What would this look like if Jesus was Lord?

I recently had the privilege to observe a cross-cultural church planter demonstrate several of the principles I had been teaching. He works among one of the largest unreached people groups. The names have been changed because of security concerns.

Rajeev is a follower of Christ with a Hindu background who dedicated his life to Christian service as a young man. He is a talented musician who plays an eastern style drum, a teacher of adult literacy and an evangelist of the gospel of Christ. The drum is a perfect analogy or symbol for Rajeev’s approach to ministry. The drummer is not the lead instrument, but provides structure and support for the singers and other instruments.  It does not dominate but enhances and guides.  It leads from behind.  With his mouth shut, Rajeev’s hands fly across the drum while others sing.  This reflects the attitude that Rajeev has as he serves Muslims with the goal of showing them the light of Christ.

When he teaches adult literacy, an important goal for Rajeev is for students to teach others what they have learned in their first week of lessons.  He quickly moves to the background so that his students can become the teachers and pass on what they have learned.

But Rajeev’s greatest impact is through music.  Hindu people in that area are not well respected by Muslims, but he has used his gift of music to build bridges.  He invites musicians – all Muslim – to his house where they sometimes spend the entire night playing and singing.  He provides essential back-up through the playing of his drum.  But he has one restriction: the music must focus on and honor God.   “If music is not worshipful, it is not being used for its essential purpose,” he claims. For Rajeev, music is worship.  The only music worth playing is music directed to God.

“The only music worth playing is music directed to God”

Rajeev challenged the musicians to see music in the same way and to use their gifts and talents to bring glory to God.  Because Muslims do not use music in their worship, this was a new concept to them and they asked, “How do we do that?” Rajeev explained that the initial step is to discover what God has revealed about himself in the Bible and then use that understanding to write songs in praise of God and Jesus Christ using popular poetry styles.

Rajeev knows the scriptures, but they do not.  Nonetheless, he does not teach the meaning of a passage to them, but instead says, “I don’t understand what this means. Can you explain it?”  After they explore it for a while and the participants have struggled to the answer, he says,  “Ah, now I see it!  You have explained it well.  Thank you.”  The student has become the teacher and through the process has taken ownership of the lesson.  As an evangelist, Rajeev seeks to be eyes and ears, rather than a mouth. He explores faith with them, rather than preaching to them.  In Islam, while leading prayers in the mosque, the Imam faces in the same direction as the worshippers. Rajeev adopts a similar format that resonates with these Muslim musicians; he is one with them in their search for spiritual treasure from God’s word.

These musicians are poets and songwriters.  Therefore, their faith is naturally expressed through their music. They are growing and developing in their understanding of Jesus, not because Rajeev is sharing his knowledge of Scripture, but because he has provided the opportunity and direction.  I had the privilege to interview some of the musicians and hear their faith, but the most impacting experience was listening to them sing the songs they have written in praise of Jesus. They sang about Jesus the healer, who heals both body and soul.  They sang about his coming to earth in the “form of Adam” to bring us life.  They sang about the empty tomb and the need to die to self in order to live for God.  And Rajeev never opened his mouth.

Once a month in the local church Rajeev preaches and leads worship.  The musicians come and lead the congregation in singing songs of praise.  People also ask them to come and perform at weddings.  When Rajeev responds, “We only sing songs of worship,” the response is generally positive and the invitation is repeated with greater insistence.  Rajeev has witnessed older men and women weeping as they listen to the songs.  “We have never heard about the grace of God in Christ in this way,” they say.

In the book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, the authors speak of “master change agents” who develop “a handful of powerful influence strategies that they themselves can and do replicate and that others can and do learn.”¹ To be an influencer, one must not use force or seek to dominate.  Rather, a true change agent is one who works within an accepted environment while providing content that stimulates and challenges those with whom they partner.  The impetus, power and choice to move forward lies in the one being influenced, not the influencer.  The change agent provides a channel, the power of the flowing water lies with those who make the choice to travel in that direction.  As Rajeev plays his drum in the background, he is one of those influencers through whom Jesus is changing the world.  A church is emerging as these men gather to sing.

If you would like to contact Mark please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________







• 1 Patterson, K Grenny, J Maxfield, D McMillan, R & Switzler, A 2008. Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 11.

What kind of God commands people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow up crowds of people?  What kind of God tells people to drive passenger planes into the sides of buildings?  What kind of God commands parents to kill their children?  What kind of God would come to one of his worshippers and say, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love – Isaac – and … sacrifice him…” (Gen 22:2)?

Those of us who believe in God as the loving father of the Lord Jesus Christ quickly rise to the challenge these questions represent and protest that the latter question is in a different category than the first three.  There is a fundamental difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of terrorists.  Nonetheless, I suspect that the average churchgoer would find it hard to provide a defense or articulate a reasonable distinction. Furthermore, most outsiders to the faith, reading the Genesis passage, would likely categorize the God of Genesis 22 with the God of the first three questions.  One friend of mine described God as “despot” and the Bible as “full of terrors” because of passages such as the sacrifice of Isaac.

In fact, skeptics often like to pose the question: “Suppose that God told you to kill your child…. If you are a God-Fearing Christian, do you have any theological grounds for refusing to kill your own child?”¹ The correct answer to this question for Christians is to deny that the God of the Bible would require this, and to provide legitimate theological grounds for refusing to do such an evil deed.  But such theology needs to be explained in light of Genesis 22, not by ignoring it.

A theology about the Bible

I believe that part of the reason for this uncomfortable comparison of the God of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, with the God of terrorists is an inadequate theology about the Bible.  In speaking of a theology about the Bible, I am not referring to a biblical theology, that is, a description of God and his relationship to humanity developed from an understanding of biblical content.  Rather, I am referring to an understanding concerning how the Bible functions in shaping our faith.

Wm. Smalley provides a description of how the Bible is used and viewed by people around the world. Some approach the Bible as a cultural artifact of the Christian religion.  Others make magical use of the Bible and view it as a fetish. For many people the Bible is primarily a law book to be obeyed.  Another use of the Bible is as textbook to provide information. Others use the Bible as a reference, to answer the questions they have. Another use of the Bible is as a behavioral manual, a guide in developing moral practice. A common use of the Bible is as a devotional book, a book of worship.  For many people the Bible is an oracle, through which they hear God speak.2

the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God

Without denying the validity of some of the uses mentioned, I would argue that the Bible should be primarily viewed as revelation of the character, nature and will of God.  We need to the approach the Bible for the purpose of understanding who God is and how he relates to us.  It is only through the formulation of biblically shaped perspective of God that we can comprehend who we are: people created in his image.  Genesis 22, then, is not a passage that we are to explain away in order to preserve a prior concept of God, but one through which we develop a better understanding of the God we worship.  However, in order to do this, we must view the passage through the correct “lenses.”

