Robert Munson's Blog, page 16

What is the Ultimate Goal of the Church?

Recently, a friend of mine shared his question about the statement that the ultimate goal of the church is worship… and that missions exists because worship doesn’t. He expressed reasons for his struggles on the statement. Truthfully, I don’t remember his reasons, but I do remember my response. It was, “Perhaps the reason for your struggle with that statement is because it is not true.”

Of course the statement about missions existing because worship doesn’t is catchy… and we (as the church and as missions communities) love bumper sticker sorts of statements. That does not make them necessarily true— or at least fully true. The statement comes from John Piper, from his book, “Let the Nations Be Glad.” An excerpt of that book was put into Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. I am looking at my old 1999 copy. The first paragraph of “Let the Nations be Glad!” segment states:

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the Church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides for ever.

The paragraph seems to be full of a lot of kind of true statements that don’t really fit together that much. Missions is temporary— absolutely. Worship abides forever— that sounds correct. But what does that imply? Based on Isaiah lions eating hay will abide forever, seemingly. But what does that fact inform us about missions? Not much it seems to me. God is ultimate and man is not— absolutely. But how does that inform us about missions versus worship? Again, not so sure.

Back close to 20 years ago when I first was reading through Perspectives, I put a circle around that paragraph and wrote in the margin— “Love?” I guess even back then I was questioning the suggestion of the paragraph that God is driven by lack of worship, rather than by love. I had also marked a couple of other things on the same page. I had circled the phrase “white hot worship of God” adding a margin note, “How is white hot worship different from obsession and mania?” I was probably being a bit too critical there. In Evangelical churches in the latter part of the 20th century there was a tendency to use strong language that ultimately doesn’t really mean very much. People would talk about “Radical faith,” “Extreme Praise,” “Explosive worship.” What do these mean? Not much. The third note I had was on the passage that says, “The ultimate foundation for our passion to see God glorified is his own passion to be glorified. God is central and supreme in his own affections. There are no rivals for the supremacy of God’s glory in his own heart.” Then he gives a very dubious argument based on the Great Commandment. To this I just put a question mark. I guess I am still at that point. I know that the faith tradition of John Piper is built on “The Glory of God” and so that paragraph makes an awful lot of sense within that tradition. But as one not in that tradition, I am not so sure— I don’t feel competent to say that this sums up God attitude properly. Maybe it does.

Getting back on topic, still I am tempted to agree with the quoted passage in red above… EXCEPT for that key statement— “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” It just doesn’t seem right to me. Perhaps I am reading too much into it. However, it appears to say something like this:

“God recognized that He did not have enough worshipers. Therefore, He sent Jesus to die for people’s sins, and then called on His followers/worshipers to serve on His assigned mission to increase the number of worshipers. When God is satisfied that He has enough worshipers, God’s mission (and ours) will cease.

It does not seem as if God is motivated by lack of worshipers. First, key verses in the Bible seem to suggest that God is driven by love, not deprivation. John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 appears to identify God’s motivation for redeeming His creation is His love for His creation. Further, it seems pretty clear from Scripture that God has no lack of anything… including praise/worship. Reading Matthew 3:9 and Luke 19:40, I don’t think it ridiculous to suggest that God is able to raise up stones to praise and worship if indeed He feels any lack. Much of the dominant themes/metaphors in the New Testament are built more on friend or family relationships rather than ruling God and worshiping mortal. That latter image does certainly exist in the Bible, and I am sure many in the 1st century would resonate with that since it does fit many Jewish, Greek, and Roman understandings of how one must relate to God or gods. I am not trying to gainsay this, but simply note that much of the imagery is more intimate: Jesus relating to His disciples as friends.Recognizing God as Abba (father)Identifying the Church as the bride of ChristViewing Christians as adopted children of God. Even the Great Commissions often focus on the abiding presence of Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit with Christians as central to the call to mission. In other words, Christian missions is inherently a relational activity not only between brothers and sisters in Christ, but with the Godhead. We need to explore more the key missions verses: Revelation 7:9-17. This is often cited by missiologists and missionaries to demonstrate the end state of people of all nations, tribes, languages, peoples, etc., joined together in worship. It can be seen as the ultimate eternal state— people worshiping God forever and God receiving worship forever. However, one needs to read the full passage to gain a bit of nuance. The passage starts out with people worshiping. However, the latter part of the passage reverses and shows God residing with, shepherding, providing, protecting, and comforting His people. The overall picture is interactive and relational. The snapshot of verses 9-11 shows an aspect of that eternal relationship between man and God, but is far from all-encompassing.

I think it is better to say something like:

Missions exists because God loves us, and seeks to restore the relationship that once existed between Himself and His creation. Missions will cease, when that full relationship is restored, expressed, in part, by our worship of our Creator, Savior, and Holy Father… a relationship that will never end.

It may not be as catchy, but I think it is more accurate. I do think that John 3:16-17 (even if it is over-used) is a good starting place. It does not say, —For God needed more worshipers so He sent His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved.” Worship is clearly a result of being saved and having eternal life… but I don’t believe it was the motivation of it all.

Reflections on Book “Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives”

This is not a review of the book “Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives,” edited by Timoteo Gener and Stephen Pardue (2019). That being said, I would like to say a couple of things that I do think qualify as a review of sorts.

First, I think the book generally does what it says it wants to do. It is a book about Christian theology— looked at through “Asian eyes” in relation to the “Asian context(s).” Additionally, it definitely draws generally from what might be considered the faith tradition of Evangelicalism. This is actually high praise considering how often books don’t really do what their title claims.

