Robert Munson's Blog, page 15

“Do Not Be Overly Righteous”— A Reflection

Quote from Philip Yancey

As I think about Individual Christians I know, I see some people made incomparably better by their faith, and some made measurably worse. For every gracious, kind-spirited, forgiving Christian, I can point to a proud, mean-spirited, judgmental one. In my own experience, those who strive the hardest and believe the more fervently are sometimes the least attractive persons. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they get caught up in competition and end up self-righteous rather than righteous. Politicians tell me their nastiest letters come from people who quote the Bible and claim to speak for God— which I easily believe since my mailbox shows the same pattern. How do I resolve the tension between the ideals of the Gospel and the actuality of those who profess it?

The church I grew up in included a perfect woman. At least that’s what she claimed, insisting she had not sinned in twelve years. I can remember as a child, all too aware of my own sins, marveling at her state of perfection. I never doubted her sincerity, for how could a perfect person lie? During church services I sometimes stared longingly at her, wishing I knew her secret. Now, however, I look back with pity on that woman. The apostle John could not have been more direct: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ Although this woman may have managed to avoid overt and obvious sins, I doubt tha tshe consistently obeyed what Jesus called the first and greatest commandment: to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And her smugly superior attitude betrayed that she had probably fallen victim to the sin of pride as well.

-Philip Yancey, Soul Survivor: How my Faith Survived the Church (PVM Harvest Resources, 2003), 116-117.

The writer of Ecclesiastes says it well, “Do not be overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?” (Ecclesiastes 7:16) I remember when I was young and people told me that Ecclesiastes was a work that is to be interpreted as human wisdom over its majority with a bit of divine wisdom at the end. This was one of those verses the pushed people in my denomination toward that assessment. After all, how could being “overly righteous” be bad? Certainly, the “golden mean” can’t be godly, right? I am not an accomplished expositor. Some may suggest that because the broader passage is about wisdom, perhaps the term righteous (in Hebrew, “saddiq”) is not really the correct term here. However, in ancient Jewish literature, wisdom seems always to have a moral component to it. Also parts of the broader passage seem to support the term righteous, such as in verse 20 where righteous is tied to doing good and not sinning.

In fact, the broader passage seems to suggest at least three reasons by being (or at least seeking to be) overly righteous is problematic. One reason is very practical, one is very theological, and one seems to be a bit of both practical and theological.

Practical reason— Verse 15 speaks of a righteous person dying in his righteous state, and a wicked man living a long life in his wickedness. So on a practical level, being overly righteous does not necessarily give you tangible improvements to one’s life. Psalms 1 is not necessarily a hard and fast rule— sometimes the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. Perhaps that is even the norm, at least in our daily experiences.

Theological reason— Verse 20 states that no one on earth always does good and never sins. This suggests that there is no finish line. Striving after perfection is a hopeless quest— like creating the perpetual motion machine. Just as the perpetual motion machine appears to violate the laws underpinning the universe (in this case, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), sinless perfection violates our design. While I would not describe myself as Reformed in my theological outlook, I see great wisdom in the understanding of salvation being unmerited (unearned, unachievable on our part) favor. I think there is also wisdom in rejecting the “perfectability of the saints.” However, the question might still be broached, “Is sinless perfection a worthy goal, even if it is not truly achievable?”

Practical/Theological reason— Verse 16 suggests that excessive quest for righteousness or wisdom may destroy oneself. The Hebrew term is pretty strong— suggesting ruining, or creating desolation. But maybe the term “quest” is key here. It is good to be wise and it is good to be righteous. But what happens when searching for either becomes one’s all-consuming passion? Perhaps there is a point where one departs from “wanting to be godly” and shifts into the problematic “wanting to be God.”

The quote above by Yancey is in a chapter about the lives of Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Both had a remarkable coming to faith as adults. Tolstoy tried immensely to be perfect… sinless. The quest did lead him to do many things that were certainly good— highly commendable in fact. In other ways, it sort of destroyed him. His wife noted that his quest kind of ruined his family and she felt that Tolstoy was so focused on his self-perfecting that he had no love left for his children. Is this true? The fact that this was her perception suggests on some level there is a problem. The attempt to be perfect can drive one towards hubris if one decides one has somehow achieved it, or despair if one feels (correctly) that one has ultimately failed. Dostoyevsky never sought such perfection— but perhaps that is why his writings show a deeper understanding of grace. Perhaps the one who desires perfection, seeks God with greater intensity, but the one who recognizes his need for God’s forgiveness understands God with greater depth.

Blaise Pascal has a well-known quote credited to him: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” I have hear that this is a dubious translation from the original French. Additional it has been suggested that a religious person such as Pascal certainly would not have believed this. I can’t speak to the issue of translation, but the second part? I think Pascal certainly must have seen horrible evils done justified by “God said” (or “Allah decreed” or whatever religious body or deity is invoked). The statement provides its own absolution, and that is quite dangerous.

