Concerning ecclesiology: Four barriers preventing insider movement contextualization from producing biblical churches

Defining IMs

An initial difficulty that presents itself as one pursues answers to the questions above is that IMs are by no means monolithic. Having been observed and promoted among Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, IM is difficult to fairly and fully define. ³ Moreover, some proponents of IM admit that one might find examples of IM in practice that exhibit the flaws identified by critics. However, these proponents deny that such examples are necessarily representative of IM. ⁴

Despite the breadth of expression of IM, Rebecca Lewis offers a broadly appropriate description of the ethos common among various IMs as she writes, “Insider movements can be defined as movements to obedient faith in Christ that remain integrated with or inside their natural community.” ⁵ Lewis goes on to further define this integration by highlighting the importance of maintaining one’s socio-religious identity. Pervasive among these approaches is the understanding that Christ completes non-Christian religious desires and teachings and thus validates them. ⁶ In order to limit the scope and focus of this article, we will adopt Lewis’s definition as we consider IM strategies among Arabic-speaking Muslim people.

It should be noted from the outset that all criticism is directed towards IM as a missiological strategy rather than as an attack or commentary on the soteriological status of those who participate as Insiders. ⁷ In other words, the phenomenon of IM is not my concern. Rather, my particular concern is the ecclesiological impact of IM strategies that prescribe the retention of a socioreligious Islamic identity. I will focus on those strategies that include the reading of the Qur’an as a component of gathered worship, the use of Muslim Idiom Translations (MIT) of the Bible, and the intentional separation of IM gatherings from those of non-Muslim believers.

Defining biblical ecclesiology

A second difficulty this article’s investigation encounters is determining the criteria to which one might appeal for a biblical definition of church. One might initially be inclined to consider the historic marks of the church—one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—as criteria for investigation. These four marks would provide a broadly ecumenical foundation for discussing the historical teaching on the church.

However, IM proponents are wont to argue that the Western church has imposed extrabiblical cultural expectations on the practice of the faith. Therefore, even though the broad consensus of historical Christian teaching is that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic are foundational criteria for building a doctrine of the church, it is more important for the sake of this article’s investigation to consider biblical texts directly. ⁸

In addition to the difficulty of selecting biblical criteria, a lack of detailed descriptions of Insider churches further exacerbates analysis. This is in part due to the fact that, despite a long history of development within Christian missiological discussions, ⁹ the ecclesiology produced by such movements has received insufficient attention. ¹⁰ Most of the discussion surrounding IM strategies focuses on soteriology, hermeneutics, and mission, even when purporting to discuss IM ecclesiology. ¹¹ Yet if IM is the biblically valid missiological method it claims to be, it must be able to account for the biblical teaching about the church.

Therefore, in an effort to assess whether or not IM strategies are likely to produce biblically faithful churches, this article will investigate four aspects of what might be considered a mere biblical ecclesiology. The selection of these specific texts has been determined based upon identifying several of the most controversial components of IM methodology: (1) the declaration of Jesus as the Son of God (Matt 16:13–20); (2) the identifiable, gathered, and responsible body of local believers (Matt 18:15–20); (3) the role of upholding the truth of the gospel (1 Tim 3:14–16); and (4) the inclusion of believers from various socioreligious backgrounds (Gal 2:11–21).

While a robust biblical ecclesiology requires attention to many more aspects of the historical doctrine of the church, these four passages highlight elements of the essential nature of the church that conflict with several of the core commitments of many IM strategies. ¹² Thus, this article argues that if these four basic ecclesiological elements are not encouraged by IM methodology, it is unlikely that IM strategies can produce biblically faithful churches. ¹³

History of IM discussion

The contextualization discussion surrounding what has come to be known as IM strategy predates the terminology of IM. According to one commentator, IM traces its roots back to the mid-1970s through the work of Charles Kraft and Eugene Nida. During that time, Kraft and Nida proved influential in advancing a translation theory known as Dynamic Equivalence (DE). ¹⁴

DE translations are highly receptor-oriented. These DE translations attempt to leverage vocabulary and vernacular familiar to the audience to communicate the gospel. From this translation foundation, IM strategies continue along a receptor-oriented trajectory, seeking to retain not only the vocabulary of the context but also its cultural and religious forms. In fact, Charles Kraft began proposing the idea of DE churches in 1978. ¹⁵

Despite some Western missionary optimism regarding IM contextualization, Arab Christians have often opposed such strategies, noting their concerns that “continuity with the past will tie the Muslim believer to darkness.” ¹⁶ In noting such reticence to endorse these contextualization strategies, however, Western advocates have at times chosen to reject the warnings of our brothers and sisters in Christ who are culturally closer to IM participants in favor of outside analysis of the dynamics of such strategies. ¹⁷

Jesus’ church versus Paul’s church

Contextualization is the attempt to present and embody the unchanging message of the Bible within the changing contexts of the world. Thus, one of the typical approaches to contextualization is to seek out the irreducible core of biblical teaching and then to clothe that teaching in culturally communicative forms.

