My Perspectives on the Arrests at the Dearborn Arab Festival, June, 2010
Scott Cherry, Advance Ministries
For the second year, there has been much interest and controversy about incidents that occurred at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. This annual festival always occurrs on the third weekend of June, the 18th to the 20th. The incidents revolved around four members of a non-local Christian group called Acts 17 who were arrested on the 18th for “breach of peace” while interacting with Muslims and video-taping their activities for YouTube. Their trial will take place this coming Monday in the 19th District Court in Dearborn. Many reports called them “missionaries”, but I believe that is a misnomer. They could also be called “activists” for reasons I will explain below. There has been much heated debate among Christians concerning their conduct and their arrest, both for and against. It’s a somewhat complicated debate based on differing orientations toward Muslims in America, evangelism, free speech and many related issues. The amount of press this has received is impressive. Here is just one excerpt from the opening paragraph of this online report: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=169577.
Scott Cherry, Advance Ministries
For the second year, there has been much interest and controversy about incidents that occurred at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. This annual festival always occurrs on the third weekend of June, the 18th to the 20th. The incidents revolved around four members of a non-local Christian group called Acts 17 who were arrested on the 18th for “breach of peace” while interacting with Muslims and video-taping their activities for YouTube. Their trial will take place this coming Monday in the 19th District Court in Dearborn. Many reports called them “missionaries”, but I believe that is a misnomer. They could also be called “activists” for reasons I will explain below. There has been much heated debate among Christians concerning their conduct and their arrest, both for and against. It’s a somewhat complicated debate based on differing orientations toward Muslims in America, evangelism, free speech and many related issues. The amount of press this has received is impressive. Here is just one excerpt from the opening paragraph of this online report: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=169577.
"Police accused of enforcing Islamic law at Dearborn Arab Festival: "Officers arrested
four Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras,
which were recording the events surrounding their arrests."
I am a conservative Christian American living in the largely Muslim community of East Dearborn, MI. And I enjoy living here. For 12 year I have gone to the Arab festival almost every year to do evangelism and have a good time. (I did not go this year, however.) I believe that many reports regarding the arrests of Acts 17 personnel at the festival give a misrepresentation of reality. The arrests are true, but like many things require a deeper knowledge of context and perspective and history for proper understanding.
Why I Wrote This I have no desire to promote division in the body or engender angry criticism toward myself, though I expect the latter will occur. My earnest desire is to honor God and be as faithful to biblical principles as possible (and, secondarily, to American ones). As I have discussed this matter with people I believe there are important issues that are beyond the question of whether the Acts 17 brethren were right or wrong, and whether the police were right or wrong. And here I feel a conviction to wade into them at my own risk and try to interpret them. But I have done so with a sense of reluctance; several godly men whom I respect admonished me not to do so, but I began to feel that it was necessary before God.
Many other reports and YouTube videos were generated about the arrests and related events. I originally wrote this commentary (a shorter version) one week after the festival to respond to friends who know that I live here and might have personal insights to share with them, to help them make sense of the controversy. A fair number of them have responded positively, and some negatively. I still find myself sorting through the facts and the more subtle details of the affair, adjusting my views in light of them. Accordingly I have edited this to reflect my present opinions on the matter. I was asked to submit this to an email forum called COMMA (Consultation of Ministries to Muslims in North America) by a friend who felt that it might present an alternative understanding within this network. But I did not submit it due a sense that the discussion had become too heated already. I continued to develop my thoughts on the matter, however, and this article is the result.
The arrests were unwarranted, but it is more complex than that. I will state from the beginning that I believe the arrest of those four persons was unwarranted. As far as I can tell from first-hand accounts and the video footage, the Acts 17 representatives were doing nothing worthy of arrest at the time that they were arrested. (And I don’t think I have to have been an eye-witness to know that.) It seems to me that what was going on at that time was a vigorous evangelistic discussion between one Acts 17 member and a number of Arab teen boys, one of which prayed some type of public sinner’s prayer, I’m told. (I question the authenticity of that, however.) Some eye-witness reports say they were “aggravating” people just beforehand, but that does not justify arrest. So from my perspective the charge of “breaching the peace” was erroneous. I do not claim to know the real reason the arrest were made, but I don’t believe it was because of “shariah law”. I believe that any of my colleagues or I could have done what Acts 17 did (engaged in a vigorous informal open-air discussion with Muslims) and not been arrested—because we have done it. So the reasons Acts 17 personnel were arrested, I suspect, have everything to do with who they are specifically and how they conducted themselves in the broad sense. I doubt that it was because they were ordinary Christians simply doing public evangelism at that time, and that is what happens to any and all Christians who try to do evangelism at the festival, as they have publically claimed. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. Moreover, if the matter of their arrests were the only question to be addressed it would be a simpler issue. But I think it’s more complicated. I believe there are other facets, or lenses, through which we should also analyze the events that played out, starting with their “debut” the previous year. Only when we consider all of them can we hope to arrive at an accurate assessment. *Note: Since the original writing of this piece the Acts 17 personnel were tried in the 19th District Court (September 20th) and found not guilty.
Some have challenged me that it is not our business to assess or evaluate the actions of other believers who have the conviction that they did what they felt God wanted them to do. But I think this is erroneous for many reasons which I trust I need not articulate in great detail. Here are just three:
1) The believers can be wrong about the authenticity of their conviction that God wants them to do something. That is, it is possible that God did not really issue the command.
2) They could be right about their conviction but wrong in their methodology, or their timing or their location or their attitudes. A divine command does not preclude poor execution.
3) They could have the previous two things right, and still fail (or seem to fail). But whether they succeeded or failed they can give a distorted report or interpretation of events.