If our connection to God is one of dependence and loving relationship rather than on sinlessness, we avoid the problem in Ecclesiastes 7:16.

I have heard it said that the most doctrinally sound song ever written (in recent centuries at least) is:

“Jesus loves me, this I know.,

For the Bible tells me so.

Little ones to Him belong,

They are weak, but He is strong.”

Of course, anything that has been turned into words can be ripped apart, and this verse from the song “Jesus Loves Me” is no exception. One word is wrong. In the last line, “They” should be turned to “We.” Little ones to Him belong, we are weak, but He is strong. When we throw away any idea of our own strength or perfection, we are dependent on Jesus and His love.

I feel as if Ecclesiastes 7:16 (or the broader section, verses 15-20) should not be overlooked or explained away. It is something to be taught and taken to heart.

What Four Characteristics of Missions Would I Want to Share If People Actually Read What I Write?

The title above is not some sort of passive-aggressive complaint about the number of “clicks” on my website. Actually, it is very much the opposite. Although my views here are teeny compared to what so many get on Youtube, X, Tiktok, or whatever, I have been pretty excited by my dozens of views per day on this obscure website. At present, I am on course to possibly have more visits in 2024 than I had in 2023 and 2022 combined. And those were my best years ever up to that point.

But if people are actually looking at my content (or using the term I prefer… “stuff”), what do I really want people to pick up from over the last 14 years in my writing about Christian missions? Upon reflection, I would want people to take seriously what I have written on something I like to call Paradoxical Missions.

The term I borrowed from Paradoxical Therapy. This is a method of counseling where seeming bad advice from the counselor leads to good behavior and learning— all while the counselor is likely to be considered the fool. A classic example relates to grieving. The counselor suggests to “Brian,” for example that since he is struggling dealing with his grief, perhaps the problem is that he is not grieving enough. The counselor suggests that Brian set aside a sizable chunk of time during the day to only grieve. The counselor may suggest Brian should get up at 6am in the morning and for the next hour do nothing except grieve— cry, focus on sad thoughts, wallow in self-pity. Don’t do anything else… let that one hour of time be dedicated completely to grieving. Then at 7am, one can stop, eat breakfast and get on with the day— grieving if needed but not on schedule.

Brian may well try this out since he is convinced that the counselor is “the expert.” Soon, however, Brian realizes how difficult it is to do focused grieving on demand. Even more, it is hard to do it for one hour straight. Even though previously, Brian may have felt like he was grieving “all of the time,” he realizes that his grief would come in little waves— they come and go. But as he is trying to do enduring concentrated grieving, he finds his mind wandering. He starts thinking of other things he would rather do right now. He may even start to find this whole exercise rather funny, and begin to chuckle, be stopping himself.

Sharing these concerns with the counselor, Brian is told… “Well, I really hoped you could do one whole hour straight, but maybe that is too much— try 30 minutes instead.” Brian, however, finds 30 minutes too long, but thinking about how disappointed his counselor was that he could not handle an hour. Eventually, he just cheats and does not do this grieving. Eventually, Brian admits to his counselor that he was cheating— not grieving on schedule. He still feels sad sometimes, but he cannot just make himself cry on demand. The counselor sighs perhaps and says, “Ah well. I was hoping it might help, but I guess I was wrong.” Brian soon stops his meetings with his counselor. He thinks his counselor may be a “bit daft” perhaps, but at least he does feel better now.

Paradoxical missions is somewhat similar. Unlike Paradoxical therapy where bad advice is given counterintuitively to create good responses, Paradoxical missions is given in good faith— counterintuitive good advice. However, in addition to the guidance being counterintuitive, the result should lead to competence in the recipient, even at risk of loss of awe in the one utilizing it. So in paradoxical therapy, the result should be a client who is self-confident, but potentially unimpressed by the counselor. In paradoxical missions, the recipient of the mission work, should develop a self-confidence to carry out ministry work, tied to being less than impressed by the missionary.

So what are the four components of Paradoxical Missions?

Replace Strong Missions with Weak MissionsReplace Big Missions with Small MissionsReplace Rich Missions with Poor MissionsReplace Fast Missions with Slow Missions

These are not wildly new ideas. Frankly, “Weak” and “Poor” are aspects of a movement often called “Vulnerable Missions.” I don’t care for the term “vulnerable,” but I suppose that term was chosen because whoever chose it (Jim Harries, perhaps?) doesn’t like the term “weak.” The greater focus on slow missions is very much part of the transformational development movement. And let’s be honest, there has been a growing cynicism (although not cynical enough in my opinion) with the BIGGER IS BETTER view of Christian missions.

Why not just combine all of these four.

I have written on all of these. All of these I have written on. Hoping you will take the time to look over some of these:

Fast to Slow Missions, Part 1

Fast to Slow Missions: Part 2

Fast to Slow Missions: Part 3

Slow Food and Slow Missions

Dream SMALL!!!

