Robert Munson's Blog, page 13

Saul Versus Goliath— Reflections on the Story Implied

Most are familiar with the story of David and Goliath. It story has gone past its Jewish roots, and even its Christian limits. The story has become part of pop culture… and used to convey many different messages.

But also of value is the story of King Saul versus Goliath.

Goliath, as we may remember, was a giant warrior. There is a dispute on his size in I Samuel 17. The Masoretic text of the story says that Goliath was 6 cubits and 1 span tall. That comes out, approximately to 9 foot, 9 inches. However, some texts— Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint particularly— say that Goliath was 4 cubits and 1 span tall. That comes out, again approximately, to 6 foot, 9 inches. The first measurement would put Goliath almost a foot taller that the tallest man in modern history. The second, would make him a very big man— welcome on most basketball teams.

Which one is correct? Some suggest that the Masoretic text is more reasonable due to the great weight of Goliath’s spear, armor, and helmet. That may be reasonable… but far from convincing. He was likely given weapons and armor to be imposing— like a tank— rather than packing light for charging into the fray and continuing in long battles. As Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, bigger is not necessarily better. A man who is 9 foot 9 inches is likely to be slow, clumsy, and with grave health problems. On the other hand, a man 6 foot 9 inches may well be able to back his imposing size with strength, speed, and dexterity as a warrior. I am going to assume that Goliath was 6 foot 9 inches tall. This is tall and imposing today, but even more so in that age.

But what about Saul? King Saul was a pretty big man himself. I Samuel 9:2b states, “There was no one more impressive among the Israelites than he. He stood a head taller than anyone else.” The actual Hebrew may be even more impressive. It literally says “from his shoulder and up higher than any of the people.” So how tall was he? Well suppose that the average Israelite man was 5 foot 6 inches. Perhaps that is a bit on the tall side, but it should be close. If Saul was shoulder and head taller, how much would that be? Probably at least 8 inches taller. That would put him at 6 foot 2 inches or taller… maybe 6 foot 4 inches.

But the time we get to I Samuel 17, Saul was more than simply an “impressive young man.” He was now King and also a warrior. We don’t know whether Saul actually got went into battle and fought with the enemy directly. However, in I Samuel 31 we find that not only did Saul have a sword, but he also had a shield bearer, and ultimately died in battle… at age 72. So when we learn in I Samuel 19, while still in the prime of life, that King Saul had a helmet, armor, and weapons, we should understand that he was competent to fight.

So when Goliath stood and called out to King Saul to send out a champion to battle him, there was only one logical choice— and that was King Saul himself. If Goliath was 6 foot 9 inches, and Saul was, perhaps, 6 foot 3 inches, there was only 6 inch difference in height. That may seem like a fair bit… but that is much less than the 15 inch difference with the typical Israelite soldier. In a battle of spear and sword, Saul, if he was well-trained, would have a decent chance of winning that battle.

This, I believe, is unstated story within the story of David and Goliath. Why? Because he not only refused to fight (actually, fairly understandable… the king cannot accept every challenge he receives), but he chose to instead give his armor, helmet, and sword to David— his armor bearer. In essence, a knight gave over a challenge to his squire.

Looking at the story by contrasting King Saul and Goliath is not without purpose. It is out of this contrast we an get to the key contest— Saul and David. King Saul was a physically impressive man— but he could be weak in character and courage. David was physically non-imposing… one who his own father did not appear to think was “king material.” Yet David had courage and moral character (although some BIG moral flaws will show themselves over and over again in subsequent chapters).

The story of Goliath provides the contrast between Saul and David. Both at this time were anointed by Samuel to lead Israel. Both had been empowered by the Spirit of God (although by I Samuel 17, that empowerment had left Saul). Both accepted the role of protecting Israel. However, Saul, the more capable, reneged and gave his weaponry to David, one who in normal circumstances would have little likelihood of success.

In terms of the broader story, Goliath was not the antagonist. The story was primarily about Saul and David. Goliath was an obstacle and a test. One passed and one did not.

Blogging and the Value of Unpublished Thoughts

Blogging allows me to share my thoughts with a potential audience, and this motivates me to write in a way that a private notebook, diary, or log does not. But there are oftentimes situtations when not having your thoughts put out for the world to see is a good thing. I do think that “X” (Twitter), FB, Reddit, and more can lure people into dumping thoughts that should have not been shared unfiltered into a place where everyone can (potentially) see and critique. I was watching a video on Youtube by “Jess of the Shire” on things that J.R.R. Tolkien allegedly disliked. But in the presentation, the host noted that Tolkien was rather uncomfortable with having an ardent fan base. He wrote lots of letters and these have become fuel for his followers to dissect his beliefs and, in a sense, who he was. He was self-aware enough, however, to recognize that he would use very strong words of criticism for some things and then feel the need to backtrack. Private letters may seem like a window into a man’s soul… but this is often far from true. Our true self may not be what is written down quickly in the heat of a specific cricumstance. Unfortunately, people often latch onto the harsh words and ignore the nuance of the context, or the correction later. I remember reading about a person (I forgot who it is now) who was jokingly described as “never having an unpublished thought.” This was meant to be a humorous jab at his prodigious written output. However, today some forms of social media, make the hyperbole come close to being possible. For me… I am glad that many of my thoughts go unpublished, and many things I have written have disappeared. Here are several.

