“Common Ground” or Common Deception?
Posted by
Our podcast this week seems to have stirred up some folks, yet there has been no meaningful refutation offered of the basis for all this consternation, specifically Dr. Ergun Caner’s claim that use of the Camel Method by our International Mission Board is deceptive and that the method contains heresy. Admittedly, I’m no expert on these matters; others are far more able to speak to the specifics of what the Camel Method is and what it teaches. For example, our friend and former contributor, Dr. Bart Barber, wrote a lengthy series of posts, which can be found by clicking here, and ultimately concluded that the Camel method is deceptive and in error.
As I understand it, the Camel Method is part of a larger missiological movement known as “Common Ground.” As it relates to evangelism among Muslims, I suppose the name speaks for itself. Today I came across a guest post on the blog Biblical Missiology. It was written by a Christian from a Muslim background, and I was fascinated by his perspective on this “Common Ground” movement. Particularly intriguing to me were the questions he asked regarding the so-called “converts” that result from this approach. Here is his paragraph containing those questions:
And so following some years in closeness with Common Ground movement, still there were a lot of unresolved questions within myself! Should CMBs (Christians from a Muslim Background) continue to attend mosques and would that be helpful for them? If that is the situation what happens after the Islamic congregation understands there are some different Muslims in their congregation? Will they tolerate, expel or persecute them? Where will they get their true spiritual nourishment? Perhaps they will meet in home groups in addition to attending mosque, but for how long that situation will last? What about church planting since they are supposed to stay within the Islamic culture and religion, will it be established at some point the Christian community or such a thing is not necessary? What about their identity, is it like Christian with Christians and Muslims with Muslims? Who are going to be their true brothers and sisters, Muslims or Christians or both of them? Is there any compromise in all of that? These were some questions I faced and am quite sure most of these believers do go through.
The entire post can be accessed by clicking here, and I encourage readers to take the time to read about the experiences of this former Muslim who believes that this deceptive approach is doing more harm than good.
37 Comments
February 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Brother Wes,
I am glad you are continuing to cover this topic.
As I had mentioned in the previous post…. Dr. William (Bill) Barrick has an MP3 worth the listen, where he explains the importance of establishing a relationship built on truth and honor with the Muslim. In too many attempts today,….sharing the gospel of God with a Muslim can be through deceptive means and short of biblical content. Barrick explains the pitfalls very well that results from using deceptive means, and how critical it is to simply read the scriptures. Muslims will listen, when approached in a manner consistent with their lives, and will allow the biblical scriptures to be read in the Mosque as well. The approach to a Muslim is not one without honor and respect for scripture. How that is accomplished is critical to being heard.
A way to get to the MP3 is through the Shepherd’s Fellowship (no fee required) if you want to listen to the seventy minute teaching. It is well worth the listen, and contains much more than the outline.
Here’s the link: https://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/SignUp.aspx
The .pdf outline can be found here: http://audio.gracechurch.org/sc/2009notes/Barrick,%20The%20Gospel%20According%20to%20Mohammed.pdf
Blessings,
Chris
February 5th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Thanks for the links, Chris. I’ll see about getting that audio to my iPod.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Brother Wes,
Um, the basis for all of this consternation is that one brother accused “our” entire mission board of “teaching heresy.” That is quite a charge… one worthy of discipline and withdrawal of fellowship… but apparently no one really believes teaching this particular heresy is all that dangerous or we would see folks cutting funding to the IMB over it, or, in your case, at the very least urging young pastors and seminarians not to get involved with those who teach heresy. The consternation, at least on my part, has nothing whatsoever to do with Brother Ergun’s opinion that the Camel Method is “not good” or “less than ideal” or “serious error”… rather, it is that he accused our brothers and sisters of “teaching heresy” and those who agree and not reacting in a way that is at all appropriate for such a dangerous thing as heresy.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
February 6th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Brothers, I believe that the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ among Moslems is among the greatest needs in our day. This fact alone demonstrates the relevance and importance of this topic and your post.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
For an extensive, comprehensive, and cutting edge article on the heretical nature of C5 see this link.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Below is a link to one of the Camel Method tracts. This should make it pretty clear where they stand.