Should Christians judge other Christians? Now, the Bible commands Christians to be very careful in their evaluation of other Christians’ actions, but not to suspend them entirely (“reprove, rebuke, exhort”). If believers could not exercise mutual correction within the body, we could rely only on the world for correction! I have experienced much criticism myself and I do not enjoy it. But much of that criticism has brought about my sanctification. I am trying very hard to be fair and true to biblical principles, and to restrain what might be harsh or undue criticism. Some believe that the Matthew 18 prescription must be followed in situations like this, involving fellow believers, but I don’t think so. The fact that this is a public issue, made public largely by the Acts 17 personnel themselves via their videos and their website, removes it from the arena governed directly by the principles of Mathew 18. I will not delve into this biblical question any further, except to say that I have tried very hard to temper both my opinions and my words.
Four Areas of Focus As I have reflected on this, it seems to me that the analysis of the events and the current debate among us as Christians can take on one focus or another, depending on one's orientation. We could also call each of them a “lens”. These include legality, propriety, and what I will call “biblicity”.
1) Legality/constitutionality
2) Propriety and respect
3) Biblicity or theology
4) Protectionist
1) Legality It can have a legal-constitutional focus on whether the arrests of Acts 17 were legally right by constitutional standards, or whether the Dearborn police over-stepped their bounds and violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested. In America this is a necessary focus, but not the only one that is necessary. A closely related set of questions has to do with whether the precipitating activities of the arrested persons were, again, legal and constitutional in that context, or not. A third related set of questions within this focus has to do with one's disposition toward Islam, its influence in American culture, and the need to expose its dangers. I believe that we do need to be concerned about this, but it is only one of the concerns. And we do need Christians who give special attention to this concern. However, Christians who have a pre-disposition toward the first focus may be neglecting the next one.
2) Propriety (a) A second major focus has to do with, say, Christian propriety (related terms are decorum, civility, courtesy, respect, Christ-likeness and others of this nature). It includes questions of behaviors that are not illegal per se but are also not especially tasteful, respectful or appropriate in the context, especially by Christian standards. Disrespecting people and offending them intentionally is not against the law, but as Christians we should not go around treating people poorly just because we know we have the freedom to do so (even if you believe they are “the enemy”). This is perhaps especially true if evangelism is one’s intent. Questions of means, motives, methodology, and truthful reporting also come into play within this focus. Through this lens we may ask, what was the measure of Christian propriety of the arrested persons' behaviors leading up to their arrests, as well as their behaviors at last year's Arab festival? It seems highly likely to me, for example, that what happened this year would not have played out this way if the events of last year had not occurred first, especially if no major YouTube controversy had been created. How do I know that? I know it because other Christian evangelists—and I myself—have engaged in gospel interactions very similar to those of Acts 17 with no negative consequences. These have occurred not only at the Arab festival, but in many other places throughout Dearborn.
What Happened Last Year (2009)? Some people reading this may not be familiar with the events from last year, which are critically important to understanding this year’s arrests. Here is a summary as I understand it: In June 2009 an Acts 17 representative approached a Muslim man at a booth in the Artisan tent of the Arab festival to ask him questions while videotaping the conversation. He had checked first with a security person to see if that was allowed, who expressed that it was allowed as long as it didn’t become aggravated and disruptive. So with his video camera pointed at the Muslim man, he began to ask pointed questions. That’s fine so far. But let’s pause here to ask why the video camera? What was the motive behind wanting to get the conversation on tape? Was it evangelism? If so, we generally understand that a video camera aimed at a person can have the effect of changing the social dynamic. If the person is ok with being filmed, then there is no problem, though it still may affect the substance of the discussion. But if the person is not ok with being filmed—whether from the beginning or at some later point in the conversation—then that interaction has been impaired at best, destroyed at worst. It may be restored with apologies and other measures, but it may be too late. We all can imagine the various outcomes, can we not?
An Analysis of Last Year’s Situation In such a case, if the person filming is genuinely interested in sharing the gospel (“truth in love”) with the other person, it’s over…done. At least until he puts the camera away. He has very likely ruined that gospel opportunity. And that’s why Jesus never used a video camera when preaching. (Lol) Now let’s return to the scene. At some point the Muslim man expressed that he wanted the camera turned off. If I understand correctly, at first the Acts 17 representative complied and turned the camera off. But after some time he turned it on again, even after the Muslim man repeatedly asked him to turn it off. And he refused to turn it off again. That’s when everything started to heat up and get ugly. The scene got more and more agitated, then hostile. Many other people got involved, including the festival security personnel who also behaved very inappropriately. Finally, the Acts 17 persons were eventually forced to leave the festival, but they were not arrested. Following the festival, it didn’t take long for Acts 17 to post their video footage of the spectacle, telling the world that Dearborn was under Islamic law and Christian evangelism is banned. This video got over 2 million hits, and suddenly the world was looking at Dearborn. That video made almost everybody look bad: Muslims, the City of Dearborn, Christian missionaries in general, and local missionaries in particular. The only ones who came out looking like heroes were the persons of Acts 17.
Now, the simple questions are these: 1) Was it illegal to continue videotaping the Muslim man after he said he did not want to be taped? Probably not (though I’m not sure). 2) Even if was legal, does that mean it was ok? I assert that it would have been common courtesy and civility to turn the camera off. Further, it would have been more Christ-like. Nobody likes to be treated that way?
3) Biblicity But an equally relevant question is, was it good for evangelism? I assure you that that Muslim man was not impressed with the gospel that day, even if he heard it (i.e. if he was told it). In that footage I saw no evidence to the effect that the Muslim man being filmed was ever evangelized in any way—i.e. presented with the truths of the gospel—by anyone’s definition. The method that was employed works for making expose’s and certain types of documentaries, but not for biblical evangelism. If they had been functioning as missionaries at that moment they would know and apply this principle. But it seems obvious to me that true evangelism was not their real intent at that time. Theirs were the tactics of Christian activists, not missionaries. Now I realize that these are very bold statements, so let me tone them down a little. The truth is that I do not know what their true intent was. How could I unless I had talked to them in advance, which I did not. Perhaps my analysis is wrong, and I will allow for that. That’s why I said that it “seems” obvious. Sometimes we cannot presume to know the inner motives of someone, because only God sees the heart. But a person’s actions or methods (or attitudes) can often give us very good indicators of intent. So although I do not know what the original motives of Acts 17 were, their actions and methods indicate to me that they were less concerned about good evangelism than they were about making a video. Again, I could be wrong. But nobody I’ve ever known of who wants to share the gospel fruitfully with Muslims—or with anybody—conducts themselves this way. But activist and video journalists do. Further, I define missionaries as evangelists in the biblical sense, or at least those who support the work of evangelism and have the intent of an evangelist. But otherwise they are probably not missionaries in the biblical sense. A missionary’s goal should be evangelism or something related to evangelism. But to me, warning America about the dangers of Islam (or whatever) does not qualify as either of these. So the fact that Acts 17 personnel are identified as missionaries is problematic. It sends the wrong impression to the world about what missionaries should do and how they should do it. Biblical missionaries should not be confused with journalists. In my limited observation, making videos to expose Islam is possibly Acts 17’s highest priority and their forte’, and to make them they need interesting footage. There can be no question that they know how to get the footage they need, and that they are good at what they do.
