When Conversations Fade: Calculating the Half-life of Insider, CPM/DMM, Missional, and Church Growth Movement Discourses

What ever happened to the discussion on Insider Movements?

In 2015, I wrote an article for IJFM titled “The Complexity of Insiderness,” exploring the phenomenon. At that time, IM was at its peak, sparking much attention and debate.

Recently, I asked ChatGPT 4.5 to research how quickly missiological concepts like IM rise and fall in relevance. Kenneth Nehrbass’ insightful article, “The Half-life of Missiological Facts” (from the journal Missiology in 2014) served as the primary framework for analysis.

Nehrbass uses scientometrics, a field that measures how rapidly academic ideas are produced and become outdated, to analyze missiological trends. His research shows that missiological knowledge doubles approximately every eight years. However, some ideas eventually plateau and decline as new paradigms emerge.

Applying Nehrbass’ framework, ChatGPT calculated that IM had its period of greatest influence from around 2008 to 2015. The publication of Travis and Talman’s book, “Understanding Insider Movements” (2015), marked the peak. Since then, new scholarship has slowed significantly, suggesting IM’s half-life is about 7–9 years. This indicates IM discourse diminished notably by around 2023, barring any major developments.

I also asked ChatGPT to do the same thing for Church Planting Moments and Disciple Making Movements. In contrast, CPM/DMM missiology, sometimes also referred to as “Kingdom Movements” or “Gospel Movements” etc. demonstrate greater longevity. Originating with David Garrison’s foundational work in 1999, CPM/DMM continues to evolve, adapt, and diversify.

ChatGPT estimates CPM/DMM’s half-life at approximately 15–20 years, maintaining relevance into the late 2030s. Current discussions on CPM/DMM are becoming more nuanced, moving beyond initial enthusiasm for rapid numerical growth toward deeper theological and sociological reflections.

Similarly, the Church Growth Movement, initiated by Donald McGavran and further popularized by C. Peter Wagner in the 1970s and 1980s, experienced substantial influence through the 1990s. However, this approach began to decline noticeably around the early 2000s, with a half-life estimated at approximately 15 years. Although the specific terminology of “church growth” has faded, its underlying principles still inform contemporary strategies.

The Missional Church conversation, sparked by Darrell Guder’s “Missional Church” (1998) and later developed by Alan Hirsch and others, emerged strongly around the early 2000s. ChatGPT calculates this movement's peak influence lasted roughly until 2015–2020, with a half-life of about 10–15 years. The missional concept remains influential, albeit increasingly integrated into broader ecclesiological discussions rather than standing alone. For his part, Hirsch has shifted from missional to more movemental language.

Lastly, the Emerging Church conversation, associated with leaders like Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll, peaked prominently in the early-to-mid 2000s. Its rapid rise in popularity was matched by an equally swift decline, largely concluding by around 2012–2015. The Emerging Church’s half-life is the shortest among these trends, at approximately 5–7 years, indicating a swift turnover in its influence.

To summarize:

• Discourse, Primary Period of Influence, Half-Life

• Church Growth Movement: 1970–2005, half-life of 15 years

• Missional Church Conversation: 1998–2020, half-life of 10–15 years

• CPM/DMM Missiology: 1999–2035/2040, half-life of 15–20 years

• Emerging Church Conversation: 2000–2015, half-life of 5–7 years

• Insider Movements: 2005–2023, half-life of 7–9 years

The brief prominence of IM highlights the temporary nature of some conversations in missiology. Meanwhile, CPM/DMM’s sustained relevance demonstrates a more lasting conversation. But it too will eventually morph and change, as all church & mission conversations do. I wonder how much life is in the “microchurch” conversation in the West? It is too early to tell, but I think is has promise if paired with movemental principles.

Nehrbass encourages careful stewardship of missiological scholarship. Discerning whether our contributions are transient methods or enduring concepts can help us invest wisely in advancing the motus Dei. And yet we should not think too highly of ourselves.

A Bigger Table, Not a Smaller Net: Contemporary Missiology vs Movements Missiology

Through the years I have known and conversed with many well-known mission scholars who focus on social justice and political theology. I share their passion for exposing oppression, especially when sleazy politicians manipulate Christian supporters. We need to unmask the “powers” at work in the Church!

Where we part ways is how quickly some of them write off a movement of ordinary people who simply open a Bible in their own language, invite neighbors to study, and watch new house churches emerge in the process.

Look at how Jesus starts in Mark. After announcing the arrival of the gospel of the Kingdom, he walks up to fishermen and says, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of people” (Mk 1:17). That’s it. A little later Jesus sends the Twelve out two by two, long before they fully understand what they are doing, and tells them to rely on God for the basics (Mk 6:7-13). By Mark 9 and 10 they are still tripping up over his true Messianic identity, yet Jesus never stops the movement. If Christ trusted new, immature disciples to learn and grow as they went, why do contemporary critics imply that new believers demonstrate racial reconciliation and economic justice before sharing the good news?

The irony hits even harder when you consider the cost these new believers already pay, especially in Muslim contexts. Some are functionally illiterate. Many live under suspicious neighbors or hostile authorities. A few have been beaten or killed for nothing more than saying, “I follow Jesus, and I want to read God’s Word with my family.” Declaring their theology “too thin” behind the safety of a Christian institution is, at best, tone-deaf.

Cross-cultural witness is not colonial by default. In many regions today, semi-trained missionaries are themselves from the Majority World, crossing borders that other Majority World mission scholars barely notice. Criticizing them because their approach feels “simplistic” risks another sort of colonialism - the kind that polices missiology from afar and never takes the same risks on the ground.

Do these young movements need to grow into a deep concern for justice, reconciliation, and public theology? Absolutely. That growth comes after birth, not before. It is unrealistic to expect a young church planting movement to show the theological depth and social engagement of one that has matured and institutionalized over decades.

We do not need to shrink the disciple-making net. We need to widen the table so that justice advocates, missiologists, movement catalysts, theologians, and brand-new disciples of Jesus in least-reached peoples all find space to contribute. Each group exposes a blind spot the others cannot see. When a scholar unmasks oppressive systems, vulnerable churches benefit. When relatively young believers share Christ across a language barrier in a nearby town (e.g. Acts 11:20), scholars gain a living case study for fresh insights into mission.

So to my political theology friends: keep naming the powers, but do not dismiss ordinary believers who risk everything for a faith in Jesus they are still learning to articulate. And to those catalyzing movements in new places: keep crossing cultures with bold humility, but keep listening to prophetic voices that remind us the Kingdom is for the whole person and the whole community.

The motus Dei is a large enough puzzle for us all. Let us stop measuring whose piece matters more and start fitting our pieces together.

Movements for Realists: An Extended Missiological Review of “Religion for Realists” (Perry 2024)

It is increasingly common for me to slowly study a book with which I don’t agree and that has glaring limitations, yet is still incredibly profitable and stimulating. Religion for Realists: Why We All Need the Scientific Study of Religion is one such book. Author Samuel Perry is a professor of Sociology (PhD, Chicago) who also has a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary where he graduated summa cum laude in 2008. Perry has published some important works and is currently the number 1 ranked sociologist in the world by ScholarGPS. For those interested in podcasts, Perry recently discussed Religion for Realists on Dangerous Dogma, focusing on the implications of his work for the rise of authoritarian populism.

Perry believes that we need the evidence-based, empirical study of religion (i.e. “realism”) rather than our idealistic notions of it. Particularly, his subject matter is what he calls “Anglo-Protestant Christianity” in America: “The philosophical “idealism” that grounds much of the dominant Anglo-Protestant tradition has been relentlessly assaulted by evidence” (77). Perry gathers an impressive array of empirical studies, mainly in North American and Europe, to make his case. As such, the book is intended for an American audience, and primarily directed towards those in academia who tend to diminish the powerful sociopolitical role religion plays in the United States.

