Today I was sent a link to an excellent overview on the current state of affairs regarding contextualization by Christians in their outreach to Muslims.  It is by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo and is entitled, "Recent Changes in Christian Approaches to Islam."  it's a pretty good writeup of the history of the issue.  It is critical of the extreme contextualization going on today by some missionaries.

Because much of my blog is about the mission agency realm, I will share one quote from you among many that could be quoted in this writeup.  Sookhdeo writes:

"It should also be noted that many mission agencies are keeping secret their support for the Insider Movement, for fear that donors will stop giving to them in protest."

As I have traveled globally and met with missionaries who are not IM practitioners, they ask me, "Do churches and donors in the US know what these IM missionaries are doing?"  While I cannot substantiate Dr. Sookhdeo's claim (he notes an anonymous source in the footnotes), missionaries that I speak with feel that there is a lack of transparency regarding IM practices.  For example, some IM practitioners suggest that saying the Shahada (the Muslim statement of conversion) is acceptable behavior for missionaries.  I don't believe that many of their supporting constituents in the US would agree with this and continue to back these ministries if they were aware of just how "far inside" this movement is attempting to go.

You can read the whole article by clicking here.  It is a long read, but it's worth getting a sense of the history leading to the current state of affairs.

I invite any of you to respond to this topic and I particularly invite any IM'ers that feel that this post (or the accompanying article) is not fair or misrepresents the issue.  Muslims should also feel welcome to weigh in on this topic – I moderate comments so I will make sure you get fair treatment.

Tweet This Post

There is a lot of communication happening on the “contextualization” front. For some years, some missionaries have been using ministry forms which are highly indigenous in nature and rely on sources from within other religious traditions to make their case.  Others have been highly critical of this approach.  This dialogue has a language all its own and goes way beyond what the uninitiated may think.

As churches in the US begin to find out just what missionaries they fund are doing, I expect there will be a backlash; in fact, this has already begun.  In the past few months this debate has begun to gather steam.  Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary, has given a scathing interview about the Southern Baptist Convention’s use of the “Camel Method,” a strategy that uses the Quran to share Christ.  He later would have to recant the charge that IMB President Jerry Rankin was a liar!

FYI, I am C-4 proponent.  C-5 is, at best, a transitory phase of the development of the church.  It should not be a goal for missionaries to shoot for C-5 believers or churches.

Here are a few resources for you to educate yourself on this topic.  If you have more resources, please send them on through to me!

A Proponent Makes His Case
These articles are by John Travis, a pro-Insider Movement author.  From here you can find other resources that are quoted.

The Camel Method
Here is where you can buy the book yourself.  The author makes a defense in this article.

The IMB’s Statements on Contextualization
Here the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention outlines their position on contextualization.

St. Francis Magazine
This resource has carried a number of critical articles about the more extreme versions of contextualization.  This issue has lots of good info on both perspectives and tons of good links.  You can spend a couple hours on these resources and still be learning new things!  Highly recommended (you can download the whole issue and put it on your reading device!).

My experience with the Common Ground Movement
This is a critique from a CMB (Christian of Muslim Background) with a story
about how this strategy may be perceived as deceptive by a Muslim (a
conviction I share).

Note:  There is a difference between the Common Word movement and the Common Ground movement.  The former is more ecumenical/cooperative in nature while the latter is more about missionary strategy.  Sometimes I see them lumped together, but this isn’t really fair.  You can find the official site on the Common Word here, and this is a critique from John Piper.

Edit from original article…

I have been emailed about my lack of inclusion of the Common Path website. I didn’t know it existed. Here is the link for those that want to see what C-5/IM advocates have to say on the issue: Common Path Alliance

Tweet This Post

Matt Green shared this with me. It’s a must see for anybody who studies movements.

Tweet This Post

“If there is life on other planets, I am sure that He must know,
and he’s been there, once already, and has died to save their souls.”
 - Larry Norman, UFO

I just read this article on the search for extra-terrestrials:  The search for aliens should start on Earth not outer space, says scientist.

it reminded me of a recent conversation I was having with some folks about theology and the existence of aliens.  One of the fastest growing religions in America is technopaganism.  Technopagans almost universally believe in the existence of alien life forms.  I believe that this is a theological position, based on faith, not science, and that it forms a part of their eschatology and provides them with hope.  I also find it curious that many Christians also hold to the alien fantasy.

