Robert Munson's Blog

Reading Revelation Differently and It’s Impact on Missiology— Part 2.

So in the previous post I gave reasons for why I moved from a position of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) to something else. Now I want to speak about how such a change may have a positive role in missiology.

But first, you may ask what my view is. If I sort of reject DP, then what do I accept? The truth is that I accept “Mystery.” Technically, I don’t reject DP. Rather, I reject the idea that the Bible teaches it. It is possible that there is a Pre-tribulational “Rapture” of the Church. I just don’t think that the Bible teaches it— or at least does not teach it in an unambiguous way. It is possible that the 1000 year Reign of Christ is a literal 1000 years that fulfills a promise to the national of Israel, I simply find the support for this view very open to challenge.

Instead, at least when looking at Revelation, I want to look at the overall message. It seems pretty clear that the overall message is “PERSEVERE.” The writer is letting Christians know that the world is a hostile, dangerous place for those who are faithful to God. However, faithfulness is worth it. God will reward those who persevere, and those who reject Him or fall away will, in the end, be the ones who truly suffer. Jesus will one day return. The strange world we live in where evil seems to be winning will be thrown out and replaced with one where justice and righteousness will reign (forever).

How might this affect missiology? Drawing from the previous post:

#1. If one cannot interpret Revelation 2 and 3 as a roadmap to church history where we realize that we are in the final hours before Christ’s return, then our emphases should be driven by a profound “ignorance” as to when the return of Christ should be. Jesus gave many bits of guidance, often in parables as to how we are to live with mystery regarding the future. The Parable of the Faithful (and Unfaithful) Steward, or the The Parable of the Ten Virgins suggest that behaving as is we can figure out when Jesus (the Master, the Bridegroom) will return is a mistake. Adjusting our mission work and strategy based on a presumption that we got God’s timing figured out is a mistake. We should minister as if God might return tomorrow OR in 1000 years.

#2. Our mission work should focus on creating Resilient or Persevering Christians and Christian communities. Trying to get people to respond as quickly and as minimally as possible to the Gospel message (as if we know how minimal the response has to be to count as “saving faith”) is an unworthy goal. We should seek to develop resilient disciples in transformed persevering communities.

#3. Taking these things together, Christian Missions should identified, primarily, as… SLOW. It should be seen primarily as a mustard plant that slowly grows from a small seed to a great plant, as invisible yeast slowly rising the dough, as scattered seeds that slowly sprout and produce an abundant harvest rather than seedllings that sprout up and quickly die.

One of the hallmarks of modern Christian missiology is its dependence on eschatology (Christian study of last things). And I agree. I do, however, think that Christian missions has picked up the wrong lessons from eschatology… and that comes from, ultimately, bad eschatology, or at least a failure to embrace doubt and mystery into one’s theology of last things.

Reading Revelation Differently and It’s Impact on Missiology— Part 1.

I went to a Christian college back in the 1980s. At that school, Hal Lindsay was all the rage. He promoted a certain type of understanding of the future, and particularly a way of reading he Book of Revelation in the Bible. I knew this understanding as “PreTrib PreMill” but the more formal encapsulating term is “Dispensational Premillennialism.” I really don’t recall whether this understanding of Eschatology (study of future events) was taught as  “The Truth.” It was definitely presented favorably in contrast to other schemas.

And I was hooked. I read a lot of books and watched videos and listened to speakers on the topic. I became, if not an expert, at least a well-read aficionado on that perspective.

I don’t truly remember when that changed. However, I know back in 1992 or 1993 I was still excited when Dr. John Walvoord (a Dispensational theologian) came to speak at our church. I also know that by 1995 when LaHaye and Jenkins published the first volume of the Left Behind series, I could not muster up enough interest to buy a copy. So something was changing during that time.

Dispensational Premillennialism is based on an (allegedly) literalist interpretation of Scripture, particularly Revelation. It also seems to maintain Israel and the Church as independent activities of God with separate fulfillments of blessing. It was commonly tied to the Pretribulation removal (“Rapture”) of the church.

I think my first problem with this schema was trivial enough. Many of the DP scholars (Dispensational Premillenialist) believed the 7 churches in chapters 2-3 of Revelation were descriptive of different eras of church history. I found that interesting for awhile but I pretty quickly started having qualms. The DP scholars like to say that they are more literalist in their interpretation of Scripture than others. But here in chapters 2 and 3, it became evident how untrue that was. That section is a series of seven literal letters that were being sent to seven literal churches that literally existed in seven literal cities in the same literal region at the same literal time in history. I felt that if they really did value literal interpretation they certainly would not be reading those chapters as they did. But, on the other hand, suppose they were right. What if their listing corresponded with consecutive ages of the church? Why would we think we know how to line things up? I mean, what if Christ is coming 5000 years from now? Maybe our present situation corresponds to only the first or second church. Correlating the present era with the seventh church seemed to be self-serving rather than scholarly. It sells more books if we place the Second Coming in the next few years.

That being said, one can completely reject the futurist interpretation of chapters 2 and 3 without rejecting the DP perspective.

