On Muslims Coming to Christ

I've recently read through a wonderful series of posts over on the Circumpolar blog (one of my absolute favorites).  In the series, Warrick Farah, one of the brightest missiological minds hiding out with me in cyberspace*, explores the phenomenon of Muslims coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  His series is super insightful and a true must-read for those involved in missions among Muslim peoples.  Rest-assured, I will be passing it around to my teammates.

Here are few of my favorite insights from the Circumpolar Series:

1. "Conversion" to Christ tends to be a gradual and incremental process for Muslims.  Here's a quote from part 1 of the series: 

The overall experience of Muslims, however, is that conversion is a gradual process that takes place over many years (Haney 2010, 68; Larson 1996a;Teeter 1990, 307-308). Gordon Smith notes that Muslim conversions to Christ “do not tend to rest or pivot on a decision or a particular act of acceptance. Rather, it has been well documented that these conversions are slow and incremental” (2010, 84). Qaasid cannot point to the moment of his conversion, but he knows he is a disciple of the Messiah. Thus, conversion is a process that transpires over months or years. The sometimes apparently sudden decision to “follow Christ” is only one essential step in this process.

I hope that this insight will be an encouragement to those who have become discouraged because they haven't seen "fruit" in their ministry among Muslims.

2. Farah points out in part 5 of the series that identity is a much more complicated issue that the typical debate surrounding "insider movements" and contextualization.  I think there is a lot of room to develop this idea further, but the fact that the series at least raises the issue is very helpful.  Here's a potent quote:

Identity is far more complex and dynamic than is unfortunately portrayed by many evangelicals on all sides of the issues. Layers of identity abound for people in every culture, and belonging to multiple traditions is a reality in today’s globalized world.

I would hesitate more than Farah does in quoting Rebecca Lewis and Georges Houssney in a way that makes them appear to be equal opposites in the debate on insider movements.  Positions aside, the level of argumentation and research simply isn't the same between these two.  I'll leave it at that.

3. I love the insights related to Muslim women coming to Christ.  Farah guesses that 80% of Muslims who come to know Christ are men and calls for much more research and evangelistic emphasis to be directed towards Muslim women.  Wow! That should deeply encourage all kinds of women who have been considering missions.  You are needed!  I should also point out that the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today is the Syrian refugee crisis (expected to total 4 million externally displaced refugees by the end of 2014) and that this has heavily resulted in the displacement of Muslim women.  There is a heavily female human tidal wave of Syrian refugees now flooding the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere.

Farah's most compelling insight in part 7 of his series is that Muslim women who come to Christ are greatly influenced by stories of Jesus's affirmation and positive treatment of women.  This clearly calls for missionaries to emphasize such stories in their evangelism of Muslim women.  

[*By the way, if you haven't noticed, there is a tremendous amount of really great missiology that is being done in the non-traditional realms of blogs and other social media outlets.  As traditional missiology publishers struggle to transition from print to digital/online formats to keep up with the times, a solid cadre of excellent missiologists have produced and are producing truly top-notch resources that are being heavily consumed by all manner of missionary practitioners.  Besides ... ah hem ... myself ;-) ... I love reading Circumpolar, Indigenous Jesus, TallSkinnyKiwi, The Long View, The World is Our Neighborhood, Acrossculture, Faithful Witness and Missiologically Thinking.  You have any favorites that I've missed?] 

[Photo by Rifqi Dalgren]

Bridging the Divide between Hindus and Christians

By Guest Special Guest Blogger -- Lachi Adhikari

It is my pleasure to introduce you to a young leader who is developing into a great thinker even as she learns to write in English.  Originally from Bhutan, Lachi spent most of her life living in a refugee camp in Nepal before migrating to the United States in 2009.  She is a devotee of Lord Sri Jesus who lives within the Hindu cultural traditions that she has grown up with and loves.  Also, she is my sister. -- Cody

One time I went to a Nepali church.  I saw a child recite a passage of scripture in front of a large crowd.  She was speaking God’s words, but sometimes she became confused and forgot. Her mom said that this happened because Satan was disturbing her.  When I heard this, I was shocked.  As someone who comes from a Hindu background, I know that most Hindu people think that Christian people often blame Satan for everything.  We Hindus don’t understand this this kind of thinking.  This is an example of the kind of misunderstanding that happens between Hindus and Christians.  Christians who want to share the Gospel* with Hindus must realize that there is much conflict and confusion between these groups.

Hindu people and Christian people have very different cultures.  For example, Hindus and Christians observe different festivals. Hindus celebrate Dashain and Tihar but Christians celebrate Christmas.  They also have different customs.  For example, Christian brides wear white dresses but Hindus always wear red.  Hindus believe you should burn dead bodies while Christians want to bury them in the ground.  Additionally, Hindus criticize Christians for eating pork and beef and Christians criticize Hindus for eating fried goat blood.  Christian people feel that Hindu people dress immodestly by often wearing American-style clothes, gold jewelry, henna tattoos, and more.  Those who want to share Christ with Hindus should avoid criticizing Hindu culture because of its differences and instead watch, learn and even join in as you gain understanding.

Hindus believe that Christians are low caste people.  That means that Christians are considered ethnically inferior.  High caste people will not eat food prepared by people from low castes.  They also believe it is wrong to intermarry.  When a Hindu becomes a Christian, they are often automatically thought to be low caste.  Even if they were born in a high caste, they will lose their caste.  Followers of Jesus should not react to this with anger or hatred.  Instead they should try to respect and love their Hindu neighbors.

