Talk:Insider movement

Comment

The article has done well to describe these developments objectively as a social phenomenon, and then describe the theological controversy about them separately. It would benefit from an objective description of controversy about them among Jews, Muslims, and Hindus as well. Alive4Him 20:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alive4Him (talk • contribs)

This is a good introduction to the subject of insider movements. It provides some of the seminal and introductory articles on the topic, giving access to those who have written on both sides of the debate on the topic. Bradford12 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent,concise, but perceptive orientation to the topic with good background and some significant perspective not found in most other discussions of the subject- e.g., the explanation of essentialist vs. cultural views of religions illuminates one of the primary causes of controversy on this topic. The article does help the reader understand the underlying reasons for disagreement between the opposing camps. One hopes that additional case studies will be cited, as this section was quite brief.Damondiamond (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a helpful article. It rises above some of the emotionally-charged, unconstructive, and even pugnacious rhetoric that has been fomented by this subject. Fpdeck (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From my experience living outside the west in a place of religious plurality, I see this article as very balanced and helpful in understanding this timely topic.Cajcg (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate how much was said in such a relatively short space. I have already used this to give a fair treatment of the phenomenon and it has greatly helped people to understand what is being discussed. The best summary I have seen! ANd that includes the summaries I have written myself :)58.8.158.42 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An article on this topic was really overdue. Great to see that the authors have come up with such a reasonable description. Tumaini99 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, great care was taken to write this article in a neutral manner. Though a controversial issue in the field of missiology, the various perspectives are represented fairly and given equal time. The editor of the article, Dr. Dudley Woodberry, is a well respected missiologist and professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Seminary. Davebogs (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Davebogs, I feel this article is very slanted. I am troubled by your deletion of my citation of Bill Nikides who calls into question the actual existence of IM's. I know Bill (though I am not Bill), and I know that my citation of his much-read article in SFM is NOT out of context. What evidence can be provided that IM's exist beyond mere allegation? Wikipedia requires that evidence be provided. Where are the sources beyond a single anecdote in IJFM? Xphilosopherking (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Xphilosopherking, I also know Bill. He just completed a documentary on an insider movement in Bangladesh. Perhaps you have not seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlVG2FQCfl8. Furthermore, you are completely misrepresenting his article by your quote. Bill is not denying the existence of insider movements. By the way, if you want another source that examines an actual insider movement you can read the latest issue of Christianity Today (January 2013). I would appeal to you to rethink what you are doing to the scholarship of this article. Thanks. --Davebogs (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dave Bogs: I looked at the video you posted and it has nothing to do with IM! It mentions one single guy who claims to be a Muslim follower of Jesus. That is not, by anyone's definition, IM. Your scholarship is mediocre and you are an ideologue, I think. It appears to me obvious that you asked a bunch of friends (student/alumni at Fuller perhaps?) to log on and say this article was great. Congratulations for rigging the game. Very Christian of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.122.1 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Davebogs, Bill and I have conversed with each other via e-mail and I am reflecting his point of view accurately. He believes that whatever IM's may exist are influenced from the outside, and do not arise purely from within the community apart from influences from outside. I am troubled by your rather dictatorial control of this Wikipedia page. Can you provide one substantial price of research on an IM that was not influenced from the West or money from the West? Please do. I have been studying the topic for years and I don't know of a single such movement. I do know there are anecdotes in IJFM but they are not case studies and no one in secular academia would ever accept them or use them, other than to show how shallow evangelical academics are. In any case, I encourage you to consider whether your conduct is ethical or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphilosopherking (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Xphilosopherking, Saying that insider movements do not exist is different from saying that insider movements have outside involvement. These are two different issues. Before you spoke of "my citation of Bill nikides who calls into question the actual existence of IM's." Now after talking to Bill you say, "He believes that whatever IMs may exist..." So which is it? Regarding your question above to me, the earliest insider movement we know of happened among the Hausa in the late 19th century. In its origins, there was no outside human influence, just the Holy Spirit and the Quran. Here is a link to a scholarly article you can read on this movement: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3369796 If you write me I can send you more information: davebogs@gmail.com. If you will, please forward me your correspondence with Bill so we may be certain he is actually calling into question the existence of Insider Movements. If he is, it would be quite strange since he has had personal interaction with at least one insider movement, which I can personally attest to, and as his documentary gives evidence of (you need to watch the whole documentary, not just the trailer). --Davebogs (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I have pretty much given up on this. What is your e-mail? I can fwd you my e-mails with Bill. Here is my point: Bill says that IM's exist, but he does not know of any that exist without the involvement of Western missionaries. In other words, what he calls IM are not what you (and R Lewis) call IM. You guys claim that there are IM's out there that are not connected in any way to missionary activity. That is what Bill contests. I think this should be part of the Wikipedia article. I feel sad to say this, as I sense that you are a fellow Christian, but you are for some reason bent on making sure that this wikipedia page does not correctly portray the current state of scholarship on the topic. Why is that? Why are you so opposed to a simple, balanced wikipedia page? Please pray about the topic brother. Xphilosopherking (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Xphilospherking, I appreciate your concern. Here is the basic issue: Maintaining the purity of IM as a technical term is very important missiologically. The problem is that there are some who are trying to hijack the term to mean something which it does not, and which the missiologists who created the term (whom I know personally) do not mean it to be. That's unfair to these missiologists and from a scholarship point of view, unethical. (Please feel free to email me at davebogs@gmail.com). --Davebogs (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is biased in my opinion. It proposes that insider movements exist without providing any evidence whatsoever in favor of the claim. The article also ignores the objective fact that the term is used both to refer to a missionary strategy as well as a purported but unsubstantiated group of 'insider' movements. The information provided in the 'case studies' section is anecdotal. Read it. It is a couple of pages with no actual information related to context. Xphilosopherking (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as the author himself declares that the article was written in a neutral manner, this is clearly not the case, as he is instrumental in working as a marionette master to cull any information that would detract the reader from his mission of neutralizing any substantive rebuttal of the Insider Movement, as well as scrubbing out any editing that would call into question his overall agenda of promoting the promoters of the Insider Movement. Caveat Emptor. Buyer Beware. Salaam CornicheSalaam Corniche (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Having lived in the Middle East for years, being involved with friends who are more heavily engaged in these issues, I sympathize with the doubts raised above. The article seems close to advocacy rather than reporting in its choice of supporting material, and, I wonder how much the supporting material goes beyond assertions that substantial and viable IM communities are a reality; is there actual provision of falsifiable hard data on said communities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.22.32 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is neither balanced (giving the best arguments of both sides) nor unbiased (it is obviously slanted toward IM and away from criticism). There is legitimate criticism of IM that is not reflected in the piece. The voices of national Christians are not to be heard in this essay; they have much to say about the misguided direction of IM. While the piece is coherent, that is it flows and moves the argument along logically, it is mortally flawed in that the article makes IM appear to be a) the crown prince of the various methodologies of missions; and b) a question about identity alone rather than a question about a biblical understanding of religion (not the comparative religion subset of a theology of religions), the role of pragmatism and the social sciences, and most importantly, the unaddressed question of the biblical support for IM. I wonder how many readers of the article know the Scriptures cited by IM proponents as support for IM (they number about a dozen) do not in fact support IM principles.

