Chrislam: How Missionaries are promoting an Islamized Gospel
Joshua Lingel, Jeff Morton & Bill Nikides, eds. i2 Ministries Publications, 344 pages, $25.
–Reviewed by Warren Larson, Former Director of the Zwemer Center, and Associate Professor of Muslim Studies, Columbia International University, South Carolina.
The best thing to be said about this book is that it addresses critical issues in mission to Muslims. Insider movement (IM) proponents have received ample press in the past (Mission Frontiers and IJFM) and this text deems it high time to present another perspective. It calls for careful exegesis (62-76) of passages like I Corinthians 9:19-22. It insists Muhammad was not a prophet in any sense of the term and the Qur’an is not divinely-inspired. It opposes removing familial language for God from Muslim-friendly translations (199-226), and though SIL and Wycliffe Bible Translators have issued new guidelines saying “Son of God” will be translated literally in most cases, sees the loophole large enough to justify many problematic “exceptions.” Many readers will resonate with such concerns but question the content and tone of this text.
Chrislam: How Missionaries are Promoting an Islamized Gospel consists of twenty-five chapters and is written by numerous authors. It contains a foreword, acknowledgements, preface, three appendices, bibliography, and an index. Material is divided up into six sections that deal with various subjects, including hermeneutics, translation, missiology, testimonies/interviews of former Muslims, and resources of IM websites, an index and references from both the Bible and the Qur’an.
On the positive side, sections one and five have the most value: The first section quotes IM proponents extensively, however taken out of context, may give impressions never intended by the authors. Section five gives Muslim converts (mostly Bengali) a voice in expressing strong opposition to IM; however other Bengalis could be called upon for the exact opposite view.
On the negative side, the Preface (iii-iv) is especially troubling: It contains inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes. A statement in the second paragraph, “… [W]hat is at stake is not our personal relationships with brothers and sisters” suggests it does not matter what we say about fellow-believers, as long as we tell what we think is the truth. A comment in the third paragraph makes a generalization about all IM ministries: “… [N]o churches are planted …” Such sweeping statements set the tone for what is to follow. This book is reactionary, primarily a work of extremes, including an alarmist and inflammatory title. Nor is it put together well: One chapter (100-115) argues that Christians should treat Islam like an Old Testament ban, because after all, it is a pagan religion. And Samuel Zwemer’s article (306-308) on secret believers is misplaced; a more fitting quote would have been: “We must become Moslems to the Moslem if we would gain them for Christ” (The Moslem Christ, 183).
This book demonstrates that evangelical Christians have failed to settle an important question peacefully: To what extent can one remain culturally and religiously “Muslim” while seeking to follow Jesus? The opinion of this reviewer is that differences of opinion on such a controversial topic can only be clarified through careful scholarship, mutual respect and face-to-face dialog.
Check these titles:
Cumming, Joseph, 2008. “Muslim Followers of Jesus?” (Christianity Today, December).
Kateregga, Badru D. and David W. Shenk. 1999. A Muslim and a Christian in Dialogue. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press.
Khalil, Mohammad Hassan and Mucahit Bilici, 2007. “Conversion Out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims” (The Muslim World, Volume 7).
Zwemer, Samuel Marinus, 1912. The Muslim Christ. Published by the Message for Muslims Trust.
Dr. Larson,
As you well know, I am the author of the article, ” How Insider Movements Affect Ministry: Personal Reflections,” in Chrislam. It is exactly for the accomodating response reflected in this review that I wrote my piece. Unless we are willing to confront false teaching, regardless of what that means for ministry cooperation and friendships, we dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of God, whose identity as such can never be “conveyed” by “meaning-based” “equivalents” and whose glory demands our open allegiance to Him alone. By accomodating false teaching in the name of “peace” we also jeopardize our relationships with one another because it is impossible to love one’s neighbor as oneself if someone does not love God which includes contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Love is never based on that which is false, regardless of how friendly and pleasant one may be.
To infer in the last sentence that this book lacks “careful scholarship” is at the very least an unproven charge. You must provide specific examples of how any of the articles fail to do so even if it is from my article. For instance, you claim that Insider Movement advocates have been misquoted. Then give an example of how it has been misquoted. I know that this may not be your way of doing things but upon further reflection your review comes across as reactionary instead of providing a helpful critique. The closest that you come to this is by referring to Dr. Talley’s article, “Pagan Religious Practices and Heretical Teaching: What Is to Be Our Attitude? Gleanings from the Old and New Testaments,” in which I would respond that you have not fairly represented his argument. Yes, Islam should be rejected; but the New Testament rejection of false beliefs NEVER calls for the physical annihilation of those who hold to them. Dr. Talley makes no such argument but rather highlights the principle that the worship of God can never be mixed with other belief systems.
Your review gives the impression that for Christians to criticize and critique one another is a cardinal sin. This is an unbiblical stance and one that you have not honored by your criticism of the critiquers! You yourself do not hold to Muhammad being a prophet nor the Quran being inspired Scripture. Yet by your swift rush to condemn this book and come to the defense of the advocates of Insider Movements is at the very least, tacitly deferring to those within Insider Movements who do believe and practice these things.
Your quote from Zwemer is totally out of context and you make it appear that he would have been supportive of Insider Movements. Anyone who reads The Moslem Christ cannot validly conclude that Zwemer argued for adopting a Muslim identity. That article about secret believers, by the way, reflects his continually expressed conviction that Jesus Christ demands of us open identification with Him alone and a complete commitment to Him. You have seriously misrepresented him. You are fully aware that to the day of his death Zwemer always wrote and spoke of Christianity and Islam being two competing and incompatible beliefs.
Adam
Great rebuttal. Elegant composure.
And truthful. Great work.
Dear Dr. Larson:
Thank you for your review of the book Chrislam. Your closing comment asserts that careful scholarship is needed to broach “differences of opinion on such a controversial topic.” I would invite you to re-read my contribution which examines the kingdom of God as presented by IM via its Kingdom Circles, and the alternative that I propose using Palmer Robertson’s drawings. Then I would invite you to ask which model represents poor scholarship.
I have used no little time and energy via multiple articles to show that IM is very consistent. It consistently hijacks the scripture for its agenda and does so with little regard to church history. I have explored among others: the call of Abraham, the pilgrim motif of the church, Naaman, Cornelius, the Jerusalem Council, Paul at the Areopagus, the ekklesia motif of IM and Ephesians. I have read all of the IM materials pertinent to those subjects, as well as the widest possible representation of the pertinent Biblical scholarship through history on those subjects. Each and every time IM emerges with the title “TEKEL” –“you have been placed on the balances and found wanting” (Daniel 5:25). Not my balance, but the whole counsel of scripture placed against the eisegesis of IM.
Now I would ask you to examine IM materials. Their propensity to quote each other is noteworthy. Their propensity not to examine materials outside of their agenda is evident. Their propensity to recycle stock phrases and other mantras is easy to spot. Can we call this scholarship?
Am I passionate about truth? Indeed. Are the other authors of this book passionate as well? Absolutely. Can you or I pronounce “peace, peace—with a nice tone— when there is no peace?” Absolutely not—if we actually care about truth and the One who is Truth.
“______lead my people astray, saying,”Peace,” when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash.” (Ezekiel 13:10)
Thank you.
John Span
Interesting book review. However, it seems to make the same point it makes about the book. As a review, it says good things, and critical things. The book Christlam is a review of the methodologies of the Insider Movement. I do find it concerning that there seems to be a postmodern worldview nowadays that calls for unity and genteelly at the cost of Biblical truths, and yes, sometimes harsh criticism when views contradict the scriptures.
You also say, “The opinion of this reviewer is that differences of opinion on such a controversial topic can only be clarified through careful scholarship, mutual respect and face-to-face dialog.”