What is evangelism and what isn’t? In the simplest terms, I will define biblical evangelism as communicating and asserting the truths of the gospel with the intent of leading a person to saving faith in Christ if possible. There are various modes and styles of evangelism, of course, but if it does not involve the truths of the gospel it is dubious whether it is biblical evangelism. Therefore, polemics (intellectual arguments against the other person’s position or religion, e.g. Islam) is not evangelism. Polemics is sometimes necessary and valuable, but it should not be confused with true evangelism. The same can be said for some kinds of apologetics depending on how they are used. The Christian’s intent and approach with such an encounter are also very important. If the intent is to do biblical evangelism then whatever can reasonably be done to minimize barriers and maximize the hearer’s understanding of gospel truths is high priority; the approach should be consistent with the intent, and should be Christ-like. If the intent behind the encounter—with a Muslim person for example—is not really evangelism, but rather polemics or something of that nature, it does not honor to God to have a façade of a Christian evangelist or a missionary. Further, true evangelism can be done with video cameras rolling if circumstances allow for it and both parties agree to it. But otherwise the presence of video cameras transforms an encounter even with evangelistic intent into non-evangelism. In such a case, if aggravation or hostility occurs due to the video cameras and the aggressive nature of the interaction, I would assert that it should not be associated with evangelism, missions or missionaries if it is still possible to disassociate them from the situation. Even this year, when true evangelism may well have been occurring just before the arrest (it seems to me that it was), the presence of the video cameras that were filming the encircled evangelist raises red flags on the situation as to the intent of the evangelistic activity and the performance of it. Without the cameras it may well have fared better for the Arab teens who were listening to the presentation as well as for the Acts 17 representatives.
For the sake of His name There is one important aspect of this matter that has been almost totally absent from this public-square conversation: the name of Christ. This bothers me. I’ve watched a fair number of Acts 17 videos, most of which are concerned with defending their actions and making allegations against other parties. What they don’t talk about is the love of Jesus for lost Muslims and His passion to rescue them from darkness; about the profound reality that Jesus died on the cross to save even the most resistant types of people, including (but not limited to) Muslims; about our Heavenly Father who is Sovereign Lord of the Nations, who has a deep desire to use the Church for the “missionizing” of Muslim peoples in all lands (including America) that He might reconcile them to himself through the blood of Christ; about how he is sending genuine Christians into these lands to proclaim and live out the gospel, training them to interact with Muslims the way that Jesus interacted with Romans and Samaritans for the sake of His Kingdom. Ironically, the very chapter in Acts by which our brothers name themselves (17) contains a passage about the Grand and Mysterious Purposes throughout the ages to position peoples in places where they are more likely to respond to His love and His call to repent. It says…
Acts 17:24-27 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth …made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.
I will not exposit this passage because I think it speaks for itself quite well. Nor will I belabor this point, though it is certainly the one that deserves the most attention. Whether or not Muslims have an agenda to take over America (and Dearborn), our Creator has His own agenda which he has been engineering since time immemorial, and which He is accomplishing through Christ. That agenda involves us, His Church, in which we are to participate as gentle warriors of the gospel, as “sheep among wolves” (Matt 10:16). Since God has brought Muslims to our land, then it is our responsibility to “gospelize” them in bold love and truth. The divine agenda may not be the same as the American one.
Propriety (b) Propriety is not measured in a vacuum. So part of the issue has to do with the way the arrested persons conducted themselves in relation to other Christians who were also present at the festival, especially those with the intent of doing evangelism to Muslims. There were many. Indeed, there are dozens of Christians who live and minister in this community who are mostly concerned with the propriety of Acts 17's behaviors as Christians. We are not Americans only, but Christians also. Indeed, we are Christians first! As such we have a higher set of standards and rules to play by than the rest of Americans—those of the Bible. Therefore, we are not to conduct ourselves merely as free-speech-loving Americans such as those who are non-Christians, in any and every way. Rather, we must be Christ-like, and we should not exaggerate our claims, or even allow them to become exaggerated. How we represent Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God (and local Christians) in situations like this matters profoundly.
Truthful and Fair Representation A very important facet of the propriety focus has to do with the truthful and fair representation of things by those who are vocal in their reporting of them to the "outside world": the festival, the community, the City, its laws, the Muslim population therein (and whether Islamic laws hold sway in the city/community), the police, the nature of the Christian presence within the preceding categories, and evangelistic vitality in the community. We should not be surprised if and when non-Christians present distorted truths or falsehoods (though we should oppose this) but we must hold ourselves as Christians to a higher standard.
