The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Auteur: Joseph Cumming
Date: 18.10.2010
Category: Croyances du monde
Note de l’éditeur : Cette communication préliminaire pour Cape Town 2010 a été écrite par Joseph Cumming pour servir de synthèse du sujet qui sera discuté à la session Multiplexe sur l’islam. Vos réponses à cette communication, par le biais du Forum mondial du mouvement de Lausanne seront transmises à l’auteur et à d’autres, pour les aider à peaufiner leur présentation finale pour le congrès.
Peut-on être musulman ET disciple de Jésus ? Est-ce un oxymore ? Comment évaluer cela en tant que chrétiens qui croient dans la Bible ?
En 1979 mon meilleur ami a décidé qu’il ne se voyait pas comme chrétien, mais comme juif messianique. John était d’une famille juive non croyante et pratiquait l’hindouisme avant de rencontrer Jésus. Ensuite, pendant trois ans, il a été actif dans une Église chrétienne évangélique. Mais voilà que John a ressenti le besoin de retrouver ses racines juives, de se joindre à un groupe de juifs messianiques, de manger kasher et d’élever ses enfants en bon juifs. Il ne voyait aucune contradiction entre reconnaître Jésus comme Messie et s’identifier éthiquement et religieusement comme Juif.
Comme la plupart des chrétiens des les années 70, ma réaction initiale a été sceptique. Je citais des textes bibliques qui, pour moi, prouvaient que ces lois (kashrout) allaient à l’encontre de notre liberté en Christ. Progressivement j’ai appris que ces textes pouvaient être compris autrement, et j’ai fini par respecter la légitimité du nouveau mouvement messianique. Mais pas avant d’avoir blessé mon ami avec mon hostilité à sa volonté d’explorer son identité en tant que Juif disciple de Jésus.
La communauté juive élargie réagissait aussi de façon négative. La plupart de ses membres voyaient dans le judaïsme messianique une nouvelle façon détournée des chrétiens pour convertir les juifs et détruire l’identité juive. Pour eux, les juifs messianiques n’étaient aucunement juifs. Cependant, récemment certains responsables et experts juifs ont commencé à suggérer, avec précaution, que les Juifs messianiques qui observent la Torah, qui participent activement à la vie de la communauté juive et qui transmettent les traditions juives à leurs enfants sont dans l’erreur, mais doivent être reconnus comme Juifs.
Dans les années 80, un mouvement similaire a commencé parmi les musulmans qui avaient accepté le Christ. Ces musulmans croient que Jésus est Seigneur et Sauveur divin, croient que Jésus est mort pour leurs péchés, et insistent à dire qu’ils ne sont pas pour autant d’anciens musulmans, ni des convertis à la religion chrétienne. Ils veulent rester dans leur communauté musulmane et honorer Jésus dans ce cadre.
Les réactions des communautés tant musulmanes que chrétiennes sont très diverses. Du côté musulman, certains ont été persécutés à cause de leur croyances, alors que d’autres ont été acceptés avec précaution dans leur communauté. Du côté chrétien, les défenseurs les voient comme des « musulmans messianiques », à accepter en tant que véritable disciples de Jésus, tout comme les Juifs messianiques. Les critiques avancent que l’islam n’est pas le judaïsme, et que l’identité musulmane ne peut pas être conciliée avec la foi biblique.
Lorsque Nabil(1) a fait une rencontre avec Jésus, ce qui a transformé sa vie, il est resté dans la communauté musulmane, participant à la prière musulmane. Quand sa famille et ses amis se sont rendus compte de son amour pour Jésus, certains l’ont suivi, alors que d’autres ont essayé de l’assassiner. Après avoir été incarcéré à cause de sa foi, il a décidé de ne plus se considérer comme musulman. Pour lui, l’islam est le système qui l’a persécuté. Aujourd’hui, Nabil se dit chrétien. Mais certains de ceux qui l’ont suivi dans sa nouvelle foi se disent toujours musulmans.
Ibrahim était un érudit bien respecté du Coran, un hâfiz. Lorsqu’il a décidé de suivre Jésus, il a examiné avec soin les versets du Coran qui sont censés nier la Trinité, le fait que Jésus est Fils de Dieu, sa mort rédemptrice et l’intégrité textuelle de la Bible. Il a conclu que chacun de ses versets était ouvert à d’autres interprétations, donc qu’il pouvait suivre Jésus en tant que musulman. Bientôt certains membres de sa famille et de sa communauté ont aussi découvert la foi en Jésus comme Seigneur et Sauveur. Ibrahim a, lui aussi, été emprisonné pour sa foi, mais contrairement à Nabil, Ibrahim voulait suivre Jésus tout en restant musulman. Cependant, certaines personnes qu’il a aidées à connaître Jésus ne se voient pas comme musulmanes. Ibrahim et Nabil sont amis et se respectent en tant que frères, bien qu’ils ne soient pas d’accord sur leur identité.
Lorsque des chrétiens d’autres cultures rencontrent des croyants comme Nabil et Ibrahim, les réactions sont mitigées. Phil Parshall et John Travis cumulent à eux deux plus de 60 années de service parmi les musulmans et, malgré le respect qu’ils se témoignent mutuellement, leurs points de vue diffèrent sur la question. Ils ont écrit une série d’articles dans des journaux missiologiques expliquant leurs points de vue. De nombreux articles par d’autres ont suivi.
En termes techniques, ce débat est connu sous le nom « débat C4-C5 », d’après une échelle établie par Travis pour décrire les diverses communautés centrées sur le Christ (« C ») vécues par les croyants en Jésus d’origine musulmane (COM), et leurs façons de comprendre leur propre identité.
C1 – COM dans des églises très différentes de leur propre culture, avec des cultes dans une langue qui n’est pas leur langue maternelle.
C2 – Comme C1, mais avec des cultes dans leur langue maternelle.
C3 – COM dans des Églises chrétiennes culturellement autochtones, mais qui évitent des formes culturelles considérées comme « musulmanes »
C4 – COM dans des Églises culturellement autochtones qui gardent des formes « musulmanes » justifiables bibliquement (par ex. se prosterner pour prier), en leur donnant un sens biblique. Ils se nomment parfois sous un autre nom que « chrétiens » (par ex. « disciples de Jésus »), mais ne se voient pas comme musulmans.
C5 – Musulmans qui suivent Jésus comme Seigneur et Sauveur avec d’autres croyants à l’intérieur de la communauté musulmane, et continuent à s’identifier culturellement et officiellement comme musulmans.
C6 – Croyants clandestins/en secret
Le différend le plus vif se situe entre les avocats de C4 et ceux de C5. Pour aider les lecteurs à comprendre les enjeux, je présenterai ci-dessous les soucis exprimés par les défenseurs de C1-C4 qui trouve problématique la position C5. Ensuite je résumerai les réponses des défenseurs de C5. Je laisse les remarques entre guillemets pour montrer qu’il s’agit d’un résumé qui ne reflète pas forcément ma propre position. Par la suite j’ajouterai mes propres commentaires.
