The Call Of Christ And Religious Identity: A Theology Of Religions Analysis Of C5 “insider Movements”

Lumpkin 1

The Call of Christ and Religious Identity: A Theology of Religions Analysis of C5 “Insider Movements”

Lessons From the Muslim Christian Encounter Fuller Theological Seminary

Presented to: Dr. Martin Accad

Matthew H. Lumpkin

Lumpkin 2 “I found the battle almost invariable being pitched at one of these three places: the Old Testament, or Western Civilization, or the Christian Church. I had the ill defined but instinctive feeling that the heard of the matter was being left out. Then I saw that I could, and should shorten my line, that I could take my stand at Christ and before that non-Christian world refuse to know anything save Jesus Christ and him crucified. The sheer storm and stress of things had driven me to a place that I could hold. Then I saw that there is where I should have been all the time. I saw that the gospel lies in the person of Jesus, that he himself is the Good News, that my one task was to live and to present him. My task was simplified.”1 –E. Stanley Jones The Christ of the Indian Road

We can hear in the earnest words of Jones, a Methodist missionary to India, writing in1925, the struggle common to so many of us who have gone abroad to share our witness to Christ, only to find we are caught up trying to defend the character and deeds of those who have claimed to follow Him. For Jones, the solution was to stop defending the institution of Christianity, which had been so long identified as a tool of imperialism and oppression in India, and instead witness to the person of Jesus Christ. The very individuals who had so much distrust and animosity towards Christianity had an openness, indeed an eagerness to learn the ways of Jesus. Thus began a new ministry trajectory, and I believe, the seeds of the current debate among Evangelical missionaries regarding the legitimacy of “Insider” approaches to evangelism and ministry, particularly in Muslim contexts. In this essay I will look carefully at the historical development of Muslim “Insider Movements (IM)” as a phenomenon, as well as some of the key figures describing it and their arguments in support of the movement’s legitimacy. Next I will turn to critics of the movement, listing their objections and concerns. Finally I will argue that this discussion can best be viewed as a question of theology of religions. This is because our acceptance or rejection of Insider approaches will be based upon our understanding of what exactly religion is, and what exactly Jesus is calling us to: a new religion or something higher.

1

E. Stanley Jones, The Christ of the Indian Road (New York: Abingdon, 1925), 8.

Lumpkin 3 1 Historical Backgrounds of Insider Approaches 1.1 Key Figures Many within the evangelical missions community have appreciated the work of Samuel Zwemer, sometimes called the modern “apostle to Islam.” He a foundational figure in the call to translate or contextualize the gospel message in a way that was more comprehensible to Muslims. Jonathan Culver highlights Zwemer’s work in the 1950’s to establish the close kinship of Muslims to God’s covenant people from their status as children of Ishmael. For Zwemer this was a strong motivation to find innovative ways to bring the gospel to the Muslim audience that had been very resistant to it. His work was also a means to deconstruct barriers of anti-Muslim bias in the West by linking Muslims to the Jews.2 J. Dudley Woodberry takes this argument beyond identity, into Muslim practice. In his 1989 article on “Reusing Common Pillars” in Islam, he argues that each of the five “pillars” of Islam are actually expressions of the common heritage of the monotheistic traditions, Judaism and Christianity.3 His meticulous linguistic and historical research in tracing the origin and evolution of these practices into current Muslim expressions sprang from his experiences while working in the Muslim world. He and others had begun to observe emergence of communities of followers of Jesus from Muslim backgrounds (also known as Muslim Background Believers or MBB’s) that retained many of these practices associated with their Muslim identity. While very controversial at the time, Woodberry and others, argued for the legitimacy of the “rehabilitation” of these pillars through revising some of their content and symbolism to reflect a 2

Jonathan Culver, “The Ishmael Promise and Contextualization Among Muslims,” International Journal of Frontier Missions vol. 17, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 68. 3 Included in these practices are, of course: confession of faith (though Woodberry is concerned that some modification of the content of the Muslim shahada is necessary for Christians), ritual prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage. J. Dudley Woodberry, “Contextualization among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars,” In The  World Among Us,  Dean Gilliland, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1998), 282‐312. Revised 1996 with additional notes in  International Journal of Frontier Missions 13 no. 4 (Winter 1996): 174-182.