When it is WISE to be the Fool…

Great to Good Christians

Praying for WEAK Christian Missions

The Power of Weakness: Part 2

The Power of Weakness: Part 3

Three Phases of Christian Missions (from one perspective at least)

I was listening to Darrell Whiteman (missiologist/anthropologist) on the Missiology Podcast. He was talking about how the average time a missionary (he prefers the term “cross-cultural witness”) is 7 years… and yet he believes that it takes around 10 years to truly be effective. That can be a problem.

For me and my wife, I feel like with have go through three phases— and those phases I think are… not uncommon. I will repeat… this is not meant to be universalized. This works for my wife and I… and maybe some others can relate.

Phase 1. Doing what others can do without you.

This may have two sub-phases. The first part can be more thought of as a training. During this time, your presence is important long-term as an investment in the future. As such, in terms of productivity, you are a bit of a drain. Others can do it better than you, but the hope is that later you will improve and because a productive part of the team.

The second sub-phase is where you have learned and have become important as a part of the team. However, what you are doing is what others can already do. You are now productive, but if you were not there… others would simply do it without you.

With us… soon after arriving in the Philippines in 2004, we became involved in medical missions. In the first two years, we were definitely learners. Our presence was welcome… and we were able to invest time and some funds that others did not necessarily have. However, it wasn’t until a bit later when we were truly productive members as team leaders and organizers. That being said, our absence did not lead to collapse because we were doing what a lot of other people could do. And the few things that did kind of stop when we stepped away (such as tracking statistics and maintaining the website) was because others chose not to embrace the role, not because they were unable.

Phase 2: Doing what others can’t (or won’t) do Without You

This phase may not happen, or it may happen incompletely. However, especially when one is involved in new strategies or projects, you may be the driving force and the expert. As such, if you were not there, it is quite possible that things could not continue without you.

This may not be because amazing or unique abilities that others lack. It can be much more prosaic. Perhaps you are planting a church. It may be reasonable that others have the ability (in theory) to do it— but they didn’t, and perhaps won’t.

Celia and I were part of a team that set up two organizations in 2010 to 2012. While we did not have skills that no one else had… in the end, we were the continuity of vision and effort that kept things alive during years of uncertainty.

Phase 3: Doing less so others do more

Missionaries are not supposed to do it all. In fact, when a missionary must leave, ideally the work continues unabated— perhaps functioning better. The goal is to train and empower others so that the missionary gradually becomes less necessary.

There was a period where if my wife and I stopped doing what we were doing… much of the ministry would die. In fact, there was a period of transition that was hard for us. This was where we wondered if our work was (for a lack of a better expression) ‘worth it.’ However, as more people joined the vision and began taking on roles that we had ourselves… we began to see our work truly bearing fruit.

Right now, in our main ministries, we are not really that critical— things would keep happening without us. That is not a cause for great joy. Now we fill in the gaps and assist.

I suppose if one wanted to chart this, it may look like the diagram below:

Phase 1 involves growing in productivity. However, one may be limited because that role is one given you, not one that relates to one’s calling, gifting, and general uniqueness.

Phase 2 involves embracing your own unique role. Perhaps this is starting a unique ministry in a new location, a church plant of something else. The shape of the diagram can vary considerably. But often there is a drop in productivity because of the challenges of designing a program, forming a team, and storming the challenges. Eventually, things will start to be more effective as the team is performing.

Phase 3 involves a drop in dependence on you. Others know their jobs and may well do them better than you would anyway. Because it is not now dependent on the “superman” model of getting things done, the growth potential is no longer limited.

Jesus Christ as Internationalizer of the Faith (Part 2)

This is unsurprisingly a continuation of PART ONE. And much like Part One, it is tied to an article I recently wrote that can be seen by CLICKING ON THE ARTICLE.

Relating to this topic, here is a quote from that article:

Jesus of Nazareth established the church completely embedded in Judean
culture—Judean in membership, language, and style. While I have heard the argument
made that Jesus considered himself to be a Jewish prophet called to reform Judaism
and never saw himself as having any cross-cultural or international purpose, it seems
clear that Jesus was internationalizing the movement from the start. He saw himself
as inaugurating the Kingdom of God—a movement not tied to nations or national
boundaries, as a king who is not in competition with civil rulers (John 18:35-36).
The worship of God would have no geographical center (John 4:19-24). Jesus trained
his disciples to think in a new way about non-Jews—Roman soldiers, Canaanites,
Samaritans, among others—far different from the views of typical Jewish adherents.
He intentionally went into non-Jewish areas—Samaria, Phoenicia, Decapolis—and
trained his disciples to minister to non-Jews. He taught his followers to focus on the
core of the law (the Great Commandment) above the rabbinical innovations that had
become part of the local religious culture. He probably preached in Aramaic, the
language used by people well beyond the borders of Judea and Galilee. The call of
Jesus shortly before his ascension to go into all the world is hardly a surprise ending.
His message was already prepared to be adapted to and adopted by the world. -Robert Munson, “Muddy Footprints in the Ivory Tower: Missiological Reflections on Language and Localized Theology” Philippine Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 4 (2024), 78.