Hindus do not like the way Christians communicate the gospel.  This begins with their form of greeting.  Nepali Christians greet each other by saying “Jaya Masih” (victory to the Messiah), but Hindus don’t understand this greeting and don’t use it.  Most Nepalis greet by saying “Namaste” (I honor you).  Furthermore, Hindus often feel that Christians speak in a proud and boastful way when they talk about Jesus.  Christian pastors are sometimes criticized for preaching loudly and shouting.  Also, Hindus feel that Christians speak rudely about Hindus and Hindu customs by calling them “Satan” or “satanic”.  Hindus don’t like to listen to this kind of speech.  When talking about Jesus or the Gospel, Christians should speak humbly and focus on clear and simple stories about Jesus or their own experiences with God.  They should not call Hindus “Satan” or speak rudely about Hindu practices.

Hindus are actually very interested in Jesus and the Gospel message.  However, their attitudes towards Christians often prevent them from listening.  If followers of Jesus will become good cultural learners, show love and respect to Hindus, and practice sharing the Gospel with humility then much of the misunderstanding and conflict will be resolved and they will find many Hindus who are willing to listen to what they have to say. 

[*The term "Gospel" is used here to refer to the central message of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Lord Sri Jesus and how people can obtain fullness of life and salvation through Him.]

Master-less Plans of Global Evangelism

Image Courtesy of EMQ

In case you have missed it, my article from the July 2013 issue of Evangelical Missions Quarterly is now available for free at the Billy Graham Center website.  It is always an honor to be published in EMQ, and a double blessing to see that the BGC felt it was important for a broader audience to read.

I think this brief article can be described as the inner wranglings of a 30-something missionary who is perhaps seeing the last vestiges of his naivety die away. I am not, however, losing my idealism and conviction that we can and should do better.

So, the article is called "Master-less Plans of Global Evangelism" and you can check it out at the link below.

Hot Off the Evangelism & Missional Presses | Wheaton:
EXCERPT: To what extent can mission leaders today say that if God doesn’t keep his promises, then our plans and ministries will utterly fail? Have we created strategic fail-safes that allow us to progress toward or even accomplish our organizational goals even if our prayers go unanswered and God does not do anything particularly interesting? Have we become functionally atheistic in our mission praxis today?

Ortho-Odoratus: Fragrant Evangelism & Critiquing the "Christian System"

Photo by M. Foley

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

For a few minutes, let me reflect a bit about the context from which this statement arose. Some of you have been praying along with us during the past couple weeks for a family that has been dealing with a particularly tragic and shocking death.  The family is Bhutanese-Nepali and from a Hindu traditional background.  I have quite a close relationship to the whole clan and am considered to be a relative in numerous ways (a subject for another time).  Thus, during the past couple weeks, I have been with the family members every day offering help, prayer, and love -- and observing some very interesting things.

There is a whole back-story about how things developed and the decisions the family has made during the past couple weeks, but I will not get into all of that.  Suffice it to say, most of the family members opted to employ a Nepali (Hindu) priest to come and perform a series of ceremonies over a 12-day period designed to (theologically speaking, or rather thaumaturgically or even pneumatologically speaking - the latter with an intentional small "p") benefit the departed soul (see chapter 5 of my book Ethnographic Chicago for a good discussion of folk Hindu understandings of departed spirits).  The Christ-followers among the relatives struggled during the period of mourning to know how to properly participate.  Their perspectives ranged from radical separation -- the desire to depart wholly from all so-called "Hindu" rituals (e.g. fasting from salt and meat, observing the period of mourning, being sad, etc.) -- on the one hand to a much healthier identification. A moment on each of these now:

Photo by Tim Guindon

1. Radical Separation -- from this perspective, it is important for the "Christian" to remove themselves from the Hindus and the Hindu "system" during the period of mourning.  Instead, they want to practice the "Christian System".  According to the separatists, fasting from salt is decidedly antithetical to being a "pure Christian". Likewise, observing 12 or 13 days of mourning is bad because that is in accordance with the "Hindu system".  They proclaim that the Christian system observes only three days of mourning and no fasting.  Moreover, it isn't mourning so much as it is gathering together to pray, listen to preaching, sing hymns, and eat snacks.  A guiding value for the adherents of this system is that ceremonies, rituals and forms are to be discarded solely on the basis of them being practiced by Hindus and not actually for any clear theological rationale.  When asked why a follower of Christ shouldn't do a certain thing, the most common answer is simply, "Because that is a part of the Hindu system".

Distinctives in the "Christian System"

I was able to observe elements of the Separatist praxis during the past couple weeks and have come to the preliminary conclusion that what is distinctive about this so-called "Christian System" does not actually have very much to do with either the Spirit of Jesus Christ or a careful engagement with and appropriation of His Scriptures.  The chief distinctions are as follows:  (a) this system emphasizes the importance of doing something different than what the Hindus do and essentially doing it in a place that is separate from where they are doing their things.  Also (b) this system employs ceremonies and rituals that are basically Western in origin and indistinguishable from the forms and rituals employed during their normal weekly worship gatherings.  Finally, it is (c) decidedly simpler and easier on the practitioners who do not have to fast at all and are finished with their obligations after only a few days.  

