Robert Munson's Blog, page 10

156AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Second and Third Century Missions

As the apostles (vocational church planters) faded out in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the local churches became the lead missionary entities. This had a positive aspect as the Christian faith slowly spread out from major Roman and Near East cities into the surrounding regions. Negatively, there seems to be less leaps of the faith across national boundaries and cultural groups.

This is not to say that there was no missionaries during this time. Addai and Mari were probably missionaries during the 2nd centuries. They were described as apostles, but the writing placed them as being part of The Seventy (or Seventy-Two). As I said, they were probably 2nd century missionaries, and if the writer identified them that way they PROBABLY would not have described them with that title. Those recognized as serving as missionaries after the first century tended to be described as Evangelists or “Teachers of Christianity.” More on this in my paper on Apostles– .

But outward movement and growth of the church did happen. As amazing as the growth of the church was during the first century, any tangible impact would end up being visualized as little dots on the big map of the Roman Empire and surrounding lands. The growing of those dots into regional influence occurred during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Such growth occurred through many people.

A. Martyrs. As is well-known, the term “martyr” is from the Greek meaning “witness.” The ultimate witness of one’s faith is to be willing to be tortured and to die for it. Christians set up humility as an ideal— a concept no generally seen as a virtue in the Greco-Roman culture. If anything, it was more a sign of weakness. Christians of that time were generally pacifists— another sign of weakness in the militaristic empire. So when Christians would self-sacrifice for their faith, their church family, and for their god, this must have been extremely hard to reconcile. Much of Greco-Roman paganism was transactional in the here and now. Do something to add to one’s luck, ward off evil, or achieve one’s ambitions. This level of devotion to their god and faith community, demonstrated through courage rarely seen outside of the battlefield must have been very inspiring. One of the most famous martyrs, the bishop Polycarp, was publicly killed in or near 156AD. His story was one of many that was shared through the churches as an ideal. In fact, it was seen as such an ideal that some looked to create opportunities to be martyred. (I would argue that a colleague of Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, did just that… seeking martyrdom just a bit too much.) This led to guidelines some guidance among the members to seek to be living witnesses as long as one can… only being a dying witness (martyr) if one must. I have a post on this— Polycarp and Persecution.

B. Apologists. Apologists or defenders of the faith were literate and theologically trained Christians that interacted intellectually with those outside the faith. Despite the fact that they may have seen their role as primarily inter-religious, their greatest strength was probably (much like apologists today) in confirming the faith of Christians, or gain a clearer understanding of the bounds of orthodoxy. Still, the apologists could be of value when communicating with Greco-Roman pagans. They could challenge popular misconceptions of the populace— such as Christians being atheists, incestuous, cannibals. They could respond to polemics of others (such as responding to the charges of Celsus against Christianity). They could also write their apologies for evangelistic purposes. I suspect that these apologies rarely led to conversion (much like apologetics today) but likely did promote understanding that likely “softened the soil” for later germination and fruitfulness. Today, an awful lot of what we know about early Christianity comes from the considerable output Apologists like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and more.

C. Sacrificial Love. I have long argued that the three-fold encounter of modern missiology is flawed. Truth, Power, and Allegiance encounters are important. However, I see little evidence that Power Encounter deserves to be in the top three. For those who speak of six encounters, I think power encounter barely deserves to be in the top six. Up with Truth and Allegiance should be Love Encounter. When people see Christian love, expressed in part by love for God, part by love for members within the faith, and part by love for people outside the faith. This SHOULD contrast sharply to love as evidenced by those outside of the faith. In the early church. While martyrdom may demonstrate love for God and those within the church, the love for those outside of the church was demonstrated most clearly during the plagues that would ravage the empire. Rather than going over this at length, I would recommend reading my post, “The Church and ‘Pandemic Love’.“

D. Everyone as Evangelists or Local Missionaries. In its early years, the Christianity was very much a religion of the people— the people of the masses. It was not like the mystery cults— a religion of the elite or of a profession. It was not like many of the pagan cults where there was a small set of devotees and then large crowds that utilized their services. The charge that Christianity was the religion of the poor and the enslaved may have been true— but that means that it was the faith of the largest demographics of Roman society. As such, its “E-1” mission field was vast. That seems to be the main reason for its high growth rate in the first three centuries.