Developing the right exegetical “lenses”

The Islamic understanding of their sacred scriptures, the Koran, is that it is a book that was written in heaven and then dictated to the prophet Mohammed.  It is a book that is 100% divine without any human participation.  Thus, it is pure and holy and untranslatable.  The story is told of a journalist who approached a Muslim cleric and asked for a translation of the Koran that he could read in order to understand it.  He was told, “There is no translation of the Koran.  You must learn Arabic!”

The Christian view of the Bible is different.  Christians also believe that the Bible is 100% divine.  But it is also 100% the product of human beings, albeit in a different way. God teaches us his truth, but it only occurs through human language, human understanding and human culture.  In order to communicate, God accommodated to people, he did not command that they accommodate to him. “Prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”  (2 Peter 1:21 TNIV). Moreover, the incarnation is the ultimate accommodation to our need: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14 TNIV). It is the realization that God spoke to people within their language, within their perspective of the world, and within their culture and worldview, that provides the basis for Bible translation. The divine message can be represented in any language, because the original is also not a divine, but a human language.

The divine message can be represented in any language

Furthermore, this human cultural dynamic of the biblical passage provides us with the “lenses” through which we can properly understand what on earth God was doing when he said to Abraham, “Sacrifice your son.”

Cultural Contrast

Abraham was surrounded by gods.  He was in Canaan and the Canaanites had many gods: mountain gods, river gods, fertility gods, and gods of war.  Abraham’s understanding of the gods came from the context in which he lived.  His relationship and response to the God who had chosen him was shaped by the worldview that he lived in.  For the people of that time, the most powerful god could do the greatest things, and the most powerful god demanded the greatest sacrifice.  Some of those gods demanded human sacrifice – Molech is the best known – because they demanded the best.

It may have been a surprise to Abraham to receive this command.  But, as far as Abraham knew, it was not out of character for the way gods acted.  He wasn’t shocked.  He didn’t go through a lot of soul searching.  He didn’t argue with God.  He didn’t look for a way out. Instead, “early the next morning” he set out to fulfill this command. Why would he do this? Because in Abraham’s world this was consistent with the way gods acted. The greatest god demanded the greatest sacrifice, and God was proving to Abraham that he was the greatest God. Abraham obeyed without question, because that was the response required by his cultural setting and by his vow to be the servant of this God.

However, from our modern Canadian perspective, the scenario is strange and perverse.  If this happened to us, we would question it.  We would look for a second opinion.  We would doubt our sanity.  We would do all we could to get out of this dilemma, because it doesn’t make sense.  This is not the God we know. The story makes no sense to us in our culture because we understand God in Jesus Christ – a God who loves and redeems, not one who destroys.  My friend looks at this story and sees a god of terror, a vindictive and a cruel god.  And I know why, because I live in the same culture and see things the same way.

But for Abraham, this scenario fit perfectly in his world.  This was how gods acted. This story made perfect sense to Abraham because it was played out over and over again in human sacrifice all around him.  This, for Abraham, was normal. God was speaking Abraham’s language.

What Abraham didn’t know, and needed to learn, was the character of the God who had chosen him.

The Message is in the Medium

I am not that kind of god

At the point of sacrificing his son God commanded Abraham to stop, he provided a ram and Isaac was saved.  In essence, God said, “I am not that kind of god.  I am not like the common gods that you see around you that hurt and destroy and damage. I am not a god who destroys life, but one who gives life.  I am the redeemer.  I am the provider.”

This passage is one of the major turning points in understanding God in the whole history of humanity.  It is a watershed lesson about the character of God.  This is the beginning of the comprehension that God is a God of love, provision and redemption.  That understanding begins here and grows throughout the Bible, culminating in the cross of Christ.  Isaac’s sacrifice is the prelude to the cross, in which God says to humanity, “Not only do I not bring death and destruction, but I suffer death and destruction so that you may have life.” In that greatest of all accommodations to our weakness – the cross – lies our salvation. God becomes a frail human being dying on a cross, bringing life to all, showing us that the greatest God is the one who has the greatest love.

When this passage is looked at through our modern cultural lenses, it is easy to fear that God may be a god of terrors and an arbitrary despot.  But this is not the intended lesson.  Rather, it was understood by Moses, the Israelites and all the worshippers of God throughout scripture, as a foundational lesson revealing the sacredness of human life and God’s redemptive nature. Abraham had a lesson to learn and through him, humanity had a lesson to learn about the true character of the God who provides.

God is light; in him there is no darkness at all

Would I kill my child if God told me to?  Absolutely not.  Because that is not the God I worship. We know and believe that God will never do nor command that which is evil because of Jesus Christ.  “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5 TNIV).

If you would like to contact Mark, please use the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 posted by Terry at http://able2know.org/topic/22070-1.  Accessed Sept 28, 2008.
• 2 Smalley, William A. 1991. Translation As Mission: Bible Translation in the Modern Missionary Movement. Macon, Georgia:Mercer University Press. 224-233.

When our main translator walked into the translation office last December in Shikarpur, Pakistan, I greeted him with, “I have a problem with heaven.”  He laughed and responded, “Well, if you have trouble with heaven, what’s left? There is not much more to hope for!”  I explained that it was not the concept of heaven that bothered me, but the terms used in our Sindhi Bible translation.

Bible translators are not so much concerned with formal definitions of words as they are with how the translation is understood by the receptor audience.  For example, even though the English word “heaven” can legitimately describe the physical expanse over our heads, modern translations will use more common expressions such as “sky,” thus avoiding a possible confusion with God’s abode, or the popular perception of “the place we go when we die,” i.e., Paradise. The target audience’s understanding of the translation is a key guide for the translator to ensure appropriate communication of the original message.  A recent correction to the Sindhi translation of the New Testament provides an illustration.

The target audience’s understanding of the translation is a key guide for the translator

During my recent translation trip to Pakistan in Nov-Dec, 2007 we worked on the Hindu Sindhi NT translation project, which is based on the already prepared and published manuscript of the Muslim Sindhi NT.  As we compared the translated texts and rechecked the meaning of the original biblical manuscripts, it became obvious that some revisions to the previously prepared Muslim Sindhi translation were also required.

Rewards after we die?