Similarities between the "Hindu" and "Christian" Systems

Photo by Josh Lustig

Otherwise, I have not found the customs of what these Bhutanese-Nepalis refer to as the "Christian System" to be altogether different from what I have observed the Hindus practicing during the same period.  Theologically, there is not a genuinely different foundation upon which they are based.  Listening to two sermons last week (one by a Christian pastor and one by a Hindu priest) revealed that at least for these two men (admittedly a small sampling) the central message of their systems was the same.  That is, "bad people go to hell" (called "hell" by the Christian and "the way of death" by the Hindu) and "good people go to heaven" (same word used by both). Both men illustrated and defended this principle with very similar stories and rationale.  What is more, both seemed to be motivated to perform their respective rituals primarily in order to (a) comfort the family of the deceased and (b) comfort the soul of the departed.  I will say that the Christians had less of an emphasis on comforting the soul of the departed, but it was present and there seemed a clear belief among them that the performance of rituals that accorded to the "Christian System" would result in certain (albeit somewhat ineffable) benefits.  For that matter, the Christians did not appear to be less fearful about evil spirits or more confident about how to deal with them.  Ritually and symbolically, the Christians were less elaborate and less concerned about punctuality, cleanliness, and attentiveness.  However, both seemed equally concerned about "orthopraxy".  The Hindus and the Christians alike wanted to know what they had to do and practically no room was given for the exercise of spiritual freedom.  Also, both parties made use of idols (the Christians erected a nativity scene especially during the period; the Hindus made symbolic idols from khoos grass to represent several deities).  

Let me add a note that while the Christians seemed concerned with bringing comfort to the soul of the deceased person, some among them nevertheless were quick to issue an injunction against praying for the dead.  Clearly there was a good deal of inconsistency in this.  This injunction emerges from a response to the popular concept of people being able to affect the condition of the departed soul through the performance of certain prayers, rituals, etc.  Correction in this area seems to be consistent with a Biblical worldview, but I am not convinced that a blunt injunction against praying for the dead is an effective way to communicate this.  

Preliminary Conclusions Regarding the Separatist Model

In the end, I observe the Separatist ("Christian System") approach to be simplistic, unhelpful and perhaps even syncretistic.  The model is extremely effective for bringing about a change of loyalties from the "Hindu Community" to the "Christian Community" but its value for Jesus-centered discipleship is questionable at best.  I do not observe in it that individuals are consequently better educated in Biblical theology nor do I see that from it emerges a greater degree of love, generosity, and sacrificial service towards the mourning family (especially if this family is Hindu).  

What is more, since the various Hindu traditions, rituals, customs, etc. each serve important psycho-social functions for the grieving family and surrounding community (e.g. facilitating closure and healthy mourning, encouraging community involvement and need-meeting, etc.) there is a vital and too-often unasked question regarding how effectively the "Christian Separatist System" has provided rituals and customs that can serve the same purpose.  This isn't the time to discuss liminality in detail, but its value for helping people and communities to cope with transition and tragedy is immense.  We must ask whether the "Christian System's" brief, non-mourning and non-fasting program can effectively create the kind of liminality that is necessary for helping a family deal with the loss of a loved one.  

Finally, if syncretism is to be understood as a "way of thinking that says by performing or participating in a particular religious ceremony or practice, you can alter the essential human spiritual condition in the same way that Jesus does through his death on the cross, burial, and resurrection from the dead, because they are parallel truths" (Richard Twiss) -- if we understand syncretism in this way, then the Christian separatist model may indeed be guilty of the kind of syncretism that its proponents so often accuse others of engaging in.  From a Biblical perspective the unique work of Christ -- the locus of gospel -- is found in His ability to regenerate the one who comes to Jesus in faith and thus to save from sin, shame and Satan through his atoning sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit.  In this, Christ is uniquely able to re-position (read: re-create) a fallen and sinful human being into a permanent and right relationship with their Creator in which they enjoy communion with Him forever.  And this, all of grace and by faith.  It is a liberation from our broken condition which cannot be attained by our own personal effort.

But what happens if this central soteriological truth is no longer what we proclaim? What if instead, we proclaim a message like the one I referred to above which essentially says that to attain salvation one must do good things?  The "Christian" preacher and his fellow advocates of the separatist model espoused a soteriology which could be summarized as follows:  If you belong to the Christian community and you obey the rules thereof, you will go to heaven.  If you don't obey the rules or if you don't belong to the community, you are in danger of hell-fire. But, if this is their gospel then it is difficult to assert that they are proclaiming a Christ who is actually offering something unique.  Moreover, they seem to be setting up an apparatus (i.e. joining the Christian community and then obeying the community's rules) that offers salvation in a way other than the one that Jesus actually provided (i.e. regeneration by grace through faith).  From this perspective, it is difficult to see how the separatist model avoids syncretism.

Photo by CIMMYT

2. Radical Identification -- Over against the "Christian System's" emphasis on separation, we may instead speak of identification.  Of course, this is ultimately modeled for us in the incarnation of Jesus and I will not repeat everything that I have said before about this here.  But I was greatly encouraged during this period of mourning to see some followers of Jesus seeking to identify with the mourners.  One of these asked me after a few days, "As a follower of Jesus, what must I do during this time?"  Here, she was seeking a law and a new set of rituals -- a new orthopraxy that could mark her off from the Hindus.  In this, she revealed how strongly influenced she has been by the ideals of the separatists' system.  But I encouraged her by strongly challenging her to continue doing what she was doing.  Be with the family.  Serve them.  Observe their needs and meet them.  Pray for them while being with them.  Grieve with them.  Fast with them.  Hope with them.  Identify with them in this time.  Be Jesus to them. Be Jesus with them.

But is this Radical?

Unfortunately, this concept of identification seems too radical in our days.  It is radical because it tends to eliminate external, visible signs of separation.  This causes a certain amount of fear in our hearts because we have learned a model of "courage" which says that one must stand up in the city square, curse all the idols of that place, and welcome the subsequent stoning.  That to be bold for Jesus is to be obnoxious to everyone else.  But must I wear a huge cross, change my name to Thomas or Peter, and trade my old holidays for the "Biblical" ones like Christmas and Easter in order to be a genuine follower of Jesus?  See, if we seek to identify with the one who mourns during these times, they may think we are Hindus (or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever).  They may not even know we are are "Christians".  But, if done right, they will know with certainty that we are in Jesus.  They will smell Christ all over us.  And given the choice, I would rather people know that I have been with Jesus than that I have been with the "Christians."  