The focus of the book is also its limitation–at least, for global missiological purposes. Most of the research cited is on WEIRD populations and lacks an intercultural lens. Another limitation is the quantitative, macro-sociological emphasis. I read the book with my personal research in mind: church multiplication movements which tend to happen in the Majority World among deviant population samples (MBBs & HBBs). Sociological research in that setting is rare indeed, and hence the need for Motus Dei.

With those two limitations in mind, Religion for Realists is however a stimulating work current on sociological methods, and the bibliography is a gold mine of relevant resources in the sociology of religion. In my opinion, academic “religious studies” is basically missiology without mission. For committed Christians versed in the Bible who tend to think theologically, it is not difficult to make the missiological connections.

What is the main argument of Religion for Realists? From the Introduction:

This book is a short argument about how the scientific study of religion should transform our dominant understandings of religion in the West, some reasons why it has failed to do so, and what must be adjusted in the future to change that.

I have no intention of empirically debunking Protestantism or religion generally. I am, in fact, a lifelong Protestant, in a family of Protestants, with a Protestant seminary education. Yet dominant Anglo-Protestant assumptions about what motivates human beings (faith), what directs the futures of religious communities and broader societies (ideas or doctrines, often found in sacred texts), and the emphasis they place on individual agency are largely wrong. Not biblically or morally wrong. I won’t speak to either of those issues. But they are empirically wrong. Instead, I'll argue the scientific study of religion helps us understand that:

1. humans are in greater part driven by the more fundamentally cognitive "deep culture" of social norms, identities, and loyalties;
2. societies are transformed less by moral ideas or doctrines than by discernible transitions in human populations, and
3. our agency, to an extent we may resent recognizing, is powerfully shaped by social structure–the layers of laws, policies, formal roles, material resources, and institutions in which we live our lives. (4)

Religion for Realists insightfully tackles this “ambient folk theology” of Evangelicalism (xiv). In other words, the popular theology/missiology many Evangelicals are immersed in teaches that faith (beliefs), doctrines (ideas), and obedience (individual actions) are the primary elements of Christianity. Sound familiar?

Instead, Perry maintains that when you really want to understand religion (and mission), then faith, doctrines, and obedience all come downstream from social identity, population dynamics, and social structure. This sociological perspective adds interesting nuance to our missiological inquiry and should help us see our own ideologies, providing a “realist” perspective. Table 1.1 (pg. 10) outlines this argument:

Primary Operant in Religion According to Anglo-Protestant Tradition vs Reality

Domain	Anglo-Protestant Tradition	Reality
Cognitive Force	Beliefs (Faith)	Social Identity and Norms
Growth Factor	Ideas (Doctrines)	Population Dynamics
Change Agent	Individuals (Obedience)	Social Structure

Chapter 1 provides an overview, while chapters 2-4 describe each of these points in detail:

1. We Were All Wrong: Anglo-Protestant Misconceptions
2. Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms
3. Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics
4. Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure

Chapters 2-4 contain the heart of the book, and with a little nuance, are vital for missiological inquiry, including the study of CMMs (church multiplication movements) which will be my primary conversation partner in this review. (Chapters 5-6 speak to the importance of the study of religion in the secular academy and are not as relevant to our purposes here.)

Belongers before Believers: Group Identity and Norms (Cognitive Force)

In Chapter 2 of Religion for Realists, Perry argues that religion is primarily about group identity and social norms. Theology serves as a flexible tool to reinforce group cohesion, functioning more as a marker of belonging than as a transformative belief system. This might sound backwards, but think about it: depending on your own theological tribe, your position on the complementarianism vs egalitarianism issue (or charismatic gifts, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.) is the defining feature of your faithfulness to Jesus!

Theology often operates as “sacralized groupness,” driven by relational impulses and social concerns rather than, primarily, doctrinal beliefs. Shared stories, symbols, and rituals bind communities together, while theological beliefs simply help narrate these bonds. Humans are “belongers before believers,” with group identity shaping religious behavior and biblical interpretation.

Ultimately, religion works through group status concerns, biases, and norms. Its fundamentally social nature prioritizes maintaining community over theological consistency or individual transformation. In fact, groups often switch their theologies when it suits the preferences of the group.

So let’s think through this missiologically. Movements avoid extracting individuals from their contexts and instead rely on social embeddedness (e.g. The Homophilous Unit Paradox: Church Planting Movements Within and Beyond the Oikos). Transformation often occurs collectively rather than solely through isolated individual decisions. In CMMs, as individuals within a social group begin to follow Christ, their shared norms and communal identity adapt, creating a ripple effect that leads others in the group to embrace faith.

This process does not negate personal conversion but recognizes that transformation is deeply embedded in the social context where beliefs and behaviors are shaped. This should challenge missiological frameworks that center theology as static and primary. It should also challenge Western individualistic approaches to mission.

Let’s also consider the sociological primacy of social identity and norms from the perspective of DBS (Discovery Bible Study). Perry references one very interesting study, How the Bible Works: An Anthropological Study of Evangelical Biblicism (Malley 2004):

What people are doing in group Bible studies has little to do with inductive education. People aren’t asking “How can I build my theology from the ground up based on what I see here in the text?” Instead it turns out to be more a collective exercise in connecting what they’re reading in the text with what their group has already decided the Bible teaches on that topic. [Malley] calls this “establishing congruence.” Our social group gives us an interpretive tradition such as “The Bible teaches traditional gender roles” or “The Bible teaches racial segregation” or “The Bible teaches that slavery is evil,” and we work to establish congruence between our group's traditional interpretation and the actual text. (53)

[Again, this study was on a WEIRD population. What about with non-Christian background, semi-literate oral preference learners who have never done an inductive group study of the Bible before?]

This is not to say that the Bible is not “living and active” with the utility to change people. Group identity and norms are powerful mechanisms for change, aligning with how DBS fosters transformation through shared engagement with Scripture. By immersing groups in the Word of God, DBS leverages the communal nature of belief formation, allowing the Spirit to work within relational networks to bring both individual and collective transformation.

The success of church multiplication movements depends on their ability to navigate and address deeply rooted social realities, rather than simply preaching rigid theological abstractions. As was said previously in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (15-16), people will accept or reject a new religion based on whether they see it as strengthening or weakening a valued part of their social identity.

Evangelism the Old-Fashioned Way: Population Dynamics (Growth Factor)

In Chapter 3, Perry argues that religious transformation is primarily driven by population dynamics, not only superior ideas or doctrines. “Bodies precede ideas,” (70) with religious growth and decline resembling ecological systems rather than religious debates or marketplace competitions. Religious success depends on producing more members with durable social identities and norms.

Historically, religious groups have grown through high fertility rates and cohesive subcultures, especially in conservative, pro-natalist communities. As societies modernize, pluralism and secular civic options increase, leading to disaffiliation and the normalization of secularization. I found this quote fascinating:

Political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart show that as economic development increases around the world, citizens increase in their “existential security,” meaning they don’t live in constant fear of famine, disease, war, or political corruption. And when existential security increases, populations simultaneously experience lower birth rates, rising individual-choice norms, and lower levels of religiosity. (83)

But seculars have fewer babies, right? Yes. Then why is secularism increasing in the West? Because population dynamics are about more than just fertility and immigration. In the West, there are now enough religiously unaffiliated persons in the population to where secularity is an increasingly live option “that people rarely switch back from once they embrace” (87).

In thinking through where there are church multiplication movements today, my hunch is that nearly every place that is seeing a movement is also experiencing population growth, including overall Christian growth. In the US, Ryan Burge has documented that growing churches are also much more likely to be in counties with positive population growth. This adds an important caveat for those seeking to explain the rise of CPMs globally. Where Christianity (of various kinds) is declining, you are also less likely to have CPMs. The reverse is also true.