I wrote a ton of stuff online back in the 1980s on Compuserve… especially on its Religion Forum. While there were things I wrote back then that I think I would still be proud of, I am glad that the Compuserve database was lost to history. Overall, I was a 20 something still trying to gain an understanding of who I am and what I believe. I recall a humorous and edgy (and completely unoriginal) story of killing Santa. I recall another member of the Religion Forum describing me as the “nicest right-wing militaristic jerk” that she knew. Today, I would not describe myself as right-wing or militaristic— not as sure about “nice” or “jerk.” I do have a certain pride for myself in that I was one of the less unhinged Evangelical Christian voices on the forum. Most Evangelicals (that joined this forum at least) couldn’t seem to handle being in a religiously pluralistic, non-proselytizing environment. However, I suspect that my memories of stupid things I wrote back then were all too true, while the awesome things I wrote wouldn’t sound so awesome now.Also back in the very late 1980s, I wrote something that might be described as a “suicide note.” Technically, it wasn’t. I was not planning to commit suicide. However, I was very depressed at the time… and writing down my despair was a form of self-soothing. As usually happens (I hope most can say “usually”) life got better, the letter lost its purpose, and I ripped it up.Early 1990s. I wrote a letter to my parents. In the letter I had the sentence, “I loathe the Navy.” I was in the Navy at the time. Loathing the Navy was hardly a hot-take. The most common graffiti one would find on Navy property (about the only graffiti one would find) was the letters, “FTN”. It stood for “F___ the Navy.” So why am I glad that this personal letter with a pretty common opinion no longer exists? Soon after I had written it, US Presidential candidate Bill Clinton was revealed to have written a letter (I think to to military recruiter?) with the statement in it to the effect, “I despise the military” or “I loathe the military.” He was given years of hate and flack for this. Today I DO think that American Evangelical Christians have a seriously unhealthy fascination with war and equally unhealthy love of the military. Still, I don’t really want my entire opinion about this institution boiled down into one single sound bite.Late 1990s, I wrote a “Letter to the Editor” in a local newspaper. I actually wrote more than one… but one in particular I am very uncomfortable with today. I wrote in support of landmines. Now, a bit of context is needed here. At the time. Princess Diana (King Charles’ first wife) was really pushing for a worldwide ban on landmines. My take on it was that it is weird that of all the horrible destructive toys we have created to kill people— it is the one whose primary purpose is defensive in nature that seems to be drawing the greatest revulsion from the populace. Even today I think that is a valid critique. However, I fear that my letter lacked… nuance. Perhaps landmines are SLIGHTLY less horrific than other military devices created to kill people (less horrific DESPITE the fact that they are hidden and can still be viable decades later), but they are pretty awful and certainly don’t need me to defend them. In this case, I suppose that, in some library out there, my letter to the editor exists and could be dredged up. I do not find this comforting.Late 2010s. My dad, shortly before he died, wrote his own autobiography. He wrote it for family… not for the world. I am thankful he did it and I plan in the next few months to move it from typewritten on paper, to digital. I thought I should do the same for myself as well. So I did. However, I wrote it during a bit of a triple-whammy in my life. First, all three of my children were struggling. All three of them were struggling with atopic dermatitis. This was hard on all three… but particularly on one. Second, all of them were in their teen to early 20s. They were old enough to reflect on the possibility that their parents “screwed up their lives” by hauling them to the other side of the world. At the time, they were definitely in “blame the parents” in their thinking. Third, we had gone through some ministerial struggles. We had lost a lot of our financial support and so had to make some really tough decisions as to where we lived and what we did; and our ministry was surviving, but it was not clear that it was thriving. It seemed very possible at the time to think that we had made a big mistake and then made our kids suffer for that mistake. So when I wrote my autobiography, I wrote it filtered through those circumstance. I never shared it… even at the time I think I realized that it needed some time for reflection. One of these days I will update it and share it… with family. I really don’t have any interest in writing a missionary autobiography for the world.

Social media can lure one into saying things best left unsaid. One day I started arguing with one of the most stupid, bigoted men I have ever come across. I don’t know the guy, but he is a friend of an acquaintance of mine. I started to get drawn into a word storm on FB. Suddenly I stopped and asked, “What am I doing? Maybe I should just back away.” But I heard a voice in my head say, “But if you do that, the most stupid, bigoted man on FB wins!” I wrestled with this for a couple of days. In the end, I simply dropped out of the thread. I also almost completely stopped using FB except for putting in occasional “likes” for other people’s stuff, and even more occasionally putting a picture or something in just to prove that I am not dead. It was the right decision. Allowing myself to be pulled into soul-crushing arguments with people I don’t know or respect is losing regardless of whether I feel I actually won the verbal sparring. As far as Twitter (“X”) I have even less understanding why anyone uses it. I tried it for a few months and then dropped out. Then I wondered whether I had given it a fair shake and went back in. A few weeks after I realized that I had given it more than a fair shake. There was NOTHING there that to be gained from it… and it is a temptation to put foolish things on that should never be published.

I look back at my posts on this website (www.munsonmissions.org) with complex feelings. I know that my mind has changed on some things over the years. On occasion, I have done some editing. However, generally, I have felt that having a historical record of my thoughts is a benefit to me… regardless of whether it is beneficial to others. However, I worry that search engines might lead people to old posts that I today may feel will not guide the reader well. So I am not sure what I will do in the future. Perhaps I will find some posts that I would want do delete and I feel I have that right. There was one post I recall doing a decade ago, that I think I would be quite uncomfortable with now. Strangely, I haven’t found it. Perhaps I never saved it. If I find it, I probably won’t delete it… but I would edit it.

Evangelism Turned Sour

I was reading a post in a different website: “When the Evangelistic Tables Are Turned” in the website: A Life Overseas. You Can read the article by CLICKING HERE.

