Robert Munson's Blog, page 12

Quote by Peter Illyn– Evangelical Enviromentalist

I am teaching a course, “Foundations of Holistic Ministry,” at Seminary. This week, we are going to talk a bit about ecological concerns and ministry. Therefore, I thought I would quote a bit of Peter Illyn (1958-2020).

I will state my bias. That a concern for the common good trumps the pursuit of personal freedom, especially for Christians who should be living by the golden rule – ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. When issues of personal liberty and/or social behaviors do lasting harm to the commons of life, then I believe Christians should choose the collective good. As such, I believe there is a role for good government in creating a just and sustainable society. Sadly, I believe that many fellow evangelicals have chosen a ethos that is short-sighted, self-centered and is flirting with being mean-spirited and hard-hearted. … To self- label, I would call myself a Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, pro-life, tree-hugging environmentalist who believes there is a role for grassroots civic engagement that encourages good government to protect the common good even at the expense of free markets and personal liberty. I am considering a new bumper sticker that captures these beliefs; “Worship the Baby, Tend the Garden, Resist the Empire”

-“Belly-Button Christianity: Tribal Christians Speak to Today’s Church: An Interaction with ‘Dark Green Religion,'” Sacred Tribes Journal, Vol. 6 #1 (2011); 49-50.

Problems with Christian Cliches

I don’t want to “bury the lead” on this one. Two problems with Christian cliches (that I am prepared to talk about at least) are:

— Christian cliches have just enough truth to them to attract people to them to explain complex theological things. (These cliches, however, can’t support the complexity of the issue.)

— That same “catchiness” often shuts down thought and nuance. (They become mental ruts that our minds tend to slip into often hampering our ability to be reflective.)

#1. Starting a bit off-topic, years ago I took an English class in college. The professor was trying to help us think creatively. She gave different contrasts and we were suppose to come up with a sentence that embraces the contrast. The contrasts might be “light vs dark,” “hope vs despair,” “true vs false.” Well, one of the contrasts she gave was “beautiful vs ugly.” Well the students came up with a wide variety of interesting sentences. But there was an exception. For “beautiful and ugly” every single person (including myself) came up with the exact same sentence— “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone.” Of course, it is a well-known joke saying. But it is also a cliche. Consider my points above.

— “Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone” has a certain amount of truth to it. In fact, it becomes more true (and a bit of a truism) if written, “Superficial human qualities can be characterized as only ‘skin deep,’ at least in comparison to non-superficial human qualities that can be thought of as more as permeating the entire being of a person.” It is more true… but less catchy and less entertaining.

—“Beauty is only skin, but ugly goes to the bone” creates a mental rut. As I noted, EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CLASS ended up sharing that one. I remember sitting in class after hearing everyone else share the same one and trying to think of a different one. I really struggled— I kept being pulled back into that mental rut.

#2. “Ready for Harvest” is a Youtube channel, and one time the host asked viewers to share their favorite (or technically least favorite) Christian cliches. It seemed as if the top one was “It’s not a religion… it’s relationship.” And yes— it is a pretty odious one. However, it is not hard to find some level of truth behind it. There are, of course, dozens of major religions, and thousands of minor religions. If one truly believes that one’s own religion is exceptional… how does one show that it is better than every other religion out there? One way is to make it NOT a religion. Christians are not the only ones to think this idea up. I recall talking to a (Muslim of course) imam. He told me that “Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology.” I nodded my head… but recognized that statement as being every bit as ridiculous as the Christian one. I also recall a Bible teacher at our church talking about how every time religion is spoken of in the Bible, it is spoken of negatively. Again, there is some truth there. However, going from the common sense definition of religion, to its anthropological sense, and even going back to its etymological sense (“religio”) in Latin, there is no doubt that Christianity (and Islam) are pretty near the center of the set of institutions that might be considered to be a religion.

But the relational aspect of Christianity is pretty important. I had a missionary friend that really complained about salvation being described as having a personal relationship with God. He said it has nothing to do with that— it is all and only about faith (and considering his theological leanings, I suspect he was thinking in terms of “imputed faith.”) At the time I sort of kept my thoughts to myself… especially since I needed to think about it. The fact is “have a personal relationship with God” may be exactly that sort of cliche that shuts down thought. But as I reflected and looked in Scripture— the relational aspect of our position with Christ is too important to be thrown aside. It is pretty clear that “Christianity is absolutely, by pretty much any definition one is likely to find, a religions, but one in which dogma and ethics compete to some extent in terms of priority with the relational aspect with God.” Again, a more nuanced, and less catchy statement— unlikely to become a cliche any time soon.

#3. In the Comments section for the question posed on Youtube, I suggested the cliche’ “It must be God’s will” I was a bit surprised that I got some pushback on this one. However, I should not have been surprised. A cliche tends to grab hold of one’s thoughts and doesn’t like to let go. I would argue it is a cliche because it expresses something about a very complex concept in a simple un-nuanced manner, and it tends to pull people into a mental rut— making it hard to think more reflectively. In this case, the cliche tends to be used in times of tragedy or of grief. It falls into place in situations like, “I am sorry to hear about your house burning down— but it must be God’s will.” This is often followed by uncertain speculation on why it may be a good thing that the fire happened, or how God has something better waiting, and the old house was “just in the way.” Could that be true? Perhaps… but maybe it isn’t.

