Standing for the Rights of Others: Southern Baptists and a New Jersey Mosque

Photo by Frank van Leersum

The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has been doing some backpeddling after rather heroically coming to the aid of a Muslim community in New Jersey which was facing unfair zoning requirements in their efforts to build a mosque.

You can read more on the story here as reported by Christianity Today.

After the IMB and the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission filed an amicus brief (along wth 16 other groups) in support of the mosque, they faced some backlash from IMB trustee Dean Haun who deemed the amicus brief an "unholy alliance" and said:

"If we defend the rights of people to construct places of false worship, are we not helping them speed down the highway to hell?"

There's so much about that statement that should send chills down your spine.

So, I read that yesterday.  And then today, I read about a friend of mine, a Chicago church planter who's church was also being unfairly treated by a city zoning board.  His case was almost identical to the situation of the mosque in that the religious group was being blocked by city officials in the name of inadequate parking.  It quickly reminded me of one of my own church plants that recently had to deal with the same thing here in Chicagoland.

Now, let's leave aside the question of whether a pastor from rural Tennessee is in the best position to comment on the kind of urban zoning pressures that those of us in big cities have to deal with.  But, beyond commenting, Haun actually resigned from the IMB board and then apparently lead his church to suspend their giving to Southern Baptist Missions.

And then it gets even more concerning.

The IMB responded to the criticism by changing their processes for filing legal briefs.  Essentially, they have taken the position of siding with Pastor Huan's Morristown, Tennessee priorities and agreeing to never do it again.

A few points to consider:

1. Denying justice and equal treatment under the law to anyone is always wrong.

Because ... it's ... denying ... justice!

The second a Christian says that it is okay to deny a Muslim equal treatment under the law, that Christian forms an unholy alliance (to use Pastor Haun's phrase) with the perpetrators of injustice.   Just read a little Bonhoffer.  German Christians who failed to prophetically stand against the unjust treatment of Jews ... Russian Christians who failed to prophetically stand against the unjust treatment of Roma or Muslim people ... American Christians who failed to prophetically stand against  the unjust treament of African slaves ... anyone remember these things?

Pastor Haun, injustice is a highway to hell too!  Ethnocentrism and Islamophobia are false religions! You and your church have positioned yourself on the side of NOT defending the rights of others -- the side of injustice.

2. If you don't speak up for the rights of others, you will have no credibility in speaking up for your own rights.

This was the rationale of the IMB when they filed the brief:

[Our] specific interest in the brief arises out of our belief that all peoples of the world have the right to religious liberty, including the freedom to embrace the gospel. This is what we believe and why we take the gospel to them, despite situations that pose great risk. A public record by IMB of supporting freedom of religion for all people in the United States—regardless of their beliefs—gives IMB workers overseas a credible foundation from which to advocate for freedom of religious exercise in countries that are hostile to Christianity, penalize those who convert, or make it difficult for a new church to own or rent property for worship. … IMB’s call on the government of these other countries to support the religious freedom of their citizens will ring hollow if, in the USA, we only support freedom of religion for Christians.

And this is absolutely correct.  It is not only the just to defend the rights of everyone to religious liberty, but it simply makes sense.  Pastor Haun may not want to venture as far as Yemen or China or Nepal where the rights of Christians to plant churches and worship freely are not always as certain as they are in Morristown, Tennessee, but perhaps he can take a Megabus to Chicago and talk to the pastor of Immanual Baptist Church about their struggle over parking ordinances.  If we fail to defend the rights of a Muslim group in New Jersey, what have we to say when the City of Chicago denies a religious use permit to a Southern Baptist Church over the exact same issue?  What right have we to expect Muslim nations to give relgious liberty to those who wish to follow Jesus if we do not ourselves champion religious liberty as a universal right.

This isn't complicated theology... it's Golden Rule stuff (Mt. 7:12).

3. A Kingdom worldview is not afraid of the spread of non-Christian religions.  

Are you not yet tired of Christians who bemoan the opening of a new Mosque or Hindu temple in their communities? Do you not yet understand just how ungodly is that all too common "there goes the neighborhood" response to peoples of other faiths moving into town?

