Demographic Profiling: Missionary Toolbox Part 3

Last summer I gave an example of a narrative demographic profile when I interviewed our neighbors in Moscow and asked specific questions related to their world view. Those posts can be found here, here, here, and here. One really great tool in a missionary's toolbox is a demographic profile of his/her people group. Based on Dr. Bob Brown's* Profile (name changed for security purposes), the International Mission Board has long used specific questions to better understand a unreached people group (UPG) or even an unengaged unreached people group (UUPG) overseas. These same questions can be used anywhere, even in urban settings throughout North America:

1. Where is the UPG located?
2. What is their total population in within geographic boundaries? Are they concentrated in a country or is there also a diaspora?
3. Can you identify smaller homogenous segments within the UPG?
4. Are there any similarities between this UPG and another?
5. What do they look like physically?
6. What percentage live in urban centers? How rapidly are they moving into cities?
7. What is the birth & death rate?
8. How long do they normally live?
9. What is the leading cause of death?
10. How many attend school? How many are youth? Children?
11. Describe a college graduate job in this culture.
12. What is the published literacy rate? What is the real rate?
13. What is the culture's view of education?
14. Are they oral learners?
15. What are the leading written publications of this UPG?
16. What is the primary language in government institutions? Secondary?
17. What is their heart language? How many youth speak in the heart language?
18. What jokes or proverbs describe the people group?
19. What jokes of proverbs does the UPG use to describe outsiders?
20. How might this data above help you identify barriers or bridges to the culture? How might it affect the way a New Testament church is planted within this UPG?

Profiling: A Missionary's Strategy Toolbox

While serving in Central & Eastern Europe, I received strategy training (along with other International Mission Board strategists). One really effective tool developed by a great strategic thinker (whom I will call Dr. Bob Brown* for security purposes) is a Profile for understanding the people group with whom you'll be working. This tool was adapted from cultural research that Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins completed in Kenya. Over the next few posts, I'll share various dimensions from that tool. It is my hope that it might be used in your ongoing church planting and cross-cultural evangelism efforts wherever you are. For those doing cross-cultural ethnic work in the greater Atlanta area, pay careful attention to each dimension, no matter how recent the people group has emerged. Also, please keep in mind that to study an urban structure, each part within the city must be "mapped."

The first dimension this tool highlights is the "Geographic Dimension". Dr. Brown poses several questions for your consideration using a geographic map. Dr. Brown suggests we think in terms of major traffic channels, major intersections, specific neighborhoods, geographic areas where groups gather in homogenous groups, and specific landmarks. These are the type of questions he poses:

1. How would you describe the geographic features where your people group lives?

2. How does your people group travel? Do they use cars or public transportation? Why?

3. What is the distance your people group will travel to shop? to worship?

Dr. Brown suggests looking at those physical features of the geography and then contemplate the social importance your people group places on each item. What are the major water sources? Is there a history behind where people settled? What are the boundaries of land and water? Are there any mountains? Are there any areas that traffic has to pass to get from point A to point B?

And the big question: Do you take a different route or enjoy different landmarks than your people group?
The way you answer that question might make the difference between an unreached people group and a new church plant!

*A good example of a church in Texas using this tool to "map" out their people group can be found here.

Review of CAMEL Method of Evangelizing Muslims

I was asked again just the other day about the CAMEL method for evangelizing Muslims. I tried to explain that the CAMEL method is a bridge, but just like any man-made bridge, it has some spots that might need repair. A bridge is useful to cross a barrier, but traffic flows both ways. The materials used to build that bridge will either stand the test of time or they will succumb to the elements. Therefore, it would behoove any bridge builder to give great care in how he builds such an instrument.

Kevin Greeson describes the bridge that the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has tailored for work among Muslims in his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. In this work, Greeson argues for the use of an old Muslim proverb and one particular Quranic text, Al-Imran 3:42–55. According to the book, there is much frequency in God granting supernatural and revelatory dreams about himself, but Greeson claims that God is using this conversational method more than any other means for bringing Muslims to Christ. This method opens the door for controversy as to how much credence a Christian can give an extra-biblical text, especially that of another world religion, to be utilized for evangelism. Questions of both Christology and biblical authority can be raised.