The article speaks of how a missionary family moved into a new country and a new neighborhood and was soon befriended by a family there. The family was part of an “Eastern Religion.” However, when the (Christian) missionary family did not respond to the invitations to convert to their faith, the local family dropped pretense of friendship and moved on to new potential converts. Later on that missionary family found out that the members of that “Eastern Religion” utilized many tactics like collecting information of “hot prospects” and developing strategies to get them to convert.

Of course, it sounded familiar to the missionary family because it sounded like a lot of what Christian outreach often sounds like. Friendship Evangelism was meant to be a more organic and friendly form of evangelism— avoiding the loud bothersomeness of street preaching, and the less loud but even more bothersome door to door evangelism.

Just two days ago, I was walk on Bonifacio Street here in Baguio and saw two women clearly sharing a message of their religion— each with a person they had corralled to squint at a little blue book that each was holding. They did not dress like the more common street evangelizers we find in Baguio. Could be Christian, or some sectarian group, or some non-Christian faith. Regardless, their organizer should have given them books that could be read from at least 12-18 inches away. As I was walking, I was thinking how glad I was that these two were busy with a couple of others who sacrificed their time so that I would not be bothered by the two. Is that a bad attitude? Absolutely, but I don’t think I was alone in that opinion as people hurried past to their own destinations.

Although Friendship Evangelism was meant to be more friendly and organic (naturally developing), People who pushed it found ways to make it unappealing. One was was to systematize it— remove its natural or organic quality. Friendships were manufactured to target converts. Another way was to make it transactional. If the other person doesn’t respond in a loosely set period of time— ghost them. Try somewhere else.

Friendship Evangelism that is not friendly is not truly Friendship Evangelism. Friendship Evangelism that is not organic or natural— well that is not as critical. One can truly seek out those of other faiths or non-faiths to develop friendships… but it should be genuine.

The article is especially nice in that it helps to see how the Golden Rule really applies in our ministerial and non-ministerial relationships.

People Commonly Don’t Hear What You Say, But The Motives They Think You Have For Saying It

That’s a long title. But let me give you an example.

Yesterday, I saw that an American pastor friend of mine had put a post on Facebook about FEMA. FEMA is the “Federal Emergency Management Agency.” It is a US government agency that deals with states of emergency particularly form natural disasters. My friend put up an image that changed the meaning of FEMA. I don’t remember exactly the adjusted acronym (and don’t want to take the time to look it up), but the letter A was short for “Aliens” and the other letters suggesting that the purpose of FEMA was to provide care particularly to Aliens (foreigners— human not extraterrestrial) who live in the borders of the USA. It was a joke but seemingly with an implied message. My response to that joke is,

“Wouldn’t that be wonderful— to have a government agency whose primary mission and purpose was to help the most marginalized peoples, foreigners including illegal aliens, within the borders of our country!”

That response makes sense to me, partly because I have lived for two decades as an alien/foreigner in a country… and even a few months as an illegal alien during the COVID lockdown.

However, “No” I did not put that up as a response to the posting. I have done that before and immediately got challenged (a bit shy of attacked I suppose) on my response. Why? It may seem reasonable to say that people challenged my principles, beliefs, or values on the subject of the post. However, based on the way people responded, it was clear that they were not really challenging what I was saying. Rather, they were challenging what they assumed my motives were. They assumed I was supporting a political party that they opposed, or that I supported a political ideological movement that they felt was “destroying our country.”

But that was not what I was doing. Their presumption that I was supporting a political agenda was false. However, that is a problem with online venues like FB or X. Communication is so truncated that it gets filtered through sociological filters. Things shift from the world of values and ideas to tribes.

I can’t pretend that I don’t do the same thing. I know that FEMA is a political hot-button issue right now, with members of one political party in the US seeking to support funding for it, and another seeking to undermine it. Therefore, when I see a joke that points to another hot-button issue in the US— status of foreigners, and particularly illegal aliens— I make the assumption that the joke is actually a political attack on FEMA, and support for their preferred political party. Based on many of the responses to that post, I am pretty sure that my guess was right. That being said, that does not mean that everyone feels the same way. Some people in that post thread may have no political agenda but simply see issues with the way FEMA does business that needs to be challenged… or at least satirized. There may be some people like that… but due to the nature of FB it is hard to identify them. Everyone just ends up looking like political “yes-men” or “no-men” or “Oh No-men.”

That is why I put my response here. I think I need to give a nuanced response, and the format of many social media platforms does not permit this. Is this simply shying away from the fight? Well, it is certainly shying away, but NOT simply. I AM rather pro-alien, pro-foreigner. I am even somewhat pro illegal alien. I could and perhaps should fight for their rights and care in a country that looks on them with suspicion. But to fight in a social context where it is framed as a support for one party (that I don’t support) against another party (that I also don’t support) does not help.

Unfortunately we live in a busy world that is getting busier every day. Even contexts where issues can really be hashed out, there is a tendency to devolve into sound-bites and face moves. I don’t like it, but I live in such a world whether I like it or not— and I am a part of that same world, so busy that I do the same thing that I complain about with others.