4) Protectionism It is an important and legitimate question of whether it is true that there is Islamic law in Dearborn, as the representatives of Acts 17 have claimed. To answer this it must be properly defined. If it is true in any sense then it also necessary to be specific and point to concrete examples. Certainly where the Muslim population is as high as it is in East Dearborn there will be a strong Islamic influence. And we can point to examples of that. But such influence is not the same as “shariah law”. I contend, as do others, that there is no overarching Islamic law in East Dearborn that constrains all citizens of Dearborn alike, much less Christians in particular. I know that because I live here. Certainly there can be much debate about this question, and there is. Many now Americans believe that shariah law has infiltrated and become entrenched in Dearborn, partly due to the reports of Acts 17. But I disagree. Yes, stories of what has happened and what is happening at Fordson High School says something about Muslim influence and culture in Dearborn, at least with respect to that one school, but they do not prove that there is full-scale shariah law in Dearborn. A better form of the question would be whether there are elements of Islamic law present in Dearborn as there are in some European countries? If there are, are they largely visible or invisible, and do they affect Muslims only or non-Muslims alike? Are there concerns? Yes, I think events at Fordson give us reason for concern. Are Christians oppressed? No. This is a question that deserves much more attention than what I can give it in the scope of this article.
A Comprehensive Focus What we need is not a polarized (either/or) focus but a comprehensive (both/and) one. To be fair, it may be true that those who are mainly concerned with the second focus, on propriety, are neglecting the important questions of legality and constitutionality in this issue. These are my further opinions:
Again, I believe that the arrests of Acts 17 personnel were unwarranted. In my opinion they did not break any (real) laws and they should not have been arrested. It was a violation of their free speech rights.
Having said that, they come from out-of state only for the festival and have shown little regard for the Christians who live here year-round and who freely do evangelism in the Muslim community without any troubles of this nature. Their intent seems to have been one of exposing Islam and how it has gained control in parts of America, e.g. Dearborn.
What they experienced at this year’s Arab festival seems largely due to the city's reaction to the video posted on YouTube last summer. That video, seen by millions of viewers, painted the city and the Muslim community in a negative light by presenting facts out-of context mixed with assumptions and interpretations of facts in a way that created a distorted reality. For example, they virtually ignored the activities of many other Christians (i.e. missionaries and others) who were freely and boldly doing evangelism simultaneously within accepted parameters at the same festival without trouble from the authorities, and who also freely do evangelism at many other places throughout the year, with no limitations at all—even open-air preaching! (Examples abound.)
In my statements above, I am not accusing Acts 17 of lying. Perhaps they simply don't know all the facts outside the scope of their own experience. If so, they should make it their business to find out, and even participate in some other evangelistic activities at other times of the year. As it stands, the rest of America thinks that we Christians are subjugated, oppressed and silenced by the Muslims (and the City) in Dearborn because of Acts 17's incomplete portrayal of what it is really like to live and do ministry here. But this is untrue, and we are not dhimmi (Arabic for second-class citizens). However, if they continue to insist that "shariah" is the law of the land here (i.e. if they know things that the rest of us don't know), then let them do some thorough investigative reporting and a proper full-length documentary about it. If something like this (i.e. exposing Islam) is their true agenda, again, then they are Christian activists or journalists or something of this nature. Because I do believe that Islam has an anti-American/anti-Christian agenda, we need Christian activists and journalists to sound the alarm, tell us the truth, and make us aware of the dangers around us. But these things must be done within biblical parameters and must not be confused with missions or evangelism.
Acts 17 made it seem that they were being harassed and controlled by the police simply because "they are Christians" doing evangelism at a largely Muslim-attended festival in a part of the city where they believe Islamic law is in force. In my opinion this is not the case (but it is necessary to define Islamic law for a more intelligent analysis of this question). If such laws were in place in the strictest sense then other Christians would not be allowed to distribute evangelistic literature either, nor have the vigorous evangelistic conversations with Muslims that we have. But we do all of these things. Further, other Christian groups from the local community and from out-of-state were simultaneously distributing Christian literature from authorized booths in the Artisan tent, of which they made no mention.
A Christian person or group may wish to challenge attempts by authorities to curtail or prohibit open-air evangelism and literature distribution where they feel it is constitutionally protected. It may be true that the activities of Acts 17 were protected as such. This year at least, I would like to believe they were protected. But, in my opinion, the fact that Dearborn authorities wish to control evangelism is not due to Islamic law per se. It is the nature of those in authority to try to contain or eliminate evangelism (and potential disturbances) of any nature. I suspect that other Christian groups experience similar controls by the authorities at other festivals and public places around the nation where there is barely any (or no) Muslim presence at all. Jews for Jesus, for example, regularly experiences this kind of thing from the police wherever they do evangelism because, in general, Americans (not just Muslims) don't like to be evangelized. It is my personal experience in Dearborn/Detroit that it is often easier and more pleasant to engage Muslims in religious conversations than it is to engage Americans for whom religion is largely irrelevant.
So we American Christians who are intent on doing the more vigorous forms of "public-square" evangelism should expect to encounter this kind of reaction anywhere and be willing to be arrested for the sake of the gospel. Then, to fight the charges legally is proper and is a right afforded to us in our cherished American system. This is all good as long as we are not in it for the publicity and we are presenting an accurate picture of reality.
Therefore, it seems to me and others that Acts 17 presents a distorted picture that Dearborn is under shariah law, when in fact, this is probably not the case. Thus, they have exacerbated the situation and (possibly) made things more difficult for other Christians doing evangelism at the festival. Islamic law may well be taking root in some places in the West and America (and perhaps it is in Dearborn's future), but for the present time this is an unfair representation. I suspect that public evangelism will be outlawed by American secularists first. Muslims won't need to do it. Whatever the case, whenever our treasured freedoms of religion and of expression are threatened we must fight for them but not exploit them. And as Christians we may are not free under God to do and say everything that the Bill of Rights allows.
Again, I truly hope that our brothers from Acts 17 are not found guilty in their trial on Monday. And I think I would be uncomfortable with the precedent it might set. But we must not “cry wolf” before it is time.
Postscript On July 26 I attended a free-speech rally at City Hall. Ironically, it was hosted by a local Muslim attorney who is running for U.S. Congress. It was not very well attended, but I was glad that it happened, and that it can happen. I believe in freedom of speech, and benefit from it, especially the freedom to practice bold and far-reaching evangelism. I believe we need to protect this right, and celebrate the fact that we still enjoy it here, and we do (with very few exceptions). Again, I don't think the Acts 17 guys should have been arrested, and it was definitely a violation of their free speech rights. But I myself have engaged in the very same kind of activity for which they were arrested (though I was not)--at the festival and in other places. I believe in bold evangelism! If we're going to keep it we need to use it.