The second problem actually seemed to solve a different problem. In college, I was taught the telescopic interpretation of Revelation. Between the trumpets, the bowls, and the seals, the population of the world appeared to attenuate too much for the Second of Christ to have much of anyone to oppose it or even witness it. The telescopic interpretation draws from the old mariner’s telescope (spyglass). The spyglass that can fit in one’s pocket and can be pulled out and stretched (telescoped) to several times its length and then utilized.  The bowls, seals, and trumpets then are taking the same curses or tragedies and “stretching them out,” magnifying them in succeeding groups.

While that solves a problem, it opens up another one. DP assumes that Revelation starting in Chapter 4 and continuing to the end is a narrative—essentially a historical record of the future. Unless specific words point to things being figurative, one is to take what is described as literally true and in chronological order. The telescopic view of these chapters, if true, undermine it as purely a chronological narrative.

The third problem was the most serious to me. Revelation Chapter 12. Reading the passage, it is pretty clear that it is an allegory of salvific history. As such, it does not fit into the chronological narrative that people assume for the majority of the book. In fact the chapter would not even really by futurist.

But here is the end result. If the chapter in the middle of the main section of the book is not futurist, and much of the rest of the middle section does not appear to be chronological, and attempts at being literalist seems not to be used consistently by those who think it is such an important aspect of interpretation, maybe the problems with DP are much bigger than seen at first glance. Add to this the fact that the Bible does not consistently separate the Church and Israel. Add to this questions as to whether there is ANY clear passage supporting a two-part Second Coming of Christ. Add to this the fact that much of the early church had no problem with holding to a high view of Scripture while at the same time seeing the 1000 year reign of Christ as figurative language. There is a lot of reason to doubt Dispensational Premillennialism.

———

But so what? Well there seems to be an awful lot of bad missiology built in a DP foundation.

I will save that for Part 2.

When You Rule the Mountain, the Mountain Rules You (Seven Mountain Mandate)

I am writing a book with the tentative title “Paradoxical Christians Mission: Theology Reflections for Weak, Small, Poor, and Slow Ministry.” In case it wasn’t clear in the title, I am suggesting that Weak, Small, Poor, and Slow are GOOD qualities in ministry.

As I have been writing I feel myself bumping up against the Seven Mountain Mandate. Truthfully, it is not a term big in my particular faith tradition, but the concept is. It is a “dominionist” view that Christians are meant to dominate the seven “mountains” of society— religion, family, education, governance, media, art, entertainment. Apparently, this view has its roots in CCC (now CRU) and YWAM.

Now, I am kind of a “Both/And” person. I usually find truth in the nuance. As such, I don’t necessarily see some ideas as completely correct or completely wrong. BUUUUUUT… I really struggle to see any good in this. Perhaps, if I try hard, I might say something somewhat positive like,

“Christians, both as a group and as individuals, should have impact in our world and in our society. This impact should not be simply in terms of religion— kept in a sterile box separated from all other parts of our culture. Our faith should affect our entire lives, and as we interact with the world around us, this holistic nature of our faith should stand in contrast to our world, and provide an alternative perspective that affects our world holistically.” 

But this does not seem to be what is being talked about when people talk about the Seven Mountains. What is being talked about is POWER. It is about subduing, overtaking, controlling.

The problem is that this doesn’t seem to jibe with the message of Christ. Some argue that early Christianity was a novel idea of an oppressed powerless group… but over time as its power increases, our goals should be less countercultural and be more culture-overthrowing. It kind of makes sense, but I do think that there are problems with this, and the main problem is in the title of this post.

When you rule a mountain, the mountain rules you. I think we are seeing this today in American-style Evangelicalism. Now, despite having lived in the Philippines for much of the last 20+ years, I am definitely American. I have for 2 or 3 decades called myself an Evangelical Christian. But the “American-style Evangelicalism” of recent years seems to have really taken on a focus on power and control. We see this in the area of governance, where the focus seems to be on controlling others. The emphasis on impacting media and entertainment also seems to have an idealized endgame of control of the flow of ideas and images. Power is addictive, and addiction is really not good for the church.

John Maxwell speaks of the levels of influence. I like his work in this. The lowest level of influence is Position. (Above this are Permission, Performance, People-development, and Personhood (or Pinnacle).) It is interesting, however, that coercion, the ability of power to express itself in terms of control, is tied to the lowest level of influence (position). Yet, as Maxwell shows, a person with a higher level of influence has greater power when he or she has greater influence.

This suggests that there is more than one type of power. One type of power (coercion) goes down as influence goes up. The other type of power goes up as influence goes up. Since I struggle to find a good label for this type of power, I may as well simply go with the term “influence.”

Christians should have influence in the 7 big areas of society. (I am in now way saying these 7 areas are the most important… just the 7 areas that are popularized.) However, when one is speaking of power as it relates to control/coercion, that is very different. The excitement of the ability to influence, however, can lead to the excitement of controlling others. That desire can also lead to yielding to other types of base desires.

There are stories of Christian leaders who have fallen (morally) and that leads to the inevitable question of whether the person was ever “good.” I would suggest that in many cases the person was probably good but gave in to the seductive quality of power.

When we “rule” religion, our base instincts drive our decisions. Spiritual abuse can often be the worst abuse because it has a justification of seeming divine mandate. When we “rule” governance, our desire to control others feels easy and appropriate to satisfy. When we “rule” media, our power to gatekeep ends up pushing us to justify book burnings, book bannings and more.

