New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Baptist seminary president labels IMB mission strategy 'heresy'
 
Baptist seminary president labels IMB mission strategy 'heresy' Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Thursday, February 11, 2010

LYNCHBURG, Va. (ABP) -- The president of Liberty Theological Seminary has labeled a method used by Southern Baptist missionaries to spread the gospel in Muslim lands deceptive and heretical.

Ergun Caner is a former Muslim who has written books labeling Islam a false religion.

In a podcast interview on the SBC Today blog, Ergun Caner blasted the "Camel Method," developed by longtime International Mission Board strategist Kevin Greeson to engage Muslims into talking about Jesus using a familiar legend from Islam. The story goes that every good Muslim knows 99 names for Allah, but there is a 100th name that was revealed only to the camel. 

According to the Camel Method, the 100th name is Jesus, or "Isa," as the name is rendered in Arabic. Using selected verses from the Quran, the method establishes three points: that Isa -- honored in Islam as a prophet but not as divine -- is holy, has power over death and knows the way to heaven. From there it goes on to present the plan of salvation by relating it to Eid al-Adha, the Islamic feast of sacrifice.

Through reportedly very effective in working with Muslims, the method has detractors who say it crosses a line between "contextualization" -- embracing Christianity in ways that are culturally relevant in a given society -- and "syncretism" -- a fusion of two different belief systems that cannot be reconciled with biblical Christianity.

For Caner -- himself a Southern Baptist and a former Muslim who has written books labeling Islam a false religion -- that line is clear. "The IMB is teaching heresy," he said matter-of-factly.

Caner said Allah as described in the Quran and the God revealed in the Bible have nothing in common. To suggest otherwise, he said, is "absolute, fundamental deception."

"You can't start an evangelistic enterprise based on deception," Caner said. "I just can't imagine that type of lying, and that's exactly what I call it.

"So you're saying [IMB President] Jerry Rankin lies?" he continued. "That's exactly what I'm saying."

Kevin Greeson, a Southern Baptist missionary, developed the Camel Method from experience working with Muslims in Asia.

Greeson, who has served with the International Mission Board since 1993, says he had little success during his first two years of working with Muslims in South Asia. They didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God or in his resurrection. They did not acknowledge the authority of the Bible, so quoting Scripture was useless.

After discovering a Christian movement in a village where many people were converting from Islam, Greeson asked about the catalyst. From there he developed the Camel Method as a way to treat Muslims with respect while challenging them to confront their own sacred writings as a bridge to the gospel.

The method is not intended primarily for one-on-one witnessing, but for planting of reproducing indigenous churches called "Jesus Groups." Greeson says there are thousands of such congregations in what he calls the largest turning of Muslims to Christ in history.

Caner said the issue is not whether the method works, but rather if it represents biblical Christianity.

"There's a huge difference between building a church and building a crowd," he said. "There's a huge difference between having a movement with results and having a movement with eternal results."

Caner said he has no problem using the name "Allah" for God when speaking in Arabic -- that is the name Arab Christians have used for the deity since before Islam began -- but telling a Muslim that Allah in the Quran refers to the Christian God is dishonest.

The Camel Method seeks to engage Muslims into talking about Jesus using verses from the Quran as a bridge.

Proponents of the Camel Method say it isn't intended to be a full presentation of the gospel message but a point of connection with a goal of leading Muslims to accept Christ as revealed in the Bible while retaining their ethnic identity in an Islamic culture.

John Travis, a pseudonym for a Christian who has worked with Muslims in Asia for many years, said that for the majority of the world's 1 billion Muslims, changing religions is something that is never seriously contemplated.

Yet, Travis said he personally knows many Muslims who have put their faith in Jesus. Some formally convert to Christianity and worship at local churches identified with Western denominations or in small home fellowships with other Muslim-background believers. Fearing persecution, others worship underground. Still others, sometimes called "Messianic Muslims," reject teachings of Islam that directly contradict the Bible -- like the teaching that Jesus did not die on the cross -- but do not view or describe themselves as Christians.

IMB trustees adopted guidelines in 2007 regarding "contextualization" of church-planting methods among unreached people groups.

The IMB supports, for instance, using "Allah" when describing the God of the Bible but not the theological construct represented by the name as used in the Quran. While condoning the use of a culture's sacred text for "bridge building," the guidelines caution missionaries to take care not to imply wholesale acceptance of those teachings. The policy affirms the need to be "ethically sound" in church-planting efforts.

"Integrity requires, for example, that we not imply that a false prophet or a body of religious writings other than the Bible are inspired," the policy says in a footnote. "There is a level of contextualization that crosses the line of integrity. Our board has dismissed personnel who have refused counsel and deliberately positioned themselves beyond that line."

