A Bridge Too Far?: Towards Bridging the Gap Between Those Who Use Bridges and Those Who Do Not tagged: , , , , , , , ,

A Bridge Too Far?: Towards Bridging the Gap Between Those Who Use Bridges and Those Who Do Not

Posted by in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions

Not long after I received word that we were approved and would be heading to the Middle East, I was eating lunch with a bunch of students and professors at my favorite Vietnamese restaurant when someone popped the question: what do you think of the Camel?  This professor and I chatted about what we liked and didn’t like about it.  When I was securing partner churches prior to going to field orientation, one of the pastors I met with asked the same question.  I gave my typical response but this time I sensed some tension.  His reply was “well, we [his church]don’t call God Allah because we don’t worship the same God.”  It was then that I realized that there was much confusion surrounding the Camel.  In all fairness to the pastor, David Hesselgrave makes a similar statement in his Paradigms in Conflict.  After the mixed response from that pastor, I started searching.  I read a LOT of reviews.  Some were so conflicting with what I had read in the Camel, I assumed that there must be more than one version of the Camel and I had merely read the tame one.  Unfortunately, that was not the case.  I spent the next several months pouring over books, reading journal articles, listening to sermons and lectures, haunting blogs, countless hours chatting around the “fireside”, and interviewing quite a few field personnel.  I was asking the same questions every time [What do you think of the Camel?  Does it work? Is it right?  Can we call God Allah? Is quranic bridging biblically permissible? Etc.].  This post will contain the synthesis of those questions.

I in no way claim to be an expert on Islam or the Camel.  By nature, I am very analytical and am approaching all of the interviews and reading from that standpoint.  I see many common misunderstandings in most of the discussions I have read.  Let me say at the outset that I do not have an ax to grind here.  I neither use the Camel nor do I hate it.  Additionally, I am not after any one individually or personally.  You can pretty much take any misconception I address here and find more than one source who argues for it.[If you take anything personally, I am going to point you right back here.]

I hope that the distinctions made in this post will help people better define their terms, questions, and accusations when talking about this topic.  The problem is that there is a growing conversation wherein some many controversial issues are being lumped together and either accepted or rejected uncritically.  If we continue on this trajectory, I can see some missionary serving in western Europe getting “court marshaled” because he used the word “contextualize.”  With all of the conflation, the well is poisoned.  In the mistaken belief that calling God Allah is synonymous with “we all worship the same God” is synonymous with contextualization is synonymous with syncretism, we are ousting all of both the missions community and even the pastoral community and calling their work invalid, unbiblical, and even as some have said, heretical.  Brothers, contextualization and bridging are not the problem.  Furthermore, we ALL use both!  It is bad contextualization (ie. syncretism) that is the problem.  We contextualize poorly when we compromise the gospel by either confusing some essential truth and blending it with paganism (any false belief be it cultural or religious), or when we do not accurately present the gospel in their context (ie. We present our provincial understanding of Christian faith and practice which people reject not because of Jesus but because it just all appears foreign—read: American.).   Not to be clique, but we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.  In a zeal to fight pluralism, many have painted themselves into the equally unbiblical and nonsensical corner of denying that contextualization is biblical or that Paul, Jesus and others used it.  We can, and should, always have the discussion  of how far is too far and how far is not far enough, but simply denying that it happens is both biblically untenable and operationally impossible.

There is a great need for clarity and charity as we move forward as a convention and a mission board on these issues.

Let us first look at that which is problematic.