Of course, this tends to be an issue because of the very slapdash way we deal with the issue of “The Will of God.” The first person who responded to me said that he felt that “It must be God’s will” is not a cliche because he believed that “God is sovereign.” I completely agree that God is sovereign— having the right to rule. When I was in the Navy, the captain of the ship had complete sovereignty over the ship (ignoring limitations like the chain of command above him on land, and naval regulations he was required to abide by). But even the level of sovereignty the captain had did not mean that he did not delegate things to other people… or that he was under the requirement to directly control everything on board. The right to rule does in no way establish an obligation to fully control. Frankly, “God is sovereign” also becomes a bit of a cliche as well. Sovereignty does not really have any direct connection with God’s will or God’s control. However, it is a term that people get stuck in (like a rut) when talking about causation. The Lord’s Prayer addresses how God’s will and control are different than sovereignty. “Thy (God’s) Kingdom come, Thy (God’s) will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.” Heaven is where God’s will is fully done— that is much of what makes it Heaven. Earth is where God’s will is NOT fully done. We are to pray that Earth will become more like Heaven. And one day it will happen (God’s kingdom is coming.) God is NOT NECESSARILY the author of sin and suffering. If a child dies of leukemia and the parent asks me “Why??”, I don’t think that I am expressing good theology if I say, “Well, all I know is that since God is sovereign, He did it. God actively chose to kill your child.”

Of course, whenever we are dealing with nuance, the problem often comes back to definitions. Some define “Will of God” as “Whatever happens.” If God did not actively prevent something from happening, in some way it must be part of his will. I suppose one could say that— call it God’s “sovereign will.” We could take this idea of “sovereign will” and apply it back on the navy ship I was on. While I was aboard, there was a petty officer who was caught stealing things from the ship’s store. Who did it? I would say that the petty officer willed to do it and then did it. Did the captain will it? He accepted the young man on the ship. He allowed him to be assigned to be in charge of the ship’s store. The captain chose not the have a person keeping an eye on the petty officer 24 hours a day to ensure that he did not steal. The captain allowed the circumstances to occur that would result in theft. Of course, the captain is not omniscient. But even if he was omniscient, things still would not actually change much. The only difference is that the captain would then have the information needed for him to actively prevent the theft from occurring. That being said, as sovereign over the ship, the captain has the right to act to stop it from happening, OR to allow the petty officer to break the law.

Normally, when we say “It must be God’s will,” I feel that we must be speaking of God’s preference or desire. Otherwise, the (what I call a) cliche devolves into meaninglessness. If it is sovereign will, the statement essentially becomes “The unpleasant stuff… happened.” And if we go with God’s will meaning preference or desire, we are left with “That unpleasant stuff… well God really wanted it to happen… so get over it.” A far more nuanced and accurate statement would be…

“I don’t really know why this happened. God can see these things in ways that neither you nor I can see. Perhaps there may be a day when we can get some glimpse of good in this tragedy, or maybe not. All I know is that God is here with you in your suffering, and so am I.”

Somehow I don’t think that statement will ever really catch on.

There are a lot of cliches… many of them bad.

One of my least favorite is: “God is good all the time, and all the time God is good.” It is true on a certain level… but not on the level in which we live our lives. And it tends to stifle reflection about suffering.

Another cliche that was shared a few times on the Youtube posting was, “Let go, and let God.” I think one must be hard pressed to find any good in that one. But I suppose there is a way of finding a particle of truth in it.

Good, Bad, and Really Bad Missions Slogans

I was recently reading “Paradigms in Conflict, 2nd ed.: 15 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today” by David Hesselgrave. On page 259, a section was include on a list of missions slogans compiled by Todd Johnson of the World Evangelism Research Center. Here they are:

1900– “The evangelization of the world in this generation.”1910– “The whole church taking the whole gospel to the whole world.”1912– “Reaching every home.”1914– “Inauguration of the kingdom of God on earth.”1929– “Each one teach one.”1930– “Bringing Christ to the nations.”1934– “Evangelize to a finish to ‘bring back the King.'”1943– “Into all the world.”1946– “Complete Christ’s Commission.”1956– “The gospel to every creature.”1957– “Global conquest.”1959– “Two thousand tongues to go.”1967– “Crusade for world revival.”1974– “Let the earth hear his voice”1976– “Bold Missions Thrust.”1980– “A church for every people by the year 2000.”1984– “Strategy to every people.”1986– “One million native missionaries”1990– “Decade of Evangelization.”1995– “A Church for every people and the gospel for every person by A.D. 2000.”

You will not that I colored some of the slogans. These are ones I did not care for.