In Mt 5:12 and Lu 6:23 Jesus encourages those who are persecuted to “rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” (TNIV).  The word used in the original translation of the Sindhi New Testament was “bisht,” a word that parallels the western religious concept of Paradise. From the Muslim Sindhi reader’s point of view this would be understood as the conservative Islamic doctrine of Paradise, the place of eternal reward for the faithful received after the resurrection to life.  Moreover, its use in this passage would confirm the common notion among Sindhi Muslims that we can earn rewards here on earth which will be translated into pleasures to be enjoyed in the life to come; our good deeds are tabulated and rewarded in the next life. 

Sufis commonly believe that the only reward worth seeking is God himself

However, it is unlikely that Jesus intended this meaning.  “Heaven,” particularly in the book Matthew, is a reference to God’s dwelling place used for the purpose of speaking indirectly about God. The phrase “the kingdom of heaven,” for example, is equivalent to “the kingdom of God” found in Luke.  Both phrases refer to God’s rule over creation. To communicate this sense of “heaven” in Sindhi a different word than “bisht” is required.  The phrase, “Our Father in heaven” (TNIV) in Mt 6:9, was helpful in identifying a better term.  Because “heaven” in this verse cannot be confused with Paradise, the Muslim Sindhi translation has the word “Asman,” referring to the place where God resides.  Understanding this meaning of “heaven” to be the same in Mt 5:12 and Lu 6:23, the Muslim Sindhi translation has been changed to “Asman” – the residence of God – from the word meaning Paradise – the place of eternal reward for the faithful.  Unfortunately in Hindu Sindhi there is no equivalent term for “the place where God dwells,” and so the translation is more explicit and reads, “rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward from God.” ¹

From Orthodox Islam to Mystic Sufism

This change of a single word represents a significant theological shift for the Sindhi reader: away from the concept of earning rewards that will be received after death, to a desire to please God and make him the appropriate focus of our concern when enduring suffering on earth.  As a result the new translation will resonate with many Sindhi people as affirming the teaching of the mystic Sufis, who are greatly revered in the Sindh.  Sufis commonly believe that the only reward worth seeking is God himself.  A popular Sufi saying is, “If God is in heaven (bisht), then I want to go to heaven.  If God is in hell then I want to go to hell.”

The following Sufi story also illustrates this understanding:

A religious leader was preaching to his students in the presence of a Dervish:  "If you do bad things you will go to hell.  If you do good things you will go to Heaven (bisht).  So do good and not evil so that you will go to Heaven and not hell."  
The Dervish on hearing this arose and went into his house.  There he wrapped one end of a stick with cloth, set it alight and began to walk through the town.  
"What are you doing?" people asked.  
"I’m looking for Heaven and hell", he replied, "And when I find them I will burn them both to the ground."
"That is absurd," they cried. "Why would you want to do that?"
"Because I have just heard religious instruction that teaches people to do good out of fear and selfishness and not for the sake of knowing God.  It would be better if those causes of greed and terror were removed so that people would only seek God for Himself and not for their own gain!" ²

Bridges for the Truth of God’s Word

But is there not a third possibility?  Must the Sindhi translation of “heaven” recall a conservative Islamic theology on the one hand or mystic Sufi teaching on the other?  Is there no “neutral,” non religious terminology that can be used to convey the biblical concept of heaven?  The answer is “No.”  By definition, the act of translation uses terminology and concepts already in use by the receptor audience, otherwise communication will not occur.  It is essential in Bible translation to ensure that the terminology used provides an equivalent meaning that is faithful to the original text.  The similarity between the meaning of the concept in the original manuscripts and the Sindhi understanding makes communication possible, while the differences can hopefully be overcome by reflecting on the meaning of the word within the greater context of scripture.

Moreover, when pre-existing teaching within the Sindhi community parallels biblical teaching, it is a cause for rejoicing. Not only is the task of translation made easier, but such teaching acts a bridge for the truth of God’s word.  When Sufi teaching is assumed true by the Sindhi reader and similar teaching is encountered in the New Testament, the result is an affirmation of the truth of God’s word and encouragement to trust the NT.

(The photo is of our Hindu Sindhi workshop participants, March 2006)

____________________
• 1 This latter translation is still under revision.
• 2 Both the Sufi saying and the story are from a private collection gathered from Sindhi friends during our time in Pakistan.

A better, and common, approach is to recognize that while the verse is a promise to people of another age, we can still ask, “What lesson can we learn from this that is applicable to us?”  That is, even though the words are not written to us, the message is still, in some less direct sense, for us.  

A third approach which is my primary concern in reading the Bible cross-culturally is to examine this interaction of God with his people in order to discover his character and his heart.  This perspective recognizes that the passage provides a revelation of the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and asks, “What can I learn from this to know him better?  How can I shape my thoughts, speech and action to fit with the image that emerges from God’s revelation of himself?”

there is something grander in the Bible than chapter and verse application to the way we live: it is the vision, the revelation of God himself

The Bible as revelation of the nature of God
The latter approach is based on the conviction that there is something grander in the Bible than chapter and verse application to the way we live: it is the vision, the revelation of God himself.  The primary purpose of the written word is not to give us instructions on how to live, but to be a witness to the Living Word who in turn reveals to us the nature and heart of God.  It is within that broader perspective of discovering God that we become shaped into the image of Christ and respond in worship.

The Old Testament does not reveal the nature of God in propositional intrinsic qualities (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.) but through extrinsic characteristics in terms of his relationship and actions towards his people and the universe (1). There is therefore not a particular chapter and verse we can point to and say, “that defines God,” or “that is a comprehensive summary of the heart of God.”  Propositional descriptions of God are like photos. Just as one snapshot of Karen is a true image of my wife, at the same time it is not her because she cannot be truly known through one photo. Rather it is by living with her that I know her in a deep way and can “read” her; that is, I know her heart. It is with this attitude I approach Scripture: each and every verse is a revelation of the character of God, not in terms of propositional descriptions as if God can be known through a dictionary definition, but as an expression of the relationship he desires to establish with those created in his image.

This is the primary role of the Bible: we read in order to interact with God

Philip said to Jesus, “Show us the Father.”  Jesus did not start quoting chapter and verse, nor did he give a propositional discourse on the nature of God. Rather he said, “If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”  God was revealed through their interaction with Jesus.  This is the primary role of the Bible: we read in order to interact with God.  We look in the pages to discover the nature and character of God, and it is around this emerging image that we are called to shape our lives.

