The Silly Things we Find Profound: Over-Contextualization and the Power of the Gospel

Photo by By Express Monorail

I didn't realize that there was a Desiring God / Passion Conference going on. I see it getting all hashtagged on Twitter and a couple quotes are getting a bit annoying.  In particular:

"The power is not in contextualization; it's in the Gospel" (being attributed to Jason Meyer)

and

"Do you fear over-contextualization or under-contextualization? This is the missionary tension you will always be in." (being attributed to Darrin Patrick)

I find both of these statements to be kind of silly. As for the first, is Meyer suggesting that there are people who believe that the power of salvation is actually located in contextualization?  And, if so, what the heck would that actually mean?  For contextualization to exist as a process, it must have an object.  One cannot contextualize nothing.  That is, when speaking of contextualization, one must inquire as to what exactly is being contextualized.  In this case, we’re talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The gospel, any Christian must confess, is the power of God unto salvation for anyone who believes (Rom. 1:16).  But this gospel, in order for it to be proclaimed, heard and then believed, must be contextualized.  Always!  This is simply not avoidable.  Even something as simple as telling the story of Jesus in English is a form of contextualization (good contextualization if the hearer understands English, bad if he/she does not).  Show me a person who thinks they can share the gospel without contextualization and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t understand what in the world they are talking about.

Which brings us to the second statement, attributed to Patrick, about this idea of something he calls “over- contextualization.”  I know that Patrick likes to talk about this “tension” and has done so before.  But again, this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of contextualization.  What Patrick is talking about is actually called accommodation, which is an older missiological concept based on the question, “How much can we accommodate the prevailing culture without compromising the integrity of our faith and the gospel message?”  This is a fine question, to be sure.  Indeed, it is the question that a lot of people should be wrestling with.  But, it isn’t contextualization.  Contextualization is a later concept that asks rather, “How can we bring the person and message of the Lord Jesus Christ fully to bear inside a given cultural context?”  Contextualization, from a Christian standpoint, is rooted in the Incarnation and is aimed at enfleshing the risen Son of God among every people, nation, tribe and tongue through the witness of His Church.  Thus, faithful contextualization is as insider as Jesus the Jew and as prophetic as Jesus the Messiah.  When Patrick suggests the dangers of “over-contextualization” he implies that too much of it is sometimes done.  Does he actually think that too much of the gospel is being brought to bear on a given context?  Well, surely this isn’t what he means.  I think what Patrick is saying is actually that too little of the gospel is being brought to bear – i.e. under-contextualization and over-accommodation. 

Anyway, the terminology is critical because those of us who intentionally pursue contextualization and adopt an insider trajectory are not usually doing so because we want to be people-pleasers who don’t ruffle feathers.  And these little potent conference quotables too often become little sticks for the uniformed and unreflective to pummel us with.  I can personally testify that great harm and hindrance can be the result.  What the Church ought to be saying is, “We affirm the heart and soul behind insider movement trajectory and contextualization! May we bring the Lord Jesus fully to bear within every cultural context that exists!”  And then, once that is settled, we should have a million prayerful conversations about a million specific forms, rituals, cultural expressions, language and more. 

Young, Restless and Uninformed: Responding to Kevin DeYoung on Insider Movements

Insider Movements: Concerns Abound but Mission Does Not

Kevin DeYoung

It is odd to me that the subject of contextualization in cross-cultural missions – particularly that amongst Muslims and (to lesser extent) Hindus – has become something of a hot topic among evangelical leaders.  It seems now that everyone who is anyone is required to have an opinion about the so-called “insider movements” and that, by and large, their opinion is supposed to be negative.  We are told again and again to beware of the dangers of The Insider Movement lest we all become swept away in this sinister wave of missionary heresy.

Sadly, all this talk seems to be doing very little to actually mobilize Christians to become engaged in cross-cultural evangelism or even simply to develop a cross-cultural friendships.  Prominent Christian pastors, seminary presidents, authors and opinion leaders are “concerned”, we hear of something called “over-contextualization” or of “going too far”, and, of course, they are entitled to express such concerns.  What puzzles me, however, is how so many of the North American Christian masses have suddenly also become “concerned” about insider movements without ever having previously been even the slightest bit concerned for the millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others who have never heard the message of Christ, have never met one of His followers, or have never yet had even one verse of Scripture translated into their languages.  In a global Church that actually embezzles more money from donors than it gives to cross-cultural missions, much of the armchair missiology being spewed forth seems a bit out-of-place.  But I digress.

Recent Contributions to the Controversy over Insider Movements

Last year, much of the controversy surrounding insider movements was being fueled by an anti-insider documentary entitled “Half-Devil, Half Child” [check out our review here] which pulled no punches in its opposition to contextualization efforts among Muslims.  In recent weeks, the debate has been stirred up again by the January 2013 issue of Christianity Today, especially with its much-tweeted and poorly titled cover article, “Worship in the Mosque”.  The article is a fantastic read for many reasons, not the least of which is the interviewee’s obvious passion for bringing the good news of the Lord Jesus to Muslim peoples - perhaps the most seldom expressed sentiment in all this insider v. outsider movement flap.  

