Robert Munson's Blog, page 14

How Might Missiology Speak to Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy?

Background. I serve in a missionary (cross-cultural minister) capacity in the Philippines. I got my Master of Divinity degree taking all the mission courses that were in the schedule… and a couple that were not. In my early years, my wife and I were active in doing medical missions events, children’s group outreach, and some community development. We have also partnered in a couple of church planting opportunities. I teach missions regularly at two seminaries, and have taught missions courses at a couple of others as well. I have also written some books on missions topics (mostly for my seminary students), and have written a few articles on missions or missions theology. Also, my ThD is in Practical Ministries with emphasis on Missions.

As you can see, my training and work has been mostly in missions. DESPITE THIS… my legacy is tending towards a very different area of ministry. Here is what happened. My wife, who focused on pastoral care and counseling in seminary, took a unit of CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education). After that, there was a couple of major storms that came through our area (Tropical Storm Ondoy and Typhoon Pepeng). Each wreaked great devastation and misery. We decided that what was needed from us was to fill gaps that other groups were missing. Most noticeably— there was a need for disaster response counseling. We got training in this area— disaster response chaplaincy— to help fill the gap. Many groups were coming in and dumping off supplies. This is great. But we were one of only a few groups that focused on listening to the survivors— honoring their stories, allowing for emotional ventilation, and sharing the love of God in a way more akin to the quiet whisper in the cave on Mount Horeb, rather than the thunder and whirlwind.

Out of this we formed Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center. This slowly grew and then we set up an accreditation and certification organization (CPSP-Philippines) for pastoral counseling and clinical chaplaincy in the Philippines. This too has slowly grown. Now as I look at things in 2024— it is pretty clear that ministerial success (if it was possible to score such a thing) has been in my work in pastoral counseling and chaplaincy NOT in missiology. A few examples: (A) Looking at the last 10 books I have sold online— 9 out of those 10 were for books I have written on pastoral counseling NOT missiology. (B) The top powerpoints I have shared online have all been related to pastoral counseling. (C) My wife and/or I are regularly asked to speak in seminars or webinars on pastoral care and counseling. Rarely am I asked to speak on missions… outside of the seminary classroom. (D) Both locally and internationally, I am known more for my work in pastoral counseling than I am in missions. This is DESPITE THE FACT THAT I AM NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD PASTORAL COUNSELOR. Certainly, my wife is far better than I.

But is this a problem? I don’t think so. I do think that Missiology does bring tools into Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy that are beneficial. I think it is actually a two-way street. Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy also bring tools to Missions. But I would like to focus on the first one here. I would like to focus on some tools that I think Missiology brings.

#1. Cultural Anthropology. Missiology is tied to the understanding of people groups and cultures. As such, it is very much tied to Cultural (or Social) Anthropology. The Pastoral Care movement has 2000 years of history but it’s development occurred primarily in the cathedrals, chapels, churches, and hospitals of Western Christianity. While things are changing, a few years ago I was looking up books and articles on cross-cultural pastoral counseling and chaplaincy, and most (though thankfully not all) were written from the perspective of “How can an American white Christian do counseling work with American black Christians?” Is that a question worthy of answering? Sure… but it is a very limited and doesn’t speak much to the myriad of other cross-cultural cross-ethnic cross-religious settings. Cultural Anthropology asks the questions that counselors often assume don’t need asking.

#2. Contextualization. Contextualization is a part of cultural anthropology of course, but it deserves its own focus. Contextualization assumes that something clear in one setting can be very unclear in another. In working with people from a different religion or culture there needs to be four steps: (a) Internationalization— removing the language or symbology that only makes sense in my own cultural perspective, (b) Translation— bringing meaning over in a way that is clear in a new context, (c) Localization— attempting to make ones guidance and listening feel natural, not merely comprehensible, in the new setting, and (d) Feedback— clarification to remove misunderstanding.

In some conservative Christian circles there has been the growth of the use of the term Biblical Counseling. I don’t care for the term particularly. For one, some forms of Biblical Counseling are shockingly unibiblical. Additionally, I have often seen that people sometimes add the term “Biblical” to the front of a topic to shut-down dissent or questions. After all, if it is “biblical” how could one question it? However, I think there is a perhaps more subtle problem. The term “biblical” can often be interpreted as “supracultural.” We do see this with “Verse-dropping” approaches. If there are some verses that one is supposed to share with someone who is feeling depressed and panicky, for example, there is not likely much room for adjusting for how depressed and panicky may spring from very different causes depending on context. Missiology says we have to take context seriously, and not simply mouth agreement with it but then push the same formula over and over based on what makes sense to us.

#3. Multiple Ideals. Psychology and Pastoral Counseling have often assumed that there is one ideal. In the Western World, pastoral counseling may promote “feeling free from guilt”, joyful, strong, confident, and independent. However, in Missions we learn that people in countries that are more focused on Honor and Shame, greater focus may be on “feeling welcomed and honored” and having strong community/family connections. In a Fear/Power setting, feeling “free from spiritual oppression” may be the big goal. In a Harmony or a Reciprocity culture, other ideals may exist like peace and connection. A lot of counseling books assume that the ideal person is pretty similar to the writer of that book. That is not necessarily a good thing.

