Comments on Insider Movements
These comments are from a 2005 editorial in Mission Frontiers.
This time you must learn a new phrase: Insider Movements.
This idea as a mission strategy was so shockingly new in Paul’s day that almost no one (either then or now) gets the point. That’s why we are devoting this entire issue [of Mission Frontiers] to “Insider Movements.” That’s why the 2005 annual meeting of the International Society for Frontier Missiology is devoted to the same subject.
First of all, be warned: many mission donors and prayer warriors, and even some missionaries, heartily disagree with the idea.
One outstanding missionary found that even his mission board director could not agree. He was finally asked to find another mission agency to work under. Why? His director was a fine former pastor who had never lived among a totally strange people. After a couple of years of increasingly serious correspondence between the director and the missionary family, the relationship had to come to an end.
Okay, so this is serious business. Why is Insider Movements such a troubling concept?
Well, everywhere Paul went “Judaizers” followed him and tried to destroy the Insider Movement he had established.
Some of those Judaizers were earnest followers of Christ who simply could not imagine how a Greek – still a Greek in dress, language and culture – could become a believer in Jesus Christ without casting off a huge amount of his Greek culture, get circumcised, follow the “kosher” dietary rules and the “new moons and Sabbaths”, etc.
The flagrant language of Paul’s letter to the Galatians is one result. The very serious text of his letter to the Romans is another. Years ago the scales fell off my eyes when I read that “Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it … Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works” (Rom. 9:32 NIV).
Paul was not saying the Jewish religious culture was defective or that the Greek culture was superior. He was emphasizing that heart faith is the key element in any culture—that forms were not the key thing but the faith. Greeks who yielded in heart faith to the Gospel did not need to become Jews culturally and follow Jewish forms.
Paul said, in effect, “I am very, very proud of a Gospel that is the power of God to save people who obey God in faith, no matter whether they follow Jewish or Greek customs” (Rom. 1:16).
But the real trick is not simply for people of faith in every culture to stay and stagnate in their own cultural cul-de-sac, but both to retain their own culture and at the same time recognize the validity of versions of the faith within other cultures and the universality of the Body of Christ.
Different sources of European Christianity flowed over into the United States, producing some 200 different “flavors” of Christianity—some born here (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses), some quite Biblical, some not so Biblical, some very strange.
The same thing happens on the mission field: a lot of different movements emerge. The ideal is for the Gospel to become effectively expressed within the language and culture of a people and not just be a transplant from the missionary’s culture.
H. Richard Niebhur’s famous book, Social Sources of Denominationalism, is known for pointing out that different denominations did not just have doctrinal differences (often very minor) but usually reflected, at least for a time, social differences that were the real difference. Note, however, the Christian faith was in many cases an “Insider Movement” and was expressed within different social streams, taking on characteristics of those different streams.
But, back to missions. The Jewish/Greek thing is far more and far “worse” than the differences between Methodists who pray that their trespasses be forgiven and Presbyterians who pray that their debts be forgiven!
No, in Paul’s day circumcision was undoubtedly a major barrier to adult Greek men becoming culturally Jewish followers of Christ. Another sensitive point was the question of eating meat that had been offered to idols, and so on.
Later in history, the Jewish/Greek tension was paralleled by a Latin/German tension. This time, we see a profound difference in attitudes toward clerical marriage vs. celibacy and the use of Latin in church services.
For centuries Latin was the language of Europe, enabling ministers, attorneys, medical doctors, and public officials to read the books of their trade in a single language. That lasted a long time! For centuries a unifying reading language did a lot of good. But the Bible did not come into its own until it was translated into the heart languages of Europe. The deep rumbling that modernized Europe was the unleashed Bible.
It is an exciting and maybe disturbing thing—the idea that Biblical faith can be clothed in any language and culture. Witness the awesome reality in the so-called mission lands today. Whether Africa, India or China, it may well be that the largest number of genuine believers in Jesus Christ do not show up in what we usually call Christian churches!
Can you believe it? They may still consider themselves Muslims or Hindus (in a cultural sense).
Alas, today Christianity itself is identified with the cultural vehicle of the civilization of the West. People in mission lands who do not wish to be “westernized” feel they need to stay clear of the Christian Church, which in their own country is often a church highly Western in its culture, theology, interpretation of the Bible, etc.
For example, in Japan there are “churches” that are so Western that in the last forty years they have not grown by a single member. Many astute observers have concluded that there is not yet “a Japanese form of Christianity.” When one emerges, it may not want to associate with the Western Christian tradition except in a fraternal way.
In India we now know that there are actually millions of Hindus who have chosen to follow Christ, reading the Bible daily and worshipping at the household level, but not often frequenting the West-related Christian churches of that land.
In some places thousands of people who consider themselves Muslims are nevertheless heart-and-soul followers of Jesus Christ who carry the New Testament with them into the mosques.
In Africa there are more than 50 million believers (of a sort) within a vast sphere called “the African Initiated Churches.” The people in the more formally “Christian church” may not regard these others as Christians at all. Indeed, some of them are a whole lot further from pure Biblical faith than Mormons. But, if they revere and study the Bible, we need to let the Bible do its work. These groups range from the wildly heretical to the seriously Biblical within over ten thousand “denominations” which are not related to any overt Christian body.
Thus, not all “insider” movements are ideal. Our own Christianity is not very successfully “inside” our culture, since many “Christians” are Christian in name only. Even mission “church planting” activities may or may not be “insider” at all, and even if they are they may not be ideal.
Around the world some of these movements do not baptize. In other cases they do. I have been asked, “Are you promoting the idea of non-baptized believers?” No, in reporting the existence of these millions of people, we are reporting on the incredible power of the Bible. We are not promoting all the ideas they reflect or the practices they follow. The Bible is like an underground fire burning out of control! In one sense we can be very happy.