Influence the mountains but don’t try to rule them. Leave that “Pandora’s Box” to others

My “Best” Posts Over the Years

I decided to embrace a bit of curiosity and figure out what posts of mine were the most popular (best?) for each year this website has been in existence. It just hit 15 years. In terms of calendar years, then, I have posts from 2010 to 2025

2025Inculturation, Enculturation, Acculturation, and Morehttps://munsonmissions.org/2025/02/06/inculturation-enculturation-and-acculturation/2024Sermon: “Every Christian is a Missionary”https://munsonmissions.org/2024/04/23/sermon-every-christian-is-a-missionary/2023Theology of Holistic Missionshttps://munsonmissions.org/2023/04/05/theology-of-holistic-missions/2022Contemporary Issues in Missions; Part Twohttps://munsonmissions.org/2022/08/04/contemporary-issues-in-missions-part-two/2021Defining Missions and Missionarieshttps://munsonmissions.org/2021/11/09/defining-missions-and-missionary/2020Sermon: Jonadab, the Good Fatherhttps://munsonmissions.org/2020/06/21/father-jonadab/2019Christian Mimicry (Part 1)https://munsonmissions.org/2019/01/16/christian-mimicry-part-1/2018The Chicken that Laid the Golden Egghttps://munsonmissions.org/2018/10/01/the-chicken-that-laid-the-golden-egg/2017Problems with Spiritual Giftshttps://munsonmissions.org/2017/06/11/problems-with-spiritual-gifts/2016Three Stages of Prophecy and Wordhttps://munsonmissions.org/2016/11/30/three-stages-of-prophecy-and-word/2015Reflection, Restoration, Redemption and Three Little Pigshttps://munsonmissions.org/2015/12/09/reflection-restoration-redemption-and-three-little-pigs/2014Mythology and Theodicy in the Visayashttps://munsonmissions.org/2014/08/21/mythology-and-theodicy-in-the-visayas/2013Oral Transmission and “Rida Rida Ranka”https://munsonmissions.org/2013/06/06/oral-communication-and-rida-rida-ranka/2012Honk if You Love Jesus????https://munsonmissions.org/2012/07/25/honk-if-you-love-jesus/2011Medical Mission Events in the Philippines, Part 1https://munsonmissions.org/2011/11/08...https://munsonmissions.org/2011/11/08/medical-mission-events-in-the-philippines-part-i/2010Critique on Evangelism. Part 1https://munsonmissions.org/2010/12/27/critique-on-evangelism-part-1/

I originally did this to look for trends, but in the end I saw a few confusing things, but not a lot that is hugely useful.

#1. Some years were “Good Years,” and some “Bad.” 2019, seemingly, was a bad year. The most popular post from that year only had around 8 percent as many views as the most popular post I have done (one from 2024). In fact the most popular post in 2019 has had only about three times as many views as the AVERAGE post (average out of all 1704 posts I have done). Not sure why this is. 2011 was a very good year with many highly viewed posts. 2016 was also pretty good. Not sure why.

#2. There was not a strong pattern regarding what I write about. A couple of my top posts were sermons, two or three were stories, and a couple of them were tied to “definitions” in missiology. I have never tried to write for a target audience. I like to write about what I want to write about. It is comforting that my top posts are particularly slanted in one direction. (On the other hand, I have written a lot on missions history, and many of those are near the bottom of views. That is a trend I am glad to be aware of. Not sure it will affect what I write about.)

#3. The fact that my top post on this website is a sermon and the top post on my personal website is a sermon as well, does point to something I think. So many preachers don’t go to their Bibles for sermons, but the Internet. Is that a problem? I kind of think so. However, if one needs a bit of inspiration from the sermons of others, I suppose that is fine. However, preachers should always make their sermons their own. Most of my sermons are built on Scripture AND personal stories. As such, I think that preachers would be challenged in using many of my sermons.

#4. Some of my top posts are unapologetically on missional theology. Does that mean that there are lots and lots of people interested in this topic? I don’t think so. I just think there is a lack of good articles on this topic that are accessible to the average reader (especially good articles that are not placed behind a pay-wall).

Anyway,

Is Training Necessary for Christian Ministry? Part 2

Continuing…. I would like to use my own example to suggest how training works with ministry.

My wife was born in the Philippines but had moved to the US after college. We met there and had three children… but after 9 years of marriage we began to be convinced that God was calling us to serve as missionaries. I was a mechanical engineer. Celia was a nurse. As such we had no formal training to be missionaries… but the skills of engineering and nursing may be useful. We prayed about it, did research, got involved with ministry opportunities, I joined a mission team to Brazil. After a couple of years of prayer we became convinced that God wanted us to serve as missionaries.

The problem was that we barely understood what missionaries do. We have led Bible Studies, We have taught in Sunday School. We have done evangelism and discipleship, but we knew that being missionaries involved a lot more than that. So when we believed that God was leading us to Baguio City, Philippines, we applied to a seminary there to be students. I was 38 years old, and my wife was older than I was. Maybe you think that this is old to go to seminary, but we needed to learn to use the tools of ministry. The day after we were accepted into the seminary, I quit my job as an engineer, and we started our preparation to move to the Philippines.

