Showing posts with label missions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label missions. Show all posts

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Where am I going wrong? What are your thoughts?

A man I respect who is doing a lot of good work for international missions--especially work among the unreached peoples--has urged me to check out a new company that intends to begin offering "daily deals" like Groupon. (If you've not seen Groupon, it offers [usually local] deals like, "Get $20 worth of ____ for $10." --One of our recent Denver deals was "$29 for Standard Bicycle Tune-Up at The Bike Depot ($60 Value)." Another was "$89 for a Four-Room Carpet Cleaning from Ace Chem-Dry (Up to $208 Value)")

Hey. I signed up for Groupon. I guess I've been a member for about six months.

Sarita and I are not major consumers. Maybe that's our "problem." I think I've bought one thing through Groupon in six months. I think it was tickets to a children's play.

Whatever.

My friend has urged me to promote this new company for the sake of supporting mission efforts. If mission-minded people can sign up early, then . . .

Well, here's the way the new company, MooLaLa, "works"--or is supposed to work, once they start featuring coupons.

Unlike their competitors, they intend to offer incentives of two percent (2%) of all sales to people who promote their offers through social networks. And not just 2% of all purchases made by the first generation of those who sign up as a result of their efforts, but 2% of of the purchases of the second, third, fourth and fifth generations of those who sign up--a real, honest-to-goodness, multi-level marketing scheme.

And that's where, and how, and, for some reason, why, this just doesn't feel right to me.

I have drafted a reply to my friend. And I intend to send it the moment I post this here. But I thought I'd get you-all's perspective on what I'm thinking.

Where am I going wrong? Or . . .

Auggggggh! Why does this bug me?

_______________,

Whew, boy!

I'm torn.

On the one hand, I see how this could really make someone a lot of money. Indeed, a few--especially the early-adopters--probably will make a load of money. But/and then . . . like all Ponzi schemes, it will quickly run out of gas: "Oh! I'm so sorry! I've already signed up!"

. . . So, for example, I just signed up under you but then realized ________________ had sent their request an hour and a half before you sent yours. But, in fact, I had heard about it first from you and I knew that they had heard about it from you and . . . Oh, well.

So. Okay. Whoever I sign up will benefit you. And that's fine. And whoever I sign up will benefit Sarita and me--and through us, whoever we support. . . .

But. . . .

But what?
  • Participants get 2% of the value of vouchers purchased.

    That can add up. A voucher may be for, say, $20 worth of food at Chipotle for $10. So it’s a $10 voucher and you get 2%--$0.20. Multiply that out and we could be looking at a few hundred dollars. Especially if you get a nice three- or four-level deep Paymatrix going and there are enough $10 vouchers that lots of people buy in a month.
     
  • I've been a Groupon member for about six months, so far. I've bought one deal, as I recall. No one is going to get rich off of me. Though they might if they had a million me’s. ($0.20 x 1,000,000 = $200,000. In six months. That would be very nice money, indeed!) BUT . . .
     
  • There are only about 200 million adults in the United States. And only the top few people in the MooLaLa Paymatrix will be able to get a million “down-market” Paymatrix members. You may be one of them. Maybe a few dozen more could do it as well. After that, the numbers will dilute very rapidly because “everyone else” will already be “taken.”
     
  • But I'm pessimistic for another reason. And maybe I shouldn't be. I wonder how many businesses will sign up to offer the kinds of 50% Off deals that Groupon offers when, obviously, part of the “deal” they have to agree to involves paying MooLaLa affiliates alone (not to mention MooLaLa itself!) at least 10% of whatever money MooLaLa collects. . . .

    I don't know. Maybe I'm not a very good businessman. Or maybe I'm just not in the kind of market that lends itself to MooLaLa/Groupon kinds of deals!
FWIW. My dismal thoughts at the moment.

Maybe there is one last (emotional) part that bugs me about this:
  • Some people we know are really into multi-level marketing schemes. And they are always trying to get us to buy whatever deal they have most recently adopted as great for getting rich if-you-just-tell-enough-friends-and-sign-them-up. Somehow this feels the same. And that doesn't feel good to me.