We could take it further. While Jesus did not appear to directly challenge Jewish dietary rules in the Mosaic Law (thus resulting in some Christian groups that either hold to them or at least idealize them), Jesus does certainly draw into question some areas as it relates to dining. Consider the whole of Matthew Chapter 15. It starts with Jesus challenging the focus on external matters. It starts with ceremonial cleanliness before eating. I am adding the term “ceremonial” because I don’t think one can make the argument that Jesus is opposing hygiene. This is because the area of dispute was not physical health but morality. Are you a morally worse person because you do not follow the cultural hand-washing practices of the Jewish leadership prior to eating. Jesus makes it clear that morality is an issue of the heart and mind that then demonstrates itself in actions… not the other way around. He emphasizes the point with verse 11 where he states that, “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Again, I don’t think we can go from this and say that Jesus is throwing away Jewish laws regarding clean and unclean animals. However, this section does seem to establish the logic that food that is forbidden in a culture might be acceptable in another culture. It is not what God prioritizes.

Later in the same chapter, Jesus goes to the region of Tyre and Sidon, a predominantly Gentile region and has an interesting conversation with a Canaanite (Gentile) woman. People have been troubled by the exchange but reading the story as a whole, and then looking at it in the context of the chapter, it seems pretty evident that Jesus is creating a teaching moment for His disciples. A follower of Christ does not withhold God’s gifts from people of other cultures. A follower of Christ does not avoid ministering to people of other cultures. Ministry is international.

Finally, the chapter ends with Jesus going to the Decapolis region, another predominantly Gentile region. Here, Jesus ministers to them in terms of preaching and teaching and miracles. Jesus fed them (at least 4000 people) and presumably ate with them. The passage says that the people responded by praising the God of Israel— WHILE STILL REMAINING NON-ISRAELITES.

In terms of eating, in terms of socializing, in terms of ministering to, Jesus was breaking the cultural walls of the faith.

That being said, I don’t think one should read this as Jesus being a contextualizer of the faith. If He was here, at least we weren’t given much to support it. Rather, the chapter seems more like a series of training exercises for His disciples.

In the first section, the disciples learn what God prioritizes— what is key and unchanging.

In the second section, the disciples learn that God cares and desires to bless all people… not just “God’s Chosen People.”

In the third section is graduation— bringing together the food, socialization, miracles, preaching, and teaching, the disciples see the Reign of God bursting beyond cultural boundaries.

So, if Jesus was the main Internationalizer of the Faith, then it is our job as His church to be the Translator and Contextualizer of that faith to the entire world.

Jesus Christ as Internationalizer of the Faith (Part 1)

I recently wrote an article, Muddy Footprints, where I suggest that Jesus was not so much a contextualizer of the faith, but an internationalizer of the faith. You are welcome, even encouraged to read that article, but I want to explore this a bit further.

Contextualization as a term has been around since the 1970s but has existed as a concept for centuries… arguably going back to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. One way of looking at contextualization is to break it down into three steps:

Internationalization. The process of identifying what is most important and making sure what is less important (such as cultural innovations) can be switched out when entering a new context.Translation. The process of making something understandable in a new context. If internationalization is done properly, key meanings are maintained, while the message is put in the symbolic structure of a new context.Localization. This arguably fine-tunes the process. reducing barriers to understanding and seeks to make the message natural within the new setting.

In the article, I used the example of video games— using the case of a video game made by Chinese developers for a Chinese audience, and having that video game reworked (contextualized) to be enjoyed by a Filipino audience, American audience, or whatever. The gameplay should stay the same. In fact, the setting should most likely not change either. The goal is not to create a new game or one that feels wildly different from the original. The goal is to make the game feel like it was created by designers in the second context, as much as it originally was felt by people in the original context.

Jesus did not focus on translation or localization of His teaching to non-Jews. He did minister to non-Jews— in fact, a surprising number of non-Jews. Nevertheless, there are times that it appears as if Jesus was really focusing on the Jews and no one else.

Craig Blomberg discusses this in his book, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. In that book, especially in his discussion on the Gospel of Matthew, Blomberg notes the tension between the Particularism of Jesus (His focus, especially in Matthew, on the Jews for ministry) and the Universalism of His message (good news for all mankind… in no way limited to the Jews).