RED color are for slogans I don’t like because they are focused on finishing or completing the great commission. Jesus called us to be faithful to our task until He returns, NOT to carry out the work until it is complete. Unfortunately, an odd theology has developed that some hold to that the faster we do evangelism and missions, the sooner Christ returns. The basis for this is so poor I really don’t want to even address that argument (although I have elsewhere). This bad theology leads to fast and sloppy mission strategies— which can, paradoxically, slow things down. I don’t think that FAST missions is better than SLOW missions. I do admit that the 1980 and 1995 slogans are less egregious in this area since they don’t emphasize “finishing” but instead meeting a certain standard by a certain time. However, the year 2000 was so completely out of touch with reality that it is pretty inexcusable.

PURPLE color are for slogans that to me just seem to be “weird.” Some of these don’t seem to make much sense, such as the one for 1990. Others like for 1976 or 1959 just appear to be the result of completely running out of ideas.

I do think the worst was was 1957 “Global Conquest.” I would have thought that triumphalistic language would not have sounded okay by 1957 even if colonial or war-metaphor language was I guess still okay then. I just would have loved to be the proverbial “fly on the wall” of the meeting where that slogan was chosen.

Personally, I think the best of these was one of the early ones— 1910

Affirm and Inspire— and One of the Most Important Letters I Don’t Remember Writings

The other day, yesterday in fact, my wife and I were leading a seminar at a church in Baguio City, Philippines. There were between 30 and 40 people there— perhaps 1/3 of them were people we knew. One we definitely know is Roland (I am using a pseudonym here, meaning that the one thing you know is that his name is NOT Roland). In our early years in Baguio I knew Roland very well, and worked together at times when he was not out of the country doing employed on a ship. I really had not seen him in many years except occasionally on social media. He came up to me and said,

“I don’t know if you remember the letter you gave me years ago, but I still have it.”

I did not remember it, and I got a little nervous. Especially in my early years in the Philippines, I could be a bit brusque or even downright grumpy. Did I write a grumpy or complaining letter to him? I did not think I had a reason to… but since I didn’t remember the letter, perhaps I didn’t remember the circumstances of the letter either. I replied apologetically that I did not remember writing the letter, but hoped that it was a good one. Roland continued:

“You wrote me a letter encouraging me to consider, at some point in time, to go into a full-time ministry. That really meant a lot to me. In fact, I kept it and put it up on the bulkhead on my ship to remind me. Now I am retired from my job, and serve full-time as one of the elders of this church.”

I expressed my happiness, and some relief, at this news. I was glad that I was able to inspire him in some way. I wrote that letter back in 2005 or maybe 2006, closing in on 20 years ago… and that letter still had impact on him today. That got me thinking about times I was affirmed and inspired.

A. In 2002, the pastor of our church in the United States sent me an email. It expressed his dream (as in hope or desire— he would not see himself as having a prophetic gifting) that within 2 years my wife and I would either be serving on the staff of our church, or serving through the church as missionaries elsewhere in the world. We did not act on that immediately, but it did really get us thinking and planning. 2 years later, we were still not on the staff or serving overseas… but we had the tickets. Two years and two months after the email we were on a flight to the Philippines.

B. In 2006, we were at seminary in the Philippines. One of professors saw me walking in the quad. He came up to me and said, “I wanted to tell you… maybe call it a prophecy… that I see you going on and completing your doctorate in seminary.” I can’t remember if I verbalized it, or just thought, “You know what God says about false prophets, don’t you?” Of course I knew my professor— he did not embrace a prophetic role. He was seeking to affirm and inspire me. At the time I sort of discounted it. I was in the Philippines to do ministry work, NOT to get education I thought I didn’t need. But those words grabbed me, and I did go on for my Doctor of Theology. I did not continue on for a PhD, but he did not say what TYPE of doctorate.

C. In 1985, I got a different affirmation and inspiring comment. I was attending a Christian college back then and I was in what was called a “Pre-Engineering” program. At the time they did not have a full 4-year program for Engineering. So one could take 2 years of the foundational courses, and then transfer to another college or university to finish the final two years to have my degree. One day, one of my professors walked out with me from class. He said, “Bob, I was wondering if you might consider changing your major over to Mathematics.” He was a Math professor, and the college had a full Math major. My focus was on Mechanical Engineer. Although I did not follow that path (I left a few months later to finish my mechanical engineering degree elsewhere), it felt good to have my work affirmed… by someone who is competent to evaluate. That was almost 40 years ago, but still his words are firmly set in my memory.

I forget sometimes how important it is to affirm and inspire. I am not alone in this. I have met people who really downplay it. Some, perhaps correctly, look down on too much affirmation (“Gold stars for everyone!!”). However, a well-considered affirmation and inspiration can be vital in guiding the path of a person. Most of us do tend towards a bit of “imposter syndrom”— questioning whether we belong or are simply surviving and faking it.

I struggle with this— proper affirmation and inspiration. In my present ministry work (teaching and running a counseling center) I am often NOT quick to inspire. I think it is because I confuse three very different things.

#1. Cheering Up.

#2. Selling an Idea.

#3. Affirming and Inspiring.

If I think someone is struggling and figure that I should say something nice, let them know “You can do it,” I am not necessarily affirming and inspiring. I just want them to try a little harder. This is important at times, but it is different.

