Sound Thinking about Church Planting

Ed Stetzer asserts that missiological cooperation is often the doorway to theological compromise and explains the tensions between cooperation and theological vigilance, as well as how the level of necessary theological agreement goes up depending upon what local congregations are attempting to accomplish together. Here's the link. I'm thankful to Ed for his insightful and thought-provoking answer to this question.

Andy Johnson, a pastor with Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, hits the ball out of the park dealing with the idolatry of pragmatism in church planting and missiology (here's the link). He specifically mentions Garrison's Church Planting Movements and indirectly refers to Greeson's The Camel. Johnson is a trustee for the International Mission Board.

The Wisdom That Leads to Salvation

Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3 are important ones. We can aptly summarize the period in Southern Baptist life from 1979 through 2000 as a wrangling with the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. All Scripture is indeed inspired by God and consequently is inerrant. Our convention is healthier for having affirmed that truth, which is still under attack from elements within the SBC.

As important as verse 16 is, verse 15 is also very important. Therein Paul reminds Timothy of how the young Christian first came into the faith—through the operation of the Bible in his life. The Scriptures, Paul flatly states, "are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation." This powerful truth does not only pertain to Westerners or those who grow up in a "Bible" culture; it is true for all people. The wisdom that leads to salvation does not come from the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Tao Te Ching; it comes from the Bible. Nor does the Bible require the help of any other writing to lead people to salvation.

A cogent illustration of this truth comes in the story of Christianity in the Korean Peninsula. The latest post on the ACB blog tells the amazing story of Christ's work in Korea. The history of that movement has been of interest to me for several years. Journey over to the ACB blog and enjoy Mike Morris's excellent paper (OK, the length restrictions over there make it something of a paper-ette).

On the Christian Use of the Name "Allah"

One small facet of the discussions in the past year over deceptive or syncretistic approaches to Moslem evangelism has dealt with the use of the name "Allah" to refer not to the false god worshipped by Moslems but to the One True God who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Many have demonstrated that, in Arabic, no other good word exists by which to refer to God, and that Arabic Christians have long employed the name "Allah" to refer to the True God.

I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the employ of the name "Allah" in those contexts, so long as differentiation is clearly made to ensure that the hearer knows that we as Christians reject the false Islamic deity promoted by the false prophet Mohammed in the false scripture the Qur'an. We are sometimes led to believe that, of course, this is always done and that nobody anywhere would ever conceive of trying to blur the lines of distinction in order to bait-and-switch potential Moslem converts.

But, as I have given the matter more thought, I find that I have a question nagging me. I can see why, in an Arabic-speaking place like Saudi Arabia, missionaries might have few good choices other than to employ the Arabic name "Allah" when speaking of the Christian God. But a great deal of Moslem evangelization takes place in areas other than Arabic-speaking countries. In fact the book The Camel itself reminds us that not only is Arabic not the first language of many Moslems, but that an innumerable population of Moslems don't even speak Arabic at all.

So, in a non-Arabic-speaking population that has no linguistic limitation requiring the use of the Arabic name "Allah"—populations in which the word "Allah" is no less a loan-word from another language than the English word "God" would be—what good reason, other than trying to confuse Moslems and blur the distinctions between the Christian God and the Moslem god, would there be for bypassing the "heart-language" words available to describe God in favor of the foreign word "Allah"?

You Never Know What Awaits You in Your Local Chick-Fil-A

Friendly, extroverted preschoolers are God's gift to those who wish to "do the work of an evangelist." God certainly gave us an extra helping of that gift in Jim, and I was thanking God for that as I sat in the Chick-Fil-A playground in McKinney, TX, yesterday. Her two preschoolers were alongside mine, trying to survive a throng of vulgar, abrasive nine-year-oldish boys who had summarily and individually assigned to every person, implement, and appliance in the Chick-Fil-A either some label depicting human waste or (apparently a worse fate) the sobriquet "Hannah Montana." When the Mongols came to blows for the umpteenth time, parent-stormtroopers finally arose from their meals, entered the play area, and drug the older children out of the House that Truett Built amidst weeping and wailing.

I decided that her accent was my conversation-starter. With my friendliest face I opened with my best Gomer-Pyle-meets-Inspector-Clouseau rendition of "Êtes-vous française?" She wasn't, although I could have sworn that I heard her muttering French to someone on a cell phone a few minutes earlier. But she wasn't French; she was Albanian. Nonetheless, she was obviously delighted that I was making efforts at a conversation.

"I knew a college student from Albania. My brother-in-law brought him home from Thanksgiving for a couple of years." (There's my hook. He was a Christian, sent here by missionaries. Ask her why she's in the country, tell why he came here, and then straight into the gospel.) "Did you grow up in Albania?"

"Yes."

"How on earth did you wind up in McKinney, Texas?"

"My husband is in school here."

"Oh, really! To study what?"

"He's completing his Th.M. at Dallas Theological Seminary. We're missionaries to…" OK, that part I can't tell you, except to note that her response makes the remainder of the conversation very interesting.

"Well, then, I'm guessing that you're not going to let me get very far in presenting the gospel to you, are you?"

We both chuckled over that, and a delightful conversation ensued. I told her about the Moslems who have come to Christ through our ministry at FBC Farmersville, where they are now, and how much I worry about them and pray for them. She spoke of the difficulties and struggles of their ministry.

I couldn't resist myself: "So, have you ever heard of the Camel method?"

She hadn't. "Can you describe it to me?"

"It is a method that uses the Qur'an to try to lead people to Jesus."

Her brow furrowed a bit. "Yes. I know about such things. We know somebody at DTS who is constantly pushing something like this. We think it is a bad idea. We spent our first two years trying to build relationships and work indirectly at finding an opportunity to share the gospel. We accomplished nothing. Then we started just presenting the gospel to people openly. They appreciated our honesty, and we saw six people accept Christ in one year. What do South Baptists [her English was pretty good, but she labored a bit at times] think about this 'Camel'?"

"Well, I think it is a bad idea, too," I replied. "And a lot of our missionaries think it is a bad idea. But it receives very favorable promotion from our mission board administration."

"What people don't understand," she said, "is that these people think we have some sort of hidden agenda all along. When we pretend to be something that we're not, then later, when we reveal ourselves, we confirm their initial suspicions and they wonder why they came to trust us. Better to be honest all along and let the power of the gospel do its work."