Blomberg suggests resolving it as follows:

“The best resolution of this apparent tension between Jewish particularism and multi-ethnic universalism sees Jesus’ ministry unfolding in two stages. Before the cross and resurrection, Jews, as God’s chosen people, were selected to hear Christ’s message first. Inasmuch as many of them, particularly Israel’s leadership, rejected the Gospel offer, Jesus’ followers were to go out after his resurrection and proclaim his offer of salvation to everyone. Jesus’ occasional contact with Gentiles during his lifetime foreshadowed this worldwide mission.” —Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. 2nd ed. (B&H Academic, 2009), 149.

I can’t say I disagree with this. In fact, the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Luke 14:7–14) can be interpreted pretty much that way. The original guests reject the invitation, so the invitation is sent out to those not originally invited.

My problem is not with this assessment per se, but rather how it sounds. It sounds like (and I am sure Blomberg is NOT suggesting this) Jesus had the goal of ministering to the Jews, Plan A, but was forced to go to Plan B, due to the rejection by (some of) the former. There are fairly obvious problems with that. First, Jesus did not “just happen” to minister to Gentiles on occasion. At times, He intentionally went to areas that were “non-Jewish” such as Samaria, Phoenicia, and Decapolis. Samaria was home to Samaritans who were essentially Jewish in belief, but different in rather subtle ways. Reaching out to them may have been seen by Jesus as taking a broader viewpoint regarding the faith (as some Jewish leaders did in fact do at the time), and going through Samaria may perhaps be interpreted as a matter of convenience (the short-cut) rather than an intentional strategy. However, it is hard to see going up towards Tyre and then toward Decapolis in His ministry in any other way than an active choice to seek out Gentiles, or at least to train His disciples to reach out to them. Second, so much of the teaching of Jesus decontextualized (or internationalized) the Jewish faith, to me this suggests a very much intentional effort by Jesus to make the Gospel good news for all people… even when He was seemingly focused on just the Jews.

In the second post, we will look at how Jesus internationalized the Jewish faith. But for now, I would like to suggest that another way of addressing the seeming conflict between Jewish Particularism and Gospel Universalism is in terms of Internationalization. Jesus did, often at least, focus on the Jews, but the message He gave was one that challenges a narrow view of the work of God in the world. As such, Jesus focusing on the Jews was not simply about giving them “first dibs” because they are God’s Chosen People. If that was the case, He could have more fully embraced the roles that the Jews would expect, and mostly likely respond to— Pre-exilic Prophet, Post-exilic Rabbi, and Messianic King. His subversion of, and often ambivalence in, these roles pointed to something from the beginning that is beyond the Jews alone.

Jesus was training the Jews, preparing them for a great expansion of what it means to be God’s people. He was internationalizing the faith, and instilling this understanding to His predominantly Jewish audience, for them to be ready, as His people will translate and localize the message to Samaritan, Greek, African, and Roman contexts (among others). In my view, this understanding takes away the confusion. Jesus did not reach out first to the Jews as Plan A merely, but reached out to them to prepare them for Plan B. The work of Jesus as the internationalizer of the faith, made it possible for the expansion of the Church after Pentecost to occur.

That is my thesis, but obviously I jumped a major step— what is the evidence that Jesus focused on the internationalization of the faith. That is in the next post… when I get to writing it.

Some Ambivalent Issues Regarding Independent Versus Agency Missionaries (Part 2)

This is the second part on this topic. If you want to read the first part first, please CLICK HERE.

Let’s continue with a couple of more ambivalent issues as it pertains to independent versus agency missionaries.

Ambivalent Issue #2. Support. I have already talked about support a fair bit and don’t want to repeat myself too much. Generally, being an independent missionary MAY make receiving support more difficult. Some mission agencies provide the support directly… while others have a network in place that (ideally at least) should make raising one’s own support easier. The worst, obviously, would be one’s that require deputation (raising one’s own independent support), take their administrative cut, but then don’t help much in the area of support raising or support mantaining.

Independent missionaries who are not self-funded have to work constantly on support-raising and maintaining. Some will talk about having to remind their supporters regularly to keep supporting. Many find that support raising is a regualar part of their monthly ministerial duties. Even reliable supporters can be fickle. An independent missionary friend of ours ran a Christian orphanage and was almost 100% supported from one church. That church got a new pastor who picked up the (completely wrong-headed) belief that caring for orphans in a majority world country is not missional. Support dropped from 100% to 0% overnight. That does happen (I can attest from personal experience). Many missionaries I know have left the field because of finances.

But it is a LOT more complicated than that. Let me give an example. A few years ago we had a typhoon come through near us and caused all sorts of serious damage. We wanted to come up with a way of helping out. We contacted some friends and asked if they could help. Some could and did. But we also had some of our own money designated for mission work and we were able to release that immediately. This is in contrast to a missionary friend of ours who was part of a large mission agency. The missionary was quite well-funded personally, but had to put in a lot of paperwork to receive money to do ANY ministry work outside of what their team normally did. Of course, filling out some paperwork, as long as the review process is not too long and onerous, is not such a big deal. Also, potentially at least, a large agency, especially if it is tied to a large denomination, can come up with funding well beyond what my wife and I could ever scrape together.