Our Story intersects with God’s Story
The majority of the Bible is narrative, Jesus spoke in parables and the book of John weaves the claims of Christ together with his actions to reveal his nature so that we can believe and live (John 20:31).  There is a place for propositional truth, but not when dealing with the deepest issues of life and relationships.  A proposition plays a secondary role by providing a concise description of a reality.  It can be a sign pointing to the reality, but it is not the reality itself.  By using narrative, the Bible helps us explore the intersection between our personal reality and the broader “story we find ourselves in,” which is God’s story.  

There is a saying I have on my computer: “The universe is made up of stories, not atoms.”  Atoms are important.  I am very happy that scientists study atoms so that we can gain from the benefits of their efforts.  But that is not what life is about.  Life consists of stories. When Jesus was questioned about what it means to love our neighbor, he gave a story about relationships, self-sacrifice and mercy.

Crossing cultures with God’s word
Stories cross cultures much better than propositions.  Propositions are shaped for greatest impact according the assumptions of one context.  Stories, on the other hand, provide a more holistic and detailed picture of reality and they are heard with a variety of nuance and emphasis depending on the hearer.  Stories communicate and resonate in ways that propositional statements do not because the hearer is able to place the message within a context that is relevant to the world they live in.  When propositions are derived from the stories – a common process prompted by our human desire to summarize and categorize – they reflect the concerns of the hearer’s context.  

God’s story in the Bible needs to be seen as a communication of the character and nature of God in ways that relate directly to the hearer (as opposed to the more secondary, abstract channel of propositions).  When the Bible is read as the revelation of the nature of God, then it speaks to people across cultures about a Father who loves and cares.  It also provides the framework within which they are able to work out the expressions of life that conform to his image, some of which will be summarized in propositional form.

This, I believe, is the theology of the Bible that drives the use of “Bible Storying” in many missions efforts around the world.  Bible stories are chosen and shaped with sensitivity to the values and concerns of the audience and as a result the hearers are introduced to the Father of Jesus Christ in a way that relates to their lives.

The Essence of God’s word
There is benefit when we look at the details of the Bible and ask, “what is the application for us?”   This approach is good and can provide guidance in the way of Christ.  But I do not believe that it is the essence of God’s word.  Ultimately, the Bible is a revelation of the nature and character of God, a window opening up onto the wonder of his love and mercy and grace.  It shows me his heart and my goal is to respond to that revelation and reflect his character in my life.

_______________
• (1) Martin Parsons, Unveiling God: Contextualizing Christology for Islamic culture (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2005), 48.

Hudson Taylor was a pioneer missionary to China who recognized the need to immerse himself in the Chinese culture in order to relate the gospel to the people in ways that made sense to his audience.  He learned their language, wore his hair in a pigtail, wore their clothes and, in general, lived his as close to their lifestyle as possible.  According to some of his European colleagues, this was inappropriate.  Because the Bible had been in their culture for so many centuries, they reasoned, their cultural values and norms were the true expressions of Christian life and universal for all cultures.  Hudson Taylor disagreed.  Rather than requiring people to become like him, he deliberately sought to become like them.  Rather than “bringing people in” to meet Christ, his goal was to bring Christ into their lives.  Such thinking represents the heart of the missional church.

When Karen and I lived in Pakistan¹ we worshipped with the Baptist church located across the road from our residence.  I had a sincere young Muslim ask to attend the worship service, so I took him with me.  Afterwards I was taken aside by an elder and told that this was inappropriate: the young man was not a Christian, he was not baptized, he didn’t belong.  Some time later the man was baptized, but not in that church.  I took him again to a worship service in the church and the same elder took me aside once more.  I explained that the young man was now baptized.  The elder asked, "What is his name? Where does he live?" I told him the man’s name and that he lived with his father. The elder responded by explaining that until the man changes his name to a Christian name, and until he leaves his Muslim community and joins the Christian community, he cannot attend the church. 

The point here is not to criticize the elder for this attitude because there are complex cultural issues that need to be understood. However, what is pertinent is the "bring them in and make them like us" mentality, an inward focus that is also prevalent in many Canadian churches. We are good at sending missionaries, we are good at bringing people into our meetings (very few churches would deny Muslims entry), but there is often a lack of conviction that we are a people who have "been sent" by Jesus to make the gospel relevant to others where they live.  When churches talk of “outreach” a primary goal is usually to bring them in and assimilate them into church life. In contrast, we had gone to Pakistan with an outward focus. We attempted to learn what it means to live in a relevant Christ-like way in their culture, from the standpoint of their worldview, rather than conforming them to our culture and worldview.

There are two ways to be a church involved in God’s mission to the world:

1. Bring them in so they can assimilate (communal orientation) OR

2. Appreciate and interact with people in their context so they can experience the way Jesus relates to them where they live (missional orientation).

Jesus’ Incarnation is the basis for Missional Orientation

Jesus’ incarnation, “God with us,” is the “theological prism through which we view our entire missional task in the world”².  In his high priestly prayer Jesus said, “As you (God) sent me into the world, so I send them (disciples) into the world” (Jn 17:18).  Jesus came to make a difference in people’s lives by becoming like them.  We are also called to be like Jesus and make a difference in people’s lives.  Like Jesus this requires the maintenance of a paradox: becoming like others in order to be a transforming catalyst.  Gospel transformation occurs through the cultural values and perspectives of a people group rather than by insisting on our own cultural norms.  The missional church follows Jesus’ method of relating the gospel message to people’s lives within their context.

This biblical perspective of how God interacts with humanity contrasts sharply with Islamic theology. In Islam there is no accommodation of God towards humanity.  God never becomes immanent with people, as in the incarnation.  He is immovably transcendent.  Thus, in their view of scripture, the Koran was dictated in heaven and handed down to the prophet.  There is no human hand or culture involved in providing God’s revelation to humanity.  It remains transcendent and pure.  In contrast the biblical picture is of a God who speaks in and through human cultures, in and through human languages.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible can be translated into other languages and remain the authoritative word of God.  The ultimate accommodation to human frailty is found in the person Christ, the Word of Life seen with human eyes and touched with human hands (1 Jn 1:1). 

God became human within a particular context, for our sake.  Similarly, Jesus sends us, so that he can become Lord in many different contexts.  The New Testament does not provide a blueprint for a universal form of church for all cultures to which people must accommodate.  Rather the descriptions of church development and instruction reveal the missional understanding of the disciples who “worked out” the gospel message in their 1st century culture.  The function of the church (e.g., fellowship, worship, teaching) was fulfilled through the cultural patterns with which the apostles were familiar. Proponents of missional churches believe that they are called to do the same: to work out salvation in other contexts using those forms that best express the message.

