Lifting the Fatwa

by Phil Parshall

I was somewhat shocked to read the following statement by a respected Christian leader who is involved in a controversial approach to Muslim evangelism: “I am praying Phil will lift his Fatwa against our ministry among the followers of Ishmael.”

I was somewhat shocked to read the following statement by a respected Christian leader who is involved in a controversial approach to Muslim evangelism: “I am praying Phil will lift his Fatwa against our ministry among the followers of Ishmael.”

The October 1998 EMQ kicked off public debate on how far contextualization has gone, is going and will probably continue to go. My lead article expressed concern that a legitimate strategy could tumble into syncretism if great care is not exercised.

And so, where are we now—six years down the road? It is appropriate, I think, to say that the flash-points center around seven major areas: 1) Usage of the C1 to C6 spectrum as conceptualized by John Travis;* 2) usage of certain Scriptures to validate one’s position; 3) encouraging the Muslim Background Believer (MBB) to continue calling himself or herself a “Muslim” without qualifier; 4) the MBB remaining in the mosque permanently as a strategy to win Muslims to Christ; 5) explicitly or implicitly affirming the Islamic creed shahada, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet”; 6) insertion of “Isa-al-Masih” (Jesus the Messiah) for “Son of God” in Bible translations; and 7) delineating an appropriate response toward those who disagree with one’s position on some or all of the above.

The purpose of this article is to briefly explore these seven areas. Unfortunately, space restrictions will inevitably bring the critique that I have dealt superficially with some or all of these issues. But, at minimum, these thoughts should move us more toward a dialogue rather than the in-house monologue that currently is pervasive among concerned churches, mission boards, missionaries and MBBs.

1. Usage of the C1 to C6 Continuum
All of us are indebted to Travis for his abbreviating an evangelistic strategy. It is much more convenient to say, “I practice C4,” rather than give a lengthy, but accurate description that loses the audience.

But unfortunately a heavy fog has resulted, producing more confusion than clarity. Numerous times I have heard people who profess to be C5 vehemently deny that they believe in some important strategy point that another self-declared C5er holds.

Let me illustrate. Some of us naively thought that comprehensive contextualized Muslim evangelism outreach originated in the mid-1970s in a certain South Asian country.

Enter Sadrach (Partonadi 1988). This Indonesian man was born in 1835 and died in 1928 at age ninety-three. Until he was thirty-two, Sadrach was a devout Muslim. Following his conversion, he worked tirelessly to create a church. At the time of his death there were 7,500 MBBs on the island of Java who related to his work. Some characteristics of his contextualized ministry were:

• Leaders were called imams.

• Festivals similar to that of Islam were observed.

• They collected zakat (offerings).

• Church buildings were called mosques. No crosses were displayed.

• They used a drum to call people to worship as did the Muslims.

• Cows were prayed over at the time of their slaughter in Islamic fashion.

• The following creed was recited in their churches: “I believe that God is one. There is no God but God. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God, Whose power is over everything. There is no God but God. Jesus Christ is the Spirit of God.”

This was chanted in a dhikr (recitation) style with intense emotion, which was purported to lead to some sort of mystical union between God and devotee.

• Believers called themselves “Christians.” They did not affirm Muhammad in any manner, but rather spoke very openly of the superiority of Jesus over Muhammad.

So, do we have C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 or an amalgam of all five? Without seeking to annihilate the Cs, I only press the need for clarity when using such an identification of strategy.

2. Hermeneutical Integrity or Carelessness?
The answer depends somewhat on where you have come from and where you want to go. Contextualists have always relied heavily on 1 Corinthians 9:19-22. In the present controversy “becoming a Muslim in order to win Muslims” has a very different meaning to the C4 and C5 camps. Each insists that their own exegesis of these verses is proof positive of their position’s validity.

But the new hermeneutic on the block swirls around 1 Corinthians 7. In the passage, “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” (vs. 20), certain contextualists see an exhortation for MBBs to remain maximally Muslim.

Scott Woods, an experienced missionary among Muslims in
Indonesia comments:

• The context in 1 Corinthians 7 is addressing the issues of marriage and singleness: believers married to unbelievers; circumcision and uncircumcision and finally slaves and free. This passage has nothing to do with dictating that people from a false religion should remain in their false religion so as not to upset the apple cart. C5 proponents could be accused of isogesis here… This passage makes provision for believers remaining in their familial and social status where they were prior to knowing Christ, but it is not giving an allowance for believers to continue in their former religion. (2003, 190)

As each strategist carves out his or her theological apologetic, it is important to grapple with biblical teaching and implication. Admittedly, church history has proven repeatedly through the centuries that the one absolute certainty in this process is that God-fearing, true believers will frequently differ with one another in their conclusions!