Adolf Von Harnack said it well regarding missions in this time.

It was characteristic of this religion that everyone who seriously confessed the faith proved of service to its propaganda. Christians are to “let their light shine, that pagans may see their good works and glorify the Father in heaven.” If this dominated all their life, and if they lived according to the precepts of their religion, they could not be hidden at all; by their very mode of living they could not fail to preach their faith plainly and audibly. …
We cannot hesitate to believe that the great mission of Christianity was in reality accomplished by means of informal missionaries. Justin says so quite explicitly. What won him over was the impression made by the moral life which he found among Christians in general.

Book Review: “Church Members and Nontraditional Religious Groups” by Glenn A. Igleheart

I am not sure how useful it is to do a review for a book that is 40 years old and no longer being printed. However, when the book was recommended to me, I easily found a second-hand copy online.

“Church Members and Nontraditional Religious Groups” by Glenn A. Igleheart was published by Broadman Press in 1985. It deals with the issue of “cults.” The writer is careful to clarify that “cult” is a perjorative term for many and that he is using the term only with great caution. It looks at how to deal with those (church members, family members, friends) who may be in a certain relationship with a nontraditional religious group. Some of these, like the Unification Church or the Hari Krishnas in 1985 would most certainly be described by many as cults. Others, like Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism, have characteristics that don’t fit so neatly with what people in the 1970s and 1980s would label as cultic. These relationships include (1) being in the process of joining or considering joining a group, (2) already being a confirmed member, (3) having doubts about the group, (4) exiting the group, and (5) post-group adjustment.

The book is pastoral in the sense that it looks to be written primarily to pastors serving church members, members of the broader church family, and members of the community. The book is also centered on counseling as it addresses the process of speaking to those in such a group and to friends and family of those in a group. The strategy is balanced in my perspective. One should seek to be friendly and supportive, but also address issues of truth.

I find the book valuable and (strangely) rather timeless. It uses a lot of examples and many of those examples were more relevant back in the 70s and 80s (such as more on communes and nothing on neo-pagan groups). I would argue that this does not really detract from the book. Using the “Worldwide Church of God” (a group that has changed greatly over the decades) or the Hari Krishnas (a group that is much less visible today) does not cause a problem. I would argue that examples that we don’t relate to intimately can be useful in that we can think about them at an emotional distance.

The book does discuss the issues related to “cult deprogramming.” Igleheart points out the practical and ethical problems associated with it. Since then, laws have been set up (or enforced) that criminalize some of the practices that the author disapproves of. However, even though these practices may be not formally practiced now, there are many practices that we can easily fall into or be tempted by that are equally problematic. The author encourages all Christians to be informed and prepared in what to do, and to be supportive as a community of believers within a larger community.

I strongly recommend this book, if you can find it.

100AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). The Second Big Transition

One might think of the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15 as codifying the first big transition in the church. At the council a major decision was made (or was identified that the Holy Spirit had already made it). That is that a Greek can become a Christian without also becoming (behaviorally or culturally) a Jew. In essence, Christianity formally recognized that it was a Universal Faith, rather than an Ethnic Faith.

I would argue that the end of the first century AD marks the second big transition. However, unlike the first, I don’t think one can identify it in only one aspect.

The original founders of the faith (The Twelve, the Seventy, the other early apostles, such as Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, and so forth) have died. It would not be accurate to call this a second generation— rather it was a third generation by this time… with only the oldest among them having interacted with the original Christians in a meaningful way. Due to this, major changes were taking place.

#1. The church was not seen as centered on the apostles. There are groups today that emphasize apostolic succession. And there was certainly, in some sense, apostolic succession. However, it does not seem to be in a vocational sense. By the early 2nd century, the church used the title “apostle” pretty much exclusively for The Twelve plus Paul. There were still people who carried out the original calling of the apostles (evangelizing and church planting) but they were not generally called apostles— a bit of an indication that they saw this new generation as doing the work of the original apostles but not formally taking on “their mantle” or authority (however one chooses to define such authority). Later in the 2nd century the idea of “apostolic succession” was seen rather as more of a logical succession. In response to groups deemed heretical who claimed to have the “secret doctrines of Jesus and the apostles,” the argument was made that if there was any “secrets” they would have been passed on to their true successors, the leadership of the churches they founded.