Lumpkin 4 Christian theology and worldview.4 Though a great deal of his work focused on establishing the Jewish and Christian pedigree of these practices, there is also a strong emphasis that this “contextualization” was not so much a missionary strategy as an emergent reality in these contexts. This is how MBB’s were expressing their newfound faith in Christ through the practices and forms of Islam. Woodberry and his colleagues were simply trying to make sense of for themselves and a Western audience skeptical of syncretism, what it seemed that God was doing among these communities. One of the most important developments in this conversation is the more nuanced description of this phenomenon developed by John Travis is known as the C1-6 spectrum (with C standing for “Christ-Centered Communities,”) It is an attempt to describe the broad range of expressions of faith in Christ within Muslim communities that he and others had observed. The higher the number on the C1-6 scale, the greater the level of integration with Muslim culture, practice, and identity.5 C1 believers, for example, would be “foreign to the Muslim community in both culture and language,” and perceived as extreme outsiders by the Muslim community. C6 believers on the other extreme would be “Secret believers, who may or may not be active members of the religious life of the Muslim community,” but are seen by the community as Muslims. These two designations described the two models traditionally recognized by

4

Phil Parshall asserts his long-standing support for this sort of contextualization while at the same time voicing his frustration at current, “Insider” approaches in Phil Parshall, “Response Two” of “Four Responses to  Timothy C. Tennett,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 23, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 125; quoted in Gary  Corwin, “A Humble Appeal to C5/Insider Movement Muslim Ministry Advocates to Consider Ten Questions:  The Jerusalem Council Applied,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 24 no. 1 (Spring 2007): 15. 5 See Figure 1 for reproduction of the spectrum chart reproduced in Joshua Massey, “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ,” International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 (Spring 2000): 7;   originally found in John Travis, “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘ChristCentered Communities’ ('C’) Found in the Muslim Context,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, vol. 34:4, (Winter 1998): pp. 407-408.

Lumpkin 5 missionary workers attempting to help Muslims convert. Travis was argues that there is more diversity. The C1-6 spectrum describes four distinct positions of increasing Muslim cultural and religious engagement between these two extremes that Travis and others have observed MBB’s expressing. The most controversial of these positions is the C5. These “Muslim followers of Jesus” as they self-describe, follow Woodberry in re-habilitating Muslim practices, as do C4 believers. They also meet together in home fellowship groups with other Muslim followers of Jesus. The crucial difference is in both self-identity and in identity as perceived by the surrounding Muslim community. C5 believers think of themselves as Muslims while C4 believers do not. Some C5 believers still attend mosques and many worship through the “pillars” or forms described above. Perhaps most importantly they are still perceived as Muslims by their community.6 This has two profound implications. First, they are not forced to leave the comprehensive socio-religious and cultural system that is included in being “Muslim.” This is not simply limited to the five pillars of Islam but includes everything from sexual ethics to assumptions about hospitality to bathroom hygiene and rituals. In a very profound sense, being Muslim gives life a structure that transcends the theological content of Islamic belief. Sadly, many converts from Islam to Christianity have expected to find such a comprehensive system present within the church and have struggled greatly in its absence.7 The second implication is that C5 believers, by retaining the Muslim identity, are not seen as traitors to their family and community and thus face less persecution and more opportunity to share their faith in Jesus. Many choose to continue to worship in the mosque in 6

For a more in-depth treatment of each group described on the spectrum, and in particular a discussion of the differences in identity between C4 and C5 believers, see Massey, 5ff. 7 Martin Accad, from class lecture on 29 November 2007, and forthcoming in print, 16.