Problème pour les C4 : « La Bible (par ex.1 Rois 18.21 ; 2 Rois 17.27-41) condamne le syncrétisme. Essayer de rester musulman tout en suivant Jésus relève du syncrétisme. »
Réponse des C5 : « Ce n’est pas le genre de syncrétisme condamné par la Bible. Les croyants C5 vivent sous l’autorité de la Bible (par ex. 1 Cor 9.19-23 ; Actes 16.1-3 ; 21.20-40), et réinterprètent ou rejettent tout ce qui est contraire à la Bible. »
Commentaire : Les deux parties ont fait un travail exégétique biblique en profondeur, et croient avoir de solides bases pour sa position. Il est impossible de rendre justice aux deux parties dans cet article. Le lecteur devrait lire les articles dans les journaux EMQ et IJFM qui présentent les questions bibliques.
Problème pour les C4 : « L’islam et le judaïsme sont différents ; On ne peut pas comparer un « islam messianique » avec le judaïsme messianique. Les chrétiens reconnaissent l’inspiration de la Bible hébraïque, mais pas celle du Coran. Une mosquée est imbibée de la théologie musulmane qui nie explicitement des vérités bibliques. »
Réponse des C5 : « L’islam et le judaïsme sont différents, mais les deux sont monothéistes. « L’islam reconnaît la Torah et le Nouveau Testament comme faisant partie des Écritures saintes avec le Coran. Le judaïsme rabbinique accepte l’autorité non seulement des Écritures saintes juives (Tanakh) mais aussi du Talmud, qui contient, tout comme le Coran, un mélange de matériel compatible et incompatible avec le Nouveau Testament. La liturgie traditionnelle de la synagogue semble également répudier des enseignements du Nouveau Testament, mais les deux liturgies peuvent être réinterprétées, et participer aux prières ne signifie pas valider chaque mot de la liturgie. »
Commentaire : Le terme « islam messianique » ne fait pas avancer le débat. Pour les Juifs, la question centrale est de savoir si Jésus est le Messie, alors que les musulmans reconnaissent que Jésus est le Messie, mais ont d’autres objections aux affirmations chrétiennes concernant Jésus. La plupart des musulmans croient que le texte de la Bible a été corrompu, mais certains érudits musulmans contestent cette idée. Les croyants C5 affirment que la Bible est la Parole de Dieu. Les textes sacrés doivent être étudiés de près pour savoir si les interprétations proposées sont légitimes et honnêtes.
Problème pour les C4 : « L’approche C5 est trompeuse. Que penseriez-vous si des musulmans arrivaient dans votre Église en se disant chrétiens, pour ensuite essayer de convertir vos fidèles à l’islam ? »
Réponse des C5 : « Il n’y a pas de tromperie si les croyants C5 disent ouvertement à la communauté musulmane qui ils sont et ce qu’ils croient. Les C5 se considèrent musulmans en toute honnêteté ; ils ne se considèrent pas comme “des chrétiens qui font semblant d’être musulmans”. »
Commentaire : Un rappel : L’échelle de Travis décrit comment les croyants de famille et d’éducation musulmanes voient leur identité, non pas comment les travailleurs chrétiens transculturels les voient.
Problème pour les C4 : « La communauté musulmane ne tolérera pas une telle aberration parmi ses fidèles. »
Réponse des C5 : « Il est trop tôt pour l’affirmer. »
Commentaire : La communauté musulmane est capable de parler pour elle-même. Quand je discute de cette question avec des responsables musulmans, leur souci majeur est de savoir si les croyants continuent de pratiquer les exigences morales et rituelles de la communauté musulmane.
Problème pour les C4 : « S’appeler musulman signifie affirmer que Mohammed est un vrai prophète de Dieu. C’est incompatible avec la Bible. »
Réponse des C5 : « En fait, le terme « musulman » signifie des réalités différentes pour des musulmans différents. Les C5 ont différents points de vue sur Mohammed : 1) on peut rester musulman culturellement sans aucune affirmation théologique sur Mohammed ; 2) Mohammed était prophète, mais n’était pas toujours infaillible (cf. 1 Thes 5.20-21 et Caïphe en Jean 11.51) ; Mohammed était un prophète pour les peuples arabes, mais pas pour les autres ; 4) Mohammed était un vrai prophète, mais ses propos ont été déformés ; 5) cette question n’a pas d’importance. »
Commentaire : Pour la très grande majorité des musulmans, la qualité de prophète de Mohammed est un pré requis indiscutable de l’identité musulmane. Mais le mot « musulman » signifie littéralement en arabe « soumis à Dieu », et prend des significations différentes dans des circonstances différentes. Dans le Coran, les premiers disciples de Jésus sont appelés « musulmans » (Sourate 3.45) Dans certaines sociétés les mots « musulman » et « chrétien » se réfèrent davantage à l’ethnicité qu’à la croyance religieuse.
Problème pour les C4 : « Les C5 gardent leur identité musulmane afin d’éviter la persécution pour la croix du Christ. »
Réponse des C5 : « C’est un procès d’intention. Il s’agit d’identité religieuse et culturelle, et non de la croix du Christ, qui reste centrale à la foi des C5. »
Commentaire : Si les C5 veulent éviter la persécution, ça ne marche pas. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont souffert des persécutions terribles, l’emprisonnement et pire, à cause de leur foi.
Problème pour les C4 : « Qu’en est-il de l’Église ? Les C5 se voient-ils comme membres du corps du Christ ? »
Réponse des C5 : « Les C5 forment de groupes centrés sur le Christ où ils étudient la Bible, prient, baptisent et partage le Repas du Seigneur (ou la sainte-cène). Ce sont des ekklesiai dans le sens néotestamentaire, même s’ils paraissent très différents des Églises chrétiennes habituelles. »
Commentaire : La lecture biblique et l’obéissance aux Écritures aident les assemblées à être saintes et apostoliques. Mais la Bible appelle également les assemblées de reconnaître l’unité et l’universalité du corps du Christ autour du monde. Certains groupes de C5, et certains des ouvriers qui travaillent en partenariat avec eux, ont des attitudes très négatives ou ont brisé les relations avec les autres Églises (non-COM). D’autres groupes de C5 ont des attitudes saines vis-à-vis de l’Église en général.