#4. Groups. Missiology struggles with addressing individual concerns WITH group concerns. Early psychology often focused on the individual. In more recent times, there has been a growth in Group Counseling, Family Counseling, Support Groups, Growth Groups, and more. Despite this, there still seems to be a bias toward focusing on the healing of the individual. While I do think that Missiology also can drift into an individuality bias as well, I do believe its strong link to sociology and culture does mean important questions are regularly asked— “Can a person be truly well if he/she is in a sick family or community?” is an example.

#5. Orality. Orality has been an area of growth in terms of study and use since the 1970s (particularly). It notes that many people prefer to learn through listening rather than reading— and in fact, many cannot read (primary orality) while others can read but choose not to unless they can’t avoid it (secondary orality). Pastoral counseling is a spoken ministry for the most part. Counseling is usually done through the spoken word. However, much of the training for it is very much driven by books and articles. With people moving toward “YouTube U” as their preferred form of learning over the written word, Missiology may provide answers to some of the questions that may move pastoral counseling to embrace more fully its spoken roots.

#6. Overlaps. There are areas where classic missions and classic pastoral counseling naturally overlap. A couple of them are Missionary Member Care (MMC) and Interreligious Dialogue (IRD). One could include social justice, peacemaking ministries, and transformational development in there as well, I suppose. People in recent decades have gained a clearer understanding of the need for MMC. However, due to human migrations, improved communication, and a general globalization of many fields, IRD has become more and more important. Both of these areas utilize skills and ideas from Pastoral Counseling and Missiology. There are potentially many other overlaps. Disaster Response, for example, often links missions with counseling. These areas, and many more, need people bridging the gap between the two fields.

I think that is enough for now. If you have some other examples, I would, of course, welcome these.

Looking at the Ins and Outs of Worldview

I am reading an article by Michael T. Cooper, “Necessity of Worldview Understanding for Sustainable Peace: A Case Study of United States Relations with Native Americans in the 18-19th [Sacred Tribes Journal Volume 4 Number 2 (2009):113-131]. It had a nice discussion on worldview as well as a Venn Diagram. (I am always a sucker for Venn Diagrams).

Cooper references David Naugle who explains worldview as a “semiotic phenomenon.” That is fine, but one could argue that pretty much everything regarding human thought is. But then Naugle goes on to note that one can understand worldview “as a system of narrative signs that establishes a powerful framework within which people think (reason), interpret (hermeneutics), and know (epistemology).” [pg 114] Cooper suggests a similar idea expressed differently as: “Worldview, then, is created by the degree in which one’s culture, belief

system (whether religious or non religious) and ethnicity/race interact to explain the perception of reality” [pg 114]. Cooper then shows worldview with three components as a Venn diagram on page 115. Here is a SLIGHTLY modified version of that figure. (The white area in the middle is not labeled, but it is simply that part of worldview that is fully impacted by all three sources— beliefs, ethnicity, and culture.

To me where I find it interesting is the sources of each, as noted by Cooper. Culture is generally achieved. We are born “Tabula Rasa” (blank slate) in terms of culture and we slowly enculturate into the context. There is also a sense in which culture is ascribed, but in this model, the aspect in which it is ascribed is under Ethnicity. Therefore: Ethnicity is generally ascribed, but the community, as well as by those outside of the community.

Beliefs and Religion is perhaps a bit more complex. There is an aspect in which this area is ascribed. I am a Christian, in part, because I was rised in a culturally Christian region to Christian parents. As a Baptist, I would balk at the idea that it is ascribed since we would not use the term Christian to someone who has not consciously and voluntarily embracing following Christ. But this is not about soteriology (what makes one saved… or a “Christian”). It is about the sources of our worldview. There are aspects in which my beliefs are achieved and aspects in which they are ascribed. Overall, this is the most ‘individuated’ of the three circles. Even in cultures where there is strong pressure, even dogma, linking ethnicity with religion, that does not speak strongly to individuals’ worldviews. Some people embrace the faith of their culture or ethnicity, while others wear their religion like a coat. In such a case their religion is like a coat in that it something worn to fit into a setting, and provide some protection; but at the same time is external to the person and can be removed (even if only temporarily) if convenient.,

The above diagram at first seems quite different from Linwood Barney’s figure on Layers of Culture.

However, when one looks at the two figures, it is clear that their primary aims are essentially the opposite. In the Venn diagram, the image suggests how worldview forms in a person. With Barney’s concentric circles, the image suggests how worldview impacts other things in a society.

I am not going to bring the two images together into one. But if I did, one would find a loop in it. Beliefs/religion impacts worldview, AND worldview impacts Beliefs/religion.

Is there any amazing insight from this that would have practical application in ministry? I am not sure. However, I think the fact that there is a non-linear loop in how worldview is developed and lived out, should, if nothing else, draw us to question overly simplistic understandings of worldview. I know that some missiologists suggest a one-to-one relationship between worldview and religion. Thus, each religion has its own unique worldview. While I see how one can see it that way, the dynamics related to worldview seems to make such a perspective less than useless.

