1. "The church" is unnecessary, but beneficial for many people.

2. Risking being ostracized or even death for simply using Christian language (rather than focusing on love) is anti-Christian.

I don't know where the line is, but somewhere along the way, Jesus may not expect to use "Christian" language necessarily, but he certainly expects every believer to name the name.

"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." --Jesus Christ, Matthew 10:33.

For centuries Christian have been willing to die rather than not be able to say "Jesus is Lord."

Just saying.

I often feel like I'm a Christian insider for atheistic naturalists. Hmmm... An interesting predicament. It doesn't feel like there is a clear path here. Maybe this is where the individual must seek contextual guidance and the prodding of the Holy Spirit.

I think a very interesting example of what this fine article is saying is found in 2nd Kings 5 after Elisha healed Naaman of leprosy. Naaman came to believe in the true God but yet he had to carry on his life in a very pagan context.

Especially note, Elisha's response.

2nd Kings 5:

"18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”

19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said."

It seems to me that Insider movements are difficult for American Christians (myself included) to understand because we don't realize that we ourselves are not just "Christians." We are Western-Enlightenment-Naturalistic-American Christians. (You get the point.) We ourselves are a mix of a particular culture and the gospel. The church is always the intersection of a particular culture and the good news of the gospel of Jesus. Discipleship is the hard process of submitting all of ones culture to Jesus for Christians in the West just as it is/will be for those in insider movements. I think Insider movements within the "culture" of Islam or Hinduism are certainly churches, just not like we think of them. I appreciate these movements because they help us rethink our Ecclesiology, which might just be one of the key shifts ahead for Western Christians in this century.

Ed’s response is interesting. I think it is a good response. But I see troubling implications with it since it is not the common word; it is an exception to a rule. We are not so long after Elijah who pinned the whole nation to the wall for the fact that they were compromised in their following Yahweh with a singular heart and with no attachments to the gods of the nations around them. A religious syncretism in Israel truly plagued the whole nation. For this reason I struggle with this type of answer. I do not see it as an answer that has such wide application… it is an exception and not the rule I think.

That being said, I also think is too easy for American Christians to judge and condemn believers in other parts of the world since we have it entirely too easy here. The worst that happens to us here is to be uninvited to a large event where we were to pray. I think it is also hypocritical for American Christians to judge the believer living in a Hindu or Muslim world for compromising on cultural issues while the American Church is entirely too compromised in its own dealing with the culture here. I have heard it countless times from non-believers that they did not know some of their friends were Christians since there was nothing in their life that made that obvious. There was nothing that set them apart as followers of Christ.

Far too many people speak against such matters and have no real concept of what it is like being a missionary in such countries. I have spent time dealing with missionary issues like this so I am not in any hurry to judge them. While I totally get the words of Jesus about not denying Him before men, I am not prepared to sit in judgment on them from where I live right now…

This is an extremely difficult subject, God help us do what is right.

I think the question is " Can a person be both Muslim and Christian?"
Can one "convert" /accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and continue in Islam and its religious tenets, rituals, etc? Scripture seems to me to be a call to new life, abandoning the things of the past and following Jesus. Some Muslim Background Believers that they have suffered when they made the decision (persecuted by Ms and family. Some have even suffered death.) These believers say that one must separate, come out completely to follow Jesus and insist that others do the same to be truly Christian.

I believe God is at work in these believers--sometimes a new and fragile plant needs to get its start in the dark for a while before it is ready to be exposed to the light.

It seems to me Luke makes a very insightful point about American Christians not being just "Christians" either, but rather "Western-Enlightenment-Naturalistic-American Christians." I might even argue that a lot of that specifically "Western, post-Enlightenment, Naturalistic" stuff is actually counter to genuine apostolic biblical Christian faith and that American Christianity in all its dominant forms represents something of a hybrid or distortion of Christian faith and is not pure Christianity either.

I also find a lot to agree with in Mark Gomez's comments.

