“In recent days, missiologists and missionaries have become aware of ‘Insider Movements,’ which represent a new phenomenon and a new strategy in Muslim evangelism.[2] Insider Movements (IM) are movements within the Muslim world in which Muslim background believers choose to remain within Islam as a means of reaching Muslims. Some of them acknowledge Christ as their Savior only privately. IM proponents argue that this type of contextualization allows the convert to overcome significant barriers in order to incarnate like Jesus and Paul. Further, they argue that Christ does not require a convert to change his cultural identity or religion, and that the convert is free to reinterpret passages of the Qur’an so that he doesn’t have to renounce it as a whole. In addition, many IM proponents seem to see Islam as similar to OT Judaism and therefore not inherently opposed to the gospel.

We believe that IM strategy is fundamentally flawed for various reasons, but for now we will seek to show why theological method matters in adjudicating this issue. As we see it, the fundamental methodological flaw in many IM advocate’s strategy is their starting point—the existential reality of a Muslim background believer. IM proponents appear to begin with the lived existential tensions of being a convert in a Muslim context. In such environments, there are many barriers, including the strong aversion to “changing religions,” which is tantamount in those cultures to changing ones ethnic, national, and familial identity. Further these environments are also persecution-heavy, a convert faces the very real possibility of losing his job and family and perhaps even his life. Proceeding from such a difficult starting point, some IM proponents find a way to those converts.  In order to do so, some IM proponents hold to an overly privatized and reductionist view of salvation in which a person gives mental assent to Christ as Savior, but does not fully embrace or implement the doctrines of repentance and Lordship. Second, some IM proponents do not recognize the importance of the redeemed community for the working out of one’s salvation (although others, such as Kevin Higgins, strongly emphasize the role of believing communities meeting together separate from the mosque for the purpose of Christian community and discipleship). Third many IM advocates misunderstand Islam, which exists as a religion custom-built to subvert and overthrow Trinitarian Christianity. Its Aryan Jesus and its doctrines of tawhid and shirk make clear that the worst possible sin for a Muslim is to believe in the Christian doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. In sum, these three doctrinal missteps occurred in part because of a flawed theological starting point—the existential reality of Muslim converts.

We argue that if IM proponents began with the entire canon of Scripture as their starting point, and took into account  what can be learned from church history, they would arrive at a different conclusion while still caring deeply for, and being sensitive to, the existential burdens and challenges facing converts in a Muslim context. In taking into account the entire biblical teaching, we respond to the first misstep by offering the biblical teaching concerning Christ’s Lordship (Col. 1:13-23) and the necessity of human repentance (2 Pet 3:9; Lk 14:25-33). Indeed, believers in any global religious context must turn their backs on false saviors; they must repudiate tribal gods and witch doctors; they must reject their belief that the Qur’an is God’s revelation and that Muhammad is his prophet; they must cease to worship in spirit temples and ancestral shrines; they must turn their back on the worship of sex, money, power, and other metaphorical idols. This is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. We respond to the second misstep by offering a robust ecclesiology in which we are not only saved from our sins, but are saved for discipleship in the context of the believing community, a community that clearly distinguishes itself from other communities of worship. Indeed, God’s church is a sign of the kingdom and an instrument of the kingdom in a way that individual converts never can be (especially if those converts are still identifying themselves as Muslims and attending mosque services). The body of Christ, working together, bears robust and powerful witness to Christ. We respond to the third misstep by offering the biblical teaching on idolatry (Rom 1:14-32), in which Islam must be viewed as idolatrous and antithetical to Trinitarian Christianity and to the doctrines of grace.

One should note that the persecuted believers of the New Testament faced a similar situation in which they worshiped in the midst of rival religions. In particular, they found themselves in direct opposition to the cult of Caesar. Instead of blending in with the cult, they found appropriate ways to make clear their allegiance to Christ. They baptized, gathered together for worship, and refused to recognize Caesar as a god. Theirs was a faith which was forged the midst of strong Christian churches which clearly distinguished themselves from rival religious communities, such as the cult of Caesar. Although the (commendable) aim of IM proponents is to help new converts maintain familial and communal connections, IM unintentionally undermines the role of the church in nurturing faith, building community, and bearing witness to the kingdom, and it undermines the robust nature of the doctrine of salvation, which includes Lordship, repentance, and discipleship.

In summary, a healthy theological method recognizes the entire biblical canon and brings its full teaching to bear on any situation; further it allows the canon to be provide the framework and parameters in which we craft our ministry strategies, methods, and literature, rather than allowing a lived existential scenario to provide the framework and parameters.”