Lumpkin 6 order to remain a part of their community so that their witness will not be hurt by becoming identified with the perceived Western, colonial institution of Christianity, with which they do not personally identify. There are many more proponents of this approach building on the work of Zwemer, Woodberry and Travis, particularly since the publication of the C1-6 spectrum.8 The widespread usage of Travis’s taxonomy in the discussion at hand lends credibility to the growth of the phenomena it describes. That said, Travis and other proponents of C5 or “Insider” approaches would be quick to point out that the spectrum is merely an attempt to describe the great diversity of expressions of faith in Christ among believers with backgrounds in the Muslim world. The realities on the ground are often more complex. 1.2 Main Arguments and Justifications Recognizing that they face something of a “hard-sell” among many of the conservative, Evangelicals who are fearful of syncretism, proponents of insider approaches have searched the scriptures to find precedent or paradigm in which to place what they see as a new movement of God among Muslims. I have already alluded to Zwemer’s work with the concept of the “Promise of Ishmael.” Recently, Jonathan Culver has picked up this notion and developed it further in the context of the C5 approach.9 Another attempt to render the experience of Muslim followers of Jesus more intelligible to those of us in the western church is Rick Brown’s utilization of the concept of the “Messianic Jew.” This idea has been popularized in the last couple of decades by groups like “Jews for Jesus” who practice the evangelization of religious and ethnic Jews by Jews who 8

See Rick Brown, “Contextualization without Syncretism,” International Journal of Frontier Missions vol. 23 no. 3 (Fall 2006), 127-134; “Brother Jacob and Master Isaac: How One Insider Movement Began,” International Journal of Frontier Missions vol. 24 no. 1 (Spring 2007), 41-42; Also see Massey, 5-14. 9 Culver, 68.

Lumpkin 7 follow Jesus. Similar to C4 and C5 believers, they often reinterpret religious language and practice from the institution of Judaism and many still think of themselves as Jews. This strikes me as a particularly strategic move by Brown, given the widespread sympathy in American Evangelicalism for “Messianic Jews.” The helpfulness of his characterization of C5 believers as, “Messianic Muslims” has been questioned by C5 believers since it is not a term they can use in their communities. 10 However, it seems the easiest existing category by which westerners may comprehend this movement. Turning to the New Testament book of Acts, Kevin Higgins looks at the development of the early church among both Jews and gentiles to see how they dealt with issues of religious identity and practice.11 Indeed the first followers of Jesus were Jews who continued to attend worship in the temple and synagogue, in addition to gathering together with fellow followers of Jesus. This continued up until persecution from the Jewish religious institution and Rome forced them out. Higgins thinks this particular aspect of religious history may be predictive in the long term for insider movements if they continue to grow and Islamic leadership becomes more aware of them. Consequently, he and many of the proponents are open to seeing the C5 position as a transitional one.12 As the gospel began to spread into the Gentile world, the struggle to determine what aspects of cultural and religious Judaism should be retained was crucial. This debate culminated in the Jerusalem council in which it was decided that only a few key aspects of the Jewish

10

See ‘Brother Yusuf,’ a C5 leader writing under a pseudonym in response to Corwin, 8. Kevin Higgins, “The Key to Insider movements: The ‘Devoteded’s’ of Acts,” International Journal of  Frontier Missions 21 no. 4 (Winter 2004), 155. 12 Travis, on the other hand argues that it all depends upon the tolerance of the mosque. In his context in Asia, the heterodoxy of much folk Islam already accepted among the community of Muslims is much more divergent from Islam’s monotheism than the beliefs of followers of Jesus which Islam itself venerates as a prophet born of a virgin. John Travis, “Messianic Muslim Followers of ‘Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 no. 1 (Spring 2000), 59. 11

Lumpkin 8 religious identity must be retained, and the rest were not required of these Gentile believers. Some see implicit in this narrative a methodology of separating the institution of Judaism from faith in Jesus Christ and the resultant gift of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the argument goes, we should not set up the institution of Christianity with all its distinctive culture, language and forms, as a barrier to faith in Jesus among Muslim believers. While critics disagree about the conclusions drawn from the Jerusalem council and their application to the current situation, most agree that the Jerusalem council passage is pivotal to the debate on these issues of cultural and religious identity, and faith in Christ. Higgins concludes by calling for a “biblical theology of culture and God’s involvement in it.”13 2 Objections of Critics Since Travis’s identification of the C5 category of followers of Jesus who identify themselves as Muslims, a number of critics have begun to question this movement’s legitimacy. I have chosen to focus on two critics who are representative of the concerns shared by many uncertain about this new development: Timothy Tennent and Gary Corwin.14 2.1 Timothy Tennent In a wide-ranging 2006 article, Tennent carefully points out the crucial question of selfidentity. He emphasizes the fact that C4 believers do not claim a Muslim identity and are not seen as Muslims by their community, while C5 believers do claim a Muslim identity and are seen as Muslims (albeit as somewhat strange ones).15 He then moves on to look at the biblical 13