The article has, of course, received its share of criticism.  Among those raising their concerns is KevinDeYoung, a pastor and author who holds considerable influence over the young, restless and reformed crowd (of which I’m basically a part, though the “young” part is becoming less and less true).  DeYoung, blogging over at the popular Gospel Coalition website, responded to the CT article with three questions and three concerns.  And since, I've been watching people “like” and “tweet” his article around since it went live, I’m guessing his thoughts have found some significant resonance among many of the young, restless and (in this case) uninformed reformed. 

So, that in mind [while fully aware that the odds of DeYoung reading this post are slim to none], I wanted to take a stab at responding to his questions.  As I do, I acknowledge that DeYoung is no missiologist.  So, I want to extend some degree of grace, similar to my response to John Piper on the same issue, recognizing that this debate is a fundamentally missiological one and thus a bit outside DeYoung’s wheelhouse.

The Questions of Kevin DeYoung

Pastor DeYoung’s post raises three questions regarding insider movements in general and the CT article in particular.  Let’s take a look at them one by one:

1.       What is the role of the church?

While DeYoung acknowledges that insider movement believers oftentimes see themselves as belonging to the universal Church, he is still concerned about their essential ecclesiology.  But let me say this once again -- something I've said again and again. Pastor DeYoung, there is no Insider Movement!  Whenever  I hear someone use the phrase "The Insider Movement", I fully expect a sucker punch.  It is the chief tactic of Outsider Movement proponents to attempt to portray insider movements as a single, monolithic and dangerous movement sharing common beliefs, practices and values.  The strategy is to essentially paint all pursuers of contextualization with the same brush and then to highlight the "worst" elements of particular insider movements, claiming that such beliefs or practices are shared by everyone who is a "part of the Insider movement".  Of course, this is ridiculous.  The Insider Movement does not exist as a single, unified thing with secret handshakes and membership cards. One cannot be for it or against it because IT doesn't exist.  In actual fact, there are many, many different insider movements among many different people groups.  We do not all share a common set of values or agreed upon practices and (to address DeYoung's specific question) certainly do not have a common ecclesiology.  

Indeed if you ask a bunch of insider Christ-followers about the “role of the church” I would guess you’d find nearly as much variety of opinion as you would at any large, American evangelical gathering.  My point is that when DeYoung asks, “What about church officers, weekly preaching, the administration of the sacraments, membership and church discipline?” he seems to be suggesting that these are pretty much settled issues for all non-insider movement Christians.  I think we all know better than that.

Now, are these important issues?  Absolutely.  Are insider movement Christ-followers working through these issues in their context?  Yes.  Is there a degree of uncertainty and disagreement about these things among the wide variety of insider movements in the world?  Of course.  Is this struggle at all unique to insider movements?  Not on your life!  Now, I certainly don’t begrudge DeYoung the right to espouse his own Reformed Church of America ecclesiology and even to be passionate enough to teach and advocate for it in the broader body of Christ.  But I think he fails to see that being a part of an insider movement doesn’t make one any more likely to disagree with him on those things than does being a Southern Baptist, a charismatic, or and Anglican.  The bottom line is that most insider movements consist of local bodies of Christ-followers who are a part of the larger body of Christ and who take a variety of approaches to the sacraments, leadership, discipleship, and worship.  You know, just like every other church and denomination on the planet.

2.       Why not try to form a more culturally sensitive expression of the Christian church?

Pastor DeYoung's second question is difficult for me to understand and my hope is that he will do us a favor and explain exactly what he means by this.  According to my reading of the CT article, the particular insider movement in focus (i.e. “The People of the Gospel”), did exactly what DeYoung's question seems to imply that they didn't do.  Indeed that seems to be the driving point of the article.  I’m not sure in what sense the group in question is, in DeYoung’s view, not a church.  Unless, DeYoung is saying that contextualization efforts should consist solely of adapting already existing churches.  If that is the case, DeYoung should simply give this a bit more consideration.  I’m sure he can attest from his own experiences that this is easier said than done.  By and large, I observe that precisely what insider movements do is create “church” (i.e. Christ-centered bodies of disciples) within a given context.  I suppose it could be the case that DeYoung feels it is necessary to use the actual English word “church” in every context.  I hope he doesn’t mean that, because that would be kind of silly.  Slightly less silly would be for DeYoung to advocate that all new churches always use the word for “church” (translated, of course) that the majority of Christians use in that region.  But this would wrongly assume that the most popularly used word is the best translation of the New Testament concept of a church.  In many cases, it isn't the best word at all.  DeYoung says that he would encourage insider movement leaders to “dream of a church that embraces some familiar cultural styles without jettisoning the idea of church altogether”.  In my view, the CT article featured a man who did exactly that.  So, I don’t really understand the problem here.