This article is actually quite dated and as the conversation has continued between the disagreeing parties, new materials have come out. None of these are to be found in this piece. Bunyan J. Towery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.227.83 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone still active in this space? As a non-academic who has recently read through Understanding Insider Movements, as well as Muslim Conversions to Christ, and many of the source articles referenced in those works, I find that the pro-IM bias in this article clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral voice requirement. It glosses over and misrepresents the theological arguments of IM critics, does not mention any notable critics except for Timothy Tennant, and links only to pro-IM webpages and publications. I would like to suggest a complete rewrite of this page, especially in light of how the issues in this controversy have evolved since this piece was last edited. IMO piecemeal-editing this into a neutral piece would require such substantive, numerous, and comprehensive changes as to mire the whole effort in a slew of ineffectual edit wars. I will be putting together some content on my workspace in the next few weeks, which should help to show how I believe this page can be recreated to reflect the best and most recent thought on both sides of this issue. In doing so, I would much appreciate any thoughts from those of you more experienced than I. Bless you all. Noersark (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these questions and expression of concerns. The article is still being tended and has been updated, particularly in regard to field research and Christ followers who are not Hindus and Muslims. Academically credible works from different perspectives (supportive, critical and neutral/mixed) are represented. Perceptions of balance do depend on eyes of the beholders (some say the article is fair and balanced, others disagree). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmoniousHeron (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)