Monday, February 28, 2011

Infinite Translatability of the Christian Faith

From Andrew Walls’ The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, pgs. 22-23:

Each phase of Christian history has seen a transformation of Christianity as it has entered and penetrated another culture.  There is no such thing as “Christian culture” or “Christian civilization” in the sense that there is an Islamic culture, and an Islamic civilization.  There have been several different Christian civilizations already; there may yet be many more.  The reason for this lies in the infinite translatability of the Christian faith.  Islam, the only other faith hitherto to make comparable impact in such global terms, can produce a single recognizable culture (recognizable despite local assimilations and variations) across its huge geographical spread.  This has surely something to do with the ultimate untranslatability of its charter document, the Qur’an.  The Christian Scriptures, by contrast, are open to translation; nay, the great Act on which Christian faith rests, the Word becoming flesh and pitching tent among us, is itself an act of translation.  And this principle brings Christ to the heart of each culture where he finds acceptance; to the burning questions within that culture, to the points of reference within it by which people know themselves.  That is why each phase of Christian history has produced new themes: themes which the points of reference of that culture have made inescapable for those who share that framework.  The same themes may be beyond the conception of Christians of an earlier or another framework of thought.  They will have their own commanding heights to be conquered by Christ.

Related Posts:

Sunday, February 27, 2011

5 Reasons Muslims Follow Jesus: Woodberry Study 2007

From Leadership Journal in 2008:

A survey of 750 Muslims who converted to Christianity shows five predominant reasons they chose to follow Christ.

  1. The lifestyle of Christians. Former Muslims cited the love that Christians exhibited in their relationships with non-Christians and their treatment of women as equals.
  2. The power of God in answered prayers and healing. Experiences of God's supernatural work—especially important to folk Muslims who have a characteristic concern for power and blessings—increased after their conversions, according to the survey. Often dreams about Jesus were reported.
  3. Dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they had experienced. Many expressed dissatisfaction with the Qur'an, emphasizing God's punishment over his love. Others cited Islamic militancy and the failure of Islamic law to transform society.
  4. The spiritual truth in the Bible. Muslims are generally taught that the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels are from God, but that they became corrupted. These Christian converts said, however, that the truth of God found in Scripture became compelling for them and key to their understanding of God's character.
  5. Biblical teachings about the love of God. In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional, but God's love for all people was especially eye-opening for Muslims. These converts were moved by the love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus. The next step for many Muslims was to become part of a fellowship of loving Christians.

The respondents were from 30 countries and 50 ethnic groups. The survey was prepared at Fuller Theological Seminary's School of Intercultural Studies, and reported in Christianity Today.

Muslims are now 21 percent of the world population, increasing from 12 percent in the past 100 years. And the growth rate of Islam is higher than that of Christianity (1.81% per year, compared to 1.23%). Christians still outnumber Muslims, with one-third of the world population naming Christianity as their faith.

In some parts of the world, significant pockets of Muslims are turning to Christ, including North Africa, South Asia, and Indonesia.

The study appears as a chapter in From the Straight Path to the Narrow Way.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Sunday, February 13, 2011

“Sonship” and “Lordship” Translation Issues

From koinonia:

The CT article The Son and the Crescent has caused quite a stir. It examined Bible translations that use a substitute for the term “son of God” to make inroads into the Muslim community.

In response Ed Stetzer looks at reasons to retain “son of God”, Trevin Wax hosts an interview with Hansen and Greear on the issues, and Daniel Kirk argues that it’s more important to insist “Jesus is Lord.”

See also Bible Translations for Muslim Readers by Vern Poythress at Mission Frontiers.

I just want to mention that Kirk’s point is just as problematic, as “Lord” is commonly used by Muslims when addressing Allah.  It is common in the Qur’an as well. I don’t know what is worse for my Muslim friends, hearing Jesus called the “Son of God” or “Lord.” Both titles are repugnant.

Andrew Walls in The Missionary Movement in Christian History (1996) indicates that the first use of “Lord” in Acts 11:20 by Jewish Christians with Greek-speaking pagans could have resulted with “the recognition of the Lord Jesus as one more cult divinity alongside the Lord Serapis or the Lord Osiris” (34). Talk about a serious translation issue in the Septuagint!  Claiming Jesus as “Lord” actually “sharpened the confrontation of early Christianity with the popular religion of the Greco-Roman world” (35). The Septuagint would certainly be labeled syncretistic by today’s standards, and yet look how it was used of God.

Communicating the “lordship” of Jesus to Muslims is perhaps an even more problematic  issue than his “sonship” because of all the different words for “Lord” in other languages (especially Arabic).

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Why is there a significant increase of Muslims making a commitment to Jesus? 10 Reasons

A paper by Duane Miller “Woven in the Weakness of the Changing Body: the Genesis of World Islamic Christianity.”  At his blog he says, “In this paper I try to analyze some of the main trends that have allowed for a global space wherein conversions from Islam to Christ have increased very substantially since the second half of the 20th Century.”  Here are the 10 factors Miller’s research identified:

    1. Media
    2. Exposure to other ways of life/thought/and religion
    3. Contextualized or culturally-sensitive witness
    4. Living Abroad/migration
    5. Prayers/a move of the Spirit/God‘s timing
    6. Dreams/Visions/Miracles
    7. Greater number of missionaries
    8. Translation of the Bible and material into local languages/dialects/forms
    9. Greater diversity in missionary strategies/platforms
    10. Great boldness in evangelization

Read the whole thing (35 pages).

