Peripheral Vision Navigating the Constraints of the Ummah: A Comparison of Christ Movements in Iran and Bangladesh by Christian J. Anderson iscipleship to Jesus always takes place within the contours of particular social contexts, whether it fits smoothly into these social constraints, or rubs abrasively against them. For those following Je- Dsus in the Muslim-majority world, religion is an essential and unavoidable part of this social context. Islam is rarely a privatized or compartmentalized set of beliefs—the practices of its “Five Pillars” are public. Muslim religion interpen- etrates community life, not only intertwining with culture, but integrating with social and political structures. Yet missiologists have often overlooked this key socio-political dimension of Muslim context. Structures (Not Just Culture) as Discipleship Context In the long history and eventual decline of the historic Christian churches in the Muslim world across Asia, the limitations imposed by Muslim socio-political structures were fundamental to the working out of a public, witnessing presence.1 Those constraints continue to be basic to the dynamics of how Christians living under Muslim governments in Asia and Africa congregate and witness. Yet with regard to Muslim-background Christ fellowships and discipleship movements within Islam, western missiology has preferred to focus on religion in terms of cultural contextualization, often neglecting Islam’s social structures as an essential part of that discipleship context. It was anthropologist Charles Kraft’s application of dynamic equivalence theory to the cultural forms that the church might take in a mission context that helped set the direction for the Insider Movement debates.2 The concept of the “homogenous unit principle,” developed by Donald McGavran Christian J. Anderson is presently a and mission anthropologist Alan Tippett, focused on contextualizing the Bible and PhD student at Asbury Theological Seminary, researching insider move- Christian witness within distinct “people groups,” as delineated by language, eth- ments and their implications for the nicity, and culture. Social structure was acknowledged only as boundaries defined transmission of World Christianity. He has served as an Anglican pastor by these local affinities, potentially isolating these groups—and any people move- and church planter in Sydney, Austra- ments within them—from one another in the spread of the gospel.3 David Shenk, lia, and became interested in missiol- however, soon noticed the problems of over-emphasizing these ethnic delineations ogy through leading short-term teams 4 to South Asia. in the Muslim world with its larger sense of collective religious identity. International Journal of Frontier Missiology 35:3 Fall 2018•117 118 Navigating the Constraints of the Ummah: A Comparison of Christ Movements in Iran and Bangladesh When John Jay Travis introduced his other contribution is a recent article ethnic identities with respect to important category of “C5” Christ- by John Jay Travis and Anna Travis in religious ones) centered communities that remained which they examine the “Societal Fac- 4. Individual factors (relating to the “legally and socially” within Islam, it tors Impacting Socioreligious Identi- integrity and experience of Islam 11 was still in a framework that empha- ties of Muslims Who Follow Jesus.” on a personal level) 13 sized cultural-religious appropriation. They look at discipleship of Muslim- As I will demonstrate, these are very Thesociological context of a C5 com- background believers through the lens pertinent observations. But the factors munity of faith was obscured. Travis of Muslim social structures and focus listed are not ordered by importance distinguished between types of believ- on a similar question to the one I wish nor arranged systematically. Since the ing communities that used religiously to pursue: “why different groups of authors are (understandably) reluctant neutral language and cultural forms Muslim-background believers gravitate to publish the names of the countries (C3), Islamic cultural forms (C4), and toward different types of fellowships.”12 where certain types of fellowships have Islamic forms and aspects of Islamic In analyzing 2007 data from 5,800 emerged, it is difficult to go further and theology (C5).5 The important aspect surveys completed by field workers connect particular societal factors with of social identity in Travis’ model has across the Muslim world, the Tra- particular types of fellowship. only been pursued more recently, with vis research first pointed to a large David Greenlee’s edited collection I hope that this article will stimulate distribution of Christ fellowships in Longing for Community: Church, Um- ideas for taking socio-political context their three categories of C3 (28%), C4 mah, or Somewhere in Between? It is seriously as we compare different (37%), and C5/Insider (21%), with a book full of illuminating studies on Jesus-discipleship movements in the how individual Muslim-background Muslim world. I want to give special believers negotiate their personal attention to the Muslim ummah, that identity within Muslim society and in fundamental socio-religious struc- relation to both Muslim and Christian ture of global Muslim identity. First, communities.6 But far less has been Anthropology has I will look at the ummah as a basic written focusing on Muslim social force serving to bind together Muslim structures themselves, taking seri- traditionally society, a force with which all Muslim- ously their capacity to affect whole background movements to Christ discipleship movements (not just been more influential must come to terms. But I will argue individual identity). This deficiency than sociology. that there are variations in the potency reflects North American missiology’s of the ummah’s structural layers— interaction with the social sciences, variations which may help explain where anthropology has traditionally why a particular type of discipleship been more influential than sociology.7 movement would more likely occur Clifford Geertz’s anthropology of a further 8% in the C6 category of in one part of the Muslim world and religion has been especially prominent “secret believers.” Why the different not another. As evidence for this, I will in our missiology, and we more readily C-spectrum fellowships in different then compare discipleship movements view religion as a set of symbols that places? With the caveat that mission- in Iran and Bangladesh. evocatively communicate worldview aries themselves may have influenced meaning; we are less prone to accept the kinds of fellowship that form, the The Muslim Ummah and Jesus Talal Asad’s critique that wider social authors then identify a string of on- Discipleship processes shape the meaning of those 14 8 the-ground factors, which include: Theummah —the worldwide “Mus- symbols, or to use Peter Berger’s lim community” that’s experienced analysis of religion and societal struc- 1. Political factors (including how 9 locally and perceived globally—has ture as mutually dependent. Islamic law is enforced with con- version penalties) been held together by strong social Two recent contributions may indicate 2. Communal factors (at the family and political bonds from its inception. a correction of this tendency to focus and neighborhood level where The Qur’an uses the word “ummah” only on culture. Fuller Theological peer pressure occurs) sixty-two times, with slightly different Seminary’s 2016 Missiological Lectures meanings.15 While for the most part 3. Religious, demographic, and were devoted to trying to understand an ummah is a religious community to cultural factors (including the the “Dynamics of Contemporary Mus- which God has sent a prophet, there history of Muslim-Christian lim Societies” as vital preliminary work seems to be a progression in the latter 10 relations and the strength of 16 to any missionary engagement. The Medinan surahs, where more often it International Journal of Frontier Missiology Christian J. Anderson 119 refers to Muhammad’s community— those who have truly submitted to he ummah’s unifying force is stronger in some God under the prophet’s teaching, and places, and the different institutional structures who have now become exemplary, “the best of all communities that has been that hold the ummah together vary in strength. 17 T brought forth.” based on Muslim religious confession Whether pulled into the ummah or It was in Medina that Muhammad and practice, and an outward exclu- pushed away from it, Tim Green re- united Arabs across tribal lines into a sion of the non-Muslim who must be minds us that discipling communities socially and legally separate from the also face the issue of next-generation single community, while rallying them 25 to fight in the name of Islam against ummah. These forces bring a range continuity. For Muslim-background those from their own tribe and blood- of related challenges for a fruitful Christ fellowships that have pulled lines. Ties to the ummah now trumped disciple-making movement, which I away from the ummah, the next tribe and kin. But many characteristics associate with: generation is likely to pull further away from the possibility of discipling of Arabian tribal life would be carried 1. Faithful presence over: primary loyalty to the Muslim new Muslims: either they develop 2. Faithful distinction their own religious identity (if the “tribe,” religio-political headship, 3. Next-generation continuity spatial territoriality, and impositions