Caner said he does not believe IMB personnel who use the Camel Method are "heretics," just "Christians who are teaching heresy."

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (26)Add Comment
...
written by singer2, February 11, 2010
"So you're saying [IMB President] Jerry Rankin lies?" he continued. "That's exactly what I'm saying."
What does Jerry Rankin have to do with this? He is a retiring execu who has made his contributions---for a seminary president to call Greeson a liar is not only unprofessional, but not Christ-like. To say the same for Jerry Rankin is reactionary and uncalled-for. Given Caner's background, I would be interested in his viewpoint had he not framed it in terms of accusations. I daresay, the accused believe their method to have value---they have not expressed it by calling everyone else a heretic. I have lived and worked in the academic presence of worthy institutional presidents---none would ever use that kind of condemnation---they would simply say:
"I disagree, and here are the reasons why."
...
written by Epp, February 11, 2010
Since people's souls are at stake and the CAMEL is heresy, then it is important to call this method what it is - a lie. For Dr. Rankin to call what IMB is using to share with Muslism is not CAMEL, when it is solidly built on CAMEL would make him a liar.

This is NOT a philosophical disagreement over the best ways to share the Gospel with people. This is NOT about erudite phrases that allow us to still share coffee. This is about the NATURE of the Gospel and HONEST presentation of the offense of the cross.
...
written by sepherim, February 11, 2010
So even from the grave, Falwell is reaching out to transform the SBC in his own image. It worked with the seminaries and other agencies, but the IMB, in spite of being forced to accept the BFM creed, has been able to maintain at least a little respect outside of the SBC world. If they allow someone from Liberty, no matter what his background, to determine how they should reach out to Muslims, they are selling out. Other than a few individuals, I have never known of anything to come out of Liberty and this is no exception.
it depends
written by Xenophon, February 11, 2010
I would have to see or hear exactly how the Camel Method is phrased in actual cases in the field, but from what I have just read, I do not see a problem with it. In fact, it sounds not only effective, but theologically sound.

Humans possess a universal knowledge of God, and it sounds as though the Camel strategy plays on that awareness in similar fashion as did Paul's strategy of appealing to the unknown god at Mars Hill.
Xenophon
written by Mark Osgatharp, February 11, 2010
Xenophon,

You said,

"it sounds as though the Camel strategy plays on that awareness in similar fashion as did Paul's strategy of appealing to the unknown god at Mars Hill."

Does it really now?

Remember that: A. The God Paul declared to the Greeks was one that they admitted they didn't know. Unlike the Muslims who claim that their God is the true God and that the Koran is truth, both of which claims have no validity whatsoever. B. Certainly there is a difference between a mere rhetorical platform for a sermon and a whole system of witnessing (the very idea of which is antithetical to the fundamental definition of a witness). C. Considering that Paul began his discourse by charging them with being "too superstitious", any attempt to use his example to justify approaching the Islamic religion as if it contains some truth and is worthy of some respect is just downright dishonest.

Mr. Caner hit the nail right on the head. Those who promote such anti-gospel and deceptive tactics are liars.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
...
written by bjeaster, February 12, 2010
The Camel method (if you actually read the book) is to be a BEGINNING point of discussion -- like Paul used the alter to the "Unknown God" as a beginning point to his discussion with the Athenians. The Camel method is a bridge -- not the whole gospel, nor is it meant to be the whole gospel.

On the other hand, Mr. Caner. What is YOUR experience in working with Muslims (other than being a former Muslim yourself). Have you been a missionary in a country where there are Muslims? Have you developed a fool-proof way to begin a conversation that would keep the hearer's ears open?
Staggerging unbelief!
written by Mark Osgatharp, February 12, 2010
bejeaster said: "Have you developed a fool-proof way to begin a conversation that would keep the hearer's ears open?"

Paul said: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. "