For me, however, the best strength that independent missionaries have comes from the relative lack of support. For years, we did medical missions partnering with a missionary friend. This is a somewhat expensive ministry… but less so since 100% of those involved (except myself) are local rather than from overseas. Additionally, we partnered with localities (local churches and LGUs— local government units— to reduce some of the costs). However, in more recent years, we have moved to ministry work that requires less support from overseas. For example, consider our counseling center. Our office and counseling room are provided for us by a partner free of charge. Our primary utilities are also, thankfully covered by the same local partner. Most of the operational expenses are covered by trainee fees. The only things we normally pay for out of our support are scholarships, and seminar trips.

This is big. Some missions has existed in a manner that could be described in terms of “throw money at the problem.” There has been, in recent years, a greater focus on “vulnerable missions” and a recognition that overseas money going into missions can create unhealthy dependencies. Lack of money can lead to less expensive missions. But cost or efficiency are not the main issues. Taking ministry out of the hands and out of control of local partners is not healthy. This is even more true in terms of long-term work. If a ministry is NOT primarily funded by foreign money, and local workers are trained to lead it, the missionaries are not a necessity long-term. Things can continue after they are gone.

A large ministry that I was involved with was largely funded and partly run by foreign missionaries for decades. The mission agency eventually decided to move out. I recall a number of people believing (and many of these were local) that the ministry would die… or be forced to be taken over by another foreign group. Thankfully, this did not happen. It is today locally run and funded. A number of the ministry programs and structures of that particular agency did cease in their mission, however, when they left.

Ambivalent Issue #3. Partnership.

Independent missionaries have to develop their own partnerships. This is good and bad. Historically, a lot of mission agencies did everything on their own. In recent decades there has been a trend towards greater partnership between agencies and denominations. This varies from agency to agency. Some have gradations of partnerships— where the level of partnership depends on how closely two groups agree on doctrine and vision. Independent missionaries don’t necessarily have these limits. In our case, consider this month and next. We did a partnered activity with an organization that is under the umbrella of the Church of the Nazarene. Our next seminar activity is with The Salvation Army-Philippines. After that is an activity with a pastors’ organization of Southern Baptists. Additionally, our trainees are working at a Roman Catholic hospital with Roman Catholic chaplains in a formal partnership. I have been asked, “As a Protestant, how are you able to work with Catholics?” I have tried different ways of explaining it, but I actually have a hard time coming up with a way to share it, because I find it very easy to work with Catholics. I work with them when we have common interests and mission (which is common) and don’t when our interests are not in common. That is the same, frankly as with Protestant groups. I don’t go to my mission mobilizer or team leader to verify if this is a good idea or bad— I can make that call myself.

But there is value in having some supervision and accountability. Partners can be of great value— or a great problem. Some partners in our past were problematic. However, a majority (but not all) of the partners that I regret working with were actually from the same denomination as I was in. This is not because people in my denomination are generally more troublesome. It is just that I have worked with a larger number of partners in my denomination than of other denominations. Problems simply are likely to happen occasionally. I have had to learn to focus on the behavior, reputation, and character of people. Their exact denomination or faith tradition can be important, but less so than one might think. I recall working with a mission friend of mine who is of a Pentecostal denomination. There were people suffering after a major regional disaster and a person came from his denomination with a considerable amount of money to help out. That person, however, only wanted to help people who were part of his denomination— or at least where a church of his denomination was active. My friend realized that this was NOT a person he wanted to work with again— one who cared more about his denomination than he did about people in desperation.

There are advantages to being independent when it comes to partnership— but such an advantage does place a sizable burden on the missionary for vetting and reviewing partnerships.

Some Ambivalent Issues Regarding Independent Versus Agency Missionaries (Part 1)

As I have mentioned before, my wife and I had looked to go into missions under a regular mission agency. We were going through the process. We got slowed down because I was chubby. (Considering how much thinner I looked back then, I do wonder how realistic their “chubby designation” was.) I was told, by a person heavier than I, that if I lost something like 15 or 20 pounds they would start the processing of our application again. I will admit that this annoyed me somewhat since we were told only months earlier, by the same person, that the “chubby test” might slow down commissioning, but would NOT slow down the application process. Between that and having a vision statement that sounded way too denominationally focused for us kind of got us wondering if the mission agency was for us. Not long after, the mission agency (it was not one of the so-called “faith-based” agencies) ran out of money and stopped all commissionings for several months. When our church was willing to help us go without a mission agency, allowing us to serve as independent missionaries, we jumped at it.