Understanding movements requires a focus on population trends and their interplay with societal changes. And of course, this is not to deny that God is the author of authentic Jesus movements.

Come Over Here and Make Me: The Power of Structure (Change Agent)

In Chapter 4, Perry argues that religious life is fundamentally shaped by social structures—the rules and resources that organize, constrain, and reproduce societal behaviors and arrangements. Western societies often overlook this, focusing instead on individual belief and conversion. Modernity has created structural alternatives to religion, such as existential security, urbanization, and state welfare programs, which reduce both the need for and trust in religion. These structural shifts are typically irreversible except under authoritarian regimes.

Religious groups privileged by the state often decline in participation and piety, while religious minorities tend to grow. This dynamic reveals that state involvement in religion frequently fosters negative associations, further accelerating secularization. In authoritarian contexts, religion may grow, but this growth is often tied to nationalist fervor rather than genuine religiosity. Modern structural arrangements fundamentally alter how religion functions in society, prioritizing identity over practice and weakening traditional religious participation.

Concerning persecution, there is little evidence that state repression directly catalyzes Church growth. Justin Long is quoted here:

Missiologist Justin Long cross-referenced international data from Pew Research Center on government and social persecution in particular nations with Operation World's numbers on annual growth of Christian populations in those nations and the combination yielded no discernable pattern. (111) [See Sorry, Tertullian at CT]

Social structures, more than personal beliefs or evangelistic strategies, determine the trajectory of religiosity within modern societies. This reinforces the need for missiological strategies that account for structural realities rather than solely focusing on individual conversions. “We are bodies, then belongers, then believers” (99).

The insights in this chapter refer to the challenges of movements in both urban and secular contexts, covered also in Chapter 1 of Motus Dei (12-13). To address this, CMMs involve fostering smaller, tightly knit communities with strong relational bonds that resist the isolating effects of modern urban environments.

Additionally, the growth of minority religions in contexts where they lack state privilege highlights the importance of resilience and adaptability. CMMs can thrive by embracing grassroots, decentralized models without crippling institutional dependency.

So, Were Jesus and Paul Sociological Realists?

I would like to wrap up this lengthy book summary and review by offering a brief reflection. To do so, a thought experiment might help. What would Jesus or Paul say about Religion for Realists? Three ideas come to mind.

1. Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 5-7 align closely with Perry’s insights, emphasizing identity and norms over doctrinal precision. Rather than telling the crowd what to believe, Jesus focuses on who they are to become (identity as salt and light) and how they are to live (norms like loving enemies and practicing justice). Paul, similarly, often addresses churches as communities defined by shared behaviors and relational unity rather than solely on abstract theological arguments. Both suggest that the early Jesus movement thrived when they prioritized forming durable social identities and shared practices, resonating with Perry’s argument that belonging and embodied norms are central to religious transformation.

2. Jesus’ statements in Matthew 10:5-7 and 15:23-24, where He emphasizes being sent “only to the house of Israel,” reflect an initial focus on a specific social and cultural identity. Similarly, Paul in Romans 15:8–9 highlights Jesus’ mission to Israel as a means to fulfill God’s promises, paving the way for the inclusion of Gentiles into the New Covenant people of Jesus. These passages might align with Perry’s insights on the power of social structures and group identity in religious movements. Jesus and Paul recognize the importance of working within existing social frameworks (Israel’s identity and norms) before expanding outward. This possibly illustrates that sustainable CMMs grow by embedding within a community’s structures and promoting an adaptive, movemental ecclesiology for broader inclusion.

3. Let me close with this: if you thought that either myself or Perry have lost our theological minds, then this last reflection is especially for you. Perry’s claim that the scientific study of religion reveals the “game plan” of authoritarian, ethno-nationalist politicians raises a critical tension for biblical missiology.

“My goal in writing this book is not to give authoritarian ethnonationalists on the far-right something like a game plan. Rather I believe the scientific study of religion reveals their game plan… Academics like me–those who deal professionally in the discovery and dissemination of facts–have something of a missional obligation to inform the world.” (122-23)

So what are we to make of this? Is Perry’s “realist” religion for our edification, or for our admonition? I think both.

In the New Testament, terms like stoicheia and exousiai are used to describe structures and principles and powers that exert influence over humanity, often opposing God’s purposes. The norms and structures that Perry mentions can be for good or evil, either outer manifestations or inner spiritual realities. Biblically, Paul warns against being taken captive by “the elemental principles of the world” (stoicheia) in Colossians 2:8, highlighting the potential of these forces to lead believers away from Christ.

So while sociological studies provide valuable insights into how social structures and norms influence religious behavior, they also expose systems that may perpetuate oppression or divert communities from biblical truths. Jesus and Paul were acutely aware of these dynamics, often challenging prevailing social and religious structures that contradicted God's kingdom values. For example, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) redefines righteousness beyond Israel’s norms, and Paul confronts the “powers” (exousiai) that hinder the gospel’s advance (Eph. 6:12).

This tension underscores the necessity for missiological strategies to prioritize biblical norms and discernment. While empirical studies reveal the realities of human social behavior, they should not dictate our mission or ethics. Instead, believers are called to critically engage with these insights, recognizing the influence of stoicheia and exousiai. In doing so, we can navigate the complexities of societal structures without compromising faithfulness to Jesus.

So, even though Jesus and Paul were obviously not sociologists, their teachings exhibit a profound understanding of both social dynamics and spiritual forces. The missiological task of integrating sociological insights into a biblical framework requires careful discernment to ensure that the Church remains aligned with the motus Dei, resisting the subtle influences of worldly powers that seek to undermine mission.

The Graying (and Browning) of Frontier Missiology

Last year I wrote a post that received some attention and I offered it for publication with Mission Frontiers. They asked that I expand on it for an issue on “People Group Theory” which was just published.

So here it is:

The Graying (and Browning) of Frontier Missiology

(Here is the PDF on Academia.)

Be sure to check out the whole issue which is filled with brief, diverse missiological takes on the concept of “people groups.”

CPMs Within and Beyond the Oikos

The latest issue of IJFM is out, titled Homogeneity and Hybridity: Does McGavran’s Homogeneous Unit Principle fit the Realities of a Multiethnic World?

Yep, the debate surrounding the infamous HUP remains as lively as ever.

I contributed an article using the phenomenology of CPMs as a conversation partner. Historically, there have been some passionate one-sided takes on the HUP, but I believe every article in this issue of IJFM offers much needed nuance. 

Here is my contribution: The Homophilous Unit Paradox: Church Planting Movements Within and Beyond the Oikos. Pardon the quirky title—it seemed like a good idea at the time! From the intro:

At a fundamental level, the discipline of frontier missiology is based on “crossing difference:” dissimilarities between peoples are significant enough to require an intentional apostolic effort to engage such peoples. By contrast, much of contemporary missiology is based on “uniting difference:” distinctions between peoples are harmful to the unity of Church and a pastoral response requires the ministry of reconciliation. In this regard, Donald McGavran’s infamous Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) serves as an inflection point between frontier missiology and contemporary missiology. The apparent contradiction lies between an apostolic function and a pastoral function, both of which are needed, but at different times and in different ways. Phenomenologically, church planting movements (CPMs) highlight this tension. In this lecture, after presenting three short case studies introducing CPM’s intersection with the HUP, I’ll share what I’ve discovered specifically as it relates to the nature of church multiplication within networked oikos churches. Along the way, I’ll make two proposals: 1) that “homophilous” is a more appropriate term than “homogeneous,” and 2) the HUP is better understood as a “paradox” and not a “principle.”