3.       Shouldn’t some things be strange when we are called out of darkness into light?

Of course this is a very popular notion among outsider movement advocates.  Again and again we are told that the Bible calls us to be a peculiar people, to be separate, to shine brightly in contrast to a dark world.  But this is mostly empty rhetoric used to justify the clear separatist mentality so common among outsider movement advocates.  In actual fact, such scriptures have nothing to do with language, clothing styles, music, art, liturgical forms, and the like. DeYoung, who is a gifted Bible teacher, certainly knows this to be true.  Indeed to use these Biblical concepts in this way actually undermines the high calling of holiness we've received.  These scriptures speak of the kind of holy character and transformed hearts that followers of Christ should manifest in the world.  DeYoung asks if the rituals and vocabulary and general feel of the church should be strange to new believers.  The answer is a resounding “NO!”.  These should be absolutely as familiar as possible and not foreign.  The extent to which we fail to fully contextualize worship, evangelism and discipleship is the extent to which we inadvertently communicate that the locus of transformation for the new creation in Christ is somewhere other than in that person’s new heart, new mind, new life, and new Lord.  The most powerful contrast is the disciple of Jesus who seems in every way to be fully a member of the Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist community and yet exhibits an unmistakable divine life within his or herself.  Such a person shines so powerfully and so mysteriously that onlookers cannot help but to ask as to the meaning of that light – “You are clearly one of us, and yet . . .” (think, Incarnation).  But for the extracted new believer, almost no degree of character change can overcome the non-believer’s assumption that all evident changes are due to that forsaking of the person’s birth community and culture and are therefore necessarily bad.

The Concerns of and for Kevin DeYoung

DeYoung ends his article by raising three concerns about insider movements.  In particular:

-  There seems to be a naïve view of culture.

-  There seems to be an overly casual attitude toward theological truth.

-  There seems to be an implicit understanding that the Holy Spirit will do what human teachers don’t.

Personally, I don’t believe the CT article provides enough information for us to make any particular judgments about these issues as they relate to the particular insider movement in question.  Having personally been working among insider movement believers, leaders, and cross-cultural missionaries for a number of years I can’t say that I've noticed any dangerous trends related to the concerns DeYoung offers.  On the contrary, I find that insiders tend to have a fairly advanced understanding of culture which easily surpasses the typical, in-the-pew Christian.  Beyond that, I have found that attitudes toward theological truth and the Holy Spirit's activity exhibit the same level of diversity that one finds in the broader Church.  So, it isn’t that DeYoung raises unimportant concerns, it is just that they don’t seem to have anything in particular to do with contextualization or insider movements.  It is a fallacy to assume that because a particular insider movement exhibits a certain problem or weakness that all insider movements should therefore be characterized as being prone to the same.

Before leaving off, I think it is important to raise a very important concern about Pastor DeYoung's post -- namely, that he says nothing at all about how critical it is to reach Muslims with the gospel.  Does DeYoung assume that his readers will already believe this?  This is, of course, where I began today's post.  I'm concerned about the fact that we have all these concerned people stating their concerns about the methods employed in reaching the least-reached peoples in the world and yet so few of them seem concerned that we actually obey the Great Commission among them.  Now that's something to be concerned about, Pastor DeYoung! 

Entirely Unbalanced: A Review of "Half Devil, Half Child" (Pt. 2 of 3)

Photo By FirasMT

Today we continue (check out part 1 here) with part 2 of our 3-part review and response to the Outsider Movement film Half Devil, Half Child.  Today, our guest blogger, John Raines, shares some critical insights about discipleship and colonialism before taking on the film's take on the false reporting of mass conversions in Bangladesh.   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There Are No Shortcuts to Good Missiology -OR- Real Problems Should Not Be Dismissed Because of Some Bad Solutions

The problem with labels like the "Insider Movement" and "insiders" is that they are a way of bypassing helpful, but difficult, theological discussions of the particulars. Rather than carefully attending to the discipleship of each new believer, you simply have to ask, "should a person proclaim Jesus inside a mosque or not?" If you say "yes", then you can support anyone who tries to. If you say "no", then you can fight all the people who said "yes". But neither answer is good missiology or real contextualization. We might dig a little deeper by asking, "what would someone have to do in order to be able to proclaim Jesus in a mosque?" The answers to that question would vary greatly because there are so many different types of mosques. In some mosques, in order to be listened to, you might need to interpret the Qur'an like a radical Salafi. In other mosques, simply claiming to believe in the God of Abraham would be enough. And, of course, there is a wide spectrum between these two, and that spectrum is full of issues that we need to think about and discern as the body of Christ. Boiling that discernment process down to one question, "do you agree with the Insider Movement or not", is perhaps the least helpful thing that anyone in the process has yet done.

But here is the biggest problem: even if these "Insider Movement" advocates have answered every missiological challenge wrongly, they did so while responding to real problems that exist in communicating the gospel to Muslim people. These are issues that need to be addressed – wisely, and drawing from a wealth of theological reflection and church history, certainly, but they must be addressed – because they are real problems. It is a problem that when we say "Son of God" a Muslim hears, "the offspring of God's sex with a woman". It is a problem that the division between a believing son and an unbelieving father might be historical baggage (like the Crusades), so that the true sword of the Gospel is not even brought to bear. It is a problem that one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, the Trinity, is almost universally misunderstood by Muslims to be polytheism. These are all problems that we, the Church, need to address in the way we share the gospel. Things like the film Half Devil, Half Child dismiss all of them by attributing false motives to the missionaries who are trying to respond to such problems. While it is true that some people who follow these contextualization practices do it to gain money or avoid persecution, the attempt to contextualize the Gospel for Muslims is not driven by these motives, but rather by a desire to solve problems like the ones mentioned above. The debate over contextualization can only advance helpfully as it centers itself around answering these questions in a theologically sound way.