I couldn't have agreed more.

Before long my Sarah had done everything that an almost-two-year-old can do in the Chick-Fil-A playground, and we found ourselves on the way to Wal-Mart and Sam's.

Every new person is an adventure when you live your life on-mission for Christ. I didn't get to witness to a lost person in Chick-Fil-A yesterday, but I did get to meet a sister in Christ and I do now have the opportunity to pray for her dangerous ministry in another part of the world. And I also got an opportunity to confirm what I knew all along: My opposition to the Camel doesn't have a doggoned thing to do with being an American, with having been called to be something other than a foreign missionary, with being steeped in some kind of SBC subculture, or with not being "broad" enough in my experiences.

It just has to do with knowing a bad idea when I see it.

The Camel: Pre-Evangelism Alone?

Apologists for The Camel: How Muslims Are Coming to Faith in Christ make much of the claim that the book only teaches pre-evangelism. This point is important because the book lacks so much of the content of a genuinely Christian presentation of the gospel. If one can assert that the meat of the gospel is elsewhere—that The Camel just stops short of giving us the actual evangelistic method used to present the gospel to Muslims—then one is free to surmise that all of The Camel's problems are resolved and tied up into a nice, neat package when a missionary moves into the unwritten actual evangelism that takes place outside the activities presented in the book.

Actually, The Camel: How Muslims Are Coming to Faith in Christ purports to include not only the pre-evangelistic "bridging" but also the full presentation of the gospel. In the chapter "Camel Destinations" the authors include "The Korbani Plan of Salvation." So, is the Korbani plan of salvation evangelism or merely pre-evangelism? Well, the phrase "plan of salvation" generally is one that we would associate with evangelism, not pre-evangelism. Furthermore, the book itself asserts that this chapter is evangelistic, not pre-evangelistic:

If a Muslim listens to you through the entire Camel presentation, keep in mind that he has still not heard the Gospel. Your Camel presentation allowed him to see Isa in a way he has never seen Him before and gain an eye-opening glimpse into who He really is. The presentation lifted Jesus out of prophet status and raised Him nearer to Savior status. A foundation for hearing the plan of salvation is now in place.

In your Camel journey thus far you have begun a relationship with a Muslim or a group of Muslims, but your journey is far from complete. There are three very important destinations ahead of you. In this chapter you will learn how to reach these three destinations: 1) Presenting the plan of salvation to a Muslim, 2) Bridging a Muslim into the Bible and 3) Launching a new Muslim-background believer into a church-planting movement. (111)

........

In order to share the plan of salvation with a Muslim in a manner that he will more readily understand, consider using the Korbani Plan of Salvation. The Korbani Plan uses natural bridges within the culture of every Muslim to introduce the New Testament message of salvation. (113)

So, according to The Camel itself, the book contains not only pre-evangelism but also contains a complete plan of salvation—it is an evangelistic presentation and is subject to evaluation as such. The Korbani plan of salvation appears on pages 113-120. The Camel, complete with the Korbani plan of salvation:

1. Never clarifies that Mohammed is not a true prophet.
2. Never confronts the Muslim Qur'anic concept of Allah as deficient and unacceptable, teaching who "Allah" truly is in accord with biblical revelation.
3. Never suggests to the Muslim prospective convert anything other than wholesale acceptance of the Qur'an as being on par with or greater than the Bible. Indeed, the destination after the presentation of the gospel is entitled "Your Second Destination: God's Word." The first destination, you understand, was evangelism employing the Korbani plan of salvation. This second destination is an attempt to talk a Muslim who has heard the gospel into reading the Bible. Clearly there is built into the very ordering of the steps a presumption that one can fully evangelize a person who has not even yet accepted the Bible as material worthy of reading! Why should this Muslim read the Bible? Because the Qur'an says to do so. The Bible's worthiness and authority, in The Camel system, is derived from the worthiness and authority of the Qur'an. Nowhere in The Camel is this situation corrected.

Finally, as we consider whether The Camel is honest, whether The Camel is Christian, and whether The Camel is biblical, I think it is critically important to recognize that The Camel is actually TWO conversations in ONE book. First, there is the conversation that Greeson is having with you, the Christian who wants to learn to present the gospel to Muslims. Second, there is the conversation that Greeson wants you to have with a Muslim believer. The questions about whether The Camel is honest and orthodox pertain to the second conversation more than the first. If The Camel says that we, of course, know that Mohammed is a false prophet, but that we must be sure not to mention that fact to a Muslim prospective convert, then Greeson's admission to you is not the same thing as being honest with Muslims when we present the gospel to them.

Key details of the nature of God, Jesus, God's Revelation, and the Gospel are treated by The Camel as "insider information." The book discusses the status of Mohammed and the Qur'an, as well as the obstacles to Christian faith that a Muslim faces. But it carefully instructs evangelists to Muslims not to let Muslims in on that conversation. And throughout The Camel, including the entirety of the Korbani plan of salvation, that deceptive situation never changes.

A Perplexing Review of The Camel

Tonight I have just completed reading "An Assessment of The Camel" by Daniel Akin, David Nelson, and Bruce Ashford. After having read the assessment, I am puzzled by several points.

If I were a lawyer, if The Camel were on trial, and if this "assessment" were being offered as testimony, I would have to object, "Assumes facts not in evidence." Consider, for example, how the assessment handles the statement in The Camel, "I believe what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." Akin, Nelson, and Ashford suggest alternatives for this phraseology, which they acknowledge as "problematic." They proceed to say:

We do not believe that The Camel is a fundamentally deceptive book (although there are a couple of statements that we believe need to be changed; see below). From our experience, charges of deception often rest on the fact that the Muslim evangelist using the Camel does not immediately tell everything that he believes about the Qur’an or about Muhammad. [emphasis mine]

Actually, those who critique The Camel do so not because we are quibbling over when in the book it demonstrates how an evangelist would reveal everything that he believes about the Qur'an or about Mohammed, but because the book never instructs any evangelist to do so at any point. If The Camel is not a syncretistic, heretical book, then it is something like the pilot training manual that teaches unorthodox approaches to the preflight and takeoff, and then never teaches the student how to land at all. The most important parts are completely missing, and that is The Camel's salvation! The best defense anyone has ever devised for this book is to argue that the gospel is missing from this key to "how Muslims are coming to Christ."