Some say, “Just give the Bible to the MBB and let him or her come to his or her own conclusion.” But we must remember the scriptural mandate to teach new believers.

3. Identity Issues
Does the MBB continue to bear the name Muslim without any qualifier? Ramsay Harris,* a long-term missionary among Arabs, told me:

Most of those I have led to Christ do NOT identify themselves as Muslims anymore, but some do. I do not push them either way…For most people the word Muslim means “an adherent of the religion of Muhammad”… But there is one principle which must be universal: one must always identify oneself with the person of Jesus Christ. (Mt. 10:33 and I Peter 4:16)

Harris’s latter point highlights the controversy. “I am a Muslim follower of ‘Isa-al-Masih’” is much more readily accepted by certain missionaries than just the designation “Muslim.” The word “Muslim” is defined as one who is submitted to God. In practice, however, every Muslim worldwide thinks of this term as referring to those who adhere to Islam’s theological tenants.

At this point the charge of deceit kicks in. Are we purposefully misleading? Is integrity at stake?

The answer for some is, “definitely not.” They say one must look at “Muslim” in its broadest cultural and societal context like with the word “Christian.” How many people who call themselves Christians are really practitioners of the faith? Are they then deceivers or just going with the flow of society?

The rebuttal will say, “Yes, but these people are not seeking to use the term as a strategy to win others to their faith.” And so, the arguments and counter-arguments go on and on.

4. Should the MBB Remain in the Mosque?
The pro camp points to early Christians continuing to worship in the synagogue. Woods writes:

Paul came… to preach Jesus… to the synagogue members. Most C5’ers come into the mosque and line up in the shalat line. They are perceived as Muslims. They have no distinguishing mark that says they are followers of Isa. Even if they pray to Isa, the perception is that they are Muslims. Paul was clearly received (at times) within the Jewish setting but acknowledged as a follower of the risen Messiah. Is this the same with our C5 MBBs? (2003, 193-194)

All of us would probably agree that there is validity in MBBs remaining in the mosque for a brief time following conversion. Otherwise there would be a serious societal dislocation. The disagreement is over whether they should remain permanently within the context of false religious teaching.

The pro-mosque position emphasizes that the MBBs will give discrete testimony of their faith to the Muslims in the mosque. Therefore it would be up to the imams to excommunicate the MBB. He or she is free to stay as long as they will have him.
Harris believes MBBs could continue to pray in the mosque with these conditions:

It does not violate the MBB’s own conscience; it is not done for purposes of deceit or denial of Christ; the MBB does not speak in prayer words which the MBB does not believe (for me personally this includes the shahada).

Harris goes on to say, “All of the MBBs I have led to Christ simply find the mosque BORING and depressing after they have come to know the spiritual riches of Jesus Christ.”

5. Recitation of the Islamic Creed.
This issue flows from one’s identification as a Muslim and continued mosque attendance. The creed is a central foundation upon which all of Islam rests. It not only affirms the oneness of Allah, but also the centrality of Muhammad as a prophet or messenger of God. It is impossible to be a true Muslim without affirming this creed.

Brian Armstrong,* who served many years in the Middle East, was an early theoretician and practitioner of the C5 movement. He told me this concerning the creed:

• I believe that an MBB can repeat the creed with conviction and integrity, without compromising or syncretizing his faith in Jesus… the recognition of Muhammad would be in his prophetic mission as a messenger proclaiming one god and submission to his will in the context of idolatrous seventh century Arabia, or, in the pagan pre-Islamic setting of any given people who have subsequently accepted Islam. Although Muhammad’s mission was chronologically A.D., we should not allow this to cloud the fact that the spiritual milieu to which he spoke was substantially B.C. … In a Jesus movement in Islam, Muhammad would be understood as an Old Testament-style messenger. For those Christians who may stumble at certain aspects of Muham-mad’s lifestyle, I urge them to study more objectively the lives of the Old Testament prophets where both holy war, in a form more violent than Islam calls for (genocide in the book of Joshua), and polygamy were quite common.”

Okay, but if one affirms the “prophet” of the creed, doesn’t it follow that one must therefore believe his prophecy? And that prophecy, being the Qur’an, presents us with a major problem. It is not my place here to exegete the varying views of Qur’anic teaching, but my conclusion is that I cannot affirm the Qur’an as the Word of God.

In my opinion, articulating the creed automatically defines me theologically. However I may reinterpret the words, onlooking Muslims would accept me as one of theirs, in every sense of the word.

6. “Son of God” Becomes “Isa-al-Masih.”
The words “Son of God” have always been repugnant to Muslims. They can only understand this term in a biological framework. For God to have offspring is pure blasphemy.