[2] For two insider descriptions of IM, see Kevin Higgins, “The Key to Insider Movements: The ‘Devoted’s’ of Acts,” IJFM 21 (Winter 2004): 155, and Rebecca Lewis, “Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities,” IJFM 24 (Summer 2007): 75. IM advocates note that some IM believers have indeed been killed for their bold witness.

And, thank you for having been about to ask. Yours truly did contribute several essays to the Encyclopedia, including those on Hans Frei, Stanley Hauerwas, George Lindbeck, James McClendon, David Tracy, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization looks to be an essential reference tool for scholars, students, pastors, and others, on the historical and sociocultural significance of Christianity. Understanding one’s place in the world helps one better reach the world for Christ. This work will forward that endeavor.

Wright is a prolific Old Testament scholar and missional theologian. He is the author of a couple of very important books on mission titled The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (IVP Academic, 2006) and The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Zondervan, 2010). In those books, Wright lays out a holistic understanding of mission that is rooted in the Bible’s grand narrative and that results in the final redemption of the cosmos. The church participates in God’s mission by proclaiming the good news of God’s salvation in Christ through word and deed in every sphere of life. In many ways, this view of mission is a continuation of the position advocated by John Stott in his classic book Christian Mission in the Modern World (IVP, 1975) and articulated by the Lausanne movement through the Lausanne Covenant (1974), Manila Manifesto (1989), and Cape Town Commitment (2011). (Stott was the principle author of the Lausanne Covenant, while Wright was the principle author of the Cape Town Commitment.)

Recently, Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert have offered a friendly critique of this understanding of mission in their book What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Crossway, 2011). DeYoung and Gilbert are hesitant to define mission too broadly, preferring to focus on verbal proclamation of the gospel. They argue that Christians can and should engage in social justice ministries, but they don’t necessarily see this as being as crucial as evangelism. I may be misreading them, but I think they’re arguing that deeds complement gospel proclamation, but deeds aren’t mission in and of themselves in the same way as proclamation. While affirming a grand narrative reading of Scripture, DeYoung and Gilbert want to be clear that we not confuse what God and God alone does in his mission and what the church has been tasked with in her mission.

I’m going to go ahead and say what everyone already knows, but in my circles is mostly whispered in hushed tones. The aforementioned books (and many others I haven’t referenced) represent a massive debate among evangelicals that has simmered below the surface for several years and is just now coming to light, in part because of the publication and responses to What is the Mission of the Church? It is, for the most part, a friendly debate among substantially like-minded brothers—that’s the good part. But when it comes to the question of mission, there are at least two different tendencies present among inerrantist, non-Arminian, complementarian evangelicals, and these tendencies have the potential to become out-and-out factions. All you have to do is read Ed Stetzer’s review of What is the Mission of the Church?, the responses to Stetzer’s review, and the responses to those responses to see that there is at least the potential for significant controversy.

For my part, I’m not interested in offering a substantive review of the relevant books; plenty of folks have already done so, and from a variety of perspectives. Rather, I want to raise an ecclesiological question that I’ve been mulling over since I read What is the Mission of the Church? a couple of months ago (I’ve previously read Stott, Wright, and several of the other authors whom DeYoung and Gilbert critique). To what degree are representatives of the different tendencies talking past each other because they mean different things when they use the word church? To say it another way, to what degree is this a debate between folks who prioritize the church universal versus those who prioritize local churches?

Many representative voices of the “holistic mission” tendency are either Anglican (Stott, Wright) or intentionally non-denominational (the Lausanne movement). This stands in contrast to DeYoung and Gilbert, who are Reformed and Southern Baptist, respectively. As a general rule, Anglicans and interdenominational and/or parachurch evangelicals are referring to the wider body of Christ when they use the word church, whereas Baptists and at least some Reformed Christians are typically speaking of particular congregations when they use the term. Both believe in both the church universal and local churches, of course, but the primary emphasis tends to be on one or the other.

One reason I think this ecclesiological difference might factor into the mission debate is because, to my understanding at least, both tendencies are in about 95% agreement about what Christians ought to be doing. Both affirm, unequivocally, verbal proclamation of the gospel as the center of mission. Both agree that Christians should do justice and love mercy. Both advocate Christian cultural engagement. In other words, everybody agrees that both word and deed is part and parcel of faithful Christian living. And yet, we have this disagreement. Is it at least possible that Wright (to name just one example) is arguing that Christians in general—the church—should be about X & Y, while DeYoung and Gilbert are arguing that local congregations—the church—may engage in X & Y in different ways and to varying degrees? This seems to be the case to me.