Contextualization and Post-Colonialism

The film Half Devil, Half Child is framed to be a statement about the colonialism that is inherent in practicing contextualized missions. It hopes to show that contextualizing the Gospel is a Western idea, which the indigenous believers of Bangladesh reject and which the Muslims of Bangladesh can see through, and therefore that contextualization is colonial. Now of course, any missionary practice that subjugates those with whom it is sharing the gospel is itself offensive to the gospel and should be stopped, so this is a serious charge. But I wonder how we are defining colonialism in this case. There is a certain definition of colonialism which simply says that colonialism is the attempt of empowered people of one culture to influence the disempowered people of another culture. Power in this case may be defined as access to resources which enable one to realize one's full potential, goals, and happiness. Westerners often have more access to resources than others, are therefore more empowered, and are by definition colonial in all attempts to teach or share the Gospel in Bangladesh. Or as the film put it, "You know what we [Western Christians] should do? Sit down and shut up." 

But, the definition used above is not the definition of "colonialism" as the global Church has sought to address that problem over the past 50 years (or the last 2,000 years by different names), and it does not really seem to be the definition at work on the ground in Bangladesh, either. By the way the Church has addressed colonialism, it seems to be defining colonialism more like this: colonialism is the establishment and support of hierarchical structures in which the people of one culture hold power over the people of another culture, and in this case, power is defined as the freedom to choose how to use indigenous resources (personnel, finances, time, energy, etc.). The Church has moved away from this kind of colonialism by raising up indigenous leaders who exercise all the authority within the power structures that steer the indigenous church. But these leaders, by virtue of having often been "raised up" by Westerners, themselves speak in the tones of the traditions of their spiritual fathers and mothers, even though they speak with their own voices. There will always exist that tension, which is why every Christian who disciples a brother or sister must strive to be the image of Christ. Within this scheme, anyone may bring the gospel to anyone else, and it is not colonial provided it comes not in the power of man but in the power of the Spirit and provided that the same Spirit is acknowledged in the lives of indigenous believers as raising them up and gifting them for leadership among their own people in Christ's Church. This, in fact, was the way that the established indigenous church in Bangladesh came to be guided by the Bangladeshi brothers who were shown in the film.

How colonial is this wave of contextualized missiology dubbed the "Insider Movement"? Insofar as it is a general collection of ideas and practices initiated by Western missionaries (and that is complicated) with the intent to create change among Bangladeshi Muslims, it is colonial according to the first definition. However, if these contextualized missionary practices are raising up Bangladeshi leaders who exercise authority among their constituents, then it is not more colonial than the established indigenous church in Bangladesh, although it will continue to exhibit similar tensions, which are inherent in that form of post-colonialism. Even based on the evidence of the film, the leaders and practitioners of contextualized ministry in Bangladesh are now Bangladeshis. If that is true, then the key concern is not so much colonialism, but whether the tradition that these indigenous leaders echo is a faithful one. And so, again, we must return to the specific issues of the contextualization debate in order to helpfully move forward.

A Story and Its Use

Before I proceed to mention those particulars, I feel the need to comment on one of the film's sub-plots: the false reporting that hundreds of thousands of converts had come to Christ in Bangladesh through "insider" ministries. The story receives a prominent place in the film, but is a bit confusing and possibly misleading. Some national missionaries had falsely reported 750,000 new baptisms to their Western supporter, the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, and they had reported that these believers were all "insiders". They used pictures of people taking their public baths, claiming that they were photos of baptisms. Reporting massive numbers of baptisms insured that the organization would continue to support their work. (It's a good example of what happens when your organization is too numbers-focused, but everyone in the world has already beaten the IMB with that stick, so I won't say more.) Eventually one of the nationals' conscience was burdened by the lie, and he confessed, bringing the whole house of cards down. 

It's a very good story. Here's how that story can legitimately be applied to the "insider" debate: 

Because the baptism numbers were so high, we assumed that these methods were amazingly effective, and that made us want to use them. Now, however, we see that the methods are not the silver bullet we thought they were. This was a good lesson to learn, and besides, we should never judge the validity of a practice based solely on its perceived effectiveness anyway! Lesson learned. 

I'm not sure that was the angle from which this story was told, though. Here's how I fear that the story was illegitimately applied to the "insider" debate by implication in this film: 

Advocates of the Insider Movement are all liars and swindlers who report false numbers in order to receive money from the West.  

This isn't a logical conclusion to draw from this story because the false missionary was not practicing any sort of missiology – he was just lying about a lot of things. He wasn't an "insider"; he was lying about being an "insider". If this sort of practice were typical of the "Insider Movement", then there would be no bad insider movements to worry about (or good ones, obviously) because no one claiming to be using "insider" practices would actually be doing so. They wouldn't be sharing the gospel at all. They'd just be con-men pretending to use contextualized missiology, but not really doing so. So there would be no mosques full of "insiders" for us to worry about. There would just be a handful of people claiming that there were. To imply that this was typical of "insiders" would therefore be self-contradictory. And yet, by the way the film is put together, I'm not sure that wasn't being implied. 