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Let's see if I have this straight?
written by mcskinny, February 12, 2010
A former Muslim wants to debunk a method that is working at winning Muslims to Christ and only use a method that has a dismal failure rate. Is that correct?
Paul met the Greeks where they were spiritually. It seems to me that the "Camel method" does that exact same thing. Paul showed meeting people where they are is far superior to trying to jerk them up to your level of belief and knowledge of Jesus the Christ.
Fundamentalism at its best. Do it my way or hit the highway.
By the way, when did Liberty Theological Seminary become a Southern Baptist Seminary? Surely Southern Baptists are not giving to support this seminary are we?
Charlie Mac
Winning them to Christ?
written by Bobby McCord, February 12, 2010
If someone believes that Christ is another name for Allah, they haven't been won for Christ. You cannot be a Christian and maintain an Islamic identity. You can't serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other. Caner is exactly right. And by the way He should know. It is like our missionaries going to these Muslim countries as school teachers or nurses, never preach or teach the gospel, never witness about Christ, and just hope they will be saved by osmosis. I pray that missionaries needs will be met but I also pray that they will be a BOLD witness for Christ. That is what they prayed in Acts. You cannot reach Muslims by telling them that Allah and Muhammed are good but Jesus is better. Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." I guess that's narrow minded, prejudice, and biggoted. But when you have "Christians" here that compromise the Word and are open to other religions, it is not surprising that it has reached our mission fields.
...
written by bronco, February 12, 2010
There are two types of revelation, general and special. It is ok for christians to acknowledge areas of agreement with others via general revelation ( general truth given to all cutlures to one degree or another) in any given religion or philosophy. This includes Islam. There are degrees of truth in islam that come from general revelation. Might not be enough to save but when it is there it can be acknowledged as truth even though we don't believe it to be special revelation truth.

Christians can always look for common ground with others using general revelation as a starting point. Sometimes these come in different stories that are non western in structure etc. (see richards eternity in their hearts) Christians of course believe the Bible is the only reliable and authoritive source for SPECIAL revelation that leads to Salvation via faith in Christ. But it is certainly ok and perhaps should even be required for missionaires (good missionaries at least) to learn and know of common ground between Christianity and a given culture via that culture's general revelation of truth. It would seem perfectly fine if that is the starting point to lead others to recognize one day special revelation that can lead to knowing Christ. Missionaires have been doing this for years, and I think Paul was the first one.
In response to the article, and the question about when Liberty became an SBC seminary...
written by Nathan, February 12, 2010
If I remember correctly, it was in or after the early nineties that the Falwell kind of independent Baptists found that the “conservative resurgence” had finally brought the SBC up to their standards. They chose to associate themselves with that which they had maligned for years (that to have a convention is somehow dangerously liberal, b/c your church can become tainted with the creep of modernist heretical thinking that lurks among “mission societies” and other denominational agencies and they’re going to use your money to do it). If you have grown up around the KJV-only crowd, you have probably heard this before. The fact that these folks who spent decades in the 20th century throwing rocks at our Southern Baptist heritage - maligning good Baptist people, mission leaders, and the quality of their faith – the fact that these people now feel comfortable in the “new” Southern Baptist Convention, post ca. 1990, tells you all you need to know about the direction that the fundamentalist insurgents have taken it. And now the agencies of the SBC are reaping the benefits of their new friends, by receiving internal pot-shots from Lynchburg. Get rid of the unacceptable Baptists and the line of “liberal demarcation” instantly moves. Who’s next on the too-liberal list? The circular firing squad keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Caner's comments
written by Slick, February 12, 2010
Only because I know Ergun Caner and have directed the music at some services where he's spoken do I concur with his comments. Liberty in NOT a Southern Baptist seminary and I can't believe Bob Allen would so state. Ergun is probably more knowledgable about Islam than 99.99 percent of all Baptists--Southern or not. If Muslims don't choose to believe, the fallout is on them. The great commission responsiibility is to tell not to convert everyone.
reply to Mark
written by Xenophon, February 12, 2010
Mark, you make some good points, and since I am not sure what those on the spot who use the Camel Method say exactly, I cannot rule out the dangers you suggest being real ones. I also agree that Islam is a false religion taken in its entirety. But if a Christian simply plays on universal truths that all humans have access to in conjunction with isolated truths that Islam contains or could be interpreted as true transplanted in a Christian framework, then I do not see that a Christian should not take a grain of truth where they see it to open a Muslim to the true understanding of God.

I would argue that we have to take people where they are with their understanding of God and how to be in proper relationship with him. Jesus seemed to do this as did Paul. One strategy is to find a point of entry that the non-Christian might understand and appreciate given his background and current beliefs. We can then introduce bits of truth as best as the non-Christian can absorb and make sense out of what a Christian is presenting to them. There must be some overarching framework present in a person's mind for them to grasp what someone is saying to them. This framework was termed a "paradigm" by the late philosopher Thomas Kuhn as he considered how changes come about in scientific theories. The same principles can hold true for any area of belief. After gradually building a scaffold to work from as he punches some holes in the person's present spiritual framework, the Christian can then press the contradictions (what Kuhn called "anomalies") within their system as the non-Christian comes to accept more and more of the truth. Then the non-Christian can reach a critical point in his escape from the web of deceit that he has been engulfed in, many times from birth, where he can make a paradigm shift to Christianity. Kuhn terms this the "crisis" phase. The final shift to another paradigm, in this case Christianity, may come slowly or suddenly, but it can be set up by introducing doubt into the non-Christian's consciousness as one also introduces bits of the truth that the potential convert is already familiar with and accepts. Without this set-up, it is very difficult to get an opening that the other person can even begin to understand since they as well as all of us make sense out of everything one might say in terms of the overall religious paradigm that the person is steeped in.