So what is my proposal? The Homophilous Unit Paradox…

…guards against cultural paternalism to promote polyphonic worship from all ethne and yet can also endorse racism and segregation if left unchallenged.

Read the whole thing. Feedback welcomed.

From Missio Dei to Motus Dei: The Recovery of Movement

We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God.

-A.W. Tozer

I usually feel okay about my appearance when I look in the mirror. But when someone shares a photo of me from a different angle, I realize, “I am clearly an overweight, middle-aged man who needs hair implants.” A slight shift in viewpoint changes a lot. Sometimes painfully so.

Similarly, common ideas we believe to be “okay” can seem very different when we shift our perspective. And some theological concepts become stale over time. Might we be facing that issue now when talking about “mission”?

Keep reading…

Missiology with ChatGPT

By now you have heard of generative AI and its ability to explain complex concepts and answer questions in remarkably clear prose. Based on its ability for research, AI is the first real threat to Google’s dominance in the search business.

Theologian Michael Bird demonstrated AI’s ability to discuss theology and even write a poem about the Johannine Prologue. Students are using it to plagiarize essays. My 17-year-old High School senior recently told me about his friend who bragged about turning in an assignment using ChatGPT without getting caught. While there are major ramifications for the future of education and scholarship, some experts predict that 90% of online content will be AI-generated by 2026.

So, how good is it on the topic of missiology? I thought I would mess around and find out. ChatGPT remembers your history and regenerates responses to questions if you don’t like the original response based on the feedback you provide it. (There are many generative AI sites out there, but ChatGPT seems to be one of the leaders.)

I have been honestly blown away by its capabilities. I’m actually starting to wonder now if rule-of-the-machines in The Matrix Trilogy was actually predictive fact and not sci-fi fiction. See for yourself…

Explain the gospel in the language of honor and shame.

The concept of honor and shame is often used to understand the cultural context of the Bible, particularly in the Middle East and the Mediterranean world. In societies where honor and shame are strong values, people's sense of identity is closely tied to their reputation and the way they are perceived by others.

In this cultural context, the gospel can be understood as the message of how God restores honor to those who are shamed and outcasts. According to the Bible, all people are sinful and fall short of God's standard of perfection. As a result, we are all shamed and separated from God. However, God offers us a way to be reconciled to Him through faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself is the perfect example of how God restores honor. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. By rising from the dead, Jesus defeated death and reconciled us to God. Through faith in Jesus, we can have our sins forgiven and receive the honor of being children of God.

Additionally, the Gospel is also a message of shame transfer. Jesus, being fully God and fully human, was shamed, humiliated, and crucified. He took on the shame of humanity so that we could be reconciled to God. The Honor of God is imputed to us, not because we deserve it, but because Jesus took the shame on himself.

In this way, the gospel is not just a message of personal salvation, but also of God restoring honor to those who have been shamed. Christians are called to live out this message by showing honor and respect to all people, regardless of their social status or reputation.

What is the difference between planting a church and starting disciple making movements?

Planting a church generally refers to the process of starting a new Christian church in a specific location, often from scratch. This can involve identifying a need for a church in the community, finding a location, gathering a group of people to attend, and establishing the structure and leadership of the church.

On the other hand, starting a disciple making movement (DMM) refers to a specific approach to evangelism and church planting that focuses on rapidly multiplying disciples and new churches. The goal of a DMM is to create a self-sustaining, exponential process of making disciples who make more disciples, rather than simply planting a single church. This often involves training and equipping people to be leaders and multipliers, and using a variety of strategies to reach and disciple people in a particular region or context.

In missiology, what does the phrase "Motus Dei" refer to?

In missiology, the phrase "Motus Dei" refers to the idea that the spread of Christianity, and specifically the growth and expansion of the Church, is driven by the power and movement of God. This concept emphasizes the role of God's sovereignty and grace in the spread of the faith, rather than human efforts alone. It is often used to describe the idea that God is actively working in the world to bring people to himself, and that the growth of the church is a result of God's work rather than human initiatives.

What has been Warrick Farah's influence on the field of missiology?

I'm sorry, but I don't have any information on Warrick Farah or his influence on missiology.

So, there you have it. It’s not perfect, but pretty remarkable. I also asked it for seminal book suggestions in various fields, to create a syllabus for a master’s level course on church planting movements, and to predict future trends in different countries.

At this point it seems the best way to think of generative AI is like a nearly omniscient, eager-to-please intern who sometimes lies to you. (HT: NK)

Remember, this technology is only in it’s infancy. As it matures it is going to revolutionize many industries and fields of learning. It will play a role in shaping post-literate cultures, who in turn create products and influence rural and pre-digital societies.

Missiologically, generative AI has the potential to write and send personal evangelistic messages to specific people (in an automated process!) and even analyze trends in various cultures which impact how people create meaning in their lives. AI can write sermons, devotionals, and worship songs. It could also fabricate online environments for violent wars but then be used in peace-building and poverty alleviation as well.

We are already behind the curve in how we need to think about AI’s impact on ministry, both biblically and ethically. It seems simultaneously invaluable and dehumanizing.

To return to our Matrix analogy, maybe it’s time to take the red pill. We have already begun our descent down the rabbit hole.

Responding to Popular Critiques of Movements

Earlier this year, No Shortcut to Success: A Manifesto for Modern Missions (9Marks, Matt Rhodes) was published. The book aims to promote missionary professionalism by critiquing what is likened to “shortcuts” and “miracle cures for covid” among Western missionaries. Notably, CPM/DMM “movements methodologies” are the author’s primary concern and what he views as deeply problematic. No Shortcut is highly reviewed on Amazon, although you can also note a few critical reviews as well.

In April, Global Missiology published two contrasting reviews of No Shortcut, one positive by Jackson Wu and another critical review by Dave Coles. Subsequently, the editor Nelson Jennings asked myself and No Shortcut’s author Matt Rhodes to write articles in dialogue with one another about improving today’s missiological discourse on movements. I was pleased that Pam Arlund graciously agreed to coauthor the article with me as I respect her wisdom and experience in these matters.

This process of writing in dialogue took several months and is covered nicely in the editorial written by Nelson: “Missiological Iron Sharpening.” Matt Rhodes’ article, which is a response to Dave Coles’ critical review and to Motus Dei, is here: Advancing Conversations about Proclamational and Movements Methodologies. The abstract:

Movements methodologies have spread throughout much of today’s missions world. The prevalence of these methods necessitates conversation about their validity. This article provides constructive critique of movements methodologies, addresses responses to previous critique, and suggests paths for conversation going forward.

In dialogue with Matt, Pam and myself wrote a response to No Shortcut and attempted to “zoom out” and respond to popular critiques of movements: Discussing and Catalyzing Movements: An Invitation to Research, Sacrifice, and Commitment. The abstract:

As a global discussion and a significantly large phenomenon in the world today, church planting movements (CPM) or disciple making movements (DMM) have attracted much attention and enthusiasm in the missions community. They are widely accepted, and many different agencies have adopted movemental approaches to ministry in the past two decades. However, there is also a minority view of detractors who disagree with the voluminous case studies and published literature on movements. This article responds to some of those critics—represented here by the recently published No Shortcut to Success—by engaging that book’s important critiques but also what this article’s authors believe to be misinformation and ambiguous logic inherent in the book’s arguments. The authors hope that this approach will foster a helpful, constructive, and ongoing dialogue on movements missiology for the missions community.

I encourage you to read the reviews by Wu and Coles before reading the two articles, assuming you have read No Shortcut already. I want to thank everyone in the Motus Dei Network who reviewed earlier drafts of our article and also Pam, Nelson, and Matt for their friendship and cooperation throughout this process.

