Good Ecclesiology Continues Jesus’ Life and Teachings: A Response to ‘The Potential Dark Side of Movements’ | Guest Post by David Garrison

Last week I posted The Potential Dark Side of Movements: Lessons from the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill which was my reflection on American Evangelicalism and movements.

David Garrison, executive director of Global Gates and author of Church Planting Movements and A Wind in the House of Islam, responds with an ecclesiological comparison between Mars Hill and Church Planting Movements (CPM).

---

Let me toss my two cents into this conversation. Every CPM is different with varying strengths and weaknesses. If, and I doubt it is so, the Mars Hill model is a CPM at all, it would fit on the extreme end of the spectrum as a sort of frankensteinian American mega-church planting movement. In so many ways, it fails to meet any of the descriptive elements found in the CPM phenomena that we’ve been describing around the world for the past 25 years.

In South Asia, as we sought to sharpen our CPM ecclesiology, we looked at the variety of movements around the world and adopted an eclectic approach to incorporating the best elements of ecclesiology that we were seeing. We sought to strike a balance between reproducibility and integrity to the ideal of continuing to reproduce all that Jesus taught and did in his life on earth.

The resulting ecclesiology, we called “A Handy Guide to Healthy Church,” so named because we used the “hand” as a mnemonic devise for teaching and reproducing key elements of the ecclesiology. Essential to this ecclesiology were what we called “antibodies” that fought off the twin maladies of immorality and heresy. The antibodies were woven into the structure of the ecclesiology and included:

1. Small size of meeting groups that prevented the sort of megalomania that afflicted Driscoll and threatens so many mega-churches today.
2. Intimate meetings in homes that ensure that discipleship exposes and penetrates every aspect of family life.
3. Participative Bible study built on 2 Tim. 3:16-17, asking one another the Pauline questions: 1) what is God teaching, 2) what is God rebuking, 3) what is God correcting in my life, and 4) what will I apply to my life this week? This is radically different from the “knower/teacher to passive recipient” model abused by Driscoll.
4. Shared leadership responsibilities with male and female deacons stewarding the five purposes of: 1) worship, 2) fellowship, 3) ministry, 4) discipleship, 5) evangelism/missions.
5. Dedicating all tithes and offerings exclusively to one of these five purposes, with none available for salaries, buildings, or property.

These internal checks and balances within our house church network (that produced 106 churches in two years), served as antibodies within the body of Christ to fight off the sort of immorality and heresy that infected Brother Driscoll’s network.

Good ecclesiology that is both faithful to the Christ ideal and nimble enough to keep up with rapidly multiplying new conversions/disciples is a moving target. Our challenge must always be to measure our churches and ourselves by the ideal of: “Is this continuing what Jesus began?” Aiming for anything less, whether it is rapid or slow, Reformed or Charismatic, is missing the mark of fidelity to the One who claimed the Church as His Body.

David Garrison | Executive Director, Global Gates

My Two Recent Articles in EMQ and IJFM

I currently have two articles out at the moment in EMQ and IJFM.

The first is with EMQ and if you are a member of Missio Nexus (most North American agencies are with Missio Nexus, and if your org is a member then you are too), then you have access. If not, I’ll make it available in April. It is called Outlining a Biblical Theology of Islam: Practical Implications for Disciple Makers and Church Planting and is something I wrote as a kind of promo piece for the annual Middle East Consultation in Beirut, Lebanon (I’ll be giving two keynotes this year). Here are the topics I have paired together in the EMQ article:

• Religion and Kingdom Sociology
• Biblical Anthropology and Idolatry
• Prophecy and Muhammad
• Revelation and the Qur’an
• Christocentric Doxology and Allah

It is obviously a lot to discuss in just over 3,000 words (EMQ’s limit), but these are the major themes that need consideration in our theology of Islam.