So we were going to be students in a seminary, but we also knew that the best training brings together learning with the mind, with learning through experience. We thought that perhaps we could do work in medical missions. Celia was a nurse. As an engineer I was trained in organizing projects. This might be good. We can use our past training. However, we really did not know how to do an actual medical mission. Well, we were in Baguio City, Philippines for four days. On that 4th day, we met a pastor of a church and a missionary tied to that church. They did medical missions. We recognized this as God’s working. We joined the medical mission team. At first we joined as regular workers. Our job was to learn how to do medical missions. Over time we learned how to find locations for medical mission. We learned how to evaluate if a potential site is good for medical missions or bad. We learned who to contact in the community for partnership. We learned how to order medicines and how much of each medicine to bring with us. We learned how to put together a team of trained and untrained volunteers for the medical mission trips. We learned how to set up stations at the medical mission point so that people could enter, be served, and leave. We learned how to partner with local churches in a way that people who responded positively to God’s love in word and deed can be incorporated into the church and Bible studies. There was so much we needed to learn. And we did, after a couple of years, Celia and I became team leaders for medical missions. We did this for several years. At the same time we were taking classes at seminary on the Bible, theology, music, missions, pastoral care, Christian education, church history, ministerial leadership— tools we would need for a broad range of possible ministries.

As we were doing medical missions we started wondering what else we could do to help communities. We started wondering whether we can help in community development. The problem was that we had no training in this. So we looked for trainers. We learned of a group that trains people in the Philippines in community development. We joined a training. We also found a husband and wife who do community development in and around Baguio and began partnering with them in community developmetn projects. We slowly learned how to meet economic needs and social needs in addition to spiritual and physical needs.

After seminary, Celia and I looked at where we were and what God wanted us to focus on. I believed that my primary ministry was to be teaching. Celia believed her primary ministry was pastoral counseling. For me to be a teacher, I need more time as a student. Also to be recognized as a competent teacher, I would also need to have a higher degree, so I went back to seminary to earn my doctorate at age 46. My area of specialty would be missions. Celia, to be trained in pastoral counseling, started to take Clinical Pastoral Education. This is for pastoral counseling and clinical chaplaincy.

So 2009 happened and two huge storms hit the Northern Philippines. We began doing medical missions work in areas where there was great distruction. We knew how to do medical missions. We also started to look into how we could meet other needs, such as community development. But we also saw that people were troubled in their hearts and in their minds. Celia was trained in pastoral counseling, but we also believed we needed additional training in disaster response. Therefore, we invited a chaplain to come to the Philippines to help out with disaster response counseling, but also to train us and our team to be more effective in responding to disasters— in counseling and other ways.

As this ministry grew, we founded a new group. Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center. We do pastoral counseling, disaster response counseling, and we train people to be pastoral counselors and chaplains.

Since then, we slowly stopped doing medical missions and community development. Those are important ministries, but they also take up a LOT of time and energy . We realized that God wanted us to be more focused on leader development.

Today, most of our minisrty work is in training— training in missions, training in pastoral counseling, and so forth.

So did we stop learning? Did we stop being trained? Of course not. A minister must also continue to be a learner. In 2012 and in 2021, we received formal training in Missionary member care, to help us minister more effectively to missionaries. We received coaching in how to set up an accreditation and certification organization for pastoral counseling and clinical chaplaincy. I have taken academic courses in recent years. We both have taught at seminars, and have attended seminars as learners.

What does this all mean?

1. God made us for ministry. So God uses the skills, talents, and trainings we have received before we ever follow Christ in ministry.

2. God guides us in terms of where we are to go and what we are to do. He gives us giftings and passions that empower us to serve in a certain place doing a certain type of minsitry.

Our past skills, gifts, and trarinings are important. God’s calling and gifting is also vital. But God has created us to grow. Jesus

LUKE 2:52 says that from age 12 to 30, Jesus grew in Wisdom, and Stature, and Favor with God and Man. Working backwards, Jesus grew in favor with man. He learned grrowing in socially… gaining in social skills to relate to others more effectively. It says He grew in favor with God. We don’t really know all of what that means. Perhaps it means He leaned to live His life and ministry more reliant on the Father and the Spirit. It says He grew in Stature. He grew up physically from a child to a grown man. It says He grew in Wisdom. He learned things, but not just learrned it, but began to understand how to use that learning in the right, wise, way. If Jesus needed to learn and to grow in all four of those ways, how much more do we need to learn and grow in all of those ways.

3. God gives us opportunities to learn. This learning may be formal, non-formal, or informal. This training is from people who have the knowledge, skills, and experience and are willing and able to pass it on to us… like Moses training Joshua, Elijah training Elisha, like Barnabas training Paul, and like Jesus training the Twelve.

4. Ministry is a life-long process of learning. Sometimes the learning is to enter a new area of ministry. Sometimes it is to stay in the same ministry but to do that ministry better. Often is learning is two-way. I learn from others, and others learn from me.

A wise and faithful minister of Christ is also a faithful learner.