[Want more? Check out "Dullness become God" - Sinclair Lewis, Contextualization, Diaspora, & American Churchianity, Go into all the world and Westernize it!, and Why Contextualize? (Part 5) The Locus of Spiritual Transformation]

[Entirely Unbalanced: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

Entirely Unbalanced: A Review of "Half Devil, Half Child" (Pt. 1 of 3)

Photo by By Roel Wijnants

In 2012, Red Futon Films released the film Half Devil, Half Child directed by Bill Nikides, whom the film's website describes as "the leading expert in Muslim ministry specifically on the Insider Movement" who is also known for his work as a co-editor to the questionably titled Chrislam (If you want to become a follower of Chrislam like, check this out). That's right, THE leading expert.  So, that just about settles it I suppose.  Any and all detractors now fall firmly into the category of "not THE leading expert". But we press on . . .

If you've been around this blog for awhile, you know that I'm a big believer in the intentional pursuit of contextualization in cross-cultural mission as imitation of Christ's Incarnation and that not only as a sound and Biblical missiological practice but also as a spiritual discipline.  I have written on the level of Biblical and missiological principle [see for example my response to John Piper] specifically in response to Outsider Movement advocates (i.e. those who attack contextualization and insider movements), but my special area of interest is the Hindu world.  For that reason, I make it a rule not to comment on specific forms and practices up for debate in the more popularly discussed realm of contextualization among Muslims.  However, when I saw that this documentary was being kicked all around the Twittersphere, I was more than eager for our own ministry's resident Islamic scholar take a crack at it.  

John Raines is an experienced cross-cultural worker and a highly gifted younger scholar who has been with our team for a while and normally writes at his own blog, Speech Acts.  He is, sadly, not the leading expert on Muslim ministry.  However, his response is careful, insightful and does an excellent job of shining a light on the deficiencies, inconsistencies and general imbalance of Half Devil, Half Child - a film that we overwhelmingly do NOT recommend except as a case study in propagandizing. So, without further ado, here is part one of our 3-part review of the film:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to the film Half Devil, Half Child - John Raines

Introduction

There's a recent documentary film about "the Insider Movement" in Bangladesh. After seeing enough links to it bouncing around the internet, I finally ponied up the $3 and rented it. It's called Half Devil, Half Child, it's 80 minutes long, the interviews are engaging, and I think it will be effective in accomplishing its main goal. What is its main goal? To convince churches in America not to support missionaries who are engaging in the missiological practices of the "Insider Movement." Unfortunately, the film proceeds toward this goal by cacophony, not by clarity on what the Insider Movement is. More importantly, it fails to address how the Gospel ought to be preached and incarnated in the Muslim world, and without this constructive component, the film ultimately just another voice in the shouting match. 

Debate on the Insider Movement: Failing to Acknowledge Diversity in the "Insider Movement" Results in Confusion

The film's most confusing aspects arise from its failure to acknowledge the complexity of the Insider Movement - or, as Cody Lorance recently put it on this blog, that the "Insider Movement" doesn't actually exist, but is instead a lot of different insider movements that are diverse in their practices. The diversity of this kind of missiological thinking and praxis is actually discernible in some of the individual interviews in the documentary, but the film's editing smoothes over these nuances in favor of its big idea –insider missiology is all bad. 

The narrative arc of the film conveys one main idea: what started out as a missiological theory in the West has turned into a cesspool of heresy in Bangladesh. To illustrate this point, the film accuses advocates of the "Insider Movement," who are labeled insiders, of a long list of offenses, some of which seem mutually exclusive. For example, insiders are charged with denying Christ by staying in the mosque (in the documentary, none are charged with denying Jesus in speech – only in action – even the main "insider" interviewed in the film was very proactive in sharing what the Gospels say about Jesus), but are later shown as disingenuous because they stay in the mosque when it is obvious to all the Muslims there that they are Christians. So which is it? Do their actions deny Christ or do their actions overtly identify them as his followers? There may be some "insiders" for whom the first is true and others for whom the second is true, but it seems extremely unlikely that both could be true for any one person. 

Whether or not an "insider" denies or proclaims Jesus by his or her actions depends upon a massive number of decisions – whether to pray with non-believers or not, whether to wash before prayer or not, whether to pray publicly in the name of "God" or in the name of "Jesus", whether to call themselves a "Christian", a "Jesus Follower", a "Jesus-following Muslim", or simply a "Muslim", whether to quote the Quranic passages that don't contradict the Bible, whether to publicize their rejection of certain Islamic practices or not – thousands of small situations and choices which make up a life that either proclaims or denies Christ. It's actually the same thing that every Christian everywhere has ever experienced, and most of us have a fairly mixed track record. Some of the people labeled "insiders", find themselves in incredibly complex situations and navigate their choices poorly. They seem to deny Christ. Others navigate their choices wisely and, though like the rest of us they still make mistakes, they manage to proclaim Jesus inside the mosque.

[Want more? Check out What is wrong with Biblical Missiology's Critique of the Insider Movement? and Responding to John Piper's Response to "The Insider Movement"]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget to check in again tomorrow for part 2 of our review of Half Devil, Half Child.  In the meantime, I strongly recommend taking a look at the excellent article "Worshiping Jesus in a Mosque" recently published by Christianity Today.