I take the position that under our current understanding of the physical laws of science, aliens will never, ever, reach out to us and we will not be able to contact them.  We will not know if they exist, and we should give up on the dream of ever finding them.  It’s fantasy, pure and simple.  To think that the scientific community actually spends research dollars on the hunt for extra-terrestrials is, to me, an indication of just how deeply held this technopagan belief is in their hearts and minds.  This topic will become bigger and bigger with the newly commissioned Kepler satellite which is a part of our government’s search for planets that are similar to earth.  I am not at all opposed to this search as I see scientific exploration as an important part of being human.  But the alien angle is a but much.

Hugh Ross details his reasons for why aliens cannot travel here in this article.  Basically, the distances are too great for any plausible scenario in which a sentient life form can travel to us or us to them, the dangerous galactic hazards would prevent such a journey, and those doggone laws of physics get in the way of travel above the speed of light. 

“Well, the aliens will have technology we don’t yet possess to make this work,” is the rebuttal.  Oh, c’mon, give me something better than that!  Like what? Time travel?  Wormhole-to-wormhole travel?  String-to-string travel?  Very imaginative, and a good example of a “faith claim.” 

When I say, “under our current understanding of the physical laws of science…” I mean, “under our current understanding of the physical laws of science“  Is there “science” out there that we don’t know about?  Absolutely, but we must start with what we DO know to be true, not what we DON’T know.  Incredibly, these are often the same people that would argue against the spiritual world because it is not scientific enough for them (check out this clip with Dawkins for an example – the alien claim starts at around 3 mintues and 30 seconds or so).

With each new planet that is discovered (and I think there will be LOTS of them) we will hear the same refrain about the possibility of life on other planets.  Let me suggest that while we can speculate all we want about what life may be on these planets, it makes no difference to us past the value that speculation might bring.  Be on the watch for creeping technopaganism.  Popular portrayals of alien life, far more interesting and imaginative than our own, are why many people hope for ET.

Rather than embrace the life we are living, they yearn for an alien life that will bring meaning to their own.

Tweet This Post

How I am taking the Vikings loss.

Pretty well, truth be told.

It was the best season of being a Vikings fan I can remember, ever.  It was filled with intrigue, excitement, and disappointment.  Through it all, Brett Favre made it fun.  I hope he comes back for my sake.  I hope he doesn’t for his!

2010-2011 will be a new season and I will be a Vikings fan.

Now for a little analysis.  The Vikes lost because of four reasons.

First, they didn’t get to Drew Brees. This has to be in part because of the Edward’s injury. Next, he Saints pounded Brett Favre.  O-line, I think you let him down a bit. Third, The butter ball.  Why can’t the Vikes hang onto the ball in this important game after having a good turnover record in the regular season? Finally, Brett Favre’s late game interception – what was he thinking??

New Orleans fans, congratulations.  However, you got lucky.  That ball caught in OT was on the ground.  Further, the coin toss could have gone either way.  I hate the sudden death OT in the NFL.  They should do like college ball and give equal time to each side to be on offense. New Orleans didn’t win because they were better than the Vikings.  They won because they got lucky!  That’s not to take anything away from the Saints at all, but sometimes, games are more about luck than anything else.  Had the Vikes won, I would be saying the same thing.

That’s another reason why I am not grieving the Vikings loss too much.

Tweet This Post

This isn’t really a sports blog but it isn’t often that my team, the Minnesota Vikings, are this deep into the playoffs so… here goes.

This weekend the New Orleans Saints and the Minnesota Vikings will vie for the NFC championship. I believe that this game will be largely decided on the role that the Vikings defense will play. If they can get to Drew Brees, I think it will be highly unlikely that the Saints can win. For the Saints to get Bush running the ball they will have to open up the passing game. This can only happen if Brees has time to execute.

Some might say that the same is true for the Vikings quarterback, whose name I do need to write because you know who it is. Brees and Favre are often compared and have a similar style leading some to thing that the matchup on QB is fairly even and thus not a game-changer. Brees has a slightly higher rating that Favre. However, Brees will have more to contend with than Favre will.

The Saints (in fact, all of the later season teams that the Vikings have played) will be deathly afraid of Adrian Peterson. They know than any letup on the run means big gains. I have seen most teams focus like a laser on AP no matter what Brett does. Thus, the Vikings have the passing game available to them regardless if AP puts up huge yards or not. This creates an opportunity for Favre that Brees will not enjoy.

Do I think the Vikings will win, then? Hmm… I have been a Viking fan for a long time and therefore I watch every game knowing that the Vikes can lose to just about any team in the NFL. The home advantage that the Saints will have cannot be underestimated. The Vikings away record this year is not the greatest. However, they have done well playing indoors regardless of the home/away situation. Overall, though, if the Saints get ahead early and keep the crowd fired up I think they will walk away with it.