1) This statement assumes that careful scholarship, mutual respect and face-to-face dialog hasn’t happened. This is incredibly inaccurate. I know the parties involved, and for well over a decade these issues have been debated face-to-face, scrutiny in scholarship has been written, and respect has been the groundwork. The book Christlam is only the outcry to warn the Church at large when the above has not done anything to dissuade the Insider Movement practitioners.
2) By respect you say that in all times there is need for respect. But Biblically, I have to disagree. Perhaps it comes down to the definition of respect, but we must agree that false teachers are called out in the bible not just in private, but publicly. 1 John 2 is clear that there were antichrists spreading false teaching from within the church. The letters in Revelation talk about to the churches of Pergumum and Thyatira said the same thing. http://biblicalmissiology.org/2011/11/07/tottering-at-the-abyss-pergamum-and-thyatira’s-courtship-with-false-religion/
3) I would love to see details of the accusations, “quotes IM proponents extensively, however taken out of context”, “contains inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes.”
Dr. Larson,
As you well know, I am the author of the article, ” How Insider Movements Affect Ministry: Personal Reflections,” in Chrislam. It is exactly for the accomodating response reflected in this review that I wrote my piece. Unless we are willing to confront false teaching, regardless of what that means for ministry cooperation and friendships, we dishonor the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal and uncreated Son of God, whose identity as such can never be “conveyed” by “meaning-based” “equivalents” and whose glory demands our open allegiance to Him alone. By accomodating false teaching in the name of “peace” we also jeopardize our relationships with one another because it is impossible to love one’s neighbor as oneself if someone does not love God which includes contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Love is never based on that which is false, regardless of how friendly and pleasant one may be.
To infer in the last sentence that this book lacks “careful scholarship” is at the very least an unproven charge. You must provide specific examples of how any of the articles fail to do so even if it is from my article. For instance, you claim that Insider Movement advocates have been misquoted. Then give an example of how it has been misquoted. I know that this may not be your way of doing things but upon further reflection your review comes across as reactionary instead of providing a helpful critique. The closest that you come to this is by referring to Dr. Talley’s article, “Pagan Religious Practices and Heretical Teaching: What Is to Be Our Attitude? Gleanings from the Old and New Testaments,” in which I would respond that you have not fairly represented his argument. Yes, Islam should be rejected; but the New Testament rejection of false beliefs NEVER calls for the physical annihilation of those who hold to them. Dr. Talley makes no such argument but rather highlights the principle that the worship of God can never be mixed with other belief systems.
Your review gives the impression that for Christians to criticize and critique one another is a cardinal sin. This is an unbiblical stance and one that you have not honored by your criticism of the critiquers! You yourself do not hold to Muhammad being a prophet nor the Quran being inspired Scripture. Yet by your swift rush to condemn this book and come to the defense of the advocates of Insider Movements is at the very least, tacitly deferring to those within Insider Movements who do believe and practice these things.
Your quote from Zwemer is totally out of context and you make it appear that he would have been supportive of Insider Movements. Anyone who reads The Moslem Christ cannot validly conclude that Zwemer argued for adopting a Muslim identity. That article about secret believers, by the way, reflects his continually expressed conviction that Jesus Christ demands of us open identification with Him alone and a complete commitment to Him. You have seriously misrepresented him. You are fully aware that to the day of his death Zwemer always wrote and spoke of Christianity and Islam being two competing and incompatible beliefs.
Adam
For those who have not seen the book Chrislam yet the core idea raised by this review is not about generalizations, attitudes, or accuracy . . . rather, it has to do with the question: Are we talking about an issue that is merely ‘differences of opinion’ or one that is core to the Christian gospel? This book will aid the reader in answering this question. Dr. Larson has made his own answer to this question quite clear.
Hey Phil; Hey all. The first and last comments of the beginning paragraph in the review acknowledge that the book raises valid concerns, and the third paragraph echoes that: “On the positive side …” What the review questions is the overall content and tone, even though certain elements (like Adam Simnowitz’s chapter) have some merit. It’s extremely hard to fully evaluate something that is put together by several authors and multiple authors.
Dr. Larson:
As you mention the word “tone” once again, I am reminded of B.B. Warfield’s quote about missionaries to Muslims at the turn of the 1900’s. He stated:
” I have met more than one missionary from Mohammedan lands, for
example, who had learned to state the doctrine of the Trinity ‘so genially and so winningly’ (as they express it), and that it roused little or no opposition in the Mohammedan mind. And when I heard how they state it, I did not wonder; they had so stated it as to leave the idea of the Trinity out.”
Warfield was not wowed by geniality and being winingly at the cost of truth. As you know the accusation of tone is the ultimate post-modern accusation. Any Emergent heretic who wants to justify his stance can claim “tone” on the part of his detractors as their problem, while conveniently avoiding substantive issues of truth. Where is Dr. Larson in all of this, I ask myself?
John, I want to speak the truth, but want to do so with love, understanding and accuracy. I have talked to many Muslims about the trinity but doubt that there are any easy ways to do it. It takes time, patience and wisdom.
Warren,
I submitted the same response two times yesterday but still do not see it posted. Has it been deemed “immoderate”?
Adam
Adam, you were included in a brief response addressed to Phil.
Thanks. I should have been more patient! I apologize for not being so.
Warren,
I wish Warren Chastain was still with you. He would help you to understand why the “content & tone” of Chrislam which you question is necessary. He spoke and wrote about this before the so-called “Insider Movement” teachings became such a blight on the Church.
Besides the fact that we feel IM teaching is not biblical, the only way one can get them to pay attention is to take a severe tone toward their teaching and also let followers or fellow travelers know that teaching IM philosophy is a serious matter contrary to God’s own words. How can we not have a serious tone?
Those of us who have worked among Muslims, loved Muslims, served Muslims, and prayed for Muslims for many decades appreciate any efforts to reach them that does not violate biblical injunctions. We are not raising issues about “contextualization” as such but about the way Bible translations are changing the meaning of God’s word and the ramifications of such changes in biblical theology and Christian nurture in the Church.
Roger, although my review was brief by necessity, it does not deny that “Son of God” should be translated literally in Muslim translations. I support that; as a matter of fact, most BtD (Bridging the Divide) attendees did too, as indicated by their subseuqent correspondence with Wycliffe/SIL. Moreover, in the first paragraph, I said many readers will resonate with concerns raised in Chrislam. I certainly do. My criticisms mention tone but also accuracy and relevance. I could have been a bit more positive, but strangely enough, peer reviews of my review pushed for a harder stance. I took their advice and my sense is most readers will agree with my position.
Roger, I neglected to mention that I also wish Warren Chastain was still with us. He had a great heart for mission to Muslims and served in Zwemer programs right to the end of his life. I never had the privilege of working alongside of him but have heard lots about him from othes and we have archived much of his material on Islam.
Thanks Warren, for your review. I haven’t read the book yet, but from what I’ve heard, I’ve seen most of it before.
It seems that everyone is trying to decide on their own what is heresy and what isn’t. Thankfully, no individual gets to decide such things! And selectively quoting people doesn’t help. (We sound more like the Cable news networks than believers.)
The fact that someone decides to approach an issue like the Trinity or the Son of God in a different way, does not mean they have denied those truths. IF they deny them, that would be heresy.
But if they choose to take time to process through them (like one worker I know in SE Asia, who has 7 wise stages to understanding Jesus’ Sonship) it is not heresy, but wisdom.
We need more of that kind of wisdom.
There may be “one” theology, though that is only true with core doctrines of course. But there is not only “one” “biblical” missiology.
It seems to me that we are talking more about missiology than theology.
(And no, sorry, this is not from the emergent church movement! Let’s stop categorizing stuff like this, especially when it is not clearly definable.)
Thank you Greg. A few chapters in the book come across as better than others, but taken as whole, I think it was put together too quickly and reactively.
