“Is it possible for a Muslim Background Believer (MBB) to continue to live in his Muslim society?  This is how the issue is often framed by IM advocates, causing a confusion of categories.  In this scheme, Christian is not contrasted with Muslim nor “Christian society” with “Muslim society.”  Rather, the emphasis is placed on the overlapping categories of “Muslim background” and “Muslim society.” The question itself is a set-up. What lies behind it is not only a set of presuppositions but also a veiled imperative.”

Insider Movement (IM) advocates arrive at their conviction by a variety of different ways. For example, the behavioral sciences are viewed as furnishing a hermeneutical key that unlocks both the Bible and the door into other religions. Other advocates of IM are bare pragmatists and find in IM a possible solution to reaching resistant peoples when all other options have been tried and apparently failed. Still others are universalists and see in other religions a spark that will spontaneously ignite into “christianities” of different forms. Then there are the ecumenicists outside of the evangelical camp who see the lines between Christianity and other religions as blurred beyond recognition. Lastly, there are the pietists who do not concern themselves with doctrine and perceive IM as a movement of the Holy Spirit authenticated by astonishing anecdotes. Some advocates are open to any of these avenues while others are more selective.

This diversity of streams that lead to adopting an IM view represents a challenge to the critic who would appropriately seek to follow IM back to its philosophical source and contrast it with Biblical Christianity. If the critic follows one IM tributary it will inevitably be to the neglect of others. The unfortunate consequence of such a selective approach is that while one contingent of IM advocates will be exonerated, IM itself will remain a viable methodology, however qualified.

What, then, is the philosophical core of IM? There is no such core. In other words, there are a variety of theological systems that, when implemented, can be identified as promoting IM. This essay will not attempt to challenge any of these systems but rather will address what they all share in common.

The central argument of this essay is that confessional and historic Christianity is entirely at odds with IM. There is no overlap which could accommodate both confessional Christianity and IM. To accommodate IM is to compromise the gospel.

Such a bold and categorical statement demands a clear definition of IM. A variety of definitions has been put forward by IM advocates. Most of these definitions appear relatively innocuous and reasonably orthodox. While all of them are helpful articulations, none of them offers a full disclosure – and anything less than full disclosure on issues central to the gospel represents deception of the highest order (Gal 5:7-12). This is not to implicate all equally since most IM advocates are merely flowing with the stream of their particular theological system; indeed, some, perhaps, are even moving slightly further downstream from their predecessors. Due to this lack of full disclosure IM cannot be dealt with on its own terms. If clarity is to be achieved a definition based on the Scriptures is necessary.

Definition: IM affirms that a Christian ought to retain the identity of his socio/religious background. IM denies that a Christian ought to assume a Christian identity.

Central to this definition of IM is the matter of Christian identity. IM advocates will never agree to this definition because of a fundamental misunderstanding of identity. Identity according to the Bible is first of all objective and corporate. All of humanity as image of God is sub-divided into two and only two ultimate classifications, both of which are historical. One corporate identity has Adam at its head and the other has Christ. The former is the de facto identity of all of humanity. The Holy Spirit, uniting the believer to Christ at the point of his regeneration, ensures that there is no middle ground. The subjective experience of identity, however variable, cannot be divorced from this objective reality. Thus it is proper to state that a Christian has a singular ultimate identity, which is in Christ. An individual identity derived from the corporate – in being baptized into Christ’s body.

This in-Christ identity is a spiritual identity. To speak of a “spiritual identity” does not imply Platonic, Aristotelian, or Kantian dualisms which allow for two independent realities. Rather, spiritual identity refers to the ultimate, holistic, and comprehensive identity wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is a “reality on the ground” embedded in the concrete historic events of death with Christ to what was prior and resurrection with Christ to newness of life. This identity that can be studied by the sciences but cannot be fully comprehended by them because it is resident in the age to come. It is an identity which is exhaustively defined in the nature of its relationship to God. The Christian is a covenant-keeper in Christ which is in utter and complete contrast to the prior identity of covenant-breaker in Adam.