Sometimes I Think Math and Theology Don’t Mix

Years ago I was a Mechanical Engineer. I had to study a fair bit of calculus, up to partial differential equations. I studied far more than I needed for my job. I also studied statistics, but far less than I needed. It is interesting to me that people like to pull in math into the seminary. Some of this is pretty reasonable. There are forms of theological or ministerial research where quantitative analysis is done. Some of these are relevant. Some seem almost ludicrous. I am not convinced that understanding an Old Testament passage is enhanced by finding out the median and standard deviation of perceptions as to that passage from a group of religious leaders. I have seen that done. I feel like seminaries have gone through a time of insecurity where they felt they needed to use a lot of unnecessary math in their work to show they could stand toe-to-toe with the secular sciences— both hard and soft sciences. Personally, I think that statistics isn’t helpful very often in theological research. If you disagree… I can’t say you are wrong. However, I am reminded of what my dissertation supervisor said as it pertains to theological or ministerial problems— “Quantitative analysis is good at answering the questions that people are NOT asking, and the answers given typically aren’t very helpful.”

However, this is not my only problem. Sometimes, people throw in some math to make it sound like one has debunked a position, or proven another. Very often it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Let me note two arguments I have heard that utilize “infinity.”

Case 1. I heard an argument for how it is just that God would send a sinner to eternal conscious torture, ECT— time without end. (I am not making an argument here for or against the theory of ECT… I am noting an argument where a person assumes ECT and then tries to use math of sorts to justify the position, and in so doing justify God).

First though, an argument against ECT is that our sins are finite and limited while the punishment (if ECT is correct) is nigh unto unlimited. The punishment does not fit the crime. In the Old Testament there is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. Some see this as extreme, but this is actually meant to portray justice by providing limitations. The punishment exacted should not be more severe than the offense.

An argument in support of ECT is that God is infinite, while sin is an offense against God— an infinite being. That makes the offense, in essence, infinite— thus justifying an infinite punishment. It sounds like good math— Character of the punishment should be proportional to the Character of the offense times the One Offended. If the one offended is ‘infinite’ then the punishment should be ‘infinite.’ Of course, mathematically that makes no sense since infinity is not a quantity. One cannot speak of proportionality to infinity. (I am not going to get into Cantor’s work with infinites. I don’t think it would add to either side’s argument. I will, however, use it in the next case.)

But suppose you tried to utilize proportions while dealing with infinites— what happens? Well, people are finite, so if God is infinite, then people are infinitessimal in comparison. Thus, any offense we could possible make against an infinite God would be infinitessimally insignificant. One cannot determine the appropriate punishment by trying to multiply infinites with infinitessimals. A similar problem comes up in terms of punishment. If the punishment is infinite but the one punished is infinitessimal in contrast, can one even answer questions of proportionality from any angle? In the end, IF ECT is correct, it cannot be justified by how big God is. Perhaps one might support it from God’s sovereignty without trying to argue that it stands up to a human understanding of justice. Or perhaps if one finds Biblical support for ECT, then once can simply point to the authority of Scripture and ignore the rest. Regardless… math is no help.

Case 2. A different angle comes to Evangelism. While I will leave the question of ECT to other people, I will come out and say that I absolutely support Evangelism and consider it vital in the Christian and the Church. However, one argument I heard is that hell is infinite punishment and the only way to avoid it is through salvation, and salvation only comes through response to the proclamation of the Gospel. Therefore Evangelization (proclamation of the Gospel) is infinitely more important than anything else we can do. I can’t remember who made this argument. It might be Trevin Wax… but I could be totally wrong.

This argument at first appears to make more sense since we don’t try to pull an infinite God into the mix. Our post death life is “infinitely longer” than are current life so any activity that has direct bearing on the afterlife must be infinitely more important than anything we do that only relates to our present life. Although this seems to hold… it starts to fall apart when one goes through the process. Consider three people. I can choose three random people— Moe, Larry, and Shemp.

Moe: “Evangelism is all that matters because it relates to eternity and anything else I do now that pertains to our present life is finite and thus trivial in comparison.”

Larry: “So breathing is trivial, correct? It only pertains to this present life, which is finite.”

Moe: “Uhhh… yes, I think.”

Larry: “Oh but wait! If I stop breathing, I will die and be unable to evangelize. So if breathing is necessary to evangelize and evangelization is infinitely important, than breathing is infinitely important as well!”

Moe: “I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I can’t argue with the logic. And by extension— I suppose eating and drinking must also be infinitely important as well.”

Curly: “Don’t forget wearing clothes! In many places not wearing clothes would lead to exposure and death. Besides who is going to listen to a naked person sharing the Gospel?”

Moe: “Wearing clothes… Hmmm…”

Larry: “Hold on for a second. I just had a thought. Speaking of the afterlife we are talking about results… the output of evangelism… not the input, but the activity itself.”

Curly: “Certainly! Evangelizing a brick wall has no impact on eternity. Therefore, it is the results of evangelism that is important, not the activity itself.”

Moe: “Hold it there. Are you saying the end justifies the means? That doesn’t sound very Christian…”

Larry: “Moe, you started it. You were justifying actions based on ends. If our ethics states that our future state determines what activities are more important now, then aren’t we justifying our actions by teleological ethics?”

Moe: “I feel like we have gone off course. I wasn’t trying to compare proclamation evangelism to eating or drinking. I was really comparing it first to activities that have no eternal value… like browsing the internet or playing sports or something. Secondly, I am suggesting that proclamation evangelism is infinitely more important than other types of ministries like feeding the hungry or building houses for the poor or such. Those are not bad… but simply cannot be compared in importance to proclamation of the Gospel.”

Curly: “Why stop there? Suppose one form of evangelism is three times more effective than another form. Does that make it three times better than the other? Perhaps meeting felt needs of the people combined with proclamation is three times more effective than proclamation alone. Does that make holistic evangelism three times more infinitely important than proclamation alone?”

Larry: “Curly, you numbskull! Don’t you know what Georg Cantor demonstrated? Any finite number multiplied by infinity would simply be infinity. It would not be three infinities!”