[Entirely Unbalanced: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

What is wrong with Biblical Missiology's Critique of the Insider Movement?

Photo By JD Hancock

I had made a note to myself that I should eventually get around to responding to an article that I often see tweeted and retweeted related to contextualization.  The article appears on the website Biblical Missiology and was written by Georges Houssney.  You can find it here if you like: "What is Wrong with the Insider Movement".

Let me begin by saying that the article itself is difficult to take seriously. It offers no citations (I'll return to this point in a moment) and is very poorly edited.  I understand that Houssney is not a native English speaker, but it is still incumbent upon Biblical Missiology to raise their standards of editing and research if they are to present the most reliable and helpful information and debate possible to the Church.

Further, it is very difficult to respond point-by-point to this article.  Let me explain why:

1. There is no such thing as "The Insider Movement" -- A very, very common mistake (or tactic) made by proponents of "outsider movement" methodologies is to refer to those who pursue contextualization in mission as "The Insider Movement".  We are supposed to all share the same views, values, approaches, etc.  Houssney's article is entirely built upon this completely false premise.  There are in fact many different insider movements among different people groups which take different positions on many issues.

By using a term like "The Insider Movement", Houssney and others seem to be trying to foment opposition towards all insider approaches (i.e. contextualization) by attributing all the high-shock-value positions to all proponents of contextualization.  As a case in point, in this article Houssney wants his audience to believe the following:

- The Insider Movement affirms the Quran as God's word.
- The Insider Movement believes that the Quran contains the message of salvation and has the power to transform.
- The Insider Movement holds Muhammad in high regard.
- The Insider Movement relies on a purely cognitive approach to evangelism which effectively denies the role of the Holy Spirit.
- The Insider Movement has a low view of the universality of the Church.

The fact of the matter is that those who pursue contextualization among Muslims have a number of different views on these and other issues.  Houssney should take the approach of arguing against specific practices or forms instead of simply trying to oppose an entity which doesn't actually exist.

2. There are no citations!  Houssney at various times charges certain entities (e.g. "Common Ground", "Camel Method") with advocating particular practices or taking certain positions.  However, we are given no information about the specific details of these nor are their links to articles or resources that we can examine.  It is really pretty impossible to engage meaningfully with Houssney on these points as a result.  We aren't, for example, given specific information about who "Common Ground" is nor do we know what they actually have to say.  We are left essentially having to take Houssney's word for it.  This is not acceptable.  I strongly encourage Brother Houssney to do the hard work of providing specific quotations and citations that allow us the opportunity to fully engage this debate.

3. There is no substantial interaction with Scripture.  With all of Houssney's charging "insiders" of failing to give proper place to the Bible in their evangelism, it is ironic that he himself utilized it so sparingly in his article.  His central charge is that "the Insider Movement is unbiblical", but he doesn't actually demonstrate this from Scripture.  Note:

- In his first three points he doesn't use the Bible at all to support his positions.
- In point two he suggests that "insiders" incorrectly use Acts 17 to support their approach but doesn't explain how this is done nor provide a counter-exegesis to support his own view.
- His references to Bible verses in points 4 and 5 are decorative at best (not that it is surprising for "outsiders" to neglect context). Houssney does not demonstrate exegetically how these verses are supposed to support the points he is trying to make.

Thus, Houssney has failed to provide meaningful support of his claim that insider approaches are unbiblical. Without a clear, biblically-based argument, it is impossible to have a real exchange as to whether or not contextualization is biblical.

Conclusion
In the end, I am left once again feeling that Biblical Missiology is still not an organization worthy of serious attention.  My own position on contextualization aside, it baffles me that they would publish an article that is so inadequately conceived, written, edited and researched.  It further puzzles me that individuals would actually consider it worthy of a "retweet".  My hope is that BM will remove the article and ask Houssney to go back to the drawing board. There cannot be progress made in the Body of Christ on the issue of contextualization unless we are all committed to high-standards of debate, research, mutual understanding, and communication.  I humbly call my brothers and sisters in Christ at Biblical Missiology to rise up to this higher standard for Christ's sake.  I am certain that they are capable of doing so.

Muslims, Insider Movements and the Issue of Identity

Photo By Stuck in Customs

I enjoy very much following the Circumpolar blog and the much needed balance they bring to the too often over-heated and ill-informed debate regarding contextualization in mission among Muslims. I've spoken before about the "insider v. outsider" controversy and won't get into it all here (e.g. my response to John Piper).  I do, however, wish to direct you to a recent post by Warrick Farrah over at Circumpolar that is well-worth a read.

Farrah is reflecting on an article by Tim Green entitled "Identity Issues for Ex-Muslim Christians, with Particular Reference to Marriage".  Farrah focuses his reflections on Green's challenging of the so called "C-scale", which I have also challenged here.  Green raises issues particular to the Muslim context that are very helpful and form yet another compelling reason why we should abandon the "C-scale" paradigm in our discussions about contextualization in mission.

Read Farah's post at Circumpolar - "We need to change the model, change the debate, and make room for “identity transition” in MBB conversion experiences." 