    I know they really believe in what they’re talking about, and they really believe that they can get rich, too. But . . . But I'm not sure what. Something. Something doesn't feel good about it to me.

    But maybe I shouldn't think of it in those terms.
Maybe I'm "just" really trying to over-think the situation?

Maybe we should all jump on the bandwagon . . . but/and be generous with whatever "extra" income this latest scheme may bring in?

To be honest, this post is partially an experiment to find out the reality of how "people"--you--will respond to this kind of thing . . . verbally in a comment/response, but also (and perhaps more importantly) in terms of action. Will you sign up (as I did--partially so I could see what my friend was talking about) even if you question the whole thing? I mean, what can it hurt, right? You're under no obligation!

Or are you? (Or am I?)

What's going on here?

My friend asked me for feedback, and this is about the best I've been able to come up with: "I expect it will make a few people very wealthy. Ultimately, however, I have a feeling it won't be a very big thing to more than a very few. It doesn't feel great, but that's probably just me. So . . . just do it. Promote it. See what happens."

Your thoughts?

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

An opportunity to make a significant difference in an entire people group

Last Wednesday, we mailed (snail-mail) a print copy of this letter to all current and recent-past Sonlight customers. It was bulk-mailed, so only a few people may have received it by now. Most should get it in the next week or two.

Want to join us in the adventure? Read the letter and then click on through to the Sonlight/OneVerse site! We'd love to have you join us . . . even if it's "only" for the learning experience. (Though how much nicer to participate in the adventure of helping to provide a complete New Testament or two in a language (or languages) that currently have no Scripture!)

PS: By the way: you can go here to see a map that shows where many of the Sonlighters (and/or others!) who have signed up for the Sonlight/OneVerse project live. --Pretty cool!

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Bible translation: a real need?

I continue to study the issues raised by my correspondent who questioned the validity of Dave & Neta Jackson's Hero Tales account of William Tyndale. The more I have dug into the subject, the more disturbed I have become . . . by (what seems to me to be) the massive misdirection under which it appears so many of us--Protestants and Catholics--seem to labor.

And so, while seeking to dig down to the truth, I am afraid I must first dispense with the misdirections.

I shared the content of my original post with my correspondent. Among other things (which I must yet deal with), she replied,

[Quoting John:]

"At that time [i.e., when Tyndale was alive], it was illegal to translate the Scriptures into English without official approval," the Jacksons write. And that is correct. It had been illegal since 1408 when, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says (last sentence in section C.(2)), the Synod of Oxford "forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or . . . by the provincial council."

I know this and knew it and don't dispute it. I'm unsure why this is a problem. The emphasis is on "unauthorized" vernacular versions. These councils have charge over their flocks' souls. They were to be obeyed. To our modern ears, we think "Well why shouldn't you have the right to read any version you want?" but I think that is imposing a modern day construct of rights on the time. The Church is the guardian of the Scriptures and is the foundation and pillar of the Truth and, just as today we do not want a gender inclusive Bible, they did not want a Bible which would lead their flock astray needlessly. Since it was possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible, then why did Tyndale need to be lauded for his disobedience?

Let me break there.

I think her comment about "laud[ing Tyndale] for his disobedience" is pertinent. And that is why I wrote what I did about heroes and rebels. As I got thinking about it, it struck me--and struck me, honestly, as rather odd--that so many of the heroes our company (Sonlight) puts in front of children are rebels against the status quo. They (the heroes) are disobedient and/or law-breakers. And so I took--and take--my correspondent's implicit criticism to heart. It certainly causes me pause as I consider the books we have chosen.

And I need to return to this subject of rebellion (legitimate or illegitimate? when?).

But first I want to note the assumption with which my correspondent precedes her final question: "Since it was possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible, then why . . .?"

My question: Was it possible to have an authorized vernacular Bible? And, if so, how possible?