Ponder this.

Now, getting back to my original tweet:

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

I sat today in the home of the family who had lost the loved one.  Now that their period of mourning is complete and having seen me daily during that period, they were delighted to offer me salty food again.  We talked and I pondered, "What should I say today to this family about God and the salvation that Christ uniquely offers?" I thought for a moment about going through all the customs that I had observed them performing during the past two weeks and explaining which elements I affirmed and which I felt were antithetical to the truth revealed by Christ.  But, God graciously brought a question to my mind, "Is that the gospel?"  Certainly the gospel of Jesus has implications for these matters, but a tedious picking through of all the things they "got wrong" wasn't really going to commend Christ to them.  It wouldn't have rung as good news.  It wouldn't have smelled right. What would?

As I continued to ponder this, the old man of the house came to me with a plate of food.  He set it before me and pressed his hands together, saying, "Namaskar." This was followed by an explanation by him that in giving this food to me he was seeking to "bow down before the Great Lord, God the Father" (Param Prabhu Parmeshwar Pita). I am not entirely sure what to make of this.  It didn't seem to require a commentary on my part at the time.  My association with the Triune God through Christ is unquestioned by them.  Their desire to draw nearer to this God is really still unquestioned by me.  At that point, it seemed clear to me that their need for the person of Jesus was not going to be satisfied by a lecture on correct doctrine or praxis.  Not that I'm suggesting that a Christ divorced from Biblical truth is either possible or something that we should desire. But there is something undeniably subtle and mysterious at play here.  Perhaps evangelism is less about presenting orthodoxy or orthopraxy and perhaps more about a kind of "ortho-odoratus" --  a correct fragrance.  Paul spoke of the "fragrance of the knowledge of Christ" (2 Cor. 2:14) being spread everywhere through us. He said that to some it would be a fragrance unto death (do not read: an annoying fragrance) and to others a fragrance unto life.  Admittedly, it is something more difficult to put your finger on than the "four spiritual laws", but I doubt that it is therefore untrue. As I pondered what would be the "right" things to say in order to point this family toward the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God was at work, diffusing a fragrance of Christ through my immediate presence and the broader context of my history with that family so much more articulate and distinct than any sermon or verbal presentation I could have made.  This earthen vessel (to mix a little more 2 Corinthians in) sat in their living room radiating something invisible to myself but unmistakable to them.  A fragrance betraying a divine presence that simply couldn't be ignored.

Enough.

My few minutes of reflection has now turned into a few hours and I need to land the plane.  Let me do so with a few questions:

1. To what extent are followers of Jesus called to proclaim "orthopraxy" (i.e. to "correct" and replace their rituals and customs) to the nations?  Do we observe Christ or the Apostles doing this?

2. Is the "radical separation" model described above a legitimate expression of faith in Christ and a valid option for the disciple of Jesus?  Or is it essentially antithetical to a worldview that values devotion to and imitation of Jesus as the unique savior of those from every nation who come to him in faith?  How "un-gospel-like" does a gospel have to be before it can be legitimately labeled "another gospel"?

3. What is to be preferred?  That those without Christ clearly identify you as a Christian but cannot discern the Spirit and fragrance of Jesus in you or rather that they clearly identify you as one who is exclusively devoted to Jesus but are not so sure that you are a "Christian"?  Related to that, does the term "Christian" in our days have the same connotative meaning as it did in the first century?  If not, what name are we to rejoice in bearing as Peter commanded (1 Peter 4:16)?

4. How can we commend Christ to the people -- share the good news of salvation and freedom through Jesus -- in a way that is fragrant, distinctive, and Spirit-filled?  That is, can we articulate definitive principles for "fragrant" evangelism?

Some of what I have offered above reflects some rather blunt and somewhat certain principles of missiology -- that is, ideas about which I am fairly certain.  However, today, so much of what I've written reflects areas where I remain unsettled.  As I get older, I become less and less unsettled about being unsettled.  But, then again, I know I am not home yet.  Looking forward to your feedback!

What if this was Church?

Discovered this video online. I think it does a good job of bringing balance to what is often pretty out-of-whack in the American church scene. Thoughts?

What Languages Should You Learn to Reach the Least-Reached?

What languages should missionaries learn in order to reach the absolute least-reached peoples in the world? Here is an article and a list of 112 languages that was featured in a recent edition of Lausanne World Pulse:

Lausanne World Pulse - Perspectives Articles - No Christians, No Scripture, No Missionaries: Update to the List: "It is imperative for those of us who follow Christ to disciple all peoples. Of the many peoples that need missionaries, which are highest priority? We believe it is the groups which, so far as we know, have no Christ-followers among them, no books of the Bible, and no missionaries with the intent of bringing the gospel to them."

Lausanne Global Analysis

I don't know a whole lot about this just now, but it sounds like a pretty great resource that is coming to the Global Church in 2012 via the Lausanne Movement. Read on . . . 

Lausanne Global Analysis

Important to the development of good Communication strategy is reliable information.  During 2012, the plan is to launch The Lausanne Global Analysis: 

"The Lausanne Global Analysis delivers strategic and credible information, commentary and insight from an international network of evangelical analysts so that global Christian leaders will be equipped to address the issues impacting world evangelization."