The IMB has formally condemned C5, so it seems to me that now all the insider types that they support are now vehemently claiming to be C4. I see this as nothing more than an attempt to keep their funding. If you want to know what they really believe, read their material below.
A few things to notice in the tract:
1. How much the Qur’an is quoted, with specific references, and how readers are encouraged to find a Qur’an in their language (pg 3)
2. How little the Bible is quoted, often without even a reference to which book or whose words the verse is.
3. Sonship of Christ is entirely missing.
4. Muhammad is a prophet, about whom they incessantly say “peace be upon him”
5. Isa is a prophet, about whom they do not even once say “peace be upon him”
6. Jesus is portrayed as scapegoat-saviour, but not as Lord.
7. Their goal is to create “Pakka Muslims” (true, or completed Muslims), not Christians.
8. There is no call to repentance or holiness.
9. The main conclusion is “if you want to go to heaven, say this prayer and Allah will put your sins on the prophet Isa” The tract ends with this:
“Today you, too, can become a Pakka Muslim. All you have to do is to believe that Allah gave the korban for you, substituting Isa for you. Stop now, hold your hands up before you, and humbly tell Allah that you receive His korban and thank Him for placing on Isa the punishment for your guilt and sins. In this way, Allah will forgive you of your sin and remove its curse from you. When you are cleansed of your sins, then you can go to be with Allah after you die. You can now live your life in peace knowing that after death you can go directly to be with Allah.”
My analysis is that they are advocating a superstitious belief that the Prophet Isa can give you a free ticket to paradise. This fits in great with the multitude of “folk-islamic” beliefs and superstitions that permeate the uneducated masses, but it’s not the true gospel. It’s disgusting how they are deceiving ignorant Muslims by twisting the Qur’an to say things that contradict itself.
C5 or not, this is heresy. Heresy, while a strong term, is exactly what this is.
Here is where you can find their tract: http://www.camelmethod.com/downloads/Ruhullah_English_eBook.pdf
February 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Brother FME,
Brother Wes has eloquently explained to you in a previous comment stream that we will not abandon the IMB. We remain fully committed to the IMB and her mission. We do not agree one bit with the teaching of the Camel Method because it is syncretism at best. As our Brother Mark has revealed the Camel Method track is not a “bridge” as some espouse. Any method that calls for a “complete Muslim” is no bridge but a evangelistic tract that calls someone accepting the Isa of the Koran to be the same as the Jesus of the Scripture. We will continue to support our M’s on the field we just do not support the leadership allowing the Camel Method to be the apparatus used to present the Gospel.
Brother Joie,
Great link. I encourage everyone to look at that link for “The Straight Path”. It really presents the C5 in its true light.
Brother Mark,
Good word and great presentation of this system promoted by the IMB leadership.
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 12:46 am
I know of this tract and it’s results first hand in the country where I serve. It is clearly pre-evangelism. The small green booklet is the Camel Method tract. A missionary in the same country reported the following story…
Zulf Fakar was handed a small green booklet by a stranger that looked similar to him one afternoon. The pamphlet had some Arabic writing on the front followed by another 20 pages telling who Jesus was in terms that a Muslim understands along with verses telling truth about Jesus from their Koran. This all happened 15 months ago. After reading the booklet, he began to read in his holy book, the Koran, that Jesus had a special birth, did miracles, was sinless, died on the cross, will come again to judge the world, and is a mighty prophet (all in the Koran!). His heart began to burn. Days later a believer who was a Muslim previously, shared with Zulf Fakar about the love of God in sending Jesus. His life was changed. He and his family took baptism in spite of troubles and their life took on new meaning. His wife and three daughters all embraced his new faith long with him.
Several months went by and different members in the community began to warn Zulf to be quiet and not to share this new faith that is against Islamic beliefs. But Zulf never stopped, in fact even last week some men came to his home and strongly threatened him that if he didn’t stop, “serious consequences would follow”. He responded by telling them, that “even if you kill me I know that I will go to be with Jesus”. Two day ago in the market in a small remote village, 10-12 men gathered around Zulf and began to beat him with sticks, he died and the angels of heaven went wild rejoicing that one so precious would not bow his knee before the pressures in this world and renounce his new faith. Zulf is survived by his wife Zabia and three young daughters. There are now four other families that believe in the village but they are very afraid.”
