Robert Munson's Blog, page 11

Philippine Journal of Religious Studies 2024

We got our paper copies of our journal now at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary. They are (I believe) ready for purchase if anyone is interested. The charge is P350. This does not include shipping cost and I am not sure whether we are going to be shipping. For more info contact me at robert.munson@pbts.edu.ph

I Guess New Years is Okay as Well

I have written in the past how Christmas is okay, despite the yearly posts on FB and other places about how it is “pagan” or something. (I have written numerous posts on Christmas. Here is one of many: https://munsonmissions.org/2018/12/17/some-kind-of-ironic-great-things-about-christmas/)

I have also written reasons why other holidays that have “pagan connections” may not necessarily be bad. https://munsonmissions.org/2019/10/27/what-do-we-do-with-all-them-pagan-holidays/

Strangely, I have never had too many problems with these… in fact I believe that celebration is, for a lack of a better term… Good. https://munsonmissions.org/2020/02/16/a-theology-of-celebration-part-i/

But there are two celebrations that I have struggled with. One of these is (speaking as an American) all of those patriotic holidays (Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, Armed Forces Day, and so forth). I am not against some level of patriotic holidays— I live in the Philippines, where there are several such Philippine holidays and I don’t see a problem with them. But in the US, it seems like these holidays gradually get transformed into military holidays. I am a military veteran… but while I wouldn’t necessary see the military as a “necessary evil,” it is far less than “good.” One celebration a year is more than enough in my view. If you think it is not enough— fine… we can have two. I think two is definitely enough, if not too much.

The other holiday I have had an issue with was New Years (I will let others fight over whether the American holiday “Columbus Day” is good or bad). New Years seemed so unnecessary to me. I always felt like it celebrated nothing. The earth spins as it moves in an elliptical path around the sun… and we choose to randomly pick one of those spins to celebrate— one like every other spin.

In the West, celebrating tends to focus on too much drinking and making bad decisions. In the East, it often includes those same things, but adds to it lots and LOTS of gunpowder. Truthfully, it always seemed pretty “dopey” to me.

But over the years, I have changed my mind. New Years is like a birthday. Yes, I know that some groups have problems with birthdays as well, but birthdays, and other anniversaries, are milestones. They embrace the present moment to look back (honestly?) at the past, and hopefully into the future.

In a sense, it is like Holy Communion (or the Eucharist). We do it in the present (“eat this bread and drink this wine”), remembering the past (“we show Christ’s Death”), and looking hopefully to the future (“until He comes”).

Ideally New Years gives us opportunity for reflection and planning. I have never (as far as I can remember) set New Years resolutions. But I have set general goals (like write a book) or themes for a year. I think they tend to work better than resolutions anyway.

While I often hear how the Judeo-Christian perspective of history is “linear”— that is questionable at best. I think it is more accurate to say that the Judeo-Christian perspective of history is “narrative.” This means that it is centered on story— characters, themes, and plot arc. This does not in anyway compete with a cyclic understanding. God created us with a cycle of life, with cyclic days, lunar months, and seasons. Identifying points in time of these cycles— whether they be stages of life events, seasonal celebrations, or anniversaries— these help us to recognize our place in the story. It may sound contradictory, but honoring annual events like New Years can actually help us move to a narrative understanding of our lives and pull us out of a tendency to live our lives in meaningless repetition.

So whether you embrace a January 1st New Year, or a Lunar New Year, or any other particular day… REMINISCE, REFLECT, CELEBRATE, PLAN, and HOPE. And HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

Missions Service and Retirement

Years ago my mom had a friend who had been a missionary with a major missions agency; but back then retirement was not deemed a big concern. She went into missions as a single person. She eventually met a guy who was also a missionary, and they got married but too late to have children. Eventually they retired from missions service and returned home. However, they had essentially nothing saved up for retirement. He (back then working outside the home was more commonly a “he” thing) had to work in secular jobs at an age others were entering full retirement. The jobs were low skill and low paying since their service in the field did not leave them with much in terms of marketable skills back home. Sadly, her husband died rather early during this phase of their lives. This left my mom’s friend poor and with no children. She felt a bit bitter, to be honest, at her life experience. I am sure some people are ready to jump all over the, “Well… she shouldn’t feel that way.” Perhaps that is true… but it is understandable and is her right to feel that way. You and I might too in those circumstances.