Worldview can be explored through Barney’s model— starting with behaviors working back to institutions, and then to exploring beliefs and values. OR one can explore worldview in terms of formation— as a non-static, iterative process of enculturation, ascribed and achieving symbols, and an acceptance or rejection of context-driven beliefs and religion.

Discovering any person’s worldview, then, is like attempting to catch a will-o-wisp (or some fog) in a butterfly net. It is constantly changing and creating change.

Does that make worldview useless as a concept? No, I don’t think so. But that is the point— worldview is a concept… not a thing. As we seek out a person’s worldview we are not going after something that can be found and captured. Rather, WE ARE LEARNING ABOUT THE PERSON THROUGH THE SEARCH. Anton T. Boisen describes a person as a living human document. As we read the person, and interpret what we read, we gain a clearer understanding of who he/she is— the fact that we can never get to a point that the person is fully grasped is part of what is amazing about being human.

By the way, the article I referenced at the top of the post by Michael T. Cooper, is a really good article. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND IT.

Sin and “Spiritual Warfare”??

So deathscrolling through the news and I saw that another famous pastor had been outed with regard to sexual misconduct. I was vaguely familiar with him… but apparently his is a pretty big name in certain circles. That same article then linked to a Charisma magazine article about a number of recent pastors who have had similar things happen. They focused on three because they happened in the same part of the USA. One involved a confession, making it quite similar to the one I was reading. One involved a denial– more fun with that one coming I am sure. One that was so vaguely phrased that no one in the public knows what it is about. (I don’t hang out with famous Christians much but I have actually heard two of them speak in live events.)

It is hard to see why this keeps happening. Logic, of course, has nothing to do with it. However, if it did, it seems like the fame and adulation of being a “celebrity Christian” should be enough to cross off one’s to-do list a few things— extramarital affairs, general sexual misconduct, human trafficking, declaring oneself the “owner of the Universe” (the last two are Philippine-specific references). You know… just avoid the big stuff. No one seems to mind that much if one is quarrelsome, conceited, or has a bad reputation with outsiders, despite these being important benchmarks for a pastor (see 1 Timothy 3).

Charisma magazine, unsurprisingly, chalked it up to “Spiritual Warfare.” The implication is that these celebrity pastors are so important in the spiritual battle between good and evil that Satan has worked extra hard to bring them down. Although I balk at that perspective— at least in a limited sense, I suppose there is an element of truth to it.

Nevertheless, I don’t like it. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, an obvious problem is that it externalizes the problem. The individual chose to sin, and do so in ways that even the secular public find unacceptable. There are many factors for this. In many denominations church leadership is a boy’s club and based on my experience in the Navy as my ship was transitioning from male only to male and famale, having men and women sharing leadership DOES change (perceived) attitudes and actions. Successful pastors can also develop sycophants that tempt toward hubris and acting out. Many pastors will even go out of their way to surround themselves with fans. Many pastors never learned the value of external accountability. Perhaps there are indeed demons working around the clock to make a famous pastor fail. I don’t know. I do know that the problem is, however, NOT that the “Devil made me do it.” Sin starts and is fed in the head and heart long before it reveals itself. Spectacular failures can happen to all, and one of my best defenses against this happening to me is to be well aware that it CAN HAPPEN TO ME. The call of spiritual warfare can make it sound like it is not the fault of the pastor, but the Devil and devils out there making it happen.

Second, expanding on the last sentence, one can argue that the excuse of spiritual warfare is actually a backdoor compliment. Suppose the story was about me (thankfully not famous enough for anyone to care… but we can imagine for the moment). I could say it was due to spiritual warfare. But all Christians, in some sense, are involved in spiritual warfare. So what am I REALLY trying to say?

A. Maybe I am saying that it wasn’t really my fault (as I noted in the previous paragraph). The problem was external to me.

B. Maybe I am saying that I am extra special, good, and important. I am an especially capable and exceptional soldier in God’s army— so the enemy has pooled its troops to target me. Maybe I failed not because I am particularly flawed or unspiritual, but rather that I eventually yielded to a spiritual onslaught that others around me would have caved to LONG ago. Maybe the reason this news finally came out after so many years does not point out my weakness, but instead points to my strength in my faithful resilience for so long.

C. Maybe I am saying that I am so important to the cause of Christ (Satan seems to think so after all) that I must be forgiven and restored as soon as possible. My fall into temptation is not a true spiritual loss. True spiritual loss would be if I am not quickly empowered to get back into the battle. Recall the story of Jimmy Swaggert with his “God has forgiven me— why can’t you?” Of course, it has nothing to do with forgiveness— it was about putting the story behind without discipline or repercussions.

I must admit that I don’t care for the War metaphor for Christian living. It is used in the Bible, but there are a LOT of metaphors for the Christian life in the Bible. Generally, I don’t recommend we spend too much time on spiritual warfare as a metaphor. It has its place— but I think it creates its own temptation to exploit and excuse. If you fail publicly, I don’t recommend pulling out the Spiritual Warfare card. Spiritual warfare did not make you fail… it using it as an excuse won’t be a useful part of your recovery.