How long are we Christians going to be so stupid?

A Biblical worldview knows that the Kingdom of God is coming and that the gospel of that Kingdom must be proclaimed as a testimony to all people groups before then end (Mt. 24:14). When the nations move into town, we should be throwing parties because it means new opportunities to share the love of Jesus with those who don't know him.

very tired of Christians who get all panicky when they see a Mosque or Hindu temple being built in their communities.  To me, this is dumb and reflects a worldview that does not understand the Bible.  A Biblical worldview knows that the Kingdom is coming and that the gospel  of the Kingdom will be preached as a testimony to all peoples and then the end will come (Mt. 24:14).  When I see a mosque or temple being build, I rejoice because I know it means a new opportunity to share the love of Jesus with people who don't know him.

But people like Pastor Haun seem to be afraid of Islam.  They are afraid that "false religions" will take over their country.

Such people need to be reminded that this world is not their home and that the country they should be seeking is an eternal one.  Whatever happens to the USA is pretty darn irrelevent from the perspective of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom will come and reign forever.  No religion can ever overcome it, delay it or alter its course .  When the Muslims and the Hindus and the Buddhists and others come to town... when they come to Morristown ... that is cause to rejoice and to extend welcome.  It is a sign of the Kingdom and the coming of the new age.

Challenging Extremism: The Conversation that Needs to Happen

You know what's funny?

My very strongly pro-immigration views and constant challenges to radical hospitality have earned me the reputation of being some kind of Islamic-sympathizer with flimsy theological positions about the nature of God.

It's funny and sad, but I get it. It is far easier to just sign up for someone else's pre-packaged ideology than to wade into the nuance and grayscale of real life and mission and the Kingdom.  Let me ask you, when Christ commanded us to love our enemies and Scripture fleshed it out with talk of turning the other cheek and giving them our cloak and feeding them -- what exactly do you think that looks like?  What exactly do you think it means to have an enemy?  It's more than just a fued with your neighbor about lawn care.

So, a friend of mine sent me this video put together by Muslims calling for an honest conversation about "Radical Islam".  Now, I know almost nothing else about the group that produced this, but, I can tell you that it is well-crafted, well-reasoned and compelling.  And I agree exactly with the conclusion -- we need to be able to have an honest conversation about this. I agree that political correctness can hinder good communication (but I also believe that it is extremely valuable for good communication). Sadly, an honest conversation will never happen during an election year.

I don't take it further to conclude -- as some surely would after viewing this video -- that we need to block Muslim immigrants.  First of all, and this is a subject to consider at length at a later time, anyone who thinks they can effectively restrain the tides of human migration in our day are fooling themselves.  People are on the move and will keep moving.  Shaping and guiding and leveraging that movement is the key.  Recall those viral YouTube videos of Black Friday stampedes at Walmart -- you know how people are. Pressure keeps building and eventually breaks through.  Highway strategies can prove very effective.  Blockades are almost always disasterous.

I have a friend -- perhaps a former friend now because of our radically divergent views on this -- who insists that my head is in the sand when it comes to Muslims.  But, I've actually been threatened with violence, lived with Islamist neighbors who knew we were missionaries, and on one occasion had to wear a disguise because of threats against a public event I was helping lead.  I know that there are Muslims who would enjoy killing me (and I also know I am am small potatoes).  I know there are some in my country and city.  I don't want them to do so.  But you know, it  doesn't change the fact that when I see a Muslim family around, I am drawn to them -- I want to have a conversation and get to know them.  I feel love for them.  If they move in next door, I rejoice greatly.

