Insider Jesus 1: Intro- The Rise of Contextualization

I would like to blog through Dyrness, William. Insider Jesus: Theological Reflections on New Christian Movements (2016). One blurb says this:

"This book is groundbreaking. Conversations have been taking place questioning the ongoing value of the contextualization movement. This is because among evangelicals contextualization has largely been a project conducted by outsiders assisting those who are insiders. This was an essential step in missions, yet the limitations of the movement are obvious. What is exciting is that in our postcolonial era new theological discourses and practices are emerging from within believing communities that seek to be faithful to Scripture and address more specifically and resonate more deeply with the worlds of these communities. Dyrness lucidly and sensitively introduces the reader to these developments and provides the reader with the theological and conceptual categories to understand and appreciate them." (Patrick Krayer, executive director, Interserve USA)

Dyrness is not primarily a missiologist but a noted theologian (who also has a long experience as a missionary), and so this book is a deep theological reflection on the postcolonial and post-Christendom phenomenon of so-called insider movements. Dyrness credits Understanding Insider Movements as a key resource.

Below is an unpolished summary and measure of the first of his six chapters. Feel free to read along with me.

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Rise of Contextualization

The intro gave me a bad first impression. His faulty attribution of Lewis' "insider movement" definition to Moreau on page 1 made me feel that he hadn't taken the missiological conversation seriously enough to make the book helpful, but I'm glad I kept reading, in any case.

The main idea of chapter 1 is that the pluralistic, globalizing, and interreligious nature of the world today offers a new challenge to mission that the contextualization paradigm has been unable to confront. Contextualization is primarily about what is done for other people, but it is unable to capture what happens from within. Accordingly…

contextualization does not adequately capture the hermeneutical and dialogical character of mission whereby various accounts of God’s presence (or that of the gods or spirits) are exchanged and evaluated. (Kindle Locations 123-124)

Here is how he argues his case:

• The reformation was not primarily a change in beliefs but in a new way of practicing religion. Much of the reformation was good, but some good was also lost:

Instead of providing a holistic frame that determined an entire way of life, including the political and social structure, religion was on the way to becoming an inward and personal (and often an individual) affair… this view of religion seems natural to us. But for many people outside the West, this understanding of religion appears strange, even incomprehensible.  (Kindle Locations 177-180)

• The Enlightenment furthered the idea that religion is something that one believes, not something that is done. Religion was also seen as a secular concept, something that was separate from politics, economics, philosophy, law, etc. This understanding of religion makes little sense in non-Western places today. [Especially to most Muslims.]
• In the 80s and 90s the emphasis in missiology shifted from the messenger (and the message) to the hearers and their world. From “subject” to “object.” Bosch played a key role in this transformation to local theologies. All theology is contextual.
• Hiebert also anticipated this need in “Metatheology: The Step Beyond Contextualization.”
• Anthropology was also advancing the idea people are not simply passive recipients of their culture/religion, but active agents able to change their contexts.
• In missiology, it was acknowledged that that no one culture has a full understanding of the gospel, and that as the gospel spreads into new frontiers, the Church’s collective understanding of the gospel deepens and widens.
• This then led to the development of fields such as “intercultural theology” [See for example Intercultural Theology: Intercultural Hermeneutics]:

Mission must take the form of hermeneutics. That is, Christian witness is, among other things, an interpretive process in which each side becomes open and explores the proposals of the other. (Kindle 379-380)

• I.e., contextualization fails to realize that contextualization of the message by the messenger has already happened. So therefore what is always happening is actually recontextualization, or transculturation.
• If we simply focus on making biblical faith understandable in a new context, we will be unable to see the possibility of something new emerging. We need to reconceptualize mission as multidirectional:

At this point many will worry that we are saying there is more than one gospel, more than one way to God. But this worry ignores the diversity that is already apparent in the New Testament itself, where the wonderful work of God in Christ is described in multiple ways.(Kindle 448-450)

• The process of mutual learning is called intercultural theology, not contextualization. Being a rich missionary often puts people into a “teacher” role, not anticipating learning from the people he or she is going to serve.
• Also, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic is a process of the Enlightenment and puts Scripture into rational categories:

So not only is the discovery of the “one true meaning” of a text impossible; it actually impedes the ability to listen and learn from each other. (Kindle 503-504)

• [Appropriate Hermeneutics by Shawn Redford is a helpful resource.]