I do agree that there should be the proper follow-up and continued immersion in the truth since, by force of habit and cognitive structure, new converts are likely to slip back into interpreting their newly found faith in terms that are more familiar to them. This process creates the possibility of syncretism that you are Dr. Caner fear. And you are both right to have such a fear. I have read that many converts to Christianity who are not continually immersed in a Christian culture or on-going teaching fall back into many of their previous beliefs or practices but make sense of their lapses in pseudo-Christian terms. They, in effect, blend their old religion with their newly found one. Frankly, this danger is present no matter the initial approach to gaining someone of another faith's ear.

So, I think I have addressed your point A in my comments so far. I am not sure what you saying exactly in your Point B. I do not see any problem with coming up with a strategy to open people up to a Christian witness, such as Dr. Barnhouse's famous set of questions to ask someone to introduce them thinking about their eternal destination. I would agree that we must not approach anyone solely in terms of working some sort of trick on them that disregards the central role of the Holy Spirit in a person truly being born again as well as subtly treating the person as a mere means to an end as we follow a formula that disregards their individuality. As for your Point C, I would agree that at some point in talking with someone of another religion, we should make it clear that their current religion is false. I would not necessarily do that up front, but you are correct that a person should be made very aware at some point that Christianity offers the only real hope of reconciling with God as well as clearly spelling out the nature of the true God.
What did Bob Allen so state?
written by Marty Duren, February 13, 2010
Slick-
I, too, find it difficult to believe that Bob Allen would call Liberty a Southern Baptist seminary. I see "Baptist seminary," "Liberty Theological Seminary" and that Caner is a "Southern Baptist," but do not see any representation that Liberty is a Southern Baptist seminary.

Can you help me out? Every descriptor Allen used is correct. I just don't see the problem.
Title
written by mcskinny, February 13, 2010
I thought the title of this article was "Southern Baptist Seminary President-----". I either read it wrong or it was changed. I agree with Nathan. One way to eliminate many of these "Baptist" institutions who do not really agree with SBC way of doing things would be to qualify membership to the convention based on percentage of receipts. That aint gonna happen, but it should!
Charlie Mac
...
written by Hal Eaton, February 13, 2010

Ergun Caner is one (another) of the great rascals of modern SBC history. Google his website, and wonder, with me, why his self-provided "bio" is unavailable. Click on his "store," and buy a CD (i. e.. "Why I am pre-destined never to be a hyper-Calvinist,") for $15, plus $5 S&H, or a T-Shirt or coffee-cup, each for -- you guessed it -- $15, plus $5 S&H. He has the know-how to run his own You-Tube Channel, plus Twitter. Check his academic credential -- BA, MA, MDiv., MTH, ThM (or Th,M)(or sometimes a PhD) from little-known schools or genuine diploma mills. Check further uner "Merele's Miscellany" for more detailed attacks on Caner's veracity.
...
written by denniswiles, February 13, 2010
I am stunned by Caner's take on Kevin's incredibly successful ministry among Muslims. I hope Kevin and many others continue their work in the Islamic world--leading thousands of Muslims to Jesus, while Caner twitters and blogs.
...
written by Bobby McCord, February 14, 2010
If those Muslims don't reject Islam, Allah, and Muhammed, they cannot and have not accepted Christ!!! Adding Christ to their list of God's may make the missionaries feel better but it won't save the muslims. Christ alone and Christ always is the only gospel.
Read Galatians 1:8,9 Liberty is not a Southern Baptist Seminary but I wish it was. Caner is a great man of God who knows what it takes to convert a Muslim to Christ. Caner and his family are still threatened constantly by Muslims because he rejected Islam and accepted Christ.
The God of Genesis through Revelation is called "Allah" in Arabic
written by Arce, February 14, 2010
In French, "God" is "Dieu". In Spanish, "Dios". In Arabic, "Allah". There is no other word for "God" in Arabic. So Christians who speak Arabic, pray to "Allah" by which they mean the God of the Bible.