If one thinks about it, this sort of succession points to the fact that apostles did NOT have a unique authority. Rather, they had a unique role. They were church planters… and as church planters, their role was not, primarily, to create new church planters, but to create new churches and establish new church leaders. This is what continues for the next 2000 years. Church planters evangelize and establish churches, develop local leaders and then move on. Apostles, then are primarily outside of the church… but not because they were above the local church… but because they were BEFORE the local church. That seems to be apostolic authority… the authority of a parent, NOT of a ruler.

#2. During this time, there is a transition from the authority of the spoken word to the authority of the written word. This is nothing new. This happened in Judaism in the Intertestamental Period. During that time, rabbis became more important than prophets. Some have said that the prophetic word disappeared during the Intertestamental period. However, looking at the available evidence it seems as if the prophetic word was seen as continuing but lacking the same authority as it had before. The canon of Hebrew Scripture was established during this period, and rabbis were focused on interpreting and contextualizing authoritative Scripture rather than seeking a prophetic word. The same thing happened in the early church. The early church had apostles and prophets (church planters and traveling preachers),. However, with the passing of the original apostles it became more important to both collect early writings, and to identify what is canon (authoritative). While it took many decades to come to a full consensus of what is canon (driven again by a response to what was deemed to be heretics), writings in the time of the Apostolic Fathers and the Patristic Fathers show a huge dependence not only on Hebrew Scriptures, but also writings of the first century apostles.

It is clear pretty early on that there were concerns about “false apostles” and “false prophets.” Such concerns go back into the New Testament writers as well as the next generation of early writings such as the Didache and the works of the Apologists. Christianity would be a religion based on the Word (Jesus) and the Word (canonized scripture) rather than on living prophets.

#3. During this time there was a transition to the centrality of the local church. As noted before, the Christian leaders of the 2nd century were not apostles/missionaries, prophets, evangelists, or any such thing. Rather they were bishops of local churches. Some people find it strange that the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was headed by James (the half brother of Jesus) rather than by the Twelve. That however, pointed out that the Apostles were not church leaders. They established churches and parented churches, but they did not run churches.

It is interesting that today there has been a move in some denominations to reestablish the title of Apostle. I find it interesting because it seems that these denominations also place Apostle within the church leadership hierarchy. The establishing of power within churches and denominational hierarchies has become so normalized that seeing Apostles as not tied to the flow of power in a church structure does not seem to be entertained.

#4. New roles began to form that took on some of the roles of the early evangelists. That, however, will be saved for a later post.

Form more information, I have a blogpost and an article to look at:

Three stages of Prophecy and Word

52AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Paul’s Mission Trips to Asia Minor

One of the great Christian missions books in the last couple of hundred years is Roland Allen’s work, “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? A Study of the Church in the Four Provinces.” It is a wonderful commentary on colonial-style missions, and contrasting it with missions carried out by St. Paul in the book of Acts. The book was published in 1912 and remains a “must read” for those involved in missions today. That book is truly great. Yet there is one problem:

I dislike the title— and I dislike it for multiple reasons.

#1. Missionary Methods. I am not the first to note this, but the book is really about Principles, NOT Methods. This is a bit benign… and I am not even sure if back in 1912 the term terms were defined the way they are now, but methods are context-specific that are (ideally) based on underlying and more universal principles. I don’t want to draw this point out. If you want to update yourself on this: https://thisvsthat.io/method-vs-principle

#2. St. Paul’s. I am not really trying to be controversial here, but it seems pretty evident that the principles (or methods?) used in the first (and arguably second and third) missionary trips of Paul were established by Barnabas and not Paul. What is my basis for this, since the book of Acts gives no indication of who established their plan?

