Archive for Camel Method
Podcast Episode 24
Posted by: | Comments
Today on our podcast, we are joined once again by Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. In this episode we talk with Dr. Caner about recent events, comments he has made and comments which have been made about him.
Listen to the podcast by using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the image in this post or the link in the sidebar. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can improve the podcast, and we’d also appreciate a review or a rating on our iTunes page. Thanks for listening.
Enhanced Podcast: “Common Ground” or Common Deception?
Posted by: | Comments
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.
Podcast Episode 21
Posted by: | CommentsTimid. Reserved. Reticent. All of these are fine adjectives, and none of them describe our guest on this week’s podcast. Dr. Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, joins us for a conversation that ranges from apologetics to camels to task forces. Also this week, we welcomed our newest team member at SBC Today, David Worley, though he found out it’s difficult to get a word in edgewise. He’ll be more prepared next week, I’m sure.
Listen to the podcast using the player below, or visit our iTunes page to subscribe. A click on the link in the sidebar (or on the image in this post) will take you there, and while you’re at it, write us a review or give us a rating. And as always, we welcome your comments here on issues we discuss or on how we can improve the podcast. Thanks for listening.
Links to items discussed:
A Theologian’s Response to Contextualization
Posted by: | CommentsDr. Fred Smith, Associate Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, has penned, at our request, a response to a recent post on another blog. We are grateful to Dr. Smith for his work on this article.
More than a Prophet: A response to “My Pilgrimage” on SBCImpact
by Dr. Fred Smith
Associate Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, VA
The recent SBCImpact article, “My Pilgrimage,” attempts to offer a testimony in “contextualized form” designed to appeal to Muslims. The anonymous author of this piece admits that some of the terminology “may not be everyday language for many readers.” Indeed much of what he writes is startling, even if it were biblical.
However, this author, in his zeal to contextualize the truth, sacrifices way too much. The ideal of contextualization is to present the gospel in terms which the hearers will understand and so be able to make an informed decision about trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The challenge of contextualization is to find a way to do this without changing the basic message. Unfortunately, this author, an IMB Missionary, crosses that line. He moves from contextualizing to changing the gospel message itself. The end result is a false gospel, not merely the “old message in a new form.”
Principles of Contextualization
Posted by: | CommentsLest you think that nothing else happened at the trustee meeting of the International Mission Board earlier this week, we are pleased to offer for your consideration and critique five “principles of contextualization” adopted by trustees at the meeting. A quick reading will show that these are at least partly a response to concerns raised about the Camel Method. Do they do the job?
PRINCIPLES OF CONTEXTUALIZATION
- We affirm that the Bible is the only infallible text that exists. It is appropriate to evaluate all other books by the Bible. We encourage our personnel to search the Scriptures daily to see whether the principles presented by any text or teacher are true (Acts 17:11). Content that is in accord with biblical truth should be embraced. What is contrary to sound doctrine should be rejected.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
_________________________
Notes
- In John Travis’ spectrum of contextualization, C-4 would be the extent of indigenization accpetable for IMB personnel (“The C1 to C6 Spectrum.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34. [4]:407-408).
- 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.
- 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.
Drifting Away From Our Mission
Posted by: | CommentsI am currently preaching through the book of Genesis. It is probably one of my favorite books of the Bible, because it displays the drama of God’s unending love for his creation in the face of willful disobedience and rebellion.
In studying chapter two of Genesis I came across a profound thought from Walter Brueggemann. While not always agreeing with his analysis, I did notice something I was in partial agreement with. In looking at Gen 2:15-17, he states, “Human beings before God are characterized by vocation (cultivating and protecting the garden), permission (enjoying the blessings of God), and prohibition (Trusting him out of obedience).” (Bold parenthesis, my additions to original quote)
While I agree with him on these points, I believe he left out one vital characteristic of humans before God: community (encouragement and accountability between brothers and sisters in Christ). Before humanity can gain the proper perspective on any of these four characteristics, they must have their relationship with God restored. This can only be done by a personal encounter with Jesus Christ that is defined by the acceptance of the Savior and His Lordship.
In expanding Brueggemann’s thought further, how can our convention keep these four characteristics together?
In vocation, churches have been called to propagate the gospel by means of the Great Commission. In doing this, we cooperate with each other. We find in the Genesis account of the Garden, Adam’s and Eve’s failure to protect it from outside enemies, namely the serpent (satan). The serpent brought doctrinal error into the Garden, thus leading Adam and Eve to disobey God. We not only cooperate in sending missionaries, we also cooperate in protecting this endeavor from doctrinal error.
In permission (having access to all the trees in the garden including the tree of life, i.e. authority), God has given us the authority and abundant blessings of His Word and Spirit in achieving our vocation of the Great Commission. When we turn from the abundant resources found in His Word along with His Spirit and seek pragmatic solutions that focus on unbiblical practices, we show our rejection of God’s generous goodness. We no longer work under God’s authority. In other words, we seek that which God prohibits which is outside of His authority. By staying away from what God prohibits, we show our trust in Him and the authority he has given us rather than trusting in ourselves to accomplish the mission.
Finally, the Great Commission was not meant to be carried out by isolated individuals. Christian community is not defined by isolation. William Carey had the prayers and financial support of churches in Britain to carry him to India. Today, missionaries of the Southern Baptist Convention have not only the prayers and financial support of cooperating churches, they also have the support of the IMB in training and offering assistance to missionaries before and during their time on the field.
What can cause the SBC to falter in its vocation of the Great Commission? I believe the greatest threat to the SBC and reaching the world for Christ is a slow yet steady acceptance of worldly pragmatism over revelation. Pragmatism says, “Minimize doctrine because it only divides and gets in the way.” Yet Paul told Timothy to be an approved workman “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15) and to avoid “worldly and empty chatter” that leads to “ungodliness.” (2 Tim 2:16) He also told the church at Colosse not to be taken “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world.“(Col 2:8) BTW, Paul does not equate the traditions of men to doctrines rightly divided from the Word of God.
If we allow ourselves to be deceived by the serpent of old, we will fail in our vocation and calling. Some say that the foundation of cooperating in the missionary task is the task itself. Yet we see continual warnings about falling away from the truth. (2 Tim 3:1-5, 4:3-4) Doctrine is the glue that holds missions together. It keeps us together in getting the message and method right. God has called us to make disciples (vocation). God has given us permission (authority) in carrying out this vocation. Yet, he provides parameters (prohibitions) from His Word not to follow worldly schemes. Finally, he has brought together a community of churches to encourage missionaries and each other. But in this community, accountability is necessary to keep each other focused on the accomplishing the mission the way God demands.
Because Adam and Eve failed to trust God by not focusing on what He provided while engaging in what He prohibited they had to abandon cultivating and keeping the Garden. Ultimately, abandoning biblical distinctives, that Baptist churches have cherish, for the “wider tent” philosophy in ecumenical pragmatism will lead the SBC to drift away from her mission in bringing like minded Baptists together in accomplishing the Great Commission.
Camel Concerns
Posted by: | Comments
Back in July, there was reported from this blog a discussion at the IMB Trustee meeting concerning the Camel Method, a strategy for the evangelization of Muslims that is endorsed by the IMB for use on the field. Other men have voiced serious concerns over the Camel Method here, here, here, here, and here. We are hopeful that this week something will be reported addressing the concerns shared at the meeting in July and in the blog articles to which we’ve linked.