Akin, Nelson, and Ashford seem perfectly content, with the very gospel on the line, just to presume that everyone reading this book will easily fill in the many critical missing pieces on their own. They seem anxious to presume that Greeson himself has filled in all of those pieces. Indeed, after finding that the book does not give any indication of how Camel converts would in any way appear distinctively Christian, the authors of this assessment opine:

We find it hard to believe that Greeson is saying that Christians are not different from Muslims in any of their forms of life and worship.

I don't particularly want to believe it either. But these men are assuming facts not in evidence. At least, these facts are not in evidence for anyone who simply picks up The Camel and reads it. Perhaps if one engages in lengthy sessions of Camel apologetics in which Greeson and Garrison and whomever else explain themselves and demonstrate what fine, orthodox people they are…then, perhaps, one starts to read the book differently.

But books aren't supposed to be like that. If a personal interview with the author is required to come to understand "what he really meant to say," then why not just give a speaking tour and skip the book altogether? But here we have a book being hawked around the globe by all manner of denominational servants, and the experts in our own seminaries have to ask Greeson to explain how these "Christians" are actually any different in their life and worship from Sunnis and Shiites. How, if these learned men walk away with such profound questions, will the average reader be misled by this book?

The "assessment" seems determined to give every positive assumption to Greeson. Although The Camel includes the "Korbani Plan of Salvation" as a suggested presentation of the gospel, the assessment seems willing to assume that some other, more complete presentation of the gospel follows this "pre-evangelism." In the Mohammed section, the assessment is unwilling to evaluate the statement, "I believe what the Qur'an says about Mohammed," as deceptive, but will only conclude that this statement—and I know that if I said it, it would be a brazen lie—merely "leaves [Greeson] open to the charge that he is deceptive" (no doubt leveled by the inquisitorial accusers stigmatized later in the paper). Although there's not a single syllable uttered to a Muslim in The Camel that challenges the epistemological validity of the Qur'an, the assessment is perfectly willing to assume that The Camel "[is] not setting up the Qur'an as an epistemological authority."

And yet, the "assessment" seems determined to make every negative assumption about those who have been critical of The Camel. It presumes that The Camel's critics are simply opposed to any mention of the Qur'an, any hint of contextualization, any use of the word Allah, any bridging whatsoever. The assessment ends by giving the back of its hand to any who have criticized The Camel:

We would also want to point out that we wonder if it is not unfair for certain people to subject Greeson’s book to such intense public scrutiny for certain missteps, while leaving on the Lifeway bookshelves numerous best-selling texts (written since the “Conservative Resurgence”) in spirituality, evangelism, and discipleship that have made much larger missteps.

Well, brothers, I do not claim to have perused every word of every book on the shelves of the local Lifeway, but I do hope that you will reveal for us all the "much larger missteps" out there beyond, "I believe what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." I hope that you will identify for us the wares for sale that err much more grievously than a book instructing people in this method of (pre-)evangelism, a method specifically targeted at people who are following a false prophet in the rites of a false religion in the worship of a false god, yet a method that does so all without ever instructing the evangelist to identify the prophet, the religion, or the god as false. If such works are out there, then I will gladly make time to post about them, too—all without ceasing to tell the truth about The Camel.

The Camel and the IMB Contextualization Guidelines

At the recent IMB meeting in Springfield, IL, the board adopted five principles for contextualization. Having mulled over the principles for a few days and having read The Camel carefully multiple times (see series of articles summarized here), I proclaim it an obvious fact to any impartial observer that The Camel is in violation of the new IMB principles.

The first principle is a simple affirmation of the unique nature of the Christian Bible. I believe that the Camel's reliance upon the Qur'an to the near exclusion of the Bible could be construed as violation of principle one, but the Camel does not explicitly violate this first principle. The second principle poses greater problems for the Camel method.

We affirm that there is a biblical precedent for using “bridges” to reach out to others with the Gospel (Acts 17:22-23). The fact that Paul mentioned an aspect of the Athenians’ idolatrous worship was not a tacit approval of their entire religious system. He was merely utilizing a religious element of their setting (an altar to an unknown god) to connect with his hearers and bridge to the truth. Similarly, our personnel may use elements of their host culture’s worldview to bridge to the Gospel. This need not be construed as an embracing of that worldview. It should be noted that Paul not only used their system to connect, he also contrasted elements of it with the truth. Our evangelism must go beyond bridges to present the whole unvarnished truth of the Gospel (1 Corinthains 15:1-4). (HT: SBC Today)

The Camel is long on varnish and short on gospel. It fastidiously avoids the kind of contrast that Paul performed at Athens (see my earlier post on just this subject here). The Camel is just the kind of misapplication of Paul's work in Athens that is explicitly singled out in this principle as faulty.

The Camel is also at odds with the third principle.

We affirm an incarnational approach to missions that is bound by biblical parameters. Following the example of Him who became flesh (John 1:14), it is appropriate that our personnel continue to tailor their ministry to their setting. The Apostle Paul likewise embraced this approach, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22b). We advocate the learning and appropriate utilization of language and culture. Constant vigilance is required lest contextualization degenerate into syncretism (1). Where linguistic categories and cultural mores are deficient, these must be challenged and corrected with biblical truth (2).

Note that footnote two deals with the use of the name "Allah."

For example, the theological construct represented by the term “Allah” in the Qur’anic system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of “Allah” predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who “Allah” truly is in accord with biblical revelation.

This footnote calls for the missionary to "teach who 'Allah' truly is in accord with biblical revelation" as an amplification to the idea that "[deficient linguistic categories and cultural mores] must be challenged and corrected with biblical truth. [emphasis mine]" Yet the precise core of the Camel method—that which makes it what it is—is the great care it takes not to challenge or correct Muslim notions about who Allah is. Rather, the Camel craftily suggests that the New Testament simply gives some additional information (sanctioned by Islam, no less!) to broaden the Muslim's understanding of Allah. The IMB offers a footnote about explaining who Allah is as an explanation of a proper situation calling for challenge and correction of false cultural ideas. To be in conformity with principle three, the Camel must incorporate a direct correction indicating that the Christian "Allah" is not the same as the Muslim Allah.

The fourth principle poses an additional hurdle for the Camel in its present adaptation.