On the first missionary journey, Barnabas appears to be the one in charge. For one thing, Luke lists the missionary team with Barnabas first for the early parts of that trip. Second, when the team reached Lystra, the locals identified the two as pagan gods— Zeus and Hermes. Barnabas was identified as Zeus the chief Olympian, while Paul was identified as Hermes the herald of the Gods. It seems reasonable that the people Barnabas was given that designation because he was seen as being in charge, and/or because he was older. Paul might then be identified as Hermes because he did much of the preaching, and/or because he was younger. Since in the myths, Hermes was the son of Zeus, it seems quite reasonable to suspect that in age and in role Barnabas and Paul appeared to have a bit of a father/son relationship. Earlier on, Barnabas sought out Paul to bring to Antioch to help out suggesting a mentoring role. If Barnabas was a mentor for Paul, it seems likely that the strategy they came up with was from Barnabas. This might be further supported that the first place they went was Cyprus, where Barnabas was from.I will add a second reason I think this— and this is probably even more controversial. I don’t think Paul was a great missions strategist. Paul was a great theologian and a great writer. But we need to avoid the halo effect. By Paul’s own admission, he is only a so-so preacher, and based on the popularity of eloquent Apollos in Corinth, I believe that Paul was not simply being humble. Paul can be a great theologian and writer and still be a mediocre missions strategist. My reason for thinking this is as follows. IF Barnabas was the one that essentially established the pattern of the first three missionary trips of Paul (participating in the first one, and planning the second one), then Paul as a strategist should be judged based on what was done outside of these. First, Paul seemed to have a great desire to minister in Jerusalem. This never really worked out, and it does seem strange that he would keep seeking to even while identifying himself as specially called to reach out to the Gentile world (Jerusalem being the major city with the lowest percentage of Gentiles in the world.) In fact, if one reads Acts 21, it seems as if even Luke (the chronicler of Paul’s ministry) had doubts about Paul’s plan. Second, Paul’s strategy to go to Rome and speak to the Emperor directly, gives us no known fruit, but did take away close to 5 years of his time for ministry. You may disagree, but I think there is plenty of reason to at least wonder if Paul’s main strengths were not associated with missiological principles/methods/strategies.

#3. Allen’s title is actually written as a question— “St. Paul’s or Ours?” My concern for that question is that Allen’s implied answer is absolutely the opposite of what it should be. The answer should be “Ours!!” Paul ministered to Hellenistic Jews, and Pagan Gentiles in the first century Roman Empire. Of course we should not be using his methods. Almost everything has changed between that context and ANY context that exists today. Of course, part of this goes back to point one. Allen is focusing really on principles, NOT methods. But even there, one should be cautious in how one applies principles to a new context. No principle is completely supra-cultural or free from context. Of course, Roland Allen was addressing a huge issue of that time… and an issue that has endured to the present. That issue was colonial missions. While colonialism did in fact open some doors to the spread of the gospel, it came with cost. One of those costs was that some of the presumptions of colonialism seeped into strategies and methods of missions. These include having local ministries managed locally by foreigners and overseen and funded overseas. Roland Allen’s book is a challenge to Colonial missions… and today should be a challenge to us as well. That being said, our goal should never to copy what Paul did. If one does copy what Paul did, it should not be because that is what Paul did but rather because what Paul did is informative to what should be done in the present day in a specific context.

While I did say that I don’t like the title of the book, the original title is not the worst one associated with the book. Since the book is no longer under copyright, some other versions with modified titles have come out. One of them is:

“Missionary Methods: God’s Plan for Missions According to Paul”

I dislike that title much more. First, Paul did not give us a plan. Rather, Luke wrote down what happened in Paul’s missionary work, and out of that, one can gain a sense of the plan or strategy. Second, and this is the bigger problem, the title suggests that Paul’s plan is God’s plan. I know that this is really common. Find something that works and then promote it not simply as a good idea or something that works, but as God’s special and approved method. That is never a good idea. Jesus gave a method for sharing the Good News in Luke 9 and 10. This method is very valuable to study… but I don’t get the impression that Jesus was saying “This, and only this, is God’s approved method to evangelize.” We know that Jesus was not suggesting this since He used multiple strategies. Multiple strategies are good— and should be varied based on the circumstance.

I hope I made clear to you that I strongly cherish this book… and it should be ready by anyone interested in Christian missions. The title I have a problem with… but for me, that just leads to reflection and dialogue… it does not lessen the value of that book. And if you want to gain insight in how Paul (and Barnabas) did missions in the first century, the book is invaluable.

36AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Samarian Campaign

Missions in Samaria by Robert H. Munson
MM-Musings 2020. https://www.amazon.com/Missions-Samaria-Robert-Munson/dp/B087CRN2TG>

According to Acts chapter 8, Saul (aka Paul) went around Jerusalem house to house seeking out Christians and dragging them off to jail. So Christians began to scatter and tell others about Christ as they scattered. Persecution is NOT always bad. God can use any circumstance.