Is Training Necessary for Christian Ministry? Part 1

The following is a write-up (first draft) for a video on this topic. Is training necessary. I argue YES. However, a more nuanced response would be:

A. YES, training is necessary… but non-formal and informal trainings are also forms of training.

B. NO, formal training is not absolutely necessary… but there is a cost for not being formally trained.

Anyway, here is my first draft. Note, I focused anecdotes/stories, not on a theological argument. There are a couple of reasons for this. The main one is that another video being done by another will, I believe, address the topic from a more theological/biblical perspective.

————–

Is training important to do ministry? I believe the answer is absolutely yes. Now, there are different forms of training. I am going to assume that our other presenter is speaking more on the importance of trainging for good theology— avoiding heresy, recognizing truth from lies. And that is important. Even good Christian leaders can say things that are false. Perhaps they truly believed that what they taught was true and from the Holy Spirit. The problems is that Satan is called the deceiver for a reason. He is a good liar. So being well-trained in Scriptural truth helps us to avoid this problem. However, I would like to speak more on the importance of training in doing ministry work.

A Christian minister is like a carpenter, or a builder. A builder’s ability to cut, dig, hammer, turn, bend, connect and all of the other tasks in building is limited by the tools he has and how skilled he is in using his tools. If someone comes to build a house and all he has is a shovel, or maybe a hammer, there is simply a lot of things he cannot do… or at least cannot do well. In the same way, a Christian minister needs to have tools to minister, and know how to use those tools.

I will use some examples from the Old Testament, from the New Testament and from my own experience.

First, Some training is informal, before going into ministry. Nehemiah was a cupbearer for the king of Persia. He was distressed because the people of Jerusalem were suffering. The Bible says that he mourned, fasted, and prayed for 4 months. But in that time of mourning, fasting, praying, he came up with a plan. He would get the king to fund him to go to Jerusalem and work to rebuild the walls of the city and replace the gates. He seemes like a bad choice. He was a servant of the king… not much different from a slave. He did not have money, he did not have time. He did not have authority. But he had God. And he had more than God… he had some tools. He was trusted by the king of Persia. But not only that but he had been trained in how things are done. As cup bearer he was certainly at many meetings where military generals, governors, officials would meet with the king and plan major projects. In the book of Nehemiah, the king and queen began asking Nehemiah questions like how long would it take, what resources would he need. Due to the training he had even before he became a minister of God, Nehemiah knew how to answer these questions.

Second, some training is formal, beforr going into ministry. St. Paul received training to minister… learning Hebrew Scripture He was trained by a great Jewish rabbi, Gamaliel, in Hebrew Scriptures. This training was a great help in his later ministry.

Third, once one becomes a minister, training doesn’t stop. Again, some training is formal while some is informal. Joshua served as an assistant to Moses, learning how to lead through watching Moses, and being trained by him, for many many years. Elisha was trained in how to be a prophet from Elijah. The Twelve apostles, were first known as the twelve disciples… the twelve trainees of Jesus. They traveled around with Jesus. They ministered with Jesus, learning as they went. However, the Gospels make it clear that Jesus would also set aside specific times where he trained the disciples separate from the crowds. Three years He did this. Therefore, when Jesus ascended into the heavens, the disciples were no longer called the disciples… the trainees. They were now called apostles… those sent out by Jesus to serve Him.

Even though Paul received training in Scripture before, he still needed training to do Christian ministry. He talks about how He spent time in the desert and it appears that he was trained by God during this time. But that wasn’t his only training. In fact, Barnabas, an older man who was a more mature Christian and a more experienced Christian minister… came alongside to train Paul. We see this in the work in the church of Antioch. We also see it in the first missionary trip. In that one, Barnabas was the leader of the mission trip. Paul was the preacher. Paul knew Scripture and so could preach, but he did not know how to be an apostle… a missionary, and so needed to learn from Barnabas. After Paul and Barnabas separated they each took on a new person to train. Paul took Silas, while Barnabas took John Mark.

Orality Missions for the 86 Percent

Orality Missions (there are lots of terms… not going to delve into them) refers to a mission strategy/movement involved (originally) in reaching illiterate people with the gospel of Christ. By illiterate, we would be commonly refer to those who cannot read, in a people group who cannot read.

Traditionally, the strategy for such a group would b for the missionary to help them read. in some cases, like Ola and Minnie Hanson working with the Kachin people, they even came up with a writing system for the people. This is a great long-term strategy. I like long-term strategies. But is there a short-term strategy that can be used now? The answer was presenting the Gospel (and more broadly, the Bible) through oral means— particularly oral storytelling. This seems easy enough at first. Even in literate cultures the most common form of communicating God’s message is oral— preaching particularly. However, it soon became evident that sermons were commonly created by literate people targeting literate people. They tend to teach abstract concepts through structured propositions. They might have stories… but these stories would be either (1) for entertainment purposes, or (2) to illustrate a point. The stories would not really “embody” the message. The presentation must change at every level to effectively reach people groups who do not read.

This concern relates to Primary Orality— those who simply cannot read. Approximately 14 percent of people in the world cannot read. And of that 14 percent, a sizable percentage are people people who live in what is a literate society, and perhaps even a literate people group.

But what about the other 86 percent. Does Orality Missions have anything to say? From the 86 percent one can also consider two other groups. Once can think about Secondary Orality. Actually, I am going to use a little bit different language, because it makes sense to me. Please bear with me.