Problème pour les C4 : « J’ai entendu que certains groupes C5 ont une christologie incertaine. Cela me préoccupe. »
Réponse des C5 : « C’est vrai pour certains C5, mais il est également vrai que les chrétiens ordinaires de partout ne sont pas assurés de leur christologie. L’important, c’est la direction dans laquelle les C5 avancent - vers Jésus-Christ. Ils prient en son nom, l’adorent comme leur Seigneur, et vivent son action surnaturelle dans leurs vies. Avec chaque jour qui passe, leur christologie grandit. »
Commentaire : Cela semble raisonnable pour de nouveaux croyants. Mais avec le temps, ce mouvement grandira et ses responsables mûriront, et on espère que ces responsables comprendront une bonne christologie et l’expliqueront de façon compréhensible aux fidèles. Il est juste d’être sensible à la direction dans laquelle les gens avancent, mais il faut être très clair quant à la destination finale de ce mouvement. Il doit aboutir à Jésus-Christ en tant que Sauveur et Agneau qui porte nos péchés, mais aussi en tant que Logos non créé, Dieu manifesté sous une chair humaine.
Quelques réflexions sur l’identité : Les C5 comme Ibrahim bouleversent nos idées préconçues sur les identités « musulmane » ou « chrétienne. » Nous avons tous plus d’une identité. Par exemple, la plupart des chrétiens américains pensent qu’on peut être un bon patriote américain et un chrétien fidèle, même s’ils ne sont pas d’accord avec tout ce que font leur gouvernement ou leurs concitoyens. Les croyants comme Ibrahim cherchent à être à la fois musulmans authentiques et disciples fidèles de Jésus, ils évaluent donc les actions et enseignements des autres musulmans à la lumière des enseignements du Christ. Parfois ils les acceptent, parfois ils les réinterprètent, parfois ils sont en désaccord avec les autres musulmans. Ces désaccords obligent-ils les croyants américains à répudier leur identité américaine ou les C5 à répudier leur identité musulmane ? Chacun doit déterminer comment être fidèle à sa communauté de naissance et à son héritage familial, tout en gardant un œil critique respectueux sur ce qui n’est pas biblique, et en continuant à « honorer père et mère. »
Depuis le réveil de Wesley et le grand réveil du 18ème siècle, les évangéliques ont insisté pour dire que ce qui compte le plus aux yeux de Dieu est une relation personnelle avec Jésus-Christ qui transforme, plutôt que l’appartenance à une famille ou à un pays chrétien. David Brainerd a été renvoyé de Yale en 1742 parce qu’il avait dit qu’un certain professeur (un bon « chrétien ») n’avait « pas reçu plus de grâce que cette chaise » parce qu’il n’avait pas de relation personnelle avec Jésus.
Tout cela signifie-t-il que le nom de « chrétien » est totalement sans importance pour les croyants ? Pour les juifs messianiques, la plupart des évangéliques reconnaissent que l’étiquette de « chrétien » n’est pas essentielle. Est-ce vrai également pour les C5, ou l’islam est-il trop radicalement différent ? Dans ce dernier cas, quelles sont les différences spécifiques entre les communautés juive et musulmane qui nous permettent d’accepter l’une et rejeter l’autre ?
Je terminerai avec un cri du cœur. Au cours des dernier mois, ce débat est devenu acrimonieux. Les croyants d’origine musulmane tels Nabil et Ibrahim n’ont pas la possibilité, en général, de participer directement à la discussion, par crainte d’être encore plus persécutés. Ce sont des chrétiens sans arrière-plan musulman qui débattent par-dessus leurs têtes, en stigmatisant d’abord Ibrahim et ensuite Nabil. Mais Ibrahim et Nabil se respectent en tant que frères, et sont capables d’être en désaccord dans une attitude d’amour.
Personnellement, en me remémorant combien j’ai blessé mon ami juif en 1979, je veux faire très attention de ne pas blesser ou rejeter des frères qui ont déjà souffert le rejet et la prison pour Jésus. Jésus a dit : « Je ne repousserai pas celui qui vient à moi. »
Puisque Nabil et Ibrahim comprennent leur position dans le corps universel du Christ, ils doivent écouter les avis des autres du monde entier. Mais si nous comprenons notre position dans ce même corps, nous devons respecter leur droit fondamental à déterminer – sous l’autorité des Écritures – comment exprimer leur identité en tant que disciples de Jésus. C’est leur vie qui est en jeu, au sens propre du terme. S’ils peuvent se respecter après avoir été emprisonnés pour leur foi en Jésus, alors c’est la moindre des choses que de les traiter avec respect.
© The Lausanne Movement
Français Translation by: LGC_Translation
A propos des fonctions multilingues | Suggérez une correction de traduction
Mots-clés: Musulman, disciple de Jésus, juif messianique, identité, islam, Coran, C4, C5, COM (croyants d’origine musulmane), syncrétisme, Mohammed, christologie
Vues: 29574
Commentaires: 54
Recommandations: 3
Conditions d'utilisation | Charte de confidentialité | Le Forum mondial de Lausanne est soutenu par World Wide Open | Qu'est-ce que World Wide Open?
Conversation Poster un commentaire
États-Unis
Just as American Christians have to determine their own position with regards to other issues, they are the only ones who know their own hearts, except for God. Thus, it is not up to us to pass judgment. Instead, we need to pray and allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. Ultimately, we have to consider how these Muslim Christians came to know Christ. Was it through welcome and invited Christian missionaries who were openly allowed to proselytize? I doubt it. Could it have been through dreams and visions? If so, then it has to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as the worker of such a miracle. Thus, we must allow Him to continue His work. Was it through other Muslim Christians? Then in addition to the previous question, we have to consider how their faith was allowed to grow. Others deserve the same opportunity.
21.10.2012
États-Unis
The underlying issue of this article is what is healthier spiritually for believers, what causes them to live the best Christian lifestyle. This topic is also true for any Christian, not just MBBs. Is it healthy for MBBs to be followers of Christ but yet masquerade as a Muslim? The same is true for patriotic Americans. Can an American Christian have both an identity in Christ and an American identity? The best answer for this issue can be found in Scripture. John 5:22-23 states, “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him;” this passage implies that honoring Christ is one of the only principles that matter most in life. As long as a Messianic Jew, MBBs, or American Christians can live a lifestyle that honors the Son, then the Father will be pleased.
08.10.2011
États-Unis
@ Haley_GWU:
This paper caused me to reflect on how I view Messianic Jews versus "Messianic Muslims". I like the way Joseph Cumming, the author, brought his own past experience with a Messianic Jew into the paper and how he hurt that friendship with his hostility to a Jewish follower of Christ. Cumming’s experience is wisdom for us all. Although it may be hard to digest, the Muslim who believes in Christ may have more impact within the Muslim community by honoring Jesus within that context.
04.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
I agree that experience is a good thing; it tempers us and makes us who we are.
But are you not bothered that he uses the phrase "Messianic Muslim" without biblical support, let along rational or experiential reasons.
To just fling the phrase around like it really means something is to argue in a circle, assuming to be true what you hope to prove.
04.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Sbowling,
I completely agree. It is hard, as an American Christian, to imagine that hiding your faith in Christ can do more than being an open follower. I believe they can do more work alive than they can do in prision or dead. I would be interested to hear more personal stories about how they convert other Muslims with this tactic. For example it would be interesting to see how they use their life in hiding to attract Muslims to make the life change.