Just before the rally I spent an hour distributing about 200 evangelistic tracts in the neighborhood right behind city hall (in Arabic and English, the testimony of A. Murray of Aletheia International, a Christian apologist from a Lebanese-Muslim background. You can read this and other tracts like this written by Abdu at this website: http://muslimsletstalk.com/). On the first day of distribution we had about 15 people doing door-to-door tract distribution in East Dearborn neighborhoods, and (ironically) we video-taped them doing it. The following weeks we had carriers from local churches and two separate Christian groups from out-of-town (a total of about 32) doing tract-evangelism as well. All-together they joyfully distributed 20,000 of these powerful gospel leaflets, one to every Muslim household in East Dearborn (and those of non-Muslims as well), parts of Detroit, and parts of Dearborn Heights with high Muslim populations. I say all this to boast in Christ and in our ability to do this without getting arrested or even questioned. This is an example of something I think Acts 17 would be glad to know about.
Why I Wrote This I have no desire to promote division in the body or engender angry criticism toward myself, though I expect the latter will occur. My earnest desire is to honor God and be as faithful to biblical principles as possible (and, secondarily, to American ones). As I have discussed this matter with people I believe there are important issues that are beyond the question of whether the Acts 17 brethren were right or wrong, and whether the police were right or wrong. And here I feel a conviction to wade into them at my own risk and try to interpret them. But I have done so with a sense of reluctance; several godly men whom I respect admonished me not to do so, but I began to feel that it was necessary before God.
Many other reports and YouTube videos were generated about the arrests and related events. I originally wrote this commentary (a shorter version) one week after the festival to respond to friends who know that I live here and might have personal insights to share with them, to help them make sense of the controversy. A fair number of them have responded positively, and some negatively. I still find myself sorting through the facts and the more subtle details of the affair, adjusting my views in light of them. Accordingly I have edited this to reflect my present opinions on the matter. I was asked to submit this to an email forum called COMMA (Consultation of Ministries to Muslims in North America) by a friend who felt that it might present an alternative understanding within this network. But I did not submit it due a sense that the discussion had become too heated already. I continued to develop my thoughts on the matter, however, and this article is the result.
The arrests were unwarranted, but it is more complex than that. I will state from the beginning that I believe the arrest of those four persons was unwarranted. As far as I can tell from first-hand accounts and the video footage, the Acts 17 representatives were doing nothing worthy of arrest at the time that they were arrested. (And I don’t think I have to have been an eye-witness to know that.) It seems to me that what was going on at that time was a vigorous evangelistic discussion between one Acts 17 member and a number of Arab teen boys, one of which prayed some type of public sinner’s prayer, I’m told. (I question the authenticity of that, however.) Some eye-witness reports say they were “aggravating” people just beforehand, but that does not justify arrest. So from my perspective the charge of “breaching the peace” was erroneous. I do not claim to know the real reason the arrest were made, but I don’t believe it was because of “shariah law”. I believe that any of my colleagues or I could have done what Acts 17 did (engaged in a vigorous informal open-air discussion with Muslims) and not been arrested—because we have done it. So the reasons Acts 17 personnel were arrested, I suspect, have everything to do with who they are specifically and how they conducted themselves in the broad sense. I doubt that it was because they were ordinary Christians simply doing public evangelism at that time, and that is what happens to any and all Christians who try to do evangelism at the festival, as they have publically claimed. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. Moreover, if the matter of their arrests were the only question to be addressed it would be a simpler issue. But I think it’s more complicated. I believe there are other facets, or lenses, through which we should also analyze the events that played out, starting with their “debut” the previous year. Only when we consider all of them can we hope to arrive at an accurate assessment. *Note: Since the original writing of this piece the Acts 17 personnel were tried in the 19th District Court (September 20th) and found not guilty.
Some have challenged me that it is not our business to assess or evaluate the actions of other believers who have the conviction that they did what they felt God wanted them to do. But I think this is erroneous for many reasons which I trust I need not articulate in great detail. Here are just three:
1) The believers can be wrong about the authenticity of their conviction that God wants them to do something. That is, it is possible that God did not really issue the command.
2) They could be right about their conviction but wrong in their methodology, or their timing or their location or their attitudes. A divine command does not preclude poor execution.
3) They could have the previous two things right, and still fail (or seem to fail). But whether they succeeded or failed they can give a distorted report or interpretation of events.
Should Christians judge other Christians? Now, the Bible commands Christians to be very careful in their evaluation of other Christians’ actions, but not to suspend them entirely (“reprove, rebuke, exhort”). If believers could not exercise mutual correction within the body, we could rely only on the world for correction! I have experienced much criticism myself and I do not enjoy it. But much of that criticism has brought about my sanctification. I am trying very hard to be fair and true to biblical principles, and to restrain what might be harsh or undue criticism. Some believe that the Matthew 18 prescription must be followed in situations like this, involving fellow believers, but I don’t think so. The fact that this is a public issue, made public largely by the Acts 17 personnel themselves via their videos and their website, removes it from the arena governed directly by the principles of Mathew 18. I will not delve into this biblical question any further, except to say that I have tried very hard to temper both my opinions and my words.
Four Areas of Focus As I have reflected on this, it seems to me that the analysis of the events and the current debate among us as Christians can take on one focus or another, depending on one's orientation. We could also call each of them a “lens”. These include legality, propriety, and what I will call “biblicity”.
1) Legality/constitutionality
2) Propriety and respect
3) Biblicity or theology
4) Protectionist
1) Legality It can have a legal-constitutional focus on whether the arrests of Acts 17 were legally right by constitutional standards, or whether the Dearborn police over-stepped their bounds and violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested. In America this is a necessary focus, but not the only one that is necessary. A closely related set of questions has to do with whether the precipitating activities of the arrested persons were, again, legal and constitutional in that context, or not. A third related set of questions within this focus has to do with one's disposition toward Islam, its influence in American culture, and the need to expose its dangers. I believe that we do need to be concerned about this, but it is only one of the concerns. And we do need Christians who give special attention to this concern. However, Christians who have a pre-disposition toward the first focus may be neglecting the next one.