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Bible-St...

Group One Orality. These people learn through hearing, watching and doing because they simply cannot read.

Group Two Orality. These people have learned to read at least at at basic level, but are greatly limited in their reading skills. Because of this, and often because their thinking patterns are more inline with Group One, they learn by hearing, watching, and doing. I was just watching a video on Youtube where it made the claim (they cited the source, but I did not check it) that 60 percent of Americans (from the USA) are literate only at 3rd or 4th grade elementary levels… or lower. These people can function adequately in a literate society, but their ability to learn through reading is limited.

Group Three Orality. These people are literate. They may even be highly literate. They, however, learn through hearing, watching, and doing, because that is what they prefer. if a problem comes up, especially a practical problem. They are likely not to seek a written answer. Rather they will seek an oral or visual answer. They are likely to listen to a podcast or watch a video. This number is growing with the growth of non-written materials online.

I am not an expert here, but Group One people definitely learn through stories— plot and characters. Group Two are likely to learn this way as well, far more than by propositions and lists. Group Three, often adept in reading and learning through reading, may be less dependent on stories to learn. That being said, stories appears to be the default setting in our brains. Group Three still uses and values stories, and may still prefer stories as the means to learn.

Group Four. These are people who prefer to learn through reading. They are likely to be highly literate… however, many highly literate people may still prefer to learn without reading (Group Three). Group Four likes lists of principles and categories. They may like stories (as noted above with regards to sermons) to illustrate the abstract (rather than embody it) or to entertain. That being said, if one is discussing a complex aspect of human existence with a member of Group Four, it is quite likely that stories (especially movies or TV shows will be used to clarify.

If 14% of people on earth are Group One, then 86% are in the other three groups. Orality missions is valuable for this larger group. First, many are in Group Two. As noted, the US, a nation with a fairly high literacy rate, has a majority that MIGHT be classified as Group Two. Perhaps the effective number would be lower, but it would still involve a large group. Secondly, Group Three is growing. I blog. I enjoy blogging. it is a written form of communication and learning. i have often thought whether I should start podcasting or doing videos. Truthfully, I don’t want to. I prefer writing, but I may need to change. Finally, stories are pretty universal, so using oral and visual storytelling to guide and inform helps bridge the gap between the groups

The orality movement focuses on stories, and the principles of oral storytelling. Some of the principles work better with completely non-literate people groups. However, many of the ideas and methods are very applicable to the 86%. For me as one who likes to write books and blog, I understand that I may be reaching an ever-shrinking demographic. Next month I am providing a video presentation to a lower literacy group. I started out focusing on principles and arguments. However, I decided to delete that direction and go toward telling stories. I hope that will be more effective.

Should Christians Pray for Unreached People Groups (UPGs)?

I think it might be best to give the TLDR answer here: YES, it is good for Christians to pray for UPGs.

I am giving the answer early becase I am going to go over a number of things that might cause people to think I am saying “no.”

A big reason that one might think my answer would be “no” is because I reject much of what might be labeled “UPG Theology.”

I will try to express a certain flavor of “UPG Theology.” There are many variants, some of which I may generally agree with. But here is a common form that I simply don’t—- I am using my own words to expess it. I am not directly quoting anyone:

“Missionaries are called to serve God by going out, bridging cultural boundaries, to reach unreached people groups. There are thousands of unreached people groups, some of which are also unengaged by any effective Christian ministry. God has promised that once every UPG (or perhaps UUPG, unreached and unengaged people group) has been effectively bridged by the gospel of Christ, as evidenced by perhaps an indigenous church movement, Jesus will return. Therefore we must pray that God sends workers to the harvest and that such groups have hardened hearts opened to the working of the Spirit of God.”

Much of this I believe is problematic.

1. The basis for some of this is a a dubious interpretation of the Greek phrase “Panta ta Ethne” (or similar variants). I am no Greek Scholar… but the consistent view of scholars as far as I can see is that this phrase cannot be interpreted as “ethnolinguistic groups.” The term is pretty consistently used to describe Gentiles, as a group. This does not invalidate the idea of people groups, but it does at least draw into question the appropriateness of taking verses in the Bible and substituting in the concept of
“people group.” More on this later.

2. The value of identifying people groups, determining whether they are “reached,” “unreached” or “unengaged unreached” is certain fine, and may even be useful, but getting focused on statistics probably isn’t. A whole missiological industry has sprung up seeking to determine: “How many people groups are there?” “How many UPGs are there?” “How many are UUPGs?” “How many languages are there?” “How many still do not have a Bible in written or oral form?” People Group, much like Language is a difficult term to define. Unreached or Unengaged are also difficult to define. Numbers may be useful to give a bit of a perspective of the scope of the work. However, numbers are often used like they have some meaning beyond that. I have seen people struggle to understand why numbers seem to vary so wildly between different data collectors. Often the labels are a very arbitrary, and thus so are the statistics.