Second, there is a fairly broad range of writers— taking different topics from systematic theology. Some chapters look broadly at a topic within systematic theology and sees how it interacts with the Asian context. For example, chapters on the God’s revelation (in this case referring to Holy Scripture) or the Trinity are fairly broad. Others, take a broad topic, but then narrowly focus on one or two issues that are considered important. An example of this would be the chapter on Diaspora Missions.

Third, some writers were willing to express positively issues that many would not consider to be “Evangelical.” An example of this was one writer who tentatively suggested that embracing that being saved by Jesus Christ may be better understood as “Fulfillment” rather than “Conversion” and such a view may open the door to some form of Pluralism or at least Inclusivism. While some may say such forays “across the border” to be problematic, I personally do welcome consideration of such matters rather than simply considering some topics to be false and not to be explored.

So if I was a reviewer, I would recommend the book. For some reason, I found the latter chapters more captivating than the early chapters. I am not sure why. I read the book over several months, so I don’t know— perhaps I just slowly got into the book.

I also have some reflections, because I struggle with both parts of the title. These struggles may be “just me.” But perhaps as I write, some of the struggles will clarify themselves.

#1. What should Asian Christian Theology look like? If the book is the judge— Asian Christian Theology looks an awful lot like American (Evangelical) Christian Theology. It looks like that because: (a) It appears to focus on the topical structure of Western Systematic Theology. Does that structure make sense for Asia… or was it written for people trained up in Western Systematic Theology to wrap their head around variations caused by the Asian context. (b) What really defines the Asian context. It seems like the focus was on religious pluralism, poverty, and oppression. That makes sense, but are there completely different ways to go, such as focusing on worldview patterns relevant to Asia such as honor, patronage, harmony/balance. Did the writers go far enough, or did they stick to the presumptions of most Western Evangelicals regarding the atonement, for example. (I probably should reread some of the earlier chapters to see if my perception holds weight or not.) (c) The theological presentation was very much driven by concepts or propositions. Is that the best way for Asian Christian Theology to be presented and understood. Perhaps story is better, or discursive or presentative symbols. Again, I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that the writers were writing based on their own training and their own presumptions as to the audience.

#2. I am a little curious what to make of the term “Evangelical Perspectives” in the sub-title. I know that the term “Evangelical” has become a bit of a loaded term in recent years. If one means by it that one takes the Bible as being authoritative, I am most certainly an Evangelical. If one means that one is drawing from the faith tradition that developed out of England and the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries, I am also an Evangelical. If one means that one embraces all the popularized traditions regarding eschatology, the atonement, the nature of heaven and hell, or politics— well, I don’t necessarily fit in very well. But that leads to the question of what is meant in the sub-title. I don’t really think that it can mean that it takes the Bible as authoritative. An awful lot of Christian groups (and some that many of us would not identify as Christian) would lay claim to the Bible as authoritative. The writers were much more narrow than those who simply base their beliefs on the Bible. I suspect that they are using the term “Evangelical” due to its vagueness to mean ‘mainstream conservatives,’ if such a term exists, a group they could see themselves as being members of. This is a rather ill-defined (liminal) space because Evangelicals likes to be quite dogmatic in saying that they base their beliefs on the Bible, which is wholly reliable… but are often reticent to say that they based their beliefs on some popularized interpretations of the Bible, which are potentially quite unreliable. Looking at the writers chosen and the topics covered, it is pretty clear that the the writers generally have their roots in American Evangelical denominations… and more specifically from the missiological activities of these denominations. I suppose it makes sense to say “Evangelical Perspectives” rather than “Perspectives Influenced by Decades’ Involvement by Missiological Work of American Evangelical Denominations in Various Asian Settings.”

You might be thinking that I am being snide in these later reflections. I am, however, truly not. These are things I am reflecting on and have come to NO FIRM CONCLUSION. I find the book to be valuable regardless of any concerns I have and regardless of whether my concerns have any validity (or not). In the Philippines, I am seeing a SLOOOOOW movement towards original theological reflections and work by Evangelical perhaps not-so-Evangelical theologians. I look forward to seeing what they will produce.

Prayer Card 2024 and Brochure

Being independent missionaries (sent out and supported by Spring Hill Baptist Church of Ruckersville, VA— http://www.springhillbaptist.org), we never had professionals working with us for our promotional materials. However, just because it cannot be “awesome” doesn’t mean it should not be done. So here is our prayer card— simple but to the point.

Also, one of our staff members at our counseling center decided to clean up and fix our counseling center brochure.

BUKAL-BrochureDownload

Christian Faith as Fulfilment

Two common understandings regarding salvation are Exclusivism and Pluralism.

Christian Exclusivism can be pictured as “One path alone takes us to God. All others take is elsewhere.”

Pluralism can be pictured as “Many, and perhaps even all, paths potentially take us to God.”

These are not all of the options, but they are the most common. However, another option is Fulfilment. I am not sure how to turn this into an “ism.”

Fulfilment can be be described as… “There is only one BRIDGE to God and that is Christ. However, there are many potential PATHS to that bridge.”

This view presupposes that God is at work at all times reconciling all to Himself. As such the various cultures and faiths are NOT NECESSARILY a hindrance to the Gospel message. Potentially, they open the door to people understanding their problem and their need for Christ. I have friends from Myanmar who see their Christian faith not as an overturning of their ancestor’s beliefs, but fulfilling a belief system that lacked a Savior. I have heard Sikhism as the “gateway to Christianity.” Perhaps some would take offense at that… but arguably, it honors the truths associated with that faith. The Longhouse Religion of the Iroquois, arguably, connects their traditional beliefs with the place that bridges Christian faith.