But I digress ... I do that a lot.  Here is the video I mentioned.  It is worth your time to watch:

Standing in Solidarity: Considering the Case of Larycia Hawkins

Photos of Larycia Hawkins wearing her headscarf via Facebook

News headlines today in Chicagoland are featuring my own beloved Wheaton College and their decision to suspend (or place on "administrative leave") one of the their professors who made some controversial theological statements in a recent public announcement that she would wear a hijab during advent in solidarity with Muslim women.  Here is the story as reported in the Chicagoist today.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me remind you that I am a graduate of Wheaton but I don't know Dr. Larycia Hawkins and have never met her.  Her original Facebook post that has generated so much controversy can be read here.  Let me make a few observations:

1. Standing in solidarity is good -- Hawkins cites a popular YouTube video, "Women Wear Hijabs for a Day," in the comments of her post suggesting that the video played a role in inspiring her decision to wear a hijab during Advent.  Take a look:



I have nothing but respect for the desire to stand in solidarity with Muslim women in this way.  My wife and both former and current teammates of mine have done so on multiple occasions.  I, myself, have had similar experiences in what may be called "cross-cultural dressing" and can testify that it can be done in a way that is respectful, appreciated by the "other", and enlightening.  Given the fact that Christ himself engaged in a kind of cross-cultural dressing (enfleshening) in his Incarnation, Advent seems to be an especially appropriate time for something like this.

2. The time is right for Christ followers to stand in solidarity with Muslims -- I don't need to remind you that we are living in a time when hatred toward Muslims is en vogue.  From the typically leftist Rob Lowe:

Oh, NOW France closes its borders. #Hollande

— Rob Lowe (@RobLowe) November 13, 2015

To the famous Trump vow to block all Muslims from entering the United States, it has become way too acceptable to be anti-Muslim.  When followers of Jesus stand in solidarity and express their love and welcome for Muslims, this is a good thing that should be respected and imitated.  My friend, Justin Long, has provided a really excellent article on why we should love Muslims and extend hospitality to them (especially to migrants).

3. Dr. Hawkins confused the issue by packing some muddy missiology into it.  In my opinion, Dr. Hawkins should have made this about solidarity with Muslim women and left it there.  Instead, she inserted questions about theology/missiology that made it very difficult for the Wheaton College administration.  By declaring that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, she was taking a position that certainly can be defended but is nevertheless easy to misunderstand.  I have spent a lot of time in those missiological waters and I know enough about them to make me want to ask the professor exactly what she means by that.  Indeed if one of my own staff members made a similar public statement without a careful explanation, I might have to take a very similar course of action as the college.  To be sure, there is a sense in which her statement (and Pope Francis' statement) is true, but there is also a very real sense in which it is false.  Let's put it this way: Do Muslims worship the God of Abraham? They would say yes.  Do Muslims worship Jesus who is the God of Abraham?  They would say no.  Islam wholeheartedly rejects the divinity of Christ and the triunity of God even while affirming the spiritual heritage of Abraham, Isaac, Jabob, and Moses.  If someone asks if Muslims and Christians worship the same God, the only reasonable answer is, "it's complicated."

My point is that this is muddy water.  Followers of Jesus should spend time in such waters, but bringing that mud into a question about love and solidarity is unnecessary and unhelpful.  I don't blame Dr. Hawkins for being a bit out of her depth here (she is a highly accomplished political scientist and not a missiologist), but it is also difficult for me to blame the college for the steps they have taken.

I hope that Dr. Hawkins will have the opportunity to clarify herself on this point and that Wheaton will reinstate her and affirm her call for solidarity.  I myself affirm it with the reservations I've mentioned above.

Defending the Crusades (Not really, they sucked)

I am grateful to a friend who pointed out this piece. I've held my tongue while the heat was high following the National Pontificating Breakfast. I have no interest in either defending or critiquing President Obama's comments - it never occurs to me to look to sanded down, poll-tested speeches for profound insight anyway. 

However, the subsequent rush to defend the Crusades by many of my fellow Christ-followers was downright embarrassing. At first, I thought it was a joke - something like the Onion. Surely no one would actually try to defend the Crusades.  But, the more I read and saw posted, the more I blushed.  It was true. Which meant that the hatred towards President Obama was felt so hotly by some that they would seek to actually defend one of the darkest moments in Church history. 