An MBB Martyr
February 9th, 2010 at 5:24 am
Brother Richard,
Thank you for your account of this modern-day Martyr for the Gospel. I am honored that you would share this account and my heart breaks for the family that has lost a father. Praise God for the other villagers that received salvation because of the testimony of this Martyr. This is a heart moving story and it is very powerful.
This still does not remove the fact that the Camel Method contains heretical principles. As has been stated earlier the Jesus of the Koran is not the same Jesus of the Scriptures. The Allah Koran is not the same Yahweh of the Scriptures. Even the Muslims know there is a difference
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Richard,
I don’t think we’re saying that the Holy Spirit can’t use the Camel method. He has. The Holy Spirit has also used Mormonism, Jehovah Witnessism, Islam, Koran, and Satanism to bring people to a point of lostness and then stirs in them a desire to seek him.
The question we should be asking is whether or not we are directly giving glory to God through all things we do. Not alluding to His glory, or mixing His glory with lies of other false glories, but truly being clear of who God is and giving Him glory through that.
The Camel method is confusing at best. At worst, it’s another man-made strategy to force something that only God is meant to create.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Tim & Mark,
I appreciate your comments and take your words to heart. The leader of the movement connected to Zulk Fakar stated that they went from a handful of MBBs (Muslim background believers) to more than 1200 MBBs in only 8 months after receiving the Camel Method training. The Camel training is clear about it’s intent…it is a bridge that connects with the most prideful and pre-programed (brainwashed may be too strong of a word to use here) people on the face of the planet. It’s like being a missionary to the Pharisees. The Camel book says something like (not exact quote)…”after you have completed the Camel method with a Muslim, he still has not heard the Gospel.” It’s a point of contact, a bridge.
Then a plan of salvation is given which is called “the Korban Plan of Salvation” which comes directly from Hebrews 9 & 10 in which the writer of Hebrews explains the meaning behind the sacrificial system. Dr. P. Patterson said that this presentation is “brilliant”. Muslims still practice this sacrificial system each year. They say they are following Abraham’s example when doing the sacrifice. The Korban plan of salvation connects the dots and gives a clear presentation of God’s plan for Jesus to be the once and for all sacrifice to pay for our sin.
Blessings,
Richard
February 9th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Tim & Mark,
An open letter is being circulated which I will post here. I appreciate those willing to investigate deeper into their concerns. We need more fruit inspectors to make sure per-evangelistic and evangelistic methods do not lead to syncretism. Americans may hear the Camel bridge presentation one way and Muslims may be hearing it differently. Only one way to discover the answer…
Richard
——————-
September 23, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
Greetings. I am an SIM (Serving in Mission) “Missionary-at-large,” presently based in Charlotte, NC. My wife and I served in Bangladesh from 1962 to 1982. We had extremely close working relationships with IMB folk, whom I hold in highest regard. Jim McKinley is one of the most dedicated missionaries I have ever met anywhere. From 1984 to 2006 Julie and I served in the Philippines among Muslims.
One of the most exciting new tools to enhance outreach among Muslims is Kevin Greeson’s Camel. I am totally supportive of this approach and feel Kevin is postulating a methodology that is biblically conservative as well as contextually appropriate. As recent as July, I required this book as a text in my class on Islam at Columbia International University. The students were 100 percent enthused with the postulates set forth in Camel, and were committed to implementation of the strategy where contextually appropriate in the countries where they labor.
There has been some confusion concerning whether Camel represents a C5 position: i.e., have Muslim Background Believers (MBBs) remain in the mosque, say the Islamic creed, delete “Son of God” from New Testament translations, and call themselves Muslims without qualifier. I was on the 2005 IMB survey team in Bangladesh and saw no evidence whatsoever of C5 in any of the IMB-related ministry. I personally interviewed 72 MBBs in Bengali and each one gave a clear profession of faith. On the scale developed by John Travis, the work is C4, which is what I have practiced and taught since 1975. I am sorry that some folk have felt my Evangelical Missions Quarterly articles were concerned about a Camel-type approach. Not true. My concern is C5, of which I saw and heard nothing in my Bangladesh visit and see no evidence of in Camel.
