Years ago I was put off by the term dialogue because I perceived it to be a compromise to our call to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. I did not understand at that time that dialogue meant appropriately interacting with my neighbor, being sensitive to the context. I think the confusion over the term dialogue and viewing it as antithetical to proclamation is due to a misunderstanding of mission contexts and context-appropriate methods.
I had defined proclamation in light of contemporary evangelism and church planting methods. These methods grew out of church growth theory. What I did not understand was that church growth theory and its methods were designed for areas that were responsive to the Gospel. Regions that have not responded to the Gospel fall into a separate category: frontier missions. The methods generally effective in frontier regions are typically different than those used in responsive regions.
Church Growth as a mission theory grew through the writings and teaching of Dr. Donald McGavran. Dr. McGavran had been a missionary in India and he observed that at least 80 percent of mission work was social action and organized good deeds. Due to this, McGavran found that the propagation of the Gospel was no longer the focus of mission. In this mission environment people were not getting the opportunity to hear and respond to the Gospel.
McGavran’s church growth principles worked well in areas that had already significantly responded to the Gospel, as in South and North America, South and Central Africa, Singapore, the Philippines, and South Korea.
McGavran’s church growth theory also caused people to notice the many ethnic groups that have not been reached with the gospel. Ralph Winter noticed that these ethnic/people groups were being ignored by the Church. Mission agencies were directing over 90 percent of all their mission resources to areas that had already significantly responded to the gospel.
Thus, a movement began to reach the unreached. However, missionaries immediately encountered a problem as they tried to reach out to these people groups. These people groups were located in countries that were generally closed to missionaries. The only way Christians could gain access to these unreached peoples was to provide a service considered valuable by their governments, such as: emergency relief, development work, or through capacity-building programs.
As Christians have gone they have discovered that direct evangelism and church planting methods have not been effective because many of these peoples do not have neutral attitudes towards the faith. In addition, xenophobia is a recurring problem. To varying degrees a number of these peoples mistrust outsiders.
A historic misunderstanding about what Christians believe exacerbates this xenophobia among different Muslim groups. I have encountered this misunderstanding in the regions where I have worked. While some of this misunderstanding is rooted in how the people in these regions interpret their sacred texts, some of this misunderstanding is also due to how we have explained our faith.
Ever since the Reformation we Christians have emphasized forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and freedom from “the Law” as we explain the Gospel. These are wonderful truths of the Gospel. However, when we speak about forgiveness my friends hear that we are free to commit sins and then not worry about the consequences. We do not worry about the consequences because we are forgiven.
What I have seen is that this kind of Gospel presentation affirms people’s apprehensions about what we believe. They think that Christians have no motivation to do what is good, honorable, and upright. In contrast, in Islam there is motivation to do right because one has to earn merit to balance out one’s wrong deeds. Thus, Islam, in their eyes, is a much better religion than Christianity and Muslims are better people than Christians.
How are we to change this unfortunate misunderstanding and the subsequent and natural resistance to the Gospel? Is the way to use contemporary church growth outreach strategies, like “cold call” or direct evangelism techniques?
What we have been slow to realize is that church growth outreach strategies were not designed to work in restricted access or least reached communities. For frontier mission areas, integral mission is a more appropriate paradigm (see The Micah Declaration on Integral Mission). Integral Mission integrates the demonstration and the proclamation of the Gospel. Proclamation happens through life (deeds) and through meaningful, sensitive interaction (dialogue).
God has moved history to the place where Christians can enter Muslim communities and humbly live and serve in a variety of capacities. By living and interacting at a variety of levels (work, school, neighborhood) Christians can break down the barriers caused by these misunderstandings. Muslims can see firsthand that Christians have families, they honor and respect their parents, they are faithful to their spouses, they care for their children and for one another. Through meaningful interaction Muslims learn that the goodness they see is made possible by God’s active presence in the Christians’ lives. This presence is made possible by what He did in Christ. In addition, Muslims also personally experience the power of God’s presence with His people as Christians pray with and for them.
Integral mission is a means by which Christians can show Muslims among whom they live and work that the Christian faith is not what Muslims thought it was. In addition, through integral mission Muslims discover that the Christian faith is much more than a different set of religious beliefs. Faith in Jesus Christ actually opens the door to God’s transforming presence.