Of course, missions service has often had an awkward relationship with retirement. I have heard so many people say “One never retires from the call of God.” I am not sure what people are really meaning when they say this. I do know a couple of missionaries— one in Japan, and another in Guatemala— who are serving in a missionary capacity still in their 90s. Is that what is being said? We hear stories from over 150 years ago of missionaries traveling to a different part of the world with their own coffin in tow. The likelihood of their (perhaps near-term) death was so high they were actively prepared for it. The coffin WAS their retirement prep. Such stories would often inspire people… but may have given an unhealthy understanding of missionary service. “Not retiring from the call of God” might mean to some that God’s call never changes. That seems wrong. Jesus called disciples to “follow him.” but then later changed the call to no longer follow Him literally, but now to be “sent out ones” (apostles). I would argue that the Apostle John may have changed calling another time becoming John the (church) Elder late in life. Certainly the Didache speaks of (traveling interchurch) Prophets changing calling to (settled intrachurch) Elders. But maybe the expression “One never retires from the call of God” is meant to be more… ummm… murky. That is, one always serves God wherever one is. Thus a retiree from overseas missions service may still be serving God… but in a very different capacity.

I don’t want to create a straw-man here. I am well aware that worldwide there has been a change regarding missionary member care (MMC). Most (I think most) would recognize that missionaries need to prepare for retirement and that preparation needs to happen from early in the life cycle of missionary service. But I know many cases where this does not happen. In New Sending Country missions, particularly, this is still not done in many cases.

For independent missionaries this is especially a challenge. When our church was talking about us being sent out by them on missions, the pastor was ‘very real’ with us in explaining that the church was not in a position to take care of our retirement. We assured him that our previous employment as engineer (for me) and nurse (for my wife) put us in a position to have money for retirement. I mean… not a lot of money, but enough at least that we will have something to help us later in life. Today, our retirement savings is a large part of the support that actually keeps us serving as missionaries. And it is enough for us to retire in the Philippines. Is it enough for us to retire in the US? Not sure.

Many years our finances were very tight. However, there were a few years where our support was quite adequate. If we did not have our retirement money waiting for us, we clearly should have set some of that support aside for retirement. Perhaps we should have anyway. Of course that takes a bit of discipline— discipline that may not come from outside accountability partners if one is an independent missionary.

We live in an era where one may serve on the mission field for 30 years, return back to the States, and live another 30 years or so in a state of being retired. As I have said in the past, when people like to say, “Are you ready if Christ returns tomorrow?” I like to ask “Are you ready if Christ returns in 800 years?” We should not expect a long life on earth, but we should prepare for it. I have seen many missionaries thrive when they return, transitioning into new and vital careers (religious or secular). In other cases, I have seen others embrace more of a traditional retirement but finding ways to serve God in this new context. I have known others who decide that the mission field is their new home and never leave— serving or at least residing until death. These are all valid, but require planning and preparation.

I have also seen some who believe that “living by faith” entails not really planning for the future. Does that work for some? I am sure it does. The Apostle Paul seems to have managed to get his retirement funded by Roman penal system. I feel few would consider this great planning (even Luke seems to me to find this plan dubious).

As is commonly the case, this post goes all over the place. Summing it up, I think that someone going into missions should plan and prepare from the beginning to:

Serve well and faithfully AND Retire well and faithfully

True Worship and the Magi

I did a sermon recently in church and put it on my other website.

If you want to read it, it is available at “Sermon: True Worship and the Magi“.

Should “Fallen” Missionaries be Restored?

Mike Winger put a video on Youtube that addresses the question on whether Pastors who have fallen morally should be restored to ministry. It is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlmF6pLZJE. He brings up numerous issues (13 in all) that should be addressed when it comes to this issue. I found it interesting and relevant. His answer of “Maybe” to the question of restoring pastors is very appropriate. I do recommend watching the video.