A few years later, we were doing okay, but we had struggled in some ways that missionaries under a large agency don’t, so we mentioned to a missionary friend (from the same mission agency we had applied at) that we were thinking of going under an agency. He said something to the effect of, “Hey, you are doing real ministry, doing what you want, and are supported, so why would you want to be under an agency?” Of course, that question established three things in the issue of independent versus agency. With an agency, doors may be opened for ministry where being independent, one must work to create one’s own opportunities and access. With an agency one, HOPEFULLY, has a better system for support. Negatively, agencies (especially the ones that essentially employ their missionaries) have more control of what missionaries do. Our friend felt we had the best of all worlds. This was underscored two years later when he and his family were led to leave the mission field when their agency made a (bone-headed in my opinion) decision in changing how they do missions. Missionaries had to adjust to the new way, or be moved out.

So now my wife and I have been in mission work for awhile. We are in our 21st year. I have seen some good things about being an independent missionary, and I have seen deep problems with it. I don’t really want to focus on the clearly good or clearly bad (we were cut off by our two largest supporters, one of those times with little to no safety net… that was bad). I would like to look at issues that are more ambivalent. Most issues are both good and bad.

Ambivalent Issue #1. Control/Accountability. Being independent means that one has a certain amount of control that one may not being in a mission agency. Of course, some agencies (such as ones that effectively employ their missionaries either directly through pay, or indirectly through running the mission site the missionary serves at) are more controlling than others. An independent missionary may have supporters (whether friends, relatives, churchmates, or churches) but the relationship often comes with less strings attached. This is not, however, always true. In our case, we keep our supporters up to date regularly— averaging around twice a month. We receive advice, prayers, and some level of accountability, but no real direct control. That is nice…

…But lack of control or accountability is also a problem. I have seen some bad missionaries (not too many thankfully) and often (usually) they were independent missionaries. Sometimes, they had supporters, and sometimes they were able to self-finance their work. Some I feel like they don’t really know what they are doing… just latch onto what others are doing. I have known of a case or two of people that simply did not do ministry— they just accepted support and occasionally told supporters what they wanted to hear. Some others did not seem to be missionaries really… but more like businessmen who were just tangentially involved in mission, or people who pay local people to do mission work for them.

I like to think the positive side of this lack of control and accountability is that one can be flexible ministerially, and seek local accountability. People 8000 miles away are not necessarily the best to tell a missionary what the best thing to do is in the field. Neither are they necessarily in the best position to hold a missionary accountable. Partnering with local leaders and ministries can often serve as a better alternative. Everyone needs some accountability— but it is best to have people who understand what one is doing and understand the mission context. That being said, when one’s accountability partners are not the same as one’s supporters, there are potential problems. At its worst, a missionary can be seen as unaccountable by local partners because they receive independent funding, while also being effectively unaccountable to supporters because they have multiple time-zones of separation from what they are actually doing. They are doubly unaccountable and at risk for falling into deep problems.

I think the advantages and disadvantages in this regard are pretty similar to denominational differences with regard to hierarchy. Let me give an example from our (limited) experience. We run a training center for Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). While our training is quite competitive price-wise, it is certainly a major investment of both time and money for a minister to take a unit— to say nothing of taking multiple units. We have trainees from many different denominations. Some are ministers from hierarchal churches while some others are ministers from non-hierarchal churches. Which has an easier time? It depends. The non-hierarchal ministers have the option to just decide to take CPE. That is a great power. However, they have to figure out how to come up with the money, and must work out on their own how to come up with the time to do it. (One unit of CPE is 400 hours of total time investment.) For hierarchal denominations, one must ask permission. One of our trainees got in a bit of trouble for taking CPE, funded by a personal mentor, but without the blessing of the denominational leadership. That was awkward. On the other hand, when a hierarchal denomination does give blessing for the training, it often comes with the funding and the time to get the training. Which is better? I suppose it depends on who one’s bishop is, in a hierachal denomination. From what I have seen the worst situation is neither of these, but those hierarchal denominations that control, but without giving support. I struggle to see why one would choose to stay with such a denomination… but perhaps that is just me.

This is the end of Part One. CLICK HERE for the second, and final, part

Article on Localization of Theology

I wrote an article on the localization of theology for the Philippine Journal of Religious Studies (2024 edition).

07 Muddy FootprintsDownload

Thinking About Hans Frei’s Five Types of Theology

I was reading an article (chapter) by Kang-San Tan, “Hans Frei’s Typology of Theology for Religious Encounters in Asian Contexts.” It is in the book, Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, edited by Timoteo Gener and Stephen Pardue.

As I was reading the five types of theology, it occurred to me that it sort of fit into a spectrum I developed for understanding various theories regarding the relationship between the Social Sciences and Theology in Christian Counseling. The modified diagram is below.

The thick black curved line is the spectrum but it moves through four quadrants made by two axes. One axis refers to Focus— one extreme being focused on (and committed to) science or philosophy, or “secular worldview” with the other extreme being focused on/committed to classic or dogmatic theology. The vertical axis looks at how Christians relate to those of other faith commitments. At one extreme is Dialogical Tendency— discussing with the focus of mutual understanding, insight, and clarification. The other extreme is Didactic Tendency— focused more on teaching and preaching with little interest in learning from the other.