Higgins, 156. For a other critical viewpoints see Phil Parshall, “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34, no. 4 (1998) 404-410; and for a critical Southern Baptist perspective see David Garrison, “Church Planting Movements vs. Insider Movements: Missiological Realities vs. Mythiological Speculations,” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21, no. 4 (2004): 151-155; For a particularly forceful analysis see Bill Nikides, “’Insider movements’: C5 (Messianic Muslims),” St. Francis Magazine, 21 January 2006, 1-15; and most recently, see Iskander Tee, “Sidenotes on Insiders,” St. Francis Magazine, December 2007, 1-6. 15 Timothy Tennent, “Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques: A Closer Examination of C-5 ‘High Spectrum’ Contextualization,” International Journal of Frontier Missions, 23, no. 3 (2006): 101-104.  14

Lumpkin 9 and exegetical arguments commonly marshaled in support of insider approaches centering around the early church’s developing identity. While he recognizes the continuing temple and synagogue worship by early Jewish followers of Jesus he argues that when it became clear that the majority of Jews were not going to accept Jesus, these followers had to form a new religious identity in which they could fully celebrate Jesus as they understood Him. Thus it seems he is open to seeing C5 as a temporary or transitional stage, as it was for early Jewish Christians but not a viable long term position for MBB’s who ultimately need to form a new religious identity. If we accept this line of reasoning, it is curious that he argues that Muslim believers must form a new religious identity beyond Islam “since this did not happen.” Given the relatively long period of time (several decades at least) the early Jewish believers followed Jesus from within their Jewish identity, it would seem that the Insider movement should be given a bit more time before we assume the experiment has failed. Also, it is not a new religious identity these C5 believers are rejecting by retaining their Muslim religious identity but a very deeply rooted and institutionalized “Christian” identity enmeshed with culture and history foreign and even hostile towards their ethnic and cultural identity. Perhaps it is in developing what the Western Church describes as C5 they are attempting to do just what Tennent is suggesting they should do –that is, fashioning a new religious identity, one with continuity to their old religious identity but fundamentally different changed by submission to Jesus as Lord. Tennent then moves on to a discussion of the Jerusalem council. He argues his point by imagining a hypothetical “Cairo Counsel” called to determine the minimum requirements of Christianity on MBB’s while they remained worshipping in the Mosque. He posits that even if a very minimal set or requirements were made, it would so compromise the Muslim identity in the

Lumpkin 10 eyes of the surrounding community that it would be impossible for the believer to live alongside them as a “Muslim follower of Jesus” with integrity. In my view This ethical dimension to the C5 situation is a very serious concern. However, I am surprised given Tennent’s considerable experience in India that he fails to note the tensions present between individualistic and communal cultural values. Indeed, what is seen as deception in one culture is often seen as unspoken, mutually agreed upon community-preservation, especially in the Asian context from which Travis is writing. Central to Tennent’s critique is his concern about the ethics of the C5 position and the long term effect it will have on the credibility of Christians in Muslim environments. “…when discovered by Muslims [the C5 approach] creates such a strong negative reaction that it inadvertently damages the credibility of Christians and feeds further distrust towards those who follow Christ. A more open witness in a straightforward but contextually sensitive way seems to hold the greatest promise for effective and ethical Christian penetration into the Muslim world.”16

Indeed Woodberry highlighted this concern in his earlier work on contextualization (regarding MBB’s who would likely be considered C3 or C4 by on Travis’s spectrum). He cites one article in an Arab newspaper that characterized this “contextualized” missionary outreach as “underhanded,” and saw Christian missionaries as “less honest in their dealings” when calling themselves “Followers of ‘Isa” rather than Christians.17 It is important to note here that the article’s objection is to missionaries (presumably Western) posing as Muslims, not necessarily those coming from a Muslim background. Indeed, none of the proponents of the C5 approach currently endorse western missionaries presenting themselves as Muslims.18 Of Tennent’s critiques I think this concern about the perception of the C5 approach by those outside of the missions community, particularly the perception of Muslims is most crucial. The limited