The Incarnation of the Gospel not the Messenger

It is important to recognize that the incarnational implications of the missional orientation do not require that the messenger literally become a full member of another culture, but that they work towards the gospel becoming an integral expression of another setting.  While missionaries in Pakistan, we did not become Pakistani.  That was impossible and, because of our own cultural values and priorities, would have been inappropriate if we had attempted it.  When Paul spoke of becoming “like a Jew, to win the Jews” and becoming “all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:19-22), he was not speaking incarnationally, but from a desire to accommodate his practices and priorities for the sake of the gospel.

Similarly, our goal was to relate to the Sindhi people in such a way that they would recognize the gospel not as an imported western religion, but as God speaking to and relating to their lives.  As foreigners, we understood and lived the gospel from within our cultural perspective because that is the means by which the gospel message is significant to us.  What was required was an introduction of the gospel expressed relevantly within their cultural perspective.  This involved a resolute investment in relationships with people and sensitivity to their context. We had to leave our “comfort zone” and learn to appreciate a very different perspective on life and relationships.  However, the goal was not our incarnation into their reality, but the incarnation of the gospel of Christ. This is commonly referred to as a contextualization of the gospel message so that significance of the death and resurrection of Christ impacts both individual lives and the broader community in such a way that it is identified as integral to the culture.

The following article will provide a brief overview of how the missional concept has been developed by influential missiologists.

_______________
• (1) From 1985-1999 Karen and I lived with our family as FEBInternational missionaries in Pakistan.
• (2) M. Frost & A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 35.

Missional Drives Communal

The point is not that “missional is good and communal is bad.”  What is the benefit of working on roads if there are no gas stations?  How can a new believer grow in Christ without the support of other Christians?  Every church must have both missional and communal components. However, even though a missional orientation will result in communal expressions, the converse is not necessarily true. One pastor put it this way, “If you are missional oriented, you will have communal focus.  But if you are communal oriented, you can lose the missional focus.”

A missional church cannot survive without a communal expression. It cannot fulfill its vision of participating in God’s mission to the world without healthy relationships in the body of Christ. But for this model of church, organized expressions of body life are evaluated and prioritized based on their ability to enhance the missional orientation.  The inherent danger of having a communal focus as the primary orientation is the tendency to relegate missional concerns to a lower priority and view them as a means to church growth rather than the essence of the church. Unfortunately, a communal oriented church can continue to function without relevant and significant impact within the surrounding community.

Dowsett’s comment is worth repeating:

The church has always ebbed and flowed, but whenever it has become preoccupied with itself and lost sight of its missionary calling, it has lost its way. Sometimes it has disappeared from view, as with the North African churches in the early years of the rapid expansion of Islam. Sometimes it has become a hollow and spiritually powerless institution, as with some of the European churches in the past two hundred years. On the other hand, whenever it has turned out towards the world with a missionary heart, seeking to bring the gospel of Christ to those outside the church’s it has recovered its meaning for being. For in reaching out in love and longing, it has begun to beat again with the heart of God, it has begun once again to reflect the character of the God in whose name it stands. The church that is not missional is no church at all. Our seeking and finding is a mirror reflection of God doing just the same—and ahead of us. We seek and find, because God first sought and found.¹

Living in the world

When the goal of a local congregation is church growth with an inward communal orientation, outreach often consists of removing people from their natural environment and bringing them into the controlled environment of the church in order to teach them how to be Christian.   A missional orientation avoids this extractionist thinking and sees the world as the locus of church activity, empowering people to be impacting followers of Christ in a variety of settings outside the four walls of the church.

As mentioned in the previous article Karen and I spent a number of years seeking to plant a communal oriented church in the Sindhi context.  We sought to develop a controlled environment in which people could be taught God’s word and faith in Christ would be pre-eminent. This attempt failed.  However, during this period one of the believers, Nathaniel ², shared with me that one of his favorite passages was Noah and the ark because, “just as God used Noah to save his family, so he wants to use me to save mine.”  This missional vision resulted in the establishment of a house church among his extended family.  We discovered that in a context where churches do not play a significant role in the community, the goal of a local body of believers is not to bring people into the church, but to bring Christ into people’s lives.  When a missional passion exists within people’s lives as they live in the world, the church of Jesus Christ emerges in new ways and unique places.

Living on the Margins

FEBInternational personnel work in areas where the church is not central to the society, but survives on the margins.  These societies function without taking into consideration the values and concerns of local churches. A missional orientation as the primary focus of a church is required wherever the society functions with the understanding that the church is insignificant in fulfilling the purposes of the community.

A communal orientation as the primary focus of a church is valid when the church is the major player in shaping the values and decisions of society. For example, one of our FEBBC churches had such a popular youth program that the local high school would not make any plan without first checking to see that the dates did not conflict with the program of the church.  It is imperative that church leaders exegete their context and understand which orientation is required so that the purposes of God in their setting can be fulfilled.

Practical applications of both Orientations

The following examples demonstrate how a church’s orientation, whether communal or missional, determines its activities.

• Soccer moms at their children’s games on Sunday morning

Communal: We need to “help them prioritize their lives so that their spiritual needs come first” (said by a pastor in a sermon indicating that they should be in church).
Missional: We need to help them become soccer moms who are impacting servants of God as they stand on the field.

• Cyclists who ride on Sunday morning

Communal: We need to get them off their bikes and into the pews (The idea of “filling the pews” was recently said by a pastor in a morning service).
Missional: We need to help cyclists become people serving God as they ride their bikes.

• Seeker sensitive

Communal: Inviting people into a comfortable, nonthreatening environment.
Missional: Going where people are comfortable.  My wife, Karen, and daughter, Becky, belong to a karate club and members often visit the pub after a session.  In this environment significant spiritual conversations have occurred.

• Coffee bar in the lounge

Communal: A place in the church lounge to chat with people who attend the worship time.
Missional: The local Starbucks (i.e., a neutral environment).

• Children’s programs

Communal: Awana (i.e., within the controlled environment of the church).
Missional: Boy Scouts and Girl Guides (i.e., being an influence for Christ in a setting that is not conducive to overt expressions of faith).

• Church Planting

Communal (quotes from church planters):
“We need a core of people committed to coming each Sunday.”
“I am discouraged because people don’t want to meet together for church.”
“People are showing interest.  We are now working on getting them to church.”
Missional (examples from FEBI ministries):
Shikarpur Christian Hospital, Pakistan (medical ministries open doors for visitations and the beginning of home churches).
Family friendships, Pakistan (Men are challenged to be spiritual leaders in their extended families in order to begin churches where the people live).
A worship service is held in a restaurant to meet the spiritual needs of the staff, Philippines.