The second article is Adaptive Missiological Engagement with Islamic Contexts at IJFM. This is also Chapter 17 in our book Margins of Islam: Ministry in Diverse Muslim Contexts. Here is my outline for the article:

Changing Understandings of Muslim Contexts

• Postcolonial Studies: “The Muslim World” vs. “The West”
• Cultural Anthropology: Modern Essentialism and Postmodern Relativism
• Religious Studies and the Fog of “Religions”

A Call for Adaptive Missiology

• Towards a Missiology of Islam(s)
• Idolatry and Mission
• Transforming Relationships

This is a longer article that deals with epistemology and issues which inevitably color our approaches to reaching Muslims.

Let me know what you think in the comments below.

The Real Theological Issue Between Christians and Muslims (Litfin, CT)

A good article at CT: The Real Theological Issue Between Christians and Muslims It's not about a different God, it's about a different Jesus, by Duane Litfin.

Some quotes:

[On the same God? issue…] One reason opinions flew in every direction is this: That question is not only unhelpful but perhaps worse than unhelpful. The question appears incapable of generating a satisfactory answer, and when well-intentioned people try to answer it anyway, as they often do, the typical result is turmoil and confusion…

Understanding what Islam and Christianity do and do not hold in common is an important task, but asking whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God will not get us there.

Litfin argues in a similar way to how we have approached this issue in the past. See Is Allah God? A Relevant Issue?

From the conclusion:

Yet it is critical to remember that this is a missiological, not a theological consideration. We must not confuse or conflate these two contexts. Points of theological similarity between Christianity and Islam can be useful in friendship or missionary settings, but citing these points as if we think they actually count for something with God apart from the gospel is a grave mistake.

Christians do their Muslim friends no favors by so emphasizing points of similarity that Christ’s ultimate verdict is never heard. The decisive question God asks of every human being is: What have you done with my Son? (John 1:10–12) If the answer is that we have refused him, nothing else we say can matter. As the rising sun overwhelms the nighttime stars, so the refusal of God’s gift of his Son renders every other claim irrelevant.

In the preface to The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis famously said, “I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish, but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road. A wrong sum can be put right, but only by going back till you find the error and working it afresh from that point, never by simply going on.” So it is with the reception of God’s Son. Until we get that fork-in-the-road decision right, all else becomes moot. “Whoever does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him” (John 5:23).

Christology in Contextualization, by Kyle Meeker

A paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, 2010 Southwestern Regional Meeting, titled:

Christology in Contextualization:
Another Look at Paul’s Motivation, Methods, and Message
at Mars Hill (Acts 17) in light of the Missiological Debate
surrounding Muslim - Christian Dialogue

Introduction and Abstract:

Acts 17 is often referenced as a key text in the Christian Scriptures for emphasizing the common ground in Muslim-Christian dialogue. While this text certainly tills the ground for fruitful discourse, the context emphasizes Paul’s telos - Jesus as the Person of Completion for issues in the Athenians’ world-views. Paul’s motivation, methods, and message also entails points of contention between ideologies. Without being unduly contentious, Paul’s ultimate objective is clarity in communicating his concept of Jesus. His goal of clarity drives his interactions, especially in regard to making the ‘Unknown’ known.

While stressing the distinctions, this appears to be a hindrance in Christian-Muslim Dialogue. But, if properly engaged, distinctions will provide a more robust dialogue and deeper understanding, especially for those from the respective communities listening in on the conversation.

Read the whole thing (14 pages).

“Incarnational” Mission?

Some people I really respect, such as Andreas Köstenberger, argue that the term “incarnational” as used to describe our mode or model of ministry is unhelpful and misleading, because it makes Jesus’ specific mission of atonement for sin less unique and trivializes the actual incarnation event.  But I think the term is great.  As Alan Hirsch says, “The implications of the incarnation for mission are massive.”

Ed Stetzer has a great series arguing that the term “incarnational ministry” is not only biblically justifiable, but necessary and incredibly helpful.  You can read it here: Why We Should Use the Phrase "Incarnational Mission" (Part 1 of 3), Part 2, and Part 3.

See also the Infinite Translatability of the Christian Faith.