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

What Insiders and Traditionalists assume or claim about each other

An irenic article from Jeff Morton, a traditionalist (“Historical” in his wording), trying to bring clarity to the debate:

Perhaps a different way to think about our differences is in these statements:

• The IMers believe the theology of the Historicals is bound to the past (a past hallmarked by extraction and failure) and lacks a real understanding of Jesus’ own methodology.

• Historicals believe IMers are blind to the insidious nature of Islam, which negatively affects their methodology.

Read the whole thing.  What do you think?

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Son and the Crescent

An article at Christianity Today by Collin Hansen, The Son and the Crescent: “Bible translations that avoid the phrase "Son of God" are bearing dramatic fruit among Muslims. But that translation has some missionaries and scholars dismayed.” 

Hansen does a good job framing the debate.

Related Posts

Monday, February 7, 2011

Christians and Muslims in Egypt

You may have heard about how Muslims protected Christians in Egypt last month by forming a human chain during Orthodox Christmas services.  Now this image is coming out of Cairo this week - Christians returning the favor... Man, I bet the Devil hates to see this!  May Jesus bring the truest Salaam in its fullness!


Friday, February 4, 2011

Luke 15 and a Word about Parables

Listen to this Islamic interpretation of Luke 15:11-32:

In this parable the Father obviously represents God while the younger son represents humankind.  The son leaves home, gets into trouble and finally decides to return to his Father.  He “yistaghfir Allah” (he seeks the forgiveness of God).  On arrival the Father welcomes the son and thus demonstrates the he, the father, is “rahman wa rahim” (merciful and compassionate).  There is no cross and no incarnation, no “son of God” and no “savior,” no “word that becomes flesh” and no “way of salvation,” no death and no resurrection, no mediator and no mediation.  The son needs no help to return home.  The result is obvious.  Jesus is a good Muslim who in this parable affirms Muslim theology.  The heart of the Christian faith is thus denied by the very prophet Christianity claims to follow.  Islam with neither a cross nor a savior preserves the true message of the prophet Jesus.

This is how Kenneth Bailey opens The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants. In his book, Bailey interprets the parable in light of the cultural paradigms of the first century Mediterranean world.  He finds a warrant to introduce the atonement in this parable because the father bore the public shame of his prodigal son’s “death wish” (asking for his inheritance while his father was still alive) by running publically in the street to embrace the prodigal son.  A dignified man in the Middle East would never run without great cost (public shame) to himself.  “This parable depicts a father who leaves the comfort and security of his home and humiliates himself before the village.  The coming down and going out to his son is a parable of the incarnation.  The costly demonstration of the unexpected love in the village street demonstrates a part of the meaning of the cross” (67).

Clearly the Muslim interpretation is flawed with eisegesis, trying to insert the Islamic concept of salvation into the parable. Let’s not forget to interpret the the parable in light of the crucifixion narrative and Jesus’ words in Luke 9:22, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

But I wonder if Bailey goes too far as well?  Parables were not meant to teach a summary of everything in Biblical faith, but instead to highlight one main point.  Luke 15 illustrates God’s extravagant mercy for sinners (something, by the way, that Islam and Biblical faith have in common).  Read this from the New American Commentary on Luke 15 (pg. 410):

The question has been raised about whether this parable teaches that God’s forgiveness is “free.” Did Luke believe there was thus no necessity of an “atonement.” One cannot require in a parable such as this, which teaches God’s love for the outcasts and the hostility this encounters, a complete doctrine of the atonement as well. A parable is not meant to serve as a shorter catechism of all Christian doctrine. Luke expected that this parable would be interpreted in light of what he had already said in his Gospel (cf. 9:22), what he would say shortly (cf. 19:10; 22:17–22), what he would write in Acts (4:12; 13:26–39; 20:28), and what they had already been taught (perhaps a tradition such as 1 Cor 15:3–8). The purpose of this parable is to teach essentially one basic point dealing with the situation described in 15:1–2. To ask more of it than this is unwarranted.

The church must continually examine the significance of this parable. Will we be the church of the elder brother or the church of the loving father?

This is the same route Tim Keller takes in The Prodigal God. He warns, “This story is a great metaphor of sin and salvation, but we can’t press every single detail literally” (76).  Keller continues:

Over the years many readers have drawn the superficial conclusion that the restoration of the younger brother involved no atonement, no cost… (82)

Mercy and forgiveness must be free and unmerited to the wrongdoer.  If the wrongdoer has to do something to merit it, then it isn’t mercy, but forgiveness always comes at a cost the one granting the forgiveness. (83)

The younger brother’s restoration was free to him, but it came at enormous cost to the elder brother.  The father could not just forgive the the younger son, somebody had to pay!  The father could not reinstate him except at the expense of the elder brother.  There was no other way.  But Jesus does not put a true elder brother in the story, one who is willing to pay any cost to seek and save that which is lost.  It is heartbreaking.  The younger son gets a Pharisee for a brother instead.

But we do not…(84)

Praise God for Jesus, who absorbed the cost of forgiveness in our place on the cross!  But the point of the parable does not take us there.

The Cape Town Commitment

Friends, I am very excited to announce the release of the Cape Town Commitment, the result of the efforts of the Theology Working Group chaired so ably by Dr. Chris Wright.  Here is the beginning of the forward, then you can look below if you wish to read the entire thing...

The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization (Cape Town, 16-25 October 2010) brought together 4,200 evangelical leaders from 198 countries, and extended to hundreds of thousands more, participating in meetings around the world, and online. Its goal? To bring a fresh challenge to the global Church to bear witness to Jesus Christ and all his teaching - in every nation, in every sphere of society, and in the realm of ideas.
The Cape Town Commitment is the fruit of this endeavour. It stands in an historic line, building on both The Lausanne Covenant and The Manila Manifesto. It is in two parts. Part l sets out biblical convictions, passed down to us in the scriptures, and Part ll sounds the call to action.