Suffering is NOT always bad. In Acts 8:4-8, Now those who were scattered went
about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and
proclaimed to them the Christ. And the crowds with one accord paid attention
to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that
he did. For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many
who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. So
there was much joy in that city.

Philip was not one of the twelve disciples. (There was a member of the Twelve who was named Philip, but this was a different one.) He was not described as an apostle, although he embraced the apostolic role of opening up new mission fields for Christ. He was actually a deacon at the church of Jerusalem. In Acts 6 there were 7 deacons assigned to help out in the church. Philip was one of them. Philip was different from the twelve disciples in that he was a Hellenized Jew. That is, he was Jewish by blood but Greek in many aspects of culture. It is interesting that many of the great missionaries and evangelists of the early church were people who were comfortable living in two different cultures. Philip had roots in Jewish culture and in Greek culture and appeared to be comfortable in sharing with people of other cultures. Barnabas was a Jew raised in Cyprus. Paul was a Jew raised in Tarsus, a Greek city known as a center of Greek philosophy.

So Philip leaves Jerusalem because of the persecution and goes to Samaria, and he begins sharing God’s love with the people of Samaria. And they responded. Continuing with verses 14-17,

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and
they received the Holy Spirit.

Here we get to a confusing spot in the Bible. The Samaritans received the Holy Spirit and did so linked to a miraculous sign, in this case speaking in tongues (miraculously speaking foreign languages). Now this is not the only time where the receiving of the Holy Spirit was linked to a miraculous sign. In fact, four times in Acts, the receiving of the Holy Spirit was tied to a miraculous sign. As a sign, it was meant to point to a great truth.

In this occasion, there is a time difference between belief in Christ and the receiving of the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by a delay in this sign. This is the only case that we know of after Pentecost where this has happened. In fact, when we go to the Pauline Epistles, such as Ephesians and I Corinthians, Paul makes it very clear that all Christians have the Holy Spirit, even though not all Christians have miraculous gifts.

Different groups today choose different directions to deal with the contradiction. Some focus on the events of Acts as normative over the statements in the Epistles. Some focus the statements in the Epistles and view the unique events in Acts as non-normative. This is not that kind of book— a book to deal with such an issue. However, I would suggest a missiological solution to the time lag issue in Acts 8.

Perhaps, God was still trying to teach His disciples (and us) something very important. Consider the four miraculous signs of the Spirit in Acts:

The first miraculous arrival of the Holy Spirit was to the Jews… the 120 in upper room on the day of Pentecost… in Acts chapter 2. It involved the visible sign of flames and the auditory sign of foreign tongues. None of the other three events includes flames as far as we know. Perhaps they needed the flames to unambiguously link it to the Spirit of God.The second miraculous arrival of the Holy Spirit was to the Samaritans, here in Acts As noted earlier, there is a delay in the miraculous sign.The third miraculous arrival of the Holy Spirit was to the Roman Cornelius, and other Gentiles, in Acts 10. The sign was immediate.The final miraculous arrival of the Holy Spirit recorded was to followers of John the Baptist who followed Christ in Acts 19. (The followers of John the Baptist could easily have been thought of by the early Christians as the one group that might “inclusively” be redeemed by Christ without truly following Christ). Upon following Christ as Savior, the sign was manifested.

The receipt of the Holy Spirit is available to all people who place their faith in Christ… to Jews, to Samaritans, to Gentiles. But why would the Holy Spirit delay in coming to the Samaritans when, as far as we know, He never delayed elsewhere after Pentecost? The Apostles were present at Pentecost. Peter was present in the house of Cornelius when Gentiles came to Christ. Paul was present when the followers of John the Baptist accepted Christ.

But the apostles were not there when the Samaritans accepted Christ– only Philip the Evangelist… a deacon of the church of Jerusalem. God needed the apostles to see something not just hear about it. We are the same way sometimes. It is not good enough to hear about something amazing, or read about something amazing. Like Thomas, sometimes we need to see to truly believe.

