{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02567287784679089, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007453416149068323, 'mean_word_length': 5.512129380053908, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, SJ. Religion and Faith in Africa: Confessions of an Animist

remain embedded in their communities. IM participants continue to refer to themselves as Muslims, remain connected to the mosque, and often reinterpret the Qur’an so as to be compatible with biblical teaching. This contextualization strategy has been hotly contested among theologians and practitioners alike. One of the strengths of this volume comes from the wide variety of authors whose multiple specializations are employed to analyze IMs biblically, theologically, and missiologically. Though most of the authors are critical, two of the chapters advocate for IM strategies. Notably, Harley Talman—a long-time IM proponent—writes a significant chapter in which he attempts to respond to common criticisms of IM strategies (123–38). Though Talman’s article is ably critiqued by Ibrahim (139–57), the presence of IM advocates among the book’s contributors strengthens the criticism of IM detractors by allowing immediate comparison with the proponents’ own articulations of their argument. Among the many helpful essays, two are worthy of special note. First, Joshua Fletcher’s chapter, “Insider Movements: Sociologically and Theologically Incoherent,” provides what may be the most devastating critique of IM to date. In his chapter he demonstrates that the essential sociological claims and aims of IM advocates are incoherent, thus leading him to conclude that, “Despite decades of experience and kingdom vision espoused by IM proponents, the sociological and theological framework for the IM position cannot be considered as anything less than incredible” (199). Second, hidden away as an appendix to the book, is a chapter written by Adam Simnowitz that should be read by anyone involved in biblical translation work among Muslims (501–23). In this brief chapter, Simnowitz demonstrates the egregious theological compromises made by many seemingly benign Muslim Idiom Translations of Scripture. While none of the contributors accuses IM advocates of intentional compromise of the gospel, the consistent critique from a variety of perspectives should give the reader pause as one considers whether or not to endorse IM contextualization models. In this book, Ibrahim and Greenham have produced an impressive resource that will undoubtedly serve to instruct and guide future contextualization discussions.