In search of an irreducible core teaching regarding the church, some IM proponents such as Leonard Bartlotti argue that there is a spectrum of cultural expression that ranges from minimalist to traditionalist ecclesiology. ¹⁸ The theory for IM proponents like Bartlotti is that if one takes a minimalist approach to ecclesiology, wherein one practices some of the biblical minimum of two or three gathered around the Word and in the Spirit, then IM might meet these basic criteria. ¹⁹

Attempting to establish the biblical basis of the minimalist approach, Bartlotti writes, “In [the minimalist] view of the church, believers who gather around the Word and the Spirit of Christ have essentially all they need to grow and develop in faith, practice, Christlikeness, and witness.” ²⁰ Bartlotti sees this minimalist approach as distinct from a traditionalist expression of church, writing, “This side of the spectrum values simplicity, freedom, informality, and a synoptic ‘Jesus style’ somewhat removed from Pauline theologizing and complexities, but not removed from Pauline dynamics.” ²¹ IM ecclesiology is then merely a minimalist approach.

However, to grant this distinction is to grant that Jesus’ ecclesiology is an option that can be chosen over and against a more robust Pauline expression. Bartlotti’s spectrum suggests that it is possible—and potentially appropriate for IMs—to cut off Paul’s ecclesiological teaching from Jesus’ and still remain biblically faithful. Yet, even if one were to admit such an untenable division between supposedly Jesus-style and Pauline-style churches, Jesus’ ecclesiological concerns challenge IM strategies in at least two ways. A brief consideration of the two occasions where Matthew records Jesus using the word ekklesia proves vital in the task of assessing IM ecclesiology.

1. Peter’s confession and Jesus’ church: Matthew 16:16

The first occasion in the biblical record in which Jesus uses the word ekklesia is a climactic moment in Matthew’s Gospel. After Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter speaks up and declares that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ²² Though a thorough treatment of this text is beyond the scope of this article, it suffices for the purpose of this project to recognize the centrality of Peter’s declaration as the foundation of the church. ²³

This particular claim is of little challenge to advocates of IM strategies as it is clearly a universal or invisible church that Jesus has in mind rather than an organized local church. One might readily affirm that those who believe in Jesus are incorporated into his invisible church prior to inclusion in a local expression of church. However, pertinent to our investigation is the declaration itself prior to unpacking its ecclesial implications. When Jesus speaks of building his unshakable church, it is inextricably connected to the recognition of his sonship.

1.1 IM strategic conflicts: Muslim Idiom Translations (MIT) and Divine Filial Language (DFL)

The concept of Jesus as the Son of God often causes IM strategists operating among Muslim peoples to become uneasy. Due to Islamic repulsion at the idea that God could sire a son, missionaries hoping to contextualize the gospel for Muslim audiences regularly propose alternative titles by which Jesus might be known. Some missiologists merely suggest that witnesses should give verbal preference to identifying Jesus as Lord or King over and against Son. However, several IM proponents also desire alternative translations of this language in Muslim Idiom Translations (MIT) of Scripture.

Resulting from this translation commitment, one Turkish attempt at a Muslim-sensitive translation renders the great commission of Matthew 28:18–19 as follows: “Now go to all the nations and train ‘islamic disciples’ [lit. murits] to me and make them ‘purify themselves by islamic ritualistic washing unto repentance’ [lit. tovbe abdesti] to the name of the Protector, his Representative and the Holy Spirit.” ²⁴ The problems in this representation of the great commission are manifold. One might be able to overlook the Islamic vocabulary used to identify Jesus’ disciples and the purification language to identify Christian baptism. However, there is no way to justify the disregard for the Greek original of the biblical text that allows the triune persons of the godhead to be thus represented. ²⁵