A slight concern that I have with the video is that it is almost totally related to sexual sin, with fornication/adultery being the primary area. It is an all too common problem, but there are so many problems that a pastors may have and I am concerned that some churches drift into two tiers of sin— sexual sins (unacceptable) and nonsexual sins (that might be overlooked). That being said, Mike Winger does address somewhat other types of sins as well. For me, the concern is not that we focus too much on sexual sins, but that we worry too little about other types of sins.

But what about missionaries? Let’s start with sexual sins. Should a missionary be restored who has had problems with sexual sins?

I see three issues that makes the situation with missionaries different than for (typical) pastors.

#1. Missionaries often serve in a place where it is easier to get away with sexual misconduct. For some missionaries at least (including myself) accountability partners are not well-positioned to keep track of them. Most churches and communities are positioned better to keep track of their pastoral staff. Just thinking for a brief moment now, I can only think of five missionaries I met who have been caught in sexual sin on the mission field. With more thought I may come up with others. Two of them were in settings where their accountability structure was weak. A third had a more formal accountability structure in place, but because he served in a creative access country, that structure operated at a bit of a distance. The fourth was caught but only after he was retired. Only one, the fifth, was caught on the field in a setting where there is, in theory, a strong accountability structure in place. But in that case, the accountability was more of an illusion. Five is not a really large number… but that probably says more about how easy it is to avoid being caught in the mission field than how few do actually fall in this area.

#2. Although missionary is a ministerial calling just as is a pastor/overseer, there is often a tendency to see it more like a secular job. The process for becoming a missionary can often feel more like interviewing for a secular job than does the process of being called by a church. I am an independent missionary, but in my limited interaction with mission organizations, they often feel a bit like a secular corporation. I remember a Christian musical artist who came to our church many years ago. In a moment of offline forthrightness he expressed the curious quality of Christian Music label meetings. He said that each meeting starts with prayer… but immediately after it is all business— numbers and dollars. Spiritual concerns are bracketed or completely set aside. I think the idea of “firing” a missionary is not as traumatic to most as “firing” a pastor. Christians tend to be closer emotionally to their pastor than to a missionary they support. Additionally, mission organizations often operate on a more openly transactional, rather than relational, way than the typical church.

#3. Missionaries are ambassadors of the faith… often to people who are not Christian. The title itself suggests a more apostolic role— bridging the gospel with those who have not responded. The title pastor, on the other hand, suggests the primary role of ministering to those who are already Christians. In I Timothy 3 it is noted that pastors (that is, overseers) are supposed to have a good reputation with outsiders. Most churches, on the other hand, often don’t care all that much if their pastor has such a reputation in the community. They want their pastors to have a good reputation inside the church, but if outsiders feel otherwise? Not necessarily a problem. Missionaries, on the other hand, can completely be sabotaged by having a bad reputation in the community in which they serve.

Looking at these three points. The third point is that sexual sins can sabotage ministry for a missionary even more than for a pastor. The first point is that the weaker accountability structure (often) may make problems more likely for a person who has a proclivity to yield to sexual temptation. The second point is that there is (usually) less of a pressure to restore missionaries than there is to restore pastors. Situations for missionaries vary wildly, but I think this is where things trend on average.

Based on these… I see sexual sins as being a potentially bigger problem for missionaries. Therefore, there are even bigger practical questions about the wisdom in restoring a missionary to mission ministry than in restoring a pastor to pastoral ministry. Add to that the relative ease of releasing missionaries and I don’t see much of a practical demand to restore missionaries. One of the five I mentioned before had been caught in sin more than once without being “fired” but that person had some friends in high places ministerially. The restoration of that missionary was completely ineffective. More recently, I knew another missionary who committed sexual sin. He also had friends and relatives in high places… but he was immediately “fired.” Maybe things have changed?

Of course, sexual sins are not the only sins. I had a missionary friend who struggled with anger. After a couple of years he had to leave the mission field. In the US, being an angry pastor may not be a big problem. Some angry pastors seem to be appreciated for their “performance art” in preaching, if nothing else. In Asia and many other places, having problem with controlling one’s anger is a BIG problems for missionaries. Trouble with handling money is huge on the mission field. Laziness can also be a huge. These problems can be bigger on the mission field, again, because of less accountability partners.

