Neo-Evangelical Missiology and the Christian Mission to Islam

II. The Theological Perspective

Neo-evangelical missiologists would like the church to embark on new ways in missions to Muslims since they claim that the old methods of the last 200 years have been faulty. As we have noticed in Part I of this paper, a careful study of the history of the Christian-Muslim encounter during the last 1400 years does not sustain the thesis of these missiologists. The difficulties in the Christian mission to Muslims are not to be located in the alleged faulty ways of Western missionaries but in the Muslim tradition itself. From its inception, Islam was a consciously anti-Christian faith, and its basic motifs are anti-redemptive. But when we continue to study the reasons for this radical shift in the attitude of some Western missiologists toward Islam, we discover that the inspiration for the call to change does not come from a re-discovery of a thoroughly Biblical theology, nor from a fresh appreciation of the rich Christian tradition, but from an inordinate fascination with the new discipline of cultural anthropology. I will now dwell on this important point.

In his contribution to the Consultation on Gospel and Culture held at Willowbank in Bermuda, in January 1978, Stephen C. Neill began with these words:

Throughout history, religion and culture have been inextricably connected. There has never yet been a great religion which did not find its expression in a great culture. There has never yet been a great culture which did not have deep roots in a religion.

(Down To Earth: Studies In Christianity and Culture, edited by John R. Stott and Robert Coote, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI 1980. p. 1)

In spite of this timely observation by a veteran missionary scholar, one could not help but notice among the many papers read at the Consultation a lack of a deep interest in the theological dimensions of the problems we face in missions among Muslims. Culture was regarded as the important bridge which will enable us to reach the Muslims with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is as if the “discoveries” of cultural anthropology have provided us with a modern Aladdin’s lamp which will solve all our problems. This novel attitude is in marked contrast with the approach of the pioneers. They did not confine their scholarly pursuits to the study of Islam, its history and its practices. They reflected theologically on Islam. One thinks, for example, of Samuel Zwemer’s The Moslem Christ. An excellent and lucid study in the area of Islamic Christology and its implications for missions. Another classic is the monumental work of Prof. J. W. Sweetman: Islam and Christian Theology: A Study of the Interpretation of Theological Ideas in the Two Religions. This missionary scholar who labored most of his life in India shows the extreme importance of a deep theological reflection not only on Islam but equally on Christianity in its relation to Islam.

When we look at the contributions of scholarly men such as W. Montgomery Watt, we cannot escape noticing that the theological approach remains very prominent. In his book, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, one notices the discussion of such theological themes as: God’s Determination of Events, The Support in Tradition for Predestinarian Views, The Distinction between Iman (faith) and Islam, God and evil, the Createdness of the Quran, the Attributes of God, the Denial of Anthropomorphism and the Maturing of Sunnite Theology.

One more reference to a recognized historian, Bernard Lewis, formerly of the University of London, but now teaching at Princeton University. His writings on the history of the Middle East are filled with theological reflections. In the quarterly journal American-Arab Affairs, the following comments appeared in a review of Lewis’ latest book, The Muslim Discovery of Europe.

In trying to account for this lack of interest in the world of Christendom, Professor Lewis offers two principal explanations, one historical, the other theological . . . The second explanation (theological) for the Muslim attitude derives from the politico-religious character of Islam. For the followers of Muhammad Islam is the final dispensation of a revealed truth. As such it logically engenders among the Muslim community a sense of ultimate fulfillment in being chosen to receive the final revelation from God through his Messenger the Prophet. As Professor Lewis suggests:

. . . the Muslim doctrine of successive revelations culminating in the final mission of Muhammed led the Muslim to reject Christianity as an earlier and imperfect form of something which he, himself, possessed in the final, perfect form, and to discount Christian thought and Christian civilization accordingly. After the initial impact of eastern Christianity on Islam in the earliest period, Christian influences, even from the high civilization of Byzantium, were reduced to a minimum. Later, by the time that the advance of Christendom and, the retreat of Islam had created a new relationship, Islam was crystallized in its ways of thought and behavior and had become impervious to external stimuli, especially those coming from the millenial [SIC] adversary in the West. (American-Arab Affairs, Spring 1983, Number 4 p. 155).

While theology in Islam has not played the same role that it has in Christianity, and while the Sharia (Law) is more prominent in the mind of the Muslim than Kalam (theology), we may not jump to the conclusion that Islam is a non-theological religion. For example, when Muslims attack the Christian faith, it is always done in terms of the so-called theological and doctrinal errors of this religion. Consciously or unconsciously, Muslims give theological grounds for their instant rejection of the gospel of Christianity. In the light of all the foregoing considerations and having noticed how even secular scholars cannot but seek to understand Islam theologically, how are we to assess the words of the Rev. John Stott in his Foreword to Down To Earth? Writing about the meager results of missions among 600 million Hindus of India and the 700 million Muslims of the world, he remarks:

Although different answers are given to these questions, they are basically cultural. The major challenge to the world-wide Christian mission today is whether we are willing to pay the cost of following in the footsteps of our incarnate Lord in order to contextualize the Gospel. Our failure of communication is a failure of contextualization. (p. viii)

According to the Rev. Stott, we have hardly made any progress among Muslims because we have not made the right analysis which would have shown us that our problems are basically cultural! As if when dealing with Muslims, it is quite easy to separate the theological from the cultural. According to the Rev. Stott, the incarnation of the Son of God has become the proto-type for proper contextualization. And since we are not willing to pay the price of following in the footsteps of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we refuse to contextualize and thus we fail to communicate the good news.