Thoughts:

• I don’t think he means to throw the historical-grammatical hermeneutic out the window, but only to show it’s limitations, as the Redford chapter shows.
• He is setting the stage to show that we don’t need to focus on the “message” as much as we need to focus on God’s presence and activity in all places, even before a follower of Christ arrives. This is the shift in thinking from contextualization to intercultural theology.
• At some point though, I wonder, in order to learn from the other, how involved in that faith should I be? One’s view of Islam is always tied up with his manner of witness to Muslims. I never want to leave Jesus, and I think Jesus wants sole allegiance from every person on the planet. So how can I understand better the exclusive sufficiency of Christ in light of the multidirectional learning required by intercultural theology? Am I willing to learn from Islam?
• Chapter two: Insider Jesus 2: How Does God Work in Creation and Culture? A Theological Proposal

Nov 17 Missio Nexus Webinar: A Fresh Perspective on the Insider Movement

I’m posting to let you know about a webinar I’ll be doing on Thursday, Nov 17, 2pm EST.

The “insider movement” has received much attention in recent years and is often portrayed in ways that are polarized or misunderstood. Instead of repeating old arguments either for or against, this webinar will present a model for understanding the different layers of “insiderness” that followers of Jesus exhibit in their contexts today. Such a model will demonstrate that the socioreligious insider/outsider binary is unsatisfactory and that the “insider movement” remains ill-defined. The aim is to gain an appreciation for the complexity of how Christ-followers in unreached peoples relate to their contexts. 

Click here to register or learn more: https://missionexus.org/events/#!event/2016/11/17/a-fresh-perspective-on-the-insider-movement

Responses to Reviews of UIM

UPDATE: Waterman Response to Talman & Travis

---

In case you missed it, L.D. Waterman had a thoughtful review (the most thorough and fair review I’ve read) of the book Understanding Insider Movements.

Talman and Travis, the editors of UIM, subsequently posted an irenic response. Both the original review and the response are worth your read. Here is one quote that stood out to me in Talman and Travis’ response (emphasis mine):

Waterman also raises the question of why we did not include some of what he sees as the more controversial ideas which some have associated with insider movements. He mentions, for instance, having a very high view of Mohammad, holding to a low Christology, placing citations of the Quran next to the Bible as a source of spiritual authority, and an overemphasis on the compatibility between Islam and Christianity.  Frankly, it never crossed our mind to include these ideas in UIM as we do not see them as core or inherent parts of understanding insider movements. Our aim throughout the book was to emphasize principles and practices that seem integral and common to most insider movements.

I appreciate the discussion this has generated and I think we all still have a lot to learn about the insider phenomenon.

See also My Response to the Gospel Coalition’s Review of “Understanding Insider Movements”

Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures (IVP Academic Georges and Baker 2016)

Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures releases today.

From Amazon:

Many a Westerner has had a cross-cultural experience of honor and shame. First there are those stuttering moments in the new social landscape. Then after missed cues and social bruises comes the revelation that this culture―indeed much of the world―runs on an honor-shame operating system. When Western individualism and its introspective conscience fails to engage cultural gears, how can we shift and navigate this alternate code? And might we even learn to see and speak the gospel differently if we did? In Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures Jayson Georges and Mark Baker help us decode the cultural script of honor and shame. What's more, they assist us in reading the Bible anew through the lens of honor and shame, often with startling turns. And they offer thoughtful and practical guidance in ministry within honor-shame contexts. Apt stories, illuminating insights and ministry-tested wisdom complete this well-rounded guide to Christian ministry in honor-shame cultures.

Chapter 7 on “Relationships” can be downloaded here. Also make sure to see http://honorshame.com/book/ (Also a very helpful blog.)

Authors

Jayson Georges (MDiv, Talbot) lived in Central Asia for nine years doing church planting and micro-enterprise development. He is the author of The 3D Gospel and blogs at HonorShame.com. He serves with an evangelical organization, developing tools and training for Christians working in honor-shame contexts. More here.