Type One— secular beliefs take a dominant role with religious fitting in as it fits in. Members of this group tend to be pretty confident of the truth of their beliefs. Others, may be wrong, or perhaps looked at in a sense of “common ground” where areas of differences are ignored and similarities are seen as the most relevant. In terms of Christianity, such members may see all religions as essentially Christian since there are many areas of commonality. Because the allegiance is to secular or modernist (or similar) beliefs, the tendency is to drift away from Christian beliefs or teachings that don’t fit into their own worldview.

Members of Type One are likely to be more didactic in relating to others since they tend to believe that what they believe is true and don’t need to learn much from others. And since this commitment relativizes some aspects of Christianity, the same can happen with people of other faiths. Similarities are identified, often simplistically, while differences are ignored or undermined.

Type Five— This has many similarities to Type One, except that the high commitment is to a specific creed, faith tradition, or theological perspective. Those in this category are likewise pretty confident that they have the truth and that others don’t have much of anything to offer except confusion or lies. Because of this, the focus is on changing other people’s minds, rather than listening to others. As such, the preferred communication is preaching and teaching… with debate also done but with little interest in truly listening to the other.

Type Three— This is in the middle where there little commitment either to secular learning or a classic theology. Members of this group are most likely to have open-minded dialogue with those of other beliefs. Of course, because of the lack of commitment to a perspective may mean that this dialogue may occur with a high level of relativization of beliefs. Conversation with those of other faiths is a mutual path with the other side in a quest for truth. Due to low commitment to a perspective, a risk is that the Christian of this type has little to offer in terms of faith and belief.

Type Three Christians would often seek to correlate the beliefs of other religions to Christian beliefs. There may be value in this… but there is the risk of disrespecting the other faith by ignoring nuances. This can happen because Type Three Christians would tend not to be strongly committed to the nuances of their own faith, so why would they care about the nuances of others. Therefore, Christian Heaven may be correlated carelessly with Muslim Paradise, Hindu Mokshe, and Buddhist Nirvana. There may be important similarities in these ideas, but the differences are also important.

This leads to two more mediating positions.

Type Two. Type Two Christians take their Christian faith more seriously than Type One, but tend to relate to other religions in a more pragmatic way. Rather than embracing differences or similarities seriously, they may tend to focus on practical commonalities. For example, interaction may focus on activities like addressing drug problems, social justice, poverty, and the like. This pragmatic focus stems from the focus on a more secular worldview that is informed by the Christian faith. Thus the most important focus would tend to be on ethical concerns or societal evils as it relates to religious perspectives. The social sciences, for example, define the primary problems and different faiths give insight into addressing them.

Type Four. Type Four Christians are committed to their faith, but are open to the possibility that God can reveal Himself through interaction of people from other faiths. As such, while there is certainly a commitment to one’s faith and to evangelism, there is a tendency to focus on both commonalities and differences.

Two terms that Tan uses when speaking of Type Four Christian— one is “Faith Seeking Understanding,” and the other is commitment to “Dialogue-as-Witness.”

So where are we when we speak of Evangelical Christians?

I think most Evangelicals are either Type Five, or at least mouth Type Five priorities. There is great suspicion that taking seriously words of others who are not evangelical can be a trap. The goal is to talk, while not really listening— or perhaps listening only to figure out how to talk some more.

That being said, I think there is a growth of Type Four Evangelicals. Focus is more on Dialogue and Clarification of beliefs for mutual understanding, breaking down misunderstandings, and being open to insights.

I do think that Type Four is the best place to be as an Evangelical Christian. That being said, there are times when a Type Two-type strategy can be of benefit. There are times when we can benefit in relating to people of other faiths in terms of shared responsibility in addressing social ills. One may be reminded of William Carey working with Raja Ram Mohan Roy (a HIndu) in working in a two-prong attack on suti (widow-burning). This pragmatic work work avoided focus on theological differences. Of course, later on, Carey and Roy were in more direct conflict as Roy supported a Unitarian understanding of (a Hindu conception of) deity, while Carey was Trinitarian and Christian.

2024 Philippine Journal of Religious Studies

It is finally here!! We now have the e-version of the 2024 PJRS available. The paper one is to follow. It should be noted that around 60% of it is in English, and about 40% is in Pilipino (Tagalog). We are seeking to intentionally honor both languages in the Philippines, as we also seek to honor dialogue between localized (Filipino) voices, and voices from the broader church.

It was an honor to serve as the editor-in-chief of the publication and am looking forward to the 2025 edition.

The online page for it is https://pbts.edu.ph/?page_id=2318

It can also be downloaded from this website.

PJRS Vol 4 FULL as of AUG 14 2024Download