Additionally, Circumpolar recommends a number of links for Muslims that I'd encourage you to take a look at. 

Responding to John Piper's Response to "The Insider Movement"

The following brief clip has been dubbed "Piper Responds to the Insider Movement".  I have noticed it being kicked around the internet.  I know that it isn't popular to critique John Piper (especially not fun for a big fan like myself), but I feel it is important for someone to do so.  Take a look at the video (about 6 minutes) and then my responses below:

Piper Responds to the Insider Movement from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

There is No Insider Movement
First of all, you can’t “respond to the Insider movement”. It isn't one thing.  This is a foundational problem underlying so much anti-contextualization rhetoric.  Consciously or unconsciously, opponents have created a kind of straw-man that they call “The Insider Movement” as if we all have membership cards or secret handshakes.  But, this simply isn’t the case.  There is much variety of philosophy, theology, missiology and praxis among those who pursue contextualization in mission.  I have found the Cape Town Commitment's statement to be extremely well-crafted and helpful:

So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance. This is a complex phenomenon and there is much disagreement over how to respond to it. Some commend such movements. Others warn of the danger of syncretism. Syncretism, however, is a danger found among Christians everywhere as we express our faith within our own cultures. We should avoid the tendency, when we see God at work in unexpected or unfamiliar ways, either (i) hastily to classify it and promote it as a new mission strategy, or (ii) hastily to condemn it without sensitive contextual listening. 

In the spirit of Barnabas who, on arrival in Antioch, ‘saw the evidence of the grace of God’ and ‘was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord,’ we would appeal to all those who are concerned with this issue to: (1) Take as their primary guiding principle the apostolic decision and practice: ‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ and (2) Exercise humility, patience and graciousness in recognizing the diversity of viewpoints, and conduct conversations without stridency and mutual condemnation.

Of course, Piper prefaces his comments about IM by saying “this is what I mean by it” and then providing a description of an IM that includes genuine followers of Christ staying in the mosque, continuing to read the Quran (possibly as inspired), self-identifying as Muslims, etc.  This is certainly a kind of IM, but it is also pretty misleading to not clearly articulate that there is a tremendous amount of variety and difference of opinion on these particulars.  Not everyone who pursues contextualization in the Muslim context would practice these particular forms.  However, by referring to this as a response to “The Insider Movement” (see point 1), there is the suggestion (intentional or not) that this is really what all insider movements are about.

Normal Christianity = Western Christianity
Piper correctly points out that an American banker who comes to know Christ has to change very little of his external cultural forms in order to enter the American Christian community.  Piper says that this is because the American culture is so “uniform”.   What he neglects to point out is just how much of an “insider movement” the American church has been all along.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not suggesting that American church forms have been contextualized to the culture with a tremendous amount of intentionality or missiological insight.  But nevertheless, the contextualization is clearly present.  What American Christians think of as “normal” or “standard” forms of church life or Christian spirituality are forms, rituals, holidays, symbols and theologies that have been either entirely derived from or else heavily conformed to the prevailing culture.  This is simply beyond dispute.

This points to one of the most significant underlying faulty premises of the critics of insider movements.  They presume the orthodoxy and the normative nature of the American/Western Church (and its forms), setting it up as the standard against which all deviations are naturally viewed with skepticism.  They hope to frame the debate as “Normal Christianity” versus “The Insider Movement” and they are largely successful because they are not challenged to demonstrate that the American Church has really arrived at exactly what Biblical faith in Christ should look like.  Moreover, they are not challenged to defend biblically their own approach to cross-cultural mission which we may accurately deem as “outsider movements” – i.e. the systematic extraction of new followers of Christ from their birth communities and colonization of new lands/cultures with Western brands of Christian expression.

Insider Movements vs. Outsider Movements

Piper’s problem is clearly with particular forms that are sometimes used by some IM proponents.  He mentions several things that he doesn’t think are good ideas.  Personally, I know enough about this debate within a Hindu context to know how unwise it is to weigh in on the particulars of the Muslim-context debate.  But, I wish Piper were willing to clearly articulate that “staying in one’s birth community” is a fundamentally good and Biblical ideal.  I wish he were better about distinguishing disagreements regarding particular forms as a fundamentally different debate than the question about “insider” versus “outsider” movements. 

The C-Scale: Here We Go Again

Piper gives credence here to the infamous C1-Cwhatever framing of contextualization debate.  I have expressed elsewhere that I believe John Travis’ scale to be built upon faulty premises.  In short, the scale presumes that rightward/upward movement eventually leads to syncretism, heresy, etc. (whether that happens at C3, C4, C5 or C16 is debated but it certainly happens).  Further, it presumes that leftward/downward movement is inherently safe, orthodox, and God pleasing.  However, people who take the time to actually understand syncretism and heresy and not just hurl them around as epithets will realize that neither requires intentional efforts of contextualization in order to exist.  What is more, the C-scale cannot at all account for the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ (either as a historic reality or as a model for cross-cultural engagement).  These inherent deficiencies to the C-scale call us to discard it as some kind of prescriptive tool to determine “how far we should go”.  Actually, I don’t think this was Travis’s purpose to begin with.  Thus, Piper’s statement about “drawing the line” at C4 isn’t helpful because it assumes the validity of the scale.  What I wish he would have said was something like, “I am unabashedly for the ‘staying in’ trajectory of insider movements, but certain forms that some of them adopt seem to be problematic.  For example . . .”  Further, I wish he’d say something like, “I am unabashedly against the extraction and colonization tactics of outsider movement proponents.”

