Robert Munson's Blog, page 17

Voting to Disempower— and Ministerial Powerlessness

As an American, I am sometimes asked what politicians do I like, what party to support, or who will I vote for. My response is, “What do I care, I live in the Philippines!” Sometimes, I am asked what politicians, or politics I support in the Philippines. My response is, “What do I care, I am a US citizen!”

I am being a bit deceptive since I do have my own opinion. My reason for not sharing is that my views in terms of politics puts me in opposition to almost everyone. The vast majority of people… even political cynics… tend to believe that if their own candidate or their own political party is elected then things will be better. I strongly disagree. I believe that any person or political party that gains power will ultimately misuse it. Good governance comes from power being checked— gridlock and forced negotiation. So how does one achieve gridlock and force negotiation? Try to vote in such a way that disempowers individuals and parties.

——————————-

Now I don’t really care if you agree with me on this— support whatever horrible candidate or party you find appealing. I am more interested in Christian missions.

Henry Nouwen in his article “The Monk and the Cripple” (Published in America Magazine, March 15, 1980) spoke of how Christian ministers should seek a “ministerial powerlessness.” He says, “It is our ever-present temptation to give up our powerlessness and use ministry, servanthood, as power. Whenever we use the Word and the sacraments to exercise power we betray our vocation.”

A friend of our family put photos up on FB standing in front of the largest (individual) church in the world. Her description I would describe as one of awe. It is not my place to judge (thankfully, for what a poor judge I would be) but I struggle to look at the artifice as showing anything other than a failure of someone in ministry to embrace powerlessness.

It is all too common. I live in the Philippines where a minister began describing himself as “The Appointed Son of God.” Another ran multiple times for President of the nation, arguing the prophecy has ordained his election. A well-known Korean religious leader declared himself to be Emperor of the Universe. I have read of religious leaders in Africa trying to place curses on religious rivals (who are fellow Christians). These cases are rather extreme, but in many smaller ways it happens.

I have seen mission organizations “buy” churches in other countries. I have seen missionaries refuse to give up power to local leaders, keeping control through ownership of the land associated with the organization. I have listened to a pastor tell his congregation that they must obey what he says, even if what he says is sinful— because God is (apparently) more pleased by unlimited submission than He is righteousness. I have seen religious leaders surround themselves with people who agree with them, or at least those who are politically savvy enough to appear not to disagree.

Jim Harries speaks of “Vulnerable Missions.” I think it is a great concept— refusing to use money and other forms of power to control mission work. But I never really cared for the title. It should be “Powerless Missions.” I am pretty sure I know why that is not used. Christians… like pretty much all people … like power. They can even justify it Biblically. Acts 1:8 speaks of how the disciples of Christ will receive power from the Holy Spirit. Power sounds like a good thing.

And perhaps in some ways it is. But picture what the power that comes from the Holy Spirit would look like. How does that relate to power that comes from property, hierarchy, wealth, position, or popularity? These, I believe, are not only quite different— they may, in many ways, be opposing each other.

The job in missions is to empower others. This does not mean making other powerful. Rather it means making oneself powerless so that others can carry on work without you.

I was talking with someone who is part of a Non-Government Organization. That person likes their job, and likes what they do. However, they do express some discomfort in how the leadership puts on a show in front of cameras, and seeks to cozy up to powerful politicians. This is not a religious organization… and maybe that is what it takes to get things done. I don’t know. But the poem (allegedly the translate of a quote of Lao Tzu) that has been embraced by community developers feels to me to be a better way:

“Go to the people.

Live with them.

Learn from them.

Love them.

Start with what they know.

Build with what they have.

But with the best leaders,

when the work is done, the task accomplished,

the people will say

‘We have done this ourselves.” —Lao Tzu

One Cross-cultural Minister’s Reflections on Legacy

I have been thinking on the term “Legacy.” This is a case of thinking about it without reading other people’s thoughts on it— at least not in a long time. Because of this, anything I say here is a work in progress that perhaps needs to be bounced off the minds of others who have thought much more on this. As I have noted before, I think, in part, by writing here.

I am close to having a birthday, and that will bring me pretty much on 75% of my life expectancy. That does not leave me with dread— I never really understood the desire to stretch out life really really long. While I have made a few mistakes, overall I feel good about that 75% and don’t need a whole lot of years to “get things right.” But the idea of legacy does loom big. What continues on past. From the stand point of a minister or missionary (I am using Cross-cultural Minister here, but that is because it is the best label for me probably) what are some types of legacy that are relevant? I am listing some in terms of what I consider least relevant to most relevant.