In the end, I do tend to agree with Mike Winger regarding pastors… and see it even more true for missionaries. He said, we should ALWAYS focus on restoring “fallen pastors” to God… and only SELECTIVELY AND CAUTIOUSLY consider restoring them to ministry.

Is Reading Other People’s Sermons THAT Interesting?

Looking over 2024 stats, I noticed something rather odd. Two of the top three posts I have are sermons. My initial reaction is one of shock. I mean, I never read other people’s sermons. I have opened up a couple of books of sermons of famous preachers. Sure, they may have been amazing to experience as an oral presentation. But putting a sermon into a book or a post is much akin to taxidermy. The sermon is lifeless… dessicated… and then pinned onto a paper or electronic page to be viewed. Perhaps it may be presented in a way that mimics life, but it is truly dead. Reading such a sermon is a chore.

So why are two of my top three posts sermons as far as views. I really have to assume that most of the viewers are preachers who are seeking sermons to share on Sunday. To some extent I get it. When I was young, our pastor would preach Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. He would also lead the Youth Group, and Choir. That is pretty crazy. I can understand why some want to cut corners and read sermons.

In my case, however, I don’t preach very often. As such, I really want to preach on topics that are meaningful to me. I have popped onto a website or two where sermons are collected and shared. The sermons are invariably awful. Or are they? Maybe they are okay… perhaps I did not search diligently enough. Or maybe because of my niche interests and desire for the sermons to connect to me in a personal way, they may be wonderful for others, but not for me. Many years ago, I did an internship in a church where the pastor did use others sermons. Because it was a multiple service church, I had to use his sermon as my sermon. Thankfully, he tended to choose well. He allowed me to personalize it… and would end up changing anywhere from 1/3 of the words to 2/3s.

Not sure how I feel about people taking my sermons and reusing them. However, if it REALLY bothered me, I suppose I wouldn’t share them at all. With that in mind, I will put links to some of my favorite sermons. These will include my “Top Two” as well as a few select others that I think are worthy to be valued. I make no promise that these sermons will be of value to others. As I said, I like to personalize my sermons. Anyone else using them would probably have to change a fair bit… especially illustrations.

#1. Beautiful Garden in the Desert. Isaiah 58:11-12. This has been my most popular over the years. Isaiah 58:11 is the theming verse for our ministry (Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center) so I find the passage especially relevant for reflection. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/sermons/beautiful-garden-in-the-desert-isaiah-5811-12/

#2. Every Christian is a Missionary? This has been my most popular new sermon. I am not sure how useful it would be for someone to use. It uses my testimony and that of my wife considerably, and also frames missions based on my own somewhat unique Missional theology. Still, perhaps some may find it useful. https://munsonmissions.org/2024/04/23/sermon-every-christian-is-a-missionary/

The following are a select few that I feel especially good about (for one reason or another).

#3. God of the Second Stone. I Samuel 17. This is about David and the five stones that he grabbed to fight Goliath. The sermon speculates on which stone was the one that killed Goliath. As I said, it is highly speculative. However, the applications are not at all speculative… and quite beneficial. I do think this one should have a lot more views. https://munsonmissions.org/2024/06/11/sermon-it-wont-be-the-first-stone-i-samuel-17/

#4. Tearing Down Walls. This is one of the older sermons I have online. I suppose I have to note here that this was not written as a political sermon. Rather, it was written as a missiological one. In recent years, the USA has become more isolationist and (perhaps) xenophobic so some may read this sermon differently than intended. Whatever. I think it is one of my better sermons. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/sermons/tearing-down-walls/

#5. Kintsukuroi— Beautifully Broken. This is a sermon I used while I was in South Korea. Kintsukuroi is an artistic innovation used by the Japanese as part of the aesthetic of Wabi Sabi. Despite it being topically Japanese, it did seem to resonate with the Korean audience. I do think it is somewhat profound… which is why I ended up writing an article based on the theme. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/sermons/kintsukuroi-beautifully-broken/

#6. Walking Forward with the Lord. This was a sermon or graduation address I shared at Union School International, in Baguio City. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/sermons/walking-forward-with-the-lord/

#7. A Better Land (Reflections on the Prayer of Jabez). I consider the sermon to be a bit of a contrast to the book “The Prayer of Jabez.” I do think it is a good sermon… even after these many years. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/sermons/a-better-land/

Of course, I have preached many sermons… but these are a few that I think are especially worth looking at again… even if only dried and strectched onto a piece of paper. I will be preaching at Spring Hill Baptist Church on December 8, 2024. I may share that one as well. We shall see.