Is All Persecution Against Christians Persecution for Christ's Sake?

Piper mentions that “all the Muslim converts” that he met at Cape Town 2010 were very upset about insider movements.  First, let me say that I was there too and that Piper clearly didn’t talk to all of them.  In fact one of the plenary speakers was a Muslim-background disciple of Jesus who even presented an insider movement model.  Piper also mentions the persecution argument.  Now this is a very sensitive thing, to be sure.  But let me just say that we should not assume that every Christian who is persecuted is actually persecuted because of Jesus.  I want to be clear again to say that I cannot comment about the particulars of the Muslim context.  But in my (non-Muslim) context, most (not all) of the persecution that we observe against Christians has nothing at all to do with Jesus except in the minds of those being persecuted.  I want to also say that I have never met a practitioner of contextualization who is motivated by a desire to avoid genuine, anti-Jesus persecution.  Such people probably exist and I would strongly oppose such motivation.  In my personal experience, the IM road has led to increasing persecution as those followers of Jesus who seek to stay in their birth community are attacked by outsider movement Christians.  Let me be clear: there is real persecution and plenty of it which is the shameful fruit of rebellion against the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  But we also need to admit that there is plenty of wicked persecution that emerges from all kinds of other motives.

Honesty, Integrity and Biblical Faithfulness

Piper says that “honesty, integrity, and Biblical faithfulness” should be our guidelines.  I couldn’t agree more.  However, too many opponents of contextualization overtly condemn IMs as lacking integrity and honesty.  I reject this idea.  As a cross-cultural worker pursuing a kind of IM, I am motivated strongly by a desire to communicate with the lost with more clarity, truthfulness, and integrity.  I believe that outsider movements are inherently dishonest (though not always intentionally) because they communicate through their methods of colonialism and extraction that the gospel and Christ-following is something other than what it really is. 

Piper says that he wants to hear from “our missionaries” who he believes to be the real experts on this issue.  I appreciate that.  But I hope that Piper doesn’t simply mean that he wants to listen to missionaries that agree with him and then amplify their voices.  Further the notion of creating a policy that draws the line at “C4” is unwise for the reasons I have already stated.  If there are particular forms that his church wants to oppose, they should make those decisions themselves, but please discard the notion that “C4” or “C5” or “The Insider Movement” are tangible and fixed things that can be prohibited.  That’s just not true. 

A Final Thought

Let me close by saying that I appreciate much of what Piper brings to the Church and that I think his statement here is charitable, humble, and marked by wisdom.  I don’t think he fully grasps this issue and the particular nuances that I have articulated above, but he admits as much at the beginning of the video.  It is problematic however that so many opponents of IMs are flooding the internet with a lot of misinformation, bigotry, ignorance, personal attacks, and other general silliness.  And everyone who “retweets” such drivel is culpable. This isn’t a simple issue.  And there are a tremendous number of people who are talking about it that should rather be listening and learning.  Actually, we could all do with a little more listening and learning. 

A Response to James White on Insider Movements in Light of the Cape Town Commitment

I think I've mentioned before that I liked what the Cape Town Commitment had to say about contextualization. In particular, it has defined "insider movements" in a way that is very helpful as you will see below.

"So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance."

A couple important notes on that.

First, IMs are not just something that is the domain of the Muslim world. I praise God for this clarification, because the debate/discussion surrounding contextualization is clouded by it being too associated with Islam and reaching Muslims. There is just much more to it than that. Critics of insider movements often make the mistake of painting them all with the same brush as if all IMs were in the context of Islam and as if they all looked the same and agreed on the same points.

Second, it defines IMs as missional communities of Christ-followers who seek to obey the Bible.  Thus, a so-called IM that isn't following Jesus, seeking to obey Scripture, or seeking to engage its cultural context isn't really what we are talking about.

In this way, the gauntlet is sort of laid out for those who have been so adamant in their opposition to IMs. James White is one of my favorite persons who has spoken out against them. And I mean that. I repost lots of stuff from James and rarely miss his podcasts. However, his blanket condemnations of IMs are, I think, unfair and unhelpful.  I would ask Dr. White to consider the CTC definition below and explain what exactly he opposes. It isn't the Christ-following, small groups, or Bible focus. So it would have to be the continuing connections to birth communities and the idea of maintaining certain religious observances.  Well, it is one thing to oppose the holding over of particular, named observances. It is quite another to throw all IMs under the bus. White ignores the possibility that there exist insider movements who are genuine, theologically orthodox, Christ-followers seeking to obey the Bible and reach their kinsmen.  He ignores the fact that these people are often persecuted just as much as those do not pursue contextualization. So, not that James would likely read this, but I would ask that he pull back a bit on his broad condemnation of IMs.

Tomorrow, I will post the CTC statement in its entirety and tell you another reason why I think it is a good thing.