16

Tennent, 113. Woodberry, 3. 18 Travis “Messianic Muslim,” 55. 17

Lumpkin 11 resources I have come across by non-evangelicals and non-Christians that are explicitly in response to contexualized approaches are resoundingly negative. One example is Barry Yeoman’s article in Mother Jones Magazine describing a seminar he attended led by Rick Love, international director of “Frontiers:” a large mission agency focused on evangelism of Muslims. While Yeoman clearly misunderstands some of the basic presuppositions of evangelical mission, the title “The Stealth Crusade” alone communicates the author’s sense that such contextualized approaches are in some way sneaky or dishonest. For an even more negative perception of contextualized or insider approaches we can turn to Saraji Umm Zaid’s online article: “Secret War: Protecting Yourself, Your Family and Your Community from Missionaries.” In this piece she carefully explains the C1-6 spectrum and actually reproduces Travis’s chart to warn Muslims against being deceived by missionaries claiming to be have been born Muslim but who show little knowledge about Islam and Arab culture. It is unclear whether she is describing western missionaries or C5 believers presenting themselves as Muslims.19 However she seems to be aware of some missionaries presenting themselves as members of Sufi Muslim sects “such as ‘Tariqa of Isa,’” a missionary approach not condemned by Travis.20 While we cannot expect the Muslim response to effective missionary effort to be positive, I agree with Tennent that we cannot afford to over-look the long term effect on the reputation of Christians in the Muslim world. Christians are already widely viewed as deceptive and manipulative by Muslims. We must consider how insider approaches may reinforce this stereotype.

19

Saraji umm Zaid, "Secret War: Protecting Yourself, Your Family and Your Community from Missionaries,"; available from http://www.modernmuslima.com/secretwar.htm; Internet; accessed 8 December 2007. 20 Though he is not advocating this as an official or widespread approach, he maintains this might be a legitimate calling from God on a believer’s life. Travis, “Messianic Muslim,” 55.

Lumpkin 12 Furthermore, Tennent’s call to consider the ethical dimension of this phenomena leads me to ask: does the C5 approach violate Jesus’ dictum to do unto others as we would have them do unto us? How would we feel if evangelical converts to Islam remained in our congregations, seeking opportunities to share with other Christians how the New Testament fortells the coming of the prophet Muhammad when it speaks of the “comforter” or paracletos? If we are going to advocate this approach for C5 believers in the mosque we must be open to it in the church. Having looked at the biblical and ethical critiques of Timothy Tennent we now turn to Gary Corwin’s historical and practical critiques. 2.2 Gary Corwin In one of the most helpful articles on this debate, Corwin builds on Tennant’s critiques raising ten questions for the proponents of the C5/Insider Muslim movement who are then given space to answer.21 Corwin’s questions center around the following issues: 1) the absence of a C5 or similar approach throughout church history, 2)concerns regarding the Jerusalem council as a paradigm for insider movements, 3) his perception that C5 advocates tend to state their method as the best or only way to reach Muslims, 4) the character of Islam being at odds with the call of Christ, and finally 5) his perception that the movement may be driven by outside advocates rather than truly arising from the experience of MBB’s. Each of these concerns are answered, some several times over by different voices. The value of this multi-voiced conversation is that critics fears and misconceptions about what is being claimed by advocates are able to be clarified and the conversation can move on to the actual issues at hand. Through this conversation, several isues become clear. First, few if any of the critics are opposed to C5 as a temporary or transitional period during the process of developing what 21

Respondents include Rick Brown, Kevin Higgins, Rebecca Lewis, John Travis and “Brother Yusuf,” pseudonym of a C5 leader in the Muslim world. As one would imagine, his comments are most interesting in helping flesh out the situation of Muslim followers if Jesus. Corwin, 5-20.