It would be my heartfelt desire that this controversy over Camel not be used by Satan to distract IMB from the new, exciting direction they have taken in Muslim outreach. This is a kairos moment in evangelistic opportunity. IMB has personnel and resources that can be extremely effective in bringing Muslims to the feet of Jesus.
With warm appreciation….
A Fellow Baptist,
Phil Parshall
February 9th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Richard,
Actually it’s quite humorous. I have spoken with Kevin Greeson and he gave me this exact letter from Phil Parshall, as though it was some papal statement. My concern is not how other missionaries may support, or not support what someone may be doing or not be doing. My concern is giving God direct and unadulterated glory for who He is. I do not question their intentions. I question their judgement. The mission has become their God, which, we as ambitious men, so easily do. I myself have made the mission more important than the glory of God without realizing it. This is why these discussions are important, because we need to call one another back to the centrality and sovereignty and glory of God the Father, Son & Spirit.
Anything we may do, whether well intentioned or not, needs to be asked the question: “Can anyone clearly see glory being given to the one True God (not mistaken for a false one)?” The concept of bridge is very concerning to me, because there is no such thing. Man cannot build bridges. Christ is the only bridge. Anything but Christ, and who Christ really is (Not the islamic form of Isa no matter how similar he may be), are simply bridges to no where.
Do Muslims get saved? Of course, but through the Holy Spirit, not through the camel method or any other man-made or man-centric strategy. Do some Muslims get confused and mix Jesus with their current ideology and remain unsaved? Yes they do, and not only Islam. Look around the world of cults. Do numbers prove the work of the Holy Spirit. Not they do not. Again, look at the cults of the world. Islam itself, being a lie and deception of Satan and man has grown strong without the Holy Spirit.
All that is known, is the biblical strategy that we are called to glorify God; Father, Son, & Spirit, through the worship and spreading of His renown for the purposes of His glory. Paul never contextualized to the point of confusion. He never ever contextualized the gospel. He only contextualized the culture to the gospel. And he always presented the gospel fully at the same time he contextualized (See Mars Hill). He never did pre-evangelism, and then at some point later followed up.
We have over thought missions, and forgotten missions isn’t about saving the lost. It’s about glorifying God. God saves the Lost, Missions doesn’t.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“He never ever contextualized the gospel. He only contextualized the culture to the gospel.”
What are the four gospels if they are not a contextualized approach?
Why did Paul shave his head acts 18:18
Why did Paul change his vocabulary at the areopagus?
Why did Paul claim to be “all things” to all people.
What is the incarnation if it is not God contextualizing his “Word” in a way which we could comprehend [ie, someone we could follow, see, hear, etc]
You might want to check your statement out more before taking such a hard stance which is clearly in violation of scripture.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I stick by what I said.
None of those are contextualization of the gospel.
They are contextualizing culture to the gospel.
The Matthew, Luke, Mark, John are all displaying the gospel clearly. The gospel is not contextualized. While it’s a fine point, it is a point that the gospel, Word of God, is unchangeable, and perhaps you think they are contextualized, they are in fact, thee gospel.
Paul shaved his head not as an act of contextualizing the gospel. But to humble himself before the others and follow the old testament law of cleanliness.
Paul spoke in greek to greeks, but immediately shared the gospel in a clear and precise manner in a way that those around clearly understood what he was talking about and what he wasn’t talking about.
All things to all people is probably the most mis-quote verse by missionaries.
Read it again, in context. 1 Corinthians 9
The question is what does “All” mean? Does it indeed mean all? Absolutely not. It means all permissible things. Obviously Paul is not going to become a homosexual, to reach homosexuals, or a murderer to reach murderers, or a liar to reach liars. Paul is certainly able to imitate the law, because the law wasn’t a lie. He is just not demanded to be under it anymore. He is free from it. Some missionaries have become “Muslim” using this exact verse. Islam is not a Holy faith. It is not true. It is a lie. Salvation does not rest in it, nor comes out of it. It is death. Would Paul become a Muslim? Absolutely not, because it’s not permissible under Christ’s law. At no point does Christ give us the right to fall into idolatry.