The Genesis and Evolution of Church Planting Movements Missiology

I have recently written a contemporary history of the CPM/DMM phenomenon: The Genesis and Evolution of Church-Planting Movements Missiology. Originally, the article was 8,500 words but I had to trim it down to 5,000 words for publication. I will include more details at a later time but what you can read right now is a concise explanation of how CPM/DMM – a specific type of missiological movement in history – originated and continues to develop.

Here is the abstract:

While the dramatic growth of church-planting movements (CPMs) in non-Christian contexts around the world provides ample opportunity to explain their emergence and significance, a missiology of these movements is struggling to keep pace. This article argues that CPM is a unique feature in the field of mission studies that emerged in the later 20th century. Although it shares some of the same characteristics as the early Church Growth Movement discourse, CPMs today are a specific type of movement occurring mostly in least-reached Muslim and Hindu contexts. CPM missiology contains a number of features and unknowns which demonstrate that the discourse is both evolving and invaluable for how the global church understands mission.

Here is the outline:

• Introduction
• Missiological Antecedents of CPM
• IMB’s Cooperative Services International as the Innovation of CPM
• David Garrison’s Research and the Formalizing of CPM
• Flexible and Diverse CPM Strategies
• The Challenge of Defining CPM in a “Community of Practice”
• Missiological Discourses Parallel to CPM
• Conclusion

You can read it here: The Genesis and Evolution of Church-Planting Movements Missiology

Citation:

Farah, Warrick. 2022. “The Genesis and Evolution of Church Planting Movements Missiology.” Missiology: An International Review, Online First: 1–13. (DOI)

Feedback welcome.

A Movemental Turn in Missions: Thoughts on New Eras and New Wineskins

See the latest post at the ABTS blog: A Movemental Turn in Missions: Thoughts on New Eras and New Wineskins.

We are in a new era of missions and we cannot expect to deal with 21st century complexities using 19th century exemplars. The four most prominent shifts in this new era include:

1. From Western to Indigenous
2. From Linear Management to Holistic Complexity
3. From Pastor-Centric Leadership to Mutual Polycentric Leadership
4. From Institutions to Movements

Read the whole thing.

Motus Dei book releasing October 19

As you may know, I have been working on a book project for the last four years. I’m excited to announce that it will be releasing October 19th at William Carey Publishing. As an edited compendium, it has over 20 original chapters of research on church planting movements. I’m going through the copy edits now. It is by design a thick volume, and one we hope advances the missiological discourse on movements.

Get your first look here, Motus Dei: The Movement of God to Disciple the Nations

Here is the book description:

Your Place in the Movement of God

An incredible breakthrough in missions history is taking place as disciples of Jesus make more disciples of Jesus around the globe, particularly among the least-reached. But what exactly are these church planting or disciple making movements? Where are they occurring and what are their unifying features? How are they manifesting in diverse populations? And can you or your organization be instrumental in catalyzing more movements? Motus Dei, Latin for “movement of God,” seeks to answer these questions and more.

Warrick Farah has expertly synthesized an extensive conversation between mission practitioners, scholars, and seasoned movement leaders from around the world. The resulting in-depth analysis of movements provides a multi-disciplinary academic investigation of an emerging “movements missiology,” highlighting the importance of theology, social sciences, ethnology and anthropology, communications theory, leadership theory, and statistical analysis. Motus Dei locates the current Church Planting Movement (CPM) phenomenon within modern history, while tracing its roots back to the first century, and articulates a missiological description of the dynamics of Disciple Making Movements (DMMs) in Asia, Africa, and diaspora contexts in the Global North.

Offering over thirty first-hand accounts of indigenous churches planting churches among the nations, Motus Dei provides a seedbed for growing movements in diverse contexts. There are lessons to be learned here by anyone seeking to participate in the movement of God.

A couple endorsements:

I have been writing and teaching on the subject of movements since 2001. People have often asked for more information about such works of the Spirit. Though I have been able to refer to a few sources here and there, I never found a satisfying comprehensive volume. Motus Dei is the compendium of contemporary research and wisdom for which we have been waiting! This groundbreaking book provides a breath of fresh air, answers many questions, and greatly advances the conversation regarding this flourishing field of study.

J. D. Payne, PhD

professor of Christian Ministry, Samford University; author of Apostolic Church Planting: Birthing New Churches from New Believers

God is moving in unprecedented ways! Kingdom movements have happened throughout history, but in the last thirty years God has started more than 1,400 movements with more than eighty million disciples in many unreached peoples and places. Motus Dei is an invaluable effort to evaluate and learn what God is doing in movements for the benefit of both the broader Christian world and movement leaders. “See, I am doing a new thing! … do you not perceive it?” (Isaiah 43:19).

Stan Parks, PhD

cofacilitator of the 24:14 Global Coalition; VP of Global Strategies, Beyond; coeditor of 24:14 – A Testimony to All Peoples: Kingdom Movements Around the World

As one who has spent decades in the worlds of both higher education and church planting, I highly recommend Motus Dei. It is well-researched, very informative, and extremely practical. Motus Dei would serve well as either a classroom text or a field handbook—a one-stop-shop resource on church planting movements.

Bill Jones, DMin

cofounder, Crossover Global; chancellor, Columbia International University

PRE-ORDERS WILL START SEPTEMBER 1, 2021

Facing West: American Evangelicals in an Age of World Christianity (Swartz 2020)

“If Arab Muslims are the least-reached people in the world, then American Evangelicals are the least-transformed people in the world,” retorted my Arab colleague as I was making my case for the priority of ministry among unreached people groups.

As an American Evangelical with a passion for disciple-making among the unreached, this stunned me. But then again, given all the ugliness that has been unveiled about American evangelicalism in (at least) the past five years, I have to admit, it might be painfully true.

In Facing West: American Evangelicals in an Age of World Christianity, David Swartz, professor of history at Asbury University, takes the reader on tour de force understanding of what can also sometimes be understood as “Christian Americanism” abroad. In so doing, Swartz shows how global evangelicalism does not sit comfortably in American clothes, and that American “missions” often has the dual effect of affecting the church in the United States as well. As he deals with people like McGavran, Wagner, Winter, and even Hiebert, I was most impressed with his grasp of the missiological side of the conversation. The description of the book says it best:

In 1974 nearly 3,000 evangelicals from 150 nations met at the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. Amidst this cosmopolitan setting and in front of the most important white evangelical leaders of the United States, members of the Latin American Theological Fraternity spoke out against the American Church. Fiery speeches by Ecuadorian René Padilla and Peruvian Samuel Escobar revealed a global weariness with what they described as an American style of coldly efficient mission wedded to a myopic, right-leaning politics. Their bold critiques electrified Christians from around the world.

The dramatic growth of Christianity around the world in the last century has shifted the balance of power within the faith away from traditional strongholds in Europe and the United States. To be sure, evangelical populists who voted for Donald Trump have resisted certain global pressures, and Western missionaries have carried Christian Americanism abroad. But the line of influence has also run the other way. David R. Swartz demonstrates that evangelicals in the Global South spoke back to American evangelicals on matters of race, imperialism, theology, sexuality, and social justice. From the left, they pushed for racial egalitarianism, ecumenism, and more substantial development efforts. From the right, they advocated for a conservative sexual ethic grounded in postcolonial logic. As Christian immigration to the United States burgeoned in the wake of the Immigration Act of 1965, global evangelicals forced many American Christians to think more critically about their own assumptions.

The United States is just one node of a sprawling global network that includes Korea, India, Switzerland, the Philippines, Guatemala, Uganda, and Thailand. Telling stories of resistance, accommodation, and cooperation, Swartz shows that evangelical networks not only go out to, but also come from, the ends of the earth.

This book will help missionaries from America see how they are viewed by evangelicals in the Majority World, but it also adds an important piece of postcolonial logic in the globalizing understanding of frontier missiology. Highly recommended.