The question is, did it work? Did the apostles learn something that changed their attitude and actions. The answer is without a doubt, Yes. Continuing with verse 25 of Acts 8,

Now when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they
returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel to many villages of the
Samaritans.

Peter and John stayed in Jerusalem for years, apparently, without sharing the Gospel with Samaritans. When Peter and John went up to Samaria to see what Philip was doing, it appears that they went directly there without sharing the Gospel with any on the way. But once they saw that Samaritans were accepted by God in the same manner as Jews, the text states that they stopped in many Samaritan villages along the way back to Jerusalem preaching the Good News.

Some years later, Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council and summed things up. In Acts 15:6-11, the question was whether a non-Jew had to become a Jew… or at least act like a Jew to become a Christian. A good question. But Peter learned something from this event and the event with the Gentile Cornelius and his family.

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this
matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to
them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among
you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and
believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them
the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and
them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you
putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither
our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be
saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The Apostles learned their lesson, and through them the Gospel of Christ has gone from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth.

33AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Pentecost

“Translation of the message started from the very beginning of the church. The Pentecost event more than simply demonstrated the movement of the Holy Spirit, and the inauguration of the church. The sign occurred in Jerusalem on a day when the relatively monocultural city would be the most diverse. The sign itself was a gift of spontaneous translation— crossing the linguistic barriers of the crowd. As Patrick Johnstone stated, “What was the Holy Spirit wanting to say? He was showing that ethnicity and language are both God-created and vital to God’s global plan. This Pentecost event was a challenge to the Church: use of local heart languages to communicate the Gospel!” At the same time trade or international languages were also valued in the early church. The four Gospels of the life of Jesus were all written in Greek, the most international language of the lands in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.227 The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was the Bible of the 1st century church. Even more, the form of Greek used by the early church was more in line with the conversation of the people than that of the scholars.”

“In Acts 2, the gift of tongues (languages) had a target, the diverse language speakers in Jerusalem at Pentecost. However, this sign was done before a larger audience as well. The public listening thought that many of the Christians were speaking incoherently like drunkards. That is why Peter ended up speaking to this secondary audience in a language they were comfortable with (perhaps Aramaic) and explained what was going on. A similar thing comes up in the early church where Paul said that the gift of tongues should not be done without an interpreter. The gift was not simply done for the benefit of the primary target— the one who understood that language— but also for the greater audience. Ignoring one of the two audiences was not acceptable.

Two Quotes from Robert H. Munson. “Muddy Footprints in the Ivory Tower: Missiological Reflections on Language and Localized Theology” Philippine Journal of Religious Studies. Vol 4 #1 (2024)

33AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Reflections on the Great Commissions

When we speak of the Biblical basis for Christian Missions, a lot of time is placed on the Great Commissions. Shortly before the ascension of Jesus, He spoke to His disciples. Actually, the different Gospel accounts not only give different versions of such a “commissioning” but there seems to be a difference in the setting of the commissioning. This a good example of where one really DOES NOT need to struggle with a harmonization of the gospel accounts. Between His death and His resurrection, He had a mission— to pass on a mission goal to His disciples, and this seemed to happen more than once during this period.

In terms of location– it seems that it happened at at least two places. One is a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28). One is pretty clearly in Jerusalem (John 20). The others are less specific.

As far as participants, who was this commissioning for? The accounts are not completely clear. John’s account (John 20) says that ONE of the commissionings happened with the Twelve minus Two (Judas and Thomas). Mark 16 and Matthew 28 indicate the commissioning occurring when the “Eleven” are present (the Twelve minus Judas). These passages do not state explicitly that no one else was there, but they leave open the possibility of this. The other passages give no specific numbers. However, over 500 saw Jesus after the resurrection (I Corinthians 15:6). Did they participate in any of the commissioning speeches? Possibly. We know from Acts 1 that Barsabbas and Matthias were two (among others we must assume) who were at the Ascension and thus must have been there for at least one of the commissionings. Additionally, Paul had the “Damascus Call” that in content sounded very much like the commissioning of “Sent Out Ones” (Acts 26: 16-18). Further the calling of Barnabas (Acts 13) and his actions on his missionary journey with Paul suggest that he understood that Christ’s commissioning applied to him. The same might be argued regarding Philip (the Deacon or Evangelist). Further, many beyond the Twelve are described as apostles in the New Testament (despite the ESV translating out that description).