• Building

Communal: There is a high priority given to a place to meet. Buying property is considered essential and a sign of church establishment and growth.
Missional: A building is optional and is considered only as it benefits the missional purpose in the extended community.

• Prayer

Communal: “Please pray that our outreach event would be used by the Lord to cause the church to grow” (from a prayer letter).
Missional: “Please pray that our church would be used of God to make a transforming difference in people’s lives.”

• Pubs

Communal: A church group purchases a pub and transforms it into a place of worship.
Missional: A teetotalling Christian becomes a manager of a pub in order to minister to the patrons ³.

The following article will provide a biblical foundation for the concept of the missional church.

_______________




• (1) R. Dowsett, “Reaffirming the Missional Heart of God” in Connections, January – April, 2004, 14-15.
• (2) Not his real name.
• (3) See “A Tale of Two Pubs” in M. Frost & A. Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 9-11.

A missionary colleague phoned me up quite irate about a translation choice in the Sindhi NT¹. A couple of Muslim friends had dropped in for a chat and asked him why Christians did not pray like Muslims by prostrating themselves to the ground. My colleague replied that the Bible speaks of worship in a spiritual sense without demanding a physical position. They pointed out that the Sindhi translation in Matt 2:2 and other places uses the word “sajado” where most English versions have “worship.” “Sajado” means to prostrate oneself in worship. I had to inform my colleague that the Sindhi translation was correct and the term in the Greek has a similar nuance to the Sindhi “sajado” indicating a physical position of prostration.

This seemingly insignificant example illustrates the function of translation in shaping and reinforcing the beliefs and practices of Christians. By obscuring the physical aspect understood by the original audience, the use of “worship” in English translations both reflects and reinforces current perspectives and assumptions about the relative unimportance of worship postures in the West. On the other hand, the NT use of “sajado” in a Muslim context may be influential in determining the assumed worship posture for an emerging church in the Sindh.

Old Wine and New Skins

Bible translations play a major role in shaping theological perspectives. In fact, if theology is understood as the way we express our belief in God, Bible translation is one way of doing theology. Ogden states that “Bible translation is a theological enterprise built on the incarnational model. It seeks to give flesh to the Word of God in a new cultural environment. It is a case of putting ‘old wine into new wine skins.’”² The Bible is God’s revelation of himself and his will to a particular people within their cultural, historical and linguistic environment. This is the “old wine” of Ogden’s intriguing reversal of Jesus’ statement³. The “new wine skins” refers to the new translation that presents that “old wine” of God’s Word through the communication structures of a different cultural, historical and linguistic environment. Understandably, the choices made by the translators to accomplish this task have a great impact in shaping the theological perspective of the reader. Good translation is theology: foundational theology that enhances and facilitates the reflection of God’s revelation in a new context.

I have just begun checking the Sindhi translation of the Ecclesiastes. In 1:13 it reads in the RSV “it is an unhappy business that God as given to the sons of men to be busy with.” Our translators, following the meaning based translation of the GNT, wrote “God has placed within the fate of the children of Adam this great trouble that they should suffer.” While this is a very idiomatic and natural sounding translation (in Sindhi!), the theological implications of “fate” in the Islamic context of Pakistan makes this a choice that we will probably need to avoid. “Fate” in the mind of the Sindhi is incontrovertible and lacking any sense of human freedom. This is far stronger than the intention of the original writer who was simply commenting on his observation that in life human beings suffer.

The Dilemma of Translation as Theology

The realization that translation is theology presents a dilemma for the translators of the Scriptures. No language is value free. All the words of the receptor language that the translators must use carry cultural and historical baggage. These words provide a unique perspective on reality which does not allow for an untainted reflection of the language and culture of the biblical authors. Theological terms in particular have concepts and nuances tied to them that can be very different from biblical teaching. Nonetheless, if the translator is to communicate, these words cannot be avoided; the local language must be adopted as the medium of translation. The use of the Muslim Sindhi term for “God” will bring to the readers’ mind the transcendent King of Islamic theology without many of the characteristics of the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hindu Sindhi term for God, “Ishvar,” emphasizes God as creator without the assumption of being the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet understanding the God of the Bible begin with the use of terms that provide approximate points of reference within the common framework of the hearers.

During my last trip to Pakistan in Feb-Mar 2006, we held a workshop to discuss translation decisions for our Hindu Sindhi NT translation. One difficulty that we have yet to resolve is appropriate terminology for “prophet” and “apostle”. Hindu theology does not contain these concepts and so there are no terms that even approximate these ideas. Our Hindu Sindhi helper suggested the word “Otar” which is the description of a spiritual being that has taken on human form. Our Christian helpers informed us that both terms are commonly translated in churches of Hindu background believers as “sant” which speaks of the character of the prophets and apostles as holy or pious people. Phrases such as “chosen by God to bring his message” (prophet) or “chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel” (apostle), are more accurate but so awkward in translation and everyday use that they would likely be substituted by a simpler term like “sant”. Whichever term we choose (and we will not be using “Otar”!) the theological perspective of the people concerning the function of prophets and apostles will be shaped accordingly.

Implications and Benefits

The implication of this translation dilemma is that no one language, whether English, Greek or Hebrew, can fully communicate God’s message to us: “We see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12). Yet our conviction as Bible translators is that God’s word can be communicated sufficiently. At the same time, in cases when biblical concepts resonate well with the expressions of one particular culture – such as the significance of genealogies in some societies – a Bible translation in the language of that culture will provide greater clarity and relevance for those concepts. Together translations within a multitude of languages make up a mosaic of theology through which God continues to speak his message of reconciliation.

_______________
• (1) I was not involved in the original translation of the Sindhi NT. However, my work on the Sindhi OT translation required familiarity with the NT as well as overseeing the occasional revision.
• (2) p. 312. Ogden G.S. “Translation as a Theologizing task” from The Bible Translator Vol. 53, No. 3 July 2002. pp 308-316.
• (3) Jesus referred to his teaching as “new wine” which should not be placed within the “old wine skins” of the traditional teachings of the scribes and Pharisees. See Mt. 9:27

What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?

I remember the time a young believer brought a friend to me so that I could explain the gospel to him.  We were living among the Muslim Sindhi people of Pakistan working with FEBInternational.  The friend was illiterate and lived in a rural part of the Sindh province.  As I tried to talk to him about the gospel it quickly became clear that we could not communicate.  The problem was not language, but worldview. His understanding of life and reality was so far removed from mine that I was unable to bridge the gap in any significant way.  If the gospel is to penetrate his family and community, it will not come about by convincing him of a universal “Christian worldview.”  Such an approach would only be greeted with incomprehensible stares.  Instead, a believer must be found who is capable of entering that man’s reality and who can relate the gospel to him according to his worldview.