Lumpkin 13 Tennent might term a new religious identity, or for the purpose of evangelism.22 The advocates, for their part, are arguing, not for a prescriptive methodology of telling MBB’s to retain their Muslim identity, but for the freedom in Christ to discern and follow the Spirit’s leading in where they choose to dwell on the spectrum. This is perhaps most powerfully stated by “Brother Yusuf,” the pseudonym of a C5 leader: “…we do not teach the brethren that they should go to the mosque or that they should  refrain from going, and there is no expectation that either will be a permanent state.  Some  go because this has been their custom and they like to spend time praying in a house of  prayer. Others go because it gives them an opportunity to speak to their friends there about  the Lord Jesus.”23 

Second, many critics share the concern that this movement is not a spontaneous leading of the Spirit, but a Western invention, influenced by the church growth movement and advanced by Western missionary champions.24 While the advocates vehemently deny this and assert that all their reflection and writing on the matter spring from their own struggle to come to terms with this observed reality that was beyond their design or control yet was multiplying believers and communities. Furthermore Travis asserts that C5 learders’ inability to attend mission conferences and take part in the discussion going in English has necessitated the advocacy of Westerners. Third, many Christians, (notably, western and those from Muslim contexts) have grave concerns about redeemability or “rehabilitation” to use Woodberry’s word, of Muslim practice for Christian worship and fear that it will lead them back into “darkness.” Many of the advocates, however, follow Zwemer, Woodberry, Culver in affirming the rich and legitimately 22

Corwin, 7. Corwin, 7-8. 24 See especially the well argued and nuanced critique by Bill Nikides in St. Francis Magazine (a leading forum for critics of the Insider Movement) in which he argues that alongside legitimate fruit of the Spirit’s work he has also personally seen intentional deception, fraudulent claims, social, theological and even financial manipulation to keep C5 believers from leaving the Muslim community casting doubt on claims by advocates that they are open to C5 being a transitional period. Bill Nikides, 5. 23

Lumpkin 14 Abrahamic pedigree of so much within Islam’s practice, if not it’s theology. Again, Brother Yusuf’s response is powerful: “I have lived and ministered in both traditional churches and in house fellowships of Muslim believers. What I have observed is that the average level of commitment to God is far higher among the Muslim believers. The very word ‘Muslim’ means submitted to God, and so it is a fitting description. What we find among most missionaries and churchmen, however, is a commitment to their institutions, to their programs, to their traditional practices and to their codes of doctrine. Their commitment to Jesus Christ himself is less evident.”25

We can begin to sense here the growing frustration many MBB’s feel at being “put to the test” by Western missionaries who seem to presuppose a sense of authority or control over their appropriation of the gospel. This easily plays into and reinforces the view of Western Christians as neo-colonial. On the other hand it is not difficult to appreciate Corwin’s fear of syncretism and compromise in this new and largely unprecedented expression of faith in Jesus. This sharp response from Brother Yusuf comes after Corwin indirectly compares continued Muslim identity as an affront to God’s jealousy such as the worship of Ba’al through the golden calf in Exodus. It is telling that in the very discussion of the issue of MBB’s not wanting (or not being able) to identify with the Christian church we see clear examples of the mutual misperceptions and cultural gaps that are the very source of their reticence. We must take note of Brother Yusuf’s emphasis upon the institutional form of religion to which we in West seem so devoted. The clear implication is that these are equally susceptible to becoming idolatrous as the institutions of Islam. From this exchange I think we can see the crux of the issue concerning the debate on the C5 approach and the insider movement. The issue underlying the entire discussion, but rarely spoken to directly is the issue of theology of religions. I noted above how Higgins points to our need for a “biblical theology of culture” but it is precisely the Western tendency to think we can ever disentangle culture from language and religion that I believe has resulted in so much 25

Corwin, 16.

Lumpkin 15 confusion on this issue.26 I would revise his statement that what is needed is a biblical theology of religions. I will now argue that the theology of religions underlying this debate is its single most central question that, depending upon how we answer it, will determine how we understand and respond to the C5/IM development. 3 The Theology of Religions Question Christian theology of religions emerged as a distinct field of study within theology relatively recently and in response to the growing global awareness of other religions. What exactly, is religion? Where does it come from? How are Christians supposed to think of other faiths? Do they contain truth? Do they contain revelations of God? What does this tell us about our “religion?” What happens to people of other faiths when they die? How does God judge them? Does Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross only redeem you if you are aware of it? What of the “pagan saints” of the Old Testament? These and many more are the questions that a Christian theology of religions seeks to investigate. Their relevance to the discussion at hand is clear. The prolific and sometimes controversial evangelical theologian, Clark Pinnock, has contributed a great deal to this field in his work attempting to articulate a biblical view of “inclusivism,” –the notion that Jesus’ sacrifice includes justification for all.27 Pinnock proposes two axioms of an inclusive theology of religions “the universal and global reach of God’s salvation and the particular salvation through Jesus Christ.” In light of these two axioms he proposes that “the religions should be assessed as structures of human life analogous to cultural or political systems.” And while they exist within the sphere of God’s gracious influence and thus are an expression of his providence, they are nevertheless, “a mixed bag, containing both 26