As for Christ becoming incarnate that is part of the gospel. When you’re God, I’ll allow you to judge what is glorifying contextualization or not. Until then, I suggest you stick to what we are called and commanded to do and obey. Go out, and preach the pure gospel, and glorify God through it, for His names sake.
We are not commanded to go out and become like sinners. We are commanded the opposite. We are called to go out to sinners and love, and reach out to them for God’s glory. But you’re mixing reaching out to the lost, and becoming lost itself.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Brother Richard,
Your argument is that people are getting saved so it must be working. But you also classify the believers as MBB. are they Christ Followers or are they re-packaged individuals that will accept pluralistic religious practices? Do MBB’s leave their mosque or do they remain in the mosque and continue to bow to the Allah of the Koran?
Also, you reference the Camel Method as being a bridge. Could you, from scripture, explain a bridge used to bring people to a point of later, hearing the gospel?
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Rastis,
There’s a huge difference in Paul shaving his head, and in someone giving credence to Mohammed as being a true prophet of God, that we’d say,”Peace be upon him.” What about 2 John 1:7-11? There’s a huge difference in wearing a turbin and a robe, instead of jeans and a t-shirt; and getting on a mat 5 times a day…facing Mecca…and acting like you’re praying to the same God. What about Daniel? What about Meshech, Shadrach, and Abednego? Did they eat the King’s food? Did they bow down to the false god?
David
February 9th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Mark,
“They are contextualizing culture to the gospel.”
What does that even mean? Can you give some kind of example of this to help us understand what you are saying here?
I am sorry you persist; you err. It seems that you have included the notion that to contextualize is to confuse or to misconstrue the gospel and thus you reject contextualization. Contextualization does not stand in opposition to clear gospel presentation. Quite the opposite. The purpose of contextualization is make sure the hearers are understanding the gospel, cutting through the “noise” of culture.
In regards to the 4 gospels, I agree that only one gospel is told. But the point remains that it is told in four different ways. The audiences of Matthew and John are drastically different. Thus, their approach is different. Why is it that Matthew starts with a genealogy and focuses on the OT messiah and John opens with a philosophical adage?
We can talk about how Paul and others chose to contextualize and how far they would or wouldn’t go, but to deny that they did it at all is biblically naive and factually incorrect. The gospel is never naked of any culture. Either we put it into the target culture, or we are simply importing our own culture and no the gospel at all.
Here is an example. There is a missionary down in Mexico who talks about short term trips coming in and and going out to evangelize. They come back with reports of thousands of “conversions.” They were using the basic western presentation which called for “receiving Christ.” While they thought they had seen an acts like movement, they had simply said something that the local catholics misunderstood. The missionaries and the locals had two different meanings for the same sets of words. If they had studied culture and local religion, they would have been able to put the gospel into terms that wouldn’t have actually affirmed what the locals already believed.
Concerning “all things,” Paul defined how he used it. Comparing adopting cultures to adopting sins [homosexuality] is tenuous and demonstrates either a basic misunderstanding of the text or a willing misrepresentation.
Go to the scriptures without your ethnocentric presuppositions and the scriptures will surprise you and make you uncomfortable.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
David,
You are presenting a false dichotomy. I agree those two things are not alike. I am not arguing that they are. I am simply saying that one cannot claim with any biblical veracity that Paul did not contextualize in any way shape or form.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Rastis,
You said, “The purpose of contextualization is make sure the hearers are understanding the gospel, cutting through the “noise” of culture.”
I’m sorry. that is the job of the Holy Spirit. Not your job, not mine.
We can’t cut through any conjuration of man’s sin.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Mark,
One of the “noises” of culture is language [Although I am pretty sure that language choice is not a sin, I do welcome the Spirit's help here]. I assume you believe in speaking to people in their language? That is a form of contextualization. The very fact that the NT is in Greek rather than Aramaic is a demonstration that at least in part, the writers contextualized. You are really painting yourself into a corner here.