Curly: “Ahhh… then if one has a form of evangelism that is only 1% as effective as another, each are equally infinitely important. One cannot compare or contrast them!”

Moe: “Shut up, and get back to work.”

If the above conversation sounds non-sensical… that is because it is. But I have heard the argument of the superiority of proclamation over other ministries done with variations of this logic. Of course, one does not need to fall into a game of math. Often the argument collapses simply because ministry work is NOT dichotomistic. Arguing which is more valuable— Proclamation Evangelism or Social Ministry is a strawman. Combining the two into holistic ministry seems more likely to be valuable (and certainly more Biblical) than either one separate.

Case 3. I suppose I could add a third one here… Not related to the infinite. Often I have heard that certain types of ministry are more important because they are “faster.” They get the message across faster and can achieve exponential growth more quickly. If one’s ethic is that speed and efficiency are better than slow or inefficient, then I suppose the argument stands up. Certainly the Church Growth Movement has often supported such an ethic. However, that ethic is questionable at best. It can be too pragmatic, and can even support things that are demonstrably unethical based on the idea that it “works.” However, there are other issues. Community Development tends to start out much slower, but often can transform communities in a holistic and exponential manner. This may well have long-term impact than a saturation evangelistic strategy would. Further, some methods can actually drive people away. Listening to a street preacher one time literally screaming at people… my suspicion is that if he did indeed have anyone respond positively, it is likely he had many more people who felt a great aversion to the individual and, by association, the message he conveyed. Taking these into account… even if one finds value in math, one must be careful not to be simply picking and choosing data to support a claim, while ignoring things that undermine one’s thesis.

SO… does math and theology mix? I suppose it does. However, when one is trying to use math to justify methods or theological positions… I do think one has to be careful. It is tempting to get to the QED too fast and not open oneself to doubt that math can encapsulate God’s truths.

Is Theological Study Necessary?

Consider these two verses:

“And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Luke 12:11-12

I have heard these two verses brought up as an argument that theological or ministerial training is unnecessary, and in a sense I agree. I agree at least that one cannot absolutize the term “unnecessary.” In Mark 5, for example with have a person who was exorcised, freed from demonic possession. The passage says,

As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed. Mark 5:18-20

This is not alone— we have the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the blind man in John 9. Clearly there are ministries where one can serve without formal training. In fact, in the case of the blind man in John 9, the exact scenario described in Luke 12:11-12 actually happens.

I will admit, however, whenever this sort of situation comes up in seminary, it is usually a strawman. That is, it is an argument set up specifically to be torn down. I am aware that there are denominations that emphasize that seminaries or formal theological training is unnecessary. Some do this through a radical interpretation of the local church where it is seen as the ONLY God-ordained institution for ministry here on earth. Seminaries, then, are not from God. Additionally, some denominations, such of those that might described themselves as “spirit-filled” (again— some, not all) focus on the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide the words of the minister and as such formal training is unnecessary.

There are two obvious problems with seeing Luke 12:11-12 as a justification for no training. The most obvious one is that Jesus was talking to His disciples. They had literally years of personalized training or apprenticeship. The disciples were not untrained. They were the trained ones.

That first reason is pretty simple, but so is the second. Luke 12:11-12 describes what a minister may be required to say to his/her accuser. However, that is in no way the only ministry that a minister needs to do. Even in terms of speaking to outsiders, there are other circumstances, as well as Biblical guidances (See Colossians 4:5-6, and I Peter 3:15 for examples).

The demoniac, the blind man, and the Samaritan woman were able to share their experiences with Jesus. This is the one specific thing they were experts in. However, there ministry continued only up to the limit of pointing them to Jesus. At that point, to know more, people either had to go to Jesus (such as the people in John 4) or go to the trained disciples.

So is theological training in seminary necessary? Absolutely not. Does Luke 12:11-12 justify a lack of ministerial training? Absolutely not. In fact, the passage is a piece of training that Jesus was giving to his disciples who he has been training for years. One really can’t use a bit of training to people being trained to justify a lack of training.

Theological Study

Consider these two verses:

“And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” Luke 12:11-12

I have heard these two verses brought up as an argument that theological or ministerial training is unnecessary, and in a sense I agree. I agree at least that one cannot absolutize the term “unnecessary.” In Mark 5, for example with have a person who was exorcised, freed from demonic possession. The passage says,

As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed. Mark 5:18-20

This is not alone— we have the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the blind man in John 9. Clearly there are ministries where one can serve without formal training. In fact, in the case of the blind man in John 9, the exact scenario described in Luke 12:11-12 actually happens.

I will admit, however, whenever this sort of situation comes up in seminary, it is usually a strawman. That is, it is an argument set up specifically to be torn down. I am aware that there are denominations that emphasize that seminaries or formal theological training is unnecessary. Some do this through a radical interpretation of the local church where it is seen as the ONLY God-ordained institution for ministry here on earth. Seminaries, then, are not from God. Additionally, some denominations, such of those that might described themselves as “spirit-filled” (again— some, not all) focus on the idea that the Holy Spirit will guide the words of the minister and as such formal training is unnecessary.

There are two obvious problems with seeing Luke 12:11-12 as a justification for no training. The most obvious one is that Jesus was talking to His disciples. They had literally years of personalized training or apprenticeship. The disciples were not untrained. They were the trained ones.

That first reason is pretty simple, but so is the second. Luke 12:11-12 describes what a minister may be required to say to his/her accuser. However, that is in no way the only ministry that a minister needs to do. Even in terms of speaking to outsiders, there are other circumstances, as well as Biblical guidances (See Colossians 4:5-6, and I Peter 3:15 for examples).