Jesus used Judaism and Samaritanism as paths bringing them to the need for the Messiah. I am not sure what message He used to communicate with the 4000+ Gentiles He fed, but Matthew makes it clear that they responded joyously, praising the God of Israel. Paul used Greek beliefs to bring them to the need for Christ in Athens.

What does this imply? First, we don’t have to dishonor traditional cultures and associated ancestors to share the Gospel. Second, we can look for God’s work in the people and cultures leading people to Christ.

A challenge for me is how to apply this on a practical level. I have great respect for the Orality movement. The associated Chronological Bible Storying movement suggests that when entering a new culture, one should tell the grand narrative of the Bible. It is often framed as a competing story to that of the recipient culture. I do think there’s great value in people understanding the message of Christ within the broader Biblical story. God’s work and revealing within the context of Israel is, in some ways, unique.  BUT should the framing be that of a competitive or complementary story. The Creation story is, in some sense, everyone’s story. But is the history of, for example, the Filipino people a story that must be undermined or devalued to teach the Bible? Or is it part of their Salvific history as well. I feel the Grand narrative of the Bible is important for all

A couple of things to read to think on this:

“Jesus and Other Faiths” by Ivan Satuavrata. In Asian Cristian Theology: Evangelical Perspective.  Gener and Pardue, editors.

Eternity in Their Hearts. by Don Richardson.

The Flawed and Failing Church— Yancey Quote

“Nowadays in the church sober-mindedness has won the day. Evangelicals are responsible citizens whom most people appreciate as neighbors but don’t want to spend much time with. Theologians with long faces lecture on ‘the imperatives of the faith’. Television evangelists with every hair in place (often dyed) confidently name the Antichrist, predict the end of the world, and announce how to have a prosperous and healthy life meanwhile. The religious right calls for moral regeneration, and ordinary Christians point to temperance, industriousness and achievement as primary proofs of their faith. Could it be that Christians, eager to point out how good we are, neglect the basic fact that the gospel sounds like good news only to bad people?

I have had to forgive the church, much as a person from a dysfunctional family forgives mistakes made by parents and siblings. An irrepressible optimist, G. K. Chesterton proved helpful in this process too. ‘The Christian Ideal has not been found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried,’ he said, The question is not “Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be so good?’ but rather ‘Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?’ Chesterton readily admitted that the church had badly failed the gospel. In fact, he said, one of the strongest arguments in favour of Christianity is the failure of Christians, who thereby prove what the Bible teaches about the fall and original sin. As the world goes wrong, it proves the church is right in this basic doctrine. ……..

For this reason, when people tell me their horror stories of growing up in a repressive church environment, I feel no need to defend the actions of the church. The church of my own childhood, as well as that of my present and my future, comprises deeply flawed human beings struggling towards an unattainable ideal. We admit what we will never reach our ideal in this life, a distinctive the church claims that most other human institutions try to deny.”

—Philip Yancey, “Soul Survivor: How my Faith Survived the Church.” This quote comes from the chapter on G.K. Chesterton (pages 55-56)

The old adage states, “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”

But what about this statement, “To err is human; to confess, divine”? That one doesn’t sound right. Many would balk at this— if God is perfect, God has nothing to confess, right? There are places in the Bible where God seems to come pretty close to confessing and apologizing. Immediately after the great flood, and in interacting with Elijah in I Kings 19, the text feels like there is a “Sorry” hidden there between the lines. Still, God is not really our model for confession. That is because we are the ones that need, most of the time to confess. Dogs don’t need to confess or apologize— although we often try to make them look apologetic. Plants don’t need to confess or apologize. It is us to confess. Perhaps an adage could be made— “To err is typically human; to confess is ideally human.” I think this statement is more true than to say that being ideally human is not to err.

We do… and we are not good at it. Genesis 3 has the first humans in paradise and they have disobeyed God. What was their immediate response? They tried to cover up and hide. Then when caught, they shifted into blame others and excusing self. We haven’t gotten better at this over the millennia.

The church— assembly of the faithful— is at its best NOT when it doesn’t fail. The church has failed. The church fails, and the church will continue to fail. I watch a lot of Youtube of people who have left their religion. Some are Mormons or JWs or Muslims who have left their faith… but a lot of them are people like myself— raised in a flawed and failing church. Many became disenchanted by the church— by its members. Some walk away to other religions. More tend to drift rather to “Spiritual but not Religions,” “Skeptical Agnostic,” or “Soft Atheist.”

I don’t blame those people— and you shouldn’t either. They have seen the church fail— they have seen every flaw. All the while the church is pointing its fingers at other churches, religions, ideologies, political partisans, and so forth. They seek to show the flaws of other groups while pretending to lack problems themselves. Let’s be honest. WHO WANTS TO HANG AROUND WITH PEOPLE LIKE THAT? Even as one who takes his Christian faith seriously, when I bump up on the “Seven Mountain” Christians— I can’t help but think that the world would be a much better place if these Christians were driven off of all seven. (You can look that up if you don’t know.)

We are to worship God, not the Church, because the Church is so completely unworthy of worship. It is, however, worthy of confession.

When is “Kind Critique” Kind?

Let me share a little story. I actually have before I think, but I am putting a very different spin to it here.