The Cape Town Commitment

Preamble
  1. We love because God first loved us
  2. We love the living God
  3. We love God the Father
  4. We love God the Son
  5. We love God the Holy Spirit
  6. We love God’s Word
  7. We love God’s world
  8. We love the gospel of God
  9. We love the people of God
  10. We love the mission of God
PART II  - FOR THE WORLD WE SERVE: The Cape Town Call to Action
Introduction
  1. Bearing witness to the truth of Christ in a pluralistic, globalized world
  2. Building the peace of Christ in our divided and broken world
  3. Living the love of Christ among people of other faiths
  4. Discerning the will of Christ for world evangelization
  5. Calling the Church of Christ back to humility, integrity and simplicity
  6. Partnering in the body of Christ for unity in mission
Conclusion

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Pray for Farshid and our Iranian Brothers and Sisters

CAPE TOWN 2010 PARTICIPANT ARRESTED IN IRAN
CGA6.pngFarshid Fathi, who was with us at Cape Town 2010, was recently arrested by Iranian authorities because of his Christian faith.  He was one of 70 Iranian believers arrested by government security forces on 26 December.  According to Elam Ministries, Farshid, like the thirteen others still being held, has been in solitary confinement and subjected to numerous hours of interrogation.
To learn more about the situation, please go to:

http://www.elam.com/articles/70-Christians-Arrested/

Doug Birdsall, Lausanne's Executive Chair, says, "We're deeply concerned by the arrests of Christians in Iran.  We recognize evangelical Christians in Iran who have no other choice but to meet in 'house churches' as a legitimate part of the global church.  We therefore call on the Iranian government to release those arrested and ensure that Iranian Christians are free to worship God and practice their faith in accordance with the United Nations Charter of Human Rights."

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please be praying for Farshid and the other Iranian Christians being held.  Also, consider adding your voice by sending a short email to David Yeghnazar (david@elam.com), Director of Elam Ministries, a ministry that serves the church in Iran.  David was also with us in Cape Town.  In your email simply say that you are in agreement with Lausanne's position and request the Iranian government to ensure that Iranian Christians are free to worship and practice their faith.  Please state your name, your position and your church or organization. 

HT: Archbishop Henry Orombi 

Friday, January 28, 2011

Miniskirts, Mothers & Muslims

From David Mays’ book notes:

Miniskirts, Mothers & Muslims: A Christian Woman in a Muslim Land, by Christine A. Mallouhi | Monarch Books, 2004, 184 pp. ISBN 978-0-8254-6051-7 | Order this book here.

Christine Mallouhi, an Australian, is married to an Arab Christian. She has lived for nearly 30 years in many different Muslim cultures and authored Waging Peace on Islam. Christine’s experience can help Christians live honorably among Muslims. I hadn’t intended to take notes on this book, but when I was nearly half way through I had run across so many valuable insights, that I couldn’t resist it.

“Conservative Muslims’ sense of right and wrong is more acute than that of Western Christians. In spite of the fact that we consider ourselves to have a strict spiritual/moral worldview, we are surprised to discover that conservative Muslims do not view us as a spiritual people because of our behaviour and dress. Clothing is an important, and necessary, way to make a statement. If you live in a Muslim community you will notice the different clothes used for weddings, circumcisions, mourning, and to show religious affiliation.” “Local people often asked me why I dressed so conservatively for a Westerner, and many enquired if I was a Muslim. I usually told them that the Bible teaches that godly women should dress modestly, and since I have submitted my life to God through Christ, I want to be modest in their country as well as my own. So, if they recognize godliness and decency by a certain type of clothing then I will wear it while in their country.” (83-4)

“If we want to be respectable then we need to know what decent and indecent dress in other countries is. I have seen some Christian women in conservative countries, where most women wear a veil, appearing in the street in shorts. The Western equivalent would be to go out completely naked.” (86) “My advice is to be sensitive to the culture, because it is helpful for your relationships.” (92)

“Women and men worldwide use voice inflection to show interest in each other. … When speaking with the opposite sex you need a cooler manner. Westerners tend to be a bit naïve about this, but Muslims are aware of these boundaries. … avoid lengthy eye contact, adopt modest postures, watch the tone of voice, keep your general demeanour more reserved.” (99)

“By voluntarily submitting to the same restrictions that our Muslim friends live under, Christians can walk in their shoes. There are few ways in which Western Christian women can truly identify with Muslim friends, or can understand their struggles, because our life is different, but we can choose to try to take on their point of view and live in their world. Identify with Muslim women in as many ways as possible and share Christ’s life within those boundaries. This seems to me, to be what living the Gospel means and leaving a model of faith that can be copied.” (118)

“If secular and Muslim women can give up personal preferences and submit to Islamic customs that they do not agree with, surely Christian women can do the same for our testimony. Christ left all his glory to become one of us, in order to show us the way home to the Father. We have an opportunity to lay down self for the sake of Christ. We have an opportunity to follow in the steps of the One who laid aside everything to enable us to receive his word.” (119)

“Typically, Christians arrive in foreign cultures intending to ‘disciple’ others. It’s not too long before they realize they need to learn a lot from those they came to teach. We must be guests before we can be hosts.” (124)