2) Propriety (a) A second major focus has to do with, say, Christian propriety (related terms are decorum, civility, courtesy, respect, Christ-likeness and others of this nature). It includes questions of behaviors that are not illegal per se but are also not especially tasteful, respectful or appropriate in the context, especially by Christian standards. Disrespecting people and offending them intentionally is not against the law, but as Christians we should not go around treating people poorly just because we know we have the freedom to do so (even if you believe they are “the enemy”). This is perhaps especially true if evangelism is one’s intent. Questions of means, motives, methodology, and truthful reporting also come into play within this focus. Through this lens we may ask, what was the measure of Christian propriety of the arrested persons' behaviors leading up to their arrests, as well as their behaviors at last year's Arab festival? It seems highly likely to me, for example, that what happened this year would not have played out this way if the events of last year had not occurred first, especially if no major YouTube controversy had been created. How do I know that? I know it because other Christian evangelists—and I myself—have engaged in gospel interactions very similar to those of Acts 17 with no negative consequences. These have occurred not only at the Arab festival, but in many other places throughout Dearborn.
What Happened Last Year (2009)? Some people reading this may not be familiar with the events from last year, which are critically important to understanding this year’s arrests. Here is a summary as I understand it: In June 2009 an Acts 17 representative approached a Muslim man at a booth in the Artisan tent of the Arab festival to ask him questions while videotaping the conversation. He had checked first with a security person to see if that was allowed, who expressed that it was allowed as long as it didn’t become aggravated and disruptive. So with his video camera pointed at the Muslim man, he began to ask pointed questions. That’s fine so far. But let’s pause here to ask why the video camera? What was the motive behind wanting to get the conversation on tape? Was it evangelism? If so, we generally understand that a video camera aimed at a person can have the effect of changing the social dynamic. If the person is ok with being filmed, then there is no problem, though it still may affect the substance of the discussion. But if the person is not ok with being filmed—whether from the beginning or at some later point in the conversation—then that interaction has been impaired at best, destroyed at worst. It may be restored with apologies and other measures, but it may be too late. We all can imagine the various outcomes, can we not?
An Analysis of Last Year’s Situation In such a case, if the person filming is genuinely interested in sharing the gospel (“truth in love”) with the other person, it’s over…done. At least until he puts the camera away. He has very likely ruined that gospel opportunity. And that’s why Jesus never used a video camera when preaching. (Lol) Now let’s return to the scene. At some point the Muslim man expressed that he wanted the camera turned off. If I understand correctly, at first the Acts 17 representative complied and turned the camera off. But after some time he turned it on again, even after the Muslim man repeatedly asked him to turn it off. And he refused to turn it off again. That’s when everything started to heat up and get ugly. The scene got more and more agitated, then hostile. Many other people got involved, including the festival security personnel who also behaved very inappropriately. Finally, the Acts 17 persons were eventually forced to leave the festival, but they were not arrested. Following the festival, it didn’t take long for Acts 17 to post their video footage of the spectacle, telling the world that Dearborn was under Islamic law and Christian evangelism is banned. This video got over 2 million hits, and suddenly the world was looking at Dearborn. That video made almost everybody look bad: Muslims, the City of Dearborn, Christian missionaries in general, and local missionaries in particular. The only ones who came out looking like heroes were the persons of Acts 17.
Now, the simple questions are these: 1) Was it illegal to continue videotaping the Muslim man after he said he did not want to be taped? Probably not (though I’m not sure). 2) Even if was legal, does that mean it was ok? I assert that it would have been common courtesy and civility to turn the camera off. Further, it would have been more Christ-like. Nobody likes to be treated that way?
3) Biblicity But an equally relevant question is, was it good for evangelism? I assure you that that Muslim man was not impressed with the gospel that day, even if he heard it (i.e. if he was told it). In that footage I saw no evidence to the effect that the Muslim man being filmed was ever evangelized in any way—i.e. presented with the truths of the gospel—by anyone’s definition. The method that was employed works for making expose’s and certain types of documentaries, but not for biblical evangelism. If they had been functioning as missionaries at that moment they would know and apply this principle. But it seems obvious to me that true evangelism was not their real intent at that time. Theirs were the tactics of Christian activists, not missionaries. Now I realize that these are very bold statements, so let me tone them down a little. The truth is that I do not know what their true intent was. How could I unless I had talked to them in advance, which I did not. Perhaps my analysis is wrong, and I will allow for that. That’s why I said that it “seems” obvious. Sometimes we cannot presume to know the inner motives of someone, because only God sees the heart. But a person’s actions or methods (or attitudes) can often give us very good indicators of intent. So although I do not know what the original motives of Acts 17 were, their actions and methods indicate to me that they were less concerned about good evangelism than they were about making a video. Again, I could be wrong. But nobody I’ve ever known of who wants to share the gospel fruitfully with Muslims—or with anybody—conducts themselves this way. But activist and video journalists do. Further, I define missionaries as evangelists in the biblical sense, or at least those who support the work of evangelism and have the intent of an evangelist. But otherwise they are probably not missionaries in the biblical sense. A missionary’s goal should be evangelism or something related to evangelism. But to me, warning America about the dangers of Islam (or whatever) does not qualify as either of these. So the fact that Acts 17 personnel are identified as missionaries is problematic. It sends the wrong impression to the world about what missionaries should do and how they should do it. Biblical missionaries should not be confused with journalists. In my limited observation, making videos to expose Islam is possibly Acts 17’s highest priority and their forte’, and to make them they need interesting footage. There can be no question that they know how to get the footage they need, and that they are good at what they do.