I am avoiding the question of “divine” or “eternal” legacy. This is not because this is unimportant. It is certainly the most important. However, we are simply not privy to much of this. If the Gospels make anything clear, those most highly esteemed in heaven are NOT necessarily the ones who anticipate accolades here. So I am skipping the most important one for a reason.

#1. Fame and Name. Most missionaries (or cross-cultural ministers) live a life of relative obscurity. But there are exceptions. There are missionaries who gain a bit of fame in denominational circles, mission organization circles, and rarely in broader society. Some even get their name placed on a building, retreat center, or ministerial organization. This is rare, and of little to no value. But still it is nice to be appreciated in some way. It is nice to be remembered.

#2. Artifice. Something material created by a person has the potential to endure long after the missionary has gone. This could be as big as a school or church building, or as small as a book. These can be fine… but it really depends one what they are connected to. For a building, that may be connected to #3, while a book is connected to #4.

#3. Structure. Buildings are fine but to have a consistent purpose they normally need to be tied to some sort of organizational structure. It is tempting for missionaries to assume they are immortal and don’t set up things to be passed on to local leaders. Perhaps the emphasis (overemphasis) on the Second Coming of Christ may blind some to the (statistically more likely to happen in the next few years) death, retirement, or return home of missionaries. Some like to say, “What if Christ returns tomorrow?” but the more interesting question is, “What if Christ returns 500 years from now?” Has one established an organization or ministerial structure that is maintainable and reproducible with one’s presence? Has one established who are trained and competent to make oneself unnecessary? To create something that can continue once you are gone is a great legacy.

#4. Ideas. Missions is not only an activity, it is an area of study. Research is the expansion of identified truth in this world. To change the world in some discernible way for the better… to open doors with your ideas, platforms, processes, and more— well that is a wonderful legacy.

#5. People. The best legacy are those who you have been part of investing in and transforming the next generation. This can, of course, include one’s children. It also includes one’s spiritual children… those one has led to Christ and discipled. It also includes those one has taught to replace oneself… or have inspired to achieve greater things in service to Christ. I have known people that seem to take offense if their trainees achieve greater success (in human terms) than themselves. I simply don’t understand it at all. If they are doing something wrong… perhaps that makes sense. But if they are doing well… living out their divine calling— what a legacy it is.

A few years ago I wrote a post on turning 50. I suggested that from ages 0-24 my goal was Growth. From ages 25-49, my goals was Success. But from 50 and up, my goal is Meaning. And while this may be true in some ways, as I sneak up on retirement, as important as Meaning is, I am starting to shift towards focus on Legacy—

Not everyone would agree with this list as presented. I think People is the best legacy… followed by Ideas… then Structures…. then artifice… and lastly fame/name. For me, I teach and am involved in the world of theses, dissertations, books, and articles. As such, for me Ideas are ahead of structures. Many would put structures ahead. And certainly for churchplanters, it is quite reasonable that they would place structures (planted church bodies) as a greater legacy than ideas. I couldn’t argue with that.

That post is “Reflections on Meaning, Philemon, and Turning 50.”

Soon to Publish— Philippine Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 4

The “Philippine Journal of Religious Studies” has been a journal of Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary (PBTS). It came out very sporadically. Well, Volume 4 is coming out in a few days. We are also starting work on the Volume 5 (2025) journal… with the hopes of publishing before midnight on December 31, 2025. We shall see. The e-journal version of Volume 4 will (as noted) out soon, with a paper version out in a couple of months after.

“Word Salad” and Statements of Faith

“Word Salad” is an unintelligible jumble of words and phrases. It is traditionally used to describe a symptom of neurological problems, such as aphasia.

However, in common usage now the term can mean, “Language that obscures its meaning.” As such, it is more akin to “Double Talk.” Double talk, according to Merriam-Webster has two meanings:

#1. Language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense.

#2. Inflated, involved, and often deliberately ambiguous language.

In both of the definitions, there is a real question of intent. Definition #2 says that double talk is often deliberate, but it doesn’t have to be. Definition #1 says it “appears to be earnest” but that does not speak to whether the person was actually earnest in his/her intent.

Double talk, or the common Internet use of the phrase “word salad,” then would be language that, often sounding impressive or even scholarly, obscures meaning, or perhaps is even nonsensical. However, the reason for it is unimportant.

I would like to suggest that a lot of times when people call something word salad, the issue is cultural or sub-cultural. The person is writing from a specific context to people of that same context. However, when people of a different context hear or read it, it sounds ambiguous, and a mixture of sense and nonsense.

The problem in this situation can come from jargon, metaphors, and implicit language.