All societies, through the process of “making meaning” of their context, work out a view of the world that enables them to consistently and successfully deal with their environment.  The goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to convince people to change their worldview in conformity to a “Christian worldview,” but to bring the gospel into their reality in relevant and impacting ways so that Christ can be embraced as Savior and Lord. The question to ask is not “How can I convince them to accept the Christian worldview?” but “What would this worldview look like if Christ was Lord?”

The theological basis for this approach is found in God’s interaction with human beings and particularly in the incarnation.

Islamic vs Christian Theology

In Islamic theology there is no compromise of the character of God with a concept of God becoming human. God is “wholly other” and transcendent.  In Christian theology, the amazing message is not just that he “knows what we are made of; he remembers that we are dust” (Ps 103:14 TEV), but that he has joined us in our weakness through the incarnation.  That is, in order to transform us he first become like us.

The Bible can be translated.  The Koran cannot.  The latter is immovable and demands that human beings conform to its absolute state.  The Koran must be read and recited in Arabic.  On the other hand, the incarnation demonstrates the willingness of God to meet us within our setting, within our worldview.  God spoke to the prophets using their language and the concepts of their worldview; he described the world according to their perceptions.  Jesus lived the perfect human life within a particular cultural, historical and religious setting.  It is within that context that spiritual transformation occurred and the NT gives us a detailed look at how the gospel transformed people’s lives within that particular setting and worldview.  It is this willingness to conform to “those symbols which most profoundly inform our lives” ¹, that defines God’s interaction with humanity and Bible translation is founded upon the belief that God speaks to people within their own context.

In a similar way, the goal of missions is not to convince people to leave their worldview and embrace a universal “Christian worldview.” The approach that will build lasting transformation is one that presents Christ as Lord within worldviews.  Gospel transformation of the culture will then occur from the inside out.

Working within the Worldview

A common mistake of the novice cross-cultural minister is to confront people with a particular sin, such as polygamy or bribery or lying or wife beating, which is not viewed as sin by that culture.  Rather than making a transforming impact, the missionary is dismissed as being out of touch with reality.  Instead, by working within the worldview and addressing those issues that people acknowledge as sin, Jesus’ relevance to their lives can be demonstrated.  It is the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin (Jn 16:8).

Hiebert recounts Walter Trobisch’s conversation with a polygamous man who was denied communion in a local church, while his wives were allowed to belong because they only had one spouse:

“Wouldn’t you like to become a church member?”
“Pastor, don’t lead me into temptation! How can I become a church member, if it means to disobey Christ? Christ forbade divorce, but not polygamy.  The church forbids polygamy but demands divorce.  How can I become a church member, if I want to be a Christian?  For me there is only one way, to be a Christian without the church.”
“Have you ever talked to your pastor about that?”
“He does not dare to talk to me, because he knows as well as I do that some of his elders have a second wife secretly.  The only difference between them and me is that I am honest and they are hypocrites.”²

The imported teaching of the sin of polygamy, using the structure of the church to enforce conformity, only served to promote hypocrisy.  The worldview of those people accepted polygamy as a part of life and this perspective was not changed through the demands of the church.  It would be far better to allow the people to define those sins as the Spirit speaks to them and address those sins with the gospel of Christ, than to insist that people conform outwardly to a particular Christian standard.

Changing our thinking

In the book Ministering Cross Culturally, Lingenfelter recounts his attempts to organize and categorize creation myths of the Yapese culture.  He found that the different clans had differing accounts and stories and he could not reconcile them with each other.  The Yapese could not understand his attempt to categorize the stories and said, “Why do you insist on putting these things together? They are completely different!”  Lingenfelter goes on to explain his motivation:

My problem in interviewing the Yapese was that my nature and my training encouraged me to line everything up in rows.  I want to have everything sorted, systematically organized, and fitting into its proper place.  I like to divide everything into constituent parts and then resort them into a clear pattern.  American culture generally rewards this type of thinking.³

Lingenfelter realized that he was evaluating the Yapese culture according to an external standard and submitting their beliefs and values to a foreign perspective.  However the goal of the cross-cultural minister is not to evaluate another worldview according to a universal “Christian Worldview” or external standard, but to enter into that worldview and understand how their beliefs and values serve that community in its relationship with its context.  Only then can the gospel be presented in a manner that resonates with those concepts and assumptions that are accepted representations of the world. Even as Jesus became like us in order to transform us, so we must work according to the constraints of the other worldview’s perception of reality and present Christ as the one who brings healing and salvation from sin within their worldview.

_______________
• (1) Wink, W. 1973. The Bible in Human Transformation, Philadelphia: Fortress press. p. 64.
• (2) quoted in Hiebert, P. 1985. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker. p. 179.
• (3) Lingenfelter, S.G. and Mayers, M.K. 2003. Ministering Cross-culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships, 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker

Paul Long tells of the conversion of a chief in the African Congo.  Those bringing the gospel demanded that he renounce his charms and medicines before hearing the message, culminating with the destruction of his “life charm”.

“Teller of the Word,” [the chief] said, holding out his little packet in his bony hands, “you have asked the life of Kalonda! This medicine has protected my life from all my enemies for many years. Many still live who hate me and have curses on my life.  When I throw down this medicine all their curses will fall on me, my spirits will withdraw their protection, and I will die.  But Kalonda is not afraid to die.” As the packet dropped in the dust, the old chieftain straightened to his full height, lifted his old eyes to the distant hills, and waited for death.¹

The old man did not die, but went on to put his trust in Christ.  This was accomplished through a spiritual power struggle within the worldview of the chief.  The power of the medicine, charms and curses was not denied through logical arguments, but was challenged by the presence of Christ.  Rather than presenting a universal “Christian worldview” that would, for example, deny the power of human “curses,” the “teller of the Word” brought Christ relevantly into the reality of the chief.

The danger of a universal worldview

The premise that there must be a universal Christian worldview can result in unhelpful conclusions. Those who hold this position can easily consider their own culturally shaped worldview as that one overarching worldview. There is also the danger of becoming selective and reductionist in dealing with the biblical record in order to provide support for this particular worldview. The concept of a universal Christian worldview also obliges them to export those assumptions of reality to others without considering the validity of the values and beliefs inherent within other worldviews.