If I am trying to grab someone and pull them into my vision as a volunteer, again this may not be so much about inspiring them… but just selling them on my idea.

Sometimes, people need #3… I evaluate who they are and how God has gifted them, and seek to affirm them in what I have seen and inspire them to greater things.

Artificial Intelligence: Theologians Should Not Leave The Job to the Science Fiction Writers

Later this month I will be giving a short talk at seminary on the use of Gen AI (Generative Artificial Intelligence). The main purpose of the lecture is to guide students in appropriate versus inappropriate use of Gen AI in the seminary environment. I proposed the guidelines for the seminary that was adopted. This is the policy that was put in the Student Handbook:

PBTS prohibits the use of Generative AI (“GenAI”) software to (1) generate content presented by the student as his or her own original content, or (2) modify existing work so that the end result no longer is identifiable as the words or work, in part or in total, of the student.

Uses of generative AI that do not violate the above statement are permitted. These include:

Pre-drafting stage— to evaluate topics, initiate the gathering of sources, and develop outline. Post-drafting stage— to spell-check and correct grammar. GenAI may NOT be used to change tone, style, or make major revisions to work. Again, the words should be the student’s own.

Violation of this policy is considered to be academic dishonesty and will be treated like plagiarism in the disciplinary process.

Faculty may choose to be more, or less, restrictive in the use of GenAI in their courses. However, if so, the course syllabus must give clear guidance as to its use. If no such guidance is given, the above seminary policy will apply. Where a student violates the course policy found in the syllabus, this will be treated as academic dishonesty and be disciplined accordingly.

We don’t want to throw away a tool that may be helpful in research and in ministry. We don’t want our students to be unfamiliar with Gen AI, as they go out into the world. Therefore, we seek a nuanced position that utilizes it, potentially, without undermining the overall learning process.

But there are other aspects of AI that should be looked at in Christian seminaries. I will mention it briefly in my presentation, but I won’t dwell on it— not because it isn’t important, but because it is off-topic.

How do we as Christians, as the Church, and as human beings deal with artificial intelligence? What does it mean to be human? How do we embrace human flourishing in a universe where we are becoming not the only created sentient voice?

Many have talked of the day where computers think like humans, interact like humans, feel like humans, are self-aware like humans, and have personal agency like humans. Often in the church the response is something like, “Well, that can’t happen because computers ‘don’t have souls.'”

That may be true… but it is only a guess. We don’t know the limits God has placed on us in terms of creation… and destruction. I have heard the argument that ecological responsibility is so foolish because God is sovereign and so it is pure hubris to think that we can destroy what God has made. Again, however, we are just guessing… and it certainly seems as if our guesses are more self-serving than prescient.

Science Fiction writers have long asked questions about thinking machines. Consider “The Machine Stops” written by E.M. Forster in 1909. This short story is often considered quite amazing in seeing things that have come to fruition in the last few decades. One of my favorite ones that addresses a sentient computer in the “short-short” format story is Frederic Brown’s “Answer.” You can read this VERY SHORT story by CLICKING HERE. “Deep Thought” in Douglas Adam’s writings explores humorously the implications of a sentient computer and the meaning of life. Arthur C. Clarke looks at computers and religion in “The Nine Billion Names of God” and in the computer antagonist, HAL 9000, from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” A sentient computer becomes even a greater threat as Skynet in the Terminator series, as well as in The Matrix. Science Fiction has also looked at religion in a world of high technology in the Dune Series, in Star Wars, as well as the writings of Robert Heinlein and Orson Scott Card.

The fact that Sci-Fi writers have speculated on the future, religion, and technology does not necessarily mean that they do it well…. but they do it, and with often thought-provoking results. Far too often, it seems to me that Christian theologians address possible problems in the future in terms of “It won’t happen” or “God will fix it” or “Christ will return before that all happens.” Could those answers be correct? Of course they could, in my opinion. But that is not the point.

Theology is meant to correlate Divine Revelation with Man’s changing context. It should be addressing the questions and concerns that society has. This suggests that good theologians are not simply looking backward… they should be looking forward– hopefully, cautiously, and speculatively.

The Apocalyptic writing business of Christian writers— applying a rather dubious interpretation to prophetic passages in the Bible— is not necessarily a waste of time. I became disenchanted with them and that particular interpretation of the Bible partly because I first got immersed in them, taking them far too seriously. I would not have found (what I personally decided to be) problems with that view if some people had not first promulgated their ideas. That being said, I wish more theologians did not focus on “Christ could return tomorrow” and would take time to speculate on the implications to us of “Christ may return in 800 years.” If that was the case, what would it mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and salt and light in society, 20 years from now, 200 years from now, 750 years from now?

If computers could become “sentient” or “self-aware” (and if we found a way to actually test that… the Turing Test is absolutely useless), what would it mean to explore God and God’s work in the created world together— man and “machine”? We were told by God to serve as a faithful steward over His Creation. How would that apply to our stewarding computer systems that seem to think like us?

We should not leave those questions only to the Sci-Fi writers.