Greg,
So, it seems to me that you’re essentially saying:
1. Based on rumor you can already pre-judge the book.
2. Individuals can’t use their discernment to compare teachings with the Bible and make decisions on what they believe is heretical. (who then can?)
3. It’s not helpful to use quotations to summarize what people teach/write. (isn’t quotation one of the foundations of academia?
4. “we are talking more about missiology than theology.” (can they really be separated? Isn’t missiology basically the communication of theology?)
5. “[IM] is not from the emergent church movement!” (but do you really claim they are not deeply connected and compatible? Then why do so many IM and Emergent people endorse each other’s books and promote each other’s teachings?)
6. ” Let’s stop categorizing stuff like this, especially when it is not clearly definable.” (why would the fact that something is not clearly definable mean that people should not try to categorize it? BTW, the lack of clear definition is one of the hallmarks of the Emergent Church and the Insider Movement, and is used by both as a defense mechanism. And that’s exactly how you’re using the argument.)
Also, although you’re right that most IM’ers don’t deny those truths as far as personal BELIEF, but that doesn’t make it right to VERBALLY deny them to the Muslims they are ministering to, or to TRANSLATIONALLY deny them in the “Muslim Idiom Translations” of the Bible that they produce and use.
My advice to you, Greg: Read the book! All of the authors of the book have read volumes and volumes of the IM arguments that your organization, the US Center for World Missions produces and promotes. Isn’t it time for you to give them the respect of considering their points of view in more than a cursory fashion?
A whole section of the book is by former Muslims who are in active and fruitful ministries to Muslims. That in itself sets it apart from the vast majority of IM publications (Mission Frontiers included), which are authored almost exclusively by Westerners.
The book was not put together quickly. Twenty five people worked well over a year each not their particular chapter (s). It went through rigorous editing and reediting. The fact is: this book is uncomfortable to many readers who are either in the IM camp or flirt with IM.
May I challenge you Warren and all commentators to address the substance of the book rather than the process, the speed or length of the book. Get to the point. Comment on the content.. on the ideas… on the approach… Then it will be meaningful and helpful.
Thank you Warren for making this book known and for the many positive things you said about it.
Many such books will follow and the tide will turn, in Jesus name. Amen.
Thanks Georges, due to space limitations (400-500 words), it is not possible to deal with much specifically. I’m not trying to flatter you, but your chapter was one of the better ones, because you have experience and credibility in the area addressed. That said, there is communal responsibility in a book like this, and I have mentioned some of the chapters that should have been more carefully edited. Yes, I agree there will be ongoing writing on this topic.
It seems obvious to me that Greg Parsons has not “seen most of it before” even though he thinks he has. Much of Chrislam is cutting edge material and is clearly not intended to identify what is heresy and what is not. We have read and processed the writings of the so-called Insider Movement (and/or Jesus Movement) writers and have responded but, for the most part, they have not responded to our critiques, questions, and concerns. There have been a few discussions such as BtD but these have been incidental compared with the great issues that have been raised. We all respect you Greg but If you won’t engage, then don’t criticize those who do. These are earth shaking issues in the Church today- in my opinion the major issue in missiology of our generation.
Dr. Parsons:
Amazing that you can judge a book without reading it. Is Dr. Larson’s injunction about “good scholarship” simply wind? I hope not. He might say that you have responded “quickly and re-actively”
Re your musings on heresy and the between the lines suggestion of a witch-hunt: I took a quick look at Bloomberg’s “The New Testament Definition of Heresy” JETS (2002), and Horton’s “All About Heresy” in Modern Reformation (1994), both which examine Biblical criteron for this phenomenon.
Horton asserts, and I know this is not you “Anyone who denies the existence of such a thing as heresy denies the possibility of a religion having any boundaries. If a religion does not have any boundaries, distinguishing Christianity from Hinduism or atheism is meaningless.” Yet I wonder if you object to the sharp distinctions the contributors of Chrislam have made between Christianity and Islam. I don’t know. Yet I know that the Joseph Cummings’ article suggested by Dr. Larson does. That is why he can leave the door open for a “Muslim follower of Jesus.”
Bloomberg cites Arland Hultgren who said, one can be heretical by being either too broad-minded or narrow-minded. Chrislam’s concern is that IM is too-broad minded in Christianizing things Islamic, and too narrow-minded in not having a Biblical view of world religions or a sense of church history. And yes, I would agree some of the issues are error, yet some are clearly issues of salvation. If I am reading you right you seem to assert that no one in the Body of Christ can decide if something is “in” or “out.” That leaves me very queasy.
Horton suggests, as well that creeds based on solid Scriptural exegesis are a very good antidote to heresy. Now what happens if IM’rs have an allergy to the creeds? Read, as I have, some IM publications and the “deeds not creeds” theme comes through quite strongly.
Horton sees a vital need for modern theologians of the caliber of Athanasias to align themselves with the whole counsel of Biblical truth and to “stand against the world, for the world, and its salvation.” This is the only antidote as he says, from being “bewitched.”
Shalom
Thank you Dr. Larson for you review and for all the respondants here. I have done my own review of the book for my organization. While I am not in the Chrislam camp, I am also not in the Insider camp. I am somewhere in the middle, and believe that we have to look at each situation carefully, that we might have more freedom as we begin a mission endeavor than we do as it matures.
As to tone, I found the tone of the book far more positive than the I2 Critical Assessment Seminars, where quite honestly the tone was very questionable towards Insiders. The only section I did not find to have a generous spirit was Section 4 on the scriptures, including the article by my new friend Adam. That chapter was strongly negative towards IMers. I don’t think the tone in the section was what it should be, but I do understand that for them this is playing around with the Gospel of salvation and the Holy Scriptures. Still, I think the tone could have been much better, but I do understand it.
As for the quality of the arguments, the scholarship, and carefulness of the arguments, I did not see those as an issue. I found that many of the quotes from IMers in Section 1 were used properly. The others I did not have the actual text to check on them.
I may be wrong but I believed this book to be targeted not at the mission leader community, but to the church at-large, who is not aware of what is happening. If that is the audience, I found the book to be a substantial tome, and presented the argument in a way that is likely to be successful in getting pastors and lay-leaders to agree with the book’s thesis. These are real issues, and they are not merely things we can agree to disagree on (though a few of the issues do fall into that category).
As to Dr. Parson’s comments regarding heresy, he is right, no one gets to unilaterally declare something heretical. But we must also be aware that the Church has decided that some things are indeed heretical, that there is “out-of-bounds.” When an author suggests Jesus was not fully God, that is indeed a heresy, just as saying the 2nd Person of the Trinity is subordinate to the Father is a heresy. Justo Gonzalez, the noted Methodist theologian, compares theology to the foul-lines in baseball. The baseball diamond and outfield has a lot of space, and in doing our theology and missiology, we have a lot of room to run and play. But there is foul-ground, and sometimes all of us hit one to foul territory. When that happens, especially by prominent speakers in the Church, it needs to be called what it is, unacceptable. I would say that the scriptures cannot mean whatever we want them to mean. When we can know the historical meaning of a passage, like 1 Corinthians 7 and 9, we cannot simply put forth our own reading or cite on scholar who agrees with us and state it true. When putting forth a new reading or theology, the responsibility to prove their case falls on those putting forth that new reading. We do not have a final authority like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox communities.
I would like to see a gathering like Dr. Larson paints, bringing together the authors of Chrislam, IM leading practioneers or proponets, and those who are like me – not convinced by either side (yet). We also need to have accurate information about what is happening on the field, who is doing what, and how these IM communities are taking shape. With good data, with a consistent atmosphere of love, and those who are either undecided or in the middle acting as moderators, maybe we can begin to move to a shared understanding of IM. I do believe that when everyone places their own theology/practice as the foot of the cross and submits themselves to one-another and to Christ, that the Holy Spirit will lead us to agreement. I may be naive in saying this, but we must believe that the Triune God can lead us. But right now, no one seems willing to lay down their beliefs and let the Holy Spirit show us what is right.