We affirm both the sufficiency and unique nature of biblical revelation (2 Timothy 3:14-17). We deny that any other purported sacred writing is on a par with the Bible. While reference to a target group’s religious writings can be made as a part of bridge-building, care should be exercised not to imply a wholesale acceptance of such. [emphasis mine]

Yet the Camel says "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed" (see my post here), encourages the prospective convert to search the Qur'an as confirmation of the gospel message, and nowhere offers the slightest critique of the Qur'an in its authority, content, or any other thing. Surely one can presume that "[exercising care] not to imply a wholesale acceptance of [the Qur'an]," whatever that phrase might mean, means something other than doing absolutely nothing. Yet the Camel method does absolutely nothing to prevent the presumption that the "Isahi Muslim" is totally convinced of Quranic authority—indeed, the philosophical underpinning of the whole method is a presumption that everyone involved will affirm (even if dishonestly) the reliability of the Qur'an. The Camel violates principle four.

Finally, the Camel method is patently in violation of the last principle.

We affirm the need to be ethically sound in our evangelistic methodology (2 Corinthians 4:2). Becoming all things to all men in an incarnational approach does not necessitate an ethical breach. Jesus instructed his disciples to be as “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16). We are to be wise in our bridge building. We are to be harmless in our integrity as we hold forth the truth ( 3).

Be sure not to miss footnote three.

Integrity requires, for example, that we not imply that a false prophet or a body of religious writings other then the Bible are inspired. There is a level of contextualization that crosses the line of integrity. Our Board has dismissed personnel who have refused counsel and deliberately positioned themselves beyond that line.

I have already demonstrated invincibly that the Camel dishonestly handles the question about what Christians believe about Mohammed (see my previous post here). Given the inclusion of the footnote, I do not see how anyone can come to any conclusion other than that the author of principle five had in front of him The Camel open to page 144 as he was penning this proscription. For anyone to suggest that the Camel might be compatible with principle five is to strain the limits of credulity.

Now that our trustees have given us these sound and godly principles, all that remains to be seen is what they and our IMB staff will do to correct an obviously aberrant missiological strategy in our midst—the Camel method.

Of Muslims and Mohler's Triage

This post is the culmination of a series of posts. For your convenience, I list them all here:

1. Reading the Camel: Before
2. Of Muslims and Mormons
3. Of Muslims and Mohammed
4. Of Muslims and Mohammed: Redux
5. Of Muslims and Mars Hill
6. Of Muslims and Middle-Eastern Culture
7. This Post: Of Muslims and Mohler's Triage

The results of my July sidebar poll were overwhelming. More than 97% of respondents believed that reverence of Mohammed as a prophet and of the Qur'an as valid scripture were incompatible with Christianity. To become a Christian necessarily involves, for the Muslim, the rejection of the prophet Mohammed and the Qur'an—or at least so say I and most of you. The book The Camel does not include these concepts in its presentation of the gospel to Muslims.

So, this is an issue dealing with the very nature of the gospel. A bona fide tier-one issue.

Obviously, I have no problem with taking a stand on tier-two issues. I'm even willing to offer a forceful opinion on tier-three issues, although these ought not to mark denominational boundaries. Anything in the Bible is worthy of discussion and our earnest attempts to understand it. But we're constantly chided for daring to acknowledge the existence of genuine tier-two issues. We're told that we should only draw lines on tier-one issues—only in connection with the gospel itself.

Well, here, by definition, is a tier-one issue. I am not asserting thereby that every question regarding the Camel has been definitively settled, but I am asserting that the subject matter is the very nature of the gospel. This is a tier-one question.

I've found myself wondering often whether the "irenic" among us really want to discuss even tier-one issues—whether there is an implicit and false presumption that tier-one issues were all settled long ago and therefore that the task of earnestly contending for the faith does not remain for us today.

In a comment on an earlier post on this blog, Wade Burleson made me aware that items concerning the Camel have come to the table in IMB board meetings. Here is an example of a tier-one issue coming before one of our trustee boards. I have completed my analysis of the Camel, and will leave the ball entirely in other people's courts—Greeson's to make revisions, the IMB's to reconsider its endorsement, other missionaries to share how they correct the Camel in their practice, someone to demonstrate where the Camel is incompatible with C5 and C6, someone to make a convincing case for the compatibility of Christianity with revering Mohammed and the Qur'an, etc.

As I watch how other people deal with this issue (or ignore it altogether), it will tell me a lot about whether people are opposed to needless division only, or whether they are simply opposed to certain personalities, or even to the idea of theological distinctives at all. Certainly there exists the temptation to take every question, even a tier-one issue, and sweep it all into the category of tier-three. This temptation is especially pronounced among ecumenists, as evidenced by the current status of the World Council of Churches. Let us remember that they did not start out where they are today, but eventually succumbed to the temptation to demote biblical doctrine to the category of adiaphora in virtually all cases. Dr. Mohler had a name for the result of succumbing to that temptation. Let us pray that any advance of such an approach will fall to defeat within the Southern Baptist Convention (and indeed, wherever it may be advanced).

Of Muslims and Middle-Eastern Culture

Contextualization through Indigenization Most foreign missionaries spend years trying to make the Gospel fit contextually into the Muslim community. The movement I was now studying seemed to leapfrog over contextualization directly to indigenization as it naturally took on the cultural complexion of the Muslim community from which it sprang, because it was led by Muslim-background believers. We had not realized how much local Christianity in the country was identified with Western culture. As we drew closer to the Muslims we were trying to reach and to our Muslim-background believer partners we began to see things through their eyes. In their eyes Western Christianity was associated with the same American culture they viewed on television, leading many of them to reject the Gospel as an extension of American culture. Muslim-background believers overcame this obstacle by rejecting Western culture and, along with it, Western expressions of Christianity. Yet they were able to embrace the Gospel within their own cultural patterns. As a result the Gospel found an indigenous home and was able to spread rapidly through their community. -The Camel (2007), 39.

Western culture is not a Christian culture. We cannot deny that Christianity, more than any other system of religious thought, has impacted Western culture. However, I think the best we could say about modern European culture or American culture is that Christianity is the most prominent religion against which our culture is in rebellion. As I critique The Camel, let me be clear on several points:

1. I recognize and am heartbroken about the degree to which Western culture serves as an excuse in other parts of the world for people in their rejection of the gospel.
2. I do not believe that missionaries ought to be converting people to Western culture.
3. I do not even assume that missionaries to Muslims will be Westerners. One of my colleagues in Ph.D. studies was a Korean native who had grown up as a missionary in South America from Korea. We're not the only ones on the block doing missions. I should hope that the things I have pointed out in The Camel would be equally objectionable to a Korean missionary, an American missionary, an Uzbekistani missionary, or a Kenyan missionary.