Again, we can talk about biblical vs unbiblical contextualization or contextualization vs syncretism, but to flatly deny that contextualization is valid and biblical in any sense of the word is as rational as insisting that we should all learn Aramaic and move to the holy land, and live like first century Jews–which, ironically, is the first culture into which the gospel was contextualized…
February 9th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Brother Rastis,
I do not believe Brother Mark is trying to “flatly deny that contextualization is valid and biblical”. His point is that Scripture is the cultural crossing point not man made bridges.
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Rastis,
It is obvious you read into my statements your own agenda. I didn’t say contextualization in all forms is unbiblical. I said contextualizing the gospel, i.e. changing the gospel to match culture is unbiblical, and more often than not created syncretistic views, whether small or large.
What is permissible is contextualizing people to the culture of the Kingdom of God, i.e. the gospel. In other words bringing them, and their views into alignment with the gospel.
The problem lies, bringing the gospel into alignment with culture, and brining culture into alignment with the gospel are two different things, but often confused and there is a fine line that we must always watch and be careful of.
Another common misconception is the deifying of culture itself. Culture, and the root of it is sinful. Man created culture to deal with the sinfulness of the world. The only sinless culture is the culture of the kingdom of heaven, of which we are not a part of yet. We, as believers, are continually being sanctified, a.k.a. acculturated into the Kingdom.
It is the last resort of anyone to personally attack the other on things that cannot change. You call me ethno-centric. Sadly, I am, but so are you. We are all stuck in the mire of our own cultures. Anyone who denies this calls himself a liar. The goal though, is to be transformed by the gospel into Kingdom culture thinking, and being less and less identified with our earthly and sinful culture, and come into alignment with that of the KIngdom of God.
This is ONLY done by the power of the Holy Spirit. No work of man can pull himself out of this mire.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Brother Richard, (comment #11)
Concerning “the Korban Plan of Salvation”. You said Dr. P. Patterson said that this presentation is “brilliant”. I usually let stuff go if it is easily found that a leader in our convention endorses something. However, you have attributed an endorsement of Dr. Patterson to a plan I have not found he advocates. Could you clarify where Dr. Patterson has endorsed the Korban Plan of Salvation with the term \”brilliant\”?
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Brother Tim,
You said:
Dr Rankin said:
You ready to let it go… or is this one of those unusual cases?
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself on that one!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
February 9th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Tim,
you wrote, “Your argument is that people are getting saved so it must be working. But you also classify the believers as MBB. are they Christ Followers or are they re-packaged individuals that will accept pluralistic religious practices? Do MBB’s leave their mosque or do they remain in the mosque and continue to bow to the Allah of the Koran?”
Good questions, but I do not remember saying, “people are getting saved so it must be working.” Only the Holy Spirit has the power to save. Qur’anic bridging is one of many ways to connect with Muslims when your first approach them. Evangelism Explosion and FAITH contain conversation openers that get us talking about the Gospel. We give these programs credit for helping us engage the lost, but not credit to save.
MBBs are baptized Christ followers. They leave the mosque and form churches. They worship the God and Jesus of the Bible.
The C5 approach involves a long process of relationship building before sharing the Gospel. IMB missionaries that I know use a quick bridge when meeting a new Muslim and they share the Gospel before parting ways. This is the Camel Method. This falls within the C4 camp.
Richard
February 9th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Brothers FTME and Richard,
First, this will be a quick response as I am trying to outline sermons so I can get far enough ahead to debate these issues you you guys. You are really tasking me, if “tasking” can be used as a verb.
Brother FTME,
You make the very point with Dr. Rankin’s quote that, I believe, this post has been advocating all along–Jesus is the only bridge into the Muslim world, not some secretive whisper of Allah into a Camel’s ear. And his quote goes on to attribute the Camel Method as being the Gospel. “A Gospel Bridge”=the Gospel. The Cross of Jesus is the only bridge adequate of reaching into the Muslim culture.