Currently the idea is that the LGA will be written by teams of evangelical Christian researchers in research centers around the world.  They would be tasked with providing a monthly (2012), bi-weekly (2013) and then weekly (2014), report on socio-cultural, political, economic and religious events globally along with analysis of how these events and actions impact the body of Christ and the spread of the gospel.  These reports will provide the solid, credible information leaders need to pray, plan and work together to share Christ more effectively.  It’s our hope that the LGA will be freely distributed as widely as possible online on Lausanne.org, through social media and in print (possibly with the help of our Lausanne Regional Communications Managers).  Read Darrell’s Jackson's article. 

Pew Survey of Evangelical Christian Leaders from Cape Town 2010

The Pew Forum was on hand at Cape Town 2010 conducting a survey of the participants from around the world.  Since the survey was conducted during the most diverse gathering of Christian leaders in history, the value of the results could not be higher.  You can check out the results here:

http://pewforum.org/Christian/Evangelical-Protestant-Churches/Global-Survey-exec.aspx

But before you do, I just wanted to highlight a couple things that seem to haven't received must attention in the executive summary that is presented at the above link.

1. 4% of respondents do not believe that Christianity is the one true faith.
2. 2% believe that the Bible is NOT the word of God.
3. 3% believe that life evolved via a process with which God was not involved.
4. 7% believe that God will grant health and wealth to those who have enough faith.
5. 3% believe that it is not essential to follow the teachings of Christ in order to be a good Evangelical Christian.
6. 4% say that believing in reincarnation is compatible with being a follower of Christ.
7. 5% say that it is okay to believe that Jesus is NOT the only way to salvation.

Just a question ... WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?  How did people who don't believe that the Bible is the word of God get selected as participants to the congress?  Did they lie on their application or was the application simply ignored?  And besides that, why on earth would they even want to come?  Why does someone who doesn't believe that Christ is the only hope for the world desire to attend a congress on world evangelization?

Pretty crazy if you ask me.

Church Planting: Reaching the Lost or Gathering the Saved?

Interesting article in CT about urban church planting, especially mega-churches. Take a look . . .

Urban Planters: Building off Believers? | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction: "David Fitch, associate professor of evangelical theology at Northern Baptist Seminary, believes churches like Tim Keller's megachurch, Redeemer Presbyterian, aren't reaching new converts, for the most part. Instead, they are attracting people who are already Christians who have moved to big cities like New York. They are bringing in the pre-churched—Christians looking for a new spiritual home.

'The attractional dynamics that often typif[y] these kinds of church planting depend largely on existing Christianized populations,' he wrote in a blog post in January."

Christianity Today betrays shallow reporting/understanding of Bhutanese-Nepali Ministry Issues

Just alerted to an article in CT that highlighted some Bhutanese-Nepali work going on in Austin, TX. Here is the quote that stood out:

Migrating Ministry | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction: "Chris Merrell, pastor of global outreach at Austin's Hill Country Bible Church Northwest, describes Monger's (a Nepali pastor) evangelism style as bold and blunt: 'In his own culture, he knows how to speak to them and what their needs are on a totally different level than what any of us could. His lead-in is generally something like, 'Your name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life. You're not alive.' He'll just start a conversation with that, and it's pretty fascinating to watch.'"

I've seen this with others and have been around after. I don't think I'd describe it as fascinating but rather sad. One wonders if Pastor Chris can speak Nepali and, if not, in what way he's able to assess fairly Pastor Monger's evangelism style. What is fascinating (as well as sad) is to listen to Hindus describe their encounters with Nepali Christians. Recently, I was in a city in North Carolina talking with a Nepali family that was very, very interested in Christ. They described how upon arriving in the US they were eager to learn about Jesus. However, they met a Nepali pastor-type person who shared with them in this so-called "bold and blunt" way. What they understood was that the pastor was calling them "Satan". From that moment, they decided that Christianity really wasn't the answer. I find it naive and irresponsible to simply assume that because someone is Nepali that he/she automatically "knows how to speak to them and what their needs are on a totally different level than what any of us could". I have very often discovered that this is not true.

At the end of the day, I felt that this article read more like a piece of promotional literature for a mission agency.  It is unfortunate that with the first Bhutanese-Nepali church in the U.S. just a few miles away from Christianity Today's offices they failed to do any better than just this little snapshot.  It is true that the Lord is doing a special work among these people but I fear that these kind of articles encourage Americans to stay basically uninvolved and rely on the "indigenous" leaders to do the work of mission.  This is a mistake in the context of diaspora when there are no longer any truly "indigenous" people.  All have entered the realm of liminality. American Christians must be called upon to pick up their cross and enter into this liminality -- to reverse assimilate.  Had we taken the approach highlighted in this article, we'd likely have only a bunch of quarreling Christians and no new Christ-followers.

MaarifatAllah - الكلمات التي سوف تقرأها هي صحيحة

This is an awesome website to share with your Muslim friends. I have met the great folks that manage the site and heard some of their stories. God is using it wonderfully to bring salvation through the Lord Jesus to many in the Muslim world. Pass it on today to an Arabic-speaking Muslim friend that you know.

MaarifatAllah - الكلمات التي سوف تقرأها هي صحيحة

Unreached People Groups Videos

Asia Link has produced a couple really great videos that you have perhaps already seen. In case you haven't, I offer them here. The focus of both is mission and the unreached, unengaged peoples of the world. Why not show them to your church or small group this week.


Lost from AsiaLink HistoryMaker on Vimeo.


Tears of the Saints from AsiaLink HistoryMaker on Vimeo.