Mark D. Baker (PhD, Duke University) is professor of mission and theology at Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary in Fresno, California. He served as a missionary in Honduras for ten years and has written a number of books in English and Spanish. More at www.ProfMarkBaker.com

Endorsements

Georges and Baker have taken the seeds of previous work on honor and shame in the environment of the biblical world and in modern cultures and cultivated them into fruitful insights and guidance in the areas of theology, cross-cultural engagement and, especially, missions.

~David A. deSilva, distinguished professor, Ashland Theological Seminary

Every message bearer working in non-Western cultures needs to read and apply the insights and principles of this book if they are to avoid the typical cultural blunders too often committed by too many. Within are crucial insights for effective cross-cultural ministry.

~Marvin J. Newell, senior VP, Missio Nexus

Building responsibly on biblical and anthropological foundations for understanding honor and shame cultures, the authors offer practical reflections on how to engage honor-shame societies in the work of intercultural mission.

~Edward Smither, dean, Columbia International University

The text is full of examples that help the reader understand how differently honor-shame codes play out in the understanding of salvation and discipleship. … Sherwood and I strongly recommend this book.

~Judith Lingenfelter, professor emerita, Biola University

Contents

Notes on Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (Nongbri 2013)

Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept

Main Premise: The concept of religion as a universal, timeless, personal, and private belief system that can be abstracted from public life resulted from the Enlightenment. Our common understanding of religion did not exist in cultures before the Protestant Reformation (including the Old Testament Israelite community, the early Christian movement, and Islam). These cultures had no way to express an abstract/universal/timeless truth that we consider “religious” belief today. We cannot project our ideas of religion on the Bible the Qur’an, because we distort the messages of those books.

About the Book: This is not a new premise. Many scholars have said the same things before. Yet Nongbri brings everything together in a sustained historical argument in a brief 150 pages. There are about 70 pages of endnotes- very extensive.

Thoughts: The ideas are so counter-intuitive and tied up with semantics that it is quite difficult (for me) to comprehend. If Islam and Christianity did not emerge as religions (in the modern sense of the term), then what were they? I feel quite disoriented from reading, yet I feel there is something significant for missiology IF these ideas are true.

Greek thrēskeía: Acts 26:5, James 1:26-27, is better translated as godly zeal, or piety, or worship, not as religion.

Arabic deen (دين): Better translated as law, not as religion. Islam was more of a civic movement than anything else- see also The Emergence of Islam: Classical Tradition in Contemporary Perspective (only 2.99 right now on Kindle!!!!). Early Christians saw Muhammad as a heretic, not a founder of a new religion.

To see these concepts expressed missiologically, see Religious Syncretism as a Syncretistic Concept: The Inadequacy of the “World Religions” Paradigm in Cross-Cultural Encounter by H. L. Richard.

In another recent article, New paradigms for religion, multiple religious belonging, and insider movements (Missiology July 2015), Richard argues (fn 17):

Particularly those who claim to support contextualization but oppose insider movements need to wrestle with how far their own modern Western context in relation to the meaning of religion is controlling their paradigm. I have written on this in an article on “Religious Syncretism as a Syncretistic Concept: The Inadequacy of the ‘World Religions’ Paradigm in Inter-Cultural Encounter”, suggesting that the true syncretists are the proponents of the “change of religion” paradigm.

Take away: As missiologists and missionaries, we need to rethink what religion is and what joining the Jesus movement was/is all about. Most scholars say religion is practically undefinable.

[Postnote: I still get annoyed when people refer to “IM” as if it were well-defined.]

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

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

Some quotes:

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

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

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

From the conclusion:

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

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

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

The W-Spectrum

Here is a pdf download of the W-Spectrum on one page:

Please refer to the EMQ October 2015 article The W-Spectrum: Worker Paradigms in Muslim Contexts for more information (subscription required).

