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.

John wanted the church to realize its responsibility to keep herself pure from false prophets, false teachers, and false living. That is why he began this portion of the letter (4:1-6) with the two commands: not to believe every spirit and to test the spirits. In unpacking all of this, I finally came to the application that dropped some jaws. The way we accept members into our church is unbiblical. I always assumed it was proper to accept someone who walked forward during the invitation and answered correctly that they accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior and was properly baptized. A thirty second interview later and voila, new members! Yet, as I study and read more scripture, I am realizing that each generation has the responsibility to be guardians of truth, morals, and church membership.

I read that early Baptists would require any candidate for membership to give their testimony to the church, answer theological questions, and finally come under a time of watch care to see if the person exhibited fruits of a redeemed life. Obviously our forefathers took the commands of not believing and testing seriously. Fast forward to today, what does a biblical method of accepting transfer members look like in the 21st century? While I don’t claim a perfect model and it is definitely a work in progress, here are some ideas with which I have been toying:

1. Stop voting on membership at the moment when someone presents themselves. Move it to a business meeting. After all, don’t we vote to transfer members out of our fellowship at that time?

2. Require an orientation class for membership. This class would be an opportunity to present the candidates our basic philosophy on who we are and how we live out the command to make disciples. During this class we would present our church covenant, basic statement of beliefs, and our mission and vision statements. Ultimately, it would be a vehicle by which we could get people plugged into the mission of the church.

3. Take one on one time to talk with the candidates about their salvation. If they realize they are not saved, encourage them and lead them to come to the Lord. If saved help them construct a written testimony of their salvation to present the church. Also help them clear up any unfinished business (baptism, repenting from a particular sin) if necessary.

4. Have them somehow demonstrate their agreement with our church covenant/statement of beliefs. Also have them commit to using their time, talents, and tithes in helping our church achieve her mission and vision.

While I don’t expect Immanuel B. C. to make an 180 degree turn immediately, I am in the process of praying and proclaiming in an effort to allow the Holy Spirit to move in His people. May Jesus be glorified as Lord of His church!

On a side note, it will be some time before I am able to blog again. I have several responsibilities weighing upon my time during the months of June and July. While I may be able to sneak one in here or there, I will for the most part be absent. I look forward to seeing many of you in Louisville.

One example of this is the book, “The Shack” which downplays the authority of scripture (pg 65-6) in favor of a theology that is derived from one’s supposed human (119) experience with God. This book and some of the endorsements I have read of it have followed suit in taking the pragmatic “ends justify the means.” In other words, information learned from a man-centered experience trumps scriptural truth if the result makes everyone happy. One may object to this harsh treatment of “The Shack” by stating it is a work of Christian fiction. I would partially agree with the classification in that it is a work of fiction, yet when it comes to the Christian part, it lacks any Christian orthodoxy on the basics of the faith. Therefore, “The Shack” should not be touted as a “Christian” work of fiction in any bookstore, especially a bookstore that seeks to offer “Biblical Solutions for Life” and that has derived its name from a verse of scripture that speaks of the exclusivity of salvation in Christ (John 14:6). “The Shack” creates a Jesus that is foreign to the Jesus found in the Bible.

So, where do we get a correct understanding of Jesus? Can we separate Jesus from the scriptures in such a fashion that the concept of Christ, apart from the scriptures, serves as a tool of interpretation? For John, the answer to that is apparently, no. He begins his letter with, “What was,” (NASU) which is a relative neuter pronoun to describe who was the focus of his proclamation (Jesus). John then goes on to describe the Jesus he had touched, saw, heard, and felt. The main reason for relaying his own experience is to show that Jesus was a real man and not some pseudo human void of a man’s flesh. Jesus was God incarnate as a real person. John was proclaiming the real Jesus. Yet, it is still interesting to note, why did John use the neuter gender, “What was” to describe Jesus along with what he experienced with his own senses? Danny Akin, in the New American Commentary, 1 2 3 John says, “It is because he wishes to draw attention equally to the ‘Word proclaimed’ and the ‘Word as person.’ The message and the person ultimately cannot be separated. Each explains the other.” (pg 51)

Today, we cannot experience Jesus in the same fashion as John did. Jesus has ascended to heaven and will not return to earth until the Father sends him again. Therefore how do we understand who Jesus is and what he has done? The answer is through the written Word of God. To set up a criterion of Jesus that is experience driven will ultimately lead to a Jesus who opposes the very Word that testifies of him.

At it’s 2000 annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a revised Baptist Faith and Message, and among other revisions, removed the statement, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,” which was in 1963 edition of the Baptist Faith and Message article on the scriptures. Although originally used to support the biblical witness of creation, this statement was eventually used to support and accept doctrinal stands that were not within the realm of confessed Southern Baptist beliefs. Because of this statement, Jesus became a standard separate from scripture by which the Bible was interpreted according to one’s private interpretation.