Story— Just Enough Faith

“Ridiculous!” growled General Naaman to his entourage. “I was telling myself: He will SURELY come out, stand and call on the name of Yahweh his God, and will wave his hand over the spot and cure this disease,” motioning to the area he kept carefully concealed from view.

“Ridiculous indeed,” said one servant.

“I know Israel is backward,” continued Naaman, “but I figured their healers would know at least how to do things properly. In Damascus we have some amazing healers. Incense, fire, dance, amulets, incantations, I mean they know how to put on a show.”

“Yes they do. Sadly, none of them got the job done to your satisfaction,” responded a different servant diplomatically. They found it wise to tactfully take turns in responding to the general.

“Granted,” admitted Naaman. “However, this healer did not even come out to see me. He treated me like a dog!” Naaman grew more angry. “And what does his SERVANT say to me? Go wash in that Jordan River? I may as well wash in one of the rivers of Syria. I would certainly come out a whole lot cleaner there than anywhere in Israel.” In a rage, he prepared to leave and head back to Syria.

After some whispering among the servants, the chief servant— the one who carried his shield when going into battle— rode up to Naaman and said quietly to him:

“My father, the saddle bags jingle with all of the silver you brought with you. You would have given every bit of it to be healed?”

Naaman nodded but still scowling. The servant continued,

“And knowing your fortitude and strength, I imagine that there is hardly any task ths healer could have given you that you would not have courageously attacked, and conquered.”

“Of course. I have never backed down from a challenge.” Naaman was calming down.

“Then, when I hear this healer’s message— wash and be healed— I think to myself, ‘Such a trivial task… less than nothing.’ He did not put on a show, but a healer is not to be judged by his theatrics, but on his results. He asked you be washed seven times in their river. Respectfully, let us turn East, and put him to the test.”

General Naaman saw the wisdom in his servant’s words. He had little faith in this healer of Yahweh. He however, had just enough faith to turn East and head for the Jordan.

14 Years of MM-Musings

I started MM-Musings (Munson Missions Musings) as a way to put my own thoughts onto electronic paper. Here are a few thoughts or random facts over the last 14 years.

#1. My first post was a short story called “Hiding in the Light.” It might be described as an old joke with a point. I still like it. Hiding in the Light.

#2. It is clear that writing on Christian missions is not the best way to get views. Evidence of this? First, my most popular post of all time is “Oral Transmission and ‘Rida Rida Ranka’” which is a post about how an old Swedish nursery rhyme morphed over generations because it was almost always passed on parent to child orally rather than through writing. The most popular post in the last 12 months is “Mythology and Theodicy in the Visayas.” In both cases, even though I did reflect on the topic missiologically, almost certainly the searches were driven by secular interests (Swedish nursery rhyme and Visayan creation myth respectively.) That is okay. I decided years ago that I would write what on the topics that interested me, NOT what would interest others.

#3. I have never had a viral post— pretty much a unicorn on traditional ‘blogs’ anyway. However, prior to this year, the closest I came to ‘virality’ I was on February 25, 2014. I had 3,900 hits in a 24 hour period. That is pretty big when I rarely averaged more than 1 hit an hour. I was not happy about it. In 2013 there was a self-styled Christian “prophet” who said that all sorts of horrible things would happen in the Philippines because Filipinos were not… Oh… I can’t remember what exactly, but it was pretty suspect. However, in his many predictions, he got one quite right. He spoke of a typhoon cutting through the Visayas and doing great destruction… and it happened! He also spoke of an earthquake happening somewhere at some time and one happened close to the time of the typhoon on the island of Bohol. The earthquake was not all that impressive… but it got some people excited who get excited about these sorts of things. They started to look at other predictions of his. One was a prediction of a plague in Cebu that would make people’s skins black. That sounded a bit racist, or am I wrong? Another one grabbed more traction— the spread of a flesh eating bacteria beginning in Pangasinan. I decided to calculate how accurate this “prophet” was. I decided to be VERY GENEROUS because most of his predictions had no due date or even location. Since the Philippines is like the epicenter of natural disasters… most of the predictions are likely to come true…………. eventually. But even with a lot of generosity, I still only calculated his accuracy at 35%. A less kind person would have come up with a much lower number. Then one day, my hits went wild and especially on that posts about this “prophet.” I wondered what happened until I checked out the news. ABS-CBN, one of the major networks in the Philippines had put out a report about a flesh-eating bacteria in Pangasinan and how it was seen as predicted by this “prophet.” Some of you probably already guessed this, but the report was false— perhaps stirred up by “prophet groupies” who wanted him to look good so much that they would put out false reports. That really griped me. I hated how my website got a statistic bump for something that actually offended me. I don’t feel as bad about it now… so I will grudginingly give the links here:

Prophecies and Typhoons and Plagues (in no particular order), Part 1

Prophecies and Typhoons and Plagues (in no particular order), Part 2

“Misteryosong Sakit sa Pangasinan”?