Further questions (related to the "misdirection" I referenced above):
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a vernacular translation of the Bible?
  • When one disagrees with a "constituted authority," what are legitimate--and what are illegitimate--means of lodging one's protest against that authority's claims?
  • At what point is one (minimally) justified in not merely speaking out against, but actually assaulting an authority?

Let me make clear that, at this moment I have no definitive answers to all of these--and corrollary--questions. I have some answers to some questions. . . . But I have the sense that I am on the outer edges of a very fuzzy ball of yarn, a ball I want to begin unrolling, yet whose "beginning thread" I can't identify.

So I intend to pick at it until, God willing, the thread comes loose and the ball can begin to unroll.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

"I'm not home yet"

When I wrote about wasting one's life, I had a story in mind, but knew I had the details wrong. I finally got the details. After finding at least one version of the story on the web, but realizing I had been told a very different version, I sense it has to be an old preacher's chestnut. But I'll repeat it here anyway, even though I expect you should take it for its illustrative power rather than its historical credibility (of which I expect there is little).

Several years ago a veteran missionary was on her way home to the U.S., retiring after a life of service abroad. Aboard a ship bound for New York, she met an agnostic who said he thought it a waste to give one's life in missionary service. "Do you think anyone on this ship notices you because you 'gave your life' for your cause?" asked the man.

The missionary replied, "I'm not home yet."

The agnostic assumed the missionary was referring to a large crowd that would meet the ship, and he scoffed again when they disembarked and not a solitary person welcomed the old woman.

Once again, the old woman said, "I'm not home yet."

Now, let me note, when I first heard this story, the preacher who told it never mentioned this preliminary interchange. And the final scene was quite different from what I found on the internet.

On the internet I read,
She boarded a train destined for her small Midwestern hometown. Reaching her destination, she could no longer fight back the tears as the train pulled off and she stood alone on the railway platform. She had arrived at her hometown but no one was there to greet her. At this point God spoke to her and said, "You're still not home . . . yet."

In the version I heard, she arrives at her hometown and a crowd is waiting . . . except it is there not for her but for some other dignitary or famous artist. Despite the shock, she does not break down and cry. Instead, as she is greeted by a lone young man who was sent to pick her up, he comments on and apologizes for the contrasting lack of celebration in her behalf. And she, spiritual giant that she is, says, "Oh, don't you worry, honey! I'm not home yet!"

I think my point in posting this, if nothing else, is to remind and ask myself--and to ask you--when do you believe you're really "home"? When should you expect the reward for whatever self-sacrificing services you provide?

I say I believe there is more to life than what is here and now. Do I really believe it?

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Building a medical clinic from scratch

When we got to the Wycliffe meeting, someone handed us a binder that, among other things, included a list of our fellow attendees. I read through the list, saw the names of no one I knew, but saw one last name that caused me to wonder: "Are these people relatives of someone I know?"

The man's name was Adrian Visbeen. I knew a Visbeen once. His name was Al--Al Visbeen. Back in New Jersey.

A couple of days later, I was in a meeting and realized Adrian Visbeen was sitting next to me.

"Hi," I said. "By any chance, do you have relatives in New Jersey?"

"Yes."

"Do you know a guy named Al Visbeen?"

"Yes. . . . He's my brother!"

Al Visbeen, I knew, was a successful building contractor. Very successful. Turns out, Adrian and Al had been partners. They have now both retired. But Adrian pulled out of the business first--16 years ago, about the time when Sarita and I left New Jersey and would have last seen Al.

"I was 52 when I told Al I wanted to retire in two years so my wife and I could do mission work," Adrian told me. "I wanted to sell my half of the business and move on.

"Al was incredulous: 'You're going to give up the company car and all the benefits?!?'"

But Adrian and his wife were determined. Before they had gotten married--he had only discovered this a short time before he made his announcement to Al-- . . . Before they had gotten married, Adrian's wife had thought she was going to be a missionary. "I was sure I was supposed to be a missionary," she said.

But then she got married and forgot the whole idea. Until their kids had graduated and left the house.

"Now what am I going to do? Sit around?"