Understood—but how can we overcome this error of understanding among our Muslim friends? Some current contextualists have opted for radical surgery followed by a linguistic transplant: just remove “Son of God” and insert “Isa-al-Masih.”

This new translation is being promoted in a number of languages throughout the Islamic world. Early feedback from Muslims and MBBs is positive. The offense of the word “son” is gone. Jesus as Messiah is retained and highlighted. The meaning of “Messiah” can then be explained.

This approach’s defense is that certain NT passages place Son of God and Messiah together, thus proving the term’s interchangeability. See Luke 4:41; Matt. 16:16; and Matt. 26:63-64.
Rick Brown is an international translation consultant. He shares these insights:

• The fact is, although Jews had different concepts for the awaited Messiah, they used most titles interchangeably, and both “Christ” and “Son of God” were fairly equivalent. But because these were favored by nationalistic zealots, Jesus generally avoided them both, preferring the inclusivist heavenly savior title, “the Son of Man,” or the shortened form, “the Son,” and sometimes “the Lord.” (2000, 48)

In a personal letter I asked Rick his view about replacing “Son of God” with “Isa-al-Masih” in Bible passages where they do not appear together. He responded:

• Although the title “Son of God” evoked the same concept as Masih, it also evokes the concept of God, and this will be lost if one says only “Isa-al-Masih.” So I would suggest, “the Masih whom God has sent”… In general, for our audience, it is best to put “Son of God” in the footnote or introduction.

I leave it to linguistic experts to grapple with this, the newest contextual controversy to come down the pike.

7. How Do We Respond?
Adherents to some or all of the C5 position are growing. The country where C5 was birthed now lays claim to tens of thousands of MBBs of the C5 variety. Thousands of C4 MBBs are found there as well. Scores of missionaries and several evangelical mission boards are practicing and promoting C5 in a significant number of Muslim countries.

I personally have known many of these missionaries, some for twenty years. There is no doubt that they are sincere and long with all their hearts to see Muslims come to Christ. In one instance, a highly respected evangelical Islamist checked out a large C5 movement and declared it to be a wonderful work of God.

Armstrong comments:

• Those that will be involved in encouraging a movement for Jesus in Islam cannot be heresy-hunters or suspicious types, always ready to pounce on every manifestation of Christ that does not immediately stack up to what they have been used to before. They cannot be the kind of people that can only see “black and white,” for the world they will be laboring in will be full of shades of gray.

Armstrong continues, “If we are so unfortunate to be the mission that plants a heresy, are those that adhere to it any worse off than before?” It is his view that such a “heresy” could be a future stepping-stone for those Muslims to come to full-blown faith in Christ.
I struggle to form a personal position on such an important issue.

The Lord has been speaking to me as I have been seeking to process the macro picture.

Scripturally, I have been meditating on these verses:

• Romans 14:10: “Why do you judge your brother? Why do you look down on your brother?”
• Romans 14:13: “Let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
• Romans 15:7: “Accept one another as Christ accepted you.”
• Romans 15:2: “Each of us should build up our neighbor.”

am quite aware of other New Testament Scriptures that call theological aberrants “dogs,” call down a curse on them and designate them as Anti-Christs. In church history we find the same theme in the Inquisition. Even the Reformers had heavy words for those who dared disagree with their interpretation of Scripture.

And so, where do we end up? Consider the Fatwa (which was never decreed!) lifted. I do not want to end my life (now sixty-five years into it) known as a heresy hunter. Yes, I will continue (with greater sensitivity, I trust) to voice my concerns. But if I am to err toward imbalance, I want it to be on the side of love, affirmation and lifting up my colleagues as better than myself. Even at this late stage in life, I am not prepared to profess personal infallibility. As for who is right or wrong, and to what degree, let us lean heavily on the ultimate Judge of our hearts’ intents.

*Pseudonym

References
Partonadi, Sutarman Soedeman. 1988. Sadrach’s Community and Its Contextual Roots. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Brown, Rick. 2000. “The ‘Son of God’ —Understanding the Messianic Titles of Jesus.” International Journal of Frontier Missions, 17(1): 39-52.

Woods, Scott. 2003. “A Biblical Look at C5 Muslim Evangelism.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 39(2): 188-95.

—–

Phil Parshall is a missionary in Manila with SIM and has ministered among Muslims in Bangladesh and the Philippines for the past forty-one years. He has written nine books on Islam. His most recent, Lifting the Veil, was co-authored with his wife, Julie.

EMQ, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 288-293. Copyright © 2004 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ. For Reprint Permissions beyond personal use, please visit our STORE (here).

Comments are closed.