We are seeing The Camel Method debated on SBC Impact where two of our contributors have tried to engage the theological side of the debate.  However, as I read the recent New York Times Op-Ed a new understanding has been presented as to the reason The Camel Method is a deceiving agent that makes it a bad “bridge”.  The author of the most recent NY Times article,  Robert Wright, (who covers culture, politics, and world affairs) points to the fact that The Camel Method’s deceitful tactics are enraging Muslims.  Mr. Wright points to the Christians that use this method as saying they are trying to get the “camel’s nose” under the Muslim tent.  Notice how he describes the deceit behind this terminology.

But a more apt etymology would involve the “camel’s nose under the tent.” The “overture” — the missionary’s initial bonding with Muslims via discussion of the Koran — is precision-engineered to undermine their allegiance to Islam.

Mr. Wright goes on to describe the problems with this kind of “wiliness”.

In some cases even the “camel’s nose” image doesn’t do justice to missionary wiliness. “Trojan Camel” might be better; some Christian missionaries call themselves Muslims — or at least muslims — because, after all, “muslim” literally means one who surrenders to God. A few have gone way undercover, growing beards and abstaining from pork.

You will notice that in the Camel Method tract it references being a “Pakka Muslim”.  This is exactly what Mr. Wright calls the “Trojan Camel”.  The Muslim community is beginning to respond to these deceiving tactics.

In Malaysia there are laws being drafted that will not allow Christians to refer to “Allah” as the God of the Christian Scriptures.  In Nigeria Christians are losing their lives because Muslims were many years in the majority but now are in the minority. In an interview with a Nigerian born cab driver, Mr. Wright found that one problem was, “American missionaries going abroad and trying to leverage the Koran against itself”.  The Op-Ed author reveals his liberal bias as he then proceeds to observe that aggressive evangelism techniques are part of this problem as well.  I am not against Christians being aggressive in their evangelism I believe we need more aggressiveness.  However, the common denominator that elicits the Muslims ire is the deceitful tactics used to win their family members.  To make one believe that he/she can still worship in the Mosque, abide within secrecy in their household, and feel they are still Muslim but now they are  Pakka Muslim, is deceitfulness plain and simple.

It seems that if we are going to present the Gospel we need to remove all appearances of deceit.  So that I can be plain.  There is nothing wrong with using the term “Allah” when one is speaking Arabic to refer to the Creator God as our Father. There is nothing wrong with using, for illustrative purposes, something from a person’s culture to point them to Jesus.  However, when one builds an entire presentation combining false documents that the Muslim culture holds as sacred with Holy Writ, that is not contextualization that is syncretism.

It seems that Dr. Caner and we here at SBC Today have found a voice of agreement in one of the last places we would suspect–the liberal media. As I heard one Brother say; ” What an ironic day we live in when liberals and Muslims are more likely to agree with us than our own IMB.” I will leave you with Mr. Wright’s closing paragraphs.  It reveals the liberal bias of the author and the heart of our differences with the Camel Method.

I’d like to be able to report that the “critics” in this headline are Christians who worry about heightening tensions and so refrain from offensive proselytizing. Alas, they’re Christians who favor assertive proselytizing but are offended by any suggestion that Muslims and Christians might worship the same god. One of them, Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, in Lynchburg, Va., said in a recent podcast, “There’s nothing that the two gods — the god of the Koran and the god of scripture — have in common. Nothing.”

Well, to look at the bright side: Maybe that’s a basis for interfaith rapport; Caner can sit around with Malaysian Muslims and agree that they worship different gods.

Still, I like to think that their gods would beg to differ.

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.

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.

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:

• Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
• The Camel Method – Endorsements
• Great Commission Resurgence Task Force
• The Sacred Desk

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.”

On the surface, the article appears to be a “salvation” testimony. He describes his life as a non-believer and his search for meaning and truth. Then, he tells of a change of heart, a transformative experience that has made his life better.  So far, so good, except that he says his changed life came because of “greater understanding of the Kingdom of Allah and true submission to His will.”  Later he identifies the source of this new understanding: “only Isa Al-Masih [Jesus the Messiah] was capable of helping me understand the Kingdom of Allah.”

Of all the errors in this article, this one departs furthest from Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible ever tell us that salvation is a matter of merely understanding certain facts about God and his will. Certainly we must know something in order to believe it, but we are not saved because of what we know. We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ because of His finished work on the cross. The writer of this article would have us believe that salvation comes by “understanding the Kingdom of Allah,” not by faith in anyone.