Blessings to all. Let’s keep the conversation going, talking to rather than about each other. There are things that should be stopped. There are allowances that will need to be made that we may not feel comfortable with. Let us remember, we all want to see Muslims come to Christ – we share that. Time to move forward.
Thanks much for a lengthy response. You may be aware that a conusultation was held at Houghton College last June, called “Bridging the Divide” (BtD) and I wrote something about it in Christianity Today called “Missionaries to Muslims agree to soften their criticisms of each other.” The face-to-face format seemed much more healthy and productive, because basically the issues are those faced by missionaries who actually work with Muslims, not church people. This book has come out to counter that claim for peaceful discussion. You may be right as to whom the book is written for. My concern then would be that with such an inflamatory title (and some extreme chapters) it will stir up pastors (and their congregations). The end result will be more division in the body of Christ.
Dear Dr. Christopher Morton
Thank you for your kind and detailed response. I write to you as someone who has ministered in a predominantly Musllm land, and among a people group who brought Islam there.
I was somewhat dragged into the IM debate as some veteran missionaries in a neighboring country became what somewhat dubbed them as “evangelists for IM.”
Subsequent to that, as my post above shows, I started to systematically examine each and every text of their arguments.
I like you face to face meeting idea, but I must question whether you think that if someone gives token assent to laying things at the cross, and token assent to mutual submission, while strongly holding on to faulty hermeneutical systems, there will actually be true agreement with others. Now you might call me brash, but there are rules of hermeneutics and history of interpretation that are not novel, not cutting edge, and will likely yield results roughly in keeping with the history of tradition of the church.(curious that Greg Parsons hit on the fact that too much of the IM debate is outside the walls of the church. He has hit on a vital nerve.) You have done the same. With IM, however, you have a situation roughly as such:
I make a number of cursory observations in my field of work.(missions in the morning, missiology by evening.) I screen these through my education and my presuppositional base. (now if you are schooled in the social sciences, liberal theology or no theology you might do this more readily) I decide that these are sufficient to warrant a prescription, or this is the way things should be done. (think of McGavran etc.) I then derive my new methodology and announce that this is definitely a work of God. (think of the French prophets of church history who castigated anyone who had the gall to question if this was actually a move of God.) I now go shopping for texts that will support my methodology. (Think of how Acts 10, 15, 17 have been used by IM for example.). I then cross pollinate with other like minded people and we have a movement.
So what is the beef? The starting point. Instead of starting with observation, we need to start with theology, and be willing to subject each and every presupoposition to the cross. If one presupposes, for instance that conversion is a spiral, then it has logical consequences for your methologies that will follow. One must ask if the concept is truly Biblical. or is it derived from the social sciences.. If one presupposes that the fundamental problem with Muslims coming to the Lord is a lack of information, then tweaked information in translation might be the solution. Again, this might reflect a sub-Christian anthropology, reflecting more of a Pelagian view than an Augustinian one.
As to laying down my beliefs. If they have been examined by the whole counsel of God, by alignment with creeds, church history, accepted rules of hermeneutics, interaction with the global Body of Christ and by rigorous examination of my presuppositons, then I see no need to lay them down. To do that would say that all truth is negotiable, and negate the statement “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” Jude 1:3. Theological backbone, not spinelessness for the sake of pseudo-unity is the high calling of the day.
Blessings and may you stick close to the text of Scripture.
John
Thank you Dr. Larson for sharing this precious space on your blog. But I know you value truth.
As a support to John Span’s argument to C. Morton Jan. 9, ” Instead of starting with observation, we need to start with theology, and be willing to subject each and every presupoposition to the cross.”
Read John Travis’s admission that the C1-C6 Spectrum was not developed on a theological basis. He writes: “We desperately need a contextual theology of ministry and church to apply in today’s Islamic milieu (Gilliland 1989a on contextual theologies). In order to not miss what God wants to do (as the Jerusalem church could have done), our theology for Muslim ministry must be Biblically-based, Spirit-led and informed by real life case studies from the field.”
Appropriate Christianity, Charles H. Kraft, Ed., (2005), Pasadena, William Carey Library. pp. 411.
Travis admits with that writing there was no theological basis for IM despite his publishing the C1-C6 Spectrum in 1998.
As John Span indicates, the IM philosophy is based on social science studies and not theological foundations.
All:
I do plan on reading the book. I did read the Foreword by my friend Darrell Bock (interesting what he does and doesn’t say about the book!). A fellow staff member, who is more on the fence on these issues, was offended by some of what he read. He was mad about the miss-representation he found (and he doesn’t get mad. Another staffer has it now, as I finish some other writing projects first.)
I’m sorry if I offended anyone because I don’t expect to see anything new in it, perhaps just like the authors don’t expect to hear anything new from those they disagree with. I must admit I’ve read much that left me feeling there was/is little hope… way too much accusation and selective quoting to make points that were not intended, so little references, etc. Georges suggesting that the “tide will turn” makes me wonder if folks are reading each other with an open mind?
(Now, yesterday, I hear there is a petition that is inaccurate.)
John Span (John, thanks for making me a “Dr.”, but I’m about a month from a PhD!) wrote: “If I am reading you right you seem to assert that no one in the Body of Christ can decide if something is “in” or “out.” That leaves me very queasy.”
Yes and no. No ONE person gets to decide. We can scream “heresy” but that doesn’t mean it is true.I’m sure I have a lot to learn about heresy historically, but my understanding is that it is done by official church bodies. That makes it difficult today, since many of not most of us are not in any legally connected denomination (or similar) structure. I’m sure others could give us more info on that.
I thought you (John) were asking if we get to decide if someONE (rather that someTHING) was in or out. Glad you didn’t!
At least I think we would all agree that we don’t get to decide who is saved. Thus, we really don’t know EXACTLY what they need to think in order to “believe.” We know: they need to repent/turn from sin, trust/believe/place their faith in Christ. Then they are on the path to learning, growing, transforming…they are justified, but are in the process of being sanctified…right?
But it seems like many (including big name pastors) are making the list (and their books about it) much longer these days. I wonder how many of the folks (good solid Christians) in our churches in the U.S. really understand the “trinity” or what is meant by “son of God.” Sure, they would say they do, but then you hear people confused and separating God into three and forgetting the unity.
The people I know in the IM movement are NOT denying ANY major doctrine, but they ARE saying: “lets give Muslims, Hindus….time to work through issues and not shove it down their throats.”
Greg,
When you write that all IMers that you know are merely attempting to give time for Hindus and Muslims to “work through issues” you appear to seriously misunderstand the purpose of Chrislam. As a contributor to Chrislam, I think that I can safely say on behalf of the rest of the authors and editors that we are not taking issue with giving time for Hindus and Muslims to work through difficult issues. We are, however, taking issue with the promotion and practice of anti-biblical beliefs and practices that, although you are slow to deem them “heresy,” have already been deemed heresy by the Church fathers and the witness of the Church throughout the years because of what the Bible clearly teaches.
Though we have not met, I have learned that you are the general director for USCWM. Ralph Winter, USCWM, IJFM, Perspectives, Missions Frontiers, and the William Carely Library together have been one of the main sources of IM and removing Father and Son from Scripture “translations” for Muslims (for example, the current issue of IJFM which is given to defending the practice of removing Father and Son from the Bible for Muslims).
If you, as representative of USCWM are unwilling to acknowledge your role in this matter, or present it as simply “giving time” to new believers, we will continually be talking past each other. You clearly and repeatedly teach in your publications that Hindus and Muslims can remain part of the socio-religious community. You redefine actual religious beliefs of these religions (as well as others), including the identities based on these beliefs, into “cultural” issues and feel free to move on with your agenda. Unless and until you openly admit that your definition of “culture” is a redefinition of that word, very little will be accomplished.