The CAMEL Method

Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mnemonic device for remembering the words chosen, announced, miracles, and eternal life when exegeting Al-Imran 3:42-55. It would be similar to using the Southern Baptist acronym for FAITH (forgiveness, available, impossible, turn, and heaven) in evangelism. In this passage from the Quran, Greeson claims that it is possible to find a message about Jesus Christ. Almost tongue in cheek, he also employs an old Islamic proverb about only a camel knowing the last of the hundred names of God. He insists that the Quranic passage speaks about Jesus (Isa) as holy, as born of a virgin, as victorious over death, and as having knowledge of the way to heaven. The book places a great deal of stock in the conversion results that have occurred from using this method. Greeson’s thesis is that this method which he learned from a Muslim-background believer (MBB) is best program for finding a man of peace among Muslims (p. 13). He insists that “reaching Muslims for Christ is not the ultimate goal” in this method (p. ii). Instead, the method is to be a useful tool for finding the man of peace.

            In his book, Greeson cites Paul’s message at the Areopagus as biblical proof that Christians should use non-Christian cultural texts in building a bridge for establishing communication that can turn toward evangelism. He claims that Paul quoted Greek poets as sources for what immediately communicated the gospel message and later became biblical text itself. He sees this biblical precedent as no different from a modern missionary or MBB using the Quran for expressing truths about Jesus Christ.

            Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mere bridge for sharing the gospel. He then takes great great pains in the opening chapter to reiterate that it is only a bridge and should not be a parking lot. Throughout the book he reveals that method itself is potentially dangerous if not abandoned early enough in the evangelistic conversation.

Observations and Criticisms

Although the book has some strong points about engaging Muslims with their own cultural texts and perhaps even disarming the traditional animosity by citing their holy scriptures, Greeson’s book reveal some areas for potential criticism. Greeson claims that the Quranic texts reveal truth about Jesus Christ that can be cited for a gospel presentation, but the question immediately arises as to what kind of Christology can be formulated from the texts of a non-Christian religion. This in turn raises questions as to the authority that can be granted to non-Christian texts as well as the possibility of syncretism.  Yet another question is the semantic nature of Christian terms.

Greeson admits openly that a Christian theology cannot be formed from a Quranic understanding of God. However, he toys with this premise by saying that these Quranic verses can be used to communicate truth about Jesus Christ. The very verses that are employed in the CAMEL method may communicate that the Islamic Isa is holy also may communicate that he is “one of those who are near to Allah” (vs. 45), thus contradicting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. They also communicate that Isa was a man who was created (vs. 47) as opposed to being God himself. These verses, by implication, formulate a Christology that denies the divinity of Christ.    

            The dialogue used to converse with a man of peace might not be easily abandoned. The use of Quranic verses for finding a person of peace among Muslims might be akin to using the lyrics of Black Sabbath or AC/DC for finding a person of peace among head bangers. At some point the person of peace must come to understand that the very words used to attract him to an evangelistic conversation are in reality anti-Christian and therefore must be denied for his conversion. And yet the question remains as to whether the verses or lyrics used ever held any authority at all.

            Greeson seems to imply that the Quran, albeit having no authority for salvation, still is a source for salvific truth. When Greeson poses the question, “May I show what I have found about peace and salvation in the Koran?” (p. 48) he is in essence still granting some semblance of authority for finding God and salvation through that Islamic text. In yet another place, Greeson tells a story which posits that the Quran’s translation “into all the languages of the world” provides the means for which we can “know what God wants us to do and believe.” Although he quantifies his statement with a clarification as to truly understanding God through further means, his implication is that the Quran is still useful for being introduced to Jesus Christ. The question arises as to conversion through this conversation, namely at what point a convert, if ever, renounces his former religion.