05.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
Jeff_Morton,
I would agree with you that Biblical proof for Muslim Background Believers would be helpful information. I do not know how you would make a biblical case for living a life in hiding. However, I do not know how effective they would be if they were under constant persecution. We need believers living in these communities sharing Truth.
05.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Haley_GWU:
You say, “It is hard, as an American Christian, to imagine that hiding your faith in Christ can do more than being an open follower. I believe they can do more work alive than they can do in prision or dead.” Then you contradict Jesus Christ who said, “Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.”
I speak from experience. We bear a better testimony for Jesus Christ when we suffer for His sake. Even in death our testimonies are effective especially if we were killed on account of our faith.
Jesus continued, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
I am a Christian from Muslim background and familiar with “this tactic.” By the way, this idea is not what MBBs invented to survive persecution but what western scholars/missionaries crafted and now promote.
05.11.2011
États-Unis
@ husseinwario:
Husselnwario,
From you comment, does that mean you disagree with the idea of MBB’s. Is the entire concept wrong in your opinion? If so, what should the Muslim Background Believers do? Would you even call a MBB a believer because they are hiding their identity in Christ?
05.11.2011
États-Unis
@ husseinwario:
It is great to have someone who is or was in the thick of it here on the forum to talk to! Thank you for taking part. The New Testament has examples of both people who hid their faith and worked covertly for Christ and people who practiced openly and suffered for their faith in Christ. Neither is more right than the other as long as they are practicing the actually faith that Jesus laid out for us in His life and death. If they are trying to be both at the same time and in that act denying Christ on one hand and embracing Christ with the other then they are in error and will be held accountable in judgement. But if they are holding true to the values of Christ and turning form the aspects of Islam that go against Christ’s teachings then I don’t see why there is a problem with them working ’behind enemy lines’ as it were.
28.11.2011
États-Unis
@ TomTharpGW:
For the sake of discussion, what are the examples of those who hid their faith in the Bible? Before you answer with the example or two I’m thinking of, ask these questions:
1. How much information about these believers are we given so that we can effectively gauge whether or not the Bible approves or disapproves? Remember, any argument from silence can be twisted to say exactly the opposite.
2. How is the biblical example of secret believers relevant to the insider movements in which so-called Messianic Muslims who do not hide their faith?
The proponents of insider movements--all Western missionaries--to a person tell us insiders do not hide their faith. They are simply reshaping the expression of their faith, now faith in Jesus, within an Islamic mold.
28.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
After further review I find that you are right. The New Testament verses which show people concealing their faith always has them with a more implied secrecy than an explicit secrecy. And soon after their situation is described they reveal themselves and preach in public and are able to convert many. The main verse that I have heard people use to say that it is ok to hide your faith is John 7 where Jesus refuses to go to the festival because he isn’t welcome there. But He goes anyway and then speaks and makes the people believe Him.
Even the traditional Old Testament book Esther which is held up as a guide on how to conduct hidden christianity fails. When Esther conceals her Jewish heritage from the king so she won’t be out of favor it eventually results in her breaking the law to further the kingdom and so could also be used to show how we are meant to go out and witness publicly. I’m making a few logic jumps here.
To answer at least your second question the biblical example is that people shouldn’t be hiding their faith in plain sight but revealing their faith and then either standing their ground against enemies or running afterwards as Jesus did in Luke 4 when he left (albeit he didn’t run so much as melted away quietly) or when the church scattered in Acts 8. The Messianic Muslims should make a stand on their faith that Christ really is all the things that He said he is and not hide their beliefs.
I had always thought that Christians in countries where people were ready to kill someone for being a Christian had to hide their faith and meet in secret. Then continue on as normal. If you were confronted you couldn’t lie but you didn’t have to speak out. In fact this is the model of behavior put forth by the Left Behind book series when the Christians are living persecuted lives. They hide in plain sight. The Bible really doesn’t propose that. It speaks more along the lines of broadcasting your faith and trying to win your enemies over and dealing with the consequences afterwards.
28.11.2011
États-Unis
I have a hard time understanding the issue here. The only red flags I see are the ones where people are trying to reconcile verses of the Quran with the Bible and having to make a mish-mash of the 2. Is the issue that there are Muslims who want to keep practicing the same regimen as before (praying 5 times, etc.)? Or is it their insistence on continuing to go to Mosque? If they are converting, walking into the street and shouting that they have become Christian would they have as great an impact for the kingdom as if they remained in secret and quietly talked other Muslim’s into becoming followers of Christ?
28.11.2011
États-Unis
@ TomTharpGW:
The issue is neither of the two that you mentioned; they are symptoms. It is hard to boil down the discussion into one or two matters. That’s not only hard, but dangerous if we don’t take our time and think through the issues.
So with that said, here is a list of some of the crucial questions we need to ask ourselves vis-a-vis the IM:
What does the Bible say about insider movements? Is our defintion of them more anthropologically oriented or biblically grounded?
What does the Bible say about other religions? What is a biblical theology of religions?
What is the nature of islam? Neutral? Good? Bad? Demonic? Mixture?
What influence do we allow for the social sciences in our understanding of the Bible, Islam, discipleship, and the church?
What is the church?
What is the kingdom of God; and what is it’s relationship to the church?
What does the Bible say about conversion, identity, a whole host of important issues that play into IM?
28.11.2011
États-Unis
Muslim Followers of
Jesus by Joseph Cumming was a great article to read. The question asked at the beginning: “Can one be a Muslim and a follower of
Jesus?” This aroused my curiosity about
certain followers of Islam. I have
always been under the impression that all Muslim denied the Lordship of Christ,
but on the contrary, many Muslims who trust Jesus as Lord and Savior, believed
Jesus died for their sins and rose again.
These Muslims are referred to as”MBB’s – Muslim Background Believers or
as Dr. Casino calls them “Chrislams.”
But I have
discovered that many of these “MBB’s” have been persecuted for their beliefs,
and some have been accepted within their communities. I still think that Muslims as a whole are
still misunderstood in America and perhaps throughout the world. Those of us who make up the Christian
community should be thankful and accepting to anyone who wants to be a part of
God’s kingdom through Christ Jesus.
Also, if we
who say that we are Christians would be more committed and dedicated to Christ,
like many of our Muslim brothers and sisters are to “Allah”, our influence
would be greatly felt in our homes, communities, schools and especially in our
churches. If we could get Christian
believers to discipline themselves to pray like our Muslim counter-parts what a
difference it could make throughout the entire world.
This
article stated: “that scripture condemns
syncretism,” (1Kings 18: 21; 2 Kings 17: 27-41). Syncretism means the reconciliation or union
of conflicting beliefs. But this is not
the syncretism scripture condemns. Both
sides have worked hard in trying to unravel scripture which they believe
supports their view.