We are saying that your redefinition of “culture” involves that which is biblically antithetical, that which is heretical, and that which is antichristian, the main two points being (as I understand them):
1- Retaining another religious identity that gives others the appearance of being something that he/she is not (e.g. “Muslim follower of Christ”)
2-Removing the divinvely-inspired terms of Father, Son, and Son of God from Scripture.
We feel that we understand your position but that you are either not understanding ours and/or rejecting our position but not being forthright about that rejection. Trying to maintain the appearance of unity because we all call ourselves Christians and appealing to those things that would threaten this assumed unity while ignoring the fact that two cannot walk together unless they are agreed (Amos 3:3) is missing the point of why we reject IM.
Adam
Dear Dr. Larson,
In response to Dr. Morton you state:
“The face-to-face format seemed much more healthy and productive, because basically the issues are those faced by missionaries who actually work with Muslims, not church people.”
I’m wondering if I understand you correctly. IF we are talking about issues of methodology alone then we should indeed pursue missionary-to-missionary dialogue. However, in the context of issues related to methodology alone (should we buy a boat or an airplane?) we should not exclude the church from such discussions. After all, we are talking about the ‘mission of the church’ and not the mission of mission agencies, are we not?
However, IF we are talking about issues related to theology (and I accept the argument that methodology cannot be isolated from theology), particularly where there are questions of heterodoxy, then most certainly this is the prerogative of the church. As mission leaders we are not a gnostic community – or rather we should not be, lest we slip into the realm of one of the earliest NT heresies.
Phil
Hey Phil. Surely this is a discussion where some members of the church will be involved but I think it is primarily a discussion that involves those who actually work with Muslims. At the last BtD (Bridging the Divide) consultation in Houghton College it was good to see some evangelical mission pastors/leaders from the church in the West, and I think for the most part, they were also scholar-practitioners. I understand some invited folks did not come to consultation because they felt it was unbibical. It seems to me that meeting face-to-face was how a few sticky theolgoical/missiological problems were settled in Acts. For example, Peter was called on the carpet in Jerusalem (Acts 11) as to why he went to the house of uncircumcised Gentiles, but after all getting together, the matter was solved. Again, in response to those who demanded circumcision of the Gentile believing Christians, the matter was handled by all of them getting together and discussing this question (Acts 15).
Greetings all: David Wells made a cogent observation some years back and showed that some of these debates are not about theology or no theology, but rather whence comes the soul and fire of the enterprise. He wrote:
The difference is not that in one theology it is present and in
the other it is not. Theology is professed and believed in both.
But in one, theology is the reason and basis for ministry; it
provides the criteria by which success is to be measured. In
the other, theology does none of these things. Here the min-
istry provides its own rationale for itself, its own criteria, its
own techniques. Theology is not disbelieved, but it does not
give the work of ministry its heart and fire.
David Wells, The D-Min-lzation of the Ministry,” in No God but God, ed. Os Guinness and John Seel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), p. 186.
Dr. Larson,
Thank you so much for a good, brief overview of the book. I am interested in looking it over. However, I am a bit startled by the sentiments expressed by some of those who have made comments on this page. It seems striking that Jesus’ disciples can be so aggressive. I thought the biblical admonition was to speak the truth in love (also Gal 6:1). And please don’t take this next comment wrong. I don’t mean to be stereotypical here or demeaning of American evangelicalism because I think the world has been immensely blessed by the strength and vitality of the American evangelical movement- however, the tone of the comments appear to me to reflect a bit of the dark side of the movement. Your comments about the book along with their comments appear to indicate that some of the authors have crossed a moral boundary in their zeal. May the Lord bless us, watch over us, and keep us all. Jude 24-25!
Bradford Greer,
You call what is on this page aggressive? Dude, maybe you have never been in a disagreement with anyone before and the very idea of disagreement seems mean-spirited to you. IMO, there is a big difference between speaking the truth in love (see how Jesus or Paul did it at times!) and what appears to be your non-confrontational idea of niceness. And your comment (especially the incredible “dark side of the movement”) might actually be something I would consider if you had actually read the book and knew what context you were talking in.
LKW,
I was not offended by the directness of some who wrote in after reading my review of Chrislam as I expected it. But I am somewhat surprised by how you address Mr. Greer, particularly in light of the fact that he is not an American, and you do not know him. The word “Dude” is a slang term often associated with cowboys and the wild West, but not a respectful term, especially for one who wrote from outside the US. It may give him more reason to think too many American evangelicals are ungracious and perhaps even pugnacious. Whether we like it or not this is the way we sometimes come across to the rest of the world.
Hey Warren…Dude! Sorry for problem this little word has caused you. I do appreciate your interesting thoughts about this. But it seems to me that, in spite of your well-meaning desire to take up for Mr. Greer, that your post is perhaps a bit of a distraction, since it did not really deal with the substance of my post, which was actually directed to someone else, and not to you. And it highlights even more my concern that for some, it is OK to start attacking people’s motives rather than dealing with the content of their arguments.
And I really do appreciate your sensitivity concerning Mr. Greer’s feelings, and I take what you said to heart — but perhaps it would be better if you did not feel the need to put words into Mr. Greer’s mouth. He may well be offended with me – but even his offense is real and would serve this dialogue better than your mere assumption regarding his offense.
And I actually have traveled a bit and have some understanding of other cultures. I have spent time with many internationals, including a month in Turkey (I know – not a long time, but useful nonetheless).
Also – age and wisdom are wonderful things (I pray for more wisdom often!). And I don’t mean this next statement to offend you, but I feel the need to say it for clarity. The fact that you associate the word “dude” with cowboys shows perhaps more about your age than anything else. Language, as you know, is a living thing, and it grows and morphs over time. And very few people on the planet under the age of 49 think that dude currently refers to cowboys (and to most other internationals, it probably has no meaning at all, since they are not privy to the obscurities of American history and culture that you are). It is actually a term of endearment for most, or a filler word, like the word “man”, as in “Man, that was good pizza!”
So my awesome brother Jesus dude — that’s how I see it from my vantage point. I know, I know — I still have a lot to learn. And perhaps if I hang around more with you old, smart guys, I will do just that. :o) And I hope that in the midst of our disagreement, we can both have a tremendously groovy day in the Holy Spirit! (I mean, when was the last time someone put a smiley on your blog?! Yay!)
LKW,
To clarify in your post to Warren: I didn’t attack the authors’ motives. I questioned their manner. His peace to you, bro. 🙂
Hey Bradford! Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your heart for Jesus and His Kingdom (and the smiley face!)
You said: “I didn’t attack the authors’ motives. I questioned their manner.”
And that is exactly what I thought you mainly meant originally (and what I tried to address in my original post to you — although I think your “dark side” comment might have gone a little over the edge into attributing more than improper tone).
And the main point I was trying to make is that it does not seem to me that the authors were at all aggressive — they were just trying to be painstakingly clear about the subject matter of the book. And I have found that in general it is better in a format like this (where tone can be so easily misunderstood) to not stray off into interpreting tone but rather to stay with ideas and to assume the best. Of course, that’s just the way I look at it.
But thank you for your kind response. And His peace to you as well, my brother dude! 🙂
Awesome thread.. I had to read it twice to understand it all though, haha!
Dear Larson,
When I read some of the articles in the book, “Chrislam”, I’m grieved to read such gross misrepresentation of the many Bible-believing Christians who labour in the Muslim sensitive areas.
I fully agree with you that there are many instances in the book, Chrislam that are most troubling as they contain inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes.
We have personally written to the editors of the book, Chrislam highlighting the gross misrepresentation of our work as mentioned in one of the chapters. The misrepresentation of our work demonstrates a lack of academic/scholastic integrity.