In addition, those who live within an alternative worldview are forced into a position of rejection and maybe despair, not because they want to reject the truth, but because the truth that makes up their reality is incompatible with this culturally structured “Christian worldview.”  They may hear a gospel presentation, but if it is based upon assumptions of a particular “Christian worldview,” it may not be understood or worse, it may simply be rejected as unrelated to their reality.

A fellow missionary in Pakistan prepared the story of Noah’s ark and presented it to her Pakistani colleagues before using it with the intended Muslim audience.  When she finished there was an uncomfortable silence.  Finally one member spoke up, “You’ve forgotten the most important part.  You did not mention the sending out of the dove that came back with the olive leaf!” In editing the story from her own perspective, the missionary had left out that seemingly insignificant detail, which, in the eyes of her colleagues, held the key to the story.  Similarly a western application of the story of David and Goliath is usually the idea that if God is with us we can overcome all obstacles.  However in a society that is based on concepts of shame and honor, David’s motivation of passion for God’s honor (1 Sam 17:26) is more compelling.

Worldviews provide appropriate diversity

Rather than proposing one ideal Christian worldview that all people need to accept in order to be Christians, it is more appropriate to have the impetus for change come from within cultures as people realize the implications of God’s revelation in Christ within their own context. “Historically, the biblical message has found itself couched without inconvenience in a whole series of worldviews.”² Aylward Shorter points out that “since the gospel is not itself a culture there can be no question of cultural domination.”³ Therefore the gospel can become relevant within other cultures and worldviews.

In Pakistan when a Muslim becomes a follower of Christ, they do not turn away from the God of Islam whom they know as the sovereign creator.  Instead they begin to recognize Allah as their forgiving father through the work of Christ on the cross.  Jesus has been welcomed into their worldview and begins his work of transformation.

In the next article I will explore the ways Christ can be Lord in a plurality of worldviews.

_______________
• (1) quoted in Hiebert, P. 1985. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker. p. 201.
• (2) Taber, Charles R. 1978. The limits of indigenization in theology. Missiology 6  No. 1, Jan.) pp. 203-221.
• (3) Shorter, Aylward. 1988. Toward a Theology of Inculturation. Maryknoll: Orbis. p. 55

There is much politically correct rhetoric about Islam in this day of suicide bombers.  For example, political leaders have proclaimed that “Extremism is not true Islam. True Islam is peace-loving.”  Although politically circumspect, it is not all that accurate.  Islam cannot incorporate Western values and remain uncompromised and so Muslims must fight those impositions in order to maintain the integrity of their faith. In effect, these Western leaders are challenging Muslims to change their religion and accept Western ideals such as democracy, gender equality and individual rights.  People like Irshad Manji, a fully westernized and articulate Muslim woman, agree with this in principle and are seeking to change Islam.  They do desire a peaceful Islam.

On the other hand there is Wahhabism, the dominant religious movement in Saudi Arabia.  Wahhabism resulted from a reformation in Islam that arose in the 18th century as an authentic expression of Islam.  It is Islam going back to its conservative, uncompromising, legalistic, and controlling roots.

Fundamentalism vs the way of Christ

If approached by a prostitute what is the correct response of a conservative Muslim man who takes seriously his responsibility within the community? The way of fundamentalist Islam, and the way of all legalistic religions, is to slap her down, to humiliate and destroy, to call the police, and to erect laws and fences to keep her from plying her trade.  However, if I am a follower of Christ I will have a different approach: (1) Following the way of wisdom (e.g. Proverbs 5-7), I will teach my son the perils of the prostitute / adulterous woman.  Where there are no johns, there are no prostitutes. (2) I will practice the way of Christ in not condemning, but redeeming (John 8:1-11); seeking not to control but to heal and deliver.

As a legalistic religion the heart of Islam is control and enforced conformity because it is a religion of law.  In contrast, true Christianity is Christ: redemption that seeks freedom in conformity to life – eternal life – in God.  Christianity goes bad as it becomes like conservative Islam and unfortunately, there is a long history of bad Christianity.

Our View of God Shapes our Lives

Another way of viewing this contrast is by recognizing that the way people view God will shape their values and determine their treatment of others. In Hinduism there are four castes: Brahmins, the priestly caste that sprang from the mouth of Brahma, Shatriyas, the soldiers taken from his arm, Vaissyas, the merchants who originated from the thighs, and the Sudras, the laborers who were created from his feet. A fifth caste, the Pariahs, resulted from the unauthorized union of individuals from different castes. “They are not only considered unclean themselves, but they render unclean everything they touch.” (1) This creation myth reflects a belief that determines the relative worth of people in India through the caste system. 

In Islam God is the transcendent, all powerful and controlling judge – the ultimate Patriarch.  The view of God as Absolute Patriarch whose honor must be kept above reproach is the model used by many Muslims to structure their family life. In the true story found in the book “Not Without My Daughter” (2), a man returns to his Islamic roots which creates incredible tension between him and his American wife. The influence of his religion as promoted by his relatives convinces him that anything less than full submission cannot be tolerated and he seeks to force her to bend to his will. This value is an outworking of a particular belief in God and it is prevalent in many legalistic expressions of religion.  It was present in many cultures described in the Bible and is evident in some expressions of Christianity.

The Vision of God in Christ

However, in Christ we encounter a different vision of God.  One who is immanent (God with us), vulnerable (he weeps, he bleeds), transforming (he heals), and father (he embraces the hurting). When a leper approaches Judaism, Islam and Hinduism must push the leper aside and keep themselves pure.  Jesus, on the other hand, opens his arms and embraces the pain, bringing cleansing, wholeness and healing.

There is a famous photograph in the history of Life magazine I remember seeing as a child. It is a picture of a well-fed Asian storekeeper sitting in front of his store and smiling for the camera.  At his feet on the step lay an emaciated beggar who must have died shortly after.  Most people, I trust, would be moved by the implications of that image and feel compassion and some level of responsibility for the suffering of a fellow human being.  However, in many belief systems there is justification to turn away.  In contrast, as a Christian I can only ignore the beggar by ignoring Christ.

Justification from sin

I follow Christ because he takes upon himself all that is wrong and in that act shows us the Father. In Christ there is no justification for sin, as exists in many religious systems, so that the evil remains and is tolerated.  Instead, there is inflexible justification from sin: cleansing that comes via the inexorable road of love.  Such is my hope, and the reason I am a follower of the one who speaks the impossible command, “Be perfect” (Mt 5:48).

_______________
• (1) http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/bulf/bulf36.htm
• (2) Mahmoody, Betty & Hoffer, William. 1987. Not Without My Daughter, NY: St Martin’s Press.