What is a missional hermeneutic? (The Mission of God, Wright)

Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation.  It provides a map that guides the reader to a meaning of a text.  All maps aim to simplify and represent reality, and there will necessarily be limitations in any map.  But a good map is essential if you want to accurately understand where you are and where you are going.

In The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative, Chris Wright demonstrates how a “missional hermeneutic” is a map that approaches the whole Bible from the perspective of mission.  This is the perspective which enables us to grasp the driving dynamic of the Bible’s grand narrative. 

According to Wright, it is not enough to recognize the Christological focus of the Bible.  (And also not enough to recognize the plain, historical, and grammatical hermeneutic.)  Of course Jesus is the central interpretative key by which we understand the overall significance of the Old and New Testaments, but we must also recognize the missiological focus of the Bible because God in Christ is on a mission.

A key text in biblical hermeneutics says, “Then [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations”” (Luke 24:45-47). Wright comments that Jesus “seems to be saying that the whole of Scripture… finds its focus and fulfillment both in the life and death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah, and in the mission to the nations, which flows out from that event… he was setting their hermeneutical orientation and agenda. The proper way for disciples of the crucified and risen Jesus to read their Scriptures, is messianically and missionally” (30).

Here’s the point- it is fundamentally inaccurate to attempt to find a biblical basis for mission.  Let that sink in for a bit…!  Instead, it is more appropriate to speak of a missiological basis for the Bible.  “The whole Bible itself is a missional phenomenon” (22).  The Bible is a product of the mission of God and thus guides and empowers his people to their participation in his mission.  Mission is what the Bible is all about.  This perspective brings clarity and richness to its story.  For me, re-reading the Bible in light of the missional hermeneutic has been fun and enlightening.

Five Questions to Answer Everything

How we answer these 5 questions will shape almost everything we do (and form a general framework for missiology):

1. How do we know what we know?
2. What is the gospel?
3. What is mission?
4. What is the church?
5. What is the kingdom of God?

HT: Stetzer (And then answering these questions helps shape our Islamic missiology.)

How should we form our view of the church?

Fruitful Practices researchers Leith and Andrea Gray have stated that (63):

…church planting workers tend to view their mission strategy based on their view of what the church is.

So then, how should we form our view of the church?

Rebecca Lewis argues that pre-existing communities should become the church as she differentiates between planting the church and implanting the church (17):

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…

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.

Following this, the Grays say there are two models for church planting (63):

Some workers follow and attraction church planting model, in which the church is a new structure existing parallel to other social networks in the community. On the mission field, such workers share the gospel with various unrelated individuals and then gather them together into a “church” to which they gradually invite others from the surrounding community.

Other workers hold to a model of the church as the transformation of existing social networks. On the mission field, such workers share the gospel with a community of people who already know each other and that group gradually grows in knowledge of the Bible and obedience to Christ.

Where would someone form their view that the church is the transformation of a social network?  This view would not come from Scripture.  The church in the New Testament was made up of people who had nothing in common but the person of Jesus (of course there were some family conversions as well).

Instead, the “social network” model bases their views of the church primarily on their missiology, and their missiology primarily based off of observation.  Rebecca Lewis (who has been instrumental in her work in insider movements) says (36):

My opinion is that missiology must be based on seeing what God seems to be doing and evaluating that in the light of scripture (copying the apostolic process in Acts 15).

In this same vein, the Grays’ article was highly influenced by Frost and Hirsch, who argue in The Shaping of Things to Come that our Christology informs our missiology which informs our ecclesiology.

Simplistically, we can frame the issue as Jonathan Dodson does here (definitely you should read the comments to his post!):

Alan Hirsch advocates that Missiology should shape Ecclesiology.

Christology → Missiology → Ecclesiology

Ed Stetzer advocates that Ecclesiology should precede Missiology.

Christology → Ecclesiology → Missiology

Which do you support and why?