I suppose it frustrates many of us to know that many people in Muslim countries associate Christianity with what they see coming out of New York or Hollywood. For all of our lack of understanding how their culture works, there is obviously some reciprocal misunderstanding as to how our culture works. This is a land of religious liberty. We have a number of Supreme Court decisions and federal laws designed explicitly to prevent the inculcation of Christianity into several of our most powerful cultural institutions. Furthermore, frankly, we suffer from an astounding impotence in our churches (something Baptists could combat more successfully among our own ranks if we returned somewhat to our Baptist roots, I think). We must further acknowledge that within American culture there is a Christian subculture, an Evangelical subculture within that, and a Southern Baptist subculture that probably lies somewhat within the Evangelical sphere and is somewhat distinctive from it. These subcultures are not perfect expressions of Christianity, but neither are they completely disparate from Christianity. Also, some items ought to unite Christians of any culture into a common Christian culture. Nevertheless, we ought to avoid the transmission even of our Christian subcultures in missionary work, because in so doing we tend to transmit our weaknesses better than we transmit our strengths. I do not know why it works that way, but I presume that it has something to do with human sinful depravity. So, to sum up, American missionaries ought not to be transmitting American culture, and American missionaries ought not to be transmitting religious subcultures from America either. They ought to make every effort to transmit the Bible. For a specific example in which I can echo some of the sentiments expressed in The Camel, I have been to churches in other parts of the world who worship by singing nineteenth-century American hymns with lyrics translated into their language. Personally, I would rather that they write their own music for worship that is culturally appropriate. But while we note the vast distance between American culture and Christianity, it seems to me that very little attention is being paid to the fact that Muslim cultures are significantly more serious and efficient about embedding Islam into their cultures than we are at embedding Christianity into ours. In many of the Muslim nations in view, national law is built around sharia. Holidays are Islamic religious holidays. Many of the names are stridently Islamic names. My good friend Dr. Emir Caner says that his full name means "Prince of Islamic Conquest." The last time I checked, "Prince of Christian Conquest" was not a very popular name choice for American baby boys! When we consider the concept of new believers coming to "embrace the Gospel within their own cultural patterns," does it matter not at all whether that culture is thoroughly steeped in a false religion? Isn't the risk of syncretism proportional to the degree to which we "translate" the gospel into a culture thoroughly shaped by a false religion? Does taking a step away from a culture thoroughly enmeshed with a false religion necessarily mean taking a step toward "Hollywood" culture? Are these the only two suitable destinations? I think not. One point of disagreement between Greeson and myself regards his "Firm Foundations" point #8:

8. A Gospel that translates. Finally, it is important for readers to know that unlike Islam, which is bound forever to the Arab language and culture, we have a Gospel that translates. Every time the Gospel enters a new culture, it must be translated into the language and worldview of that culture. This is part of the genius and power of the Gospel: It translates eternal truth into local forms and expressions just as God in Christ translated Himself into a particular human form and Jewish expression. . . . .<discussion of John 1> While it is biblical and appropriate to translate the Gospel into the language and culture of the Muslim community, we must never confuse the use of Arabic names for God (Allah) and Jesus Christ (Isa al-Masih) with an endorsement or acceptance of the Muslim religion. Bridges are built to take us from one place to another and should never become an end in themselves.

I affirm with Greeson the need to translate the gospel into the language of the Muslim community. But what does it mean to translate the gospel into Muslim culture? To aspire to do so presumes, it seems to me, that one possesses a pretty sharp scalpel and a pretty steady hand for the separation of the conjoined twins of Islam and Islamic culture. As I said above, Islamic societies have proven much more adept at interweaving their religion into virtually every aspect of their culture. It seems to me that, when we're talking about so-called "cultural translation," the phrase "the gospel" denotes the very things that cannot and should not in any sense be "translated." We can draw upon the tools of analogy and illustration to explain the gospel, and these tools will necessarily change from culture to culture. I know that I preach a little bit differently at an Ozark rural church than I do in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But the gospel preached is something that I carefully, doggedly, deliberately seek not to change to fit the culture. Certainly, we see the deformed mutations of Christianity that populate America. We see how the gospel has been translated into the American Dream as the "Prosperity Gospel." We've seen the gospel translated into Southern racial segregation as the Ku Klux Klan. This idea of the "cultural translation" of the gospel has been, it seems to me, among the most damnable things in Christian history. Why, again, would we want deliberately to cultivate this approach to Christianity among Muslims? In the New Testament, we have Jews, Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians, Turks (to speak anachronistically), Egyptians, etc., etc., etc., but we have only one gospel. The goal of The Camel is to translate the gospel into "Muslim culture." Yet if we wind up with mosque-attending, Qur'an-toting, Mohammed-revering, salat-performing folks as the end product of our efforts, I fear that what we have done, rather than the translate the gospel into "Muslim culture," is to translate the gospel into Islam. <edit>A good friend has provided this link for us all to consider on the subject of Christian-Muslim relations. Unbelievable!</edit>

Of Muslims and Mars Hill

"Mars Hill" refers to Paul's encounter with the Epicureans and Stoics in the Areopagus at Athens. You can read the biblical narrative of the account here. It is the textus classicus for detailing true biblical contextualization. After you've read the biblical text, see whether this is not a good timeline of what Paul did:

1. Paul arrived in Athens and was provoked by the way that the city was full of temples and idols.
2. Paul immediately began to preach explicitly the exclusive gospel of Jesus Christ both in the synagogues and out in the public marketplace to whomever would listen. This was Paul's continuous practice and went on for an undisclosed number of days.
3. Epicureans and Stoics heard Paul preaching and took him to the Areopagus to find out more details about what Paul was preaching. Paul arrived there and began to preach.
4. Paul mentioned his observation that the people of Athens were "very religious."
5. Paul noted the existence of the temple "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD."
6. Paul used the existence of this temple to highlight the ignorance of Greek religion.
7. Paul promised to supplant their ignorance by proclaiming revealed truth.
8. Paul publicly rejected the entire Greek system of temple worship, including by extension the temple to an unknown god, by stating flatly that God does not dwell in man-made temples.
9. Paul stated that the purpose of mankind is not to care for (tend to the needs of) God, but to seek God.
10. Paul cited Greek poets to illustrate that even Greeks acknowledged that people are "His children."
11. Paul used the doctrine of God's fatherhood to highlight the foolishness of Greek idolatry—how can people be the children of a statue of gold or silver or stone?
12. Paul demonstrated that the statues come from men; men don't come from the statues.
13. Paul highlighted again that Greek religion was ignorant, but Paul proclaimed the good news that God was ready to overlook their past ignorance.
14. Paul articulated God's demand that those in ignorance repent from their idolatry.
15. Paul proclaimed the coming day of judgment through Jesus.
16. Paul offered the resurrection of Jesus as proof of Christ's role as Savior and Judge.
17. The people who were listening understood clearly what Paul was preaching. As a result, some sneered. Others were interested in further discussion. Yet others gladly received the gospel.