“Being like Jesus does not mean confronting everything all at once, even if we do not agree with it. …Jesus always treated individuals with honour and dignity, whether poor or rich, but he did not forcibly turn the class-system institution upside down during the years of his ministry. He turned it upside down by leaving an example of redeemed relationships for his followers to implement at the opportune time. … As unknown outsiders, Christians need to adapt to the culture in order to gain a hearing.” (128)

“We keep our bearings in Christ by not taking on an attitude that discriminates or denigrates people on the basis of status, yet all the while understanding its importance in the culture and manoeuvring within it.” (130)

“Friends will never say they cannot help. They may not come as they promised, but they will not say ‘No.’ … Arabs do not belong to themselves; they belong to each other. …In the Arab world there is no individual; there is only community. The Western attitude of being an individual in control of your life, and not dependent on anyone, is totally foreign and seen as deviant and dangerous to the group. … Arabs define themselves in terms of the groups they belong to. … It is groups that are unique, not the individual person. Any group member represents the whole group.” (136-37)

“Muslims tend to live in collectivist societies. These societies believe few things need to be spelled out, as people are socialized to learn them from childhood. … But this fact is invisible writing between the lines and is not obvious to an outsider. European society is individualistic. Everything is spelled out, leaving little to the imagination, and life is described by the legalities…. When individualistic members come into a collectivistic societies they do not know what is assumed between the lines. This will take a lot longer to learn than the language…. We may not realize that we don’t actually know what’s going on.” (138)

“The bottom-line value for relationships in family and society, and in theology, for Muslims is honour. For Westerners and Christians it is love.” (140) “Moreover, a call to make an individual decision to follow Christ as a personal Saviour in response to his love for us is just not in their frame of reference. If it is perceived as changing camps and joining the Western Christian camp then it is naturally viewed as dangerous, and more commonly as traitorous! It breaks the cohesive bond to others in the community. This presentation of the Gospel threatens all the most sacred foundations of Muslim societies: honour, authority, and loyalty. Following Christ will challenge our loyalties. But that is after we have understood what the Gospel is all about. We first have to hear it as good news, before we work out the implications on our particular family and culture. We need to understand the web of society, and the deeply held beliefs of people, in order to work out how to tell the story of God’s news so that it sounds like just that: good news.” (141)

“When Christ glorified God on earth, he poured his life into his disciples. This is how we also glorify God on earth. We pour our lives into others, and receive from them, until we both manifest the character of God.” (147)

“Follow Christ’s example and live with your friends, joining with them in all the affairs of daily life under their conditions. People do not only need the Book in their hand with instructions how to live. They need your hand in theirs, sharing their lives along with the Book. This is the heart of the Christian message. God did not rely on a book of instructions. Christ came and lived with us.” (149)

“For Muslims to feel comfortable with our spirituality they need to feel comfortable with our hospitality. … Hospitality is not just serving food; it is a lifestyle, … a generous heart. …The community Jesus lived among did not divide life into secular and religious; neither do Muslims. … Scripture asks us to have the same humility to do things ‘their’ way that Christ had to do things ‘our’ way.” (153) “Hospitality and an open home are crucial for anyone who wants to demonstrate Christ’s love to Muslims.” (155) “If you want deep relationships with people you must invite them to eat with you.” (162)

“Christians need to beware that we do not come to the Muslim world tainted by the arrogance of the secular West: saying by attitude that we are leading the world in science and technology and are going to teach these people how to live. We cannot afford to be arrogant. … Muslims distrust the motives of the West.” (164) One way to embody grace is to listen to their point of view. If we enter a house where there is pain and anger, we should care enough to hear and learn their story and try seeing things from their point of view. (165)

“Muslims do not want to hear the theological beliefs of not-very-nice people. Neither would anyone. If by your non-verbal communication you told your Muslim friend that he or she is not important to you, and by your appearance and actions that you have few moral or spiritual aspirations, then there is no point in telling him or her about your faith that changed your life and made you into a new creation. This new creation may not be looking so good! We embody the message. When Muslims do not believe our creed, nor understand our message, the truest witness is our lives. We need to live in a way that looks godly to Muslims if we want them to listen to our message.” (178)

Monday, January 24, 2011

Islam and Mormonism

Recently in the country where I live in the Middle East, I have noticed some Mormons who are here as missionaries.   Most Muslims in this country have never heard of Mormonism or Joseph Smith.  Thus I have had several chances recently to discuss the fact that they believe in another "final" prophet from God.   My Muslim friends don't like that.  When I tell them more about Mormonism, I ask them if it is from God or from Satan.  They always say it is from Satan.  But when they hear about the similarities between their own religion and Mormonism, it often leaves them scratching their heads! 

For those of you who aren't familiar with Abu Daoud's blog, Islam and Christianity, I heartily recommend it as a wealth of knowledge.  I found this article there.  And I re-post it below for your perusal...
Islam and Mormonism
by C. Fletcher
In studying world religions, I have noticed several similarities between Mormonism and Islam. Sure, there are significant differences as well (Monotheistic Islam vs. Polytheistic Mormonism for example), and I would not suggest that they are theologically compatible, but the foundings of both religions are surprisingly similar and worth noting.