Who From History Would I Like to Talk To… if that was even remotely possible?

WordPress likes to keep bloggers… blogging. They do this in part by asking a new question every day. Almost never do I answer the question. Part of that is because I think they are primarily focusing on people who use their website like a diary, log, or scrapbook. Nevertheless, occasionally there is a question that I find interesting. A day or two ago the question was “Who from history would I want to have a conversation with?”

As a Christian, and a teacher of Christian missions, I am almost required to say, “Jesus.” That would be wonderful… exciting… kind of scary. And if I remove that obvious answer, I am still almost driven to choose a Biblical character. In the “Biblical character other than Jesus” category, I would suppose it would have to be Barnabas. After Jesus, he seems like the most awesome person in the New Testament.

BUT… if Bible Characters were crossed off of the list? Yesterday I was thinking about it. I decided it would be Justinian Welz (or Justinian Von Welz), born 1621, died around 1668. I have written about him a bit in the past. He was Protestant Missions strategist and practitioner back in the mid 17th century when almost all Protestants were disinterested in missions or even thought it was a complete waste of time.

I would I find him interesting for a few reasons:

It is rare to have a chance to talk to someone who was so forward thinking (visionary/dreamer) who was also surprisingly practical. It is rare to have a person who could embrace a course of action that was so countercultural.It is rare for someone to act on his beliefs with such conviction that he died for those beliefs. While the above three are rare, having all three qualities in the same person is especially rare.

The day after I had that thought, I got an email asking me questions about Justinian Welz (perhaps only the second one I have ever gotten). Then doing another search online, I found a new resource regarding Welz that I did not realize was online. I will be reading it over in the next few weeks.

Of course, it is entirely possible that I would NOT enjoy such a conversation (I am assuming that we could bridge the English/German language divide). Many of his compatriots appeared to consider him mad. I might feel the same. Visionaries are often not the easiest people to talk to.

But I would love to try. And I would love to be able to tell him what has happened after he died of malaria in Suriname, 350+ years ago.

Story— Man in a Hole

It was a cold day to be at the cemetery. Slowly melting snow was still on the ground, as threatening clouds approached. Others who had come for Fred’s interment had already hurried off to attend the wake in the basement of Fred’s church. Sam and Arnold were the only two remaining, standing over the hole wherein Fred’s casket had recently been lowered. Arguably, the two were Fred’s best friends— being close for nearly 50 years.

“It’s sad isn’t it,” said Sam. “I am sure going to miss Fred. Why did he have to die before his time?”

Arnold responded, “I don’t think that is true at all. Fred died at just the right time.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“Well,” said Arnold. “I mean, you know, God is sovereign and so this must be the right time?”

Sam glowered at Arnold. “So you are saying that God killed Fred? Is that what you are saying? God said to Himself, ‘Well today is the day… this is the day when I am going to make Fred skid out of control and hit a tree.’ Is that what you are telling me?”

Arnold wrinkled his forehead. “I mean I guess… or maybe no. I don’t know. But I mean if it happened, it must be God’s will, right? If it wasn’t God’s will, it wouldn’t happened, it stands to reason.”

Sam wasn’t sold on this. “Maybe it happened because the roads were iced over and Fred was driving too fast on a day when he should have just stayed home. S**t happens. You don’t have to blame God for everything.”

“I am not blaming God. Everything happens for a reason. Something good will come from this, I just know it. I just have to trust and look for that good.”

Suddenly Sam pushed Arnold and he fell into the hole hitting the casket with a soft resonant thud.

“What the hell, Sam.” yelled Arnold. “Why did you push me?!”