So she and Adrian decided that they would make themselves available for wherever God led them. They would use their skills to help advance His Kingdom.

And so, at 54, about 16 years ago, Adrian sold his half of Visbeen Construction to his brother and launched off into a new field of service--with Wycliffe Associates, YWAM (Youth With a Mission), and several other agencies. Adrian gave me a letter he had written earlier this year that showed where all they have served: 56 different projects in almost as many different places . . . around the world.

But there is one story of one project I would like to share with you here. It's the story from which I titled this post:

Building a medical clinic from scratch

Adrian and his wife were asked to build a medical clinic on one of the islands in Lake Victoria (Africa).

Not sure why, but for some reason, they brought a wheel for a wheelbarrow, but, apparently, not much else.

When they got to the island, they asked if there was any concrete available.

"'Concrete'?" --No one knew what it was.

"Where can I get some sand?" Adrian asked.

No one had any sand on the island. There was no sand.

"How about cement?"

No one had any cement.

Someone did own a sailboat, however.

So Adrian, said, they sent the sailboat out one day to pick up bags of cement from a town on the shore of the lake. Out and back to pick up the cement: one day.

The next day, they sent the sailboat in another direction to pick up sand from a beach. They tied up the boat and filled it with sand--one shovelful at a time.

Out and back for sand: another day.

Then they mixed the sand, cement and water--local men did it with their bare feet. ("Their skin was tough, like leather!" Adrian said. --I expect so. Indeed, I hope so. Because concrete is quite caustic.)

So they poured the slab on which the clinic was to be built.

Now for bricks.

No one had any bricks.

"Okay," said Adrian. "Let's make them!"

So they smashed a termite mound, ground the clay, mixed it with water, poured it into a six-inch tall brick mold, mashed the clay so it was exactly the height of the mold, then turned the raw brick out onto a black plastic sheet where it would bake in the sun for three days. . . .

Talk about building from scratch!

Oh. The wheelbarrow wheel.

No one owned a wheelbarrow. So they made one.

"We dug a pit, rolled a log over the top, had one guy stand down in the pit and another on top, and then they sawed the log in half. . . ."

I just realized I never got a clear idea of how the wheelbarrow finally worked, but, somehow, the sawed log became the structural basis for the wheelbarrow, and the wheel . . . --Well, the wheel became the wheel for the wheelbarrow! (Of course!)

******

Why all this labor to build a building whose structural components were like nothing the local population had ever seen? (Isn't that called inappropriate technology--in contrast to (what development agencies normally refer to as) appropriate technology: i.e., technology that is readily supported by the local culture and economy?)

The reason for using this--what seems to be--"outlandish" structural technology: it is durable and it is clean. This clinic should remain useful for decades. The more "traditional" structures last only years. . . .

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Illiteracy = Slavery

Sarita and I spent last weekend at a conference for supporters of Mission India. It was a highly informative, disturbing, and encouraging meeting all rolled into one. Let me summarize the "encouraging" part. I want to focus primarily upon the "disturbing" material--primarily because I believe it speaks to a few things that, I think, should be key to most of us as homeschoolers.

The encouraging information: Indians--Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and animist--are responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ in unprecedented numbers partially because they see it as good news.

What most disturbed me: some of the key items we learned about the condition of so much of India's population.

One key statistic: sixty percent of the population as a whole--and, depending on the area, 80 to 90 to, even, 95 percent of the female population--is illiterate. One of Mission India's key ministries has to do with literacy and basic training in health and finance (numeracy and recognizing the respective values of different coins). These matters are so basic to my own education, and what I understand most Westerners are taught, that I never thought through the implications of not learning such things.

While explaining how important literacy is, Mission India's vice president read a portion from Frederick Douglass' autobiography. I want to quote that same section, here, for you because I believe you, since you teach your children might find it "interesting" in the same way I did.

The Value of Literacy

In case you don't know, Frederick Douglass was an American black slave, born in the early 1800s. He was "probably between seven and eight years old" when he was transferred from one master to another.

"Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld," he says, "she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters.

Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further, he said, "If you give a n*gger an inch, he will take an ell. A n*gger should know nothing but to obey his master--to do as he is told to do. Learning would 'spoil' the best n*gger in the world.

"Now," said he, "if you teach that n*gger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy."

These words . . . [were] a new and special revelation [to me], explaining dark and mysterious things, with which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty--to wit, the white man's power to enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly.

From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom.

--From Chapter VI of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

The vice president of Mission India noted that illiteracy--the kind of profound illiteracy that is so common in India--is, indeed, a means of enslavement for those who suffer under it. Thus, he noted, the Dalits--or "untouchables"--though legally entitled to education, rarely receive it. The Dalit parents, illiterate themselves, are unable to protect themselves from repressive and unjust business agreements. They thus find themselves, often, in such heavy debt that they and their children are forced to work from early morning till late at night just to purchase enough in order to keep body and soul together.

Unable to read, women are unable to use public transportation in order to leave their immediate communities. And, being unable to leave one's community means one cannot seek better employment, health care, shopping opportunities: all manner of things that we take for granted.

We heard of a Dalit woman whose 6-year-old daughter was kidnapped. At the time, she did not know the girl had been stolen. All she knew was that the girl had disappeared.

She went to the police for aid. They shooed her away. (After all, she was a Dalit--no better than a water ox.) The woman went to her literacy teacher who then brought the woman back to the police and demanded appropriate governmental services (i.e., that the police would listen to the woman's pleas and seek for her missing daughter). Having the requisite education in order to know her legal rights, the literacy teacher was able to acquire for the woman what the woman was unable to acquire for herself at that time. . . .
******
Over and over, we heard these kinds of stories. The story of Asha, a woman who confessed, only weeks after having come to know about Jesus and to believe that His life, death and resurrection offered her truly good news: “I did not know I was a human being!”

“What?!? How can you not know you are a human being?”

“I had always been treated as no better than an ox. I thought I was just an animal--just a different kind of animal, an animal in the shape of a human. But then I heard that Jesus died for me. And I am a daughter of the King of the Universe. . . .”

This is revolutionary news and, frankly, I, John Holzmann, have not known it. (Sometimes, it seems, one needs to “see” reality through other people’s eyes in order, truly, to understand it.)

Asha went and told her family and friends about her revolutionary discovery. In three months, she led 13 people to faith in Jesus. . . .
******
As I was preparing this post, I had to find the quotation I shared with you above from Frederick Douglass. That led me to read some portions of the text nearby. And the nearby sections of Douglass’ book reminded me strongly of what our speakers from Mission India had to say about so many women’s experiences in India--whether Hindu or Muslim, high- or low- or out-caste.

Douglass described, late in Chapter V of his book, what he experienced when he first met the Auld family:
Mr. and Mrs. Auld were both at home, and met me at the door with their little son Thomas. . . . And here I saw what I had never seen before; it was a white face beaming with the most kindly emotions; it was the face of my new mistress, Sophia Auld. I wish I could describe the rapture that flashed through my soul as I beheld it. It was a new and strange sight to me, brightening up my pathway with the light of happiness. . . .

Douglass continues the story in the first paragraph of Chapter VI:

My new mistress proved to be all she appeared when I first met her at the door,--a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings. She had never had a slave under her control previously to myself, and prior to her marriage she had been dependent upon her own industry for a living. She was by trade a weaver; and by constant application to her business, she had been in a good degree preserved from the blighting and dehumanizing effects of slavery.

I was utterly astonished at her goodness. I scarcely knew how to behave towards her. She was entirely unlike any other white woman I had ever seen. I could not approach her as I was accustomed to approach other white ladies. My early instruction was all out of place. The crouching servility, usually so acceptable a quality in a slave, did not answer when manifested toward her. Her favor was not gained by it; she seemed to be disturbed by it. She did not deem it impudent or unmannerly for a slave to look her in the face.! The meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none left without feeling better for having seen her. Her face was made of heavenly smiles, and her voice of tranquil music.