Here are 12 of the parallels that have been noted (this list is by no means exhaustive):

1. Both claimed that the original meaning of the teachings of Jesus and those who preceded him had either been forgotten or corrupted.
2. Both prophets are reported to have come from humble beginnings with no formal education and were barely literate.
3. Holy Books: Both prophets wrote a new holy book that was apparently inspired by God, and both claimed that their holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth. Also, they both claimed that their holy books were based upon a record stored in heaven. Both religions claim that their Holy Books have been preserved and are accurate to what was originally recorded by their prophets.
4. Both prophets claimed to have had visions and to have been visited by angels. For Muhammad it was the angel Gabriel, and for Smith it was the angel Moroni. Both visions revealed many new teachings that contradict the Bible.
5. Both believed that no true religion existed on Earth and they were there to restore God’s truth. Islam claims that Adam and Abraham were truly Muslim and that it is restoring 'the true faith of Abraham'. Mormons claim to have restored 'the true faith/church' that was on the earth during and after the time of Jesus, before the supposed "Great Apostasy".
6. Both prophets were practicing polygamists and advocated polygamy (and condemn polyandry) by supposed revelation from God. Additionally, both men married very young girls.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Aaron Goerner: An Example to Follow

It's not everyday that a local church pastor from North America makes meaningful dialogue with Muslims a part  of his regular ministry.  That's why when I learned of Aaron Goerner's ministry and his new book, I was so thankful for his example to the Western Church.  Aaron Goerner is a pastor of a local church in Upstate New York, where face to face encounters with Muslims are not an everyday occurrence.  However, he takes his role as a messenger of the Gospel and a leader of the Church seriously, and has undertaken an extensive and ongoing dialogue with Muslims online as a part of his regular ministry.

I recommend you purchase an e-copy of his book, Is the Qur'an the Word of God? for your own resources.  It contains candid and respectful dialogue with Muslims from all over the world on all of the "typical" Muslim misunderstandings of Christianity.  I am so grateful for Aaron's example of taking personally his responsibility for the Great Commission among Muslims as a local church pastor.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Neglecting the Offense of Sin

I just read a post on the crucifixion by Timothy Winter (Abdal Hakim), a Cambridge professor who converted to Islam and is often called "Britain's most famous Muslim."  Here is an excerpt below:
If my neighbour owes me 1000 pounds, I have three options:
1. I can insist that he pay it back
2. I can get someone else to pay it back on his behalf
3. I can simply forgive the debt
Rather crudely it might be said that in the human penitential relationship to God’s rights, rabbinical Judaism favours the first, Christianity favours the second, and Islam favours the third. It is clear which is the ethically superior position.
It never ceases to amaze me that in denying penal substitution and saying that Allah can simply choose to forgive sin, Muslims consistently deny the offense of sin to a Holy God!  Essentially their position diminishes God's holiness, as it can be reduced to something akin to saying, "Oh, sin is no big offense to God, he can just forgive it and forget about it."  This minimizes the seriousness of our rebellion against God, and it destroys the very thing that Islam supposedly holds dear - the greatness of God!  Contrast this with the Christian position, which takes seriously our sin as an offense and a direct affront against a Holy God which requires some form of payment - either by us personally or by Christ.  I don't like my chances of paying back my own sin debt, so I am surely glad that Christ paid it for me!  To deny this is the ultimate form of pride and self-sufficiency.  It's like saying, "No thanks Lord, I can take care of my own sin." Wow!  That's dangerous.

p.s. I don't mean to demean Tim Winter as a scholar, I think he's one of the best.  I highly recommend his book, The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology.

Friday, January 14, 2011

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.)

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The Sana'a Manuscripts and the Syriac Connection to the Qur'an

If you haven't heard about the Sana'a Manuscripts, there's probably a reason - because their revelation is so potentially shocking to the foundations of Islamic theology that it's in the best interests of the scholars involved to keep it hushed.  The following video talks a bit about them, as well as a publication about the connection between ancient Syriac and some of the very hapaxic passages in the Qur'an.  I don't know how helpful this video is to use with Muslim friends, since their first response is usually anger and outright disbelief.  But the fact remains that this video brings up facts that modern Muslims need to face.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Was Mohammed a prophet?

What makes someone a prophet?  Well, it depends what you mean by the word “prophet.”  (I’m not going to get into the “apostleship” of Mohammed (رسول الله) in this post.)

I can recall 8 ways I have heard people, be they Muslims or Christians, affirm the “prophethood” of Mohammed.  Here they are below.

Could it be argued that Mohammed was a “prophet” in the sense that…?

  1. he was not a taxi-driver; his vocation was prophethood.  Although it could also be said that Mohammed was a false prophet (1 Jn. 4:1) in this sense. See also Titus 1:12.
  2. all people receive general revelation from God (Rom. 1:20), and some receive special prompting (revelation?) from God to follow Christ (Acts 10:30-33). In this sense one could say that Mohammed’s cave experience was actually a dream from God when he was half-asleep, but in the end the dream was (horribly) misinterpreted.
  3. Gandhi was a prophet. Gandhi was an unbeliever who nevertheless fought against tyranny and sparked a worldwide movement for biblical values such as peace, justice, and dignity.  Ghandi communicated some very true things.
  4. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prophet.  He was a Christian minister and follower of Jesus who, despite some moral failures, preached a biblical and much needed message of racial reconciliation that inspired millions. Martin Luther King Jr. communicated truth.
  5. Balaam was a prophet (2 Pet. 2:15-16; Num. 23ff). Balaam was called a prophet in 2 Peter (!), although he did not know the Lord and was ultimately judged (Num. 31:8, 16).
  6. King David was a prophetKeep in mind, morally speaking, David and Mohammed have much in common. David looked forward to the Lord, who was the Messiah (Ps. 110; Matt. 10:41-46). Some have argued that Mohammed “pointed” to Christ as well (e.g. Surah 43:61).
  7. some regenerate, new covenant believers are gifted by the Lord Jesus Christ as prophets (Eph. 4:11).  In the New Testament, prophesy is a gift that some believers are given by the Lord Jesus for the edification of the church that will be effective until Christ returns (1 Cor. 12-14).  Prophecy in this sense is not authoritative or equal to Scripture (Acts 21:4; 21:10-11; 1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:29).  “The essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus” (Rev. 19:10 NLT).  In John’s thought, Jesus is the conquering, crucified lamb, King of kings, Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14), incarnate God-man in the flesh (John 1:1, 14) sent to save people from their sins (John 1:29), usher in the new rule of His kingdom(John 18:36; Rev. 1:6), and raise victoriously over death as the Messiah to commission His disciples to continue His mission of the forgiveness of sins (John 20).
  8. Islam believes he was the final authoritative prophet of the One True God whose message supersedes and replaces all previous revelations.