3. Related to the previous two. People often take “people groups” as a well-defined Biblical term rather than a poorly defined designtation in (Christian) cultural anthropology. Doing this leads to some rather fanciful beliefs like taking Matthew 24:14 to mean that God is waiting until every people group (as we have identified and defined) moves from being unreached to reached (again as we define it) before the Second Coming. Some see this in a negative sense (Jesus won’t return UNTIL after every people group has been reached). Others see this in a positive sense (Jesus WILL return when the last people group has been reached… or very soon after). Since that is not what the passage says, and even if it did (which again I must say it doesn’t) we cannot impose our definitions of people groups and reached versus unreached onto the Biblical text. It is bad exegesis (bad eisegesis really) and bad theology.

Therefore praying for UPGs to meet a Biblical prophecy and speed up the return of Christ is flawed. (Frankly, if that theology was accurate and that we could speed up Jesus’s return, it seems like one could make the argument that we should ensure one or more UPG is never reached so as to allow more people to be saved. Just a thought— but again, the underlying premise is flawed.)

So does not mean that praying for unreached people groups is bad? Not at all. The identifying of ethnolinguistic people groups that have little or no Christian ministry is helpful for strategy and mobilization. Praying for the people as well as ministry is important. Beyond that, praying also reminds us about people who often are forgotten. People like to argue about whether our prayers “change God.” I will not delve into that issue. I do know, however, that prayer “changes us.” Prayer for unreached people groups (and reached people groups as well) is beneficial for such groups, for ministries to or within those groups, and for the one praying.

Where Should One “Retire” After Serving as a Missionary in the Field?

The above question has become more relevant to me of late as I have reached the traditional age for retirement in the Philippines, and my wife has reached the traditional age for retirement in the US.

Some argue that there is “No retirement in the ministry.” That may be motivational, but it is also not strictly true. In fact, it is not particularly true on any level. One thing that God knows far better than we do is our limitedness. We are created to go through life stages. In the Bible, every Levite semi-retired from ministerial duties at age 50. Elijah retired with God’s blessing—- taken up into the clouds after he had trained up his replacement. I personally believe that the Apostle John “retired” from his role as an apostle (church planter) to being an Elder in the Church of Ephesus. We certainly know from the Didache that transitioning from Prophet (traveling preacher) to Elder was a common thing. It might be more “Biblical” to say that “Retirement from ministry does not mean that ministry ceases.”

But if one retires from being a missionary where should one live? The two most obvious places are (1) your home of citizenship… or the country that one considered to be one’s home before going into the mission field, or (2) your home of ministry… or the country in which one served. The fact I had to give a lot of explanation when using the term “home.” Missionaries commonly have more than one home. Which home should one embrace as one’s retirement home?

When I was a young missionary I was surprised seeing so many missionaries finishing their time in the mission field and going back to their birth country to retire. If you don’t find that strange, maybe consider this scenario. I was born in New York State in the US, but for the last 3 decades I have been recognized as a resident of the State of Virginia (still in the US). Let’s assume I was never a missionary. I would find it weird if people in Virginia would say to me, “Now that you are retiring, you will be moving back to New York State, right?” Why would people assume that? I could… but I could retire in many different places. I have a daughter in Florida and I could (cringe) retire there. I mean, I could retire anywhere. As a missionary, why would people ASSUME that I would go back to my (birth) home country to retire?

As I got older, I did start to understand why so many missionaries do retire to the country of their birth.

A. Legal Issues. Not all nations like foreigners living inside of their borders indefinitely. Some are quite accommodating while others are not. Some others may allow one to stay long-term but with periodic travel outside of the country. However, as one gets older, such travel can become a big challenge.

B. Health Issues. Let me give our example. We are, or soon will be, on US Medicare Insurance as we are reaching that age. Medicare does not work outside of the US, in theory. They do accommodate some foreign travel, but not beyond 6 months outside the US. Now here in the Philippines, one can receive good health care that is cheap. However, paying out of pocket for major surgery would still be a big burden. We have a friend who is a semi-retired missionary living in the Philippines. He needs heart surgery but can’t really fly back to the US for insurance-covered surgery, and cannot afford cash-based surgery in the Philippines. A conundrum. He is trusting God to keep him alive until God’s time to take him home.

C. Family Issues. All of my children now live back in the US, and we now have a grandchild (also in the US). To stay in one’s mission field home may mean living in a different country than many or all of one’s family.

D. Housing Issues. Many missionaries don’t have regular lodging in the mission field. Often a mission agency either owns the housing or leases it. Perhaps in this, some may feel less connected to the mission field than back in their birth country even if they don’t have lodging there either. To me this one makes less sense than the others since, in many countries, the housing costs are much lower than in their birth home country. But in some situations, housing is a big concern.

E. Identity Issues. I have met missionaries that really seem to fit in naturally in their mission field. Others really seem like they have much stronger ties to their birth country. It is hard to explain… but people really give off the vibes that they would want to be buried in their mission country, while others would never consider such a thing.

But there are reasons to retire in the mission field home. The following apply to me at least. Some others may find this true as well.

A. Boredom. Retirement can be boring. I already find my birth country pretty boring. There always seems like things to do in my missions home. I don’t want to be too busy, but don’t want to spend all my time binging online content.

B. Friends. After a few decades, many missionaries will find that they have more friends in their missions home country than their birth home country.

C. Cost. For SOME missionaries they may find that living in their missions home country cheaper than their birth home country. This will vary with the situations of each missionary.

