writings in this issue on our frontpage. If you click the button 
| Explaining the Atonement to the Arabic Muslim in terms of Honour and Shame |
|
Years of Christian mission in the Arabian Peninsula have produced little effect, it seems. Some claim this is due to the presentation of the Gospel in terms of penal substitution, which they regard as culturally insensitive. It has been suggested that using ‘honour and shame’ to present the Gospel
would have greater impact. Grant DeVries wrote about this in a thesis for Master of Arts in Ministry. Penal substitution is problematic for Arabic Muslims, he argues. In Islamic theology sin is simply individual forgetfulness and is relatively simple to deal with because it does not affect human nature. The Qur’an also specifically denies both the death of Christ and the possibility of substitution. Qur’anic solutions to sin call into question the unity of God. Honour and shame are significant motivations for Arab Islamic people. Anthropology, journalism, linguistics and literature all show significant influences of honour and shame. However the concepts themselves are not easy to define. They appear to be highly context specific and significant uncertainty surrounds their application to specific situations, as DeVries shows. The Bible does describe the work of Christ in terms of honour and shame. But the work of Biblical social anthropologists is undermined by reliance on concepts of honour and shame that are outdated in the field of secular social anthropology from which they first came. It is not clear that using English to equate Greek/Hebrew and Arabic concepts is accurate or viable. >> read complete thesis |