8 or 9 years ago, I was in a mission training activity. It was led by two senior missionaries from, what I will call, “ABCD Missions.” It is a large mission organization. I will call one of them “William” and the other “Erica.”

I was talking with Erica and talking about ABCD Missions in a way that was a bit critical but in a way that I felt was rather positive and supportive. (I am an independent missionary, not tied to any mission organization.) At a certain point, Erica jumped in and said, “Bob, well I am sorry that you have so much ill-feelings regarding ABCD Missions.”

I was actually shocked, and responded, “That is not true at all. I think that ABCD Missions is one of the most successful mission agencies in the world. I certainly don’t have ill-feelings.” At the time I felt like Erica was hyper-sensitive, and was unable to hear any concerns at all regarding ABCD Missions.

But years later, looking back, I wonder if I misunderstood the setting. The truth was I did have BIG PROBLEMS with ABCD Missions. They had made a number of (in my mind) REALLY BAD DECISIONS— decisions that hamstrung an awful lot of ministries, created distrust with partners, and hurt many of their own missions (and my friends). At the time I was talking with Erica, some of those bad decisions were still working their way through the system (leading, in fact to William and Erica being forced to “retire early,” among other things).

At the time, I felt like I was giving healthy critique for making an organization that I value to be better. And that was true….

But, not totally true. I was well familiar with ABCD Missions and their tendency to fall into the various fads that strike Evangelical missions. I felt pretty certain that unless things get real bad, the agency would continue to do the same thing. Therefore, at the time, I really wanted the agency to suffer more. I believed that more pain would ultimately lead to more healing.

But is that true? Perhaps I want them to learn and grow— actually, I certainly did want them to grow and succeed. But I also wanted the leadership to suffer. Foolish decision hurt a lot of people and I did not want the leaders to be able to ride through that storm.

Upon reflection, I don’t think I can give kind critique when I also hope that there is some hurt.

I know some people who only give positive critiques. On those rare occasions that I review a book or something, I only share positive reviews. If I really don’t like a book, I don’t review it. Part of that is that I don’t want to “hurt any feelings.” But I also don’t trust myself to give negative critique that is constructive.

I am not saying one cannot share negative critique with only positive motives. In fact, holding back negative critiques can be a great disservice. With me, however, I do realize that I have to really reflection my motives and attitudes. If I want to help, while secretly in my heart, want to hurt… I think I need to keep my mouth shut. In the story above— I think my attitude snuck out and Erica saw it. I could be wrong.

So in the title I said “When is “Kind Critique” Kind”? I suppose two things come to mind as answers.

#1. It is kind, when one’s motives and attitudes are kind— even those not fully acknowledged.

#2. It is kind, when there is an adequate and healthy relationship, such that the other can identify the kindness in the perhaps not-so-kind words.

Should Ethics Come Last?

I do wonder whether there is a tendency to place Ethics as a last, and sometimes elective topic in various ministries and professions. My evidence is a bit anecdotal… but please bear with me.

#1. I used to be a mechanical design engineer. I earned a four year degree in mechanical engineering. I took another year of engineering with specialization on naval nuclear engineer. I earned a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and I served as a mechanical design engineer for 8 years. In all of those years, including 8 years of formal education and 8 years of application, I never received training in engineering ethics. It is not as if the course did not exist. I saw it in the course listings. However, it was not required, it was not encouraged, and I kind of wonder if it was not actually available. While I think that I probably acted ethically as an engineer most of the time… I have to wonder. I often would joke that “Engineering Ethics” is “That which works is good and that which doesn’t work is bad.” I wonder, however, how often I may have fallen into taking that joke too seriously. I wonder how often others have as well.

#2. I served in the military for a few years. While we did a lot of training— some of which, such as Military Leadership, promotes a form of ethics through instilling “martial virtues”— I don’t think that there was ever a course I took on Ethics.

#3. At seminary for my Master of Divinity degree, I did take a course in Ethics. I thought it to be rather useful. However, I ended up taking it the final term of my final year of seminary. I also don’t really think that this was just me. Generally, I tried to follow the recommended schedule of courses. Taking it late doesn’t mean that it is thought of as least important. Some might even argue that placing it last means that one can use one’s integrated training and supervised ministry and process it all through this course. Still, I do think that ethics should be foundational to ministry— a start, not a finish in the training process

#4. While we did have an Ethics course at seminary, I think it was safe to say that it was more like “Learning Good Ethics So You Will Know What to Preach to Others.” This is important… but it did not necessarily deal with ministerial best practices. There was no class that discussed ethical versus unethical behavior as a missionary, or an evangelist, or a pastoral counselor (among others). There is a lot of important things missed.

#5. Looking over my book on Cultural Anthropology that I wrote up for my class, I realize that I really had no section on ethics for the Christian minister relating to cultural anthropology. Well, I sort of did. I had a section of “Axioms” for Christian Cultural Anthropology. These are good, and foundational. Still, there was a LOT left unsaid. I really wonder why I did that. It seems like something so obvious to have, how could it have been ignored, BY ME? https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Anthropology-Christian-Missions-Multicultural/dp/B0C9SDMY9S

#6. For our book on pastoral counseling, my wife and I DID actually write a chapter on practical ethics. I feel good about it. Again, however, we put it in Chapter 15, the very last chapter. Why? https://www.amazon.com/Art-Pastoral-Care-Robert-Munson-ebook/dp/B01IKY3YTG/