Reflecting on the Martyrdom of Polycarp

I teach a class on cultural anthropology. I like to use case studies. Paul and Frances Hiebert wrote a book Case Studies in Missions. I find it very useful. (Another good book is Alan Neely’s Christian Mission: A Case Study Approach.) One of cases in the book by the Hieberts had to do with a woman evangelizer in a religiously (semi-) closed country. The police sent a message to the Christians in the community to tell this woman to report in to the interrogated. I asked my students what she should do. Some say she should run away or hide. Others would say that she should boldly walk immediately down to the nearest police station and report in. Some seem to take the argument that Christians should obey the law of the land as much as possible. Others seem to be opposed running and hiding since they deem it to be cowardly or perhaps even sinful. Seeing that Jesus ran (or perhaps walked fast?) away from those seeking to kill him on two occasions— once in Nazareth and once in Jerusalem— I don’t see how one can see hiding or running away as inherently sinful. But it is still hard to say what the BEST option is.

I do tend to think that the The Martyrdom of Polycarp describes an ideal balance of sorts.

-The Pagans of Smyrna sought Polycarp to be executed.

-The Christians of Smyrna helped Polycarp hide from the authorities. This worked for awhile.

-The authorities started going after other members of the church.

-Polycarp revealed himself to the authorities.

-The authorities gave Polycarp the opportunity to recant his faith publically.

-Refusing to recant, Polycarp was executed.

The figure above shows a way of looking at the Great Commandment. One circle is the first part of the Great Commandment— loving God. The other circle is the second part of the Great Commandment— loving others. One can think of the overlap as Christian ministry. (If this sounds too simplistic… I would not disagree.)

Polycarp hid at first. This allowed him to love God but also continue to minister to the people. To me, this is the correct response under those conditions based on the Great Commandment.

However, when the government started going after other members of the church, because they could not find Polycarp, the correct response had to change. Polycarp could not minister effectively to the people while still demonstrating love for them. Therefore, he turned himself in.

When in custody, Polycarp was asked to recant. Doing so, he could have continued to live, but he would be rejecting God… and he would be sabotaging his ministry to the people. Instead, he stayed true to his faith. He was then killed. This left him faithful to God to the end… and ministering to the people as a witness (“martyr”) to God and his faith.

I do think that when one is looking at proper responses to rather extreme situations as this— it is really not about bravery— it is about the Great Commandment. What action best expresses Love for God and Love for Man, AND effectively carry’s out God’s ministry to the people. The correct action may vary as the situation changes.

It seems like the early church knew this. They began to discount acts of martyrdom where the individual intentional sought out being martyred— blaspheming pagan gods or tempting the authorities to carry out an arrest. St. Ignatius of Antioch seems a little too excited about being martyred. A more nuanced response as we find with Polycarp seems more commendable, to me at least.

The Challenge and Value of Unintended Audiences (Part Two)

This is a continuation from Part One. If you haven’t read it yet, please CLICK HERE.

Obviously, when I am speaking of unintended audiences, I am also speaking of secondary audiences. That is, hopefully a speaker or writer is aware of potential audience members that may vary both over time and space. Taking these into account will, I suppose, take away the “unintended” label. Still, going through the process of considering one’s potential audiences is beneficial, on several fronts. Here are a few anecdotal examples that make sense to me anyway.

First. This website has an intended audience of one. That one is myself. When I first created this website, I was thinking that I wanted to put down my thoughts for others. In a sense that is true, but as the years went by I started getting emails or comments given about how to increase my hit count, and get more reading. As I researched it, the more I was turned off by it. I was advised to talk about topics that others were interested in. I was supposed to pick tags and categories that attract people. I should link my posts to different social media venues. The more I looked into it… the more that I realized that (a) I want to write about the topics that I want to write about… not the ones that others are interested in. (b) I don’t want to chase down people. I will put weird tags on my posts and if someone finds it that way, that is fine… but I have no interest in seeking out people.

So I write for an audience of one— myself. Does it mean that others have no impact on me? They absolutely impact me. They motivate me to write… whether they read or not. I don’t write in a notebook. I like the idea that others might read. I do like the thought that I might have a positive impact on the world. Additionally, the potential of others reading makes me hone my thoughts, and question my prejudices. Some people can put the most horrible things on social media. Why would they do that? Perhaps because they feel the anonymity of being online. I recall decades ago when I was on Compuserve (prior to there being something called the Internet) and learned about people lashing out at others in ways that they would not in real life. This phenomenon was called “flaming.” In other cases perhaps they think they know who is reading. But going through the process of imagining a wide range of readers helps strengthen what one writes. The Golden Rule actually forces one to imagine things through the eyes of others, for how can one “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” unless one can reverse the situation… and reverse for many different situations and people.

Second. Early on in my mission work, I was back in the US speaking at my sending church. I had worked out a sermon based on people we worked with. These were meant to be inspirational stories. However, as I thought more about it… I realized that our church, even way back then, did put their services online. I started to realize that what I might call an inspirational story, could be viewed as being exploitative— especially of the people I wanted to share about. For example. One person had been a floor manager at a night club— a job that in practice was not far different from a pimp. She came to Christ and eventually became a team member in local missions. It is a wonderful story— but would the person want me to share this information with strangers? Perhaps not. Over time, I started noticing that missionaries could be shockingly exploitative. In truth, I don’t think these missionaries are bad people… but haven’t gone through the process of thinking about the affect of their words and pictures… and who potentially may be in the audience.