#4. It is strange, but my statistics have shot up greatly this year. It is likely that my views this year will be more than twice that of 2023. And 2023 was twice the number of views of 2019. It does seem like COVID did drive people deeper into the niche corners of the NOT-DARK Web. My posts have not been more clever or alluring than in the past. In fact, only one post I wrote this year has been in the top 25 for views this year. But that is okay. Glad people are looking at the old stuff.

#5. I have thought of listing the posts that I am proudest of. But I have found that quite difficult. In the end, I rather list the most popular ones that I am at least rather proud of.

These are listed in my TOP POSTS. So you can just go there and check them out.

Ministerially Leveraging Your Mid-life Crisis

I am not an expert on mid-life crisis… and since I am old enough to be considered a Senior (by some people’s reckoning), I guess that I won’t ever have to become an expert.

In what I have read or interacted with, it seems like there are different ways of understanding mid-life crisis. My internet browser tells me that mid-life crisis relates to an emotional struggle of personal identity and self-confidence, and of course that it happens usually in early mid-life.

For me, I picture it different ways:

#1. Disconnect between Youthful Dreams and Present Reality. Many people when they are younger have BIG DREAMS— being the lead singer of a rock band that tours the world to accolades and packed stadiums, or being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The vast majority of such dreams never “pan out.” I have a friend here in the Philippines who dreamed of being a businessman and a millionaire. Upon hitting 50 years old he was growing more depressed as he realized that “it wasn’t happening.” Actually, it was happening. He did own a business, and I am sure that his assets well-surpassed a million dollars. However, I wonder if he still held onto the image of a millionaire that many of us from our generation had when young… that of Scrooge McDuck. He had his own vault of money that he could swim in whenever he wanted. That picture of his dream certainly did not align with reality, where there was the daily grind to keep the business profitable and his head above water. I suggested to him, gently perhaps, that “his dream sucked.” Oh sure, it was okay for a 15 year old, but now as a 50 year old it no longer made as much sense. Frankly, while he invested his time and energy in business, he found himself driven more and more to focus on his own family, and in ministry activities. He found great fulfillment in these. He did not need to dissolve his business; but I think he did need to redefine his idea of success.

#2. Discovering that your Youthful Dreams weren’t what you REALLY Wanted. Oscar Wilde has the quote, “When the God’s want to punish us, they answer our prayers.” Highly successful people are often surprisingly unhappy. Sometimes it can be because what they thought would be awesome prove not to be. Consider the case of King Midas being able to turn everything he touched into gold. On the other hand, some may find that material possessions, shockingly, don’t really satisfy— but often leave a dull ache for more. Public adulation can feel wonderful at first but gradually become suffocating.

#3. Being stuck developmentally while those around continue to mature. Think of the Peter Pan Syndrome— the failure to grow emotionally or behaviorally beyond a certain age. I think many of us have seen the middle-age “Frat Bro” who still thinks and acts and values like he is still in university. Often this is thought of as a “guy thing.” However, I have my doubts. When a woman acts in self-destructive ways, society tends to judge their character. When a man acts in self-destructive ways, society tends to judge their maturity. However, the two behaviors are arguably the same thing— it is just thought more accepted for men to behave badly in their late teens and early 20s.

This Peter Pan thing can show itself in other ways. I had a friend who was a youth pastor in a church. In his 50s he was still doing this and I suggested, correctly I think, that he should consider transitioning from focusing on youth and toward move toward training younger pastors in Youth Ministry. One of the key life goals should be to prepare the next generation for one’s death or retirement after all. At what point does working with youth transition from being a valuable work to “being stuck”? He agreed with me… feeling this crisis in his life— but then went right back to focusing on ministering to people now over 30 years younger than himself.

I had written a post when I turned 50 (Reflections on Meaning, Philemon and Turning 50) where I suggested, for me at least, three stages that are 25 years long. The first 25 years is about Growth or Growing Up. The second 25 years is about Success or Striving toward new achievements. The third 25 years, that I was entering at the time, is to be about Meaning and Legacy. Being 59 now, I feel this is still a useful thing for me. I see people my age or older desperate for approval, for achievements, for votes— I feel that in some ways at least, they got stuck somewhere.

Leveraging Mid-Life Crisis

My form of mid-life crisis was #2 above. I wanted to be a mechanical engineer— and I became one. I was relatively successful in it. However, I had two realizations that came together to form one crisis. The first realization came from talking to a friend of mine— Mike. At work he was talking about how he will be going home and in the evening working on an engineering project he had as a hobby. I had another friend Bill who was a consummate tinkerer turning his home into a bit of an engineering marvel. I realized that this was not me and would never be me. When I walk out of the doors of the company I worked at, I immediately turned off my engineering brain and did not turn it back on until I entered work. Related to this, I realized that in the long term, it is likely that I will fall behind (as an engineer) my fellow professionals who are engineers 24 hours a day. The second realization was one that I shared with my wife when I told her that “I work as an engineer so that I can earn money so that I can be involved in ministry.”

A couple of years later I quit my job. We sold our house and moved to the Philippines as a missionary family. Sometimes, I have had reason to wonder whether that was the best choice— best choice to put our kids through, for example. However, I do think I redeemed my mid-life crisis. It certainly beats buying a muscle car and going to concerts where I am the only one over 25.