#7. Speaking of pastoral counseling, Len Sperry speaks of five broad categories of presenting concerns. One of those broad categories (Category III) involves “Ethical Concerns.” Sperry notes that a number of types of counselors (including psychologists, psychiatrists, pastoral counselors, life coaches, and spiritual directors) tend to avoid this whole category of problem. The only group that really embraces these types of problems are the Philosophical counselors. Philosophy, going back literally millennia, has been deeply concerned with ethics (ethics being a whole category of study in philosophy, after all). But why are the other groups ignoring it. For pastoral counseling there are at least a few possibilities. (A) Pastoral Counseling has been strongly influenced by humanistic psychology— such as Carl Rogers. Being client-centered is seen as being both non-judgmental and being non-directive. It is hard to deal with ethics without embracing some form of judgment or directive guidance. (B) A lot of people go into pastoral counseling rather than pastoring because they do not really appreciate the prophetic role. Pastors often embrace a more prophetic role— expressing “Thou Shalts” and “Thou Shalt Nots.” (C) Pastoral Counselors often deal with people of other faiths or faith traditions. As such, it can get pretty problematic to influence much in terms of ethics without undermining the counseling relationship.

#8. A missionary friend of mine was talking about a person (we can call “Tom”) he knows who is just so so unethical. He was contrasting this with another person (we can call “Bill”) who was… simply a wonderful person. He could not understand why everyone does not see what a fraud Tom is and why they can’t see what a peach Bill is. Well, I know the two people my friend was talking about. I don’t really have high opinions of either Tom or Bill. If I was forced to give a preference, I might think slightly better of Tom than Bill— but neither I would describe as ethical. It does occur to me that in seminary, in church, in missions, in an awful lot of Christian ministry, we tend to ACCUSE and EXCUSE, not so much on ethics or virtues, but on tribe. If a person is seen as part of our tribe, then their sins are just foibles… or perhaps simply virtues in disguise. If a person is of another tribe, their sins are dark and hardly forgivable… their virtues are probably trickery… covering greater sins. Now for me, since neither Tom nor Bill are part of “my tribe” I find it pretty easy to identify flaws in each. Those flaws are big and ugly. But, again, because they are not part of my tribe… I still struggle to see their virtues— I doubt their sincerity, their motives, their consistency. In other words, I have the same problem as my friend. I think in church, we don’t really take ethics very seriously— tribalism combined with have sub-culturally acceptable sins— often takes precedence in our evaluations. Jesus gave us warning about judging— but I don’t think that He was guiding us to be non-ethical beings.

I am still processing a lot of this. I definitely should add a chapter on ethics in my book on Cultural Anthropology. The American Anthropological Association has a good list to start with: https://americananthro.org/about/anthropological-ethics/ I have also written on the topic of the church (as a lived out experience) being unethical. I will give the links below. I haven’t read those articles in awhile. I hope that I still agree with them. I think I need to address ethics more seriously in my classes. I am teaching holistic ministry and there is a lot of ethical issues when it comes to the myriad aspects of holistic ministry.

I would say that perhaps there are two places that ethics should be dealt with in terms of instruction. First, there should be an ethical foundation and this foundation should be stated explicitly and explained. I did that in my book on cultural anthropology, and I think that was sound. Second, there should be an end piece on ethics. After all, once one has learned one’s tools and how to use them well— the subtleties in helping one understand that “what is possible and what is good” are very much separate things and should be explored. Probably this should be tied to an ethical best practices. My wife and I did this, to some extent in our book on pastoral care. I suppose if we combined the two books (foundational ethics and best practices ethics) we would have a pretty good book.

https://munsonmissions.org/2012/04/10/the-unethical-church-part-i/

The Unethical Church Part II

https://munsonmissions.org/2012/04/12/the-unethical-church-part-iii/

Glass Half-Empty Theology

Years ago, I recall reading a statement that most philosophers are optimists. There have been exceptions— Arthur Schopenhauer for example. In more recent years, it seems like there is a larger number of philosophers who could be seen as pessimistic— some existentialists and some nihilists and perhaps others. Does this mean that there is a growing pessimism in philosophy, or does it mean that the philosophers who tend to stand the test of time are the optimists? I don’t really know— but philosophy has always had a component to it that is axiological. That is a fancy term that essentially means “How then should we live?” Optimists tend to embrace the role of looking for solutions than do pessimists. I could be wrong.

I am not a philosopher, so I better stop before it becomes even more obvious. Christian theology seems also to populated by optimists. As a Christian, I suppose one really should be a long-term optimist— ultimately, there is supposed to be a happy ending. But I do think that a more general optimism also exists and it can be seen in the problems that theology seeks to tackle.

One of the great questions that has been a challenge for centuries is, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” While this question could (and should) be posed by anyone— it makes more sense to come from an optimist. An optimist says, “It just makes sense to me that in a Universe designed, created, and regulated by an infinitely powerful benevolent God, good things should happen to good people, and bad things should happen to bad people.” For a pessimistic person, things make look a bit different. “We live in a thoroughly broken world where power wins and self-interest is the driving human motivation— so why is it that good things so commonly happen to good people?” It is a perfectly reasonable question. Unlike the popular adage, nice guys commonly do not finish last. Why would generosity of spirit, and kindness commonly lead to good and even successful lives in a world of tooth and talon? My suspicion is that the question does not excite theologians as much since good happening to good people just makes sense to them, leading to a short-hand response like… “Hey, that’s God, you know.” But I think we need people who don’t have that optimistic presumption tackling theological questions. I will explain why at the bottom.