Third. Sometimes one cannot control or adjust for the audience. My wife and I wrote a book, “The Art of Pastoral Care.” The book was used in teaching some classes in different Bible schools. One of those schools was in Canada. One student read the book, and then gave a low review score. She was bothered that it was written from a clearly Christian perspective. She felt that it was inappropriate for the pluralistic society of Canada. She may have been right in this. Perhaps it was a bad book for Canada— it was written for the Philippines, the primary audience, after all. The reviewer also was unhappy that we did not speak of medical treatments for depression… and I assume other things as well. I am less sympathetic on this issue since it was for pastoral counseling. It is not a book on psychiatry. In the end, one must recognize that one cannot control the potential audience. The important thing is not that everyone is happy— far from it. Rather, if one’s message is rejected, it is important that it be rejected for the right reasons.

I think this is enough for now. However, I do think Colossians 4:5-6 is somehow appropriate for this topic.

5 Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

I must remind myself that I may be acting toward outsiders and talking to them, even when I think I am talking only to insiders.

The Challenge and Value of Unintended Audiences (Part One)

I have talked about it before… but maybe I can pull some of my disparate thoughts together here. I will give a few quick examples.

Undermined

Butch Hartman, the creator of the cartoon, “The Fairly Odd Parents” among others, decided to create his own brand and channel for children’s media. As a Christian of a certain tradition, he was speaking at a church. As he was talking about his vision, and how others can be a part of it, he framed it in terms much like spywork. The Christian media will come into the homes of secular parents as seemingly innocent content, but will surreptitiously fill the minds of their children with Christian messages. Now, I would describe that as a rather uncomfortable presentation, but I do know that there are some “7 mountain” Christian nationalist types that might really connect to that sort of marketing. The problem was that the presentation was recorded and became available to the 95% of the population who would be uncomfortable with that framing. Butch was speaking to the 5% but what he said eventually became available to the unintended audience— the 95%. I don’t really know if Butch knew what he was saying was going into (potentially) all the world. I would wonder if he would have made his message more universal if he had.

I can relate to this. A few years ago, I was working with a minister who had sinned— in a manner that was patterned and unnuanced. I had worked with him for several months and after having a discussion with some other church leaders, we decided to hold a restoration service for him. Anyway, we were hold this service at a neutral site, and I specifically said that if anyone takes pictures, videos, or such, please keep them to oneself— don’t put up on social media. Sure enough, a few days later, there was a backlash as one of the attendees shared photos online. Why would she do that??!! Apparently, she was moved by the event and thought others would be moved by it as well. It is like she never used social media… ever!!

Underthought

I used to live in Virginia— I still do when I am not in the Philippines. Two well-known Christian leaders had their base of operations there before they died— Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. I never cared for either one of them that much, but at least Fallwell never ran for president of the United States… so there’s that. However, from their television pedestal, they talked A LOT. And periodically they would say things that would get a strong reaction from people. I am not speaking of proclaiming the gospel message that may be a stumblingblock for many people. I mean saying things that insult a group of people— failing to follow the wisdom of Titus 2:10 (adorning the gospel), Colossians 4:5-6 and I Peter 3:15. It was interesting that Jerry Fallwell would commonly apologize, while Pat Robertson would often double-down on his statement. I am not sure which is worse. If Fallwell really knew that his words work destructive… then he should be more careful in the future in what he says. Not learning but continuing to repeat— what does that say about the person. As far as Robertson, not seeing that his words can undermine the purpose of his message (assuming that at least part of the purpose is to express God’s love and message of hope in such a way as to convict hearts to turn to Him) just seems to be so foolish. Actually, looking at the Mission Statement of CBN, it is not at all clear that my assumption of their message is correct… but not sure that this makes it any better. As I said, I truly don’t know which is worse.

I have also spoken of Otto Koning and his telling of his adventures as a missionary on the island of New Guinea. The video of his sharing has to be at least 40 years old… and maybe the things he said were thought appropriate then. Now, however, some would be quite problematic to modern-day listeners as well as members of the tribe he ministered to who now can access that presentation when they could not decades ago. One cannot prepare for the future totally. Still… as a missionary, I do try to talk about the people I work with and for in such a way that it would not be embarrassing if SOMEHOW they were able to listen in on what I say.

Years ago I attended a church that was really big on tithing. As a way to encourage (pressure?) members into tithing, the deacons were asked, one per week, to get up and talk about how important it is to tithe. One day, Mr. Arnolds (not his real name) got up to do that… talking about how important it is to tithe. As he was talking, two visitors in the church stood up and one of them said, “Uh… excuse me… excuse me. I was wondering why we have to buy God’s love?” Actually, I thought that was an excellent question but Mr. Arnolds did not know what to say. He Hmmmd and Ummmmd for a bit, and a couple of other deacons came and escorted the two ladies out of the church. That was really too bad. Mr. Arnold was a very nice man actually… but I don’t think he ever wondered why we should tithe… or even IF we should tithe. He was asked by the pastor to encouraged to give a word of support for tithing, and he assumed that everyone in the church either believes in tithing or (like me I guess) at least isn’t going to challenge the practice in such a public way. I don’t think the leadership ever changed its views on tithing— but they did stop having deacons get up and try to talk people into doing it. Some good then came of it all.