The major difference between The Camel and Paul's work in Athens is indeed a C-word, but not contextualization. The key difference regards confrontation.

Consider again the pattern of bold confrontation that Paul brought against false religion in Acts 17. He declared their religion to be ignorant of God. He used their own religion (the temple acknowledging that the existence of the "unknown" in their religion...the poems declaring that we are God's children, not the gods' sculptors) to disprove their religion. He did not leave them to draw their own conclusions—he spelled it out for them. He confronted their city full of temples. He confronted their city full of idols. He confronted the core principles of their religion—the nature of the Divine. Paul said that God was no longer willing to overlook their ignorance. On the authority of God, Paul called upon them to repent. Paul asserted Jesus as the exclusive Judge of all mankind.

I think that Acts 17 gives an excellent paradigm for repairing The Camel. Greeson's book very delicately avoids confrontation with Islam. Indeed, the fundamental distinctive of The Camel seems to be its way of trying to present Christianity without confronting Islam. As a result, the most troubling aspect of the book is what is not in it, not what is in it. A person carefully following this method is never instructed to confront the Muslim god as false. He is never instructed to confront Mohammed as a false prophet—he is rather carefully and explicitly instructed in saying just the opposite (see here). He is never instructed to confront the Qur'an as ignorant of the true God, the true Jesus, and the true faith. Indeed, the method depends upon the Muslim's reliance upon the accuracy of the Qur'an.

Speaking of camels, G. K. Chesterton wrote: "Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel." Greeson's book clearly regards the confrontation of false religion as a burden—an obstacle to be overcome in evangelization. Paul regarded it as an essential part of evangelization. I think it would remedy many of these ills if Greeson were to restore the biblical hump of confrontation to his camel of Muslim evangelization.

Of Muslims and Mohammed: Redux

The esteemed and omnipresent blog comment personality, Anonymous, has charged that I have deliberately misquoted The Camel in my previous post. He is way off base. But, to dispel any doubt among those who have not read the book, I offer the relevant passage in its entirety. Also, I offer the relevant passages from the Qur'an in their entirety—not just in the snippets that Greeson has quoted.

Barrier #4: What Do You Say about Mohammed? This is the big question. Muslims take great offense at those who would profane their prophet. The best bridge to overcome the barrier of Mohammed is to simply say: "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." The Qur'an does not say that Mohammed was the greatest prophet. It does say that he was the "seal of the prophets" in surah al-Ahzab 33:40; seal only means the last, not the greatest. (Please note: We are not saying that Mohammed was a true prophet or the seal of the prophets, we are only making you aware of what you might face from the Qur'an.) Then ask your friend to read surah al-Ahqaf (the Sandhills surah) 46:9 in which Allah instructs Mohammed to say:

I am no new thing among the messengers, nor know I what will be done with me or with you … I am but a plain warner.

Likewise in surah al-Imran 3:144, Allah says of Mohammed:

Mohammed is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him.

We see in these passages that neither Mohammed nor his followers claimed that he was the greatest prophet. Then you can ask your friend, "What is life's greatest question?" The greatest question of life is "What will happen to me when I die?" We see from surah al-Ahqaf 46:9 that Mohammed did not claim to have a certain answer to that question, for himself or for his followers. Then you can take your Muslim friend to the Injil. Show him passages such as John 6:4 and especially John 14:1-6. <quotation of John 14:1-4, 6, NIV> Clearly Jesus does have the answer to life's greatest question.

Here is a full quotation of the Qur'anic passages cited: Surah al-Ahzab 33:40. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things. Surah al-Ahqaf 46:7-9. When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, the Unbelievers say, of the Truth when it comes to them: "This is evident sorcery!" Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Say: "Had I forged it, then can ye obtain no single (blessing) for me from Allah. He knows best of that whereof ye talk (so glibly)! Enough is He for a witness between me and you! And he is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the apostles, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." Surah al-Imran 3:144. Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah. but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude. Every one of these ayat refers to Mohammed as a prophet…every one of them…explicitly. I compliment Greeson when I assert that he does not believe what any of these ayat say about Mohammed, fairly read. The problem is that Greeson is encouraging us to answer a Muslim prospect's honest question with the dishonest answer "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." Even in the passages that Greeson cites, he does not agree with what those verses (ayat) say about Mohammed. Of course he doesn't—he's a Christian. For those of you who do not own the book yet, I have posted this so that you will not have any reason to wonder whether I am misconstruing the text of Greeson's book. We need to have an honest and open discussion of what this book says. I want to facilitate, not hinder, that endeavor.

Of Muslims and Mohammed

Barrier #4: What Do You Say about Mohammed? This is the big question. Muslims take great offense at those who would profane their prophet. The best bridge to overcome the barrier of Mohammed is to simply say: "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." (emphasis mine) -The Camel (2007), 144

In my previous post I observed that Muslims must reject Mohammed as a false prophet just as Mormons must reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet. Kevin Greeson correctly observes that the status of Mohammed is a delicate subject in dealing with Muslims. Consider the worldwide reaction to the publication in 2005 of a group of editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed (see Wikipedia's summary of the event here). In addition to the book's implications upon Islam and the Qur'an, Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was perceived to have disrespected Mohammed, resulting in a fatwa calling for his assasination. Dr. Jerry Vines received voluminous criticism for his June 10, 2002, observation that Mohammed was a "demon-possessed pedophile" (Mohammed had sex with a nine-year-old girl). Yes, to regard Mohammed as anything less than the "seal of the prophets" is to offend a Muslim. The methodology of The Camel is not a new one—it is simply the practice of stripping away the skandalon ("offense") of the gospel to make it palatable to those whom it offends. The Camel is tested at this point when it deals with the question of Mohammed. Here is the moment when an evangelist to Muslims must face what Greeson calls "the big question." That question, by the way, is not strictly about Mohammed but also has implications for whether one can receive the Christian gospel while remaining an adherent of Islam. How does The Camel respond to this question? Greeson writes: "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." Well, what does the Qur'an say about Mohammed?