            This problem is exacerbated by his instruction to “make some vocabulary changes” (p. 58). The word for God should be replaced with Allah, the generic name for a higher deity in the Muslim world. Jesus should be identified as the Isa of the Quran, and thus followers of Jesus would be called Isahi instead of the historical term Christian. In fact, Greeson admits that the term Christian carries a very negative and immoral connotation. The word church becomes jamat, and instead of having identification with the Christian churches of the western world, they are seen as specialized branches of Islam giving preference to following Isa. 

Missiological Considerations

These aforementioned observations carry some huge missiological implications. The question of biblical authority must be addressed at some point. Questions about Christiology and soteriology also must be clarified. Moreover, the issue of Christian identification is at stake.

Whatever tool employed to reach the lost becomes, by necessity, an instrument for ongoing discipleship. This has been seen historically in the western church as more and more elements of non-Christian culture have become staple forms for worship and entertainment among modern Christians. Extra-biblical texts and songs become forms of communication by which gospel truth as well as personal discipleship is passed on. Thus, any texts, lyrics, or speeches from extra-biblical sources are open media for communicating God’s truth, but they must be judged as to their ongoing value for growth in Christ.  

Is it possible to exegete the Book of Shadows from the Satanic Bible or other non-Christian texts to witness to a Satanist? The question is the basis for general verses special revelation. Are there other ways outside of the Christian Scriptures useful to make a person wise unto salvation? Are dreams, visions, and other non-biblical sources truly valuable for missiological purposes? Greeson seems to believe they are.

Albeit attractive, these same sources can produce a faulty Christology and a heretical soteriology. Greeson seems to indicate that these Isahi have truly left Islam and have identified themselves with Christ alone. It could be argued though that building a Christology on such extra-biblical parameters has in reality created a new sect, one that arguably is more syncretistic than biblical. The missiological test of any church planting is the openness to not only identifying with Christ himself but also the universal Christian church. Anything less would be unhealthy.

Greeson places a great emphasis on this bridge, perhaps too great an emphasis. He is to be commended in identifying this method as a possible means for which to initially relate to persons of peace. His book has value as it opens a dialogue for further discussion about the ways for communicating the gospel to Muslims. Missiologically, it is a pioneering work in that it opens the door for dialogue about the means for gospel communication using cultural texts in an unprecedented way.

            Unfortunately, there are theological grounds for rejecting the CAMEL method that Greeson fails to answer in his text. He also does not completely address the reaction of Muslims to his prooftexting of their sacred writings. It would be interesting to read a Muslim’s reaction to Greeson’s book. If Greeson’s purpose is to be simply descriptive of a possible method for reaching some Muslims through a nonbiblical text, the book has missiological warrant. However, it seems that he wrote the book to describe the method as normative and prescriptive, as a valid method to be indiscriminately employed. If this is the case, then at best the book is reckless.

Review of Dan Sinclair's Vision of the Possible

My next two posts will be a review of Dan Sinclair's approach to church planting, and since he interacts with David Garrison's CPM approach, tomorrow I'll observe how Sinclair and Garrison compare and contrast. Back in 2009, I posted on my blog an entry entitled, “Teaming101.”  In that post, I referenced Dan Sinclair’s A Vision of the Possible: Pioneer Church Planting in Teams and mentioned 10 good teaming questions from his book. I want to expand my observations about Sinclair’s book to include his philosophy and missiology, and let me say from the outset that I think every church planter or churches even considering the idea of planting another church should read this book.

             Dan Sinclair takes a direct approach to providing a guidebook for planting new churches with team methods in pioneer areas among unreached people groups. He carefully balances these three components, namely church planting, team, and the unreached, as key parts to his book’s thesis. Sinclair believes it is best to use teams to plant churches in pioneer areas. Although his book is written from the perspective of one having served in Muslim contexts, much of his information is transferable to non-pioneer fields as well. The book has fourteen chapters, each dealing with various aspects of church planting. Not creating an exhaustive list by any means, Sinclair has chosen the top issues that pioneer church planters confront when working on teams.