WHAT CAN ONE DO ABOUT THE UNINTENDED AUDIENCE?

Anticipate and Accommodate Them. Peter, in Acts 2, spoke to the local crowd to help them understand what was happening as the 120 began speaking to people in their own languages. This was a great blessing for some of the people— especially visitors. But for the local people, who already spoke Aramaic, with limited utility in other languages, things would have been confusing. Peter helped them understand. In a similar way, Paul told the Church of Corinth, likewise, to not exercise glossalalia without an interpreter. Some people may be fine with what is going on, but others, especially guests could be confused.Plan One’s Message for More than One Audience. Paul in Athens spoke in the Agora (marketplace) may have been sharing the Gospel with what we might call “ordinary people.” However, there were philosophers, apparently in the crowd. His message was presumably relevant to the common people, but was also enticing for the philosophers. Similarly, Paul in Ephesus expressed Jesus in a positive way to the listening crowd. However, there were apparently government officials in the audience as well… looking for agitators perhaps. Paul, however, never said anything denigrating Artemis, their main local deity. This was very helpful when people tried to attack Paul and his group. The local leadership recognized that Paul was not the problem. His carefully chosen words expressed the Gospel forcefully, without blasheming what some people still dearly held onto. Make the “Unintended Audience” Part of the Conversation. This is probably the most challenging of the three. Jesus described His message as being primarily for sinners called to repent. As such, His message was less targeted to the religious leaders who (in their own minds at least) did not view their need for repentance. Jesus often used the interaction between Himself and the religious leaders as public discourse to be heard by His disciples and others.

Regardless, never assume that only your intended audience will hear what you have to say. This was probably never true, but today it is more true— your message potentially will go past the walls of the room you are with to endure around the world and across time. Don’t be surprised by this— expect this and plan for it.

You can continue to Part Two by CLICKING HERE.

The Challenge and Value of Unintended Audiences

I have talked about it before… but maybe I can pull some of my disparate thoughts together here. I will give a few quick examples.

Undermined

Butch Hartman, the creator of the cartoon, “The Fairly Odd Parents” among others, decided to create his own brand and channel for children’s media. As a Christian of a certain tradition, he was speaking at a church. As he was talking about his vision, and how others can be a part of it, he framed it in terms much like spywork. The Christian media will come into the homes of secular parents as seemingly innocent content, but will surreptitiously fill the minds of their children with Christian messages. Now, I would describe that as a rather uncomfortable presentation, but I do know that there are some “7 mountain” Christian nationalist types that might really connect to that sort of marketing. The problem was that the presentation was recorded and became available to the 95% of the population who would be uncomfortable with that framing. Butch was speaking to the 5% but what he said eventually became available to the unintended audience— the 95%. I don’t really know if Butch knew what he was saying was going into (potentially) all the world. I would wonder if he would have made his message more universal if he had.

I can relate to this. A few years ago, I was working with a minister who had sinned— in a manner that was patterned and unnuanced. I had worked with him for several months and after having a discussion with some other church leaders, we decided to hold a restoration service for him. Anyway, we were hold this service at a neutral site, and I specifically said that if anyone takes pictures, videos, or such, please keep them to oneself— don’t put up on social media. Sure enough, a few days later, there was a backlash as one of the attendees shared photos online. Why would she do that??!! Apparently, she was moved by the event and thought others would be moved by it as well. It is like she never used social media… ever!!

Underthought

I used to live in Virginia— I still do when I am not in the Philippines. Two well-known Christian leaders had their base of operations there before they died— Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. I never cared for either one of them that much, but at least Fallwell never ran for president of the United States… so there’s that. However, from their television pedestal, they talked A LOT. And periodically they would say things that would get a strong reaction from people. I am not speaking of proclaiming the gospel message that may be a stumblingblock for many people. I mean saying things that insult a group of people— failing to follow the wisdom of Titus 2:10 (adorning the gospel), Colossians 4:5-6 and I Peter 3:15. It was interesting that Jerry Fallwell would commonly apologize, while Pat Robertson would often double-down on his statement. I am not sure which is worse. If Fallwell really knew that his words work destructive… then he should be more careful in the future in what he says. Not learning but continuing to repeat— what does that say about the person. As far as Robertson, not seeing that his words can undermine the purpose of his message (assuming that at least part of the purpose is to express God’s love and message of hope in such a way as to convict hearts to turn to Him) just seems to be so foolish. Actually, looking at the Mission Statement of CBN, it is not at all clear that my assumption of their message is correct… but not sure that this makes it any better. As I said, I truly don’t know which is worse.

I have also spoken of Otto Koning and his telling of his adventures as a missionary on the island of New Guinea. The video of his sharing has to be at least 40 years old… and maybe the things he said were thought appropriate then. Now, however, some would be quite problematic to modern-day listeners as well as members of the tribe he ministered to who now can access that presentation when they could not decades ago. One cannot prepare for the future totally. Still… as a missionary, I do try to talk about the people I work with and for in such a way that it would not be embarrassing if SOMEHOW they were able to listen in on what I say.