Now, I know that some have taken pains to point out the larger context surrounding Crusade history and the various pressures that gave rise to a war between European and Islamic powers. This is well and good. A passing reference to the Crusades as "bad" is certainly abbreviating matters. However, it isn't abbreviating matters incorrectly. Yes, there were genuine acts of piety and golden feats of heroism along with understandable and necessary military campaigns designed for legitimate defensive aims.  But, the Crusades featured so much evil and of such a wretched sort and so blatantly "in the name of Christ" that the only reasonable response of the modern day disciple of Jesus is to lament.  

I would respectfully urge those who have tried to defend the Crusades to read this very solid NYTimes article on the first victims of the First Crusade. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/the-first-victims-of-the-first-crusade.html

If the massacre of Jews that started off the Crusades had been the only atrocity committed, it would be enough for me to condemn the whole affair. But, so much more would follow. 

Our history is what it is. And there is a lot of garbage there. And none of it makes any of the horrors being carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram, etc. even the least bit more acceptable or understandable. Indeed, it seems to me that the Church today would find its prophetic word all the more powerful in the face of such evils if we could soundly and unanimously condemn the sin we ourselves have been guilty of in the past.

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]

Al Qaeda in Kentucky: Another Setback in the Resettlement of Syrian Refugees

Recently some national media outlets have picked up on a story from way back in 2009 about some Iraqi terrorists who managed to slip through the cracks and enter the United States as refugees.  While shining light on this story will hopefully help to improve the resettlement processes in the country, I am saddened that it will also be used as another excuse to keep Syrian refugees languishing in camps.

During FY2013, the United States resettled only about 35 Syrian refugees and yet the conflict in Syria drags on.  It is expected that the total number of externally displaced peoples will swell to 3.5 million by the end of the year.   And now, in light of the current climate of disfavor towards President Obama's administration, the previously committed public commitment to resettle 2000 Syrian refugees in 2014 (just a drop in the bucket as it is) is being carefully walked back by State Department officials who now say that that number will be shared by several countries.  Which, given the fact that so many Middle Eastern, EU, and Latin American nations have already stepped up to resettle hundreds and thousands of Syrians, is to say that the United States hasn't really committed to anything.  This is a marked departure from the great, modern American tradition of being the world's leader in the resettlement of refugees.

As I prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas with my family, my heart goes out to these people and I deeply and sincerely wish that the golden door of my country was open to them.  I pray that my fellow Americans will shift some of their concern about Obamacare and money and scary Muslims and a thousand other things to the side so that we can extend hospitality to thousands of Syrians who are now suffering in the midst of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.

Below, you can read the story from ABC News on "Al Qaeda in Kentucky" -

Al Qaeda in Kentucky: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country as Refugees - ABC News: "Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.  The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints."

Also, check out this great series of short films from the United Nations entitled "Za'atri A Day in the Life" which gives you a terrific inside look into life in the largest Syrian refugee camp.

You may also want to check out other resources posted here on the Syrian Refugee crisis by clicking on the keyword "Syria" below.  Be sure to begin with the key article "Bracing for the Syrian Tidal Wave".

[Cover Photo by IHH]

Bracing for the Syrian Refugee Tidal Wave: Preparation Points for Churches

Photo by United Nations Photo

UPDATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 - UPDATES HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW

The growing crisis in Syria is grabbing the attention of more and more people as the United States considers the possibility of a military strike.  In case you haven't been tracking this story very closely, let me suggest a couple great places to begin:

1. Infographic- Will Strikes End Conflict in Syria (Maps of World):  Not everyone loves infographics, but well-designed ones are very effective ways to communicate information.  I this one is really good.  As the title suggests, it puts the question of U.S. military involvement front and center rather than some of the other critical questions.  Still, I recommend it as a way to get caught up.  (Note: link is to my "pin" of the infographic).

2. Nine Questions about Syria You were too Embarrassed to Ask (Washington Post): If you prefer just a straightforward textual summary of the Syrian situation, here's an article from the Post that I thought did a great job.  

3. Infographic- Syrian Refugees:  Here is a simpler infographic published by PBS Newshour that focuses specifically on the refugee crisis.

