What Might A "Muslim" Gospel Culture Look LIke

Since I have been living in a Muslim culture for the last month, I started to think how would the gospel penetrate this place? It had surely penetrated this very culture 2000 years ago, certainly it could do it again. And I am positive that this is a job for the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, but the fact remains, we (The Church) are sent into the culture as Jesus was (John 20:21) to help penetrate every culture with the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14, 15; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 1:8); so what's it take? I have been "Contending" for a gospel that is shaped by the cultural language in order to clearly communicate the message of Jesus Christ. Others of course have vehemently argued that this is an anathema and a compromise of Gospel truth. I will continue to contend though, that every presentation of the gospel is shaped by the cultural paradigm of the messenger. This is why there was a similar vehement argument in the first century, and the reason Paul had to write such glorious works as Romans and Galatians; to correct error, define the gospel, and exhort the church to be gracious in these culturally different movements (Romans 14:13-20).

The Jewish believers struggled greatly with the gentile believers who didn't adhere to their "Religious" traditions (Even traditions commanded by God in scripture), but the gospel spread when it was ripped from Jewish control, and was formed in pagan centers of asia-minor, Rome, North Africa, etc. There is no doubt that some syncretism resulted, but if the gospel is going to continue to move outward, it needs to be released by those that feel they own it, and trust that the Holy Spirit is still on duty (John 16:7-15; 1 John 2:27-29; 1 Corinthians 2:15-16).

Today we face similar challenges from many inside the church who believe they are the gate keepers of "truth," and foist their own culture on the gospel in the guise of gospel purity making missions to those outside their culture nearly impossible. Just the other day I was reading where a man was criticizing Rick Warren for praying to a "Merciful and compassionate God," during a prayer breakfast, because that prayer was Muslim, and catered to Islam; and although he acknowledged (Thankfully) that our God is "Merciful and Compassionate" he said it did not represent the gospel well. This is utter ridiculousness. Apart from apologetic sites trying to deny this reality, there are a plethora of verses in the bible that have been co-opted from pagan texts, and applied to Yahweh, the one true God. Like Psalm 29, which is clearly a Canaanite, or Phonecian ode to Baal. According to theologian H.L. Ginsberg, "This psalm is a Yahwistic adaptation of an older Canaanite hymn to the storm-god Baal...” has been “...corroborated by the subsequent discovery of tablets at Ras Shamra and by progress in the interpretation of these texts” (1966, 1:175). Paul himself indicates in Acts 17:28 that he quoted their poets when he wrote, "For in Him we live and move and exist...for we also are his offspring" (This was written at first about the pagan Greek god Zeus). If something is true, it is true no matter what the source is that says it, which should remind us that the culture's religions, and poets, and artists can and do speak the truth as they perceive it through general revelation. To this Calvin writes:

“In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from the creator...Whenever we meet heathen writers, let us learn from the light of truth which is admirably displayed in their works, that the human mind, fallen as it is, and corrupted from its integrity, is yet invested and adorned by God with excellent talents. If we believe that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth itself, we shall not reject or despise the truth itself, wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to insult the Spirit of God.”

It amazes me that many who are quick to quote Calvin, Luther, etc. don't seem to have the intellectual integrity to think like these men. If we continue to ride into culture with our arrogant, white hats to spew our learned doctrine at the poor pagans who know no truth, we will continue to alienate billions of people from the truth of the gospel, all in the name of "Purity!"

It is quite possible that the gospel that transforms Muslim culture is going to do it as it has in any other culture and era, by the power of the Spirit regenerating hearts to respond to Jesus, and then creating the "Church" (Ecclesia) in that culture that will borrow from the sublime in the culture while discarding the chaff.

I heard a story the other day of a Muslim woman who converted to be a follower of Isa Al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah) through a series of dreams she had, and as she was meeting with a local missionary for discipleship, the Muslim woman asked, "What should I think and do about Mohamed?" The missionary woman, thought about it and said nothing, just pray to God, and let Him tell you, so the woman went home and prayed, and had a dream where she saw Mohamed in a coffin, beautifully adorned, and looking restful, and the Muslim woman concluded that God was showing her that Jesus is alive and Mohamed is in the grave. Can we still trust the Spirit of God to defend Himself, and to teach His people (Whom He loves more than we do) the truth about Himself, or are we obligated in wiping out every vestige of culture in order to replace it with our own "learned" thinking? This just makes us 'Functional Saviors" guarding the gates of our tribal god who is too weak to fend for himself.

Maybe a Muslim cultural version of the new believer may include praying five times a day, celebrating Ramadan and giving of alms, etc. but with a renewed sense of grace leading the way. Most Christians celebrate Easter and Christmas, and it is clearly known that those celebrations were very pagan; yet that's ok, since it's what "Christians" do. The way toward penetrating the diverse cultures of this world is through their own cultural stories that align in pointing to the gospel, which is as C.S. Lewis says:

“Now as myth transcends thought, incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth, which is also fact (emphasis mine). The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from heaven of legend and imagination to earth of history. It happens-at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle."