Some evangelicals have argued that affirming the “prophethood” of Mohammed greatly enhances witness and dialogue with Muslims.

Could or should Mohammed’s prophethood be affirmed in any of the senses above?  Why or why not?  If you think it is wise to affirm any of the above, what kind of qualifiers would you need to communicate in order to clarify what you believe about the nature of prophecy and the rule of King Jesus?

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Bible and Qur'an Distribution

While I don't agree with everything in this article from the Economist posted by Notes of an Indian Muslim, I think it's well worth reading (thanks Ronnie!)...

The battle of the books: The Bible v The Quran

The business of marketing the Bible and the Koran says a lot about the state of modern Christianity and Islam
This article appeared in The Economist dated Dec. 22, 2007.
Christians and Muslims have one striking thing in common: they are both “people of the book”. And they both have an obligation to spread the Word—to get those Holy Books into the hands and hearts of as many people as they can. (The Jews, the third people of the book, do not feel quite the same obligation.)
Spreading the Word is hard. The Bible is almost 800,000 words long and littered with tedious passages about begetting. The Koran is a mere four-fifths of the length of the New Testament; but some Westerners find it an even more difficult read. Edward Gibbon complained about its “endless incoherent rhapsody of fable and precept”. Thomas Carlyle said that it was “as toilsome reading as I ever undertook; a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite”.
Yet over 100m copies of the Bible are sold or given away every year. Annual Bible sales in America are worth between $425m and $650m; Gideon's International gives away a Bible every second. The Bible is available all or in part in 2,426 languages, covering 95% of the world's population.
The Koran is not only the most widely read book in the Islamic world but also the most widely recited (“Koran” means “recitation”). There is no higher goal in Muslim life than to become a human repository of the Holy Book; there is no more common sound in the Muslim world than the sound of Koranic recitation.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

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 → EcclesiologyMissiology

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

stetzer-missional-matrix

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

christology-v2

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.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

The Incarnation and Creative-Access Platforms

I’m thinking about the Incarnation during this Christmas season and thought you might find this interesting.  According to the author of the quote below, “the term creative-access evolved in the 1990’s from the earlier restricted-access once missionaries discovered alternative opportunities for accessing peoples isolated from the gospel.  Creative-access methods are used in countries in which access by traditional missionaries has been restricted for some reason.”

From chapter 8 “Innovation in Mission Operations: Creative-Access Platforms” in Changing Face of World Missions, The: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends (pgs. 230-231):

The New Testament is full of examples of creative-access methods.  The incarnation of Jesus himself is a model.  God chose to cross the divine/human cultural boundary and to come to earth as a child born in a livestock feed trough.  He soon became a refugee to Egypt, was raised the son of a carpenter, was followed as a radical rabbi, was crucified as a traitor, and was raised as the Messiah.  The platform was strategic.  It provided access and identity among a strategic people group at the center of God’s plan to reach all peoples on earth.  It allowed Christ to live out his sacrificial mission of atonement.  God incarnate was able to establish a lasting, witnessing relationship with the marketplace people of the world through this platform in Israel.  He did not come as a high priest housed in temple dwellings but as the son of a craftsman who became an itinerant teacher from Nazareth.  The creative-access platform of Jesus Christ laid a foundation for the launching of a global movement of churches planting churches that continues to this day.

Merry Christmas from Circumpolar.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Difference Between Proselytism and Evangelism

From the World Evangelical Alliance in 2003, quoted here:

As there is misunderstanding and misuse of the words proselytism and evangelism in the world today, World Evangelical Alliance wants to share an official definition of these words. WEA strongly rejects proselytism but supports full religious freedom according to the United Nations declaration of Human Rights (Articles 18 and 19). That freedom will give people of every religion the right to share their beliefs and allow everyone the freedom of conscience to believe as they choose.

According to World Evangelical Alliance to proselytize and to evangelize are not synonymous. Citing Dr. John R.W. Stott, “The best way to distinguish them is to understand proselytism as ‘unworthy witness’.

The World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church produced a helpful study document in 1970 titled ‘Common Witness and Proselytism’. It identified three aspects of proselytism. Proselytism takes place
(1) whenever our motives are unworthy (when our concern is for our glory rather than God’s), (2) whenever our methods are unworthy (when we resort to any kind of ‘physical coercion, moral constraint, or psychological pressure’), and (3) whenever our message is unworthy (whenever we deliberately misrepresent other people’s beliefs).