A Missiology of Social Distancing: Ministry Innovation in the Midst of Biosecurity Events

The extent to which biosecurity events like this current COVID-19 pandemic affect the world, including mission, are yet to be determined. But big changes to ministry are (probably) coming and things may never be the same again. It may leave a lasting impact on various contexts for generations to come.

We need to think through how “social distancing” will affect communities and peoples- if this Coronavirus continues off and on for 18 months, there may be a psychological crisis worldwide as well. Suicide, depression, pornography, substance abuse, etc. are likely to rise.

If infection curves do not flatten, and health care systems are stretched beyond capacity, then the Church could step up and serve (indeed many are already), but it will require personal sacrifice. Some could even die.

One relevant case study is a West African movement that was featured in Miraculous Movements. When the Ebola epidemic began in 2014, they were planting 2,000 churches per year. It decreased to 200 per year during the 18 month crisis.

But the movement met needs that the government was unable to- church planters volunteered to serve in remote areas. The radio station that was being used for evangelism and preaching began an awareness campaign to counteract the rumors that Ebola was just a CIA conspiracy. Several volunteers died after traveling to villages to teach those who had no awareness of how their burial customs were spreading the virus.

These volunteers built such goodwill with those communities that many churches were planted after the epidemic ended in 2016, and the movement continued. We could draw similar examples from the early church’s growth during the plagues in the Roman Empire.

Such a loving response requires a robust theology of suffering. We will need to learn to pray. The marginalized and the invisible in our communities will be the most vulnerable.

During social distancing, we need to examine how the use of various internet technologies will affect the "diffusion of innovations" in communities, especially as it pertains to the gospel. What will happen to large, attractional, program-driven churches? Will ecclesiology become deinstitutionalized, and could this enable discipleship movements? 

Or will oikos (social-familial) structures become less communal, and could this constrain discipleship movements? Will individualism increase?

When charitable giving dries up with the collapse of economies, what will happen with our current model of support-raising missionaries? What about churches and seminaries in the Majority World who depend on wealthy churches in the West?

Will there be more resistance to mobilizing ministers to serve in places that lack an indigenous church, often countries with weak health care systems? Will xenophobia, racism, and even theological tribalism increase? But could this simultaneously increase the number of people who care about peace-building and ecumenism?

I wonder if there should be space for biosecurity events built into many areas of missiology, whether it is research, worship and music, preaching, peace-building, teaching, strategy, training, leadership development, theological education, etc.

We are only just beginning to think through what prolonged and sporadic cycles of social distancing will mean for mission. But we have hope, and there are many opportunities ahead. For faithful followers of Christ in uncertain times, apostolic innovation is required.

Hills and Hiding? A Response to Travis Myers | Kevin Higgins

Below is a guest post from Kevin Higgins (President of William Carey International University) written May 1, 2019 but not previously published. It is a response to an article published at Desiring God on April 23, 2019: A City Under a Hill: Five Problems with Insider Movements. Feel free to comment below.

---

Hills and Hiding? A Response to Travis Myers

Kevin Higgins | May 1, 2019

I recently received the link to the article, “City Under a Hill: 5 Problems with Insider Movements” by Travis Myers (Professor, Bethlehem College & Seminary).

I will primarily use the outline of the five points he raises, however I begin from one of his major subtitles near the beginning of his paper: “When the Gospel hides”.

By highlighting this comment and framing it as a major section of his paper he tips his hand to an assumption he is making about insider movements: they are secretive and hiding the Gospel. This is of course hinted at in his title as well (city under a hill).

While I welcome questions about insider movements and feel the discussions are a healthy process, I find responding to this idea that insider brothers and sisters are hiding their faith is just covering old territory in the long discussions about IM. The claim that insider movements are secretive or silent or don’t share their faith is a claim as old as the discussion itself (back to at least 2004). This has been frequently rebutted, and the number of Muslim followers of Jesus who face persecution and death because of their faith is also witness to the erroneous nature of this straw man argument.

Does every “insider” believer stand boldly? Certainly not. Does every Christian living in Muslim countries do so? Does every Christian in the USA? Of course not.

The real question then is what do godly leaders in such contexts teach and encourage their people to do? In the case of insider movements, the expectation is that disciples of Jesus make other disciples of Jesus. They share their faith and they bear witness.

They do not hide the Gospel.

Now to Myers’ five points. I use his terms, and each of the five is followed by a direct quotation from Myers’ article.

1) Hermeneutics

“IM is predicated on the misguided idea that faith in Jesus as Lord of one’s life can “complete” and be the apex of any religious tradition or religious identity.”

Two responses. First, IM is not predicated on this point. Not every IM proponent even holds this position, and in fact, if fulfillment thinking is not true it would not change anything. IM practice or approaches or principles are not dependent on this theme. IM is predicated on many other biblical principles and passages. The literature is full on this point.

Second, in my own thinking the only mentions I have made of “fulfillment” thinking were extremely guarded and tentative and quite clearly distinguished from what we mean when we refer to Old Testament fulfillment. I was raising the point merely to explain how I understood things, because it was already being asked.

My contention is that Jesus does fulfill a number of dimensions of anyone’s cultural and religious backgrounds when a person comes to faith (and personal longings and hopes as well). It is frequently the case that in Jesus people can and do see a number of beautiful aspects of their heritage, including their religious heritage, which now seem to find a new fullness and beauty in Jesus.

Myers’ argument which assumes IM bases itself in fulfillment thinking is a generalization and inaccurate.

2) Integrity and Identity

“Core Islamic doctrine explicitly denies biblical doctrines that are central, and essential, to Christian faith.”

This is true. Core Islamic doctrine does deny biblical doctrines that are essential. No argument on this point has ever been put forward by any insider advocate I know of.

Muslims who follow Jesus (not all, but a number whom I know) do argue that on the basis of the Qur’an and the Bible a number of core Islamic teachings are incorrect and they seek to reform those understandings, including Islamic teaching about Jesus, the Bible, salvation, and more.

This is not at all the same thing as suggesting that Islam does not teach incorrect things. In fact, it assumes the opposite.

3) Discipleship

“The IM approach stunts Christian discipleship and spiritual growth.”

I am guessing, perhaps wrongly, that Myers has not met insiders personally or directly. His conclusions certainly seem to indicate this. The question here really is what are IM movements doing about these issues? How do they disciple believers?

The movements I have known and been involved with are all rooted in ongoing inductive study of whole books of the Bible in community. Also, increasingly, I see leaders focused on reflection on the doctrinal history and themes Christ’s people have wrestled with historically, as these leaders in turn wrestle with issues in their contexts.

This does not mean that every answer Christ’s people have arrived at in other epochs and contexts is simply swallowed whole into such movements. I would argue we don’t do so in the west either, and would add that I don’t think we should do so.

4) Ecclesiology

“One’s identification with Christ should entail identification with all of Christ’s people in the world today and throughout time. That is more fundamental, ultimate, and significant than ethnic, cultural, linguistic, family, or local identity.”

I hear this sort of claim from time to time from critics of IM. I can sympathize with its intentions and heart. However, several things need to be said.

First, what is meant by identification with “all Christ’s people in the world today and throughout time”? How is this even possible? How many Christians identify in this way? We have Christian denominations who do not see others as Christian, will not have communion together, do not recognize one another’s ordinations, and more. We don’t even share (fully) common creeds, confessions or canon of scripture. So, to ask insider believers to hold to a standard that the Christian church has not attained seems hypocritical. I am not suggesting Myers is hypocritical as a person, but that this standard is.

Second, even when we do pursue unity and identification as Christians with others, this happens very much on a small and personal and local scale: through relationships. And this also happens between insider believers and those who we would call Christians. I have seen it and facilitated it. There is no sense among the leaders of IM’s which I know that Christians are not also brothers and sisters in Christ. They welcome thinking of all believers in Jesus as members of the Body.