See also:

• Blog post: Introducing “The W-Spectrum: Worker Paradigms in Muslim Contexts” (EMQ 2015)
• Missio Nexus Webinar: The W-Spectrum: Exploring Paradigms of Ministry in Islamic Contexts

Understanding IMs now on Kindle

Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus within Diverse Religious Communities

See also:

• My Response to the Gospel Coalition’s Review of “Understanding Insider Movements”
• Michael Pocock | Review of Understanding Insider Movements

The W-Spectrum Webinar Thursday March 10

Just a reminder about the webinar on Thursday:

On March 10th 2pm EST we’ll be doing a webinar with Missio Nexus on The W-Spectrum. See info below.

http://missionexus.org/the-w-spectrum/:

March 10, 2016     2:00pm to 3:15pm Eastern time

Warrick Farah • Missiologist • International Teams

Kyle Meeker • Pastor of Discipleship • Northview Community Church

Anyone involved in missions today knows that evangelical workers have numerous and sometimes conflicting approaches to Muslim ministry. The W-Spectrum (EMQ October 2015) describes four of these approaches which correlate with the workers’ view of “Islam” (note: The W paradigms do not correlate with the C Spectrum). In order to evaluate this framework, the W-Spectrum was tested via an online survey by more than two hundred workers around the world.  By presenting the research analysis in this webinar, we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the W-Spectrum and explore various paradigms of ministry among Muslims.

Register

Michael Pocock | Review of Understanding Insider Movements

Michael Pocock reviews UIM in the new issue of IJFM. Here is the conclusion:

By the end of the book the reader will admit that insider movements involve many thousands who are discovering and being dramatically changed by Jesus, yet who have been misunderstood by many across the global church today. Let’s remember that Jonathan Edwards, who was a great preacher and exponent of the Great Awakening in America, had his detractors. In spite of the transformation in the religious landscape of the colonies, Edwards, Whitfield and the Wesleys had skeptics who questioned the validity or genuineness of their movement. Edwards had to explain and defend this awakening in two famous publications, A Treatise on Religious Affections and The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. He was still addressing this concern in his commencement address at Yale University, Sept. 10, 1741. In these works, Edwards showed that a genuine movement of God will manifest many surprising things which in themselves do not discredit the movement. If they are not of God, they will pass away. But he warned his readers and listeners not to commit the unpardonable sin of attributing this work of the Spirit to the Devil. He asked if it is not pride, or the lack of spiritual vitality, that causes the critics to assail this movement. In the same vein, any of us who are quick to criticize these emerging insider movements, or these Jesus followers in such different contexts, would do well to think on Edward’s words. And I commend this book to you in the same spirit.

Missio Nexus Webinar | The W-Spectrum: Exploring Paradigms of Ministry in Islamic Contexts

On March 10th 2pm EST I’ll be doing a webinar with Missio Nexus on The W-Spectrum. See info below.

http://missionexus.org/the-w-spectrum/:

March 10, 2016     2:00pm to 3:15pm Eastern time
Warrick Farah • Missiologist • International Teams

Anyone involved in missions today knows that evangelical workers have numerous and sometimes conflicting approaches to Muslim ministry. The W-Spectrum (EMQ October 2015) describes four of these approaches which correlate with the workers’ view of “Islam” (note: The W paradigms do not correlate with the C Spectrum). In order to evaluate this framework, the W-Spectrum was tested via an online survey by more than two hundred workers around the world.  By presenting the research analysis in this webinar, we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the W-Spectrum and explore various paradigms of ministry among Muslims.

Register

The “Same God?” Debate in Full Force after the Wheaton Controversy

EMS just put out an occasional bulletin- Wheaton and the Controversy Over Whether Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God (HT: CIU blog). The intro article by Robert Priest is excellent, “I’ve also been struck by the idea that many American evangelical missionaries and missiologists, and perhaps the Apostle Paul himself, would be in danger of dismissal if they taught at Wheaton College, since many of us arguably have been guilty of the very thing Wheaton College is sanctioning…” #burn

After scanning through the articles, I still want to insist that this is (mostly) an irrelevant issue, as I have said before here: Allah of Islam and the Father of the Biblical Lord Jesus. No one knows God soteriologically apart from Christ. Perhaps we might be more united (and fruitful) if we framed the question around this issue.

There is also an upcoming debate between Volf & Qureshi — Do Muslims & Christians Worship the Same God? on January 19. If you tune in, I would love to hear some of your thoughts in the comments section below.