By raising this question, I’m by no means minimizing real differences that are present within the various positions. It’s clear that there is a spectrum of evangelical opinions regarding the church’s mission, though again, I think the differences might seem at least somewhat wider than is really the case. But if we are to work toward any sort of consensus—and avoid factionalism—then we need to understand why different folks land where they do on this issue. I’m convinced ecclesiology has been under-discussed in reviews and other discussions of the key books on the topic. Perhaps as we ask what the church’s mission is, we would do well to be clear what we mean by the word church.

(Update: I’ve just learned that Collin Hansen wrote on a related topic yesterday for The Gospel Coalition.)

When the Communists came to power in 1949, there were about one million Chinese professing Christians at that time.  Skeptics dismissed them as “rice Christians,” i.e. Chinese who cynically claimed to be Christian in order to receive some type of benefit from Westerners.  The Communist government outlawed religion, so the fledgling Christian church was expected to disappear.  However, by the last quarter of the 20th century it was clear that, rather than dissolving, Christianity was growing in China–and growing rapidly.  The difficulty has been in determining the growth.

In 2007, the Horizon Ltd, “one of China’s largest and most respected polling firms,” conducted a national survey.  Face-to-face interviews were conducted throughout the country with over 7000 respondents.  The article goes into detail about how the survey was conducted, and how the results were assessed.  Special attention is given to the problem of traditional Chinese reticence to participate in surveys in general and the reluctance (for obvious reasons) of Christians in particular. 

Several findings are worthy of note.  In terms of demographics, Christianity is spreading rather evenly among their society.  Whether a respondent was from a rural area or urban area made no significant difference.  In addition, professing Christians were well represented among all ages.  But there were some differences.  Women were nearly twice as likely as men to profess Christ.  And those with higher education levels and higher incomes were more likely to be Christian.  A jarring (but unsurprising) exception to that finding was among those who belong to the Communist Party (who generally enjoy higher incomes).  No member of the Communist Party admitted to being a Christian.

What can we conclude about these findings?  On the upside, there is the simple fact that the church in China has grown from one million to 70 million.  A 70-fold increase in 60 years is remarkable by anyone’s reckoning.  It also means that in China there are more professing Christians than there are members of the Communist Party.  On the downside, 70 million is only 5% of the total population.  In other words, 95% of China is lost and need to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  The work in mainland China has just begun.  What an exciting day to be a Great Commission Christian!

[A side note: The parents of Dan Heimbach, senior professor of ethics at SEBTS, were missionaries in China when Mao Zedong came to power.  In fact, Dan was born during the Communist revolution.  After a period of house arrest he and his family were deported from the country.]

[Editor’s Note: This series of posts deals with the global context in its historical, social, cultural, political, economic, demographic, and religious dimensions in particular. We will provide book notices, book reviews, and brief essays on these topics. We hope that you will find this series helpful as you live and bear witness in a complex and increasingly hyper-connected world.]

About a year and a half has passed since the controversial reelection of Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The election and the protests that followed focused Americans’ attention on Iran in ways not seen since the hostage crisis some 30 years before. In The Ayatollahs’ Democracy: An Iranian Challenge, Hooman Majd helps to open America’s eyes to a country that many fear and know little about. Majd delves into the inner workings of the Iranian political system to show that the “Twitter Revolution” or “green revolution” was not a revolution (or the beginnings of one) at all: it was Iran’s “first real civil rights movement,” (43) and not a rejection of the Islamic ideals upon which the Republic was founded in 1979.

Majd’s belief that the occurrences that happened after the election were more of the beginnings of a civil rights movement than a revolution arises in part from his extensive contact with Iranians in country. Unlike many of the Iranian Diaspora, Majd, a US citizen born in Iran but educated in the West, travels frequently to Iran and knows people in high places in both the conservative and reformist camps. All the political players are committed to Shia Islam even those in the Green Movement. “Shiism, born out of a sense of injustice perpetuated by tyrants” Majd notes, is “central to the thought of the reformists who see power vested in the people but guided by the social system of Islam” (87), which, as Majd makes clear through summarizing Iran’s political system and weaving history into the discussion, is essential to understanding Iranian thought.