The last two paragraphs are not collections of meandering trivia. The church over the centuries has struggled with the question of who are the recipients of this special calling or commissioning.

We know that the commissioning was given at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry after the resurrection (in Jerusalem) and at the very end right before his ascension, and that He appeared to literally hundreds of people, some of whom (like Barsabbas and Matthias) we know specifically were present as part of that commissioning. We know that the commission was given after the ascension of Jesus at least once (Paul). We know that many identified as being among those described as sent out ones (apostles) beyond the Twelve.

As such, we should at least suspect it applies to those other than the Twelve as well. Additionally, there are logical reasons as well.

4. William Carey noted that the Matthew account links the presence of Jesus with the recipients of the Great Commission until the end of the age. If it was just for the Twelve, it seems like Jesus would be promising to be with them “as long as they live.” The wording implies a perpetuity not limited to the Twelve… recognizing a commissioning that goes far beyond the Twelve.

5. Acts 1:8 version says that the calling involves going out even unto the ends of the earth. While the term “ends of the earth” is rather vague, I am sure even John (the last of the Twelve) would confirm that the Twelve shared the message to all the earth. This also suggests a commissioning given to many after the Twelve.

This got a bit drawn out, but I believe it is important to recognize that the Twelve had a unique place in the history of the church, but not necessarily a unique missional calling. It may be fair to ask the question of whether the Great Commission is meant for all Christians, or to a dedicated subset. It is, however, clearly mistaken to suggest that there are Christians today bound by the same task and calling as the Twelve.

I have written a lot more on the Great Commissions in this website, as well as in my book on Theology of Missions, https://www.amazon.com/Walking-Theological-Reflection-Christian-Missions/dp/B0BYRHTHFR

32AD Christian Missions History Musing (CMHM). Jesus as Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith

“While I have heard the argument made that Jesus considered himself to be a Jewish prophet called to reform Judaism and never saw himself as having any cross-cultural or international purpose, it seems clear that Jesus was internationalizing the movement from the start. He saw himself as inaugurating the Kingdom of God—a movement not tied to nations or national boundaries, as a king who is not in competition with civil rulers (John 18:35-36). The worship of God would have no geographical center (John 4:19-24). Jesus trained his disciples to think in a new way about non-Jews—Roman soldiers, Canaanites, Samaritans, among others—far different from the views of typical Jewish adherents. He intentionally went into non-Jewish areas—Samaria, Phoenicia, Decapolis—and trained his disciples to minister to non-Jews. He taught his followers to focus on the core of the law (the Great Commandment) above the rabbinical innovations that had become part of the local religious culture. He probably preached in Aramaic, the language used by people well beyond the borders of Judea and Galilee. The call of Jesus shortly before his ascension to go into all the world is hardly a surprise ending His message was already prepared to be adapted to and adopted by the world.”

–Robert H. Munson. “Muddy Footprints in the Ivory Tower: Missiological Reflections on Language and Localized Theology” Philippine Journal of Religious Studies. Vol 4 #1 (2024) p. 67-68.

CMH (Christian Missions History) Musings in Order

We just passed Christmas 2024 and I felt like trying something new. I decided I want to work through Christian Missions History and share my thoughts. I have shared CMH thoughts before. But this time I thought I would try to do it in historical order. Some will be quotes of what I have written in the past while others may be more original. I am going to start from the life of Christ. There is much that can be written on missions history that predates Christ… but focusing Christian missions to me (at least) means narrowing the topic down to the ministry of Jesus Christ and the Church.

It is quite possible I will get sick of this… but I hope I will be able to keep it going for awhile. I also hope people will understand that this is NOT Christian Missions History… but selective thoughts on CMH.

Hope you will join me and I welcome your thoughts.

Ministry is a Lot Like Swimming

For the first 7 years of my life I could not swim. That wasn’t really a problem because I was never really at a place where swimming was needed. One time, however, when I was six years old, I was with my family visiting their friends in Connecticut. We went to a lake to go swimming. Of course, normally I would be in the shallows— but for some reason this time I jumped off of a short pier and found that it was deeper there than I was tall. Now that was not such a problem. I could touch the bottom and push off and easily get my head above the waterline and take a breath. I could do that over and over again, but for some reason I could not move toward the pier, or any other direction. All I could do was go up and down. A lifeguard saw me and scrambled to get me. My six year old self balked at the attention. I was not drowning (I thought), I just had not figured out how to get to the pier.