  • It is not relational.  The Camel looks for interested parties only.  It is very presentation driven (though arguably, one could use this model relationally.  It is not, however, presented as such).  Muslim peoples are relational.  If you come in with a “short sell” presentation, you will only talk to those who are interested—these people tend to be marginalized in their culture.  If you come in relationally, you will quickly be passed through their social connections.  IMO, being introduced to the entire network has more gospel potential.  Even if one is set on using the Camel, if they are first relational and passed through a social network, then it seems that they would have even more starting point for using the Camel.
  • It is a bait and switch.  A practitioner goes into the mosque because he just happened to be studying the Quran, just happened to be reading Surah Al-Imran, and just happened to have “questions,”  but when the floor is opened to them for discussion, it is now presentation time.  This reminds me of the Mormons who come to my door to “talk about Jesus,” and then in the first sentence start talking about Joseph Smith.
  • It is “silver bullet” mentality.  I used to love silver bullets, until I realized they were only silver bullets in my mind.  Most of the time the “lostie” was unimpressed.  It is like the emperor’s new clothes; telling the emperor that he is naked might be true, but it can be harmful to your health.  As westerners who value truth and exposure—or at least we say we do—we often assume that if we can just expose the darkness that they will be ready to come “walk the isle.”  In reality, when most people are confronted with silver bullet truth, their response is either anger or denial.
  • It doesn’t strike me as convincing.   The first time I read it, I laughed when I read the acronym.  As SBCers, we are addicted to acronyms in our evangelism [F.A.I.T.H. anyone?].  It is not that an acronym is bad.  It definitely helps people to learn the method.  I guess I have just been moving away from the gospel as syllogism to the gospel as story in my evangelism encounters.  C.A.M.E.L is an acronym for the various points of reinterpreting Surah Al-Imran.  It is based on a folk tale about the names for God, where the final name is a secret that only the camel knows.  I just don’t see Muslims sitting around puzzling about the secret name of God which the camel knows.  It also doesn’t strike me as a real moment of enlightenment for them when they see that we have acronized and spelled out camel in Al-Imran.  Probably much in the same way I was not very moved by the Bible Code.  I didn’t come to faith because someone had a well put together presentation.  I came to faith because people were involved in my life, who I trusted, and over time told me the gospel story starting from the beginning.
  • It doesn’t seem to be as effective on Muslims who speak Arabic.  The Camel was developed in the east Asia where they do not speak Arabic.  Hearing/reading the content of Al-Imran for the first time in their local tongue is probably way more earth shattering for someone in Bangladesh or Indonesia who has probably never read the Quran than it is for someone from Saudi, Oman, or Yemen.  Recently we had a church group in my city go through Camel training.  They proceeded to go to a mosque and try it.  After facing a lack of interest and complete rejection, they came to us and asked, “now what?”  The Camel seems to be good for what it is designed to do, but it doesn’t have any “now what?” options.  In a Muslim majority country, one can simply move to the next mosque.  In the west, however, there are a limited number of mosques to try.  Not to mention that when church groups get too overt, the Imam blocks them from having access to his people.

The misconceptions….