D. Maintaining ministry. Retiring doesn’t necessarily mean entirely quitting ministry. It may simply mean getting out from under organizational control, and doing what one wants to do rather than what one is told to do. I know a few missionaries who are active in their 90s. I have a friend (mentioned above) who is in his 80s and very active in his “retired” ministry. Many choose to die in the mission field, working at some level to the very end.

I truly don’t know what we will do. We have decided for the moment to keep things as they are for 5 years. After that we probably will “retire”… but we have no idea what retiring actually looks like or where it will be.

Reviewing My Own Books

I am presently working on a Missiology book that will hopefully be done in 2026. But for now, I would like to go over the books I have written up to this point. All of my books have been self-published and self-edited (mostly). My new book will probably have a publisher, so hopefully it will be more… professional?

My Author Page is on Amazon if you are interested in any of the books. https://www.amazon.com/stores/Robert%20H%20Munson/author/B017DGJSEW?ccs_id=9f9c11b5-f3d0-49f6-9962-c73391a90a89

I decided to go from what books I have sold the most copies of to the one that I have sold the least of. This is a bit deceptive. For example, the book I have sold the least of, has many many copies around.

#1. “The Art of Pastoral Care.” This is by far our most popular book. Celia and I wrote it together. We cofounded Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center. Celia is a Board Certified Clinical Chaplain and Pastoral Counseling. It is pretty good book I think. Most people find it valuable. Some want it to be “less Christian” while others want it to be “more Christian.” I think disappointing both groups equally is where we want to be. We use this book in Clinical Pastoral Education and Pastoral Care and Counseling classes.

#2. “Cultural Anthropology and Christian Missions: Ministering to a Multicultural World.” I have taught Cultural Anthropology at a seminary for many years. I struggled to find a book that works for teaching cultural anthropology to master’s degree students in the Philippines. I decided to write one myself. Am I proud of it? Mostly Yes. It has been extremely helpful in teaching. Do I have a degree in Anthropology? No. Do I think this books stands up to works by the expert Christian authors on this topic. Not really. But it does have an accessibility to it that many others don’t. I like the book but I wish it wasn’t my #2 book.

#3. “Dynamics in Pastoral Counseling.” This is the other book that Celia and I have written together. It is meant to be a follow-on to The Art of Pastoral Care. I think it is also a good book, but both Celia and I feel we need to do a new revision sometime. Some of the technical things may need some further review. That being said, it is pretty useful for those taking CPE (clinical pastoral education), our target audience, since it gives some good guidance to them without getting lost in the weeds in some of the details.

#4. “Theo-Storying.” This was the second book I completed. I am actually quite proud of it. But I do have a frustration. Soon after I published it over a decade ago, one person went onto the Amazon website and gave it a “One Star” rating. No review. No explanation. Very annoying. What makes it even more annoying is that on Amazon one can read a sample. If it wasn’t the book you wanted, you had every opportunity to find out beforehand. I consider this my second-best book that is not a textbook.

#5. “Principles and Practices of Healthy Medical Missions.” This was the first book that I completed (I think). It is essentially a “book-i-fied” version of my dissertation. As such, it is the only book that I have had formally edited and reviewed by others. That is all good, I think. The problem is that over the years I have become a bit disenchanted by medical mission events. Actually, I began to be disenchanted with them while I was doing my research. To be fair, the book does not gloss over my concerns for this form of ministry. One might even say that the book helps people figure out how to do medical missions in a way that is productive ministerially. As such it is a good book… but definitely very niche in its appeal.

#6. “Dialogue in Diversity.” This was written for a class I teach, “Dialogue with Asian Faiths.” The book is not for the entire course, but for the first 5 weeks. It is there where I promote how to do interreligious dialogue (IRD) well. I like the book as a textbook. There are not many books that deal with IRD well that have an Evangelical slant to it. This is my second best textbook (after “Art of Pastoral Care.”) and I would like to see more copies of it get around.

#7. “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions.” This is probably the best book that I have written that wasn’t a textbook. Of course, perhaps it IS a textbook. I wrote it after teaching a class on Mission Theology. I suppose it could be used for such a course. This is probably the book (after “The Art of Pastoral Care”) that I would recommend most for people. Again, however, missions theology is a bit niche. It is not for everyone, but I tried to make it accessible.

#8. “Missions in Samaria.” Okay. This one is complicated. Technically, I have never sold a copy of this book. And it is understandable why. The cover is boring (none of my covers are awesome, but this one is particularly boring.” The title is vague. I also only have paper copies available… not digital. But I am okay with this. Here is the rest of the story. Years ago, I did a four sermon series at a church based on Samaria. The interim pastor, a seminary professor, liked the series and suggested I turn it into a book. I thanked him and then did nothing with it. However, during COVID I got bored. I decided to make it one of my COVID projects. I wrote some articles based on the sermons, and then I added a couple of more topics and turned it into a book. I made the articles freely available online and made the book freely available online as well. Eventually, I decided “Why not put it on Amazon?” So I did. However, I could not make a Kindle version. Amazon would not let me because free versions of the book are floating all over the Internet. So although this is my “least successful book” in terms of sales, the articles and electronic versions of the book are all over the place. I am really okay with that. If you want a free copy, it is on my website somewhere. Others find it easy enough so I am sure you would find it too.