Of course, the purpose of my post here is especially to inform and prepare the global Church (and especially the North American) to respond well to the situation.  Personally, I believe that the most important issue facing the followers of Christ with respect to Syria is the refugee crisis.  There are now more than 2 million Syrians that have been forced to flee their homeland and at least a million of those are children!  It has become the worst refugee crisis on the planet today and the Body of Christ must respond!

Indeed there are other critical questions.  In particular, many Christ-followers are now debating the pros and cons of military intervention.  Should the United States strike?  This is certainly the opinion of President Obama and his administration.  With evidence suggesting that the Bashar Al'Assad regime has used chemical weapons against civilians, certainly we must be asking God for justice.  It is not my desire to wade very far into this aspect of the Syrian conflict.  I have lived long enough to become very skeptical about the idea that violence and war can bring about anything positive.  However, I strongly believe that evil leaders should not be allowed to simply do whatever they want and to kill and oppress whomever they want with impunity.  On this, I have found a post from Jonathan Merritt to be especially helpful.  Merritt provides three "Christian" perspectives on the issue of military intervention.  It is a very good read.  By the way, I personally found the pacifist view to be the weakest in terms of its presentation in the article.  So, to give it a boost, take a look at the recent letter from Pope Francis to Vladimir Putin on the subject.

Now, back to my main focus.

How can local churches, especially in the US and Canada, prepare themselves for the potential of future resettlement of refugees from Syria?  At TIBM, we believe it is important to be aware of what has quickly become one of the worst refugee crises of all time.  We believe it is important to pray for the situation.  And we believe it is critical to prepare for the wave of resettlement that is very likely coming.

I am using this article as a launching pad or as a place for churches to begin their preparation process.  I'm glad you are reading it and hope you will bookmark it and return from time to time. I will update it as I learn more and as things develop.  Here you will find several critical considerations and key questions for you and your ministry to consider.  I will also post helpful resources at the bottom as I discover them.  If you have things to add, please mention them in the comment section.

The Scope of the Crisis
The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the worst in history.  Currently, more than 2 million people have fled Syria (http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/syria.php) for neighboring countries and the United Nations is predicting that the number will surpass 3 million by the end of the year.  The main nations to which Syrians have fled include Jordan (500K), Lebanon (720K), Turkey (460K), Iraq (170K) and Egypt (100K). Officials in these nations report that they are completely overwhelmed by the massive numbers and need substantial help.

The Nature of the Crisis
The displacement of Syrians has stemmed from a violent military conflict in that nation that originated in 2011.  The struggle is essentially between government forces under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad and opposition groups which want to see him ousted.  The resulting violence has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths (mostly civilians) and the displacement of millions (for more on the death toll, see this helpful article from The Atlantic).  

Photo of the "Houla Massacre" by Syria Freedom. Over 100 people were killed, most of them women and children.

The United Nations has published a short video on the crisis which provides a heart-wrenching summary of how things stand right now.  Here it is:



Who are the Refugees?
Syria is a nation of more than 20 million people, the largest bloc of whom (14+ million) are Syrian Arabs. Other major people groups include Kurds, Najdi Bedouins, Alawites, Palestinians, Druze, Assyrians, Turkmen, and Lebanese.  New reports I have seen specifically have referenced Arabs, Kurds, Bedouins, Palestinians, Assyrians, and Lebanese as being among the refugees.  Additionally, smaller people groups have been mentioned including Armenians.  Religiously, greater than 90% of Syrians are Muslim. Some 6% follow some form of Christianity (54% Orthodox, 37% Catholic, 4% Protestant, 3% "other").  According to most reports, the vast majority of the refugees are women and children.

The Response by the Global Community
Syria's neighbors have largely welcomed the refugees but are totally overwhelmed by the numbers.  Jordan has reported a water shortage.  Turkey is pleading with Western nations to pitch in.  Still stories of great humanitarianism and hospitality have emerged.  The Kurds of Iraq have constructed multiple camps and expended millions of dollars.  Israeli Jewish volunteers have tirelessly served in Jordanian camps.  Cyprus has announced its willingness to receive as many as 200,000 refugees!  Sweden has recently shocked the world by announcing that it will grant "blanket asylum" to Syrians refugees!  Germany likewise has a plan to provide temporary resettlement to as many as 5,000 and reports are regularly coming from Italy of refugees arriving there by boat. 