H. Djaya
Would you mind sending me a copy of what you wrote? I would appreciate it. Again, I think some of the issues covered are certainly worth talking about, but questioned whether the book contributes to a resolution of the differences. Thanks much.
H. Djaya, Is this another pseudonym or a real person?
If a real person who is involved in a real work somewhere – seems to be in an Indonesian or Malaysian context- then please give us some examples of “inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes” that concern you.
Pardon me, but just saying there are some is not really helpful. We can’t answer such an open-ended accusation.
As for Warren’s comment “whether the book contributes to a resolution of the differences” if you read the Preface of the book it is stated: “This book is about theological truth that matters to all of us.” (p. iii) How is discussion about “theological truth” not in some way helpful to a resolution of differences?
Why are strong opinions, acute hypotheses, and even disagreements that are painful not useful in focusing on issues that need resolving?
Dear Larson,
I would be glad to send you our written comments to the Editors of the said book, “Chrislam” if you provide me your personal e-mail. We felt it is not helpful to post our comments addressed to the specific editor of the books in a public blog.
H. Djaya
Great review… Thank you for that. Your certainly got the wolves baying. The only really great thing about this book is that the whole pack has been named We can now see their pack attacks and bully tactics all over the web for what they are. This very small but very noisy group of wolves should be ashamed of their petitions, tabloid level documentaries, smear campaigns, slander etc… 100 years ago some cultural philistine on Hudsons Taylors team tried exactly the same sort of stuff on Taylor when he got back to London, whipping up the masses into a hysteria with sound bites and out of context quotes and anecdotes. However history has proven over and over that mission is done best when it is field-driven. These wolves are trying to knock back missions 100 years. shame shame shame. Your petition set a new low in worldliness guys… I have never ever heard of such a thing.
Cam,
I am surprised that you are not more up to date than Warren was when he wrote his review. Please note what Wycliffe leaders are now saying. They recognize that the issue is serious as many of their own members are speaking out. We want Wycliffe to set their house in order. We also want Frontiers, IJFM, Mission Frontiers, Fuller, and other organizations who are strongly promoting this new brand of Insider Movement to wake up to the dangers and consequences. The “wolves” you mention are not really wolves but rather whistle blowers. And you know how whistle blowers are treated until people wake up and see the danger they are indicating.
roger
Cam/James, whoever you are, these mistranslations for Muslims have been distributed in the Metro Detroit area and some of them are available on the internet.
Son of God becomes Messiah, caliph of God, beloved of God
Father becomes God, Lord, guardian
Entire passages of the Bible are skipped, like 35 verses from Romans 8 and Galatians 4:1-7, in spite of the fact the table of contents claims that these entire letters are present.
Your post makes me question your commitment to Jesus Christ and reality of whether or not you have been regenerated.
Cam- or should I say James?
It seems you’re just recycling your comments from that other blog post, except you used my “shame shame shame” line. Go for it- attack those wolves… 😉
Why don’t you just reveal your identity and your vested interest in protecting these mistranslations?
@ Pierre, Roger & Adam
Hi guys
Sorry, no conspiracies here Pierre (check your dates). I have no vested interests in this, there will be no winners here. I have no relationship to, or role in any of the organisations listed by Roger. I am actually very sceptical of anyone stretching the limits of faithful translation and totally against “insider movements” as the chrislam authors portray them…(however, from what I read, the reviled “IM advocates” seem to be too!). Of course, I do have friends who have taken up one side or another and I try to read as much as I can from all viewpoints.
What I object to is the methods the BM/chrislam people use. Accusing the brethren is not whistle blowing and Kony-ism is no way to solve problems in the body of Christ. Adam your last comments are classic and sadly quite typical of the general attitudes the christlam authors seem to exhibit.
Just watching from the sidelines, all I can say is that I have become more and more unimpressed with the chrislam heresy hunters, while more and more I have to admire the careful, civil, relational approach taken by Wycliffe and others in the firing line. Heresy-hunting is one of those strange US traditions I will probably never understand, but It appears to me they have taken a wise approach to not respond in the same contentious spirit.
Thus, you can tell I am not one of “them” because I am (perhaps foolishly) bothering to write and say what I think. Perhaps “wolves” was too strong a word. Sorry for that. It was just upsetting to see the “pack attack” here on Warrens perfectly reasonable review. Just surfing around I sometimes get the impression these chrislam guys have some sort of internal alert system set up, to swamp and intimidate any blog that dares disagree with them, not sure. Organised or not I don’t think these social media bully tactics we see above are a way to solve problems long term.
James Cam
ps I would be happy to reveal my identity, no problem. Just give up the bullying, petitions, slander, and smear tactics, convince me you are actually listening to your brothers and sisters in the IM camp (is there one?) and that you are interested in relationships, and we could have a nice chat 😉
Thanks Cam, i appreciate your reasonable perspective.
Perhaps you should do a review, or analyze the books strengths and weaknesses.
Sarjono from Indonesia here (muslim-born, but now a tongue-speaking, bible-toting christian).
I’d be interested to read God’s own review of this book.
Chrislam itself is an oxymoron. Jesus IS God. How can that be watered down to be in compliance with an opposing belief? It doesn’t make sense.
Besides, there is no CHRIST in chrISLAM.
Hey, let’s make a new one: BudhinjudachrislamO.
@ Greg. Yes maybe. Not sure it will do much good… There is very little new or “cutting edge” on either side. From my perspective the issues are very much connected to assumed definitions of “religion”, “culture” and “identity”. Check out this and you’ll see we have a problem: http://goo.gl/vk0gQ
The classic paradigm the chrislam people are working from is beautifully summed up in span and dixons quote above: “Instead of starting with observation, we need to start with theology, and be willing to subject each and every presupoposition to the cross.” sounds great. However, when I talk to IM people, they appear to be less naive about their own cultural glasses, and would say: “even reading the bible in order to create theology is an act of observation” Thats the problem in a nutshell as far as I see it.
span and dixon throw out these assumptions as self-evident maxims, not realising that in doing so they will never really “hear” what the IM people seem to be saying…
Thanks for your perspective James Cam. Sorry you can’t see anything “new or ‘cutting edge’ on either side.” Just to clarify, I assure you that what you call “Chrislam people” have scholars in all disciplines and are not just talking about theology separate from a holistic approach. However, the critical issue is that certain mission agencies are changing theology on their own and incorporating it into bible translations in a way that is not apparent to the general Church community. We believe that these new interpretations of the Trinity and other alternatives in Bible translation should be done in the context of the Church Universal.
I understand that you may not know about this or think it is important but many of us who have careers in missions know this is the case and believe this is important. We will persevere to bring this issue before the world wide Church.
Sarjono, Thanks for your reply. You get the point. Chrislam has no Christ in it.
That is the point of the book. Those of us who live or have lived in Indonesia are fully aware that the two theologies cannot be blended without removing the salvation that Jesus brought us through his death on the cross. Glory to the Lord Jesus. Tuhan memberkati
Hi Roger,
In response to your Feb 17 request: “If a real person who is involved in a real work somewhere – seems to be in an Indonesian or Malaysian context- then please give us some examples of “inaccuracies, misperceptions and unbiblical attitudes” that concern you.” As you know, I’m not H. Djaya, 🙂 but I am a real person who is involved in a real work somewhere.
One stunning inaccuracy found in Chrislam is found on pages 169-172, listing concerns with the Malaysian “Shellabear translation” (KSZI), with translation of that text by Rick R. Almost all of the problem verses cited are cases where the Malaysian Putera (Greek huios) is translated as “Prince.” Rick is correct that this is the most common meaning of putera, however he’s quite wrong in implying that “prince” is the only possible meaning of the word and that the filial (sonship) meaning of huios is lost through the use of putera.