110 Tables. 28 Affinity Consultations, 3 Venues … : Phil's Blogs

My friend, Phil Miglioratti just posted this press release on his blog on Orlando 2011. It is a nice summary of the time here. I'll be writing my own reflections as soon as I can.

110 Tables. 28 Affinity Consultations, 3 Venues … : Phil's Blogs:

U.S. Leaders Seek Vision for Evangelism at Orlando 2011

Orlando, Fla., April 6 –- About 700 people are gathered in Orlando,
Fla. to seek God’s vision for evangelism in the next decade. Fueled by
the momentum of Cape Town 2010, the Lausanne Movement gathering of
4,000 leaders from 198 countries last Fall, the U.S. Lausanne
Committee / Mission America Coalition (MAC) has convened hundreds of
U.S. leaders, and some from other countries.

Twenty-eight separate “affinity consultation” groups are discussing
the issues the Church faces in carrying out the Great Commission and
will submit practical next steps following the Consultation. Their
topics span every arena of evangelism and missions from global justice
to creation care to Islam to mobilizing congregations in missions.

The event opened Monday with a prayer focus — participants around 110
tables prayed for humble Christ-like hearts.

“You could feel the vibe in the whole room as people from table to
table began to pray for each other. It was really exciting for me. A
great evening,” said Glenda Washington, of Jacksonville, Fla..

“This is what the Mission America Coalition is all about,” says Paul
Cedar, chairman, “bringing together leaders from all sectors of the
Body of Christ–denominations, ministry networks, city movements,
churches, evangelism and mission organizations–to humbly carry out
the Great Commission together. That’s why we began with an evening
devoted to prayer.”

Tuesday, Lon Allison, executive director, Billy Graham Center at
Wheaton College, gave the morning plenary address, “A Larger
Evangelism.”

Allison said many Christians fall into three camps of “Words, Works,
and Wonders,” but we need them all. “Both the Church and the world are
blessed by this fullness of God in action through us…in a tired
American world where modernity hopes have grown…disappointed.”

R. York Moore, national evangelist for Intervarsity Christian
Fellowship, delivered one of the responses to the plenary. “The long
history of our evangelical heritage placed too much emphasis on the
wrath of God and far too little on the wonder working power of God to
re-create the nations–to transform not only soul, but society as
well,” he said. ”Our hope is not in the destruction of the world but
in its re-creation.”

The event ends Wednesday. For the affinity consultation findings and
ongoing dialog on the topics, go to servingbettertogether.com.

——-
For more information about the Mission America Coalition / U.S.
Lausanne Committee see www.missionamerica.org. For interviews, call
Susan Brill, director of communications, at (715) 559-1068

Nepal faces possible Evangelism Ban

Note the link and excerpt below.

Persecution.com: "As Nepal continues its transition from a monarchal Hindu Kingdom to a democratic secular state, Christians are becoming concerned that the country’s new constitution may limit or even ban evangelism.
The draft proposal includes a seemingly liberal religious freedom clause that states, “Every person shall have the freedom to profess, practice or preserve his or her own religion in accordance with his or her faith, or to refrain from any religion.” However, an explanatory note adds that while every person has the freedom to “convert on his or her will … no person shall be entitled to … convert a person from one religion to another.” Christians fear that the explanatory note could be used as a means of restricting evangelism."

Watch the John 3:16 Ad that was Banned from the Super Bowl

Alright, here's the "controversial" commercial that Fox rejected from nationally airing during the Super Bowl.  It was deemed to be offensive.  Unlike Kim Kardashian's, right?  Well, the word is that it somehow snuck through in a few local markets and aired anyway.  Personally, I kind of like what they did with it and applaud the effort to connect with fans who often see the reference to the verse flashed around at games, but never really take the time to look it up.  The ad (and website) make it easy. Good stuff.

Does this Make You Mad? Piper's Eph. 3, Pt 2

It made me want to cheer, but others got upset with Piper's attempt to bring together the old missions tension between "word" and "deed" ministries. Reflecting much on it today as I study and write on Cape Town 2010. Wondering if this might not have been one of the key moments of the Congress. Your thoughts?

What Should Be our Priorities in Making Disciples of All Nations

Okay, I want to be simple here. First, super grateful for your prayers. I thought there would be no way for me to finish this paper - to stay awake. I even got in bed.  But as I started reading, my energy was renewed. Twenty pages finished. The paper?

"World Evangelization in the 21st Century: Prioritizing the Essential Elements of the Great Commission" by Paul Eshleman on behalf of the Lausanne Strategy Working Group (LSWG).

The paper is simple and crucial. It seeks to say to the Global Church, "As we look at the work of mission in the world today, here are the things that should be our top priorities." It is specific, Biblical, and compelling.  I read it with the eyes of a pastor, church planter, missionary, and ministry leader.  If you find yourself occupying one of those roles, read this paper.  If you are a disciple of Jesus concerned about the Great Commission, read it.

There is a lot I could say here and there in response to the LSWG paper.  However, I want to limit my comments to several specific questions that came to my mind as I thought through these priorities and specific calls.  I kept asking how this related to Trinity International Baptist Mission.  What is God saying to us?  I am expecting God to speak in powerful ways to me and to my context of ministry.  So, it is important that I bring my ministry and every component of it to the table.  I challenge you to do the same with your church or ministry as you read the LSWG paper.  Here are the questions I am beginning to ask (note: TIBM refers to Trinity International Baptist Mission and all our related ministries):

1. Can TIBM recruit and deploy one team tasked to produce an "Oral Story Bible" for one of the 2,252 language groups that still do not have one verse of Scripture in their language?

2. Can TIBM drastically increase our intentional and strategic distribution and use of the Scripture?

3. Can TIBM recruit and deploy one full-time worker to go to one of the 2,365 people groups (with populations over 5,000) that are totally unengaged with the Gospel?

