# Controversy over methodology in the IMB



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2011)

Out of Context | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction


Camel Evangelism

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/us/13beliefs.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/us/13beliefs.html?_r=1&hp


The controversy centers on the Camel Method, a technique used in Mslms evangelism.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 1, 2011)

Are there not seeds of the gospel remaining in every culture of the world? Has not God, in his grace, left kernels of truth in many false religions? None of these seeds is complete without the full revelation of the true Scriptures. But they may be useful inroads to get the people of these cultures to give us a hearing, eventually driving them to the true Scriptures where they will find salvation.

I see nothing wrong in starting with truth that's already present and accepted in a particular culture. Provided false scriptures aren't held up as equal to the true Scriptures in some sort of all-religions-the-same way, it can be helpful to show that God has preserved some testimony to his Son in many of the world's cultural traditions, even evil ones. After all, Paul quoted pagan religious poets on Mars Hill. This does not mean he agreed with _everything_ they said or held their writings to be good rather than evil overall. But he recognized a seed of truth in those writings, and used this powerfully to bring the men of Athens from a cultural belief they already held to faith in the true God.


----------



## Prudence (Jan 1, 2011)

I’m new to the Puritan Board and discovered your thread. I’ve been thinking about this and my first response would be: God has revealed Himself to man in the Scriptures, only here will we find the words of life, and this is the only means He has promised to never return void. The Gospel is unique to His Word and we can’t go so far as contextualizing the gospel by using a false religion’s sacred teachings, for what do darkness and light have in common. Perhaps in an individual one on one presentation of the gospel where the ground work is carefully laid and terms clearly defined, God may choose to bless such endeavors, however, even then it seems to me to be a bad approach. Other religions may acknowledge as true some things that the Scriptures declare as truth, but that doesn’t make them a valid means of communicating God’s Truth. Acknowledging a clear discrepancy in the unbeliever’s belief system, as Paul did on Mars Hill, isn’t quite the same as taking their sacred books and saying, “Here let me show you the God you should worship,” which implies that God is revealing himself to mankind in their false religion. Those are my thoughts anyway, but they are simply held and haven’t ever been put to the test of real missionary interaction. 

Pleased to make you acquaintances.


----------



## Edward (Jan 1, 2011)

If Ergun Caner is opposed to it, I'd be willing to give the method and its proponents the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## PMBrooks (Jan 1, 2011)

I believe that there are seeds of God's truth in all cultures and religions. Romans 1-2 speaks of this, and Paul used several of those bridges in his preaching at the Areopagus. The truths the CAMEL method points to in the Koran do indeed provide a bridge to help Muslims understand the Gospel. In my outreach to Muslims I have even used some of those points. 

The problem, I believe, with the CAMEL method is merely the point that it relies upon the Koran a bit too much in the presentation. At the end of the day, I believe it really lies in HOW the person doing the presentation handles each situation. With some Muslims, I do extensively work in the Koran, pointing out bridges, only because that is the source with which they are most familiar. Other Muslims have quite an extensive knowledge of the Bible. 

Yes, in the end, the Bible must be the final place for ultimate truth. The Bible is the place we must take all people in our Gospel presentations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 1, 2011)

Interesting article. I agree with the criticism that Americans are focused on method.



Jack K said:


> Are there not seeds of the gospel remaining in every culture of the world?



I do not believe there are. I believe that General Revelation is manifest to all men but the _kerygma_ is Special Revelation. One must be careful to distinguish between the Law of God written on all men's hearts and the very specific Revelation of Christ and Him crucified. That has a definite content that comes from outside of man through the proclamation of the Gospel.

Mars Hill is an example of Paul noting the knowledge of God in General Revelation but further noting they were living in ignorance. Providence reveals to man that there is a God and that the world is under condemnation due to the regularity of things being "broken". Paul condemns their idolatry and tells them that the times of ignorance, which God overlooked, are now come to a close with the Revelation of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (_kerygma_). He calls them all to repentance. He doesn't use General Revelation (their knowledge of God) as a springboard for the Gospel as much as a springboard for reminding them that they are idolatrous. The "bad news" that they are all condemned before God for their idolatry is then an occasion to call them to repentance and to turn to Christ and Him crucified. He condemns through General Revelation and then provides the solution to their quandary in Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2011)

Just a note: most missionaries using the Camel Method would very quickly try to transition to the Bible, using the Koranic verses about the Prophet Isa only as a bridge (not a parking lot) and as a way to screen folks who seem to be more interested and not closed.

More broadly considered, the Camel Method is one small battleground in a much larger war over missions methodology towards Mslms. Google key words such as "insider movements" "C5 believers" and "Muslim contextualization" for more.

I concur that American missions is much more fad-driven than Bible-driven at times and we export gimmicks and missions-in-a-box, though I do think missionaries have often seriously engaged pagans cultures even using their own writings, such as Paul quoting Epimenides on Mars Hill (though Paul very quickly then moves on to the Biblical revelation of God).