This issue of the primacy of ecclesiology or missiology is a foundational paradigm for how we think about the church and mission.  Dodson follows up with this post:

…which should take priority in determining a missional ecclesiology—missiology or ecclesiology? Both Stetzer and Hirsch have kindly provided their schematics to help clarify their positions. Stetzer writes:

My point is that scripture sets the agenda and has provides direction for all three� one does not �come from� the other but they are all derived from scripture, interact with each other, etc

Ed Stetzer

Hirsch explains: We believe that Christology is the singularly most important factor in shaping our mission to the world and the forms of ecclesia and ministry that form that engagement…Before there is any consideration given to the particular aspects of ecclesiology, such as leadership, evangelism or worship, there ought to be a thoroughgoing attempt to reconnect the church with Jesus; that is, to ReJesus.

Alan Hirsch

Stetzer sets Scripture as the starting place and Hirsch begins with [the biblical] Jesus. What are the implications for these slightly different starting places? Do these differences matter?

It is precisely these differences that determine how we form our view of the church which then creates a difference between the two models of church mentioned above.

We must come back to Scripture to inform our Christology, missiology, and ecclesiology.  And Scripture says the church is more than a transformed social network made up of people who look, talk, and think the same.  Instead, the church is in fact a new social group where allegiance to Jesus and identity in Him is paramount to all other allegiances and identities.  A simple look at the list of the scriptural metaphors for the church should remind us how diverse it is (Payne):

• Family (Matthew 12:48–49; 1 Timothy 5:1–2)
• Body (1 Corinthians 12:20; Ephesians 1:22–23)
• Priests (1 Peter 2:9)
• Fellowship (1 John 1:7)
• Community (Acts 2:44; 4:34)
• Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16)
• Building (Ephesians 2:19–21)
• Bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 21:9)
• Branches (John 15:5)
• Sheep (John 10:1–18)
• Salt (Matthew 5:13)
• Light (Matthew 5:14)

IMHO, I think we should recognize that the social network model is a transitional form that can be helpful until we get to more robust, biblical forms of church.  Until then we need to make sure that our ecclesiology is informed primarily by Scripture.  And then, with Christ at the center, both our ecclesiology and missiology can shape each other.

Three Journeys: Jesus, Constantine, and Mohammed

An interesting essay by David Shenk called Three Journeys: Jesus - Constantine - Muhammad.  The essay addresses three different views of peace in our world today. (Shenk writes from the Anabaptist perspective.  One of my favorite comparative books is his Journeys of the Muslim Nation and the Christian Church.) 

The real value of the essay is in contrasting the journey Jesus took to the Cross with the journey Mohammed took to become a Statesman.  The kingdom of God is so radically different from the kingdoms of this world!

HT: Daniel S.

Is Allah God? A Relevant Issue?

Here are three similar and complimentary ways to look at the issue, is the God of Islam the God of the Bible?  But perhaps an even more important question- is this even a relevant question for us to invest our time debating or being divided over?

First, from an interview with J.D. Greear:

Theologically speaking, there is of course only one God. But as I note throughout the book, we see several places where Jesus or the Apostles confronted someone who believed wrong things about God, yet Jesus and the apostles engaged them with the common ground of, “let’s talk about that God you think you know and He is really like.”

For example, in John 4, when Jesus deals with a Samaritan woman who was considerably off on several points about God, Jesus told her that the problem was she did not understand the God that she claimed to worship. Many of the Jews to whom the Apostles spoke did not believe in the Trinity and found it blasphemous. Does that mean that the Jews worship a different God? A better, and more Biblical approach (in my view) is to take the God that they claim to understand and show them what His true revelation is like…

With Muslims, I would say that more often than not it is more helpful to use the Arabic name for God. They understand that to be the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. That’s a good place to start. Then you can say, “This God you worship, here is what He is really like, according to the revelation…”

Second, here is short take on the issue from Carl Medearis:

Here’s the point – all of us, before we have a real relationship with the real God, have some form of a “fake god” in our heads. But because the real God hears the sincere prayers of sinners (thankfully), He hears us when we call out to him.

So here’s what I say – it’s a moot point to claim that Muslims believe in the wrong god. Since whenever they call out to god (whatever and whoever that is in their minds) with a sincere heart – the real God hears. Just like he did with us!