In Douglass’ case, sadly, this attitude on the part of his mistress was to shift dramatically once her husband reprimanded her. You will want to read his book to “hear” the full story.

What I want you to “hear” is how Douglass describes the state of the slave. It is the exact same attitudes he said he had learned to show his masters that outcastes/Dalits/untouchables are taught to show toward everyone around them: crouching servility, inability to look someone in the face. But it is the message of Jesus Christ, the message that they are fully human and, in fact, truly touchable (because the Christians will actually touch them!) that revolutionizes their lives. . . .

******

The people at Mission India told us about the things they are teaching in their literacy classes. Besides the message of the good news of Jesus Christ--the message that Asha received with such great joy--they teach people: “Don't go into debt. Instead, save!”

This, too, is a revolutionary message. Instead of families, parents and children together, finding themselves forced to work long hours, day and night in order to meet their debt obligations, the parents are able to send their children to school. And they willingly send their children to school. The parents and the children, both, gain new hope for the future.

I thought: what a truly revolutionary message these Christian literacy teachers carry, what truly revolutionary behavior they are engaged in . . . and, for those of us who are teaching our children: what a truly revolutionary cause to which, I pray, we are calling them.

Caste and Reincarnation

We were told that, according to The Barna Group, 26% of Americans believe in reincarnation. The speaker who mentioned this statistic asked--much the way St. Paul suggested in Galatians 5:12 concerning the "circumcision party": "I wonder why they don't 'go all the way' and adopt the entire Hindu worldview?"

He explained why. It's because the Hindu worldview is so totally hopeless.

I had never understood why reincarnation could be viewed as hopeless, nor why Christians suggest that the Hindu caste system and the doctrine of reincarnation, together, are so antithetical and/or antagonistic to what Westerners call "human rights." Our speaker explained that, as well.

In the Hindu worldview, one is born into one's caste as a reward or punishment for one's immediately preceding life. Perhaps one was an animal in a former life; maybe one was a Brahmin. Whatever one was, one's caste today is a direct result--a "reward," if you will--for how one fulfilled one's "calling" or "caste" or "position" in one's former life.

Therefore--and this was what I had never understood before--if you are an outcaste/Dalit/untouchable today, then you need to live that life to the "fullest," suffer your pains and sufferings as a "good" outcaste/Dalit/untouchable: in order to pay the "price" for your failures in your previous life, whatever those failures may have been. . . .

And if you are, say, a Brahmin, you would actually be doing the outcaste/Dalit/untouchable a disservice if you were to attempt to relieve him or her of his or her sufferings. If s/he is unable to undergo the full cup of suffering, how will s/he be able come back at a higher station next time 'round? One's suffering cannot--they must not--be relieved within a lifetime. Only at death, and with rebirth/reincarnation in a new life, can one hope to enjoy any relief . . . and only if one has "earned" such relief through perfect suffering in the present life. Ouch!

******

I do not have a fancy ending to what I have written. I thought I should share a bit of what I'm learning right now. This weekend--in fact, beginning tonight--Sarita and I are attending another conference; this one for supporters of Wycliffe Associates. I wonder what we will learn there?

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Muslims for Isa?

Last year, in mid-September, I attended a conference on "Churchless Christianity." And there were several people present who described what it was like to live in a Muslim country and talk with Muslims about faith in Christ.

They described how their behavior changed over time as they had the privilege of being present when a Muslim would occasionally declare his faith in Jesus or Isa as he is known in many Muslim countries.

One man said that, at first, when a Muslim said he wanted to follow Isa, he (the speaker) responded with great joy and invited this new Muslim-background believer/follower to come to church. [Note: in order to reduce confusion, I will now refer to Muslim-background believers in/followers of Isa as MBBs--short for Muslim-background believers. And for the sake of full disclosure, I should also note that the speakers seemed, universally, to believe that the correct Muslim term for Jesus is Isa . . . just as the "correct" Jewish term for Jesus is Yeshua or Yehoshua. I should also note, as I have since discovered, many Christians who work with Muslims say that Isa is wholly inappropriate. On this last point, s
ee the Discussion of the use of the name 'Isa' for Jesus. . . . But let us return to our discussion.]