Practically speaking, it is possible that one might be able to observe initial pragmatic benefits of removing DFL from the Bible and from gospel presentations. Yet observations of pragmatic effectiveness cannot supplant the importance of presenting a viable translation of the unadulterated biblical text. As demonstrated by Adam Simnowitz’s extensive research, MIT versions of the Scriptures often compromise biblical language—and the theology that derives from it—upon the altar of expedient communication. ²⁶

At the same time, it should be noted that most Muslims are already aware of the fact that the Bible speaks of Jesus as the Son of God. In fact, this is part of the qur’anic polemic against Christianity. Written on the pages of the Islamic holy book, Qur’an 4:171 declares, “God is only one God. Glory to Him! (Far be it) that He should have a son!” ²⁷ Traditional Islamic interpretation of this verse—and several others like it—recognizes that it is Christians who are the ones who declare that God has a son. ²⁸ Thus, by exchanging the DFL for less offensive nomenclature, the Christian simply demonstrates complicity with the Islamic accusation that Christians are willing to engage in scriptural falsification. ²⁹ One thus loses any initial pragmatic momentum that comes from removing DFL as the effects of altering Scripture further undermine Muslim confidence in the Bible and the Christians who are willing to compromise its text.

For the purposes of this investigation, we must note that Jesus connects his church to the explicit recognition that he is the expected Messiah and the Son of God. Any attempt to build a church on an altered understanding of Jesus as the incarnate Son begins a church on an unhealthy foundation. Yet many IM advocates argue that such translations are essential components of IM success. For example, John Travis, J. Dudley Woodberry, and John Wilder argue that “It is crucial to have an appropriately contextualized Bible . . . that intentionally uses affectively and cognitively meaningful vocabulary for Muslim readers.” ³⁰ Lest one think MITs are relegated to inconsequential vocabulary, Travis includes a footnote that demands “culturally appropriate ways to translate ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘Son of God,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Christian,’ and ‘church.’” ³¹

One sees these translations included in actual practice through Jan Prenger’s study of IMs. Citing the insistence upon a contextualized MIT, Prenger writes,

Having the appropriate version of the Bible seems important. [One interviewee] mentioned that having a contextual translation available was a huge factor in the movement. He said, “The churches don’t use that Bible, and these Muslims really view it as, ‘This is our translation.’” ³²

Therefore, if IM strategies utilize MITs that obscure Jesus as the Son of God, they exhibit a dangerous deference to Islamic theology within their practice. Any gathering of such Insiders that might emerge is building upon a foundation that has exhibited more interest in crafting a message that can be embraced than translating the text as it was written.

Since the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God is tied to his messianic role and is the foundation for his unshakable church, this is no trifling matter. If the contextualized translations of Scripture used in IMs persist in obscuring such a central element of biblical christology, it is difficult to imagine building a strong church on such a weakened foundation. In addition to this reference to the church, two chapters later Matthew includes a second occasion where Jesus uses the word ekklesia.

2. Local, identifiable expressions of Jesus’ church: Matthew 18:15–20

In Matthew 18:15–20 Jesus discusses the process by which believers are to confront interpersonal sins within the local church community. While the first time that Jesus uses the word ekklesia is apparently in reference to the church universal, this instance clearly communicates a local expression of church. That this is true can be seen in Matthew 18:17, which states that the church is to be gathered, informed, and involved in excommunication of the unrepentant sinning brother or sister.

Since the church is a local and gatherable assembly in this passage, one cannot say that Jesus was unconcerned with the formation of local churches. In fact, these local churches are composed of believers who might be called to carry the weighty burden of rendering a verdict on another believer’s status as a part of the church. This passage leaves no room for the notion of an isolated or unchurched Christian, as Donald Hagner comments,

The Christian is always to be accountable to a community. And the importance of the community receives indirect confirmation in the divinely granted authority of its leaders, in the promise of answered prayer in the administration of the church, and in the promise of the continuing presence of the risen Christ in the midst of those gathered in his name. ³³

In just two references to ekklesia, then, Jesus has established that his church will be built upon the foundation of the confession that he is the Old Testament’s anticipated Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Furthermore, he has established the fact that this church is composed of local, identifiable, gatherable, and mutually responsible communities of believers.