1. It says that Mohammed is a true prophet of God, and the last of such (i.e., "the seal of the prophets") 33:40.
2. It says that Mohammed was inspired by god in the writing of the Qur'an (10:2; 18:110).
3. It says that in the Qur'an Mohammed included nothing besides what was revealed to him by god (10:15-16).
4. It says that Jesus predicted the coming of Mohammed (61:6).
5. It says that Mohammed is the "beautiful pattern" for human living.

So, there is what the Qur'an says about Mohammed. Greeson's plan is for evangelists to tell Muslims that they "agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed." Does Greeson really agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed? No. In the beginning of the book he clarifies that he does not intend to "endorse...Mohammed." Indeed, in the very next paragraph after encouraging missionaries to say, "I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed," Greeson makes it plain that, although the Qur'an refers to Mohammed as a prophet, Greeson does not regard Mohammed as a prophet. Greeson's bewiildering progression in a scant two paragraphs is:

1. I agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed.
2. The Qur'an says that Mohammed was a true prophet.
3. I do not agree that Mohammed was a true prophet.

Huh???? Greeson's intent is to direct the Muslim prospect to a particular passage in the Qur'an in which Mohammed asserts his mere humanity and his connection with other prophets who have gone before him. The long-term goal is to attempt to demonstrate from the Qur'an that Jesus is a greater prophet than Mohammed was. But in doing so, they dodge a direct question about the Christian view of Mohammed by falsely stating affirmation of what the Qur'an says about Mohammed, when what they really intend to do is show that one phrase of what the Qur'an says about Mohammed is not entirely incompatible with Christianity. The rationale is simple—avoid putting the prospect into the position of having to choose between Jesus and Mohammed. Indeed, following The Camel one would prefer to sidestep this question entirely. This section only appears in the "advanced Camel" section training one to deal with objections raised by the Muslim prospect. The choice between Jesus and Mohammed is a skandalon for Muslims. But I ask you, can you really present the gospel without bringing a Muslim to the point of having to make this choice? Can one genuinely be a Christian and "agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed"? I don't think so. I understand, sympathize with, and applaud the motivation—a powerful desire to see Muslims come to faith in Christ. It is the methodology that bothers me. When people who do not agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed say that they do agree with what the Qur'an says about Mohammed, all to keep from injecting any tension between the false prophet Mohammed and a decision for Christ, they are simply being dishonest with a prospect in order to try to win them to a decision. And with that, I refer you back to my previous post.

Of Muslims and Mormons

I have received my copy of Kevin Greeson, The Camel: How Muslims Are Coming to Faith in Christ!. The text is compelling and easy to read—I had finished the book within a couple of hours of receiving it. I have now read it more than once and am prepared to offer my thoughts. In fact, I have already typed out enough of my thoughts to see that my remarks are far too lengthy and involved to be contained in a single post. Please consider this the first installment in a series. The problem of Muslim evangelization is thorny indeed. We are rightly desperate to accomplish it, recognizing how many millions of people are deceived by this false religion. We see the absence of religious liberty in so many of the Muslim strongholds around the world and we wonder how to carry the gospel into places where doing so is illegal and dangerous. Any genuine breakthrough in Muslim evangelization will justly be the "killer app" of modern missiology. Many have offered The Camel as just that—the "killer app" of Muslim evangelization. Consider the words of one missionary in the foreword to the revised edition: "Is it fair to say that [The Camel] has impacted my ministry? No. It has completely transformed it." But in light of our desperation for success in this field, the substance of the theological tenets involved, and the everlasting consequences of the outcomes, calm and reflective consideration is in order regarding this method. In particular, I think we must be careful not to confuse progress with arrival as it regards the evangelization of anyone—in this context, Muslims.

What if?

You meet a Muslim. He believes that there is only one god, the Muslim Allah. He believes that Mohammed is the seal of Allah's prophets. He believes that the Qur'an is holy scripture. He prays the Muslim ritual prayers. He rejects Christianity. He has never read the Bible. He knows little of Jesus. You pray for this person and interact with him. After a while, his beliefs change. He learns that his holy book (the Qur'an) also commends to him the Christian Holy Scriptures (the Bible), so he adopts these as additional holy books in his personal canon. He affirms salvation through Jesus Christ as revealed in all three of his holy testaments, but especially the latter (the Qur'an). He begins to refer to himself as an Isahi Muslim (a "Jesus Muslim"). He is not in fellowship with those who identify themselves as Christians, but he has gathered a group of Muslims who share his views about Jesus. Is that movement? Absolutely. Is that progress? Perhaps. Is it evangelization? If it is, then we owe an apology to the Mormons. Mormons accept the Old and New Testaments. They affirm salvation through Jesus Christ. They even go so far as to call themselves Christians. They have gathered "churches" that, although out of fellowship with orthodox Christian groups, conspicuously proclaim a message regarding Jesus Christ. So, why don't we regard Mormons as Christians? Because they claim special revelation subsequent and in addition to the Bible, redefine Jesus and God, adulterate the gospel, confuse truth with error. Dr. Phil Parshall (not the "Dr. Phil", but a missiologist) provided a snapshot of just such Muslims in his article for Evangelical Missions Quarterly entitled "Danger! New Directions in Contextualization." In this article, Parshall provided the following statistical survey of a group of "Christian Muslims":

• 50% go to the traditional mosque on Friday.
• 31% go to the mosque more than once a day. They do standard Arabic prayers which affirm Mohammed as a prophet of God.
• 96% say there are four heavenly books, i.e., Torah [i.e., Old Testament Pentateuch], Zabur [i.e., the Book of Psalms], Injil [these people were probably referring to the New Testament gospels, although traditional Muslim interpretation of this word is somewhat different], and Qur'an (This is standard Muslim belief…).
• 66% say the Qur'an is the greatest of the four books.
• 45% do not affirm God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• 45% feel peace or close to Allah when listening to the reading of the Qur'an

Parshall goes on to ask:

What do we have here? Contextualization or syncretism? A few points to emphasize. [The subjects of the survey] are leaders; the work has been ongoing for 15 years; the believers have had access to the New Testament; there have been short-term Bible schools for leadership; and, lastly, mosque attendance has been encouraged by the "outside" Bible teachers. Is this a model to follow or avoid?