These are far-reaching charges . In my readings of scholarly works produced by non-evangelical Christians or by non-Christians, I see no such one-sided emphasis on the cultural aspect of Islam. Nor do I encounter the new jargon of some western missiologists. It pains me so much that it is some of my dear brothers in the faith who are espousing these novel theories and making far-reaching statements about failure of missions to the Muslims. That we must study and learn the cultures of the people to be reached for the Lord is axiomatic and has never been doubted by any serious missionary of the gospel. The first Western missionary to Muslims, Raymond Lull, did not go to his field of labors in Tunisia before learning the Arabic language and culture. He even lobbied for the introduction of the study of Arabic in the universities of Europe. Enough has been mentioned in the first part of this paper to show that the pioneer missionaries excelled in learning Arabic as well as the culture of the people. None of them ever dreamed of staying for one or two terms in the mission field. Their graves in Beirut, Cairo and elsewhere in the Middle East testify to their complete devotion to the cause of Christ. They respected the uniqueness of the person and mission of the Messiah and tried to model their missionary activities in the tradition of Paul and the other holy apostles, and not after an incarnational model!

Since Islam claims to be a revealed and theistic religion, are we right when we place so much emphasis on a cultural approach to Islam? As Stephen C. Neill observed when he was referring to the close relationship of history, religion and culture: “the church entered into easy relations with that culture only when the religion which underlay it had ceased to be a living force.” But when we reflect on Islam, the words just quoted gain added weight. There is hardly an aspect of Islamic life and culture which has not been infused with the Muslim faith. It is impossible to separate between Islam as culture and Islam as a religious faith. Islam has shaped a uniquely Muslim world view.

When we reflect theologically on our subject and ask ourselves: what is the basic motif of Islam which distinguishes it from the Christian faith, we may come up with several answers. We may point to the traditional points of controversy such as: the authenticity of the Bible, the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross. Islam claims to have been sent from God in order to correct these false teachings of Christianity and thus bring true deliverance to mankind. While I do not want to deny that Islam is very self-conscious about this aspect of its mission, yet I would like to put forth the thesis that the basic motif of Islam is its teaching of the native goodness of man. This religion asserts that man can save himself and construct a peaceful world order by doing the revealed will of Allah. For us Christians, it is very important to realize that the Muslim religious tradition not only denies the crucifixion of the Messiah, but the very necessity of redemption. This important fact was impressed upon my memory over twenty five years ago upon reading an article in the quarterly, The Muslim World. The then-editor of the journal prefaced the article with these timely comments:

The following article is translated by permission from the first number of Toumliline I, Principes d’Education, Rabat, 1958, pp. 41–56, the journal of the Monastery at Toumliline, Azrou, Morocco. This small Berber town, situated some 70 kilometres south of Meknes, has in recent years become a symbol of Muslim-Christian theological meeting . . . The paper that follows was contributed in French during the second session of 1957 by Dr. ‘Uthman Yahya, an ‘Alim ofAl-Azhar, Cairo. The general subject of the Conference was education. Dr. Yahya’s exposition of Muslim theology and its concepts of man and his salvation raises several deep questions. The Christian must always be perplexed about its ready confidence that “to know is to do,” that man’s salvation happens under purely revelatory auspices and that through the law given in the Divine communication is the path that man will follow once he knows and sees it. The whole mystery of human recalcitrance and ‘hardness of heart’ seems to be overlooked. (Man and His Perfection in Muslim Theology, The Muslim World, January 1959, p. 19)

Islam has always taught a doctrine of man which does not take into account the disastrous consequences of the fall. Once a Tunisian listener put it very cogently when he wrote: “When you speak about sins in the plural, I understand you; but when you speak about sin in the singular, I don’t.” Sin, in the sense of sinfulness or propensity to break the law of God, is foreign to the mind of a Muslim and has never been a part of his doctrinal tradition.

This unwillingness to reckon with the consequences of the fall has predisposed Muslims to welcome all theories which advocate the native goodness of man. In reading Arabic literature of the modern period (i.e. since 1800), one is reminded quite often of the affinity between the Muslim doctrine of man and that advocated by such men as Rousseau and Voltaire. Not that Muslims share the French writers’ hostility to religion, but they found in them allies who had dissented from the Christian understanding of man. In Islam, man does not need redemption from the outside, for as the editor of the Muslim World explained the Muslim doctrine of man: Man’s Salvation Happens Under Purely Revelatory Auspices.

Several neo-evangelical missiologists tell us that our past efforts among Muslims and others have failed. They place the reason for our failure in the cultural area. The implication of their claims are unavoidable. Contextualize, take this and that element from the Islamic way of worship and culture, and you will begin to succeed in your mission. Actually, this approach is very shallow and does not reckon with the theological subjects which are of great importance to Muslims. For no matter how much we contextualize the gospel message, the stumbling block remains: according to the fundamentals of Islam there is no need for redemption from the outside. The Quranic doctrine of God takes care of the acknowledged need for forgiveness. Allah is both Rahman (Merciful) and Raheem (Compassionate) and he forgives sins without recourse to the death of the Messiah.

Islamic culture, as we have already noted, is totally influenced by the Muslim faith. It is impossible to divorce the two. The difficulties in missions among Muslims are real and have been with us for fourteen centuries . At this late date in history, to suggest that we shift the emphasis from the theological to the cultural is to part company with a long standing Christian tradition. Furthermore, it offers a false hope that once the “magic” of contextualization has been put into action, success is guaranteed!

We are now ready to view from a Biblical perspective the main theme of some neo-evangelical missiologists, i.e., that Christian missions among Muslims have failed because of a lack of a proper cultural approach.