What is evangelism and what isn’t? In the simplest terms, I will define biblical evangelism as communicating and asserting the truths of the gospel with the intent of leading a person to saving faith in Christ if possible. There are various modes and styles of evangelism, of course, but if it does not involve the truths of the gospel it is dubious whether it is biblical evangelism. Therefore, polemics (intellectual arguments against the other person’s position or religion, e.g. Islam) is not evangelism. Polemics is sometimes necessary and valuable, but it should not be confused with true evangelism. The same can be said for some kinds of apologetics depending on how they are used. The Christian’s intent and approach with such an encounter are also very important. If the intent is to do biblical evangelism then whatever can reasonably be done to minimize barriers and maximize the hearer’s understanding of gospel truths is high priority; the approach should be consistent with the intent, and should be Christ-like. If the intent behind the encounter—with a Muslim person for example—is not really evangelism, but rather polemics or something of that nature, it does not honor to God to have a façade of a Christian evangelist or a missionary. Further, true evangelism can be done with video cameras rolling if circumstances allow for it and both parties agree to it. But otherwise the presence of video cameras transforms an encounter even with evangelistic intent into non-evangelism. In such a case, if aggravation or hostility occurs due to the video cameras and the aggressive nature of the interaction, I would assert that it should not be associated with evangelism, missions or missionaries if it is still possible to disassociate them from the situation. Even this year, when true evangelism may well have been occurring just before the arrest (it seems to me that it was), the presence of the video cameras that were filming the encircled evangelist raises red flags on the situation as to the intent of the evangelistic activity and the performance of it. Without the cameras it may well have fared better for the Arab teens who were listening to the presentation as well as for the Acts 17 representatives.
For the sake of His name There is one important aspect of this matter that has been almost totally absent from this public-square conversation: the name of Christ. This bothers me. I’ve watched a fair number of Acts 17 videos, most of which are concerned with defending their actions and making allegations against other parties. What they don’t talk about is the love of Jesus for lost Muslims and His passion to rescue them from darkness; about the profound reality that Jesus died on the cross to save even the most resistant types of people, including (but not limited to) Muslims; about our Heavenly Father who is Sovereign Lord of the Nations, who has a deep desire to use the Church for the “missionizing” of Muslim peoples in all lands (including America) that He might reconcile them to himself through the blood of Christ; about how he is sending genuine Christians into these lands to proclaim and live out the gospel, training them to interact with Muslims the way that Jesus interacted with Romans and Samaritans for the sake of His Kingdom. Ironically, the very chapter in Acts by which our brothers name themselves (17) contains a passage about the Grand and Mysterious Purposes throughout the ages to position peoples in places where they are more likely to respond to His love and His call to repent. It says…
Acts 17:24-27 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth …made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.
I will not exposit this passage because I think it speaks for itself quite well. Nor will I belabor this point, though it is certainly the one that deserves the most attention. Whether or not Muslims have an agenda to take over America (and Dearborn), our Creator has His own agenda which he has been engineering since time immemorial, and which He is accomplishing through Christ. That agenda involves us, His Church, in which we are to participate as gentle warriors of the gospel, as “sheep among wolves” (Matt 10:16). Since God has brought Muslims to our land, then it is our responsibility to “gospelize” them in bold love and truth. The divine agenda may not be the same as the American one.
Propriety (b) Propriety is not measured in a vacuum. So part of the issue has to do with the way the arrested persons conducted themselves in relation to other Christians who were also present at the festival, especially those with the intent of doing evangelism to Muslims. There were many. Indeed, there are dozens of Christians who live and minister in this community who are mostly concerned with the propriety of Acts 17's behaviors as Christians. We are not Americans only, but Christians also. Indeed, we are Christians first! As such we have a higher set of standards and rules to play by than the rest of Americans—those of the Bible. Therefore, we are not to conduct ourselves merely as free-speech-loving Americans such as those who are non-Christians, in any and every way. Rather, we must be Christ-like, and we should not exaggerate our claims, or even allow them to become exaggerated. How we represent Jesus Christ, the Kingdom of God (and local Christians) in situations like this matters profoundly.
Truthful and Fair Representation A very important facet of the propriety focus has to do with the truthful and fair representation of things by those who are vocal in their reporting of them to the "outside world": the festival, the community, the City, its laws, the Muslim population therein (and whether Islamic laws hold sway in the city/community), the police, the nature of the Christian presence within the preceding categories, and evangelistic vitality in the community. We should not be surprised if and when non-Christians present distorted truths or falsehoods (though we should oppose this) but we must hold ourselves as Christians to a higher standard.
4) Protectionism It is an important and legitimate question of whether it is true that there is Islamic law in Dearborn, as the representatives of Acts 17 have claimed. To answer this it must be properly defined. If it is true in any sense then it also necessary to be specific and point to concrete examples. Certainly where the Muslim population is as high as it is in East Dearborn there will be a strong Islamic influence. And we can point to examples of that. But such influence is not the same as “shariah law”. I contend, as do others, that there is no overarching Islamic law in East Dearborn that constrains all citizens of Dearborn alike, much less Christians in particular. I know that because I live here. Certainly there can be much debate about this question, and there is. Many now Americans believe that shariah law has infiltrated and become entrenched in Dearborn, partly due to the reports of Acts 17. But I disagree. Yes, stories of what has happened and what is happening at Fordson High School says something about Muslim influence and culture in Dearborn, at least with respect to that one school, but they do not prove that there is full-scale shariah law in Dearborn. A better form of the question would be whether there are elements of Islamic law present in Dearborn as there are in some European countries? If there are, are they largely visible or invisible, and do they affect Muslims only or non-Muslims alike? Are there concerns? Yes, I think events at Fordson give us reason for concern. Are Christians oppressed? No. This is a question that deserves much more attention than what I can give it in the scope of this article.
A Comprehensive Focus What we need is not a polarized (either/or) focus but a comprehensive (both/and) one. To be fair, it may be true that those who are mainly concerned with the second focus, on propriety, are neglecting the important questions of legality and constitutionality in this issue. These are my further opinions:
Again, I believe that the arrests of Acts 17 personnel were unwarranted. In my opinion they did not break any (real) laws and they should not have been arrested. It was a violation of their free speech rights.