2.1 IM strategic conflicts: Difficulty with discipline

Sometimes, due to contextual stigma with the local word for “church,” IMs opt to use alternative language to describe the gatherings of Insiders. While a few IM expressions are intentionally churchless, ³⁴ most encourage believers to be known to one another and to meet within the mosque structure. ³⁵ For example, some IM groups are called jamaats, using the Arabic word for gathering. ³⁶ Some jamaats could easily be compared with house churches in that these Insiders meet together in homes regularly, read or chant Scripture together, and often share a meal. ³⁷ On the surface, then, if an IM strategy includes the impulse to gather in local groups, many of the biblical activities of a local church can be observed and practiced within a jamaat.

The concern for IM strategies, however, is not with the ability of IM gatherings to include prayer, worship, and teaching. If the church is to be an identifiable group that can exercise the church discipline expected by Jesus in Matthew 18, they must be able to differentiate between members in good standing versus members who are under church discipline. It is difficult to see how a group that is intentionally blending into the mosque community can exercise meaningful discipline.

Historically, identification with a local body of believers has been practiced and demonstrated through the ordinances of baptism and communion. ³⁸ While some IM gatherings regularly practice baptism, there are other IM strategies that dismiss the importance of baptism. Such proponents argue that many unbaptized Christ-followers reject baptism not because they reject Christ, but due to the fact that it severs ties with one’s former community and family. Thus, advocates such as Herbert Hoefer relegate the rejection of baptism to the realm of sociology rather than theology. ³⁹

Likewise, since some IM strategies aim to see entire mosques dedicated to following Jesus as savior, Insiders often remain within the structures of the mosque system. As a result, the ability for such groups of Insiders to partake in communion is complicated by the fact that their gathering occurs in mixed company. If communion is not celebrated as a regular affirmation of the gospel and participation with the community, one wonders how the jamaat will differentiate a believer in good standing from those who are to be treated as Gentiles and tax collectors. ⁴⁰

2.2 Summary: Jesus’ church and IM Jamaats

In closing this section, then, we note that Matthew’s Gospel and Jesus’ own words about the church are sufficient to challenge IM methodology on at least two key points: (1) Jesus as the long-awaited Christ, who is the Son of God; and (2) the local church as an identifiable body of believers who can practice meaningful church discipline. Beyond Jesus’ words about the church, however, at least two other aspects of biblical ecclesiology need to be considered. The following section will consider how IM strategies face challenges when confronted with Paul’s teaching about the church in 1 Timothy 3:14–16 and Galatians 2:11–21.

3. The church as a pillar and buttress of the truth: 1 Timothy 3:14–16

As stated above, for an evangelical who is unwilling to pit the teachings of Jesus against those of Paul, one must not merely attend to what Jesus said of the church. Indeed, Paul clearly recognizes his instruction about the church as being the extension of Christ’s ministry, gospel, and teaching. ⁴¹ Thus, it is important for our purposes to consider what the whole of the New Testament says about the church in order to assess whether or not IM strategies are likely to produce biblically faithful churches. As such, we must consider what Paul writes to Timothy in his charge to his young disciple regarding the purpose of the church.

First, we find in 1 Timothy 3 a section of Scripture that is helpful for churches as they determine who among their members should be appointed to leadership roles. However, for our purposes, it is important to consider the final charge of this chapter wherein Paul gives his rationale for such specific leadership qualifications. In 1 Timothy 3:14–16, Paul writes,

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

As Paul concludes this section of his letter, then, all of the instructions given regarding leadership, orderliness, and teaching of doctrine that precede this conclusion serve the purpose of ensuring that the church upholds, displays, and supports the truth entrusted to it in the gospel. Anything that might obscure the central message of the gospel along with its transmission and application is a threat to the church’s ability to fulfill this purpose.

3.1 IM inclusion of the Qur’an in worship

Despite the fact that Paul is explicit that the church is to be a gathering in which the faith, once delivered for all the saints, is taught, upheld, and passed on, IM proponents are keen to include the active and ongoing reading of the Qur’an as a part of Insider gatherings of all stripes, whether in the mosque or the para-mosque. As Prenger states from his research, “The use of the Qur’an in jamaat gatherings is normal and expected. The Qur’an leads to the truth as it points to Isa and the Tawrat, Zabur, and Injil.” ⁴² Even more startlingly, Prenger cites an apparent IM in which “the jamaat members have no access to any Scripture portion. ‘It is a qur’anic Jesus movement. They use the Qur’an in fellowships, but it is seen through biblical eyes.’” ⁴³ Yet despite the apparent references to a Jesus character within the pages of the Qur’an, this Jesus is not the center of the Qur’an’s message. Thus, even if an Insider were to engage in a Christo-centric reading of the Qur’an, it could not lead to an understanding of the atoning work of the biblical Messiah.