4. Can TIBM launch a new ministry focused on reaching out to members of a major religious group that we aren't currently engaging?

5. Can I effectively teach effective Bible storying and narrative preaching to those I lead and mentor?

6. Can the entire TIBM team get trained in orality ministry?

7. Can TIBM start more churches where there are actual needs?

8. Can TIBM become a "house of prayer for the nations" - developing a 24/7 missional prayer ministry?

9. Can TIBM form new boundary-crossing partnerships that result in extending God's Kingdom?

10. Can TIBM become for faithfully mobilized in compassion ministry?

11. Can TIBM be renewed and refilled by the Holy Spirit?

12. Can TIBM become more effective and intentional in mobilizing followers of Christ to pray, give, and go for God's global mission?

13. Can TIBM become thoroughly and constantly informed as to the status of God's mission in the world?  Can we increase our access to and use of resources like Christian World Encyclopedia, Operation World, Ethnologue, Joshua Project, People Groups, and more?

14. Can TIBM conduct regular research and produce reliable results that are helpful to the Body of Christ?

And that's it. I am particularly looking forward to the plenary session on this topic and the interaction around the tables.  Let's pray that God will give us very clear direction.

Must the Church Pursue a Global Equilibrium?

I always appreciate it when thinkers carefully examine unstated premises.  I always think about an episode of the West Wing in which one main character is repeatedly advised to handle reporters by "rejecting the premise" of their questions. I believe that Singaporean Church leader Patrick Fung's ability to do this -- to put the premise of his paper's title ("Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium") under the microscope-- is what makes his contribution to the Lausanne Congress so valuable.

Fung's self-conscious article presents a very important question. Should a global equilibrium of power, resources, and influence be pursued at all?  Phillip Jenkins and others have done a good job of pointing out to us that the majority of Christians now live in the global south while most of the power and influence remains in Western countries.  But as I read Fung, I must acknowledge that this fact alone mustn't be the sole reason that we pursue a global equilibrium in the Church.  Rather, our goal is world evangelism, not equilibrium.  Writes Fung, "I am glad that LCWE stands for Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization and not Lausanne Congress for World Equilibrium."  This is an important point. We must not be saying "to the extent to which pursuing global equilibrium in the Church is the nice thing to do, we must do it." Rather we must say "to the extent to which pursuing a global equilibrium in the Church contributes to the extension of God's reign and fame among all peoples and nations, we must do it."

To this point, I want to say three things -- things that I think Fung is also saying.

First, we may speak of a geographic, financial, numerical, or intellectual "center of gravity" in the Church, but the only "center of gravity" that has any real meaning is the theological one -- Christ is the one and only "center of gravity" for the Church.

This, of course, isn't a point original to me, but rather comes from something I read in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper.  Let me provide an extended quote here:

"We rejoice in the phenomenal growth of the church in the majority world of the global south, and for that reason we understand the intention of the statement that the 'centre of gravity' of world Christianity has shifted south.  However, we strongly discourage the further use of this term, for two reasons.  First, Christianity has no centre but Jesus Christ.  We are defined by no geographical centre, but only by our allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, and he is Lord of all the earth.  The 'centre', therefore, is wherever he is worshipped and obeyed. Secondly, any talk of a centre (other than Christ) undermines the fact that Christianity, even since the book of Acts, has always been fundamentally polycentric. Anywhere on earth can be a centre, and any centre can rapidly become peripheral.  The global nature of the church as 'one throughout the whole wide world' subverts the language of a centre--whether geographic, numerical, or missionary. Mission is from everywhere to everywhere."


Second, for the gospel to be the gospel, there is a need for a kind of global equilibrium in the Church.  This is because a full-orbed understanding of the gospel includes the good news that God is creating out of fragmented and broken humanity, one new humanity, the Church.

So there can be no true gospel and no true evangelization unless it includes the presentation of this new reconciled humanity.  And I sense a growing chorus of voices on this point.  It is here in Fung's article, "Christ has destroyed the barrier . . . has brought into being nothing less than a new, united human race . . . the message of reconciliation is to be lived out by God's new community, which the fragmented world needs to see." It is also in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper, "It is important to see how this 'peace-making' work of the cross -- reconciling Jews and Gentiles, and creating on new humanity -- is not just a by-product of the gospel, but is of the essence of the gospel itself." It there in the words of Antoine Rutayisire who, when speaking of factors contributing to the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, mourned the fact that conflicts between missionaries from different denominations "created more divisions and animosities among the people who did not see Christianity as a unifying factor but rather another colonial importation." It is, of course, in the Lausanne Covenant itself which states, "our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation" and the Manila Manifesto which affirms "the urgent need for churches, mission agencies and other Christian organizations to cooperate in evangelism and social action, repudiating competition and avoiding duplication." And more voices besides these could be cited.  Praise the Holy Spirit as He works to move us more and more to this point of common ground.

Third, for a global equilibrium to be built upon an a priori commitment to God's global mission, it will necessarily look different than conceptions of equilibrium that are based on a rather arbitrary sense of niceness, fairness, or democracy.

And I'm not meaning to be cute here, but Fung has raised a critical specific point that alludes to this larger one.  His specific point is this, "although a better state of equilibrium will avoid the tendency of dependency, the biblical concept of partnering in the body of Christ should be interdependence". Now, I can't tell you how tempted I am to chase that rabbit trail, but I will try to exercise a bit of self-control and simply suggest, in agreement with Fung, that it is unbiblical to hold up independence and autonomy as signs of spiritual maturity either for individuals, local churches, or national/regional churches.  The three (to four) self formula is fundamentally flawed if it cannot allow for the kind of permanent interdependence that the Bible calls for.