Yet, I am going to call this game for the Vikes (how can I not?). I put them the final score at 33-29 for the Minnesota Vikings.

GO VIKES!!

Tweet This Post

Last fall Ed Stetzer wrote about the fact that many missional churches are not that missionary oriented.  If you read that and think, “What are you talking about?” then you should click over to Ed’s article and see what he says.

I agree with much of Ed’s viewpoint on this, but I think the problem is much deeper than he states.  The movement we know now as the “missional” movement was born in part because of a reaction against modernism in the church.  It is made up of many who think that post-modern expressions of the church speak to today’s culture in a more significant way.  At the same time, the approach to missions that is predominant among agencies comes from a thoroughly modern worldview.  This is also true of larger churches which are the the major influencers of how we see and know the church today.

“Missional” movements are predominately found in Western cultures.  The emerging church movement, for example, is strong in the UK and various urban centers of Europe and North America.  Those that attend missional churches tend to be younger and urban, with a “global-chic-youth-culture” feel about them.  These church thrive where there is a postmodern culture present in the society at large.  They are seldom found in third world cities, rural areas, or parts of the world which embrace Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (I didn’t say “never” – I said “seldom”).

Meanwhile, the modern missionary movement has made those very populations (Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist) their primary areas of service.  The “unreached people group” movement (which really took off in the late 1970’s) was birthed at the height of modernity’s influence in the church.

I would argue that the cultures of the missional movement and the modern missionary movement are motivated by distinct worldviews.  These different beginning points make it difficult for each to “play” in others world.  Missional leaders see the Western society around them as needy.  Missionary leaders see this same Western society as resource rich.  Missional churches struggle to be relevant in their own local context.  Missionary agencies struggle to be relevant in a very cross-cultural context.

Can the two be merged?  I think so.  However, it will take a change in worldviews (on both sides) to make it a fruitful endeavor.

Tweet This Post

Coming to you live from the floor of Urbana…

Yes, it’s Urbana time.  There are about 16,000 people here – just over 10,000 of them students.  Intervarsity is doing a great job, running an excellent conference.

The theme this year is tilted toward what one would call “social gospel” issues.  I know that at least one mission agency declined to participate, publicly stating it was due to budgeting issues but privately noting that they didn’t like the focus.  They wanted to see more focus on evangelism and more traditional missions work.  From my perspective I see no conflict between the “social gospel” and a “proclamation approach.”

Urbana is not cheap for agencies.  The booth space, travel, hotels, meals, and registration costs all add up to some tens of thousands of dollars for a larger agency.  However, the potential for recruiting a number of new staff members is great and there is also value in that it helps your organization establish its identity.

Tweet This Post

I don’t go to many movies on the premier night, but I went to see Avatar last week with my sons and a few friends.  It was an eye-popping 170 minutes of film.  Would I recommend it?  Hmmm…..

There are plenty of reviews out on Avatar, and I think they mostly agree.  James Cameron spent his creative genius on how he created the film rather than the story he told.  The story is as disappointing as the eye candy is delightful.  The plot is the worn-out retelling of the colonial invader versus the noble savage.  It is paradoxical that what makes this movie possible (technology) becomes the film’s villain.

What most reviews don’t mention is the overtly religious statement this movie makes.  It embraces technopaganism.  Here are just a few examples:

• Science and mysticism are seamlessly interwoven
• Pagan rituals are combined with scientific means to bring about healing
• Naturalism leads to a worship of nature (rising to the level of “Mother Earth”)
• A spiritual “life force” ties all living things together and ultimately gives life
• The premise of the movie is that technology can transfer consciousness between living beings

It used to be that we liked our science fiction served up all nice and secular.  No more.  By combining tribal religions with technology we have created a new spirituality that is pagan to the core.

A basic belief of today’s scientific elite is that extraterrestrials are alive and well.  In a future post perhaps I can write about the complete fallacy that aliens will ever contact us.  For now let me simply state that little green men (oh, sorry, big blue men) are a cornerstone of a technopagan worldview.  Avatar makes us want to believe that we will someday explore Pandora – it looks cool!  We want there to be aliens!  We want to fly on giant dinosaurs.  We want there to be a life force that our pony-tails can tap into.  We want it!!

Are we so enamored with the incredible special effects that we fail to see the alluring worldview of Avatar?

Me thinks so.

Tweet This Post

After a long break from blogging I am coming back online.  Check back soon…

Tweet This Post