But
actually, the word “Muslim” means different things to different Muslims, and I
dare say, that the word “Christian” also means something entirely different to
other Christians. In some societies
“Muslim” and “Christian” refer more to ethnicity then to religious
beliefs. Ethnicity is relating to
community of physical and mental traits in races, or designating groups of
races of mankind discriminated on the basis of common customs and characters.
I must
agree with what Cummings said on pages 4-5:
“Ever since the Wesleyan revival and Great Awakening of the 18th
Century, evangelicals have insisted that what matters most to God is not one’s
identity as “being a Christians”, but rather whether one has a life
transforming relationship with Jesus Christ.”
Amen!
I
personally think, that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit is for all who would avail
themselves to the monotheistic Trinitarian God.
Who is ready to receive and accept anyone with his great love and
mercy. The God we serve is not only the
one true God, but he is also a multifaceted God who is able to meet needs of
all people. And I believe through Jesus’
death on the cross has made this possible, which was/is his intent.
Again, we
must let all believers from all cultures, countries, and communities respect
their fundamental human right to sort this question out, under the authority of
the Bible.
20.09.2011
États-Unis
@ Robert_Setzer:
Robert,
You make a very interesting point, Christians can learn from Muslims. Like you said, if we as Christians were to adapt such a deep devotion to God, our churches would be changed dramatically. The only hesitation is that I would not want Christians to so works-based focused, like most Muslims. Very good argument Robert.
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Robert_Setzer:
Robert, Also interesting is how the Holy Spirit is working through dreams.
15.11.2011
États-Unis
Haley, The fruit Paul speaks of in Galatians 5:22-23 is "universal" in the sense it is the same Holy Spirit. My hope is that the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the Muslim believers causes an intense interest in where and how does the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control come from and how can others obtain such a life.
11.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
All of the hoping and wondering and wishing is hypothetical. We will never know the growth of a Muslim who follows Jesus for at least two reasons.
First, they are Muslims! They are not part of the visible Church, but the ummah. They are not self-identified as Christians, but Muslims.
Second, the missionaries who wrongly advocate such things as the insider movements keep outsiders away from insiders. We are not allowed to study the movements, let alone observe. So whatever we know about them is what the advocates tell us. Go read the advocates of IM, Higgins, Lewis, Brown, Travis, Woodberry, Harlan, et al, and see how many times they mention anonymous research, made up locations and make believe names for spokesmen for the IM. This is evidence that the advocates do no want us to verify what they "know."
This is why we can never know what evidence of belief, what fruits of the Spirit, or what glory to glory is occuring in their lives. Afterall, they are Muslims and they are hidden deliberately from us.
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Sbowling,
The fruits of the Spirit are a great way to measure the effectiveness of MBB’s in their community. Since this population is so hidden, I wonder if they get to experience any type of Christian worship? It is hard to fathom that a Christian can truly grow in hiding.
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
Jeff_Morton,
I had no idea this faith movement was so secret. Do you know what measurement these IM’s use to determine when a Muslim becomes and believer?
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Haley_GWU:
The only measurement ever provided, not counting the 1998 Phil Parshall report which actually shows the problems of the IM, is the word of the Western missionaries who advocate for the IM. Again, no objective parties are allowed near insider movements, especially Bangladesh where the most egregious affronteries have occured (in terms of obfuscation and deflection from the truth)
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
Jeff,
So should we advocate for better results and accountability in the area of MBBs? If we are claiming this population as believers, we need strict standards for discipleship.
12.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Jeff, do you beleve that there will ever be a day that their voices will be heard?
13.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Jeff,
To add to Sbowlings question, do you think there will ever be a day we count MBB’s as part of our Christian family? Do you consider them Christians now? I am hoping that by bringing awareness to the issue, there will be more accountability in the way we assess MBBs.
14.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Yes. And that day will be when the church of the west stops supporting missionaries who advocate insider movements.
14.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Haley_GWU:
An MBB is not the same as an insider. A Muslim background believer is a Christian who is part of the visible body of Christ. An insider is not part of the visible church; furthermore, he is considered a Muslim by his community. An insider cannot be a Muslim background believer by the insider movements’ own definition.
You may want to go to www.i2ministries.org and get hold of our new book, Chrislam: How Missionaries are Propating an Islamized Gospel. It’s not an easy read, but well worth the time to understand the problems inherent to IM.
14.11.2011
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
When you speak of the west supporting missionaries who advocate insider movements could you be more specific? I would like to know if innocently many are supporting such movements not understanding what they are supporting.
14.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
As I suggested to Haley, you should go to www.i2ministries.org and purchase Chrislam: How Missionaries are Promoting an Islamized Gospel. In this book we document from their own publications how missionaries such as Kevin Higgins, Rebecca Lewis, Jay Muller, Mark Harlan, John Ridgway, Stuart Caldwell, Dudley Woodberry, Jamie Winship and many others are advocating that Messianic Muslims, Musilm followers of Jesus, and other such nomenclature, remain within Islam for various reasons.
14.11.2011
États-Unis
I also would like to read more of the stories of Muslim believers. It would be interesting to know if others in their family or community could recognize "fruit" produced by these believers that is unexplainable to the unbelievers.
10.11.2011
États-Unis
@ sbowling:
Sbowling,
That would be a very interesting idea to research. In order to be a follower of Christ one must bear fruit. I wonder what bearing fruit would look like to a MBB?
11.11.2011
Niger
I’ve been reading about the work of church historian Andrew Walls. His work underlines the ways that the gospel has transformed from within the different cultures that it has entered. I’ll let this article speak for itself. It is taken from the website mentioned at the end.
"Evangelicals believe in the conversion of individuals, but Walls began to see that conversion refers also to nations and communities. Did not the Great Commission command the discipling of the nations? "Conversion to Christ does not isolate the convert from his or her community," Walls says. "It begins the conversion of that community. … [D]iscipling is a long process—it takes generations. Christian proclamation is for the children and grandchildren of the people who hear it."
Walls began to think that this kind of Christian conversion is necessary in every place and time, and that Christian history is the story of how faith moves from one culture to another, translating and retranslating the gospel along the way. (From this view, most of what passes for church history is merely a single European chapter in a much larger book.)"
. . . "Not only that, but Walls’s study of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians suggested that each culture adds new riches to an understanding of Christ, so that "the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13) becomes possible only when bringing all of our different communities together. Each culture asks different questions of the gospel, and as new answers to those questions are unearthed, they enrich our understanding of the greatness of Christ. The second-century church asked philosophical questions that would never have occurred to Jews in Jerusalem. One result was the fourth-century Nicene Creed. Africa asks questions about witchcraft that children of the Enlightenment can’t answer. Perhaps a new understanding of Jesus’ victory over evil is in the works.
All this is to say that the gospel never stands outside our lives; it must enter human culture and be translated into the local language. It is not static or impersonal, because it is always in the process of being more fully discovered. Mission is not so much a matter of contextualizing the gospel as learning its truth through an entirely new way of life and thought."