There is really no good reason for us to insist that Muslims believe in a different God! There’s only One. And when we call out to Him, he comes running!

And thirdly, from Rick Love:

I believe that anyone who affirms monotheism—whether Muslim, Jew, Sikh or Tribal—are worshiping the true God. How can it be otherwise, since there is only one God? But I hasten to add that these monotheists are worshiping in ignorance and they are not saved. I like how the Masai Creed from Africa describes this: “We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light.”

So the issue is, how do you come to know this true God personally resulting in salvation and everlasting life? The answer, of course, is the gospel.

The only way to know God is through Jesus.  A genuine personal relationship with God can only be Christological and Trinitarian.  All other worship of God outside of Christ is “in vain” (Mk. 7:7).  So whether or not Muslims believe in a different God is somewhat of a irrelevant issue, because in fact no one knows God apart from Jesus.  All conceptions of God, whether they are American, Muslim, Asian, Agnostic, Pagan, Mormon, or even “Christian,” all of them are incomplete and inaccurate without the gospel revelation of the Son (Heb. 1:2).

“Son of God” in Bible Translation for Muslims

Here is an article in SFM by J. Scott Horrell, an expert in theology of the Trinity at DTS in Dallas, who writes about the term Son of God, its meaning and history, and how this should impact Bible translations for languages of Muslims: “CAUTIONS REGARDING “SON OF GOD” IN MUSLIM-IDIOM TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: SEEKING SENSIBLE BALANCE.”  Here is the conclusion:

We began with the question of how fidelity to Scripture and classical Christian confession of Jesus as the “Son of God” can be held together with Muslim-sensitive translations? Ingrained in Islamic cultures, the words “Son of God” elicit the image that Jesus is God’s offspring through physical relations with a woman. Conversely, central to Christian faith is the invitation to “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). I have addressed the following questions:

First, exegetically, are non-word-for-word renditions of Jesus as the “Son of God” omitting too much? My response is that the multi-layered meanings of “Son of God,” as in the Gospels, often point beyond the limited concepts of those in Jesus’s immediate world. Replacing Sonship language—as uttered from heaven at the baptism and the Transfiguration, by Satan in the temptations, and by demons as early testimonies to Jesus’s supernatural origin—can detract from the canonical text’s post-Easter implications. Jesus’s own Father-Son language reaches the deepest levels of divine self-disclosure.

Second, should the traditional centrality of “Son of God” terminology in both Eastern and Western Christianity be set aside for non-Christian religious and cultural concerns? I reviewed early second-century witnesses such as Ignatius, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Aristides, and Justin who give strong place to describing Jesus as the “Son of God”—this in the midst of Jewish and pagan misinterpretations. The Nicene Creed (325) later codified the meaning of “the Son of God” as “from the substance of the Father…true God from true God.” The full deity of Christ as God’s Son is the fundamental doctrine of all major Christian traditions. In that name millions have faced discrimination and martyrdom. For that reason, Muslim-idiom translations that replace literal “Son of God” terminology are often perceived by long-standing national Christians in such cultures not only as accommodating another religion but also as betraying the church that has endured under oppressive regimes.

Third, from a theological perspective, what does it mean to confess Jesus as the “Son of God”? And how does this relate to biblical translation? We first observed the analogous nature of God-language, yet how the names “Father” and “Son” (more than any others) transcend merely this-world significance to allow us into the heart of Trinitarian relations. To confess Jesus as the “Son of God” is finally to recognize both his essential equality with the Father and his eternal filial relationship. As for translation of the “Son of God,” all translation is unavoidably interpretation. Biblical translation carries the special responsibility of bridging not just from the text to the receiving culture. It further functions as an invitation to enter the Christian faith—the faith of the church. Therefore, especially in regard to the phrase “Son of God” when related to Jesus, extreme care should be exercised lest the rich meanings of the deity of Christ and his eternal relationship with the Father be subverted.