Swimming seems so easy and natural. Most people are naturally buoyant. It seems like one would almost have to make an effort to fail to swim. But no… it is a skill that comes naturally to few, if any, of us.

Christian Ministry is like swimming in that it is easy to get in over one’s head and be in danger— despite the fact that little in ministry really looks to be all that difficult.

My parents decided I needed to get swimming lessons. I went to the Boys Club (now the Boys and Girls Club I believe) in Jamestown, NY. Our teacher was a guy named Tony. Almost in no time did I learn to swim. It was so easy once I knew how to do it. I kept going there— it was fun. I enjoyed the water. But my 7-year old mind started to realize something. I was not improving. I am not sure if I was sharp at that age for figuring it out, or slow for taking some long to realize what was going on. But Tony was investing in the non-swimmers. Those of us who could swim… well, we could go off and have fun. He would invest very little time on us to learn new things. That was actually fine— the class was essentially to get non-swimmers to be swimmers.

Christian Ministry is like swimming in that if we stop accepting new challenges (or stop challenging ourselves), we can easily fall into ruts that hold us back from learning and growing.

My parents started taking me to the YMCA to swim where we learned new swim strokes and how to improve our form and speed. Later, in Middle School, I joined swim club at school. That was great. We also had regular swim class at times at our school. I became quite good, although I never could figure out how to coordinate myself to swim the butterfly stroke. Good doesn’t necessarily mean fast. I was competent, but the swim team is not for the competent, but for the fast. Therefore, I did not consider joining. I also realized that there were three things that gave me issue with swimming. #1. My eyes reacted to the chlorine put in the pools. If I spent too much time in them, I would suffer. #2. Some classmates decided that the swimming pool locker room was an awesome place for bullying, and I got the brunt of that on some occasions. #3. Moving into competitive swimming would force me to move from my comfortable, and somewhat “blouse-y”swim trunks to some rather awkward clothes sometimes joking called “budgy smugglers” I really did not want to do that.

Christian Ministry is like swimming, sadly, in that as much as one may love it, one will discover some aspects that will try to take away some of that joy.

Christian Ministry is like swimming, sadly, in that being recognized as “good” at it is tied to quantifiable characteristics rather than overall competence.

I worked at a Summer Camp for a few summers. I knew how to swim well, but that wasn’t enough. I needed to know how to help others. I took Basic Water Safety and First Aid so that I could help other people.

Christian Ministry is like swimming in that it should not ultimately simply be about learning new things and improving oneself. One should learn how to help others. (Frankly, that is what the term “ministry” suggests.)

I joined the Navy. Although I was not a great athlete and did struggle on some of the PT work I had to do, the swimming aspect was not an issue. However, I did pick up some new skills in the Navy. I remember learning how to jump off a high platform into the water in such a manner as to minimize the likelihood of injuring myself. I learned how to survive in the water if there was a burning oilspill on the surface (a very specific scenario). It was also in the Navy where I decided to learn to snorkel and scuba dive.

Christian Ministry is like swimming in that there is an endless number of need for new skills and opportunity to put those skills into action.

Of course, there is no inherent connection between Christian Ministry and Swimming. Almost all practical skills could be compared to Christian Ministry. It is just that for me, swimming makes me see some connections more clearly.

As an adult, I was at the beach in Virginia. The waves were rough but I found them fun. Being pushed around by the crashing waves made me think of being in a washing machine (for some reason). After doing this for awhile, I joined my family on the beach to relax. I closed my eyes. Then I heard someone walk up and say “Excuse me. Umm… excuse me.” I was relaxing on the beach. I did not want to be disturbed so I pretended to be asleep. The guy walked away, but then I heard more noise a bit farther off. Opening my eyes a bit, I saw a group of people forming a human chain to reach a guy. He was standing in an area of the water that was shallow enough to stand up but before the waves broke in chaos. He was stranded and did not know what to do. The others, however, were able to reach him and draw him to safety, as I watched.

Christian Ministry is like swimming in that one can easily give in to the temptation to shut one’s eyes to need and not help.