In correcting the misuse of the “criterion” statement, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message committee, lead by Adrian Rogers, replaced the “criterion” statement with, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” This new statement confesses two things. First, scripture is the apostolic witness to Jesus. Indeed, we cannot know Jesus apart from the scriptures. To say that Jesus is “the criterion by which we interpret the scriptures” or that one should read scripture through the “lens of Christ” is to incorrectly make the “red letters” some kind of interpretive framework that overrides what other parts of scripture attest. This is contrary to Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that asserts, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (italics mine). Yes, scripture does interpret scripture and aids in a fuller understanding of God’s Word, but some scriptures are not to be treated on a different tier of subordination as some form of biblical triage. All scripture testifies of Jesus.

Second, the scriptural witness focuses on Jesus. Whether we turn to Genesis, Ezekiel, Acts or Obadiah, the ultimate focus of scripture is Jesus. This means that when God’s Word is proclaimed, Jesus is honored and glorified. To derive a Jesus that is foreign to the revealed Word is to not honor Jesus.

Therefore, if scripture testifies of Jesus and He Himself is the focus of scripture, we need to proclaim and teach the Holy Writ. If we desire to know anything about Jesus we must first look to the scriptures and let all other derivations be judged by God’s Word. If a faulty and heretical view is given of Jesus in book form, it should not be placed in the Christian genre, but placed in the fictional shelf of a bookstore or library. Most importantly, it should not be embraced as a source of Christian spiritual healing. If one has a faulty and false Christ, then one will have a faulty and false spiritual healing. We should also be careful not to read scripture through a Christ that is separated from the very thing that testifies and focuses on Him. Once we state that everything we read in the bible flows from our understanding of Christ, then we create a Jesus separate from the scriptures that will be prone to error and fail to bring the glory and honor so rightly deserved by Him who died as the propitiation for the sins of the world. (1 John 2:2)

A few weeks ago a church member came to me and asked if I had read The Shack. I said that, with all of my other reading obligations, I had not. We had a brief conversation about the book, and what I heard alarmed me, so I made a note to myself to investigate the book later. Last week, as I was walking through LifeWay (the book store chain owned and operated by the Southern Baptist Convention) I noticed that The Shack was on the book shelf. Below the book was a special tag with a disclaimer. It read as follows:

Read With Discernment. This book may contain thoughts, ideas, or concepts that could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology. Therefore we encourage you to read it with extra discernment. For important background information and additional insight related to this book, please review the Author Briefing and related content at www.lifewaystores.com/readwithdiscernment .

To learn about the significant theological problems with The Shack, visit this blog. I also encourage you to listen to Dr. Mohler’s radio podcast, where he flatly declared, “This book includes undiluted heresy.”

After a quick perusal of the book and investigation of what others have written and said about it, I wonder why an entity that is accountable to the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention would promote and sell a book that distorts the Trinity, declares Jesus as not the only way, and denies God’s wrath on sin. Would such teachings actually lead anyone closer to God or misdirect people from the truth of who He is? I realize that LifeWay is a business. I also realize that businesses must conduct themselves wisely in order to stay in operation. But LifeWay is more than a business: it is a ministry of the Southern Baptist Convention to help Christians grow deeper in their faith. I cannot find any legitimate theological reason why LifeWay would endorse this book by selling it.

Back to my original story, about the conversation with my church member. When I began to question some of the things that she was telling me about the book, her remark was that the book had to be okay since LifeWay was selling it. Frankly, I had the same thought about LifeWay. They would not promote and sell anything that would be outright heresy or a impediment to someone’s faith, would they? As a pastor of a Southern Baptist church I would like to be able to direct my church members to a store where they can purchase spiritually fruitful items confidently without having to beware some items for purchase that are heretical.

We don’t need warnings on products from a trusted a source; we need a refusal on the part of our brothers and sisters at LifeWay to be unequally yoked with heresy. LifeWay is not a public library and should not promote or sell products that require discernment warnings—labels that are reminiscent of those put on music CDs with offensive lyrics. The Shack falls short of biblical Christianity, and for that matter, of the first-order doctrines contained in any responsible system of “theological triage.”

One may argue that this is Christian fiction, a genre that routinely takes liberty with theological concepts in its story line. My rebuttal is that whatever denies the basic tenets of our faith cannot be considered Christian and belongs at Wal-Mart or Barnes and Noble, not at LifeWay. I was talking with a friend and I brought up the subject of The Shack. His remark was that the battle for the Bible is really not over when LifeWay aids in the selling of books that contradicts clear biblical orthodox teaching. I ask, should we not “contend earnestly for the faith” rather than drive people from it?

I am saddened by the lack of theological wisdom and foresight involved in LifeWay offering this book. I pray that LifeWay will prove worthy of the trust that churches have given to her and take the Christian responsibilty to remove a book from its shelves and stock that is a detriment to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”