Google’s cache of http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/34.87.html. By Tim Stafford. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 14 Oct 2010 05:47:20 GMT.
30.10.2010
Russie
One of the things I find interesting (and concerning) in this debate is that some people are effectively valuing form above meaning.
From the evangelical side the comments have come forth that the "outward appearance" of being a Muslism is undesirable. In reality this is saying "we will give them our tick of approval when they look like us as western Christians."
Alternatively, certain Muslim leaders have said that so long as these C5 believers continue to look like Muslims and observe customs that is acceptable.
Can we not see that there are people in both religions that simply want the form of their religion maintained, and despite their protests if challenged meaning is actually less important to them than form?
Jesus said that the Father is seeking worshippers who worship in Spirit and in Truth. We need to let go of our discomfort that we can not accept people if they don’t look the same as us.
We can not be forcing our western models (which are mostly broken anyway) on to other cultures.
26.10.2010
États-Unis
@ Pashlik:
I am happy to see the concern over form and meaning, but I respectfully believe you have the argument wrong. Here’s why.
At the root of IM’s premise is the notion of form and meaning. For instance, in Islam the form of salat must be performed according to certain criteria. Its meaning is determined by Islam – not by outsiders. So the meaning of salat is that it symbolizes man’s need to worship and find connection to the divine. Let me reiterate: this form and meaning are determined by the religion itself, not by anthropologists.
The real question is this: can the forms of Islam be separated from their meanings. Charles Kraft, the anthropologist whose premises stand as the foundation for much of IM, believes in Islam there are forms that can be filled with new meanings. It is from this point the IM is launched into deep waters of contextualization.
I believe it is wrong-headed to believe this is true. Consider salat again. The form of salat is the meaning; meaning is the form. The two are inseparable. In the case of Islam, Kraft’s principle mentioned earlier, cannot be applied indiscriminately as if slathering butter on a piece of bread. That is, the missionary cannot simply take an Islamic form, determine its meaning, then perform surgery to remove the Islamic meaning, replacing it with a new Christianized meaning. Islam’s forms do not allow the replacement of its DNA to create something new. This creates something that is not Islam! How do I know the forms are inseparable?
Muslims themselves say this. Shahzad Bashir states “the body is the fundamental ground on and through which a person constructs one’s identity as a Muslim.” (“Body” in Key Themes for the Study of Islam, Jamal J. Elias, ed. (Oxford: Oneworld, 2010), p. 80.) The implication here is that salah, a ritual that fully engages bodily movement, is involved in defining Muslim self-perception. Even more to the point is the thought of Indonesian Muslim scholar Nurcholish Madjid: “when performed with devotion and attention and accompanied by the tranquility of every member of the body, [salah] is a perfect declaration of faith.”(“Worship as an Institution of Faith” in Windows on the House of Islam, John Renard, ed., (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), pp. 72-73).
What I am arguing is that Islam’s forms and meanings are so innately linked, that is to perform salah is to be Muslim, to change one or the other is to change the whole. So, if the missionary attempts to keep the Islamic form while changing it’s meaning, the hybrid, like the mule, is sterile. It is a Western idea to separate form from meaning; I respectfully suggest you have it wrong.
26.10.2010
Russie
@ Jeff_Morton:
Hmmm, I believe it was Jesus (not a Western missiological theoretician come practitian) who separated form from meaning.
"We Samaritans worship at Mt Gerazim. You Jews worship in Jerusalem."
Jesus replied "the form is not important, the meaning is, the Father wants worshippers who worship in Spirit and Truth."
I don’t presume to understand the depths of this argument. It saddens me to hear that some people were shut out from a private lunch on the matter. This is also pride.
The new believers have the Holy Spirit. I trust the Spirit and the believers in said country (of which I am quite sure I am aware of) are actually capable of figuring this out. We need to show them more grace and patience. We can not presume to bully them into a result which we believe to be best, which ever the outcome.
Give it some time. This movement will undoubtedly grow so large that the exterior shell of Islam will crumble. At that point the lithmus test is open communion with one another. If this proceeds then we have no problem. If not, well then that is another story.
Patience and Grace.
27.10.2010
Niger
@ Jeff_Morton:
Hi Jeff,
I have to strongly disagree with your statment that form equals meaning. Certainly they are linked, but one person will pray in a certain way because he realizes that he is in the presence of God in a special way. The person right next to him in the service does and says the exact same thing, but believes that he is gaining some special force over the spirit world because he is praying in the correct way. In fact, this is the meaning of syncretism, taking the forms of Christianity and continuing to have pagan thoughts about them. Would Jesus have told his disiples how to pray if he knew that people would one day use His words as a charm? Of Course! He knew people would misuse the form of prayer that he gave, but he gave it anyway because it would help those who were true believers.
Regarding Salat, we should look a little further back, to the Old Testament ideas about worship. Similar to the Arabic ideas that you mentioned in your other comments, the Hebrew idea also involves a complete response of the body. For the Hebrew, worship (shachac) meant bending the knee and bowing down! You can see this in the equivalent Greek word proskyneo and the English word prostrate from the same root. (See http://www.xenos.org/essays/worship.htm for more information.) So obviously, Islam is syncristic in that it took a Hebrew/Christian act and assigned a new meaing to it: that you will receive baraka if you prostrate yourself in just the right way.
So I ask the question again, "If true Christian practice is hijacked by those who are in error and teaching a lie, and that true practice is missunderstood and assigned a false meaning that is against the truth, must the true believer stop his correct practice simply because there are others who practice wrongly?" Obviously we would have nothing left and would be condemned to have orthodox ideas that could never be demonstrated by actual practice.
A practical example would be the disagreement behind the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Do you stop doing it because some do it wrongly or for the wrong reasons?
I hope you’ll think about it.
Aboutalib
proskyneo
29.10.2010
États-Unis
I have found it enlightening - and a bit disheartening - to read the comments about what is happening in Muslim ministry around the globe.
Some of the comments want the conversation to move away from the West and into the realm of where the insider movements are happening. This is naive! Why?
First, IM began because of the western missionaries. It is a western phenomenon supported by western money although practiced mostly in non-western environments. It is ripe with western values (e.g., individualism, a pluralistic view of religion, and a theology of "nice"); these values are not necessarily biblical, but they are the driving force behind the IM.
Second, the conversation must involve both the western and non-wester practitioners and detractors (positively called the Historicals) because it is a problem of academia, missionary practice, denominational and mission leadership, and church praxis in the United States. In other words, the IM is not simply a localized phenomenon, but a global problem that requires a global conversation, which must by definition, include all concerned parties.