Majd notes that the idea of equality is essential to Iranians, which is why civil rights are important to the people. Protests occurred after the elections because Iranians believed that these rights were violated. This is also why the nuclear issue is important. Iranians of all stripes believe nuclear power is their right; a right they seem willing to sacrifice (even Ahmadinejad) if equal conditions are met. Ironically, Ahmadinejad’s defense of this right against the West has gained him respect even among those who despise him.

Much more could be said about The Ayatollahs’ Democracy. Majd’s interaction with America’s involvement with Iran betrays his politically liberal bias (though he does criticize all parties). Even this insight is helpful as his explanation is an accurate reflection of many (if not the majority) of Iranians’ perception of American politics. While not necessary, it would be helpful to read Majd’s first book, The Ayatollah Begs to Differ (reviewed on this site), before reading this one as Majd assumes that Westerners, Americans in particular, now, after the elections and protests, understand to some degree that Iran is not some monolithic terrorist country in which the entire population hates the United States; the opposite, in fact, is true. Finally, I should note that Majd’s language is a bit salty (nothing that one would not hear in any PG-13 movie, but it is worth noting).

Hooman Majd, The Ayatollahs’ Democracy: An Iranian Challenge (NY: Norton, 2010), 282 pages. ISBN: 978-0-393-07259-4. $26.95. Reviewed by Philip O. Hopkins.

Yonat Shimron has written a short article for the Raleigh News and Observer titled “Man On a Global Mission.” She focuses on President Akin’s personal zeal for the Great Commission, but she also provides an outsider’s perspective on the Great Commission Resurgence. I think its a pretty good piece, particularly for a secular periodical. If you are interested in knowing more about Dr. Akin’s burden and the heartbeat of Southeastern Seminary, I’d encourage you to read Shimron’s article.

by David Nelson

Returning from a trip overseas recently, I had one of those long layovers that was accompanied by the disappointment that I’d read every book I’d carried with me. That led me to the Borders bookstore in the Detroit airport where I picked up Dexter Filkins’ The Forever War.

The book has collected plenty of awards, so no one needs my review of the quality of the work. But it is excellent. It’s among the best war reporting I’ve ever read, from any war. Filkins, a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, has given us a series of vignettes about the US conflict against Islamic fundamentalism waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The book begins with an execution the author witnessed in Kabul in 1998, and carries us through 9/11 and Filkins’ tenure in the war in Iraq.

The Forgotten War is not even so much reporting about war (though it is that) as it is an account of living in and through a war. Filkins doesn’t give a sustained argument about the war, or a critique of it. Rather, this is an attempt – a successful one – to make us come to terms with the realities and consequences of war at the human level, with all its horror.

The book is a narrative of real people, not simply battles. People like politicians, soldiers, insurgents, and ordinary citizens. I had a visceral reaction to certain sections of the book. I was reminded that war really is hell, and Filkins helps us to grapple with the fact that war sometimes seems necessary, and it is always horrible, and sometimes simply absurd.

I appreciate the manner in which Filkins allows the stories to stand on their own, without feeling the need to provide ideological commentary or to make facile judgments about complex matters. He does the work of a real journalist, and does it very well.

I also appreciate the manner in which Filkins reminds us of the horror that is fundamentalism, whether religious, political, or otherwise. We see how fundamentalism always moves to extremes, and how it is dehumanizing, giving preference to ideology over humanity at every turn.

Filkins also helps us to appreciate from the ground level why nation building, in particular the notion of instituting a democracy in an Islamic context, is so difficult. 

In the end I recommend this book because it reminds us that war takes a very real human toll. It affects ordinary people in extraordinary ways, whether they are combatants of not. Filkins himself seems to be a casualty of this war, yet he has the strength to tell us the raw truth about a story that too many wish to retell for their own purposes.

Read this book if you want a sobering account of why we should all pray and work for peace in our day, and long for that day when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.”

I did not realize the full effect of the economic downturn upon our overseas work until this past month. I have travelled overseas since the events of the Fall of 2008 when the world economy began its decline, but I am seeing the cumulative effects of reduced Cooperative Program (CP) giving and a weakened US dollar in its stark reality now.

I should note that our overseas personnel are not the sort to grouse about all this, but the difficulties imposed upon them and the potentially negative impact of budget reductions are all too clear. Personnel reductions and cuts to strategy budgets are bound to decrease the extent to which the Great Commission work of the IMB will be accomplished.

I would never suggest that this limits God’s power to make His Name known among the nations. In fact, we may form a dependence upon the work of the Holy Spirit in ways that will bear much fruit due to our lack of resources. Nevertheless, our failure to consider the ramifications of reduced budgets is at least Pollyanna and is, more pointedly, a mark of foolishness.