Particularly because of Islam’s well-known holistic view of language, culture, politics, law and religion. More technically, inclusivism is the theological position that Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice on the cross is “universally accessible to all, including those adherents of a non-Christian religions who have no knowledge of the gospel.” I am here greatly indebted to Amos Yong’s detailed analysis of Pinnock’s thought in Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Pneumatology and an Evangelical Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 107-128. 27

Lumpkin 16 good that can be appreciated and evil that needs to be discerned and confronted.”28 This view of religions, Pinnock argues, applies equally to the Christian religion. I propose that this is a profound theological shift away from the way that most Christians (Western or non-Western) conceive of Christianity. For most Christians, Christianity and the Church are viewed as divinely inspired and super-intended institutions that are somehow kept “pure” or “holy” by God. However it is precisely this theological shift that has taken place in the minds of the advocates of C5/IM approach through their engagement with the Muslim context.29 Through reflection upon this they seem to have come to the same conclusion as Pinnock, that the institution of any religion is distinct from the call of Jesus. To say it another way Jesus’ call to the early Jewish believers was not to a new religious identity but to a meta-religious identity, concerned faith in God, worshiping God “in spirit and in truth,” and the ethics of the Kingdom. As a result it is much easier for the advocates to see C5 believers as having accepted and grasped the heart of the gospel to be lived out in their Muslim linguistic, cultural and religious context. The critics, conversely, center their critiques at precisely this same point. They seem to want to see more of an identification and embrace of the culture, (religious and theological) language and practice (baptism) that have served as the identity of the church as an institution throughout its history. This is why the critics are willing to accept C5 as an acceptable process for moving towards more traditional or shall we say, institutional expressions of Christianity, but not as an end in itself. They see something essentially divinely ordained about the institutional 28

Yong, 109. There are many reasons engagement with the Muslim context and Muslim individuals might encourage this view. Muslims naturally conceive of Christianity a “cultural and political system” just as Islam encompasses both of those spheres. In addition they tend to see it as a morally and spiritually bankrupt one, just as many conservative Christians maintain about America and the West. This view is also deeply entrenched because, throughout the history of Islam’s interaction with Christianity, the gospel has rarely separated from the conquering sword of western political power. 29

Lumpkin 17 expression of Christianity and therefore its necessity for true conversion and discipleship. The advocates, on the other hand, see the institution as secondary to the meta-religious identity that comes from the call of Jesus to become his disciple and take part in the Kingdom of God or what Lebanese, Islamist, Martin Accad terms “the community of the Spirit.”30 This is perhaps most clearly articulated by Accad in his “two buildings” analogy. In it he imagines Islam and Christianity as two buildings trying to occupy the same land. The buildings represent the institutional expressions of each religion, each one trying to destroy the other. But for followers of Christ who have undergone the aforementioned theological shift with regard to their own institutional religion (be it Muslim or Christian)—a shift away from seeing the religion as a divinely inspired and superintended, to seeing it as another human institution --they may see their “building” as a space in which to live and a space to be indwelled by the spirit of Christ.31

Conclusions I have sought to provide an introduction to the lively, intense debate among the evangelical missions community surrounding “Insider movements” or “Muslim followers of Jesus” described as C5 on John Travis’s C1-6 spectrum. I have presented the background and development of the phenomena as well as several key figures. I then moved to the voices of evangelical critics, as well as a few Muslim responses. I have attempted to point out weaknesses and strengths along the way as I perceive them on both sides. Ultimately I have argued that the most central question to the debate, that has to my knowledge, not yet been discussed directly, is one of our theology of religions. Are Christianity and Islam primarily human institutions or do they have some special status, or endorsement from God? Was the nature of Jesus’ call to form a 30

See Accad, 16. Accad expands on Charles Kraft, “Pursuing Faith, Not Religion: The Liberating Quest for Contextualization,” Mission Frontiers (September-October 2005): 9-11. 31 Accad, from class lecture on November 29, 2007 and forthcoming in print, p 15-16.

