The Insider Movement Debate: Which C5?

There has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the issue of contextualization as it relates to "Insider Movements", or "C5" ministry, in the Islamic context.  One of the primary areas where I believe these misunderstandings have happened centers around the definitions that we are using for C5.  I would argue that C5 might mean one thing to one person, but something else to another.  I feel that this is chiefly why we have seen such unhelpful polarization.  Below I have constructed two tables that seek to rectify this confusion by bringing clarity to the issue.  I would argue that on the one hand, we should not just blindly seek to implement C5 ministry as some sort of magic bullet - because this can and does lead to unbiblical syncretism.  However, I would also argue that we should not just write off C5 as some sort of unbiblical approach to ministry without first considering that a highly contextualized approach to ministry can truly lead to a healthy, contextualized local expression of the Church.  Thus, the tables below are my attempt to delineate what I see as a "syncretistic" or unhealthy view of C5 ministry versus an "appropriate" or healthy view of C5 ministry.

A tip: you might want to click on the tables to enlarge them!

Table 1 represents most of the fears concerning Insider Movements.  If not carefully monitored and guided, many C5 ministries could end up in this model.  Table 2 represents the exciting possibilities of properly guided (both by man and God) Insider Movements.  I sincerely believe that this transitional model will be acceptable to both sides of the current debate on high spectrum contextualization for two reasons.  First of all, it brings further clarity and distinction to the often-ambiguous Insider Movement discussion in such areas as methodology, ecclesiology, ethics and anthropology.  One of the biggest obstacles in the current debate concerns the overall confusion about what exactly is meant by “C5” or “Insider Movements.”  Different authors have used it in different ways, resulting in more confusion than is necessary.  We can converse more intelligently when we are using the same language about this subject.  In future discussions of C5, we should qualify which C5 we are speaking of.  The second reason why I feel this transitional model will satisfy both sides is that it has a more clearly delineated end goal, which is marked by limits on all sides.  The end goal of Table 1 is unclear, and thus leaves open dangerous possibilities such as syncretism or “Churchless Christianity.”  By way of contrast, Table 2 has a clearer set of guidelines that should not be compromised, and a clearer end goal – an indigenous church movement that is well related to the global church.  I welcome your feedback!

*Definitions
*HU Principle - Homogeneous Unit Principle.  Developed by Donald McGavran, it describes the phenomena that peoples of similar backgrounds are more likely to come to faith together, and would naturally prefer to remain in their homogeneous community.
*Ephesians Moment - Andrew Walls uses this term to describe the epiphany believers experience when they come to understand the concepts in Ephesians 2:14-18.  Thus the HU principle, while effective in describing how a people first comes to faith, falls short of the Biblical ideal put forth by Paul in this text.
*Taqiyya - An Islamic doctrine of dissimulation.  More common in the Shi’a tradition, it allows for deception in times of perceived threat.

n.b. These tables originally appeared in my article published in St. Francis Magazine in August, 2009, entitled "Rethinking the Insider Movement Debate: Global Historical Insights Toward and Appropriate Transitional Model of C5."