There are a plethora of quotes that point to the relationship between crisis and opportunity. When I started seeing some of them being attributed to people like Albert Einstein and John F. Kennedy, I figured it best not try to direct quote anything directly and perpetuate a false attribution. Rather I will say,

“Mid-life Crisis is really a Mid-life Opportunity— an opportunity to reevaluate your dreams, identify places you have gotten stuck, and course correct towards a more meaningful life.”

For me, I leveraged my mid-life crisis (if one wants to call it that) to making a major course correction into full-time Christian missions. Looking back, I am absolutely shocked that I would make such a bold move— especially with a wife, a mortgage, and three children. I don’t think I could do that in my present situation. However, my present self does not feel that same disconnection between my dreams and my reality. I have a great deal of satisfaction with my life (overall). That crisis in my upper 30s motivated me to make changes that were difficult, but important.

I am well aware that some people make course corrections in the mid-life that are destructive— perhaps divorcing their wife, dumping their job and moving to a frivolous and often ultimately self-destructive lifestyle. Dumping one bad dream with another bad dream is not helpful. Throwing out the good and valuable with the bad does not help. Redeeming one’s mid-life crisis does involve divine help, and HELPFUL mentoring from friends and family. These depend on having a good relationship with God, and having friends and family who actually can serve as wise counselors.

Should “Missionary Wife” Be a Thing?

The above question may sound strange and can be open to a few interpretations.

One Interpretation (Minor Question): Historically, it might sound like the question, “Should missionaries be married… or single?” Paul made it clear that many of the apostles not only had wives, but they traveled with their husband’s in their missionary ventures. Paul states in I Corinthians 9:5,

“Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?” (NIV)

We know from Matthew 8:14-15 that Cephas (Peter) had a wife, and from Paul it sounds pretty clear that his wife traveled with Peter in doing ministry. In contrast Paul doesn’t. Now, it is not clear from that passage alone whether Paul was single or married. If married, it seems that Paul did not bring his wife with him. Looking in the broader context, Paul did appear to idealize singleness somewhat, so that leaves open a few possibilities. Perhaps he never had been married. Perhaps he was a widower who never remarried. Or maybe he was separated or divorced— perhaps his wife could not be the “believing wife” described in I Corinthians 9:5.

As the Imperial Church grew in the 4th century, corruption seeped into the institution, leading to the growth of monasticism and associated asceticism. (Asceticism had roots much farther back in the church, however.) As the monastic movement began to influence the broader church, ministers being single was seen as ideal and then later as “the law.” With the Protestant movement, marriage was once again seen as NOT a hindrance to ministry— in fact, it could even be an aid to ministry. However, it took awhile for marriage to become part of the mission experience.

I consider this the less important issue of the question because for most, I believe, it is already answered. A missionary does not have to be single. In fact, it may be good to be married. Even in faith traditions, such as among the Roman Catholics, where the ordained are supposed to be single (with very rare exceptions) there is a growing acceptance of people ministering who are married (even if “only” as laity).

Another Interpretation (more relevant question): Is it okay for a spouse of a missionary not to be considered a missionary. Let me give an example here. I am part of a denomination that has complementarian leanings (although many of us don’t necessarily lean that way). This means, among other things, that there are roles in ministry that women are not allowed to do because… well, because they are women. Our denomination does not recognize women as pastors. They are willing to endorse women as chaplains UNLESS they are ordained. (Humorously, they try to support this policy by referencing several verses that have nothing to do with either ordination or chaplaincy… a common problem with complementarian beliefs.)

An exception to this complementarian attitude appears to be in missions. Our denomination recognizes women as missionaries— either single or married. HOWEVER, one odd thing has been noted. Periodically our denomination speaks of “missionary wives,” but never speaks of “missionary husbands.”

What does this suggest. If a couple goes into missions, the husband is definitely a missionary. However, his spouse may or may not be seen as a missionary. You see, if “missionary wife” always meant missionary, then presumably “missionary husband” would also be used— or perhaps NEITHER “missionary wife” or “missionary husband” would be used.

Is it okay for there to be a “missionary wife,” where the term may suggest a secondary status that is not a missionary. I suppose that there are cases like David Livingstone who served as a missionary in Africa, where in a great majority of his service, his wife was “back home” taking care of the children. Even in some situations a missionary couple may serve overseas together, but the wife embraces a ministerially passive role— primarily taking care of the children and the household. Is that a relevant ministry? Of course. However, I can see where one might be tempted to say that the woman in that case might be labelled a “missionary wife” versus a “missionary.”

Another Interpretation (the major issue): It isn’t so important about what is. It is more important regarding what should be. Should married couples go into missions where one of them embraces a missional identity and ministry while the other does not?

I don’t really think so. I teach at seminary and help administrate our counseling center. My wife is a pastoral counselor and a CPE supervisor. Some of our ministries are done separately, but most we do together. I think as a couple we are stronger together than we are apart. But I also think we are a lot stronger ministerially serving together. Women in the mission field have the ability to impact the ministry work so much, that for them to not be integrated in the missional ministry is a tragic loss— a waste.