A related question to the one above is “Why is there pain?” Again, this is an optimist’s concern. There is a presumption that painlessness should be the norm. “If God gives good things to all of God’s creation, isn’t pain somehow a challenge to this?” A pessimist might ask the question, “Why is there pleasure?” I recently read (or I think it was a podcast) of a theologian talking about the theology of pleasure. It is interesting how little this topic tends to get studied. Another question might be, “Is pain good?” After all, so often pain has a positive role in one’s personal growth. Is it possible that pain is a better demonstration of a benevolent God, than pleasure?

These questions flow into other areas of theology. Consider, for example, the Theology of Heaven—

Is Heaven truly free from all pain? An obvious answer would be Revelation 21:4. This seems to answer the question fully—

“and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and the death shall not be any more, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor shall there be any more pain, because the first things did go away.”

This verse is very comforting but very confusing. How can there be no sorrow— don’t we feel the loss of those who are no longer with us (I don’t see universal salvation in Revelation). This has led to some horrific responses from some preachers. For example “Oh we will be experiencing so much joy, we won’t even have time to think about those who lost” or “We lose our memories of our past so we don’t feel that loss.” The first solution is essentially to make us monsters. I don’t see that as even remotely Biblical. the second one is almost worse. We have new bodies and new memories. What then is it about our glorified selves that is “us.” Essentially, we are following Christ for someone else to live in a glorified state.

Moving on to pain— if there is no pain, does that mean that we now lack pain receptors. If we stub a toe does it feel okay? If we topple off of a wall, do we feel no discomfort? Part of the problem is resolved when one looks at the Greek— it is “Ponos.” Even though it can mean pain, it can also mean travail, agony, or hard work.

Perhaps the solution is in the first part of the verse— It is not just that there is a freedom from death, sorrow, mourning, and pain (anguishing labor?), God is also there to provide confort— wiping away every tear. This can be seen as a one-time event, like “Okay,” says God, “Cheer up now…. nothing remotely uncomfortable will ever happen to you again.” However, this same language of wiping away tears is mentioned three times. Not only is it mentioned in Rev. 21:4, but also in Rev. 7:17 and Isaiah 25:8.

Could it be that God as one who comforts is not a one and done situation. After all, the previous verse in Rev. 21:3 speaks of God tabernacling with us. The emphasis is on the long-term relationship, not merely a one time transition.

This further brings up questions of whether pain-free is the idealized state— either in the past or the present. Is the paradise of Genesis 1 and 2 a place without pain? Was it impossible to twist an ankle or get something in one’s eye? Or is the the situation of the fallen state not the arrival of pain, but the arrival of it without comfort. After all, Genesis 3 does not describe the arrival of work— one still hard had to work (gather) to eat in the first two chapters— but or arduous travail. The pain removed in Rev. 21:4, could be exactly this— not a removal of our ability to feel physical pain, but a removal of pain without comfort, just as it describes not a removal of labor, but of painful hard work.

OK— SO WHY IS THE IMPORTANT?

I think we live in a time of growing pessimism. I am convinced that fewer and fewer people find it confusing that good people suffer loss at times. More think it is quite reasonable. I think we need to deal with the “glass half-empty” people who struggle to understand–

— the beauty of the world and universe.

—that people often recognize and do what is good even when it does not appear to align with their self-interest.

—discover, to their surprise, perhaps, redemptive qualities in suffering and loss.

I recall talking to a pastor friend. His wife died. Up to her death, they never once talked about what would happen after she died. She placed her faith in God healing her— and I guess she felt that planning for any other alternative would demonstrate a certain lack of faith. That makes me sad actually. Nothing wrong with seeing God as benevolent and recognizing God as unbounded by modern medicine. Healing can happen at any time. And yet… Miraculous Healing is often drawn from optimists. I feel much would be gain from a more pessimistic view. Miraculous Healing is a delightful surprise, not an expectation. That attitude, I believe, should open the door to finding other delights as well, including the work of God who gives comfort, and that comfort helping us to comfort others.

If you want a passage for this, consider II Corinthians 1:5-7:

For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. 6 If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.

Gentle Responding to “Rejecters”

There are a lot of different ways to respond to those who reject us— perhaps because of our faith, or because of our message, or because of a group we are part of… or just because. Our ministry involves training chaplains. In the Philippines, often a chaplain is seen as a religious salesman. This is because many who serve ministerially in hospitals self-identify in that role. Some see them that way. We teach them not to do this… but some people react anyway. Chaplain trainees often struggle with this. Some handle it well… while others don’t handle it so well— awkwardly backing away, or going into debate mode.

One way is Disengagement.Nothing wrong with disengagement. Luke 10 describes the Disciples of Jesus going to different villages. If they are were rejected— they were not told to debate or fight. They were told to walk away. They would dust themselves off (taking nothing from the village… not even their dust), and then continue on their way. In ministry, disengagement is fine. I don’t it is ever the worst option. Still… disengagement doesn’t have to be silent or cowardly. The disciples as they left in Luke 10, did clarify that they have done the village no harm, and that regardless of their response the Kingdom of God was at hand.