Reports are now coming in of Syrian refugees flocking to Latin America.  Both Brazil and Columbia have welcomed 100% of Syrians who have applied for asylum.  Apparently, there are large Syrian communities already in Latin America (as many as 3 million in Brazil alone?!?!)

In North America, Canada has agreed to resettle high need refugees and the United States has agreed to open its doors to 2,000 refugees. Pressure is beginning to build from some quarters for Canada to resettle more than the thousand or so initially committed to.  

There are, tragically, other stories which highlight the darker side of humanity. Reports have come of Syrian refugees trying to cross into Greece by boat only to have their vessels intentionally capsized by the Greek coast guard. Hundreds have reportedly drowned as a result.  Many women and girls are being victimized in the camps as lack of security and high poverty is creating a human trafficking crisis.  Other reports are emerging of price gouging as refugees are being financially exploited.  In some cases, life in refuge is so bad that many are opting to return to Syria and fight.  They do so expecting to die, but, according to one Syrian refugee, "We would rather die with dignity in Syria than beg in Jordan."

Photo courtesy of BBC News

What Should we Expect?
It is pretty impossible to predict when and how many Syrian refugees will eventually be resettled in North America.  Canada has announced earlier this summer that they will be working with the UN to resettle refugees.  This initial announcement was of a "very small and discrete resettlement program" that will focus on refugees determined to be in high need.  I suspect that this will not exceed 1,000 before the end of 2013.  Additionally, pressure is growing for the government to create a special expedited program to process family reunification visa applications for Canadian-Syrians who have family members in harms way. With a population already over 100K, Canada's Syrian population could absolutely surge simply through normal immigration routes even without a special commitment to resettle refugees. 

In the United States, word has recently come that 2,000 refugees will be welcomed for permanent resettlement.  Traditionally, the U.S. is the largest recipient of refugees, often permanently resettling as many as all other Western nations combined. But the political climate now is tenuous.  Many Americans feel a renewed sense of fear and suspicion towards Muslim immigrants in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the still unresolved debate over immigration reform has further complicated the scene.  So, we can expect that this process could be very slow and subject to extra security measures.  Whether or not the U.S. will ultimately increase that number is difficult to predict.

Back in June, I predicted that the United States would announce plans to resettle a small number of refugees from Syria sometime during 2013.  My guess was that the number would be higher (10,000), but I'm glad that even this small number has been announced.  I believe that this number has been floated by the State Department as a trial balloon.  I still believe that if things go well in terms of the public and political response to these efforts that we can expect a much larger announcement by early 2014.  There are a lot of variables, of course, and a tremendous amount of politics and public relations involved for the Obama Administration.  However, in a matter of months, media images of snow covered refugee camps and freezing Syrian children will likely call greater attention to the already desperate humanitarian crisis.  I still believe that churches and agencies should ready themselves for a resettlement effort in the United States as high as 100,000.  Additionally, as in Canada, family reunification visas will increase so that Syrians arriving via traditional immigration routes will go up.  Refugee resettlement of course will occur along the patterns that many of us have grown accustomed to.  Resettlement agencies will be used to facilitate the process and thus the Syrians will initially be resettled in areas where other refugee communities are located.  

The newest variable in this situation is whether or not the U.S. will engage Syria militarily.  I believe that this will impact the future of refugee resettlement, but I am not sure how.  Here are a few things to consider:

1. If the U.S. topples the current Syrian regime, what percentage of the displaced will be able to return home?  Will widows and orphans be able to return home?  What about those whose homes have been destroyed?  Whatever happens, I think we must accept the fact that many have become permanently displaced.

2. Will U.S. military involvement lead to a more generous resettlement effort similar to the resettlement of Iraqi refugees?

3. Will non-involvement mean that Assad completes his victory over the rebels and thus permanently displace those who have become refugees?