The semantic range of putera includes the idea of “son,” as can be plainly seen in its use by normal Malaysians (not royalty) in wedding announcements, in birth announcements, and as a normal descriptor of Jesus by the Roman Catholic church in Malaysia. Examples could be multiplied by anyone familiar with Malaysian culture and language.
But the greatest problem in the list of texts from the Malaysian NT is the last and most incendiary. Rick translated Phil 2:11 into English as “confess that Jesus the Messiah is Muhammad/the glorified one who brings glory to the Father.” If any shocked reader looks to see what Malaysian words are conveying such a blasphemous idea, they’ll find that the book Chrislam doesn’t contain any evidence. This portion of the Malaysian is not printed. The Malaysian quoted ends with “semau lidah mengaku bahawa.” Which means “every tongue confess that.”
The rest of the Malay text (which can be found if one owns or borrows a copy of this Malaysian NT) reads “Isa al-Masih adalah Junjungan Yang Esa, untuk mendatangkan kemuliaan kepada Allah Bapa.” This would properly be translated “Jesus the Messiah (or Isa al-Masih) is the only Divine Glorious One, to bring glory to God the Father.” Rick’s translation adds the interpretive idea of Muhammad and ignores the phrase “Yang Esa,” which means the one and only (with the capital letters denoting divinity). So Rick has added in a blasphemous connotation and totally ignored both of the markers denoting divinity.
As I see it, this goes beyond a disagreement about which words would be a better translation and crosses the line into a false and insulting accusation against brothers. If Rick doesn’t like the translation and doesn’t want to use it, that’s certainly his right. But he as the translator of those lines and the editors of the book bear responsibility for presenting false and misleading information to the body of Christ.
(BTW, I’ve already said all of this and much more to Rick and the editors of Chrislam. Their response has sadly been to let these inaccuracies and false accusations stand as written.)
You are right in that Phil.2:11 is not included from the Malay text & the English translation is not correct. But my impression is that the English included from Phil. 2:9-11 must be a misprint. I don’t see how v. 11 could be translated that way from Kitab Suci Zabur dan Injil.
This is Joshua Lingel’s chapter and I will be contacting him about it.
There are some who disagree with the use of Putera but I am not an expert in Malay. It is used also in Indonesian and the meaning can be son. My main complaint about the Malay translation is the same as it is with the MIT in Indonesian. That is, the use of the word junjungan. I have discussed this with a number of Indonesians most of whom agree with me that the word is a purely secular word without any nuance of divinity and it is never used with other words such as ilahi (divine) or Yang Esa in either language. However, some argue that the word can be explained and can garner meaning over time.
The basic question is why would translators make up an expression that would then have to be explained and enculturated whereas there were already words such as Tuhan that have been used for centuries in both Malay and Indonesian. The most reasonable answer to that came from John Travis who told a group of us that Muslims will be more likely to read the bibles if they use words that replace Tuhan and other words that are considered blasphemous.
> Examples could be multiplied by anyone familiar with Malaysian culture and language.
Dave, please tell use your exact level of familiarity “with Malaysian culture and language.”
Rick knows EXACTLY what “Putera” does and doesn’t mean to the typical Malay-speaking MALAY on the streets of Malaysia because he is out there sharing the gospel with many of them every day of the week. You seriously can’t even sit down with him and finish off a teh tarik or a plate of nasi lemak before he is talking about Christ, in MALAY, with the MALAY servers. Not to exaggerate, Rick literally shares the gospel with more MALAYS in the MALAY language on any given day of the week than many missionaries I’ve talked to do in a year. Rick is not an armchair scholar who spends his time scouring the internet to dig up sources and make conjectures about what a word may or may not mean in different contexts to members of the many different ethno-linguistic groups within Malaysia. He is a practitioner who knows exactly what these terms in fact DO mean in the ears of MALAYS (in contrast to Chinese or Orang Asli Roman Catholic Malaysians who compromise ethno-linguistic people groups that are *utterly distinct* from Malays, even if they do speak their *own ‘dialect’* of Malay).
So again, Dave, what is your expertise to back up your claim to speak on behalf of “anyone familiar with Malaysian culture and language”? Rick’s knowledge of what Malay terms mean in the ears of a MALAY comes from 10 years of sharing the gospel tons of times on a *daily* basis with MALAYS of Malaysia. In sharp contrast, you have a wedding announcement you found on the internet and some other documents that someone sent you by email (and I think you’ve been to Malaysia a couple times). The fact that you even bring up the “Roman Catholic church” in Malaysia which contains a population of ZERO MALAYS, but rather represents an *entirely different ethno-linguistic group*, rather than supporting your claims, actually just goes to show that you are stretching yourself beyond the realm of things you understand. If you had an elementary first-hand understanding of Malaysian culture, you wouldn’t point to a Roman Catholic liturgical document as evidence about what the Malay language means to MALAYS.
Additionally, and probably most importantly, as I have communicated to you already in other contexts, even if we were to accept your claim that “The semantic range of putera includes the idea of “son,””, that claim would be entirely inadequate. The Sonship of Jesus is a precious matter to the heart of God, and you don’t go translating “huios” with a word of which the best that can be said of its suitability is that “it’s semantic range includes the idea of son.” There is a word in Malay, unsurprisingly, THAT ACTUALLY MEANS SON. It is the very word which the KSZI translators used for “huios” almost 100% of the time *except* when they were talking about Jesus. Looking at the KSZI text, it is clear that the translators used the following rule:
huios –> putera (if talking about Jesus’ divine sonship)
huios –> anak (if not talking about Jesus; or if talking about Jesus’ human sonship)
Anak MEANS SON. Even if it is true that in some contexts, to some extent, “the semantic range of putera includes son”, that is a pathetic and sorry excuse for using an obfuscating term for Jesus’ Divine Sonship while using the linguistically correct, straight forward and clear, word that ACTUALLY MEANS SON *everywhere else*! If KSZI used “putera” for “huios” consistently, then there might be a valid argument to be made that the translation was simply a weird linguistic hybrid of Malay and Indonesian. But the fact that they clearly divided their translation for “huios” based on whether or not Jesus’ Divine Sonship was being referred to, makes it pretty hard to avoid the conclusion that the motivation was more missiological strategy than linguistics. If any KSZI translator has the integrity to come out, tell us their identity, and explain why I’m wrong, I would very much welcome being corrected here.
> (BTW, I’ve already said all of this and much more to Rick and the editors of Chrislam. Their response has sadly been to let these inaccuracies and false accusations stand as written.)
Nope. That is a misrepresentation. Rick’s response has always been to vigorously seek to show you why your second and third hand inferences about the Malay language are wrong. I don’t know about your conversations with the editors of Chrislam, but did they really say, “We are going to let these inaccuracies and false accusations stand”? I think what you mean is, “I’ve already said all of this and much more to Rick and the editors of Chrislam, but sadly they were not convinced that their statements consisted of inaccuracies and false accusations.”
And they will know we are Christians by our doctrinal statements, theological methods, definition of truth and oh yeah…love I guess that too.
Peter, the greatest love one can have is to “lay down one’s life.” If we feel that a brother is not on the straight path, we need to guide him as best we can. We all make mistakes but if the intentions of the heart are right, the truth will emerge. It is not love to let a brother or sister go down a road you believe will lead to tragedy or to engage in practices that you are convinced will harm the spiritual life of others. We do the best we can. If we are wrong the Lord will reveal that also.
Ok, let me figure this out… So here we have the chrislam people accusing the translators of a Malay bible of twisting the meaning to be “islam compliant”. And now it turns out they are twisting the translation of the alleged twisted translation, but Roger says thats ok because they do their twisting in love? You gotta love the irony here. Where do we go to sign the petition? 😉
Roger perhaps a public apology is in order then? At the moment all I hear is defence and diversionary tactics. You seem to have a lot more grace for yourselves that you show for others. Is that what you call Biblical Missology?