How many people do you need to make a "church"?

How about 2 or 3?

It is quite possible to assemble with other Christians to carry out the purposes of the Body without attending an institutional church. Institutions may be useful when done right, but in the circumstances these believers face, they definitely are a hindrance.

What do you think of insider movements?
I am in favor of it. It's like Jesus sending his disciples into villages looking for the man of piece, and only then connecting with the good news. I'm sure these saints are connecting in this fashion. No use connecting with men of jihad to share the gospel.

What’s the relationship of the local church to the universal church?
The local church is to display the universal church. Unfortunately, in it's pulpit and pew routines, it displays the opposite. It displays factions and division. It displays one way communication rather than "considering how you can spur one another on to love and good works" which is the dynamic we are to "not forsake" in Heb. 10:24 (two-way communication). "Preach the word...." does not mean "lecture the Word...no questions, no participation, no anything from the gathered royal priests. It displays perpetual dependency on hired experts, rather than deep mutual inter-dependency on any and every gifted, anointed saint. The system is massively counter-Biblical.

What impact does this have on mission, worship, and evangelism?
Anytime any believer is free of the trap and addiction of institutionalized forms, as the insiders are, their faith will grow and reproduce far greater into reaching all nations, than the most loyal pew sitter or pulpit talker. We have the clear revelation of God to dump this system, but most saints are spiritually inebriated with their tradition driven comfort zone. Even though we are "free" to speak our faith without fear of death, most saints will not "proclaim the glories of Him who called them from darkness to light" because weekly when they gather they presume themselves unqualified to speak truth to their fellow body members. They demonstrate zero expression from God's heart to theirs and passed on to His people. They expect God will funnel his truth through only the pulpit folks. What a disaster system to contradict witness.

Did I say that too harshly, or is the tragedy worthy of a strong rebuke?

Paul Pastor makes some good points in this article and I appreciate his courage to address this issue. However, the subtitle, "Can someone say "yes" to Jesus and "no" to the church?" is the wrong question. I'm involved in Insider movements, and no one I know is saying "no" to the church. The more relevant question is: "Can someone say "yes" to Jesus and "no" to institutional religion?" The answer to that question is a resounding "YES". It's happening all over the world... not just in closed countries where the church is still in an embryonic form.

I wish all the armchair theologians and critics would just get on a plane and spend a few months getting to know these sincere followers of Jesus personally. They may not hold orthodox theological views on some points, but then Jesus Himself wasn't orthodox, nor evangelical... He wasn't even a christian. So, let's leave the whole Christianity thing aside and judge these disciples, not by their theological orthodoxy, but by their joyful, obedient allegiance to Jesus as Lord. After all, isn't that what the Master is really looking for?

"Isa al Masih came to my home with the kingdom of God. He didn't completely explain theological issues, he only said, "If you will follow.""

I think Abu Jaz's quote here sums the whole tension up nicely. The Kingdom is always held in tension by contrasting points, like faith and works or obedience and grace. There isn't many things we can make a hard and fast rule for (outside of scripture) and expect it to apply to everything. That being said, its wonderful that there are believers in other cultures where Christianity is more threatening and they should be living in a way that will bring the most glory to God in every situation. That may come through martyrdom or quietly showing love and grace to the people around them. God is fully capable of working however He wants, as long as He has willing followers.

This definitely has an interesting impact on mission, worship and evangelism, although I don't think it will be a negative impact for the most part. While fellowship with other believers may not be the highest priority or even a possibility, there is always a personal call to fulfill the mission of Christ. That can, and should, happen wherever the person is. Paul talks about the life of the believer and living in whatever situation you are in because God has called you in that place (1 Cor 7:21). A believer should be seeking to meet with others, and set aside practices that are not glorifying to God, but this doesn't mean that their culture or lifestyle is required to make a total change.

Insider Movements are indeed a hot topic these days, especially after that CT issue. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic.

Peace,
Duane A. Miller, Nazareth