The demoniac, the blind man, and the Samaritan woman were able to share their experiences with Jesus. This is the one specific thing they were experts in. However, there ministry continued only up to the limit of pointing them to Jesus. At that point, to know more, people either had to go to Jesus (such as the people in John 4) or go to the trained disciples.

So is theological training in seminary necessary? Absolutely not. Does Luke 12:11-12 justify a lack of ministerial training? Absolutely not. In fact, the passage is a piece of training that Jesus was giving to his disciples who he has been training for years. One really can’t use a bit of training to people being trained to justify a lack of training.

A Different Challenge in Messianic Mosque Planting

For those who want to know about C1 through C6 contextualization of the Christian faith in other religious contexts, you can read up on it by CLICKING HERE.

I was talking to a friend of mine. Actually, it was the first time we had spoken face-to-face, although we had communicated online for years. While sipping some coffee I found out that he was involve indirectly (somewhat indirectly) in a C5 ministry. For those who don’t know, levels of religious contextualization in missions is often described in terms of C-levels. It was created for missions in the Muslim context and it tends to make the most sense in terms of that faith. It can be applied to other faiths as well. Of course, we are familiar with “Christian synagogues” tied to Messianic Judaism. Things are a little different there as I don’t think there is any real confusion— Messianic Judaism identifies with a clear model from Christian history, and as such it is not hard to imagine a Messianic synagogue, while a Messianic Mosque or Messianic Mandir most likely does not have that sort of historical model.

My friends involvement with C-5 Mosques I found quite interesting. He described the challenge of developing them. I think much of the challenges are pretty obvious. However, I found one challenge not as obvious but definitely challenging. C-5 church (mosque) planters when they come into a Muslim community, never really can “come out.” The individual identifies as a Muslim. Now Islam does allow for a certain amount of religious deception for protection, but Christianity doesn’t really (or at least certainly has not made such official allowance). Of course, calling oneself a Muslim can be done in terms of language since the term suggests being a “submitted one to God”. Additionally, since the person was raised up as a Muslim (now understood as a(n) MBB, or Muslim background believer) this person can call himself or herself Muslim culturally as well. However, there is a problem in the historical meaning of the term “Muslim.” Historically there is a tie between the term “Muslim” and a belief in Mohammed as the “final prophet of God,”— thus the more old-timey term used for Muslims— “Mohammedans.” A C5 church (mosque) planter then is being honest in self-describing as a Muslim in two aspects (linguistic and cultural) but not in the very key aspect of historical.

So where is the problem? Coming into the community and setting up a C5 mosque, it is not long until the planter is stuck in a a bit of a no man’s land. He does not (and perhaps even cannot) identify with Christians who may live in the same region. And frankly, Christians are likely to reject him due to the cultural differences. At the same time he really cannot go to his Muslim neighbors and admit that he is really a follower of “Isa al Masih” (Jesus) if he had implied otherwise when he joined them. There is a certain sort of betrayal in such an admission. Doing so early is not an issue— entering a community and identifying oneself as a Muslim Background Believer. I have a good friend who does just that. He was raised Muslim, became a Christian, and now pastors a church in a Muslim community. But if one comes in and identifies oneself as Muslim— with all of the levels of meaning that term implies— one is almost forced to maintain that identity for… well not forever… but a long and indeterminate time.

In some communities, ones that do not allow religious freedom, there would be the stress of being found out. But there is also a sociological stress. For all of us there is the stress due to the difference between our person (our “real self”) and our persona (our presentation of our-self to broader society). Pastors and missionaries can feel this acutely as our ministry encourages us to hide our complex and muddy true selves from those we minister to and minister around. In the C5 scenario this disconnect is ramped up considerably. I don’t know the answer. Most of the Christians I know who were raised Muslim are pretty happy to be reoriented in a non-Muslim culture. But I know that is not always the case. Many want to follow Jesus Christ but continue to feel interwoven to the fabric of their predominantly Muslim community. C5 or messianic mosques is one way.

The cultural stress goes away where one does not need to maintain such a complex relationship with broader community, but where there is more freedom or tolerance, is there a need for C5 mosques? I am not sure. My friend’s involvement with C5 mosques is in a region that is not as religiously intolerant as some. Maybe it will be able to serve as a test case for a transition from hidden to out in the open.

We shall see.

Should Missionaries Get Involved With Local Politics?

For those want a TLDR— my answer is “I Don’t Know.” But here is a longer discussion.

A few days ago, I was part of an online prayer gathering utilizing Facebook Live. When I joined, I put up the Emoji of Praying Hands to let people know I have joined the group. However, soon after I put it in the chat, I noticed that just a couple of quick posts above my Praying Hands was a request, “Please Pray Against the Passing of the New Divorce Law.” “Ooops!!” I thought to myself. What if people will assume that my Praying Hands response means that I am joining with that specific request? Can I remove my Praying Hands? Should I clarify that I am not praying for that request? Should I just not worry about it and move on?

Here is the deal. The Philippines is one of two countries today that does not allow divorce.