As the number of MBBs increased, these Western Christians eventually became aware of some fascinating and disturbing questions.

* What clothes should MBBs wear to church?
The Christians who have traditionally lived alongside these MBBs are of a different racial and cultural background. And for various reasons, these Christians wear clothing of a decidedly different character than that which the Muslims wear--Western style shirts that you tuck into your pants, rather than more flowing robe-style coverings, for example.

Now, if a new believer in and follower of Jesus is going to walk into church, he's going to cause a stir simply by being there. So wouldn't it be wise for him to blend in as much as possible by engaging in certain practices that may put the Christians at ease a bit? For example, how about if he adopts a manner of
dress familiar to the Christians? . . .

But—the Western Christians eventually began to ask themselves—if the new believer adopts that kind of clothing, what does
his behavior "say" to his family, friends and neighbors--all the members of his own ethnic group? Doesn't it say he has "crossed over"; he is no longer one of "us"; he is one of "them"; a traitor? And over what? Over Jesus/Isa? . . . Or over clothes?

Then other issues slowly came to our speaker's attention.


* What word to use for "God." Muslims everywhere speak of the one true God as "Allah" (from the equivalent to the Hebrew word El or Elohim used in the Old Testament). But the Arabic translation of the Bible in this particular country used the word for God used by the Christian ethnic group of that nation. . . .

* For Muslims, the mosque is the community center--if you don't show up, you've removed yourself from the community.

* For Christians, marriages and burials are the personal responsibilities of the families involved; for Muslims, these "rites of passage," as it were, are facilitated by the local Muslim community.


* Muslims' weekly Sabbath is on Friday. But Christians worship on Sunday.


* Muslims take off their shoes or sandals before entering the mosque; Christians don't take off their shoes or sandals before entering a church building. . . .


* Muslims engage in ablutions before entering the mosque; Christians don't engage in any such ceremonies before entering the church building.


* Muslims, as a sign of reverence and respect, will not place the Q'uran on the floor; Christians, however, place the Bible on the floor!


* Muslims don't eat pork; Christians do.


* Devout Muslims pray 5 times a day—even in public; Christians . . . what do they do? Do they pray? (Not in the obvious/recognizable manner that Muslims do!) . . .


* Muslims celebrate Ramadan; Christians commonly celebrate Easter and Christmas. . . .


And then the real kicker:

* In order for a Muslim man to become married--at least in this particular culture--he must recite the Creed ("There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is His prophet."), at least that once, at his wedding. Can a MBB recite the creed? If not, how can he marry within his culture and people?

So the question became: Can a person remain a Muslim and follow Jesus/Isa? Or must he abandon his culture and his people in order to become a follower of Jesus/Isa?

*****

I'd like to note some things that various speakers at the conference brought to our attention.

1) The difference between "identity" and "practice."

As an evangelical Protestant, "group" identity has always been way less important to me than—I don't want to say "religious" practice, but how about . . . —diligent devotion, observance, obedience.

I have always looked with amazement at—first, those in my "Christian" sphere who declared themselves Catholic or Protestant or whatever, but they never attended church, they swore, they lied, they cheated. . . . –There was no apparent devotion to any higher principles than . . . I have no idea what. They wore a "name," but there seemed to be no real "life" to it.

And then I looked at my Jewish relatives (of whom I have a bunch). And I realized that they, too, wore the name "Jewish," but they never went to synagogue; they didn't believe in God. . . .

But/and I became aware of Jews for Jesus. –Whoa! My atheistic/agnostic Jewish relatives were infuriated by the idea! Why???? Why would that infuriate them since religous issues seemed so unimportant to them???

When I was young,
at least, I knew that (even) a (nominal) Catholic could not marry (even) a (nominal) Protestant. –Neither you nor your intended might actually care a whole lot about the religious practices or beliefs that your (nominal) titles suggested, but, WOW! You'd better not dare cross that line!