By including the Qur’an within the worship gathering, one adds confusion to a community that has already been shaped by the Qur’an’s message as understood independently from the Bible. Thus, it is no surprise to find Insiders among Prenger’s research who are leading IMs yet making comments such as, “The Qur’an is saying that Jesus was not killed, but that he was taken away. So what is wrong with that? Arthur asked. Was Jesus really killed? He was symbolically killed, because his spirit cannot be killed.” ⁴⁴ Rather than viewing the Qur’an through the lens of the Bible, then, the biblical teaching is made to accommodate the Qur’an.

Again, striking at the core of salvation, another of Prenger’s Insider interviewees accepts Jesus’ death and resurrection but denies its atoning power, saying,

Allah says that each individual is responsible for their own life. Each one gives an account for what they did, right or wrong. In my understanding now, Jesus died and rose again and went to heaven as evidence that he was superior to others. He was not like us, but it doesn’t qualify that he died for my sins. It qualifies him for me to follow him, but I am accountable for what I do. If he died for my sins, I would not need to keep away from sins. ⁴⁵

Though these two quotes do not necessarily represent the sentiments of every IM leader or participant, it is troubling to see these gospel-central issues being reframed by the Qur’an’s teaching. Furthermore, such interpretations contradict the claim of IM advocates that the Qur’an is included in IM worship, yet it is viewed through a biblical lens. ⁴⁶

Despite the repeated claims of IM advocates, the Qur’an has never been interpreted by Muslims as being compatible with the biblical gospel. As Ayman Ibrahim writes of such unprecedented reinterpretations, “It abuses the Qur’an and violates the interpretations offered by Muslim exegetes throughout history.” ⁴⁷ Ibrahim goes on to show that even if the Qur’an is reinterpreted to cohere with the Bible while yet adding nothing to the biblical testimony, “There is no theological worth or biblical value in [reinterpreting qur’anic passages] except to support and sustain the IM paradigm. In reinterpreting these verses to fit into Christian dogma, one would redact the Qur’an, abuse Islamic thought and history, and violate Islamic exegesis.” ⁴⁸

If the Qur’an, as understood by IM proponents, adds nothing to the biblical message, its inclusion in Insider worship only serves to reinforce the Muslim identity that IM advocates intend to retain. ⁴⁹ However, if the ekklesia is to be a pillar and buttress of the truth of the gospel, one must consider the potential for confusion that the reading of the Qur’an introduces into the gathering of Insiders. As seen in the quotes above, the retention of the Qur’an as a component of gathered worship can exert a pressure upon the biblical message that leads some Insiders to defer to the Qur’an on matters as central as the atoning death of Jesus. Thus, since the Qur’an adds no value to the biblical testimony, the risk of including the Qur’an in IM gatherings is unwarranted, unwise, and unlikely to contribute to the formation of biblically faithful churches.

4. The church as the one people of God in Christ: Galatians 3:28

Finally, as Paul discusses the unifying effects of the gospel in Galatians, he argues strongly that in Christ there is to be no ethnic, sociological, racial, or sex-based discrimination separating believers. To this point, Galatians 3:28 is especially clear, declaring, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul’s teaching is especially pertinent to the local community of Galatian believers in that they were prone to dividing themselves according to their former Jewish–Gentile distinctives. In Galatians 2:11–21 Paul confronts Peter’s withdrawal into the Jew–Gentile segregation observed under pre-Christ culture and law. Paul minces no words as he deems such socioreligious segregation as conduct that is “not in step with the truth of the gospel.” The local church, then, is the visible expression of the unified people of God in Christ.

Biblical concern with the unity found in the gospel is not relegated to Paul’s writings. In Acts 15, one reads the account of the early church’s process of reconciling Jewish-background and Gentile-background believers. In this chapter, the Jerusalem counsel is called to determine what to do with the fact that Gentiles were believing the gospel and receiving the same Spirit as believers from among the covenant people of Israel. The decision the council reached was that there was one gospel and one Spirit, thus uncircumcised Gentile believers were to be included in the church, provided that they would abstain from some of the specific religious rituals that their Gentile communities practiced. ⁵⁰ In other words, both the former Jews and former Gentiles saw some of their socioreligious practices excluded for the sake of demonstrable unity.