Another is Acquiescing. One can surrender— at least partly. I remember in “Blue Like Jazz: Non-Religious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality” by Donald Miller. In the book, the author speaks of having a Christian ministry on the campus of Reed College. During a campus festival, the ministry group set up a “Confession Booth.” When someone came up to the booth, a member of the group would confess the sins of Christians over the centuries— hypocrisy, bigotedness, violence and so forth. Students there were actually shocked and impressed to have Christians confess rather than blame and accuse others. I had a friend who was in a formal gathering regarding Christian-Muslim relations. During the gathering, a Muslim leader brought up the Crusades. I might have argued that it was almost 1000 years ago… get over it. But the response was better than that, somewhat. Instead the Christian representative did note that the Crusades was not a unique act of violence that happened in a vaccuum. It was a response, in part, to Muslim violence and repression prior. The Muslim representative’s response, “Well, your prophet told you not to do that.” He was saying, that Jesus said not to act out with violence— even if provoked. Again, I might be tempted to say, “If you believe that Isa Masih told us that, then he told you that as well.” But that would be a mistake on my part, so I am glad that I wasn’t there. It would not be my job to tell Muslims that they are not acting “Christian enough.” It is my job to call Christians to live according to their calling. Confessing is better than excusing.

Another is Confrontation. I am choosing this term because it covers several options. This could include preaching against, debate, on other forms of defending (recalling also the statement that the best defense is a good offense). Paul, for example, seems to go directly at his “enemies” in the Epistle to the Galatians through words. Moses did not directly go against the Pharoah and his magicians in words (generally) but certainly did so in actions. Sometimes this may include things that are verbally or physically aggressive. Some forms of confrontation are clearly problematic, but others certainly may be appropriate. In our chaplain ministry, there is little value in debate. Fighting with patients is pretty much never the correct response. That being said, there is a place for challenging beliefs. Jesus often used stories as a way to challenge the beliefs of the people and religious leaders— not in a direct form of confrontation, but indirect… a flanking maneuver.

One can also use Dialogue. This is conversation, based on mutual respect with the end goals, of mutual understanding, mutual insight, and stronger relationships. This is easy in concept but hard in application, because of our tendency for fight or flight.

There is a place for a Combination. As noted earlier… the disciples of Jesus were not just told to run away. They declared their truth (the Kingdom of God), gave a small defense (we have done you NO harm… and then left without further conflict. Confession is not necessarily

When I see a good example of a nuanced approach, I kind of want to share it.

Austin McConnell is a Youtuber, and animator, that I like to view. He is a Christian, but only rarely makes reference to that in his online presence. He got a response from a fan of his who was unhappy (I don’t think enraged would be too strong of a term) to find out that Austin was a Christian. The email certainly could have been responded to vigorously. It could also have just been deleted. I suppose he could have done a “mea culpa” of sorts. Instead, I feel like he gave a very thought out and Christian response.

Anyway, maybe it is best for you to read it and decide for yourself. Click to read below.

Politics, Religion, and Me

Dumping Mission Organization “Hype”

Here is a quote from Gary Corwin, on “Mission Hype.”

“The presence of too many examples to cite of exaggeration and truth shading by leaders of mission organizations has troubled me for years. The hubris evident in the predictions and pronouncements concerning the year 2000, for example, was breathtaking. We should know better and do better.

‘Evangelistically speaking’ has been a euphemism for exaggeration of ministry results for as long as I can remember. So the problem is not new. But it is something of which we shold be ashamed, rather than something we laugh about. Our words and our claims should have a ring of truth all the time.

Abuse of the truth takes many forms, but two of the most common forms evident in mission circles consists, first, in what is not said (even though what is not said is often of vital importance) and second, in false impressions that the communicator intentionally seeks to leave with the reader or listener. Both forms can be used without actually stating anything false, just leaving the impression that something false is true.”

—Gary Corwin, “Seven Stealth Ethical Issues Flying Under the Radar of Many Mission Agencies,” in Serving Jesus with Integrity: Ethics and Accountability in Mission, eds. Dwight P. Baker and Douglas Hayward (William Carey Library, 2010), 188-189.

I am glad the author brought up the year 2000, primarily referencing the AD2000— a marketing “scheme” that was guilty of a lot more than simply being impossibly optimistic. However, it is not just the big players who do this. I would like to give a few examples from my past— when I served as the Training VP of a small organization in the Philippines known as “Dakilang Pag-ibig DIADEM Ministries.” Our primary activity was evangelistic medical-dental events.

We did a fair bit— doing around 1 medical mission event a month. In 5 years, we had treated around 30,000 patients. We had also had over 10,000 “pray to receive Christ.” Both of these are numbers to feel good about. And yet… there was some things that I felt were problematic— not big-time issues… but small issues that can become big if unacknowledged.

#1. This was a specific event. We did a medical mission in Iligan City. My wife joined this one, I did not. Normally, I track the registrations, the treatments given, and the spiritual responses. However, on this day, someone else did. When the numbers came in, approximately 500 patients were treated, while approximately 240 stated that they “prayed to receive Christ.” (I know you are wondering why I put the quotes around prayed to receive Christ. We will get to that.) At the end of the day, the statistics were related to the hosting church. There was shock and concern. Certainly 240 responses to the gospel can’t be right… it must be higher than that. And perhaps it was, if the counselor was a bit lazy in filling out the forms… some could be missed. Our team leader told the church, “Since it was members of your church that shared the gospel, you tell us what the correct number should be.” After a bit of discussion, the number they came up with was 95%— which works out to 475 responses.

95% was ludicrous— for a couple of reasons. First, we typically got a response rate of around 35-45% so their original number, a little under 50% was quite believable, but not 95%. Second, far more than 5% of the patients were too young to make a real decision for Christ. And since many already would identify as “born-again Christians,” the numbers made no sense. It was like saying, that there was a 130% response rate of those eligible to respond.

