Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

MISSIOLOGICAL MODELS IN MINISTRY TO MUSLIMS

BY

SAM SCHLORFF

A Reading Report

Presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements of the course MSSN 791

Models/Strategies of Contextualized Ministry for World Religions

by

Thang Kang Lo

May 17, 2019

Personal Reflection for Mission in Myanmar Local Context

The author starts with imperial model of approach and continued to the five models of

twentieth century which are direct approach model, indirect approach model, the

dialectical model, the dialogical model, and the translational model. The author addresses

the weak and strength of each model.

From the above models I have learned one principle that will be applicable in my

ministry. In respond to the director approach model, Christy Wilson wrote that, “Today

he who would present Christ to the Muslim hearts should be an expert in avoiding

argument”(13). It is the same with controversial method in imperial model. Fairman states

that “for many years I used this method (controversial)…..But what has been gained? Our

opponents have been beaten in argument, but they have not been won for

Christ…..Destructive criticism never won a soul for Christ” (p.9). In the light of these two

statements, I have learned that argument or destructive criticism would never give us

benefits in dealing with our Muslim friends and even with our Buddhist friends as well. I

need to be careful also any controversial literature that offense to Muslims. Both have

aggressive polemics to the said “truth’ of Muslim and no real contextualization which are

their weak points. The strength points for both is upholding Christ and its gospel and

give high authority of the Scripture will be helpful in my ministry.

If we apply indirect model in Myanmar context, I think it will relate the gospel message

to Muslim culture and abandons the negative evaluation of the imperial model. But there

is a dangerous. It lessens the gospel message and the authority of the Scripture. In

Dialogue Model, I think it would not work in Myanmar because mostly Muslim keep

their identity and they don’t want to have a dialogue in community with other religion. It

has two sides like a coin. If the conversation in the dialogue and exchanging ideas are
acceptable, the strength is we can make the community peace but if the conversation and

exchanging ideas are aggressive and unacceptable, then we lose the relationship between

the two parties and we may loss the authority of the scriptures and the uniqueness of the

gospel. Regarding Translation Model, it is depend. It may be applicable if the missionary

can really translate the Qur’an along with its forms and meanings it will be useful for

sharing the gospel message better but not as a bridge.

Schlorff critiques the “synthetic” approaches to Qur’anic interpretation which seek to

bring its perspective and that of the Bible closer together. He concludes that no biblical

evidence suggests such an approach, and offers principles to guide the interpretation of

both the Qur’an and the Bible. Schlorff concludes that the Bible is the only valid

theological starting point for evangelism, not the Qur’an or Muslim culture.

In the light of the above explanation, it will be very useful for my ministry to put the

Bible alone the highest authority to judge human culture and norms. In doing critical

contextualization in Myanmar, we need to collect all information of culture, traditions and

customs and examine them in the light of the biblical principles. Then, if we see thing that

are against the Bible, we need to reject them. But if we see thing that are acceptable, we

adapt them, and we may see things that are need to modify and that are things to be

substitute or create new one. But the highest authority for examine and judging those

things is only the Bible and the Bible alone, not the church.

Schlorff proposes adopting the kingdom of God as a primary theme in ministry to

Muslims. The two main reasons he offers for this are the centrality of the kingdom of God

in the Bible’s view of mission and the fact that Muslims often interpret Christian mission

as political in nature. This proposal is perhaps helpful and reasonable, although it remains

to be seen whether the Muslim concept of the kingdom of God as an essentially political
entity will render this proposal just as challenging as traditional discussions of conversion

to Christianity

On a related note, Schlorff clearly affirms the formation of churches, although he does not

mention the church in relation to his proposal on the kingdom. Given some of the more

radical, and ambiguous, approaches to the use of the kingdom paradigm in highly

contextualized models, a clear statement on the priority of the church and its relationship

to the kingdom would have been helpful for mission to Muslim in Myanmar.

Therefore, the book concludes with an overview of Schlorff’s “betrothal” model (2 Cor.

11:2-3), a combination of the author’s approach to mission, theology of religions, the

theological starting point, cross-cultural interpretation, and church strategy. A lengthy

appendix describes a U.S.-based ministry consistent with the betrothal model, Church

Without Walls, founded by Dr. Anees Zaka.

I think Schlorff’s “betrothal” model suits to Myanmar local context for wining Muslims

to Jesus and to develop of nurturing and discipleship principle in the betrothal model also

applicable in Myanmar by applying four key elements in the contextual model which are

in Bethrothal Model:

1). The objective of Mission in Islamic Culture: With a view to forming communities of

the kingdom of God, we will bring Muslims into the kingdom of God through a faith

commitment to Christ and train them in discipleship. 2) The Theological Evaluation of

Islam: According to Romans I and 2, we clearly understood that man is created in the

image of God, and Muslims are no exception for they have an intuitive knowledge of

God, of His requirements, and of their built before Him for failing to meet those

requirements. But their religion – Islam leads them to a false religious system that
deceives them and keeps them from the truth. 3) The cultural/theological Starting points:

We will not try to read Christian meaning into Qur’anic passages or Islamic cultural

forms, as that tends only to a synthesis of things Islamic and Christians. The Only

legitimate contextual/theological starting point for contextualization is the Scriptures. 4)

the Cross-Cultural Hermeneutical Method: We, therefore, do not try to merge the

horizontal of the Qur’an and the Scriptures into a synthesis. We take the analytic

approach, interpreting each book on its own terms.

In the appendix, the author develops the church without wall and its meeting for BUM,

Better Understanding Model. I think this model will be applicable. The church without

walls means “the ‘walls’ of misunderstanding and distortion between Christian and

Muslims are so high and massive that the church must take deliberate action to break

down those walls and create conditions where genuine communication can take place”

(p.164). So the church in Myanmar needs to take initial steps for breaking down the wall

and create appropriate way for communicating the gospel effectively. In order to happen

this situation, the church needs to develop BUM model that is focusing mainly to

encounter one another between Christians and Muslims for mutual understanding and

learning.

In conclusion, this book is a good book especially for Administrators, pastors and

workers in Myanmar union mission, for not only reading but to practice those models that

are applicable in Myanmar Context. Even the college seminary students should read this

book before they will be sent to the fields. The principles and approaches models in this

book are useful not only to Muslims but also to even Buddhist Background Believers.