For people who held such attitudes, it seemed, "You're born a Catholic (Christian, Jew, whatever)." But according to my upbringing, you became one. Becoming a Christian required a specific commitment, a transformation of heart and mind. . . .

And what I've just remarked upon speaks to the difference between "identity" and "practice."

The person who is born Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever has a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever identity. But s/he may not practice the religion.

If you wouldn't marry outside your sociological/"faith" community, then you have a "high identity" with that community. But you may still not practice the nominal religion of that community.

Others may practice the religion, but may not identify as strongly as members of the sociological/"faith" community.

And, of course, there are all sorts of other combinations in between.

So suppose you've been "born" a Muslim; you’ve got a high "identity"; but you've never really "practiced" . . . or if you've practiced, you've not been devout. . . . Can you remain Muslim (in that sense of the term) but follow Jesus/Isa?

Suppose you were "born" a Jew; you've got a high "identity" but you've never "practiced" . . . of if you've practiced (you actually went as far as to be bat or bar mitzvah'd)--can you remain a Jew (in that sense of the term) but follow Jesus/Yehoshuah?

. . . Same questions down the line . . . and then back up again.

What happened in the early church?

What does 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 have to teach us? "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

What about 1 Corinthians 7:17-24? "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to."

Several of the speakers at the convention I attended said they eventually concluded that, not only should they become like their Muslim neighbors sociologically (in the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9, "so as to win" them; but they needed to encourage MBBs to maintain their Muslim identity--i.e., they had to remain like their neighbors--so that they could remain "insiders" and "win" some as well.

"Jesus lived in a law-based society very similar to Islam," said one of the speakers. "He used much that was in his society. He changed some of it. And he threw some of it away."

The question we (devout Christians) face is how much of Islamic society can God use? How much does He need to change? How much (or, perhaps I should use the opposite term—how little!) does He need to throw away?

******

I want to deal with that last question/observation I made above . . . about the recitation of the Creed.

At least one of the speakers at the conference noted that he utilized the Qur'an as a stepping stone to Christ. After all, the Qur'an places Jesus/Isa in a very high position. He is a prophet. He is the anointed one ("al-Masiah"—Messiah). He was without sin, born of a virgin, the "word of God" (Q 4:171) and also a "word from God" (Q 3:55). He was an apostle, powerful, a miracle-worker. . . .

We could go on.

Oh, yes! The Qur'an also fails to teach much of what we believe from the Bible—for example, that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to life once more. Moreover, I am given to understand, it positively does teach some other things with which we, who call ourselves Christians, absolutely disagree.

However
—and this is a major observation: these Western Christians have used the Qur'an to show many Muslims that they need to consider Jesus/Isa in a very different light than what they have been brought up to believe (whether their beliefs came from the Qur'an or not). These Christians say they have used the Qur'an to help lead Muslims to the Jesus/Isa as Lord . . .

Now, wait a minute! Galatians 3:24 says, concerning the Old Testament (KJV): "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." Is it possible that the Qur'an could be, for Muslims, what the Old Testament has been for many Jews and non-Jews who have come to Christ?

And . . .
wait another minute! To whom are the words of the Qur'an attributed? To the prophet Muhammed. What are these Western Christians saying the Qur'an has done for many Muslims? They say the Qur'an has led Muslims to the Lord . . .

If the Qur'an itself can be a schoolmaster to bring Muslims to Jesus, and if the prophet Muhammed caused it to be written . . . cannot a Muslim-background believer say, in full honesty, with glory to God: "There is no god but Allah [God; the one god—Allah/El/Elohim] and Muhammed is His prophet"?

A very strange and terrifying concept. But . . .

(????!!!)

How does the leaven of the gospel work its way through the dough? How does the Kingdom of God grow?

I am unwilling to stick my neck out and suggest that these Christian speakers have it all right. But it sure seems to me that they may be pursuing more truth than I would at first be inclined to grant them.

It is certainly something worth thinking and praying about, it seems to me!