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 ‘Christ-Centered 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. 11 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.

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 self-

identity. 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. 14 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. 

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

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. 23 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.

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. 27 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.

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. 29 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.

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 ‘Christ-Centered 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 ‘Christ-

Centered 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): 54-61.

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.