Finally, I know believers who are “insiders” who also pray regular for Christians. They do so as brothers and sisters.

5) Soils and Strategy

“Though admittedly difficult in many contexts, religious identity and ethno-cultural identity can and should indeed be differentiated. The former must be given up for Jesus and the church. We should reject the conflation of social and religious identity.”

I want to point out where I agree and disagree with Myers here.

First, where I disagree. I understand Myers’ point here but it is, from many points of view, simplistic and impossible to separate religion and culture. We think we can, in the west. And maybe in a western context this may be partly the case, with our assumptions about secular and religious life, and physical and spiritual dichotomies, and assumptions that religions are easily distinguished and identified.

But in most contexts, this simply is not as easy as Myers suggests. In a Muslim context where something as normal to daily life as brushing one’s teeth and using the toilet are guided by religious teaching, what would be culture or religion? Should one brush one’s teeth differently just to show one is not keeping one’s religion? If one continues to brush teeth as they have since childhood, is that keeping their religion or their culture? These are purposely “easy” sorts of examples, in order to show that it isn’t easy.

In the simple examples above most readers will likely be thinking, “well brushing teeth doesn’t matter so even if it is guided by religion, no problem.” This already suggests we are comfortable making distinctions about what is ok and not ok to keep, even from one’s religious heritage.

Where do I agree with Myers?

The fact is that obedient discipleship will require changes. It will require replies of yes and no to all sorts of things, cultural, religious, emotional, personal, relational, attitudinal, philosophical, etc.

Thus, for me, the point is not whether one can keep culture but must jettison religion, or even whether that is a distinction we can make. The point is how do needed changes happen, how are they identified, who makes such decisions, and how do they decide, and for what reasons and motivations?

This is why we have taken great care in the movements I have been involved with to cultivate processes for handling such questions (for example, the questions of should we continue to do this or stop doing that). We have never given a blanket “yes, just keep doing everything”. Neither have we given a blanket no, on the other hand.

What we have done is asked, “what does scripture say on this issue? How do we obey? What does being faithful mean? How do we decide which aspect of our heritage is ‘ok’ and ‘not ok’?”

Conclusion

I have no expectation of being able to persuade every critic of the viability of the biblical faithfulness of IM as movements. And my aim here is not in fact to persuade. But I do hope to explain and, where possible, correct misperceptions and assumptions which result in misrepresentations. I do not for a moment suggest Myers intends to misrepresent anything about IM. But the five points do result in that at the end of the day.

To return to the title of Myers’ article, the IM examples I know of are not “cities under a hill.” They are seeking to both receive and share Christ’s light with all those around them, hoping that Jesus and His Gospel will be impossible to be hide.

Introducing “Motus Dei: DMM and the Mission of God” | Global Missiology

The online journal Global Missiology has published my essay Motus Dei: Disciple-Making Movements and the Mission of God in their January 2020 issue. Here is the abstract:

God's mission is diverse, and so are the ways missiologists discuss it. This article outlines a constructive missiology of the current "disciple-making movement" phenomenon in a way that makes creative connections between different conversations in the field of mission studies. In so doing, a new concept called motus Dei (Latin for movement of God) is situated into our understanding of the missio Dei.

Here is the main outline:

1. Integral Mission as Both Apostolic and Indicative

2. Towards a Missiology of Disciple-Making Movements

3. Locating DMM in the Missio Dei

• The Globalizing Church and the Role of West-South Partnerships

• DBS as Translation and Inculturation

• The Eradication of the Laity

• Obedience-Based Discipleship and The Common Good

• Prayer, Miracles, and Weakness

From the Conclusion:

In their passion for movements, DMM advocates tend to discuss them as if they are the primary way God is working in the world today. The same could be said for those who advocate the missio Dei with respect to holistic ministry. This article represents one bridge-building attempt to show that there is more common ground than is often recognized. Discipleship movements, occurring at the intersection of divine initiative and human responsibility, play an important role in God's mission to redeem his creation back to himself. Despite the tendency to emphasize our distinctive differences, we in the mission community need to embrace our unity in Christ and to listen more carefully to one another.

What can the wider mission community, and missiologists collectively, learn from the current DMM phenomenon? One central lesson is profoundly theological: sometimes, God moves quickly. Other times, slowly. In his sovereignty, speed and quantity is not the issue, but the quality of growth and the glory God receives. Related is that statistics should never be the sole measure of success. Furthermore, we should not expect movements to happen in every context if we just do ministry in a certain way. At the same time, this study of DMM demonstrates that there are approaches to mission and forms of ecclesiology that seem to facilitate movements better, so we are wise to inquire how they can be fostered more effectively.

God seems glad to work both inside and outside of traditional ecclesial patterns established in Christendom. However he works, God often moves in ways that defy expectations; it is his mission, after all. We might call this divine activity the motus Dei, the movement of God. In light of this motus Dei, we can - and indeed should - pray earnestly with apostolic and ecumenical passion, "that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored" (2 Thess. 3:1), just as it is with DMM.

Read the whole thing.

The “Unreached Peoples” Paradigm Under Scrutiny

If you weren’t already aware, the “Unreached Peoples Paradigm” in missiology has been under scrutiny the past several years. Here are a couple examples.

The 3 Words That Changed Missions Strategy—and Why We Might Be Wrong

And a response, Should Missionaries Focus on Unreached People Groups? Yes.

A deeper discussion is found here:

Beyond people group thinking: A critical reevaluation of unreached people groups

And a response, Beyond Groupism: Redefining Our Analysis of Ethnicity and Groups

I’ll be attending a webinar on January 9, 2020, 2:00-3:15pm EST titled: The People Group Paradigm in 2020: Relevant for Today, Relic from the Past or Something in Between? by Dave Datema with Frontier Ventures. (It is free, but you have to register with Missio Nexus- as a member of a North American mission agency you most likely get to sign up for free: https://missionexus.org/join/#join.) Here is the description:

The last ten years have witnessed an increasing number of questions and criticisms related to the people group paradigm. Is panta ta ethne really talking about people groups? Haven't the seismic forces of globalization, urbanization, migration and the digital revolution made the people group concept irrelevant? Aren't the realities on the ground simply too complex for the simplistic notion of people groups? If the people group paradigm represented the third era of mission and is over forty years old, isn't it time for the fourth one to appear? This webinar will delve into these and other questions and will attempt to give an up-to-date synopsis on the current status of the people group paradigm.

I’m looking forward to this webinar by Datema. Here are several questions I’m asking:

1. The People Group idea was, to a large extent, built upon a modern cultural anthropology that had cultures essentialized and boundaries fixed. However, postmodern anthropology sees more value in hybridity and recognizes that people often live in more than one cultural world while juggling multiple identities. How does this impact our view of peoples?
2. Does panta ta ethne simply mean to make disciples of everyone (Jews and Gentiles), regardless of background? If so, why did nearly all of the original disciples travel to new places? There were plenty of Jews and Gentiles right around them who didn’t know Jesus… On a related note, does the idea of church expansion or extension necessarily entail the tragic legacies of colonialism and Christendom?
3. Is the UPG paradigm utilitarian in nature? Does viewing apostolic mission as a task necessarily mean that it is the kind of task that can be completed/finished? Is it also a task that can be analyzed and managed? Is there a balance in here that needs to be maintained? (I.e. “Don’t through the baby out with the bathwater.")
4. Critics of the UPG paradigm claim that it diverts far too many resources away from equally important ministries. UPG paradigm proponents claim that there are not near enough resources utilized for the unreached. What does a responsible interpretation of the data reveal?

If you have any thoughts, please don’t hesitate to share.