In contrast, to evangelize is (in the words of the Manila Manifesto) ‘to make an open and honest statement of the gospel, which leaves the hearers entirely free to make up their own minds about it. We wish to be sensitive to those of other faiths, and we reject any approach that seeks to force conversion on them.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Mission: A Problem of Definition

From Keith Ferdinando, Mission: A Problem of Definition:

At the risk of massive oversimplification, four principal contemporary understandings of mission may be identified. They can be visualised as concentric circles, ranging from approaches which are broad and inclusive, to those which are increasingly narrow in definition.

image

Because “mission” is over-used and used differently by so many people, Ferdinando asks, “It must by now be questionable whether the word "mission" retains any residual value for missiology.”  He concludes with this:

The great theme of Scripture is God's redemptive mission to call a people for his own glory among whom he will dwell; and those he calls are in their turn to engage in mission as his co-workers by making disciples of Jesus Christ. Definitional ambiguities must not be allowed to obscure the absolute centrality of that vital task.

Read the whole thing.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Review of Walking with the Poor, Myers

Walking With the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (1999, 279 pgs) by Bryant Myers is a seminal book in Christian community development, perhaps the most often referred to book by Christian professors and practitioners.  His book tackles the big issue of human suffering and how we should view poverty and its causes, including how the the Kingdom of God impacts the world today to create a “better human future.”  In this review I will try to summarize the book as concisely as possible (it’s a dense, rich book) and offer a brief appraisal of its strengths and weaknesses.

Walking with the Poor begins by addressing Hiebert’s “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle,” including the sacred/secular divide promoted by the modern worldview.  The Church has been captivated by this separation, thinking Jesus is only for our spiritual life, and that God is not really concerned with the material or physical world.  What results is a dichotomy that fails to see that God cares about whole people and that Jesus is Lord of all areas of human life.  Myers explains,

We express our captivity to a modern worldview when we say that holistic ministry means combining evangelism (meeting spiritual need) with relief and development (meeting physical need) as if these were divisible realms and activities.  Then we make it worse by insisting that the church or the evangelism part of our organization do the former, while the development agency does the later.  By so doing we declare development independent of religion, something most of us do not really believe (7).  

Instead, Myers argues that people create society and society shapes people.  The “impact of the fall is on both the individual and the social system, and so the impact of the gospel of the kingdom must be on both” (49).  “The biblical story is the account of God’s project to restore the lives of individuals and communities, marred by sin, so that they can be good, just, and peaceful once again” (176).  People need to be reconciled to God, to self, to others, and to the environment.

Myers believes that the gospel is communicated through life, word, deed, and sign:

The gospel message is an inseparable mix of life, deed, word, and sign.  We are to be with Jesus (life) so that we can preach the good news (word), heal the sick (deed), and cast out the demons (sign)… Each dimension of the gospel message adds meaning to the others. Our life and deeds make our words intelligible; our words help people understand our life and deeds.  Life, word, and deed are signs of the living presence of someone greater than ourselves (134).

The “already” aspect of the kingdom of God is central in Myers’ paradigm of development, and embracing Jesus is the beginning a community’s “story.”  “Only by accepting God’s salvation in Christ can people and the community redirect the trajectory of their story towards the kingdom of God” (112).  And all people are invited to move towards the kingdom, which he defines as the better human future.  “The kingdom vision for the better human future is summarized by the idea of shalom: just, peaceful, harmonious, and enjoyable relationships with each other, ourselves, our environment, and God” (113). 

Christ’s redemptive work is cosmic in scope.  In Myers’ view,

God’s redeeming world does not separate individuals from social systems of which they are a part.  People come first, of course.  Changed people, transformed by the gospel and reconciled to God, are the beginning of transformation… At the same time, however, this individual response does not fully express the scope of God’s redemptive work (52).

Myers further believes that the local church is the center of God’s plan for transformational development (126-128).  [This is why I believe, in a pioneer setting where there is no church yet, we should see church planting as the foundational focus of mission. See Church Planting or Development? Word and Deed in Biblical Balance.]

Now we turn to the fundamental questions that Walking with the Poor addresses.  Moving people towards a better human future means having an understanding of these foundational issues.

  1. What is poverty?
  2. Why are “the poor” poor?
  3. What is transformational development?
  4. How do we work with the poor?
  5. How does Christian witness relate to transformational development?

1. What is poverty?

Poverty is a lot more complex than simply people being in deficit or lacking stuff.  Myers reviews both secular and Christian theorists who give their own definitions of poverty as:

  1. Entanglement - The poor live in a cluster of disadvantages that leave them physically weak, isolated, vulnerable, and helpless.  These dimensions make up a “poverty trap.”
  2. Lack of access to social power – The poor are excluded from the overlapping domains of state power, political power, social power, and economic power.  The values of those powers are so low for the poor that they cannot move out of poverty on their own.
  3. Disempowerment – The poor find themselves ensnared inside a system of disempowerment made up of cultural, societal, biophysical, spiritual, and personal systems.  The poor listen to a “web of lies” and are told by the world that they are God-forsaken.
  4. Lack of freedom to grow – The poor are wrapped in a series of restrictions and limitations in four areas of life: physical, mental, social, and spiritual.  People don’t have the freedom to reach their full potential.

None of these theories are complete but they are all important as they complement each other.  Poverty is a complex, multifaceted phenomena to which there are no easy answers.  Myers doubts that there will ever be a unified model of poverty.

He concludes that the nature of poverty is fundamentally relational:

Poverty is a result of relationships [with God, self, others, environment] that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable.  Poverty is an absence of shalom in all its meanings (86).

Understanding poverty as relationships that don’t work as they should is consistent with the biblical story as well.  The scope of sin affects every one of the five relationships in which every human lives: within ourselves, with community, with those we call “other,” with our environment, and with God (87).

And the cause of poverty is fundamentally spiritual:

Sin is what distorts these relationships.  Sin is the root cause of deception, distortion, and domination.  When God is on the sidelines or written out of our story, we do not treat each other well… Without a strong theology of sin, comprehensive explanations for poverty are hard to come by (88).