Brother Richard,
You cannot compare the EE and FAITH ice breaking speaking points with the Camel Method. First, at no time does either give validity to another religious practice, or even an agnostic or atheist’s belief system. The Camel Method presents the Koran with as much authority as Scripture. At no time in EE or FAITH does the evangelist express that we are all speaking about the same God just different cultures of belief. So, your comparison, I believe is lacking in substance.
Thank God that MBB’s are Christ followers who leave their mosque’s and form churches. Could you express to me what a “completed Muslim” is?
Blessings,
Tim
February 9th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Brother Tim,
I have no interest whatsoever in discussing whether the Camel Method is or is not valid – I, personally, do not like it.
But I will take your answer to indicate that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to “let it go” with Dr Rankin’s endorsement.
Wow, now we have a convention leader endorsing the teaching of heresy.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
February 9th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Tim,
Can you help me understand what statements in the Camel Method gives the Koran as much authority as Scripture? All I am seeing are three main points about Jesus that jump off the pages of the Koran and points Muslims for the first time in their lives to see a non-Koranic Jesus (only Jesus is Holy, Jesus is God, only He has power/authority over death, Jesus died according to the plan of God, Jesus is the way to heaven) (I have the Camel book sitting beside me). These are the points of the Camel Method and they leap far beyond the teachings of the Koran. It appears to be a clear and intentional springboard action (starting where they are and taking them on a journey) that bounces beyond from the Koran and into the Bible. In a matter of minutes, not days/weeks/months, the Korbani Plan of Salvation is shared.
Obviously, we are only talking about the beginning stage, one segement, of a hopeful long discussion about who Jesus really is (according the Bible). You seem to be making the Camel Method an end all experience. Greeson makes it clear that this is a bridge to a long journey. It is only the beginning. Those who want to know more about Jesus will stay with you. Those who don’t, move on.
It is not an easy claim for Muslims to grasp, “Jesus is God.” Stepping stones are needed, not a fire hydrant approach.
Here is a quote from the Camel book that illustrates the stepping stone approach and incorporates Scripture. “Say (to your Muslim friend), ‘When I read the Before Books’…I find over 300 prophecies about Isa spoken by the prophets. For example, I found one (verse) that was written over 700 years before the birth of Isa which says, ‘Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him ‘Immanuel.’ (Isaiah 7:14) Explain to him (your Muslim friend) that in the Hebrew language, the name Immanuel means God with us. In this way you are continuing to sow in him the truth that Isa and Allah are one.” p. 137
I know that you will not like it that Greeson uses “Isa” and “Allah”, but here is clear example, straight from the book, that demonstrates the boldness of pushing a Muslim far beyond the Koran. They hear Scriptures such as these for the first time. What a great way of introducing and inviting a Muslim to the Bible!
Richard
February 9th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
FTME,
If we have a convention leader endorsing heresy, then that’s what we have. No one is perfect. I’ve often found people endorsing things, having totally ignored an unbiblical, or anti-biblical aspect of it.
We are all human. Part of this discussion is creating a process to provoke discussion and thought as to the basis of such things.
If enough people bring the Camel method’s problems to the attention of the ‘endorsers’ I’m sure you’ll see an about face.
I know I’ve endorsed things before, and on second thought, realized, I had erred. God is forgiving. People are less so.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Brother Richard,
Allow me to take your example in the stepping stones to explain to you my concerns. Of course, the link to Dr. Bart Barber’s articles in the original article will help understanding my concern.
Here is a quote from the Camel book that illustrates the stepping stone approach and incorporates Scripture. “Say (to your Muslim friend), ‘When I read the Before Books’…I find over 300 prophecies about Isa spoken by the prophets. For example, I found one (verse) that was written over 700 years before the birth of Isa which says, ‘Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him ‘Immanuel.’ (Isaiah 7:14) Explain to him (your Muslim friend) that in the Hebrew language, the name Immanuel means God with us. In this way you are continuing to sow in him the truth that Isa and Allah are one.” p. 137
The “prophecies about Isa”. Who is Isa for a Muslim? It is not the Jesus of the Bible. What has happened is the “Before Books” spoken of in the Muslim Tradition is does not hold the authority of the Koran. Isa of the Koran is a created being, not God. These stepping stones are not sowing a truth, but giving validity to a heretical book called the Koran.