            He begins his discourse with a defense of the ongoing debate about the term apostle. According to Sinclair, apostleship has been a greatly “neglected subject” (p. 1). He believes an apostolic ministry is necessary for ongoing church planting. Therefore, he advocates that each church planting team have at least one team leader with some apostolic gifting (p. 11).

            He then moves into ecclesiology in chapter two. He defends the house church model as normative and promotes a plurality of elders for local church polity. His writing then turns from theory to practice with a discussion of the components necessary for a healthy church.

            As a supervisor of over 160 teams, Sinclair devotes chapters three and four to defining a rationale for the team approach and practical advice for maintaining a healthy effective team. He explains the importance of a Vision and Strategy Paper (VSP), which is a master plan or guide for the team’s strategic direction, and the Memo of Understanding (MOU) or team covenant. He advocates strong biblical leadership on the team but also defends a participative environment.

            Chapter five outlines the seven church planting phases developed by Dick Scoggins in Rhode Island as a useful communicative and evaluative tool. Phase I is pre-field training. Phase II is language and cultural acquisition. Phase III is personal evangelism. Phase IV is discipleship. Phase V is gathering. Phase VI is leadership development. Phase VII is reproduction. At first glance the phasing might seem like a linear approach, but Sinclair explains that “it is very common for ministry activities from various phases to be going on at the same time” (p. 60).

            He devotes chapter six to language acquisition. Interestingly, he advocates a language acquisition structure of two to three years committed to fulltime language study. Although he admits this might require adjustment in other scenarios, his “rule of thumb is thirty or more hours per week engaged in language activities for two years” (p. 102).

           Chapter seven is about platforms. Initially he deals with the ethics hurdle of doing covert missions operations, but he quickly moves into a definition of platforming. By deduction, it could be argued that both language acquisition and platforming make up phase II of the church planting phases.

            Sinclair says that “church planting is the main theme of this book” (p. 117). Accordingly, he defends personal evangelism as the central means to do so. He discusses evangelism methods that might work in resistant fields and recommends the “Discovery Course” for Muslim fields (p. 129). Although he is not in opposition to friendship evangelism, he nonetheless notes a demarcation between friendship evangelism and apostolic evangelism (p. 132). It is this apostolic evangelism that makes up phase III for church planting.

            Logically, Sinclair moves from evangelism to discipleship, phase IV in the phasing process. In chapter nine, he gives some very practical steps for hands-on discipleship. He also warns of potential pitfalls in a Muslim context.

            From discipleship he moves to phase V, leadership development that is characterized by servanthood. Team leaders are to be spiritually healthy, men or women of vision and faith, personally involved in church planting, able to listen to their team members, able to oversee individuals, and able to model accountability. Sinclair does a great job differentiating between essential and non-essential tasks of a team leader in this chapter. However, his shift in focus to the apostolic team itself is marked as he omits any mention of leadership development among nationals, perhaps what one would expect for phase V in church planting. Chapter eleven, nonetheless, does discuss the installation of elders and the timely withdrawal of foreign influence; so the shift in focus can be overlooked.

            Chapter twelve is Sinclair’s interaction with David Garrison’s statistics in Church Planting Movements. Click here for my review of Garrison’sbook. 

Sinclair adds supplemental information to Garrison’s materials in this chapter. Although much of the material overlaps, there are some dissimilarities in Sinclair’s own observations from four case studies in 2003. For example, he differs with one of Garrison’s conclusions regarding the financial support of national church leaders. Whereas Garrison promotes the POUCH approach marked by unpaid lay workers, Sinclair says this lack of financial support would make his church leaders “unable to be much involved in concerted expansion work” (p. 207).

            Sinclair defines the traditional, cell, and house church models in chapter thirteen, and then he lists some advantages and disadvantages for each. He denies that any one model is superior to the others, but he does hint at his preference for house church.

            His final chapter returns to the ecclesiological issue of multiple elder polity. In a question and answer format, Sinclair attempts to define the role of the church planter in elder installation and support. This chapter in conjunction with the epilogue places a premium on biblical teaching as the key element of church planting ministry.