2. Why are “the poor” poor?

It is important to understand the multifaceted causes of poverty because our understanding of cause shapes our response:

Our understanding of the causes of poverty also depends on where we start looking at poverty, and more important, where we stop looking…  For example, if we are only concerned with needs, we will only seek lack of water.  Without further thought, lack of water is the cause of poverty and providing water is the answer.  However, behind needs are issues, such as ownership of the water.  If this is the cause of the lack of water, then the response is to work on ownership or access.  Yet behind issues there are structures, such as caste, that influence who gets access to water, and which often create insurmountable barriers to access.  Behind structures are groups who inhabit and enforce the structures by insisting that “it is our water and our right to control its use.”  Behind these groups are the ideologies and values that inform the group and shape the social structure, the unspoken assumptions that “we are to be served and they are subhuman and aren’t supposed to drink where we drink.” This is worldview.

This kind of social analysis deepens our understanding of what causes poverty… [But] at the end of the day, people are the cause of poverty, and it is people who must change for things to change (82-83).

3. What is transformational development?

The two goals of transformational development are 1) changed people and 2) just relationships.  By changed people he means a recovering of true identity and true vocation:

We must know who we and the purpose for which we were created.  Therefore, restoring identity and recovering vocation must be the focus of a biblical understanding of of human transformation.  The transforming truth is that the poor and non-poor are made in God’s image (identity) and are valuable enough to God to warrant the death of the Son in order to restore that relationship (dignity) and to give gifts that contribute to the well-being of themselves and their community (vocation) (115).

If poverty is the world trying to tell the poor they are god-forsaken, then transformation is the declaration that they are made in God’s image, that God allowed his Son to die for them, and that God has given gifts to the poor so that they can fulfill God’s creation mandate that they too may be fruitful and productive…

For a Christian understanding of development, restoring identity and vocation is the goal.  This is the only path that leads toward life and that hold the promise of shalom (117).

To move toward a better human future we must encourage and develop relationships that work, relationships that are just, peaceful, and harmonious.  This is the heart of shalom and the only way of leading toward abundant life for all.  Thus transformational development that enhances life works to promote relationships that work as well as they can in a world of fallen people.  Life and relationships are inseparable (120). 

4. How do we work with the poor?

In order to work for just relationships and a recovering of identity and vocation that leads to a better human future, we must work with the poor in ways that that empower them.  All the tools development practitioners use should be seen as tools that the community uses themselves in order for them to do their own social analysis, and not as tools outsiders use to plan.  We disempower the poor when we assume or communicate that we know more about their situation than they do.

Because social systems and human transformation are not linear, it is better to work from a vision-and-values approach instead of a planning-and-management approach.  We need to work with people, not with projects. “It can be argued that empowering participation is the single most critical element of transformation” (149).  The community itself needs to own the vision, and the values/philosophy of work should be biblically-based.

Two overarching approaches to development should be in reducing vulnerabilities and building capacitates.  Both must be done.  Only addressing one without the other will result in the community being frustrated.

5. How does Christian witness relate to transformational development?

For Myers, the gospel is a message of good news that must be verbally announced.  Although the goals of evangelism and transformational development are the same (changed people and changed relationships), evangelism focuses more narrowly on the relationship between man and God, while transformational development is more concerned with all relationships man has (with God, others, self, creation).  The gospel is the “best news” we have, better than making short work of dirty water, parasites, malnutrition, and poor agricultural production:

Our thinking and practice of transforming development must have an evangelistic intent, although this needs to be understood with some care.  This is not a call for proselytism; neither is it a call to coercive, manipulative, or culturally insensitive evangelism.  It is not even a call for all development practitioners to become evangelists… Rather, it is a call to be sure we do our development with an attitude that prays and years for people to know Jesus Christ (205).

Evangelism should happen the same way development does; people must be able to come to conclusions by themselves and have ownership of the truth they discover.  This happens best not by monologue (preaching down at people and thus disempowering them), but by question asking and dialogue. 

Because we are always witnessing to something (even without words), we must be sure that at the end of the day, God is the one who gets the credit.

Ultimately, the best of transformational development deeds are ambiguous.  Good development is being done every day by Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists.  The driving force for Christian witness in the context of transformational development is to be sure that credit is given where credit is due.  We must take great care that we point, not to our own sacrifices or professionalism, and to to the effectiveness of our development technology, but to the fact that the good deeds that create and enhance life in the community are evidence of the character and activity of the God of the Bible, the God whose Son makes a continuing invitation to new life and whose Spirit is daily at work in our world (244).

Some Concluding, Brief Observations

  • Highly theoretical and theological book.  Short on stories and examples.  It’s not for everyone.
  • Repetitive. Said some things over and over. And over.
  • Dense and deep.  Made me think a lot.  I wish I would have read it a couple years ago when I started working in development.  I feel my capacity for social analysis and identifying the causes of poverty has been greatly enhanced.
  • There could have been more said about our motivation and power for working with the poor.  See Generous Justice: How God's Grace Makes Us Just.
  • Myers didn’t place hardly any emphasis on man’s rebellion being primarily an offense against God.  For a book as theologically based as this was, and for a book that talked a lot about sin, I was also surprised that the topic of hell was never mentioned.  The discussion of sin was basically about the human effects of sin- and Myer’s main paradigm was the gospel for a “better human future.”  But to be fair, the book was about development work.
  • Walking With the Poor is an excellent book for building a framework to understand “the poor” and poverty alleviation.  Overall, I recommend this book even for people who don’t work in development.