Years ago I attended a church that was really big on tithing. As a way to encourage (pressure?) members into tithing, the deacons were asked, one per week, to get up and talk about how important it is to tithe. One day, Mr. Arnolds (not his real name) got up to do that… talking about how important it is to tithe. As he was talking, two visitors in the church stood up and one of them said, “Uh… excuse me… excuse me. I was wondering why we have to buy God’s love?” Actually, I thought that was an excellent question but Mr. Arnolds did not know what to say. He Hmmmd and Ummmmd for a bit, and a couple of other deacons came and escorted the two ladies out of the church. That was really too bad. Mr. Arnold was a very nice man actually… but I don’t think he ever wondered why we should tithe… or even IF we should tithe. He was asked by the pastor to encouraged to give a word of support for tithing, and he assumed that everyone in the church either believes in tithing or (like me I guess) at least isn’t going to challenge the practice in such a public way. I don’t think the leadership ever changed its views on tithing— but they did stop having deacons get up and try to talk people into doing it. Some good then came of it all.

WHAT CAN ONE DO ABOUT THE UNINTENDED AUDIENCE?

Anticipate and Accommodate Them. Peter, in Acts 2, spoke to the local crowd to help them understand what was happening as the 120 began speaking to people in their own languages. This was a great blessing for some of the people— especially visitors. But for the local people, who already spoke Aramaic, with limited utility in other languages, things would have been confusing. Peter helped them understand. In a similar way, Paul told the Church of Corinth, likewise, to not exercise glossalalia without an interpreter. Some people may be fine with what is going on, but others, especially guests could be confused.Plan One’s Message for More than One Audience. Paul in Athens spoke in the Agora (marketplace) may have been sharing the Gospel with what we might call “ordinary people.” However, there were philosophers, apparently in the crowd. His message was presumably relevant to the common people, but was also enticing for the philosophers. Similarly, Paul in Ephesus expressed Jesus in a positive way to the listening crowd. However, there were apparently government officials in the audience as well… looking for agitators perhaps. Paul, however, never said anything denigrating Artemis, their main local deity. This was very helpful when people tried to attack Paul and his group. The local leadership recognized that Paul was not the problem. His carefully chosen words expressed the Gospel forcefully, without blasheming what some people still dearly held onto. Make the “Unintended Audience” Part of the Conversation. This is probably the most challenging of the three. Jesus described His message as being primarily for sinners called to repent. As such, His message was less targeted to the religious leaders who (in their own minds at least) did not view their need for repentance. Jesus often used the interaction between Himself and the religious leaders as public discourse to be heard by His disciples and others.

Regardless, never assume that only your intended audience will hear what you have to say. This was probably never true, but today it is more true— your message potentially will go past the walls of the room you are with to endure around the world and across time. Don’t be surprised by this— expect this and plan for it.

Reflections on Blades, Headhunting, and Cultural Symbols (Part Two)

If you haven’t read Part One yet, please feel free to CLICK HERE.

Upon reflection, the use of “headhunting” blades as symbols of cultural pride makes sense. As the tribes began to interact more with the world— they had several choices. They could try to maintain cultural separation— a hard road to follow. They could assimilate and lose their own identity. Many groups have done this… but not a path I would recommend. Marginalization— a failure to successfully retain important aspects of their own culture while simultaneously failing to successfully adapt to the broader culture— is a problem pretty much by definition. Integration— adapting to the broader world, while thoughtfully holding on to key aspects of one’s heritage— seems the only winning strategy.

Rejecting xenophobia and headhunting is an important, necessary step in integration. However, the blade is a symbol of strength. It reminds one of one’s identity and community strength. For the Bugkalot, this is not their only symbol. The greatest warriors had a headdress that has skull and plumage of a Philippine hornbill (bird). Today, the bird is endangered and so this headdress is not made as it was. However, a replica is still used for some cultural activities. Additionally, some of the kubos (small traditional style huts or gazebos) are now designed with what looks like hornbill nest on top with hornbills looking out from it. This again is a reinterpretation.

Bugkalot-design gazebo with stylized hornbill nest on top.

I found it interesting that many of the church pastors are ones who actively help to maintain some of the cultural heritage of the tribe. The hornbill kubos are designed and produced by a local pastor, and when we were staying at a pastor’s house there, the pastor was busy making a “kaget.” This is a traditional belt worn by Bugkalot wome. It was beautiful, and again I was surprised that when I looked at kaget on the Internet, the ones available were not nearly as beautiful.

Pastor with the beautiful “Kaget” he is making (not yet finished)

Symbols change in meaning and that is good. Periodically people will say— “Oh you can’t have a Christmas tree because it has ‘pagan roots.’” Curiously, there seems to be little direct connection between the Christmas tree and Paganism. But even if there was, symbols can change— they can be redeemed. We place meaning on symbols— and so we can change the meanings.

I remember someone sharing the little observation, “Isn’t it strange that we often wear a cross around our neck as a symbol of our faith when it is a method of torture and death? It’s just like wearing a tiny electric chair around one’s neck!” Of course it isn’t the same— the meaning behind the cross has changed greatly over 2000 years. The meaning behind an electric chair has not changed very much… yet.