  • The Camel is an evangelism plan.  This is the most common misconception I hear.  I would personally be concerned if I thought we had someone saying that Al-Imran was a sufficient enough depiction of Jesus to bring people to salvation.  The problem is that Greeson never says that.  In fact, The Camel is not even an evangelism plan at all; it is a plan to find a person of peace.  It is impossible to understand the Camel without understanding the concept of CPM as laid out by Garrison [you can find the short book here; it is the 1999 book in the bottom right].  The use of the Quran in the Camel is primarily to oust the person of peace.  He goes in, talks about Al-Imran, see who looks interested or follows him out the door, and then he moves on to the Bible and presenting the gospel sans the Quran.  He is explicitly clear about this in his book.  When he does talk about salvation he presents the “Korbani plan of salvation” [If you don’t have access to the book, you can find the basics here].  Detractors will point out that a full Nicene orthodoxy is not present.  I would say in return that most Gospel tracts and presentations I have heard do not contain it either.  Not containing the full embodiment of theology is not the same as erring from the same doctrine.  Most people don’t know or understand everything even in our context when they come to Christ—so we need to be careful with that one.  Beyond, this criticism, the Korbani plan is a simple and contextual chronological storying presentation.  Whether you like the Korbani plan or not isn’t the point.  Most people who do not like the Camel as an evangelism plan are referring to what he does in the mosque.  But they have misread [or some have never read] what the book says.  In the mosque he is simply trying to find a person of peace.  If you don’t like person of peace and CPM methodology, then Garrison is a better one to talk to.
  • The Camel puts the Quran on par with the Bible.  The Camel does not advocate that the Quran is from God (ie. Inspired, infallible, etc).  The book is replete with examples and statements to that end.  He does use it to find a person of peace, but when he goes to evangelism he leaves the Quran behind.  Quoting from the Quran is not a carte blanche affirmation of all that it says.  For the record, selective quoting is exactly what Paul did at the areopagus.  He definitely would not affirm all that those poets said, and the reaction of the crowd demonstrates that they did not take him to make such a claim.
  • The Camel teaches that people can get saved from the Quran. Again, it is not an evangelism plan.  The Camel does not advocate that Muslims can be saved via the Quran.  The Camel uses the Quran for a bridge.  The concept of bridging is both useful and biblical.  Most missionaries from other parts of the world would “kill” to have an embedded culturally accepted instruction handed down from their “grand-pumbalah,” recorded and preserved authoritatively which would tell adherents to go read the Bible!  So why wouldn’t someone use a surah which told Muslims to read the Gospels?  After all, It’s not where you start, it is where you end.  It doesn’t really bother me if someone starts in the mosque with some sly questions and quotes about the Quran so long as they end up presenting the whole story.
  • The Camel is part of the “insider” movement.  IMB does not endorse the insider movement.  To my knowledge, advocates for the insider movement do not use the Camel.  It appears the two groups and two methods are counter exclusive.  In addition to the IMB’s position, I know that Garrison has written against the insider movement.  Not only are these kind of incendiary statements not accurate, they are simply the cheap tactics of building straw men and poisoning the well.  The implication is that obviously since the insider movement is bad and the Camel is part of it, then the Camel is also bad.  The problem is that the two are not synonymous.  Each must be critically evaluated on its own merits, not the merits or vices of the other..
  • The Camel is not synonymous with the “c” scale.  This is the same fallacy and misconception as the previous one only with new ingredients.  Practitioners on almost all levels of the C-scale can use the Camel with integrity to their position.  Conversely, there are practitioners on all levels who do not use the Camel.  [If you want to know more, you can google “John Travis” and “Christ Centered Community.”  The scale, IMO, isn’t the best way of talking about contextualization and even mentioning the scale can open up a floor fight.]  The Camel is not “c5” or “c4”  and technically speaking, it is not even on the c-scale at all.  The C-scale only refers to churches, not to missionaries or contextualization approaches.  The method of finding a person of peace can be done by anyone at any point on the c-scale.  The IMB does not affirm any ministry or methods beyond C-4.  As public and controversial as this topic is, The Camel would not traverse beyond that.
  • The Camel affirms the prophet-hood of Muhammad.  This one is just plain ridiculous.  Some people have a three prong approach: 1 attack Muhammad, 2 attack Islam, 3  present Jesus [4. Go call a lawyer].  Assaulting Muhammad, as Jerry Vines did back at the convention after 9-11, is considered defaming Muhammad and defaming Islam.  This will get one kicked out of pretty much any Muslim country.  In many countries, it can mean jail time or worse.  Saying “peace be upon him” is simply being respectful.  It is important to have a respectful but honest answer to the endless stream of “What do you think of Muhammad?”  There are many indirect ways to communicate that one does not affirm his prophet-hood.  Walk a mile in their shoes: what would you think if someone came to your house to tell you about a religion but started by saying your mom was fat, dumb, and ugly?  Your mom might be fat, dumb, and ugly, but pointing out the obvious isn’t the way to gain a hearing.  The problem with defamation in Islamic countries, is that they have laws on the books.  Where insulting someone’s mother might just get you punched, going after Muhammad will only end badly.
  • The Camel was invented by Americans and outsiders.  I think only people who have never read the book make this claim.  Greeson pilfered, (ahem, I mean researched) this methodology after interviewing local successful evangelists.  This is an indigenous methodology.  Extractionists methodology, however, does tend to stem from westerners [even if an MBB is the one talking about extraction, rarely did they reach that conclusion in a void.  They have probably been extracted themselves].  Extractionism is the brainchild of the colonial period.
  • The Camel is required training by the IMB, or all IMB missionaries working with Muslims are using The Camel.  I cannot speak for all IMB folks.  However, when I went through field orientation, no one even mentioned the Camel.  I have talked with my team about it, and none of them use it.  Perhaps with other teams it is required, but I don’t personally know of any.

The way forward…

As the discussion in your circle [blog, church, school, team, etc] progresses, rather than simply asking the question “is the camel right?” or “is contextualization right?” and the painting a target on it and rejecting everything, how about breaking the question into parts which can be evaluated individually.

Consider the following scenario: I used to answer the “what do you think of the camel?” with a simple yes or no, or a short explanation.  The problem is that there are a lot of questions rolled up into that one question.  To give a simple yes was to affirm many misconceptions [you call God Allah so you think that religions worship the same God!].  Now when I am asked about my views, I start asking a series of “do you mean…” questions.  Rather than asking for a simple yes or no, we need to look at the following questions individually:

1) Can we call God Allah?  [more importantly can we call Jesus `Isa?]

2) Are they the same God?

3) Is calling God Allah the same as saying that they are the same God?

4)  Does saying that God and Allah are the same being mean we are saying that both religions are equally valid and salvation is found in both?

5) Can we use quranic bridging?

6) Is mentioning the Quran or appealing to the Quran the same as affirming it is inspired and inerrant?

Breaking it into its parts will hopefully foster better communication between parties, greater understanding, and less branding people as heretics.  Calling out IMB personnel, and even Jerry Rankin as heretics is presumptuous, incendiary, and, when done for shock and personal notoriety, is carnal.  There is a plethora of theologians and missionaries who support the work in whole or in part–not the least of whom are Jerry Rankin, Daniel Akin, David Nelson, and Bruce Ashford–perhaps we should find out why they think what they do before we go to lighting torches.

Perhaps we need to come up with some basic statement on basic truths and parameters we affirm in contextualized missions since most of these discussions do not contradict the BFM, but only because they are beyond the scope of the BFM.

And now back to my bombshelter!