I recall when a friend of mine wanted to be a missionary to Haiti. He actually was already a Periodic, Short-term Missionary… going there once or twice a year to assist mission work in Haiti. His wife had joined him once or twice. When my friend applied to be a full-time missionary… both he and his wife were interviewed. In the end they were turned down. The reason was that he was committed to going and serving while his wife as… willing to go. In the eyes of that mission agency, that was not good enough. They wanted both to be committed and passionate to serve in a cross-cultural setting. I do actually think that the mission board was correct in this.

Summing things up a bit. If the term “missionary wife” means having a role that is somehow LESS than being a missionary, the term should be eradicated. Of course, part of the eradication should also include getting rid of the idea that a missionary couple is still a missionary couple when only one of them is serving in a missional capacity.

On the other hand, if “missionary wife” means a missionary who is a spouse of a missionary, then it is okay. But that would also mean that “missionary husband” would be okay. In that case, Celia would be a “missionary wife” because she is married to me, a missionary, and she is one herself. And I would be a “missionary husband” because I am married to a missionary and am one myself. However, the connotation associated with the terms I believe are more akin to the previous paragraph. As such, I do think it is something we need to fix.

You know… NONE Go into Missions Because They Love to Listen.

Earlier this week, my wife and I were doing training with a group of volunteers who serve as “Welcomers” or Missionary Member Care volunteers for Filipinos who serve as cross-cultural missionaries. Many of them were pastors or pastors’ wives. We were promoting the “Active Listening” and the “Ministry of Silence.” My wife was sharing how important it is to listen empathetically with full attention to the other person. I chimed in giving one of my favorite lines– “I know this is difficult for many of you because no one goes into the pastorate because they love to listen.”

People will often laugh a bit at that… but because it is largely true. Most pastors I know talk… and they talk a lot. Most tend to be extroverts or at least functional extroverts. This is hardly surprising. I remember being in seminary, and the Preaching professor on the first day stated that he believed that the most important job of the Pastor is preaching. In other words, the most important job of a pastor is TALKING. That professor is now a friend of mine… maybe I should ask him if he really believes that or was simply seeking to be motivational since it was a class on preaching.

In seminary… all MDiv students were required to take two classes on Preaching/Homiletics. They were also required to take two or three classes on Teaching. We were required to take a class on Evangelizing and Discipleship… but the focus was always on the talking side of things. There was no class on Listening.

Missions isn’t really different. When we were applying for being under a mission agency, that agency stated explicitly that a prerequisite to being accepted by them was that the candidate was evangelistic in lifestyle— in passion and in action. And when they were talking about evangelistic, they were talking in terms of proclamation and apologetics— in other words, a lot of talking. I have attended quite a few classes on Christian missions, as well as seminars. I have also read quite a few books and articles. I have never seen a course or training on listening as it pertains to Christian missions.

As far as articles, there are some that imply the importance of listening— especially those articles centered on interreligious dialogue or research on other religions. In these, the emphasis is placed to learn by asking people in a group rather than asking about a group. However, it does still seem to be more of an activity for missions researchers and missiologists rather than training for missionaries.

The gospel song (or hymn) “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations” suggests a common attitude of Christians generally, but even more for ministers and missionaries— we have something important to tell others, but others don’t really have much to say that deserves our attentive listening.

I do, however, think that an excellent course for every missionary trainee to take would be “Introduction to Listening.”

Listening is hard. I do think some are more gifted at it than others. For me, it is often very hard. My inner monologue easily drowns out a lot of what I pretend to be listening to. Even when I am listening, I am easily distracted, and often spend my time thinking of what I am going to say, and am impatiently waiting to jump in.

I am not alone in this. I had a guy who worked for me in ministry (as seminary student). More than once he would ask me a serious question. I would do my best to give a serious, thought out, and nuanced answer. When done, he would respond with— “That’s what I thought…” and then would summarize what he heard by saying almost exactly opposite of what I said. I don’t thinking he was being humorous. I think he was listening poorly and limited his listening to confirmation of his own beliefs.

In missionary member care, we told our trainees to get comfortable with silence. We are not on the radio or in a podcast where “dead time” is a big problem. If someone is telling their story, it is okay to focus on trying to understand what they are saying and what they are feeling and what they are meaning. One can focus on trying to decide how to respond AFTER they are done speaking. If that means there is some seconds of dead time… that is fine. One can say, “Wow! That gives me something to think about. Please give me a moment,” if one is afraid the silence would be misinterpreted. In regular conversations it can be more difficult. In some cultures it is assumed that there should be a gap of time between different people speaking. However, there are other cultures where the responses should be filling in the gaps seemlessly, each responding quickly like a verbal equivalent to playing ping-pong. Some other cultures even idealize overlapping conversations.

I still would say that giving time and attention and openness of both mind and heart are key skills for a missionary. If I am bad at it? Well… that does not mean it is not important. It simply means that I have more work to do.