I know of no one in our stateside congregations who fails to voice their support of our overseas work. It is the essence of what it is to be Southern Baptist: to unite together in a cooperative effort to send and support laborers to go to the nations. Or so we say. In fact, we say this without hesitation. But to say this is not enough. Not nearly enough.

At the risk of making some people very angry, let me lay out some facts:

• Of every dollar given by Southern Baptists to their local churches, 1-2 cents (depending on the state convention through which the funds are dispersed) ends up at the IMB.
• In the CP process by which funds move from the local church to the state convention to the SBC for dispersal to the various SBC agencies, the highest percentage that a state convention sends to the national convention (and therefore to the agencies, including the IMB) is about 50%, while most send 35-40%. (The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention and the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia lead the way in CP giving, and are to be commended for doing so.) 
• That is, most state conventions keep 60-65% of the funds given by those in SBC pews, and forward the remainder to the SBC.
• Most SBC churches keep 85-95% of the funds given by those who fill their pews for work in that church, forwarding 5-15% of those funds to the state convention (though some may give directly to the SBC, though they are not credited with CP giving if they do so. Yes, Virginia, that’s correct.)
• So, let’s say Widow Ellen gives $100 as a monthly offering in her local congregation. It would be typical for the church to use $90 for its own budget, while sending $10 to the state convention. The state will then keep, let’s say $6 and send $4 to Nashville. And the Executive Committee of the SBC will then disperse the funds to the various SBC entities, and the IMB will receive $2 of that $4.
• I’m not making this up. $2 of her $100 makes it to the cause that is the primary reason for the existence of the SBC in the first place. (Yes, I’m arguing that our forebears banded together to form a convention of churches for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission, primarily focused on sending laborers to the nations to spread the gospel.)

I realize I’ve irritated some folks at this point. And likely made some mad. I hope your indignation is directed where it should be. That is, I hope you’re indignant that such a paltry amount of the funds given by the people of the SBC make it to our international work. But I imagine that may not be the case with everyone.

Some like to point to the state conventions as the primary culprit in this state of affairs. To be sure, I hope our state convention leaders will join en masse to change their funding strategies (some already are), raising their contribution to the SBC to at least 50% and, I prefer, targeting 60-75% as a goal, depending on the needs in a given state or region (I think those state conventions in pioneer areas are justified in keeping a greater amount of funds for a period of time to support church planting in those areas). But I don’t want to pick on the state conventions alone. I want to pick on some of our churches.

One prominent church in the SBC recently embarked on a $130,000,000.00 building campaign. Yes, that is the right amount of zeros and the commas and decimals are correct. Several years ago I heard an SBC pastor bragging about his $70,000,000.00 building campaign. We build lavish (by any standards in the world they are lavish) worship centers, “family life” centers, and other buildings at every turn. I have to ask, in light of the fact that over 1.6 billion people have never heard of the name of Christ, do we really need such facilities?

This was brought home to me not too many years ago when I learned of a congregation on another continent that circulated a prayer request among some believers for a larger tree under which they could worship. That’s right. God had added to their number so significantly that they were beseeching God Almighty for a larger tree. Perhaps we should inform them that they should have a bit more faith and go for a family life center where they could play some racquetball or basketball while they take a break from the toil they endure just to stay alive.  

Yes, that was sarcasm in that last paragraph. And before you criticize me for that, we should realize that the Scriptures employ sarcasm as a way of communicating that some things are so absurd that sarcasm is a legitimate device to get our attention.

It’s time for our attention to be gotten. And it’s time for us to awaken to the commission of Jesus to carry the gospel to the ends of the earth. The accomplishment of that mission, the mission of God, does not rest on lavish buildings in the US (trust me, they really are lavish), nor immense state convention structures, nor grander buildings on seminary campuses. That mission will be fulfilled by sending laborers into the international fields. And if we have any sense about us and, let’s be honest, real devotion to our Lord, we’ll put our greatest amount of resources into the places where there is the greatest amount of need. And that typically isn’t in our stateside ministries.

This is a time when words aren’t enough. We say we support the Great Commission. But to say we support the Great Commission and then keep spending money on ourselves is to say that we don’t truly care about the Great Commission.

The real test of our commitment to the mission of God will be found in the extent to which we give (and get that money to those who carry the gospel overseas), pray, and ultimately send workers to the ends of the earth. Words aren’t enough, Southern Baptists. They simply aren’t enough.