Is the concept of “worldview” still useful in missiology?

Conversion (coming to faith in Christ) as a “transformation of worldview” is practically canon in evangelical missiology, especially with the publication of Paul Hiebert’s Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Baker Academic 2008).

But does contemporary anthropology still use the concept of worldview today?

In his review of Kraft’s book, Worldview for Christian Witness (William Carey Library 2008), Wheaton professor of anthropology Brian Howell said:

Although the worldview concept has become mainstream in missiological circles, it is virtually defunct in use in contemporary anthropology. Kraft uses Michael Kearney’s 1984 book on worldview as the anthropological example; however, there is no anthropological reference more recent than that. Classic anthropology can still speak to us today, but there is a great deal more current theory that is helpful for understanding culture change.

So should we move on from the concept of worldview? Is it really defunct in anthropology? David Beine, in his short research article, The end of worldview in anthropology?, (SIL Electronic Working Papers 2010) concludes with this:

The worldview concept, although no longer in vogue in the dominant paradigm of American anthropology, has remained a fruitful construct of analysis over the past decade for several other valid anthropological paradigms. There seems to be agreement among those still using worldview effectively as an analytical framework, that cultures—if I can
still use that word—do have central ideas or themes that serve to organize a wide variety of things, from material culture to political behavior. And recognizing the limitations, worldview is still a valuable construct for studying and representing these ideas. In the end, I hope the rest of
us anthropologists will not throw the baby (worldview) out with the bathwater (valid concerns of about essentialism); I would rather that those most concerned just help us change the dirty diaper.

It seems to me that the worldview concept can still be employed, but it is wise to note, as Howell reminds us in his review, that “concepts of hybridity, global ethnoscapes, and practice theory-based approaches to agency yield more nuanced understandings of cultural change.”

And yet, despite the ways they are often used in missiology, worldviews and cultures do not have discrete boundaries in today’s globalizing world.

Outlining a Biblical Theology of Islam: Practical Implications for Disciple Makers and Church Planting | EMQ 2019

Here is full access to my article “Outlining a Biblical Theology of Islam: Practical Implications for Disciple Makers and Church Planting,” that first appeared in EMQ in January 2019.

Taking into consideration the ambiguous nature of religion, a reconsideration of the historicity of Islamic origins, and the diversity of Muslim contexts, I discuss the important topics to consider when constructing a biblical theology of Islam. In the light of authoritative biblical revelation, my approach also illuminates the connections between theology-in-context and our practice of disciple making.

Here are the topics I have paired together:

• 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 contextual theology of Islam.

We Need to Reclaim the Discourse about Islam in the Church | Martin Accad @IMES

I highly recommend reading this brief reflection of the recent massacre at Christchurch. For practical examples of biblically appropriate Christian engagement of Muslims, see Margins of Islam: Ministry in Diverse Muslim Contexts. As the Church, we need to improve how we think and talk about Islam.

---

We Need to Reclaim the Discourse about Islam in the Church, by Martin Accad:

By now, everyone has heard of the shootings at the two mosques of Al Noor and Linwood in Christchurch, New Zealand, that led to the deaths of 50 Muslims and the wounding of 50 others at prayer on Friday the 15^th of March 2019. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident these days, with Muslims testifying to being spat at, or women telling of their hijabs being ripped off their heads, in London and other cities in the West. According to a BBC article, UK police have recorded a 40% rise in religiously-motivated hate crimes in England and Wales, from about 6,000 in 2016 to over 8,000 in 2017-2018, 52% of which were aimed at Muslims.

Bigoted attitudes, so common on social media, and the hateful discourse of politicians, may be broadly identified as contributing to this growing atmosphere of division. But in this post, I want to focus particularly on the rise of negative writing about Islam since 9/11, a large proportion of which has emerged from within Evangelical circles worldwide.

Admittedly, the attacker was not motivated by religious feelings, Christian or other. In an online manifesto published before the attack by a man under the same name as the apprehended attacker, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, he described himself as “a 28-year old Australian citizen” who “espoused far-right and anti-immigrant ideology.”

It is not my purpose here to provide a list of titles of “dangerous” books written about Islam. Indeed, it would not be appropriate to point a finger at books or authors at such a time of high emotions. What I want, however, is to provide a few pointers to readers who want to learn more about Islam, so that they might decide for themselves which writings are motivated by Christly love, which ones lead to life and redemption, and which ones might lead to more conflict, hatred, and death. I will propose here only three principles, given the limited nature of a blog post.

First, it is important to know that Islam is extremely diverse—as diverse at least as Christianity and other faiths. Diversity in religion is usually an expression of diversity in opinion on the interpretation of key texts that are often critical in the inspiration of religious practices that will contribute either to the good or to evil in society. The meaning of a religious book never exists in a vacuum but is always the outcome of a specific interpretation.

Hint number 1: if you pick up a book that seems to paint broad strokes about Islam, representing all Muslims as one thing—whether positive or negative—this should raise your first alarm of suspicion.

Second, the intentions of an author are usually reflected in the tone of writing. If the style of writing is bullish, polemical (warlike), or disparaging, chances are that the author is motivated by his or her own hurt, anger, or fear, or that they are driven by an intentionally divisive and destructive agenda. It is important to note that “polemical” writing is very different from one which is “academically critical.” You can be critical of certain elements of a religious tradition after examining them, without using your findings to discredit the entire religion or its adherents. Academic critique is complex and will generally employ a methodology that appeals primarily to the intellect rather than to emotions. If it is done well, it will give credit where it is due while discrediting some concepts through balanced rational analysis, avoiding generalizations that are disrespectful of people and certainly avoiding personal attacks.

Hint number 2: if the book you are reading employs broad stereotyping and other methods that have been employed by racist ideologies, you might as well put it down. You will not get any wiser about Islam by reading it.

Third, religious traditions are complex and therefore they are to be studied and presented through lenses that bring out their complexities. If the books you are reading about Islam are simplistic (often with simplistic and stereotypical titles), chances are that the author is not well educated in Islam and is simply repeating generalities they have heard at seminars or read in one-sided presentations of the religion. I understand that complex reading is not everyone’s cup of tea and that our social-media age has not trained us to maintain ideas in tension with each another. But the New Zealand massacre has revealed that our world is too fragile for us to accept simplistic ideas uncritically. In addition to the multi-faceted nature of all religions—including Islam—no serious scholar can avoid the fact that religions evolve and change constantly.

Hint number 3: If you are reading a book about Islam that tells you that Muslims will always behave in a certain way because Muslims have always done so throughout their history, you may conclude with confidence that the author is not seeking after the truth but is anxious to represent a certain manifestation of the religion as its eternal and unchanging manifestation. It is not yet too late to put that book down.

The age of social media is an age of citizen activism. Just as citizens have been able to organize and mobilize themselves in solidarity and support of good causes, angry and populist leaders have been able to gather support for destructive agendas leading to lethal action. The minds of this age are shaped by books and the media—whether interactive and social or more conventional. Writers, bloggers, and social media activists have a tremendous responsibility for the way that our societies and communities interact with one another. If you are a writer, God will hold you accountable for the sort of influence you have on people who are impacted by your writing, good or bad. If you are a reader and consumer, God will hold you accountable for what you choose to feed on and what you choose to reject, good or bad. As global citizens, we are responsible for the fate of our world.

Though, as mentioned above, I have chosen not to provide in this post a list of books on Islam that I consider harmful and of others I consider helpful, I will at least point you to my upcoming book, Sacred Misinterpretation: Reaching Across the Christian-Muslim Divide (Eerdmans, to appear on the 7^th of May 2019). The purpose of this book is to bring out the historical and interpretive complexity of theological conversations between Christians and Muslims, and to propose ways that we can move those important conversations forward. You can pre-order it now here.

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.