Now it is this Biblical interdependence that must become what we mean by equilibrium.  It is not that the Holy Spirit distributes the same gifts, history, resources, experiences, and knowledge to every person, church, and region in precisely the same ways so as to facilitate our human conception of fairness.  Rather, it is that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12).  We are all supposed to be strong in some ways and weak in others.  For in this, we cannot but come together.  The real problem may not be that Western churches "have all the power, influence, scholarship and resources", but rather that we in the West have failed to recognize the richness in majority world Churches that we desperately need.  Likewise we fail to recognize value that lies outside our normal categories of assessing value.  So that if we continue to only think of equilibrium in terms of balancing money, influence, information, and the like then we will never achieve Biblical interdependence (i.e. equilibrium) that also calls us to value a whole range of other categories such as prayer, worship, persecutions, powerlessness, poverty, joy, and more.

Are we prepared for the cost?

Yesterday I was riding my bicycle - my new favorite hobby - and listening to various podcasts.  One was from a recent episode of the Dividing Line with James White (excellent BTW).  A caller phoned in to ask Dr. White if he could recommend any resources on a presuppositional apologetic approach to people of other faiths.  Without getting into what that means, I want to go directly to the conclusion of the resulting discussion in which the caller said something like, "So, I guess I'm just going to have to do my homework and understand what people of other faiths are saying." To which Dr. White said something like, "Uhh . . . yeah."

I liked that because it highlights something for me that I feel is a very significant problem in the Church today.  Christians sort of generally want to have an answer for the Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, or whoever -- a set of memorable apologetical one-liners to throw into the faces of people from other faiths who may come across our paths.  But we don't really want to get our hands dirty.  We want a quick and compelling (to us) presentation or pamphlet.  We don't want a Hindu friend.  We don't want a relationship with a neighbor.  But we have been called to love.  And . . .

"Love is costly. Out of love, something may be offered to a recipient for nothing, but that is not the same as saying it didn't cost the giver anything.  It may cost everything.  Yet when it comes to the issue of witnessing to people of other faiths, we seem to be looking for methods that cost us nothing."

These words by Michael Ramsden in his article "Bearing Witness to the Love of Christ with People of Other Faiths" are right on.  I recently heard of something in a church not too far away from where I live that made me so happy.  It was something like this -- their pastor had begun a series on Islam and Muslims.  No doubt a study designed to help equip the members of that church to have meaningful and effective encounters with their Muslims coworkers and neighbors.  But, you know, such studies are a dime a dozen in evangelical churches.  And very often, the only thing that happens is that the Christians walk away with a feeling of renewed confidence (and sometime arrogance) in the truthfulness of their religion over against the particular cult or world religion featured in the study.  But something totally different happened in the church I'm talking about.  Something kind of cool.

As I heard the story, some of the members of the church spoke with the pastor at the conclusion of the study. They said basically that while they appreciated the study on Islam and Muslims, the reality was that most of them had coworkers, neighbors and friends who were not Muslims but Hindus.  And they said something like, "Pastor can you equip us to share the love of Christ with the Hindus in our lives?" And the pastor said, "Yes."

That's so good, so pure in my mind.  Because the church members there could have just filed that study away someplace and continued to be unengaged with the global mission field around them.  But they refused. They have begun to choose the hard path of love, relationship, dialog, understanding, incarnation, death.

Let me remind you again of this important call to repentance issued by the Lausanne Theology Working Group:

“We need to repent of approaches to people of other faiths that reject or denounce their existing religion as wholly evil or satanic, with no effort to understand, critique and learn, and to discern through genuine encounter, friendship and patient dialogue where there may be bridges for the gospel” (p. 28, full version)."

So, I want to simply echo the question that Ramsden has asked in his paper.  When it comes to sharing the love of Christ to people of other faiths, are we prepared for the cost?  It will cost us everything.  Sadly, most Christians are not ready to pay that kind of price.  Are you?

Benjamin Kwashi's Simple & Potent Reminder

Now on to Benjamin Kwashi's "Bearing Witness to the Love of Christ with People of Other Faiths."  What strikes me first is the simplicity of this brief paper. Kwashi writes practically nothing that I haven't heard and read about a hundred times. And yet, there is something about it. Something stirring.  Something challenging and encouraging.  For example, as one who has been flatly lied to "in the name of Jesus" this week, I rejoice at the statement, "Anyone who receives and believes the gospel must speak the truth at all times, to all people, and must do so in love."

But nothing hit me more powerfully that this simple, true, timeless, crucial . . .

"It takes a determined, cumulative effort to keep teaching the word of God until the truth of how to live and obey God's word is learned, accepted and obeyed.  We are to be channels through which the power of God can work, and such channels must not become blocked by laziness, selfishness, unfaithfulness or any other kind of sin."

I do however question Kwashi's inclusion of the term "etiquette" in a list of things that "must" be changed by the gospel. Everything else on the list makes sense to me--behavior, health, character, etc (etiquette also makes sense if it is understood in a very broad sense).  Since "etiquette" normally refers to cultural conventions, customs, how to fold your napkin, which hand one should eat with, whether or not shoes may be worn inside the house, and the like; I would suggest caution and careful explanation of exactly what is meant by how the gospel impacts this. It is far too easy to create a false gospel around issues of cultural conformity/non-conformity and reduce being a "true" follower of Jesus to a matter of whether or not you wear a hijab, adorn yourself with a bindi, change your name to Mary, eat beef, or preach standing up.

Okay, on to the next article.