Wearing my miniature tёgyaden links me in some small way to a wonderful group of people with an amazing cultural history and today with an inspirational story of their path to Christ.

Reflections on Blades, Headhunting, and Cultural Symbols (Part One)

Last week I visited the Bugkalot tribe. Understand, that this is the Philippines where some would say that tribes don’t really exist. They exist as a people group, and as a language group, and as a cultural group, but they don’t necessarily have tribal chiefs or a governmental structure as some would define a tribe. We had a great time. The people were so accommodating. We were holding training with pastors and pastors’ wives on pastoral care and counseling. I think it went well. When we were done, we were given little gifts. My wife got a beautiful necklace of a Bugkalot design. For me, I got a necklace of sorts as well. Mine, however, was different. It was a tiny tёgyaden on a cord to wear around my neck. So what is a tёgyaden? It is a small curved one-handed sword (or bolo) with the inside curve being the one that is sharpened. It is kept in a wooden sheath that is decorated and secured with copper wire. I tried to find a good looking one on the Internet, but the ones that I found the people said were old and ugly. I feel like they hold onto the beautiful ones themselves. The tiny replica is interesting. One can actually take it out of the sheath and it does have a metal blade. While it wasn’t really sharpened, the metal was actually profiled to be thinner on the cutting side. The use today is ceremonial and part of tribal heritage.

However, prior to the 1970s, the tёgyaden had another function— decapitation. The Bugkalot tribe were known as headhunters. Now this term has a lot of baggage associated with it. It is seen often as a characteristic of evil savages, and perhaps cannibals. However, like pretty much everything I suppose, the truth is a bit more nuanced. There are, I think, three characteristics that make headhunters… well, headhunters:

Killing is done by warriors (or warriors in training) of the tribe, against people outside of the tribe.This killing is culturally accepted and even celebrated.A body part is kept as a trophy of the killing. This could be a head, or a scalp, or an ear or something else.

Often there is a spiritual significance to the activity, but different groups vary on this so it may not be good to generalize. Also cannibalism is in no way a necessary part of headhunting. It is a completely independent activity.

If one is a cynic— and often I am— I might say that much of this is not as strange as we make it out to be. Americans, as a group, will often allow their warriors to go out and kill outsiders (often calling this “war”). This killing is often celebrated. In most cases a body part trophy is not part of the tradition, but it has been at certain times in American history. During World War II, some soldiers would send skulls of the enemy back to their significant others. These were meant to impress, not “gross out.” A couple of centuries before, scalps were collected— normally carried out by Native tribes, but with the blessing and remuneration of European colonizers. I am not trying to equivocate here and suggest a sort of “we all do it.” Rather, I am just noting that we often over-exoticize things that seem different.

The tёgyaden is not the only decapitating blade I have been given. One of my students gave me a replica of a Kachin dao. The dao is now a symbol of the Kachin people. In fact, the Kachin state flag has the silhouette of two dao on it. The one I have been given has not been sharpened, but even in its present situation, it could definitely do some damage. A couple centuries ago it was the blade of decapitation.

My Kachin Dao with Sheath

I find it interesting that two groups have a blade that was used in “headhunting” as modern symbols of cultural pride and identity. Perhaps adding to the interest, both groups are predominantly Christian.

You can go by CLICKING HERE to Part Two

Why Do I Blog???

Daily writing promptWhy do you blog?View all responses

The initial reason for blogging was my desire to have a diary of a sort for my own thoughts. I had tried doing this on paper, but I found it would tend to fizzle out. I found that having a potential audience not only drove me to write… but also to craft my writings and develop my thoughts more carefully. I feel this sort of thing is not likely to resonant with that many others. Some people prefer to keep their thoughts private. They may feel uncomfortable putting things out into the public. There are certain thoughts that I keep to myself, believing that making them public may not be in my best interest, or fear that I will be misinterpreted. However, public scrutiny is a good filter for one’s thoughts— rather than keeping them bouncing around in one’s own echo chamber of the mind.

A second reason for blogging has developed over time. The more I write the more my thoughts clarify on some subjects and the better prepared I am to express them in a different setting. I have used my blogs as the basis for some sermons, some education lessons, some articles, and some books. Having written over 1500 posts on this website alone and many of my posts are quite long (in 2024, my average post has over 900 words) so there is a lot to draw from.

A third reason is it gives me a written record of the past. On some of my websites associated with ministry I can use them to go back through and remember what happened in the past. For this website, I get to see where I have been in terms of my thoughts and values and gain a sense of my trajectory. Sometimes I go back and am not that happy with my former self. Sometimes I am too didactic… or my focus was just a bit weird. Occasionally, I have thought about rewriting or deleting old posts. However, with the exception of minor editing, I have fought the urge. It is a part of me. Often, on the other hand, I am surprised how insightful I was on topics that I have not thought about in a long while. I am thankful that I wrote some things down when they were still clear in my head.

A final reason is that I do want to have some influence in the world around. I don’t presume to have wisdom that simply must be shared with the world. Perhaps my thoughts are ill-considered or just plain wrong. But that puts me no worse than most others… and perhaps my ideas are needed to be part of the tossed salad of thoughts that make up the world in which we reside.