Our gospel is the meta-narrative, the story of stories; the culmination of all stories which aim at the truth but fall a bit short because they lack the "Word of God" in the flesh, the direct revelation of the one true God, Jesus Christ. I pray that we work hard at presenting Jesus, and leaving the Christian religion where it belongs, in a history book.

Read More......

Contending Well For The Faith

"I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith, that was once for all delivered to the saints"
Jude 3

There is no doubt we are to "Contend" for the faith, but the bigger question for those applying this in the field, is what does that look like in a non-believing culture? In Jude 3 we see Jude appealing to believers to contend ("fight" from 'agon' a contest, agonize, etc.) for the "Faith" (The Gospel of Grace v.4) against false teachers who pervert such a doctrine, and have "Crept in" amongst the brethren and have "Perverted the grace of our Lord." But what are the circumstances that force us to contend/fight, and how is this done in a manner that we are articulating God's "Good News" so that those we are contending against can understand it (Contextualization)?

It seems that the circumstances that caused both Jesus and Paul to come out fighting (And arguably here in Jude) are religious hypocrites that work from the inside out, and force moralistic and legalistic doctrines on the people. These are people who want to "wrangle about words," instead of preach the doctrines of grace to those that don't know Christ with love and patience (See 2 Timothy 2:14ff). Paul commends the Elders in Acts 20 to watch out for "Fierce wolves who will come among you" and preach another doctrine (See Acts 20:28-32). Jesus' harshest words were reserved for the Pharisees and Sadducees, while Paul reserved his for the "Judaizers" who perverted the truth of the gospel from the inside. Ostensibly when they spoke to non-believers and pagans, they spoke with grace and tact (John 4; Acts 17:28ff; see too Colossians 4:1-4).

It seems obvious that non-believers and pagans reject the gospel truth, and are definitely in error when they speak about Christ and the church (What else should we expect), but it appears equally clear that many evangelicals have developed a polemic apologetic toward 'outsiders' that takes verses such as Jude 3 and wages war on any 'error' in order to make sure their argument was heard and they had won, rather than effectively communicating the gospel truth so that is understood by a non-believing person(s) (Ala Paul in Acts 17, and other uses of contextualization like John's use of pagan terms such as "Logos" to present Jesus to a pagan audience).

This polemic is never as clear as when someone tries to step out of their culture and contextualize the gospel in another culture. Certain words and phrases become taboo, while others become gospel themselves. All of a sudden we find ourselves 'contending' for words and phrases and not the gospel, and in doing so, we are acting as the Judaizers and Pharisees who demanded that certain traditions and words could or could not be spoken (ie. It was forbidden to use the name of God given to Moses on Sinai).

An interesting tactic of those that disdain this type of contextualization is to call those that contextualize heretics, etc. and then deflect any criticism by saying, "Anyone who holds the 'truth' of the gospel is always labeled legalist and pharisees by the unorthodox liberals." Well if the shoe fits...?

This type of rejection of contextualization has become evident in the effort to bring the gospel to the Muslim world. There is much debate surrounding words and phrases, and much name calling and self-righteousness is becoming more evident in the debate.

One of the phrases that has gotten much attention as of late is the biblical term "Son of God." To the Muslim, this term means that Mary and Allah had physical sexual union and bore a son and called Him Jesus. I don't know of any evangelical that would teach this type of blasphemy to anyone, but when we ignorantly lead with Jesus as God's Son, we are unknowingly doing exactly that. Ironically those that hold that Jude 3 demands that we "Offend" with the gospel, are ironically offending without the gospel, since the gospel isn't being heard by those they are trying to communicate it to. In their effort to 'contend for the faith,' they are unwittingly strengthening a false doctrine based on a misunderstanding of words and concepts. I am in no way denying the use of this phrase, but it may be prudent to lead with Jesus, and begin to define these terms in relationship with Muslims, so we can present the Jesus of the scriptures, and not a Jesus of our culture, or their cultural misunderstanding.

As evangelists and ambassadors of the faith, aren't we supposed to find words and concepts that accurately articulate the truth of the phrase "Son of God," rather than apotheosizing the phrase itself?

All in all, the balance between contending and contextualizing needs to fall in an understanding of what we are contending for and how we can best communicate that to every culture (Which takes some hard work for the missionary, which we all are).

I think 'contending' has to include contextualization, otherwise we are contending for something no one can understand or cares about. So let's begin our contending for the faith within the church (Where contending was intended) and contend' against a rash of moralizing and therapeutic sermons that spew out of our "Seeker Friendly" and fundamentalist pulpits weekly, and then contextualize the gospel to a world that has no idea who or what the 'Son of God' is or what He has done for us!

Read More......