One may argue that when he speaks of “true submission to his will,” the writer really means “repentance and faith.” He has merely contextualized that idea in different terms.  However, the words themselves do not express that idea at all. Instead the writer has again suggested a works-based salvation, whether that was his intent or not. Whatever might have been the author’s goal, what he communicates here is not the truth as taught in the Bible.  We cannot communicate the gospel well if we say things that are different from what we really mean.  Certainly we can think of different ways to say the same things, but when we say something really different from what we actually mean, we cannot expect our hearers to understand us rightly. They will take meaning from what we say, not from what we meant to say.  In the context of Islam, where “submission to the will of Allah” means something very specific, involving a whole set of beliefs and religious practices, we cannot use the same term with a completely different meaning and expect to be understood.  In the end this writer is telling us, whether he intends to or not, that salvation comes by “understanding” and by “works,” not by faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross.

The author of this article also presents Jesus (Isa) himself in a way that is totally foreign to the Bible. Jesus, he says, is the source of this new “understanding” which saves. But this Jesus very different from the biblical Jesus who is God Himself in human flesh, the One who is co-equal with the Father and the Spirit.  He is instead merely a “Prophet. . . Isa Al-Masih.”  Nowhere in the testimony is Jesus, or Isa, referred to other than as a “prophet.”  The Bible tells us, however, that Jesus is more than a prophet; more than one who gives us “understanding;” more than a “great teacher.”  He is the eternal Son of God the Father, who became flesh and walked among us, and who “became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” Our righteousness is in Him, not in “greater understanding.”

The writer again fails to consider how his words will be understood by a Muslim reader.  He presents Jesus as no more than a “prophet” to people who are used to the idea that a prophet is important because of his message, not because of who he is. Muslims are very specific that Mohammed, as a prophet, is not deity, and they insist that no other prophet could be God either.  A prophet merely brings truth to the world in his teaching. Since they have such an understanding of the word “prophet,” this is no way to present Jesus to them.  Jesus is Himself the answer to humanity’s greatest need, and it is faith in Him, not just acceptance of his teachings, that save us.

Nowhere does this testimony mention some essential truths about the gospel. The writer never mentions the need for “remission of sins.” He never indicates that regeneration – a new birth – happens to the believer. Repentance and faith are at best only implied, if they can even be said to be there at all.

There is one final problem with this author’s testimony.  It lies in his repeated references to God as “Allah.”  There are those who argue that “Allah” is nothing more than an Arabic word for God, but these people miss an important point.  Words have referents – that is, a word refers to something external to itself.  Within any specific culture, a word will evoke a certain understanding of the thing to which it refers.  In the context of Islam, “Allah” refers to a being who is remote from creation, who promotes salvation by works, who “begets not, nor is he begotten” (Qur’an 112:3).  This is a completely different person from the God of the Bible who is deeply involved with His people, who calls us to repentance and faith, and who “sent His only begotten Son” that we might be saved.  These two beings are not the same god and cannot be! The referent for the word, in the understanding of the people he is reaching, is completely different from the God who reveals Himself in the Bible.

Examples of contextualization of the Gospel, taken directly from the Bible, might be helpful here. The Apostle Paul, in a totally pagan context, never once referred to God as Zeus or Jupiter.  He did not see the God he worshipped as simply “Zeus under a different name” even though the culture in which he ministered would have encouraged him to do so!  Paul never once implied that salvation comes through “greater understanding” even though, again, Greco-Roman culture would have encouraged this. Paul never minimized the cross and the suffering of Christ on our behalf. Even in tough situations where his life was on the line, Paul never wavered in clearly presenting faith in Christ as the answer to the greatest human need: “What must I do to be saved?”  (Acts 16:30). Paul would never have answered, “Understand the will of Zeus by the teaching of his prophet and you shall be saved.”  He instead pointed a pagan Roman jailer to the true answer to his need and the way to access him: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. . . .” (Acts 16:31).

Again, on Mars Hill, Paul did not proclaim a new understanding of Zeus. Instead, he pointed to “an unknown God” and proclaimed Him to people who knew all about Zeus, and many other gods. They did not know the one Paul proclaimed. His purpose was not to help them understand their god better.  Paul called them to repentance from their false beliefs and to embrace the true God, the one they did not know and could not know, except through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is certainly worthwhile to “contextualize the gospel.” The task is difficult, surely.  The author of the SBCImpact.net article may well have sought to do something similar to what Paul did in these examples, but in fact he preached “another gospel” and we know what Paul says about that!

PRINCIPLES OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.