would mean informing your donors, denominations, pastors, partners, publishers etc of your choice to break with the global community.
b) Your books, courses, bloggs, ministries should clearly state that you are not in agreement with the global evangelical movement.
etc. etc.

Is that more clear? Again this is just hypothetical, I am not accusing, but this is clearly the sort of accountability you desire for the IM people.

This blogg wants more than “discussion”. It is promoting and working for accountability in Evangelical mission work. This is a noble cause and the excesses of many in IM certainly need this. But MY question is this: Are YOU in BiblicalMissiology willing to be held to the same high standards as you want to promote, or is this just a one way accountability? In other words is it worth me discussing theology on this site? Are you REALLY speaking for the international community as you claim? As I said before: In the end, if it is just my biblical theology vs. the biblical theology of the Houssney family and friends then the discussion seems somehow pointless.

Hope that was clearer. I look forward to your response.
Are you willing be accountable?

-James