Blessings,
Tim
February 10th, 2010 at 7:37 am
I wish someone would truly answer my comment and question in comment #17.
David
February 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
David,
What can I say? I totally agree with you.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Tim,
re 22
I only took issue with the statement he made which said:
“He never ever contextualized the gospel. He only contextualized the culture to the gospel.”
The first part of that is unbiblical. The latter part is just nonsensical.
David
re 33
The reference in 2 John does not contradict the concept of contextualization. Again, we can talk about what constitutes biblical vs unbiblical contextualization but we cannot say that contextualizing the gospel is wrong since this is what the early writers and apostles did. One can affirm biblical contextualization without telling people to go to mosque and pray. Many people who critique the Camel try to throw the baby out with the bath water. That is dangerous and unproductive.
Regarding Daniel: he, like Paul, put limits on how far he would go. Paul would be as under the law to the Jew, though not actually under the law, and as without the law to the Greek, though not actually lawless. Daniel was willing to conform to his culture in many ways, not the least of which included taking for his name the name of a pagan deity, studying the occultic philosophy, and [becoming a eunuch]… Though arguably that last one was probably against his will… All of those would be very stigmatic for a Jew.
He drew the line at violating the law and idolatry.
We are in agreement that there needs to be boundaries on contextualization. The common misunderstanding in this comments stream is that contextualization is being defined as syncretism. They are two distinct categories. While overcontextualization can lead to syncretism, undercontextualization can do the same.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Mark,
I have no agenda. I don’t use the camel or even the c scale. I responded to your statements as you gave them. You said that Paul never contextualized the gospel. That is not biblically faithful. You are simply interpreting the Bible through the lenses of your 1) wrong definition of terms [primarily "contextualization" "culture" and "ethnocentric"] and 2) misunderstanding of culture, its roots and its nature.
I don’t know about “deifying” culture. The only people I know who come close to that are people who are so afraid of foreign cultures that they naively present the gospel through their home culture–though they would claim that they don’t.
I am not ethnocentric in so far as I can help it; I am contextual… When my ethnocentrism is exposed, I repent. But then it appears that we are using different definitions of ethnocentric.
To all,
As I really don’t have a dog in this fight since I don’t use the camel or c scale, I will leave the last word to you guys [unless someone asks me something specifically]. I only want to encourage folks to be discerning so that we do not hold positions which are both untenable biblically and unproductive to the advancement of the kingdom.
February 13th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
After 35 years of warning against the contextualizing movement, after being shunned for my strong stand and being called a hater of Muslims and judgmental, finally people are listening. It was not until the movement started crossing the line that Bible believing leaders have started to wake up. I so appreciate the leadership of the IMB for taking a stand against the C5, now I pray they will be more specific and ban the Camel Method and anything that resembles the Common Ground.
“For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?(II Corinthians 6:14)
Common Ground is an affront to the Cross and a shameful denial of Jesus who died to rescue us from the claws of Satan who is the deceiver. Only Satan could have devised such an ingenious religion as Islam that purports to believe in God and Christ and at the same time denies his Fatherhood and the redemptive work of Christ. How can darkness be a bridge to light? How can falsehood (the Quran) lead to the Truth? Put the Quran aside and take up your Bible and find out for yourselves the power of God’s word to bring light into darkness and rescue the lost from the pit of hell. A limited quoting of the Quran is fine as long as the core of our message is from the Bible. Camel Method leans heavily on the Quran and uses the Bible very little.
Our training program will equip workers in using the Bible not the Quran to call Muslims (the other sheep) to the fold (John 10:16) We will show the appropriate use of the Quran without reinterpreting it and deceptively making it say what it does not say.
Please check out: http://engagingislam.org and read more articles on http://biblicalmissiology.org.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:41 pm
rastis asked, “Why did Paul claim to be ‘all things’ to all people?” I put my reasons HERE.
Is it good to see the continued challenges raised to methods based on the wisdom of men rather than the foolishness of the gospel.