Having said that, they come from out-of state only for the festival and have shown little regard for the Christians who live here year-round and who freely do evangelism in the Muslim community without any troubles of this nature. Their intent seems to have been one of exposing Islam and how it has gained control in parts of America, e.g. Dearborn.
What they experienced at this year’s Arab festival seems largely due to the city's reaction to the video posted on YouTube last summer. That video, seen by millions of viewers, painted the city and the Muslim community in a negative light by presenting facts out-of context mixed with assumptions and interpretations of facts in a way that created a distorted reality. For example, they virtually ignored the activities of many other Christians (i.e. missionaries and others) who were freely and boldly doing evangelism simultaneously within accepted parameters at the same festival without trouble from the authorities, and who also freely do evangelism at many other places throughout the year, with no limitations at all—even open-air preaching! (Examples abound.)
In my statements above, I am not accusing Acts 17 of lying. Perhaps they simply don't know all the facts outside the scope of their own experience. If so, they should make it their business to find out, and even participate in some other evangelistic activities at other times of the year. As it stands, the rest of America thinks that we Christians are subjugated, oppressed and silenced by the Muslims (and the City) in Dearborn because of Acts 17's incomplete portrayal of what it is really like to live and do ministry here. But this is untrue, and we are not dhimmi (Arabic for second-class citizens). However, if they continue to insist that "shariah" is the law of the land here (i.e. if they know things that the rest of us don't know), then let them do some thorough investigative reporting and a proper full-length documentary about it. If something like this (i.e. exposing Islam) is their true agenda, again, then they are Christian activists or journalists or something of this nature. Because I do believe that Islam has an anti-American/anti-Christian agenda, we need Christian activists and journalists to sound the alarm, tell us the truth, and make us aware of the dangers around us. But these things must be done within biblical parameters and must not be confused with missions or evangelism.
Acts 17 made it seem that they were being harassed and controlled by the police simply because "they are Christians" doing evangelism at a largely Muslim-attended festival in a part of the city where they believe Islamic law is in force. In my opinion this is not the case (but it is necessary to define Islamic law for a more intelligent analysis of this question). If such laws were in place in the strictest sense then other Christians would not be allowed to distribute evangelistic literature either, nor have the vigorous evangelistic conversations with Muslims that we have. But we do all of these things. Further, other Christian groups from the local community and from out-of-state were simultaneously distributing Christian literature from authorized booths in the Artisan tent, of which they made no mention.
A Christian person or group may wish to challenge attempts by authorities to curtail or prohibit open-air evangelism and literature distribution where they feel it is constitutionally protected. It may be true that the activities of Acts 17 were protected as such. This year at least, I would like to believe they were protected. But, in my opinion, the fact that Dearborn authorities wish to control evangelism is not due to Islamic law per se. It is the nature of those in authority to try to contain or eliminate evangelism (and potential disturbances) of any nature. I suspect that other Christian groups experience similar controls by the authorities at other festivals and public places around the nation where there is barely any (or no) Muslim presence at all. Jews for Jesus, for example, regularly experiences this kind of thing from the police wherever they do evangelism because, in general, Americans (not just Muslims) don't like to be evangelized. It is my personal experience in Dearborn/Detroit that it is often easier and more pleasant to engage Muslims in religious conversations than it is to engage Americans for whom religion is largely irrelevant.
So we American Christians who are intent on doing the more vigorous forms of "public-square" evangelism should expect to encounter this kind of reaction anywhere and be willing to be arrested for the sake of the gospel. Then, to fight the charges legally is proper and is a right afforded to us in our cherished American system. This is all good as long as we are not in it for the publicity and we are presenting an accurate picture of reality.
Therefore, it seems to me and others that Acts 17 presents a distorted picture that Dearborn is under shariah law, when in fact, this is probably not the case. Thus, they have exacerbated the situation and (possibly) made things more difficult for other Christians doing evangelism at the festival. Islamic law may well be taking root in some places in the West and America (and perhaps it is in Dearborn's future), but for the present time this is an unfair representation. I suspect that public evangelism will be outlawed by American secularists first. Muslims won't need to do it. Whatever the case, whenever our treasured freedoms of religion and of expression are threatened we must fight for them but not exploit them. And as Christians we may are not free under God to do and say everything that the Bill of Rights allows.
Again, I truly hope that our brothers from Acts 17 are not found guilty in their trial on Monday. And I think I would be uncomfortable with the precedent it might set. But we must not “cry wolf” before it is time.
Postscript On July 26 I attended a free-speech rally at City Hall. Ironically, it was hosted by a local Muslim attorney who is running for U.S. Congress. It was not very well attended, but I was glad that it happened, and that it can happen. I believe in freedom of speech, and benefit from it, especially the freedom to practice bold and far-reaching evangelism. I believe we need to protect this right, and celebrate the fact that we still enjoy it here, and we do (with very few exceptions). Again, I don't think the Acts 17 guys should have been arrested, and it was definitely a violation of their free speech rights. But I myself have engaged in the very same kind of activity for which they were arrested (though I was not)--at the festival and in other places. I believe in bold evangelism! If we're going to keep it we need to use it.
Just before the rally I spent an hour distributing about 200 evangelistic tracts in the neighborhood right behind city hall (in Arabic and English, the testimony of A. Murray of Aletheia International, a Christian apologist from a Lebanese-Muslim background. You can read this and other tracts like this written by Abdu at this website: http://muslimsletstalk.com/). On the first day of distribution we had about 15 people doing door-to-door tract distribution in East Dearborn neighborhoods, and (ironically) we video-taped them doing it. The following weeks we had carriers from local churches and two separate Christian groups from out-of-town (a total of about 32) doing tract-evangelism as well. All-together they joyfully distributed 20,000 of these powerful gospel leaflets, one to every Muslim household in East Dearborn (and those of non-Muslims as well), parts of Detroit, and parts of Dearborn Heights with high Muslim populations. I say all this to boast in Christ and in our ability to do this without getting arrested or even questioned. This is an example of something I think Acts 17 would be glad to know about.
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."Romans 12:18