Third, some are calling for the Christians from a Muslim Background (CMB) to thrash it out among themselves. Again, this is naive and short-sighted. There are many CMBs who view IM with grave suspicion and mistrust. They see it as a western strategy rather than a biblical methodology. And where will their voice be heard? In the Muslim countries from which they’ve come? Hardly! Their voice must be heard but it can only be heard in the west and it is, therefore, necessary to let them speak. And because the IM is western-originated, other westerners who find it problematic also have the right - no, we have the duty to speak out and express what we believe to be the errors of IM.
Jeff Morton
25.10.2010
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
I appreciate your insights. The insider movement is an idea born of the West, nurtured and fostered in the West and propagated by westerners. The Muslim background believer or Christian of Muslim background has no voice in this discussion. I am one of them and I speak from experience. We cannot work it out amongst ourselves because it is being pushed on us. Here is an evidence from the just concluded Lausanne III that shows one of the leading scholars whose institution promotes this movement having a "private lunch" to discuss the insider movement. An MBB, a delegate at the congress, who opposes this movement was not allowed to engage proponents of this movement.
26.10.2010
États-Unis
@ Jeff_Morton:
Jeff,
Excellent comments! Point #2 about the necessity of global engagement on this issue is crucial.
RichardK
26.10.2010
Russie
I find it really exciting that the gospel is taking root in cultures in such ways that we western evangelicals have zero control over it. As these movements come to maturity they will turn around and seriously challenge us to authentic (Christianity) Jesus following, exposing many of our hypocrisies.
How many of us evangelicals who have problems with this debate also have problems accepting fellow Catholic and Orthodox believers?
We had better be careful to take the plan out of our own eye first before accusing our Messianic Muslim family members of getting it wrong.
It is stories like this that excite me that the Lord is still moving in real ways on our planet.
I really appreciated this article, and especially the plea to let Ibrahim and Nabil work it out for themselves. Evangelical pride has no place in the debate.
25.10.2010
Canada
As to whether a Muslim can be a follower of Jesus - the correct answer of course is Yes and No.
On the one hand,ever since the forth century AD the universal Church has dogmaticly embedded GrecoRoman/Western thought and concepts in its Scriptural interpretations upon much of the global body of Christ
On the other hand we have the practice of ’syncretism’ - the attempt to merge certain former cultural beliefs and practices with personal faith in Messiah Jesus (Yeshua).
Who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps both are right.. or perhaps neither are Scripturally right in God’s eyes.
In my opinion, we should allow for - and enjoy - a diversity of expressions of faith in the Messiah/Saviour - provided that no particular cultural expression is directly contrary to the plain teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Lastly, this determination should be made by leading brethren within the cultural setting - who would do well to then take into account the wisdom and advice of leading brethren in the larger body of Christ.
24.10.2010
France
Anyody coming to Geneva for this gathering soon? If so contact us as we live by Geneva.
Kelly and Michele mcaresources@gmail.com
International Muslim-Christian Consultation "Transforming Communities"
01.11.10 - 04.11.11
Geneva, Switzerland
Muslim and Christian leaders as well as scholars and interfaith practitioners will gather in Geneva, Switzerland for the international consultation "Transforming Communities: Christians and Muslims Building a Common Future".
The consultation is being jointly planned, funded and convened by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and several Muslim organizations.
The participants will address three key issues in the present context of Muslim-Christian relations:
• Beyond Majority and Minority
• From Conflict to Compassionate Justice: Building Ecologies of Peace
• Learning to overcome; formulating educational tools to resolve issues
The consultation is expected to identify and address issues of common concern and provide guidance to enable cooperation between Muslims and Christians at all levels, including faith-inspired approaches for joint Christian-Muslim action.
WCC work on Inter-religious dialogue and cooperation
22.10.2010
États-Unis
This is a compelling article, especially for those of us in the West who struggle with John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Some thoughts and questions came to mind as I read the article.
We have to understand the dynamics of other cultures, and their worldviews. Faith and culture in Muslim beliefs are one, not separate like in the US. Also, individualism is a foreign concept; community is the only identity. The struggle is contextualization of the Gospel.
What type of exegetical work was completed by those discussing the "C" communities and appropriate biblical texts? Historical, social, narratival, linguistical, etc? The type of exegetical work determines the interpretation, and so does the person.
Which biblical truths contradict with Islam? This is too generic of a statement. A separate comparison would have been appropriate.
What does it mean to the MBBs to follow Jesus? As some have said, we need to hear what they think.
Ultimately, we must allow the Holy Spirit to do the work through the Scriptures, even in the midst of ambiguity, and realize that as Christians we differ in interpretation of biblical texts and the meaning of Christian identity. As Matthew 12:30 states, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." The opposite of this verse is true as well. Those who are for Christ will be evident.
21.10.2010
France
Hi Joseph and all, Apologies for the garbled text in my comment yesterday with resources in Arabic. I’ll just send the link to the site that has many articles to help encourage and support Arabic-speaking workers. Kelly
http://sites.google.com/site/arabicmembercare/
21.10.2010
États-Unis
I believe the people who have the right to speak the most about this issue are those whose lives are on the line. It is your faith that is in the crucible of persecutuion...not mine as I sit in my safe "western" office. Peace and prayers to my brothers and sisters in prison.
20.10.2010
France
http://sites.google.com/site/arabicmembercare/
Arabic Member Care Projects
Resources for Arabic-Speaking Workers
Section One: Biblical Perspectives
*****
ستفاناس
نموذج من العهد الجديد للعناية بالمرسلين خارج البلاد
+++.pdf
Stephanas: A New Testament Example of Member Care
Stephanas.pdf
*****
دافيد هجيت
جويس هجيت
+++.pdf
Jesus Christ: The Heart of Member Care
Heart of Member Care.pdf
*****
الفرح والتضحية في الرب
بقلم: أجيت فرناندو
+++.pdf
Joy and Sacrifice in the Lord
Joy and Sacrifce.pdf
20.10.2010
Kenya
We are very good to create new approaches, but we are not careful to hear our MBBs and ask them what is better and what they would like. Some times we force them to be what we would like. The time for our western Christians to hear them and workers among Muslim is hear. I appreciated the Hussein contribution…
20.10.2010
États-Unis
A few random and not fully developed thoughts:
Historical concern: It is not helpful to ask, “To which is Islam closer: Judaism or Paganism?” The usual answer is “Judaism” because it is monotheistic. This framing of the question is too abstract and divorced from the historical realities of development. The reality of the Jesus of history as revealed in the canonical gospels is that he is the fulfillment of the promises given to Israel. Given this then it is to be expected that there is continuity with the Jewish scriptures and thought patterns. There is also development and, even discontinuity, as Jesus’ fulfillment brings about changes (e.g., Paul’s argument about Jesus and torah in Galatians). Jesus is the final revelatory word. Islam does not stand in a corresponding relationship to Jesus as did Jesus to the Old Testament revelation given to and through Israel. It may be helpful to conceptualize Islam as a “Christian heresy.” There were elements taken from Christianity (as Muhammad had been exposed to them) but then radically re-worked into an alternate framework that was ultimately antithetical to the radical Jesus-centered approach of the New Testament.