Of course I realise you cannot change your book. However, you are also not forced to sell your print run now that you know it contains this false information that slanders your christian briothers and sisters. You portray yourself as standing for truth so maybe you should withdraw it from circulation? All I am hearing from you from your last few comments is that the ends justify the means… lets see some integrity here. Show us your passion for truth!
I have been advised the following by the speaker of Malaysian who wrote the section on p. 172 in Chrislam where the word junjungan used for “Lord” in Phil 2:11 is back translated as “Muhammad/the glorified one.” The word for “Lord” that is used, i.e., junjungan is understood that way in the Malaysian language. I was concerned that it was a misprint. But I am not a Malaysian language expert (though Indonesian and Malaysian are similar) so I bow to the Malaysian speaker. He understands that as the definition of “junjungan.”
In Indonesian use it has a much broader application. If that section contained all of v.11 in the MIT text & then gave the back translation, it would not be so abrupt. The lack of the full verse is what creates much of the confusion.
It is not an error or misprint as I thought. Sorry for the trauma.
Still looks like an unethical back translation to me where the very worst possible back translation is used to cause shock and horror amongst us “ignorant” on-lookers.
(Speaking of us ignorant folks, its puzzling to me Roger that in most of your replies to me you inform me (in the nicest of terms mind you) that you consider me ignorant of the issues here. The implication appears to be that you think I should keep quiet and that I have no right to get involved due to my ignorance. Fair enough, but I find it strange then that you appear to support the BM petition which is a blatant attempt to stir up us “ignorant folks” into some kind of linch mob? Please explain the apparent contradiction here)
Anyway, above you appear to say the Indonesian use of junjungan for Lord would be allowable as the application is broader. Yet your emq article says:
Several years ago, one national publishing company (referred to here as NPC) published a fresh translation of the New Testament. It is similar to the 1987 harmony mentioned above, which was produced in another country. In this work, most references to Tuhan (the word for “Lord”) are changed to the Indonesian word junjungan. This is the same word that followers of the former president of Indonesia, Wahid Abdurahman, use as a sign of respect for him. When he was attacked politically his followers said, “We are ready to defend Gus Dur. Gus Dur is our junjungan (“Kita Siap Membela Gus Dur…” 2005). A reader would have to assume that the composers of this new “bible” feel that Jesus is on the same level as a former president of Indonesia.
I find this as yet another cheap-shot back-translation similar to the that in the christlam book. And it is logically flawed. For example, this article here
Click to access kang-8.pdf
at least opens some possibility that junjungan is a valid title of respect to spiritual beings in some contexts. It mentions:
Furthermore, the address term junjungan, which literally means ‘those who are esteemed,’ itself contains a certain expected emotion towards the spiritual beings. This address term thus conveys an iconic relationship between the superior and the subordinator by evoking conventional emotional aspects between superior and subordinate.
Whatever happened to love choosing to believe the best? I dont understand why the christlam people appear to purposely misrepresent the translators and their motives.
James C. and Jeff M.,
I had understood that Jeff was collecting changes for the Chrislam book (as one of the editors) and that the error in reporting the Malaysian translation was going to be corrected.
Is that true Jeff?
First of all, I apologize for any references taken as stating you were “ignorant” of issues. I believe no one is ignorant of the issues. It is just that no one that I have ever known has command of both Indonesian and Malaysian language so I just assumed that you did not. Sorry if that was wrong.
Although the term junjungan is defined in the largest Indonesian dictionary as a term that can be used to refer to Muhammad or in the case of a female, a male dominant figure, in my 33 years in the Indonesian church I have never heard it used in reference to Jesus. However, if it is used to refer to Muhammad in the Malaysian language I don’t know. That is all I can say on this. If you think the book is deliberately misleading people, that’s up to you. If, by any chance, you think so even if you don’t know either language and don’t know what is being back translated, that is even more curious.
As far as the Petition is concerned, it is a call to the Church universal to require accountability from Wycliffe/SIL who now (in some cases) is admitting some fault. Let us get this all cleared up in these months ahead. The Petition has created the impetus to do this. Without it, Wycliffe/SIL would not have changed anything. No need to reply unless you would like to notify us that you have signed the petition. I would just have to repeat myself to say anymore on this subject.
As I said earlier in my one post, I am somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have friends on both sides, which is very troubling. The action that Wycliffe is taking is the right one, to bring together the global church and translators and to work through what they see as allowable and what is a bridge too far. We can argue here about this Malaysia word or Bengali word, but most of us do not speak the language. As Wycliffe works through the theology involved in the words Son and Father (they are not merely titles but are their very nature) they then can decide what is the allowable range of words that align with what the Church globally believes about the Triune God (one of the problem is merely leaving it to the translators is that they are experts in linguistics, not theology, and yes, words in the Scriptures come loaded with theology already built into them that lexicons and historical development of words do not necessary express).
The larger issue now is what this is doing to the family of God. Peter you made a nice joke about they will know us by our theological statements, and you are right, it is our love. But what does love mean? It is a word full of theological realities and truths. Theology does matter because it can lead to a Jesus that cannot save, a God who does not judge, or a call to holiness which is not important. As I have spoke to the Chrislam people I genuinely hear their heart that they fear that Muslims are being given a “Gospel” which will give them the appearance of salvation but will found to be one the left hand at the day of judgment. While I disagree with my friend Adam’s vehemence in his responses, I do truly believe is responding out of a passion for the Gospel and for Muslims. At the same time my friends who are Insider practioneers truly believe that not only is what they are teaching biblical true, but that other missionary practices have created unbiblical barriers to the Gospel, that we have played “keep away” from Muslims.
What Chrislam and the I2 “whistle blowers” have done is in fact called attention a Gospel-level issue that the Church globally should be wrestling with, not just a few practioneers in isolated settings. Ideally this issue would have been wrestled with before we were a full generation into the practice of Insider ministry. Because of the way this issue came to light it led some in the Chrislam camp to believe that Insider practioneers were hiding their work because they knew it was unbiblical. I truly do not believe that is the case, but you can see where they would think that. What is interesting to me as I speak to friends on both sides how much agreement there actually is. No one is saying a Muslim has to “come clean” day one, that there is a process. No one is doing the anti-Hudson Taylor thing, as all agree that the church in a given setting should reflect its culture and the unique God-given elements that make them unique. That is not to say there are not real issue here. The questions of identity (how do I understand what I am as a new creation), the relationship between first-birth identity and second-birth identities, the degree to which Islam and culture are mixed, and how we talk about the Triune God.
My hope is that as Wycliffe is doing that the Church globally could convene together – its theologians, its biblical scholars, its historians, its pastors and its missionaries – listen to the arguments of both sides, and lead us on a path of unity, where we can agree on what the scriptures allow, what the scriptures give freedom because it is silent, and what is clearly out-of-bounds. I am theologian. I am part of a mission agency and have had a heart for the nations and especially Muslims since I came to Christ as a college student 22 years ago. I have spent most of the past 2 years wrestling with this issue, but it is time for us to stop wrestling in isolation (because I am in the undecided camp, I have had few to wrestle with on this issue), to stop listening only to “our side,” and to begin to do what the Church has done through the ages – seek the Holy Spirit guidance and produce boundaries that are flexible for all contexts but that are rooted in the scriptures and the faith of our Fathers.
Adam recently stated that one can be angry and loving. I believe that is true, but it is time to be angry not at one another but at the enemy and remember that we all share the same conviction – we want to see Muslims come to Christ, many of them, and see the giant of Islam fall as its former adherents instead worship Lamb who was slain.
Jeff and James,
I had understood that the error, or miss-representation of the Malaysian translation as reported in the Chrislam book was one of the corrections you (Jeff) had collected.
Is that true? Will it be changed when the book is reprinted? Will the changes be posted on i2’s web site?