The following paragraph is maintained for archival purposes.  I think it helps us to understand the pressure points behind the U.S. resettlement announcement.  I wrote it in June 2013:

I suspect that Canada's recent announcement to resettle paves the way for the United States to make a similar announcement.  Incidentally, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has just publicly called upon the US to open their doors to Syrian refugees.  In a press release, Archbishop Jose Gomez said, "We have an obligation to help these vulnerable populations, including and especially the most vulnerable refugees: unaccompanied minors and those that have become victims of human trafficking." Gomez called the US the "world's leader in protecting refugees" and wants to see the country do much more in the face of this crisis.

Tweets about "syrian refugees"


Questions for Churches and Ministries to Consider:

1. Syrian refugees will not have spent decades in refugee camps like the Bhutanese or the refugees from Burma. They will not be as far separated from the horrors of war. How can we bring hope and wholeness to them? How will we address emotional, physical, relational needs?

2. There are likely to be larger numbers of fatherless families resettled due to two things.  First, over three-quarters of Syrian refugees are women and children (men being involved in the fighting).  Second, the UN is especially emphasizing the most vulnerable for resettlement to Western nations.  How will you prepare to address this?

3. Do you know where the nearest refugee resettlement agency is in your community?  If not, leave a comment below and I will help you locate it.  Have you begun a relationship with that agency?

4.  Have you begun or are you partnering with another organization to offer ESL (English as a Second Language)?  If so, how can you prepare your church/group to double your capacity for the number of students you can handle?  For related ministries which are attractive and helpful to refugees, consider how you can double their capacities within the next 2 years.

5. How much Arabic do you know? Have you learned anything about Islam?  Do you know where are the local stores and markets which sell "halal" products?  Prepare yourself now so that when Syrians come to your cities you will be better able to befriend them.

6. Do you know were refugees are initially resettled in your area?  Do you know where they tend to move to after 3-4 years?  Can you predict where resettlement will take place over the next decade?  Since new refugees often have transportation challenges (no cars or driver's licenses) are your ministries accessible to them?

Resources to Consult:

There are too many resources to mention.  For now, let me suggest a couple things:

1. The Latest on the Syrian Refugee Crisis:  Make it a point to check out the United Nations site devoted to the Syrian Refugee Crisis. http://syrianrefugees.eu/.  This site isn't being updated as regularly as I would like, so also check out http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/syria.php.  Surf with discernment through other sites realizing that there is an especially large amount of anti-resettlement sentiment against the Syrian refugees due to the fact that they are predominantly Muslim.  Additionally:

• The UNHCR YouTube Channel has some compelling videos on the situation. I also like to keep an eye on Journeyman Pictures for the same reason.
• Angelina Jolie has been serving as a UN Special Envoy to Syria and has released a video report that is also worth watching.

2. Missions and Missiological Preparation:  I recommend that you read up on diaspora missions (here and/or here) and consider taking the Perspectives course within the next two years so that you can gain a better sense of God's heart for the nations.  Regardless of what happens with this specific crisis, it is clear that the Lord is bringing many of the world's least-reached peoples to areas of the world where they suddenly have unprecedented access to the Gospel.  Followers of Christ should be embracing this growing phenomenon.

Should Syrian Refugees be Fed to Polar Bears?

Photo by David

First, let me say that I feel somewhat embarrassed to be a citizen of the same country as many of the people who are voicing such racist and evil comments on the article I shared here last night.  Sometimes, I wonder really what has happened to this nation.  For years, I have been hearing from fellow Christ-followers about how our nation has drifted from it's original, godly foundations by the promotion of abortion rights, the degradation of marriage, and the like.  What must be understood however is that the growing, anti-immigrant sentiment in this nation is just as much a departure from the great American tradition as anything else.  Our hatred of aliens and foreigners is a moral collapse not less severe than anything evangelical Christians have spoken out against in recent memory.

To give you a taste, one commenter suggested that resettling Syrian refugees in the United States would mean bringing thousands of new terrorists into the country.  Another thought that this was simply a tactic of Barak Obama to get additional voters.  Another suggested instead that the 1.6 million Syrian refugees should rather be shipped to the North Pole to feed starving polar bears.  Still another believed that not only should we not accept Syrian refugees into the US but that we should send "our Mexicans" over there.