New Perspective on Paul: It is always dangerous to attempt to address one controversial issue with the resources drawn from another controversial arena--but here goes! The broad theological program known as the New Perspective on Paul may have some resources to help in the current debate over Muslim contextualization. In particular, I think of the work of N. T. Wright. He argues that Paul has taken the fundamental elements of the Jewish worldview of his time and re-worked the entire theological program around Jesus Christ. He mentions the broad categories of monotheism, election, and eschatology. All of these fundamental Jewish themes are modified by Paul as he re-thinks each area with Christ Jesus at the center (see Wright’s Paul: In Fresh Perspective Fortress, 2005). Two crucial things to be learned and built upon. First, this theological re-working done by Paul ought to be taken as normative and authoritative for the church. His epistles and the theology contained in them must be taken as the word of God and heeded by C-5 believers. Second, Paul’s methodology may show us the way forward in matters of contextualization here. Paul shows us that any would-be contextualizers must be radically Christ centered--even to the point of confrontation and critique. Again, N. T. Wright’s thoughts here about Paul’s confrontation with paganism and his “critique from within” of Judaism is instructive.
Individualism: When I read of C-5 believers “reinterpreting” the Islamic teaching and scripture so as to accommodate their faith in Christ I have to wonder if a Western individualism as taken hold. Faith traditions are corporate and historical realities. For someone to come along and say, “But when I say ‘X’ in my mind I’m really thinking ‘X minus this and addition that.’” this seems to elevate the individual mind to the place of determining reality. Ironically, this is a uniquely Western concept of the individual and the power of the individual’s mind. Eastern and, in particular, Middle Eastern ways of thinking are much more community oriented.
So much more to say but space constraints are in play here.
19.10.2010
États-Unis
I wonder whether many of us in the Western world adequately understand the impact of persecution upon the MBB’s.
In the early history of Christianity in North Africa, there was the Donatist Controversy. One of the core issue was whether people who gave up the Scriptures to be burnt in the time of persecution (at that time, it was a kin to denying one’s loyalty to Christ) can be accepted within the Christian community to exercise spiritual leadership.
It so happened that back then, only the wealthy could afford to own a hand-copied Scripture along with much land and homes which could be confiscated under the Roman persecution, while the poor had neither any copies of Scripture nor much possessions which could be taken away by the authorities.
And when the persecution ended, the children of the poor peasants (the Donatists) claimed that the Sacraments performed by ministers who had been sponsored by the wealthy benefactors, who gave up copies of Scripture to be burned by the persecuting authorities, were invalid since those ministers have compromised their faith and betrayed the Lord in the time of persecution.
St. Augustine lived thru this time. Guess where he stood in this theological controversy? He sided against the Donatists (the purists) and claimed that the Sacraments were valid NOT due to the worthiness of the ministers, but due to the authority of Christ who instituted those sacraments. And historically, the Western church has accepted the argument St. Augustine made in this debate.
My point is this: the persecution brought different responses from different people throughout history of the church. And we must extend understanding for MBB’s who are living within their communities where there is a real danger of severe persecution, including honor-killings. If their culture becomes more democratic or tolerant, it will be easier for MBB’s to become C-4, declaring themselves as "Christians". But in many muslim cultures (traditional & conservative), few MBB’s will be brave enough to declare themselves to be "Christians."
Especially today, when militant Islamists portray many of the military conflicts around the world and wars as Christian Crusaders invading the Muslim lands, MBB’s will face huge risks if they identify themselves as “Christians”, rather then as “Muslim follower of Jesus”.
I believe we in the West should be careful not to denounce the C-5 MBB’s. They live facing much persecution, while we in the West live in freedom. And the doctrinal confusion about the uniqueness of Christ is rampant among the Christians in the West, not to mention compromises with sin.
19.10.2010
Niger
@ Tacoma_SamLee:
Avoiding persecution is not the only motivation for contextualization or remaining an insider. For many, there is a real desire that the gospel will enter their own group and transform it. Avoiding or delaying the rise of barriers to the gospel can enable the MBB to shine light where it is most needed.
19.10.2010
États-Unis
If I could make comments to the C4-5/Insiders Movements arguments it would all boil down to two areas of conversation.
First, what is our theology of religions. If it is optimistic in the sense that there is something in Islam that can be used by the Lord to bring people to Himself, this is evidence of an IM position. On the other hand, if one’s theology is more pessimistic, recognition that all religions are false and that Islam, especially since it teaches explicitly against the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, the atoning death, his resurrection and his own self-understanding, is the least likely candidate through which God might work - then one is in the Historical Approach "camp."
Since I believe our theology shapes our methodology, the more optimistic our theology, the more pragmatic we tend to get. Pragmatism is not a biblical value; it is a western value. The more pessimistic our theology the less we rely on pragmatism - not to say we aren’t practical - but our methodology is not success oriented (pragmatism), but tends to look for examples in the life of Jesus and the Apostles.
It is my humble opinion the debate between the IM and Historical approach comes down to these the intersection of these two major premises. I am not trying to be reductionistic, rather looking for clarity.
I wish my IM brothers had a more "biblical" view of Islam: that is, one that is less optimistic about this religion of darkness.
18.10.2010
Niger
@ Jeff_Morton:
Hi Jeff,
You have some excellent thoughts about being faithful to God’s truth. As someone who has worked among Muslims for over 20 years, I would like to make two comments:
1. Islam is a satanic religion in the sense that it is a masterpiece of the Father of Lies. You mentioned the main points of falsehood. Yet the most deceptive lie always contains enough of the truth to take its victim off guard.
2. Islam, not surprisingly then, borrows many of its religious forms and ideas from Christian and Hebraic sources.
So the question the MBB needs to answer as he (or she) seeks to apply the changeless truths of God to his own culture is, "To what extent has Islam (or other sins and lies for that matter) spoiled that culture and what is still good?" Are biblical forms now to be rejected because Islam has reinterpreted and twisted them? Or should they be reinvested with their original meaning? (Westerners should think of the transformation of Christmas and Easter in their own cultures - from pagan roots to Christian meaning, and more recently back to secular/pagan interpretations by society as a whole.)
An additional question the MBB must answer has to do with community. What ties of community can a new follower of Christ maintain with those who don’t (yet) believe and who continue pagan practice? The New Testament chronicles the 1st century Jewish believers as they struggled with the same question.
These are not easy questions. The MBB must balance a desire that the truth will enter and transform his culture with the need to remain faithful to that truth, himself. Passages such as 1 Cor. 5:6-10, 9:19-23, 10:19-33 and Acts 11:1-18 might serve to guide.
19.10.2010
Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire. Si vous n'avez pas de compte, vous pouvez vous inscrire dès maintenant (c'est facile et gratuit !).