Sam yelled back. “Why are you blaming me. It happened, so it must be God’s will. Everything happens for a reason. You just have to trust and look for the good in it.”

Sam started walking away. Arnold started to try to scramble out of the hole… but then stopped seemingly lost in thought as the cold rain commenced.

The Cross and the Three-Fold Task of the Missionary

Max Warren, 1904-1977, served long as the General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society. He wrote considerably on inter-religious dialogue, and mission theology, among others. He believed in the three-fold task of the missionary. I assume he drew it from the three-fold task of Jesus in Matthew 4:23

“Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.”

One might surmise that Warren embraced an Incarnational view of the role of the missionary… or at least saw Jesus as the key model for the missionary. However, central to the task was Warren’s understnading of the Cross and of the Atonement. The following is an extended quote by F. W. Dillistone in “Into All the World: A Biography of Max Warren” (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980). This excerpt quotes generously from Warren’s book “Interpreting the Cross.”

(a) In evangelism. “It is an inescapable part of the Cross in our ministry of evangelism, the Cross we have to carry, that we cannot persuade men that the Cross has a meaning.” “The Hindu, the Buddhist, the Confucianist, the Shinto devotee, and those who have abandoned those systems of belief but have retained their cultural forms, all alike have seen Christianity fundamentally as an expression of cultural aggression,expressed too often with scant respect for their own sensibilities. They have much to forgive. That is something Christians need to remember when they seek to interpret the gospel of forgiveness. It is not enough to know that God has forgiven us. We have to receive the forgiveness of those men of other faiths. This will mean an interpretation of the Cross in our ministry of evangelism which it will be hard to achieve. We can only seek forgiveness in the light of the universal relevance of the Cross. But how are we to convince the men of these other faiths that we all meet at the Cross and that we want them to forgive us there? That is the essence of the encounter that lies ahead.”

(b) In teaching. “Jesus Christ lived the Cross before he died upon it. His living was the teaching upon which the Cross itself threw the light of a vast illumination. Unless we can see this and understand that all Christ’s living was a dying, we shall not plumb the depths of what is involved for us in our ministry of teaching. For if the Cross stands at the centre of history, as Christians believe, if it is the central key to understanding the nature of God, the dilemma of man, the mystery of life and death: then we have to expand its meaning as the way in which all men are meant to live and die. This carries with it the implications that we too must live it if we are to teach it.”

(c) In healing. “Our ministry is to the whole man. To heal means to make every whit whole. We can be satisfied with nothing less than a full atonement in which the man or the woman is made one with God, with neighbour, with environment and with the inner self. Health, wholeness, integrity, holiness belong together.” And in a suggestive reference to Galatians 6:1-2 he points out that the verb translated ‘set him right’… is also the technical term used for setting of a broken limb. At-one-ment in the body becomes a model for the understanding of the At-one-ment which is the restoration of perfect harmony and wholeness. (Dillistone, pages 163-164)

Defining Precise Limits on God’s Grace?

I teach Cultural Anthropology, Inter-religious Dialogue, and Contemporary Issues in Missions. Note that none of these are standard theology courses. So you would be right to think that I am not the most meticulous and studied Christian theologian out there.

That being said, those three courses keep bringing up certain questions… and these questions are the types of questions that theologians really need to address. Such answering should not be done in a (dusty?) library but in the streets where theology is lived out.

A question that comes up pretty often is “Are people who never heard the gospel saved? Or do they at least have the potential of being saved?” “Were all of our ancestors damned who lived and died before the Gospel message arrived to our people?”

For some people, the Verse-droppers, these are easy questions. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Me.” Of course, that doesn’t answer the question, because then the question becomes, “Are there people who are saved by Christ, the way truth and life, who knows them even if they don’t know Him?” This may include groups like infants who die, or the deeply mentally ill or debilitated, or Old Testament saints, or those who never heard the Gospel. The list could go on.