I offer these thoughts as cautions to Muslim-idiom translators who are sometimes zealous to circumvent barriers to communicating the gospel of Jesus Christ. Such a motive is wholly commendable, with over one-fifth of the world population in the balance. Both national and expatriot translators suffer hardship, opposition, and long hours of tedious linguistic analysis. Nonetheless, no Christian worker is autonomous from the greater body of Christ. No translator can ignore (and most do not) the basic precepts of Christian theology or the long history of the church. Fresh translations of the Bible are vital and consequential, whether in contexts of an existing church or where the word of God has never been heard. My exploration of the questions are intended to contribute to greater balance in approaching the translation of Sonship terminology for Muslim readers. To replace the grammatically accurate and traditional translations of “Son of God”—a phrase central to Christian confession—should be done with the full corpus of exegetical and historical factors in view, and then only with reverence and reserve.

“The Word” Illustration

In both the Qur’an and in the Bible, Jesus is referred to as the/a/his “word.”  I have posted about this before (Jesus as The Word of God).  Here are some of the relevant verses:

“Behold! The angels said, “Oh Mary! Allah gives you Glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the next and of those nearest to Allah” (Surah 3:45).

“...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was indeed an apostle of God and his word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him...” (Surah 4:171).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us… He has made [God] known” (John 1:1; 14; 18).

I have found it helpful to use this shared title of Jesus as an illustration with new seekers or believers in order to explain his identity.  This illustration originally comes from Common Ground, and I have modified it a bit.  I hope you can take what you see below and adapt it to suit your preferences. 

Begin by opening the Injeel to John 1:1-18 and have a piece of paper to draw on with you.  It’s a simple illustration that doesn’t take very long.  A question like this can open up the conversation, “You and I both believe that Jesus is the word of God.  What does that mean?”

1.  I start off by drawing this modification of the ancient diagram of the “tri-unity.”  At this point, I’m only trying to illustrate the complexity of God’s oneness while staying away from potentially problematic phrases such as Father and Son.  I don’t understand God’s nature or how God is one, but even Muslims can agree that he is Word and Spirit.

2.  After discussing the mystery of God’s unity, I ask, “If God is Spirit how can we know him?”  We are human and use our 5 senses.  But God is holy and separate from his creation.  In #1 and #2, there is obviously a lot more you could say (and heresies you need to avoid), but try to keep it simple.  The big idea is the identity of Jesus.

3.  “The word became human and lived among us.”  Jesus Messiah is the word of God.  He came from God.  If you’re feeling bold, you can say that Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1c).  Remember, it is best to use this illustration with the Injeel open to John 1.

 

4.  Finally, if we want to know what God is like and who he is, we look to Jesus.  “He has revealed God to us” (John 1:18).  The point of this illustration is that we know Allah because of and through Jesus the Messiah.

In my experience, the fruit of this simple illustration is that the Muslim seeker begins to indirectly understand the incarnation.  He is also getting used to learning directly from the Bible.

Try it out with your friends and let us know how it goes and how it can improved!

Trinity 101 - Trinitarian Heresies and Applicable Islamic Parallels

Friends, please forgive me for not getting back to the series of posts that I had wanted to do on the Trinitarian and Christological controversies from the Early Church that are relevant for the discussion with Islam today.  I've been way too busy.  So I figured that since I haven't had the time to deal with these issues as I wanted to just yet, I would do the next best thing.  Have a look below...

The following is a brief overview of some Trinitarian hereseis from Church History, and (where applicable), their relevance to Islam and Islamic theology.  The list is adapted from Monergism.  (Don't be surprised to see me borrow more of their excellent resources in the future!)

Trinitarian Heresies (and Applicable Islamic Parallels)

Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism) 
...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherants believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.
As it relates to Islam - I have already dealt with this heresy in an earlier post.

Tritheism 
...Tritheism confessses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three independent divine beings; three separate gods who share the 'same substance'. This is a common mistake because of misunderstanding of the use of the term 'persons' in defining the Trinity.
As it relates to Islam - Most Muslims believe that this is what Christians believe.  This, of course, is simply not true!  Let's be careful to understand  and communicate what we mean by "personhood" in the Trinity with our Muslim friends.