4.1 IM jamaats raise religious barriers to diverse members

In many ways, IM advocates call for the Western church to recognize Insiders in the same way as the early Jewish-background church recognized the Gentiles. ⁵¹ Some even make this comparison more contemporary by suggesting that in the same way as there are messianic Jews who retain some of their culture while following Christ, so too there can also be messianic Muslims. ⁵² The problem with this comparison is that messianic Jews have inherited divinely prescribed feasts, fasts, and forms that derive from the pages of the Hebrew Bible and anticipate the Messiah. The Hebrew Bible, then, is inspired, canonical literature that points to Jesus as the culmination of God’s progressively revealed purposes. ⁵³ For a Muslim to claim to follow the same trajectory is to adopt the Qur’an as an equally inspired record of God’s activity that leads to Jesus as the anticipated Messiah. Not only does the Qur’an not allow for such a reading, but it would violate the evangelical understanding of Scripture to grant it such an inspired status.

Furthermore, when such Muslim Insiders gather, they intentionally do so in exclusively Muslim cultural forms. These forms intend to separate the Insiders from the local, national churches culturally, linguistically, and socioreligiously. In his interviews with IM leaders, Prenger does cite several believers who affirm the idea that, despite their intentional separation from the church, “[Insiders] consider ourselves to have one Lord with them, and one Spirit with them.” ⁵⁴ At the same time, however, many IM strategists urge the Insiders with whom they are working to avoid the existing churches.

By their own testimony and strategy, these IM advocates separate themselves from the churches and silo themselves into communities of Jesus followers who remain intentionally self-identified as Muslims. ⁵⁵ This intentional division between IM jamaats and traditional churches is repeatedly affirmed by many of the Insiders interviewed by Prenger. Prenger states, “Many IM leaders mention that the traditional church [is] the main challenge to IM and [I]nsiders.” ⁵⁶ This perceived danger expresses itself in the comments made by several other IM leaders who promote avoiding fellowship with Christians in their context.

One Insider says, “I feel like they will not be able to understand what we are doing. They have the traditional viewpoint that once a person receives Jesus, this person has to pull out and join the church. . . . We hope that [the traditional church] doesn’t know about us, but we consider ourselves having one Lord with them, and one Spirit with them.” ⁵⁷

One might initially compare this movement to the division observed between different denominations in more traditional sense. Since Baptists and Presbyterians practice baptism and view church polity differently, perhaps the refusal of Insiders to fellowship with existing churches is merely comparable to these doctrinal distinctives. And yet in the case of Insider Muslims, one wonders if it is possible for someone from a non-Islamic background to join such a gathering without first becoming a Muslim? Would a non-Muslim seeking fellowship with Insiders be required to say the shahada? Would a non-Muslim be required to pray in the mosque in the Islamic style alongside of non-Insider Muslims?

While these may seem to be unfair, pejorative questions to raise, Prenger records an Insider’s testimony that describes exactly this: A Christian woman determined that it was necessary for the kingdom of God that she become a Muslim convert to Islam in order to advance the ministry in which her Muslim background husband was involved. ⁵⁸

If, then, IM strategy requires Insiders to retain their Muslim identity in order to fellowship, it intentionally builds an extra-biblical socioreligious barrier to fellowship. Such barriers can only be transcended if an Outsider becomes an Insider by professing Islam. One wonders how this type of contextualization can be construed as anything other than the issue that Paul took with the Judaizers who required Gentiles to undergo circumcision. ⁵⁹

Conclusion: Sowing seeds for an unpromising harvest

There is much to be lauded regarding the desire of IM proponents to see the gospel bear fruit in diverse contexts. Yet, as this article has demonstrated, there are major problems with the strategies they suggest to produce such a harvest. The impulse to see appropriate cultural expression of the gospel is proper. However, in fighting for a natural expression of church among Muslims, they encourage a minimalist approach to ecclesiology which is often misshapen by giving deference to Islamic forms. Such forms, as seen above, often threaten to introduce confusion around the central teachings of the gospel and division among those who are being saved by a common Lord.

Moreover, one must consider the fact that Jesus never called his followers to a minimalist expression of following him. He never encouraged people to seek the least that one might have to do in order to find salvation. Instead, he said, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” If, in an effort to contextualize the biblical requirements for the church, IM strategists promote a reductionistic obedience that obscures the four components of the church discussed in this article, it is unlikely that these methods will produce biblically faithful and flourishing churches.