Sick. Disgusting. It is difficult to imagine lower forms of humanity.

Most disciples of the Lord Jesus are quite familiar with what he called the the second greatest command: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39).  We are also familiar with the story that Christ told to illustrate what obedience to this command looks like (Lk. 10:30ff).  What we are less aware of is the fact that the famous parable of "The Good Samaritan" is the tale of an immigrant who behaves in a more Christ-like way than the local religious elite.  I have little doubt that in the current American evangelical context, the Lord would make the hero either an undocumented Mexican or rather a Pakistani Muslim immigrant. And who would play the role of the priest, the Levite, the scribe?  Perhaps an evangelical pastor, a middle class suburbanite, or a congressman?  Perhaps someone a lot like you and I?

Do you know this command?

"Love the immigrant as yourself" (Lev. 19:34).

Jesus did.  Perhaps that has something to do with why he told the story the way he did.

My ancestor, Johannes Lorentz came to this nation in 1710 as a refugee from the region of Germany called the Palatinate.  Information suggests that he converted to Protestantism during his lifetime and consequently left his homeland with his family to escape persecution.  Originally arriving in New York, he later settled in New Jersey and established a life for himself, built a house, helped to plant a German-speaking church, and multiplied into many different branches of Lorentz, Lowrance, and Lorance clans throughout this nation.  This  is the classic American story.  But, sometimes I wonder if this is who we are anymore.

[Look for another post later today on the Syrian refugee crisis, as well as my post from last night.]

Obama Admin Considers Resettling Thousands of Syrian Refugees in U.S.

Photo by European Commission DG ECHO

Are you ready? I will immediately be adjusting our city plans in order to anticipate this.  You? (See below, but first some questions):

Questions:

1. Syrian refugees will not have spent decades in refugee camps like the Bhutanese or the refugees from Burma. They will not be as far separated from the horrors of war. How can we bring hope and wholeness to them? How will we address emotional, physical, relational needs?

2. We have no idea what numbers to expect. It has felt like a ton of Bhutanese have been resettled. In reality, it has been just ove 60 thousand.  There are some 1.6 million Syrians externally displaced. The UN will need to determine how many total should be resettled. Then nations will volunteer to take different numbers.  Traditionally the US offers to take about 50% of the whole. However various factors will come into play. For example, the immigration reform debate could impact this. The Obama administration may not want to spend too much of its political capital on resettling refugees. Plus, most of these refugees will be Muslims. It is simple more difficult to get Americans to feel compassion for Muslims right now. (If you don't believe me, just look at the disgusting comments below the article I have linked to below)

3. What it sure is that this is just about the worst refugee crisis in history. If a thousand or ten thousand Syrian refugees suddenly came to your city, how would your church respond to their needs? Will you be ready?

Obama Admin Considers Resettling Thousands of Syrian Refugees in U.S.: "A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.
The State Department is "ready to consider the idea," an official from the department said, if the administration receives a formal request from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the usual procedure.
The United States usually accepts about half the refugees that the U.N. agency proposes for resettlement. California has historically taken the largest share, but Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular destinations."

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! 

People Group Mapping: Religious Centers in Chicagoland

Here at TIBM we are partnering with the International Mission Board, Send Chicago, and others to engage in a major research project seeking to identify all the people groups of Chicagoland.  Our hope is to ultimately provide the Church information about all the diaspora peoples in the metro area through an online database called Peoplegroups.info (scheduled to be re-launched).  I think that a bunch of mission thinkers are becoming increasingly convicted by the fact that the North American church is still suffering from severe "people blindness".

Currently, we are in the beginning phase of our research.  During this time we are collecting what we refer to as "people group indicators".  These essentially are signs which point to the presence of people groups.  One piece of this is to aim at discovering all religious centers in the Chicago area which have a high probability of being associated with diasporas.

We've published the results of our work in a simple, interactive map that you can view on the main TIBM website.

If you are interested in becoming a part of the larger project to map the top 100 MSAs in the United States, please visit USAPeoplegroups.com to find out more.