Sunday, October 14, 2012

Cody Lorance responds to Piper on Insider Movements

Piper Responds to the Insider Movement from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Let me start off by saying I’m a HUGE Piper fan.  No other author has impacted me more.  I have tons of respect for him.  I read Let the Nations be Glad! when I was in college, and it literally changed the direction of my life.  I’ve listened to more of his sermons and read more his posts and books than I have anyone else. 

But over the course of the last few years, I’ve been uncomfortable with some of his statements on contextualization and missions to Muslims.  Watching the above video confirmed some of my concerns.  I’m not an “insider proponent" (whatever that is), (neither am I a traditionalist,) but I felt that Piper has some misunderstandings and even (missio)logical fallacies in his arguments.

To that end, I strongly encourage you to read Cody Lorance’s response to Piper on the Insider Movement.  Here are some of Cody’s points:

  • There is no such thing as the “insider movement.” [We really need a better term…]
  • The American church IS ‘insider.’
  • The C Scale is invalid [I think the C Scale is helpful for its original purpose, but is overly simplistic for the issues at stake now].
  • [One of my points- I don’t know of IM people who support MBBs unequivocally continuing to worship in the mosque. You can be insider without ever going to the mosque. And some MBBs respect Mohammed they way I respect Piper.]
  • Persecution is not always for Jesus.
  • The fallacy of saying “Ex-Muslims” or the “National Church in this place” is against this, so we should be too.  [The Catholic church’s counter reformation against Luther comes to mind.]  You can always find MBBs (or missionaries) to support your view.

Here is the main point:

“It is problematic however that so many opponents of IMs are flooding the internet with a lot of misinformation, bigotry, ignorance, personal attacks, and other general silliness. And everyone who “retweets” such drivel is culpable. This isn’t a simple issue. And there are a tremendous number of people who are talking about it that should rather be listening and learning. Actually, we could all do with a little more listening and learning.”

You really need to read Cody’s full post.  It’s short but sweet, and important for the conversation moving forward.


Abu Daoud said...

In the end I suspect that American evangelicals are just not really capable of having this conversation. As Americans we are a history-less and rootless people. As evangelicals we have, for the most part, tried to get by on the bible alone (a ridiculous project) while getting rid of tradition and ritual. A tradition that lacks an appreciation for its own rituals, history, and traditions simply is not capable of making a useful contribution to matters of religious identity for Muslims who are deeply invested in history, ritual, and tradition.

Kirsten said...

Can we spend more time doing missions instead of splitting hairs? When I think of the deeply dark places in the world and then place a transparency of this dialogue over it (it being rape, slavery, killing, starvation, misogyny, lawlessness, etc)it's like nails on a chalkboard.

Kirsten said...

With all due respect to you, my 'forever family'.

Warrick Farah said...

Abu Daoud,

Would you mind unpacking your comment above, "As evangelicals we have, for the most part, tried to get by on the bible alone (a ridiculous project).."

Can you explain more what you mean by that? Esp in regards to the role the social and behavioral sciences play in missiology? Do you think evangelicals are over-committed to the Bible?

Abu Daoud said...


Of course. I mean that the concept of 'Bible alone' presupposes an interpreted lacking agency.


Abu Daoud said...