I am a very strong supporter of divorce being legalized in the Philippines. This puts me at odds with many of our ministry partners here who find the so called rejection of divorce here to be a commendable thing— even a source of pride. Additionally, my upbringing was in a denomination that looked very negatively on divorce. It was not out-and-out rejected… but if one was going to speak positively of divorce, there was almost a need to start with, “I don’t approve of divorce, BUT…” However, I minister in a pastoral counseling center and come across so many people (women especially, but sometimes men) who are legally stripped of options in a marriage that is abusive, or wildly unfaithful. While separation is allowed, it can be done with little legal or financial protection for themselves or the children. I do struggle with understanding the opposition to divorce. It is allowed in the Bible. Scripture says that God hates divorce… but allowed it due to the hardness of man’s heart. I know there are different ways of looking at it, but for me I understand it to mean that God knows that we are not as faithful to our vows as He is, and He is more concerned by people hurt in marriage than He is concerned about the institution of marriage. I, frankly, believe that is a good general principle. If one is has the choice between siding with an institution— government, church, education, marriage, etc.— or with people, we are to side with people.

But should I become a campaigner for legalized divorce in the Philippines? I don’t really think so. As a foreigner, I don’t see my role as one that should be prominently involved with government. I frankly get a bit annoyed when my friends in the Philippines start giving their opinions on American politics— why would I assume they would appreciate my thoughts on Philippine politics to say nothing of attempts on my part to influence local politics?

A. One problem is the matter of stakes. As a foreigner, I have limited stakes as to the laws in the Philippines. If the Philippines passes laws that make living here torturous, I can pretty easily leave. My stake here is pretty limited and so how strongly should I try to influence the local governance when the repercussions on me are far less than others?

B. Another is the matter of expertise. As someone who did not move to the Philippines until I was 38, am I really culturally embedded enough to understand issues her like, for example, OFW (overseas foreign workers) or POGO (offshore gaming) situations to be competent to promote an agenda?

C. A lot of examples I have seen of missionaries bringing in their political beliefs to the Philippines from back home have been pretty cringe-y. Sometimes, American missionaries bring their Westernized progressive views or their Christian nationalist conservative views to the Philippines and try to indoctrinate people here with them. On the other side, sometimes one gets missionaries who support politics here in the Philippines that vary wildly from politics in the US. I recall missionaries working hard to convince the City Council to prevent the building of a mosque in our city. That move was temporarily successful, but ultimately a failure because freedom to practice religion is supported here, just as it is in the US. These same missionaries tried to prevent a religiously syncretistic (Christian and pagan) candidate from becoming mayor in our city by carrying out what seems to me to be a pretty syncretistic ritual with the chair that the mayor uses. Things can get pretty uncomfortable when a missionary gets too interested in politics here.

For me, a lot of Filipinos like to know my own views on American politics. I typically work to avoid giving my views. One time a pastor friend of mine here tried to get around my avoidance by asking who I thought would be elected president of the US this November. I told who I thought would be elected. He looked sad— clearly I did not give him the answer he hoped. However, he asked who I thought would be elected, NOT who I liked for president. (Truthfully, I DON’T LIKE ANY OF THE CANDIDATES ALL THAT MUCH… but please don’t tell him that.) I also don’t tell people who I like for Philippine elections. As one whose political philosophy is to undermine accumulation of power, I focus more on how to disempower candidates, not on who to give power to. Again, however, that is pretty hard to explain to the 99%+ of the population who see the accumulation of power (to one’s camp) a good thing.

D. As a guest of a country there are limitations of law and courtesy as to how far one pushes against the government that has welcomed them in. The Philippines rarely kicks missionaries out… but the laws are written to give them some teeth to act if the government is so motivated.

E. Missionaries have had a long and awkward relationship with local government from the Colonial Era. Many missionaries cautiously opposed the colonial governments, but many others worked hard to maintain the status quo.

F. Here in the Philippines there is a lot of political corruption (sadly). There are also a lot of pastors and other religious leaders who want to get elected to political post (and “Yes,” I DO doubt their motives). It is hard to get involved in politics here without being pulled into some dubious things. We have interacted with the local government by doing so cash-free. We don’t pay or receive pay for what we do with the government. In the past we have at times done medical mission projects, receiving help from the local mayor or governor and in so doing end up advertising him prominently usually through a tarpaulin. There may, or may not, be any problems with this… but I am glad we don’t do that anymore.

But does that mean that staying out of politics is virtuous? I don’t think so. William Carey, for example, famously worked hard to make widow-burning illegal in those parts of India that were under the British Crown (directly or indirectly). Sometimes, one needs to embrace a prophetic voice against evil. But how often is changing the law the right response?

Peace with the local government can be a problem. When Extrajudicial killings of those involved with drugs was seemingly supported by the government here, that made things tricky for our ministry. We were working with people who previously had problems with drugs. They were ones who voluntarily “surrendered” themselves to the local government, putting themselves on one list to avoid being put on a much more dangerous list. We worked with these “surrenderers.” As such, were we working with the government? Were we working against it? That actually is hard to answer. We were working with people to help people— to me that is the important thing. Again, people are more important than institutions.

Is living at peace with the local government virtuous? Michael Desjardins stated, “‘peace’ that does not allow for resistance against physical oppression can be considered ‘violence,’ especially when it is combined with a disregard for the need to transform society.” (Michel Desjardins, Peace, Violence and the New Testament (Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 34). Avoiding conflict in a manner that perpretuates abuses is itself a rejecting of true peace.

It seems as if there are some aspects of social justice that cannot be addressed without risking putting one up against government. Sex-based human trafficking (intra-national and international) and sexual tourism are pretty rampant here in the Philippines. But what is the best way to fight such malignancies? Here in Baguio, the sex workers are protected SOMEWHAT by local laws and the Department of Health. Attacking the problem legally by criminalizing the sex work may well be simply harming more those who already are pretty desperate and marginalized. It is hard for a missionary to know what to do. To bring back William Carey, widow burning was done for some questionable religio-cultural reasons, but the culture also created taboos off of that reduced opportunities to flourish. A widow had no value in the culture and had few options for a good quality of life. Making widow-burning illegal (I forgot to define this— killing/burning the widow of a man when he dies) was a good thing, but there needed to also be cultural changes to open opportunities for widows in India. One without the others was simply not enough.

