Archive for the ‘contemporary theology’ Category

world map missions Our Marathon Series on “Missions, Culture and Being Biblical” was launched on September 17th, 2014. While there were other issues being addressed there was a lot of focus in our series on the Insider Movement and the problem of faulty theology driving one’s missiology and one’s contextualization of the Gospel.  I felt that Solid Christians addressing the problem with the Insider Movement and their approach towards Mission was long overdue and I am glad to see the last two years an increases of Christian theologians addressing this problem. Below is an “index” to the posts in our series.

Essays by SlimJim

Quick Thoughts on Question of those who never Heard

A Bad Theology of False Religions in Contemporary Evangelical Missionary Thought?

Missionary Contextualization understood in light of the relationship between Culture and the Bible

Messianic Mosques and Messianic Muslims? Taking on Shah Ali’s South Asia Report  NEW

Faulty Ecclesiology in two Insider Movement Case Studies NEW

Insider Movement’s John Travis view of Apologetics and Islam  NEW

Concerns for C. Peter Wagner on the Cutting Edge of Missions Strategy  NEW

Is it True Anyone Can be a Missionary if they Speak English?

Missions: Distinguishing between Relief and Transformational Development


Book Review: The Road to Reality

Review: Conquer Your Fear, Share Your Faith by Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort

Other Online Resources

Reformed Forum Critique of the Insider Movement and resources recommended

PCA General Assembly Report on the Insider Movement

David B.

Garner’s 5 Part Series on Insider Movement over at Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Video: Piper Responds to the Insider Movement | The Domain for Truth

Read Full Post »

The Reformed Forum have recently completed a show on the Insider Movement that is really into a form of “Contextualization” that is dangerous in subverting the Gospel presentation itself.  You can access the show by clicking HERE.  They have also given linked to resources provided by those being interviewed such as this article on the Insider’s Movement’s heremeneutics by David Garner and a documentary titled “Half Devil Half Child” which website can be accessed here.  On their website they provided further links as resources on this topic:

Idolatry in the Modern Missions Movement
by Mark Stephan

Position Paper on the Insider Movement
by Georges Houssney

Alignment and Balance: A Biblical Basis for Missions
by Basil Grafas

Insider Movements: An Evangelical Assessment
by Basil Grafas The “Insider Movement”: A Brief Overview and Analysis
by Khalil Ullah

The Emergence of Insider Movements
by Bill Nikides

Boulder In The Pond: Finally Stepping Up To the Threat of Insider Movements
by Bill Nikides

Insider Movements: Honoring God-Given Identity and Community (PDF)
by Rebecca Lewis

The Integrity of the Gospel and Insider Movements (PDF)
by Rebecca Lewis

Promoting Movements to Christ within Natural Communities (PDF)
by Rebecca Lewis

Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa: A Closer Look at C5 Believes and Congretations
by John Travis

Followers ofJesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques (PDF)
by Timothy C. Tennent

A Humble Appeal to C5/Insider Movement Muslim Ministry Advocates to Consider Ten Questions (with responses from Brother Yusuf, Rick Brown, Kevin Higgins, Rebecca Lewis and John Travis
by Gary Corwin


Stop Supporting Wycliffe’s Current Bible Translation for Muslims, PCA Advises Churches
by Jeremy Weber (Christianity Today)

Father and Son Terminology- Inspired or Superfluous?
by Adam Simonwitz

Jumping the Sinking Wycliffe Ship: Why Theology Matters
by David Irvine

Muslim Idiom Bible Translations: Claims and Facts
by Rick Brown

Brief Response to Rick Brown’s “Breif Analysis of Filial and Paternal Terms in the Bible”
by Michael Marlowe


Read Full Post »

Purchase: Amazon

The beginning of this book makes the observation that as soon as one makes a contemporary theology book, its bound not to be contemporary soon, because of the development in the religious landscape. I think the fact that it was written before the Soviet Union fell (as his discussion about the persecuted Charismatic church in the Soviet Union) or his chapter on some theology being a big risk that never materializes does not help. Still, I do manage to find it still interesting to note how someone at a certain time in the past thought about things. My chief criticism of this book is not that it’s been written over twenty plus years ago as it is theological: There are times I find it amazing that he will not find a problem with a certain theology, or what I find as a serious problem he sees as a plus! While I don’t dispute the author is an Evangelical, I think at times he’s not as discerning. Sometimes his evaluation seems left field as in the instance of his criticism of Word of Faith theology suffering from a bad dualism where the spiritual is only non-worldly and the physical is unspiritual (seriously, that’s the problem with Word of Faith prosperity preaching???). Based on his evaluation of other theology, he is probably not Reformed. I was disappointed that sometimes the resources for a controversial claim of what a particular theology believes in is not based on primary sources, but secondary critical sources. I don’t think if I did that for my theological seminar in Seminary that it would fly, and I find it amazing that the author can do that while be a teacher of theology in post-graduate setting. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against engaging with important secondary sources, but if it’s a controversial statement about what proponents believed, it should be handle with care. I see this being most problematic with David Smith’s treatment of Christian Reconstructionism (though we see it in other theologies that he surveyed as well). For instance, he asserts that Rushdoony has a low view of Calvin, but he does not explain what he means and in what sense, and the footnote he gives as his proof was to an anti-theonomy source that has been seriously discredited and problematic. I would prefer that the author lets Rushdoony speaks for himself rather than from a second hand, that now becomes a third hand source (and if quoted by someone for a paper, now passes down fourth hand, etc). I suppose it’s good is still that it reveals what other theology are out there in our contemporary landscape though he might not always have the best evaluation of it.

Read Full Post »