What is said in prior comments here bespeaks a woeful ignorance. If you are going to comment, at least learn enough to comment knowledgeably.
Ignorance
written by Bobby McCord, February 15, 2010
You need to research Islamic history and literature on Muhammed. Muhammed started the religion by picking Allah out of hundreds of false gods in which to worship in his new religion. When Arabs praise Allah they are not praising the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You cannot honestly believe that Arabs worship the God of Israel. They want to exterminate Israel. You ,Arce,are the one displaying your ignorance. Read John 14:6. If believe the Bible to be authoritative. If not, keep believing the lies in which you base your misguided opinions on.
concerning the Moon god theory
written by ErwinIq, February 15, 2010
Bobby, I searched the Moon god story and found that it is not a solid case.

MOON GOD
Currently, there is an ongoing debate as to whether the Allah of the Qur'an is in fact a pagan Arab moon god of pre-Islamic times. The idea has been mentioned in literature for more than a century, but only recently has the theory been seriously promoted. The theory is briefly presented in some of Dr. Robert Morey's books and pamphlets written since 1991.

Most academic theories are discussed for decades before they are either abandoned as dead ends or adopted as truth. The proponents and opponents of this theory both readily admit they are awaiting further research and archaeology to vindicate their claims. Many have resorted to making hasty accusations in testy debates. This may make it difficult to distinguish between what is fact and what is pure rhetoric. We, however, invite the reader to take a scholarly "wait and see" approach to this subject.

You can find this indepth research on www.answering-islam.org/Index/M/moongod.html

The Arab Christians before the time of Mohammad used in their writings, "Allah".
...
written by Hal Eaton, February 16, 2010
Most of these comments suggest that "Allah" is not our god, but "theirs". I offer that if any human being seeks to worship "God," then "our" God does not say, "Go away, kid, you're bothering me. And you're calling me by the wrong name."

God is God is God -- Jehovah, Adonoi, Yahweh, Allah, or Charlie, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Google that one; it is an expression of the search for truth) if you are seeking Him with veracity. Give God credit for being more tolerant, loving, and understanding (that's MY version) than YOU are.

Even God is not a Biblical inerrantist . . .
If you want to know, look at their tracts
written by Pierrerashad, February 18, 2010
Below is a link to one of the Camel Method tracts. This should make it pretty clear where they stand.
The IMB has formally condemned C5, so it seems to me that now all the insider types that they support are now vehemently claiming to be C4. I see this as nothing more than an attempt to keep their funding. If you want to know what they really believe, read their material below.
A few things to notice in the tract:
1. How much the Qur’an is quoted, with specific references, and how readers are encouraged to find a Qur’an in their language (pg 3)
2. How little the Bible is quoted, often without even a reference to which book or whose words the verse is.
3. Sonship of Christ is entirely missing.
4. Muhammad is a prophet, about whom they incessantly say “peace be upon him”
5. Isa is a prophet, about whom they do not even once say “peace be upon him”
6. Jesus is portrayed as scapegoat-saviour, but not as Lord.
7. Their goal is to create “Pakka Muslims” (true, or completed Muslims), not Christians.
8. There is no call to repentance or holiness.
9. The main conclusion is “if you want to go to heaven, say this prayer and Allah will put your sins on the prophet Isa” The tract ends with this:
“Today you, too, can become a Pakka Muslim. All you have to do is to believe that Allah gave the korban for you, substituting Isa for you. Stop now, hold your hands up before you, and humbly tell Allah that you receive His korban and thank Him for placing on Isa the punishment for your guilt and sins. In this way, Allah will forgive you of your sin and remove its curse from you. When you are cleansed of your sins, then you can go to be with Allah after you die. You can now live your life in peace knowing that after death you can go directly to be with Allah.”
My analysis is that they are advocating a superstitious belief that the Prophet Isa can give you a free ticket to paradise. This fits in great with the multitude of “folk-islamic” beliefs and superstitions that permeate the uneducated masses, but it’s not the true gospel. It’s disgusting how they are deceiving ignorant Muslims by twisting the Qur’an to say things that contradict itself.
C5 or not, this is heresy. Heresy, while a strong term, is exactly what this is.
Here is where you can find their tract: http://www.camelmethod.com/downloads/Ruhullah_English_eBook.pdf
Baptist seminary
written by Slick, February 26, 2010
Like Charlie Mac, I think the original headline included the term Southern. At any rate, what is posted now says: Baptist seminary president labels IMB mission strategy 'heresy'

Caner is, in fact, a seminary president and happens to be Baptist. If *Baptist* is intended to modify *president* rather than *seminary,* then the headline is technically correct but certainly misleading.
...
written by kwcarp, March 13, 2010
The article Does NOT say Liberty is SBC, it says Caner is and that is correct since Thomas Rd Baptist Church is in fact affiliated with the SBC and the SBC of Virginia.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.