Here is a blog post about such trends: Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: Muslim Hyper-Contextualization: The New Missiological Fad


----------



## dudley (Jan 1, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Are there not seeds of the gospel remaining in every culture of the world? Has not God, in his grace, left kernels of truth in many false religions? None of these seeds is complete without the full revelation of the true Scriptures. But they may be useful inroads to get the people of these cultures to give us a hearing, eventually driving them to the true Scriptures where they will find salvation.
> 
> I see nothing wrong in starting with truth that's already present and accepted in a particular culture. Provided false scriptures aren't held up as equal to the true Scriptures in some sort of all-religions-the-same way, it can be helpful to show that God has preserved some testimony to his Son in many of the world's cultural traditions, even evil ones. After all, Paul quoted pagan religious poets on Mars Hill. This does not mean he agreed with _everything_ they said or held their writings to be good rather than evil overall. But he recognized a seed of truth in those writings, and used this powerfully to bring the men of Athens from a cultural belief they already held to faith in the true God.



I agree with our brother Jack and I also see nothing wrong in starting with truth that's already present and accepted in a particular culture.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 1, 2011)

What do you think about the CAMEL method, Perg? Do you find any benefits in starting an evangelistic effort by showing descriptions about Jesus from the Koran? I don't find any problem with showing a Muslim statements about Jesus from the Koran if the purpose is to show the diminished position of Jesus in the Koran and, contrarily, the exaltation of Jesus in the Bible and humanity's need for Him as the Savior. There could be much more to say about it as well, but I'll wait for you thoughts.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 1, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Interesting article. I agree with the criticism that Americans are focused on method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this. By "seeds of the gospel" I don't mean the gospel itself is present in every culture. The gospel itself is the good news of Christ crucified for sin, and not every culture knows this. It's probably better for me to say I believe there are inroads to to good news lurking in every culture, even if it is merely that general knowledge of God's law written on the heart. When we recognize what _is_ true in a culture, we may often be wise to use it as a starting point in telling about Jesus.

Not that we _have_ to evangelize that way. I also agree we Americans make too much of the method.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2011)

Andrew:

I think missionaries have always used bridges in their evangelism. 

Adoniram Judson, a missionary that all of us on the PB can own, dressed up as a local holy man and built a teaching pagoda in the same manner as the local teachers so that his teaching could be accepted. Also, tribal missionaries in remote tribes often point out the payments and offerings that the locals repeat and repeat trying to satisfy/pacify the local spirits and use that as a bridge. Don Richardson used the Peace-Child concept among the Sawi to make the Gospel understandable and the Dani understood the Gospel as _nabelan-kabelan_ that they had been searching for since they had lost immortal life long ago according to their myths.



From the Koran, there are many verses that a person can memorize and use to be granted an audience, to show locals that you are not totally ignorant of the Koran's contents and to soften their resistance and encourage them to search more. Then move, as quickly as possible, to the Scriptures.

Surah 10:64 and 6:34 says that there can be no change in Allah's words. Surah 21:7 tells followers of Islam to ask the people of the Book. 

Concerning Jesus, he was virgin-born (19:16-35), the Messiah (4:171), the Spirit of God (5:171), the Word of God (4:171), Faultless (19:19), Illustrous in this life and the life to come (3:45), Taken up to heaven (4:158), Comes back for judgment (43:61). While Adam sinned (2:36;7:22,23), and Abraham sinned (26:82), and Moses sinned (28:15,16), and Jonah sinned (37:142), and David sinned (38:25) and even Mhd sinned (40:5548:1-2; 94:1-3), Jesus never sinned (19:19). Jesus creates life (5:110), has a supernatural birth (3:44-45), life and death (4:158) and he will come to judge the world and appear again at the end of the world as the sign of the Hour (43:61) and that day will come as a thief in the night (43:66).

There is something truly special about Jesus, thus ask the People of the Book to tell you. Do you want to know more?


Patrick Cate with Christar writes a good article about "windows into Islam" - if the doors are shut and barred against you, but a window is open, why not go in through the route whereby you will be received at first? Google Cate's article "Gospel Communication from Within" for a good read.

---------- Post added at 04:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 AM ----------




Jack K said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting article. I agree with the criticism that Americans are focused on method.
> ...


 
Yes, there are inroads or points of acceptance - where unbelievers' hearts can be grabbed. 

For instance, praying personal prayers that are spontanous and on behalf of Mslms grabs their hearts and I have seen people break down and openly weep. Their hearts long for this, but their form of worship is formulaic and rigid and (except for Arabs) in a language not their own. When personal prayers is given on their behalf, it becomes very powerful. 

Or, when the doctrine of assurance is spoken of and our relationship to God as a Father to a Son... .....Hearts long for this. 

This is much better than leading one's evangelization with 10 points on why Jesus is the Son of God or a full explanation and defense of the Christian doctrine of the Tirnity. Those things can come later, after a certain receptivity is gained.


A question for further discussion:
This gaining of receptivity up front is a missiological principle. A huge question is how to apply this to our own Western culture in churches today towards our unchurched generations. If we attempt to gain receptivity among foreign pagans we are applauded; if we attempt to tailor our approach to gain receptivity among US unchurched youth, often we are derided. How much can we tailor our worship to gain the hearer's attention? I see Tim Keller doing a good job of scratching where post-moderners are itching. But, some pastors say we should not answer to people's felt needs at all.


----------