Others, may give a different verse-drop: “For by grace are you saved through faith and not of yourselves– it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.” For this “verse-dropper” the answer is that if a person does not have faith, clearly they are damned. Of course, that leads to many other questions. A hard-core Reformed individual may say, that the faith itself is a gift of God (imputed faith)… thus the real determiner is God’s election. But that opens up new questions. “Can a person who never heard the Gospel be declared the elect from before time?” “Can a person be a member of the elect with no discernible/outward qualities of having faith?” Taking a similar thought from a different angle, if salvation is by faith and not by works, does it mean that faith and works are completely decoupled? “Can a person be saved based on a ‘faith’ that is no more than doctrinal assent?” Again, “Can a person be saved by a faith that does not have any discernible qualities of having such faith?”

My answer is that “I don’t believe I can place any limits on the mercy of God.” Some people find this wishy-washy, but it is Biblically sound. God, as written in the Bible, does not answer many of these questions. We can set up models and traditions that give clear answers but God simply has not chosen to answer all of our questions. That is not necessarily bad. We are not God and it is good to be reminded of this sometimes. An important component of theology is mystery.

Let’s consider this from another direction— I have been asked what a pastor should say when a family member asks something about a deceased loved one at a funeral such as, “My father wasn’t really a good Christian. maybe not one at all. He never accepted Christ into his heart as far as I know. Where is he now. Will he be in heaven?” The response I have used and I have suggested to others is, “All I know is that he is in the hands of a loving and merciful God.” I told a friend of mine this who is a conservative Christian chaplain. He smiled one of those, “That sounds pretty liberal/bad theology, giving people false hope.” But actually, what I said is absolutely and completely Biblical (consistent with what the Bible teaches), and consistent with my own limitations. As Jesus said, “God judges that heart” and I am not God. I don’t believe I can place any limits on the mercy of God.

Of course, this works two ways. I have seen people take a pluralistic view of salvation and declare that there are many paths to Heaven that God will honor. Others may say that God, ultimately at least, saves everyone. But that is still placing a limit on God’s mercy— and one that we may not be justified to say. There is mystery… God is God… and we are NOT God. Hiebert’s “Centered-Set” way of looking at who are redeemed and who are not… is just putting this mystery into graphical form.

Why do we place limits on God’s mercy when such limits appear to be (intentionally?) not revealed to us? I suppose we don’t really like ambiguity. We know Who Saves (Jesus). We know How He saves (through God’s grace via His atonement). Each of us even can know, according to I John, one’s own salvation (whether one is a Child of God or not). But most of us are not satisfied with that. Knowing that I am saved is nice, but I want to know about other people. I want to figure out who are “US” and who are “THEM.”

Missiologically, I want to motivate people to go out as missionaries and evangelize, and so giving nuanced and uncertain answers as to questions of the spiritual state of unreached and unengaged people groups, may feel rather demotivating. Evangelists also want to give hard numbers as to how many people have become saved due to their ministry and how many are still unreached. Let’s be honest— people love to hear exactly how many “people groups” there are. People love to know how many “UPGs” or “UUPGs” there are. They want to know exactly how many languages there are and how many have Bibles and how many don’t. The fact that the numbers are not particularly well-grounded makes their use dubious, but that does not stop them being thrown around over and over again.

I had this problem when we were doing medical missions. I tracked how many people were treated (medical, dental, surgical, eyecare, etc.) , how many prayed to receive Christ, and how many wanted to join a Bible study. Over the years, we treated around 30,000 people with a little over 10,000 people being recorded as having said the “Sinner’s Prayer.” Does this mean that 10,000 people have been added to the Kingdom of Heaven. Almost certainly not. Many people here will go along with the prayer as a way of saying Thank You for the free treatment and medicines. Many go along with the flow. And frankly, many evangelizers think it is more impressive to have bigger numbers and so inflate their response numbers. (One place we went, our local partners claimed 95% response rate… not even theoretically possible considering how many infants and toddlers were treated.) But I do get it. People like numbers… and so I would give numbers but I would also try to give some context, focusing on the increase in Bible studies, or the success in establishing new church plants. These numbers I believe are much more useful… and helps us gain insight in who to partner with for future medical mission events.

In answer to the title of this post. No, we cannot put limits on God’s mercy. This does not mean that there are no limits. It simply means that God has chosen not to reveal fully those limits. And that is fine.