Lumpkin 18 new religious institution around his teachings or a call to a meta-religious identity to be lived out within any institutional context we may find ourselves in? I am convinced that the way we answer these questions will determine which side we affirm in this debate. However, these questions are so foundational and their implications are so far reaching as to extend beyond the C5/IM question out into the entirety of Christian mission, discipleship, belief and practice. In light of this, perhaps we would all be well served by directing the conversation towards the articulation of a clear theology of religions.

Lumpkin 19 Appendix:

Fig. 1. The C1-6 Spectrum Chart John Travis, “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘ChristCentered Communities’ ('C’) Found in the Muslim Context,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, vol. 34:4, (Winter 1998), pp. 407-408. Reprinted from Joshua Massey, “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ” “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ,” International Journal of Frontier  Missions, vol. 17:1 (Spring 2000), 7.

Lumpkin 20 Works Cited: Accad, Martin. From class lecture on 29 November 2007 and forthcoming in print (cited in this manner per request of author), 15-16. Brown, Rick. “Contextualization without Syncretism.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 23 no. 3 (Fall 2006): 127-134. __________. “Brother Jacob and Master Isaac: How One Insider Movement Began.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 24 no. 1 (Spring 2007): 41-42. Corwin, Gary. “A Humble Appeal to C5/Insider Movement Muslim Ministry Advocates to Consider Ten Questions: The Jerusalem Council Applied.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 24 no. 1 (Spring 2007): 5-21. Culver, Jonathan. "The Ishamel Promise and Contextualization Among Muslims." International Journal of Frontier Missions 17, no. 1 (2000): 60-70. Garrison, David. “Church Planting Movements vs. Insider Movements: Missiological Realities vs. Mythiological Speculations.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21, no. 4 (2004): 151-155. Higgins, Kevin. “The Key to Insider movements: The ‘Devoteded’s’ of Acts.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 21 no. 4 (Winter 2004): 155-166. Jones, E. Stanley. The Christ of the Indian Road. (New York: Abingdon, 1925): 8. Kraft, Charles. “Pursuing Faith, Not Religion: The Liberating Quest for Contextualization.” Mission Frontiers (September-October 2005): 9-11. Massey, Joshua. “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 no. 1 (Spring 2000): 5-14. Nikides, Bill. “’Insider movements’: C5 (Messianic Muslims).” St. Francis Magazine, 21 January 2006, 1-15. Parshall, Phil. “Danger! New Directions in Contextualization.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34, no. 4 (1998): 404-410. Parshall, Phil. “Response Two” of “Four Responses to Timothy C. Tennett.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 23, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 125. Quoted in Gary Corwin. “A Humble Appeal to C5/Insider Movement Muslim Ministry Advocates to Consider Ten Questions: The Jerusalem Council Applied.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 24 no. 1 (Spring 2007): 15.

Lumpkin 21 Tee, Iskander. “Sidenotes on Insiders.” St. Francis Magazine, December 2007, 1-6. Tennent, Timothy. “Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques: A Closer Examination of C-5 ‘High Spectrum’ Contextualization.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 23, no. 3 (2006): 101-116. Travis, John. “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘ChristCentered Communities’ ('C’) Found in the Muslim Context.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34 no. 4 (Winter 1998): 407-408. Quoted in Joshua Massey. “God’s Amazing Diversity in Drawing Muslims to Christ.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 no. 1 (Spring 2000): 7. Travis, John. “Messianic Muslim Followers of ‘Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believers and Congregations.” International Journal of Frontier Missions 17 no. 1 (Spring 2000): 5461. Woodberry, Dudley. “Contextualization among Muslims: Reusing Common Pillars.” The World Among Us. Dean Gililand, ed. 282-312 Dallas: Word, 1988, Revised with additional notes in International Journal of Frontier Missions 13, no. 4 (1996): 174-182. Yong, Amos. Beyond the Impasse: Pneumatology and an Evangelical Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 107-128. Zaid, Saraji Umm. "Secret War: Protecting Yourself, Your Family and Your Community from Missionaries."; available from http://www.modernmuslima.com/secretwar.htm; Internet; accessed 8 December 2007.