Southern Baptists face this exact question regarding The Camel and the Korbani presentation of the gospel endorsed and taught therein. If we will be consistent in the way we treat Muslims and Mormons, the following must characterize conversion of a Muslim to Christianity:

1. He must reject the Qur'an as not being holy scripture.
2. He must reject Mohammed as not being a valid prophet.
3. He must reject the Muslim concept of God (I'm avoiding "Allah" here to prevent people from embarking upon red herrings as though the question here were merely one of terminology) as not being the true God.
4. He must reject the Muslim concept of Jesus as not being the true Jesus.
5. He must reject the Muslim concept of works salvation and embrace the Christian gospel.

In this regard, I have come to conclude that The Camel, even in its revised form, is insufficient and in error. Over the next few posts, I hope to show from the text of the book the reasons why I have come to this conclusion, rejecting this as a model to avoid. P.S.: In light of today's date and the subject matter of this post, I direct you to another interesting article by Phil Parshall.

Reading The Camel: Before

Winging its way to me through the United States Postal Service is the revised version of The Camel: How Muslims Are Coming to Faith in Christ. I've decided to publish a "Before" post detailing my convictions before reading the book and an "After" post detailing my response to having read the book.

My Beliefs Before Reading The Camel

1. Any legitimate way to use Jesus sayings in the Qur'an as a bridge to the presentation of the gospel I will support. In fact, it would be a real mistake not to give strong consideration to the best way to employ those saying in the presentation of the gospel. Necessarily, there are the best ways to use them and the worst ways to use them. Let us be diligent to find the best ways.
2. The Qur'an, fairly read, is incompatible with Christianity. Years ago in the class "Introduction to Philosophy of Religion" I first received instruction regarding the differences between the Muslim portrayal of Jesus and the Christian portrayal of Jesus. This incompatibility is true not only of the Qur'an as a whole, but also of every individual portion of the Qur'an. For example, consider Surah 19 (Maryam). This Surah (chapter) couldn't be more clearly anti-Christian:

   83. Seest thou not that We have set the Evil Ones on against the unbelievers, to incite them with fury? 84. So make no haste against them, for We but count out to them a (limited) number (of days). 85. The day We shall gather the righteous to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, like a band presented before a king for honours, 86. And We shall drive the sinners to Hell, like thirsty cattle driven down to water,- 87. None shall have the power of intercession, but such a one as has received permission (or promise) from ((Allah)) Most Gracious. 88. They say: "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" 89. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! 90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, 91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious. 92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

   Thus, to use this Surah in leading a person to biblical Christianity must ultimately involve refuting this Surah, not relying upon it. I hope to learn that The Camel does precisely that.
3. The Muslim Allah is not the Christian God and is incompatible with the One True God whom we serve as Christians. Yes, the word Allah in Arabic apparently has the simple generic lexical meaning of "God." However (and I'll give credit to Dr. Russell Moore for reminding me of this), keep in mind that the Old Testament Hebrew word בָּעַל (Baal) has the simple generic lexical meaning of "Lord." One might legitimately (as lexical meanings go) have referred to God as Baal. Yet Elijah did not go up to Mount Carmel to confuse the identities of Yahweh and Baal; he went there to make a pointed distinction between the two (see here). The differentiation that Elijah made is at the heart of evangelism. Thus, to lead a person to biblical Christianity is to make certain that he knows that the biblical God is not the Muslim Allah, that the real God did not author the Qur'an, and that Muslims are worshipping a non-existent false god.
4. Identifying oneself as a Muslim is incompatible with being a Christian. Yes, Paul identified himself as a Jew. But the Jewish Old Testament is genuine special revelation from God. Prior to the life and work of Christ, one was supposed to be a Jew. The Qur'an is not revelation from God. There has never been a moment in human history when it was not an act of rebellion against God to be a Muslim. Being a Muslim is something of which one must repent in order to become a Christian.
5. What's It Gonna Take to Reach Muslims with the Gospel? It's gonna take the gospel.

   I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. (Romans 1:16) So will be My word which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)

   In general, I want us to be confident in the spiritual power of the unadorned-by-human-tomfoolery gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, let us remember what the Bible says:

   Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:1-4)

   The presentation of the gospel of Christ ought to differ greatly from a Ronco® commercial. The more we depend upon anything other than the gospel, the more we weaken any evangelistic initiative. It is not a question of pragmatism vs. orthodoxy—losing our confidence in the gospel and choosing instead to rely upon a bait-and-switch scheme is both theologically indefensible and pragmatically ineffective. It is like removing the engines from your 747 and then planning to fly to Japan. I hope to read that the Camel Method very briefly uses the Qur'an and then directs people quickly and exclusively to the powerful gospel of Jesus Christ presented in the Bible, thereby refuting the Qur'an.
6. Trickery will come back to bite us. Do you know what Muslim orthodoxy says about Christianity and the gospel? It says that the New Testament gospel was originally pure, but then we Christians came along and corrupted it, twisting it to say something different than what God actually revealed. If we were to build an evangelistic strategy upon twisting the Qur'an to make it say something different than what it plainly says, what's going to happen when we're found out? You don't think that the imams are just going to lie down and take it, do you? And when we are confronted, wouldn't the end result of such a method be to confirm in the minds of Muslims everywhere that Christians are everything that they have heard us to be in the mosques—that we won't let a little thing like honesty get in the way of our agenda? I hope to read that The Camel method deals honestly with the Qur'an, not opening Christianity up to charges like these.

Now you know how I will be reading The Camel—I'm going to be comparing this method to these principles that I have articulated. Certainly I believe this: Something must be done to make serious progress in carrying the gospel to Muslims. I am hopeful that The Camel will indeed turn out to be a method for carrying the gospel to Muslims. Someday this week the postman will show up at my house and help me to find out for myself. And then I'll publish my "After" post.

De Natura Boni

If you estimated that telling someone a lie would substantially increase the chances of them becoming a Christian, would you do it?