At the top of this rambling post, I gave the answer as I Don’t Know. A fuller answer may be YES, a missionary should be WILLING BUT EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS in getting involved in local politics. Keeping divorce illegal hurts people more than it helps (if it helps anyone). Criminalizing sex work probably will not reduce it all that much… but it will put the marginalized outside of government protections, and effectively provide, paradoxically, greater protection for abusers of sex workers. Stopping overseas foreign workers will reduce some international abuses, but will also hurt literally hundreds of thousands of families who receive remittances for overseas work. On the other hand, the separation of family members through the OFW system creates deep sociological problems for families. What is the best solution? I don’t know and I don’t think many missionaries know either. Sometimes missionaries need to stay out of local politics NOT BECAUSE it is wrong in itself, BUT BECAUSE it is wrong to go into local politics without understanding the issues.

How Might Pastoral Theology Speak to Missions

I just finished a post on the opposite— “How Might Missiology Speak to Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy.” So now I would like to suggest the value the opposite way.

One challenge the the direction of Pastoral Theology informing Missions is that in a sense it has happened before. Back in the 1960s, a form of Missions developed that could be described as “Presence Missions.” It does not seek transformation… or at least transformation to faith and following of Christ. Rather, the role was far more passive. Affirming the good in society as from God, and embracing a role of as a quiet catalyst. While this may have been a welcome counterbalance from forms of Christian missions that was more aggressive and argumentative, I don’t think it was healthy or in line with the call of God. Nevertheless, I do believe that some aspects of Pastoral Theology can help Missions.

Broader Guidance for Reaching Outsiders. Missions has often been boiled down to following the Great Commission (or Great Commissions). It then is seen often in terms of Evangelization, Church-planting, and Discipleship. However, God’s mission to those outsider the church is not really encompassed by the Great Commission, but by the Great Commandment. Pastoral Theology (ideally at least) embraces this broader leaning. Therefore, Scripture that embraces this broader calling (Colossians 4:5-6, I Peter 3:15, Titus 2:10, I Timothy 3:6-7, among others). This broader understanding is valuable not only for the local church, but for the cross-cultural minister as well. Impracticality. Missions has commonly fallen into the trap of practicality and efficiency. Pastoral Theology and Pastoral ministries are horribly inefficient… and that is a good thing since people and relationships are messy and inefficient. In missions, far too many books advise trimming away work that “slows down” the World Christian Movement, not understanding that such trimming may well undermine its Christian identity. Pastoral Theology is relational, tentative, and slow. It rejects practicality as a benchmark. That is a good thing that Missions really needs to learn to embrace.Contextualization. Although in my previous post I stated that Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy needs to learn contextualization from Missiology, there is a sense that it needs to happen in the opposite direction as well. Pastoral counseling generally is drive by the felt needs of the client. From those felt needs, one can gently work toward needs that are more universal. Far too often Christian missions tells people what to be concerned about and then tells them how to lose that concern. That cycle doesn’t work that well if the concern and the solution does not “Scratch where it itches.” Good missions, in my view, honors the peoples’ felt needs. Even if the felt needs are not the most critical needs… it is hard to direct people to bigger needs if the felt needs are devalued or ignored.Iterative Theology. Good pastoral theology is iterative… driven by theological reflection and informed by Scripture and systematic theology on one side, and ministerial experience on the other. This cycle of pastoral reflection is supposed to be intentional and regular. Missions in terms of project or program design does commonly operate in a cycle. But the iterative nature is more in terms of practical results, not in terms of theology. Missions theology often is driven by systematic theology that is rather disconnected from experience, or from practical experiences that are rather disconnected from systematic theology and reflection (or from tradition and disconnected from both experience and theology). That is a shame. Active (full body) Listening. Missions can fall into the same trap as Homiletics. It is focused on proclaiming, but in terms of listening… a bit hard of hearing. Missionaries, much like Pastors, don’t generally embrace their calling because they love to listen. Consider the extended quote from the “Crisis Care Chaplain Training Manual” (Virginia Baptist Mission Board, 2007, pg. 38): “Many times, chaplains are so anxious to provide encouragement or to say “the right thing,” that they are busy thinking about a response and not really present to the words and feelings being expressed by the victim. Good listening means the chaplain will be present to the victim by integrating the words, the feelings, and the facts to give meaning and understanding to the experience.” This tendency for chaplains can be double true for missionaries. It is in this sense that the “Ministry of Presence” is healthy for missions. Church Leader Development. Missionaries are often church planters. But church planting should also involve local leader development. Often, however, missionaries are not well equipped to train spiritual, pastoral, leadership, and more particularly, train church leaders to be competent and effective pastoral counselors. Often church leaders established by missionaries end up sliding into a default form of counseling. For some this may mean using what worked in the past— including the past before being Christian. While there are some aspects of the cultural that may be helpful… these aspects should not be “blessed as good” due to absence of good training. The other likely thing to happen is that pastors embrace a “prophetic” (preaching against) stance when it comes to counseling. Why is this? Missionaries are often pretty good at preaching, and they are pretty good at training local pastors to preach. As the saying goes, “When all you have is a hammer… everything in the world looks like a nail.” When your best ministerial tool is preaching, it is likely you will use it everywhere— Bible studies, Sunday School, Counseling, Interreligious Dialogue, etc.

I think here is a good place to stop.