So why would that church push for a 95% rate? I don’t know. I know that particular church had some odd qualities about it that would discourage me from ever working with them again. But I suppose that the church felt that 95% was more awesome and praise worthy than 48%. I would argue that truth is more praiseworthy than fake numbers.

In my mind, this one was simply a lie. Lies do happen, but as Gary Corwin noted above, a lot of deception happens while using the truth. The others I will use are “truthful.”

#2. The 10,000 “pray to receive Christ” is truthful, but the quotation marks around it are relevant. In the Philippines, there is something called “utang ng loob.” An English equivalent term might be ‘implied obligation.” If you do something nice for someone, they will feel an obligation to come up with an action to “pay back the favor.” In the case of a medical mission, we provide free medical, dental, and surgical services (and sometimes others as well) and free medicines. We present the pre-packaged gospel message, usually one-on-one with individuals between vital signs and seeing the doctor. Many of the patients realize that a very simple way of paying back for the free services is to pray along with the evangelizer. This gets them marked down as “pray to receive Christ” when in fact it is more likely that it should be marked down as “expressing thankfulness for the help.” Now of course I don’t know what the actual response rate is. Perhaps a more realistic number may be 500 in five years, rather than 10,000. Is 500 a wonderful thing? Absolutely, but it doesn’t sound as impressive as 10,000.

Realistic numbers are always hard to get. I had a friend who went to every evangelistic rally that came into town and would commonly walk forward in those events. In those, she was not ‘getting saved’ or even ‘getting saved again.’ Rather, she enjoyed the excitement of these rallies, and it gave her a bit of a “spiritual boost.” That is fine, but it does mess up the metrics. I knew a lady here in the Philippines who claimed that she led a minimum of 3 people to Christ each day. Of course, the Philippines is a country where close to 90% of the people would consider themselves Christian. Therefore, for her to get 3 per day, probably involved sharing with people that SHE DID NOT IDENTIFY AS CHRISTIAN. Somewhat related to this, one day she offered to “share the gospel” with me… for practice and to show me how it is done. She knew that I was a self-identified Christian, serving as a Christian missionary in a Christian ministry. I said that was fine. She shared the message and called for a prayer, and I went along with it all. Then she gave me a copy of the Gospel of St. John. It was only many hours later when it occurred to me that I was probably “one of her three” for the day. An added issue for me was the method she used. I would not even call it a presentation of the Gospel. I don’t think it is too strong to say that it was simply a method to trick Christians into saying the Sinnner’s prayer. I recall seeing a website of an Evangelist who claimed to have led something like 700 million to Christ (almost 10% of the world’s population). Is this true? Certainly not. Could the number be arrived at through some questionable metrics. Perhaps… but I doubt it. Perhaps he thinks numbers like that would be impressive to others and get them to support him. I suppose that is true, even though I would certainly not support someone who seemingly so little needs my support.

I felt that the 10,000 responses in our organization was so deceptive that I began tracking a different statistic. I asked the evangelizers to query people as to who would like to join a Bible Study, or even host a Bible Study. The numbers were quire a bit lower. However, most seemed do not to feel “utang” or obligation to respond positively on this question, so I felt it was a better gauge of response.

#3. I noted that we had treated 30,000 patients in 5 years. Not a bad number considering how small our group was and how low our funding was. But even this number has to be scrutinized. The 30,000 is quite accurate. However, one needs to look into the services we did. We would be in a location for only one day. Therefore, we really could not do real diagnostics. We could not deal with major problems. We needed to do things that could be evaluated in a day, and then give medicine, where follow-up was not necessarily required. Dental work was mostly extractions. Occasionally we could do fillings and cleanings. Surgery was mostly circumcisions (a cultural rather than medical imperative). Only rarely could we do other surgeries… and even then only ones that did not really need follow-up work.

Taking this into account, our tangible help to the population was rather minimal. Some of the medicines and vitamins were helpful. The wisdom provided by the doctors was, I hope, beneficial to them. However, very few people received physical care that would have long-term affect on their well-being.

For the most part, I believe that our time with DPDM was positive and felt good that we had a role in establishing it and maintaining it for several years. In fact, we were successful in helping churches or church planters start new Bible studies and churches. We were also successful, usually, in expressing God’s live in a way that the average person could recognize. I know people argue about how social and proclamation ministries should relate. Perhaps proclamation is more important… but social ministry is so critical to reach the people that I feel it is a mistake to even put the two on a scale to say which is more key.

However, I feel much better being with the group we are in now. Its numbers are much less impressive. However, the numbers probably undersell the work. We train pastoral counselors and chaplains. We train up a couple of dozen a year, rather than treat hundreds. The high investment of time in the trainees means that each number (trainee) potentially results in far more ROI (return on investment— an awkward concept for missions) for God’s Kingdom.

I have come to appreciate ministries that are unimpressive in terms of numbers. Bible translators often measure their progress in chapters, books, and languages. The numbers simply never look good because the process is slow. But the results can expand far beyond the immediate numbers. Mentoring programs are slow— their numbers just don’t impress. We need to look past numbers. Paul is often considered one of the greatest missionaries of all time. However, if we were looking at numbers… he does not impress. His decades of service resulted in a relatively few church plants. His direct disciples don’t appear to be great— at least based on those listed in his epistles. However, his investment in local leaders, and in the next generation of apostle/missionaries resulted in a a movement that grew and grew after his death.

We like to judge people by numbers or by hype. Pretty sure that God is not particularly impressed by either.