Arianism 
...taught that the preexistent Christ was the first and greatest of God’s creatures but denied his fully divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the development of Christology during the fourth century and was addressed definitely in the Nicene Creed.
As it relates to Islam - Muslims may not say that Christ was God's first and greatest created creature, but they do believe that Jesus was a created being (and a very noble prophet at that!).  To make this claim is to ignore passages from Scripture such as Jesus' words in John 17:5, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." 

Docetism
...taught that Jesus Christ as a purely divine being who only had the “appearance” of being human. Regarding his suffering, some versions taught that Jesus’ divinity abandoned or left him upon the cross while other claimed that he only appeared to suffer (much like he only appeared to be human).
As it relates to Islam - The first part of the above definition doesn't really apply, since Muslims don't think Jesus is divine in the first place.  But the second part, which talks about the 'mere appearance' of Jesus' suffering on the Cross, sounds very Islamic.  In Islam this idea comes from Surah 4:157.  But as we will see in future posts, it doesn't really hold - even based solely on Qur'anic exegesis - not to mention Biblical or historical evidence!

Ebionitism
...taught that while Jesus was endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him from other humans but nonetheless regarded Him as a purely human figure.
As it relates to Islam - This sounds quite Islamic, as in Islam Jesus is viewed as a (charismatically gifted) prophet.  Muslims are always quick to point out that whenever Jesus does a miracle, it is from the power of Allah.  In other words, they insist he doesn't have miraculous resources within himself to draw from - rather, his miraculous powers are solely from God.  Jesus is merely the 'slave of Allah', albeit a gifted slave.

Macedonianism
...that that the Holy Spirit is a created being.
As it relates to Islam - Actually this is interesting, because Muslims would probably concur with a Christian view on this more than others.  The Spirit of God (one of Jesus' Qur'anic titles, incidentally) is certainly not a created being in Islam, because God's Spirit necessarily flows from him.  The Holy Spirit is, generally speaking, very difficult to understand in Islam.  But we have some common ground here.

Adoptionism
...taught that Jesus was born totally human and only later was “adopted” – either at his baptism or at his resurrection – by God in a special (i.e. divine) way.
As it relates to Islam - Some Muslims might hold to a view of Jesus that is in accord with this heresy.  They might grant that Jesus was actually more special than the average Joe in first century Israel - perhaps approaching divinity given his amazing miracles - they won't allow for the fact that Jesus is necessarily divine by his nature.  Rather, they are more apt to adopt (no pun intended) an adoptionist view.

Partialism 
...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together.
As it relates to Islam - Muslims would never hold to this heresy, because it goes totally against their doctrine of Tawhid (the absolute oneness of God).  If you meet a Muslim who sounds Partialistic in his theology, please let me know so we can do a case study!

"Trinity 101" and "Christology 101" - A Witness to Islam from Church History

Question: What do repudiating heresies and the formulation of historical orthodoxy in church history have to do with Islam?
Answer: A whole lot!

After reading the comments to a post I made on April 5 about the way that Islam is helping us to sharpen our own theology, I have decided to do a short series of posts that will take a look at some ancient heresies and how the church responded to them.  As we have noted, many of the theological challenges that Islam poses have already been dealt with before Islam ever came into existence.  Therefore, in the interest of helping us to contend for the faith with our Muslim friends, I want to explore a bit of church history and the formulation of what we know as historical orthodoxy.  The two areas I will focus on are the two areas where Islam is most at odds with Biblical faith - the Trinity and the Person of Christ.  In the interest of clarity for future reference, I will entitle all posts as part of either “Trinity 101” or “Christology 101” in the categories of Theology, Church History, Trinity, and Christology.

My hope is that these posts will help our readers to be better communicators of the Gospel among Muslims.  I certainly know that writing them will be very helpful for sharpening my own witness!

I hope to roll out one or two each week, so be on the lookout!