An example of jargon and implicit language I like to use is the sentence:

“ECO the 4A16”

What does that mean? Well, first “ECO” is technical jargon for “Engineering Change Order,” which is, in turn, jargon for a form that is to modify a design blueprint. “4A16” is technical jargon for 16th printed wiring board associated with motherboard “A” in equipment component #4 of a certain radar system. Understanding the jargon helps, but there is also implicit language— linguistic short-hand that people within a specific context will understand but others would have it explained to them in detail. For the above expression, “ECO the 4A16,”

“Create an engineering change order for the 4A16 printed wiring board and route it through the required authorization stream, and then take to Design department where a designer will modify its blueprint according to the changes that are needed.”

Metaphoric or poetic language can also appear like word salad or double talk. Consider the following:

“I once was lost — a sheep without a shepherd— but now am found. The Good Shepherd found me stuck in the miry clay, lifted me up, and set my feet on solid ground. The Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, has taken my place. Guilty but found innocent, adopted into a new family with a heavenly home. I am washed in the blood and now whiter than snow.”

The above statement is a long-winded way of saying that “I am now a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.” The language, however, is a mixture of Biblical metaphors, and Protestant revivalist oratory. For many people, this would be clear word salad. For others, this makes absolute sense. It depends on the culture. Within the culture context it makes sense even when there is an inherent contradiction. The first part has the individual as a sheep, and Jesus as the shepherd. In the second part, Jesus is the sheep and the individual is… well, we don’t really know… still a sheep? The last sentence speaks of a person washed in blood and changing color to white. Again, it takes a lot of cultural background to make all of that be understandable.

Watching a Youtube video by “Ready to Harvest,” the host Joshua Lindsey, he was reviewing some polls he had put online. He would take statements of faith, creeds, or such from different denominations and have a poll on what level of agreement or disagreement people have to them . In many of these polls, there are comments that the statement was “Word Salad.” As he went over some of these statements, I will admit that most of them were pretty clear to me. Some equivocated or used such vague language that it was not at all clear what they were really trying to say, but most of them I don’t think were Word Salad. At worst, most were vague, theologically dense/obscure, and culturally understandable.

That is, most of the statements would make sense to theologically informed insiders to the group, but not at all clear to outsiders.

There was one that I do think was double talk. There was one that talked about God as Love and stated that all experience God’s love— HOWEVER, the unredeemed experience God’s love as wrath. To me, if sending a person to hell (I don’t know if the particular denomination believes in ECT, eternal conscious torture, or not), is a direct application of God’s love, then one must wonder how love is defined by that denomination. Is wrathful killing one’s spouse an expression of one’s love? What about wrathful beating one’s children? Lindsey did explain how a certain theological perspective may help that statement make sense— but in my mind that would only move it from self-contradictory to extremely confusing. I am not a part of that denomination so— maybe the jargon is so different that it is clear and reasonable to insiders.

But here is where a problem comes up when we get to Creeds or Statements of faith of a denomination or a faith tradition. Who are they written for.

At first thought— they are written for insiders. A Calvinist group can affirm the belief in the “Total Depravity of Man” because they know that Man refers to all human beings, and that Depravity refers to the ability to please God by our own efforts. (At least that is what I think it means since I would not describe myself as a Calvinist.) So when a groups says that they affirm the Total Depravity of Man, it is clear that they believe that one cannot earn divine salvation. One cannot “be good enough” to be accepted by God by one’s own efforts. Further, the use of the old-timey phrase probably cues one in that the group affirms at least a four-point form of Calvinism, and perhaps five-point. There are many Christians, including myself who believe that we are completely unable to please God so as to earn our salvation, but would prefer not to use the expression “Total Depravity of Man” because it may lead to wrong inferences of our other beliefs.

There is a problem, however, with the expression. The most common meaning of Depraved or Depravity is VERY different— suggesting someone with no qualities or behaviors worthy of commendation. Even the worst human being who ever lived (and I certainly have no interest in speculating who that person is) had some admirable characteristics. This is another reason I don’t use the expression “Total Depravity of Man.” To outsiders, the phrase suggests something very different— to outsiders it misinforms. I would even suggest that to some extent it can misinform insiders. If one speaks to a person who affirms the Total Depravity of Man and says that everyone has some good things about them, some will seek to defend the doctrine by quoting the Bible, such as “There is none that doeth good… no not one. There is none that understandeth; there is not none that seeketh after God.” Essentially, they are taking the doctrine with technical language and trying to justify a normal language interpretation of the expression.

At second thought— should inform the poorly informed— regardless of whether they are insiders or outsiders. Many denominations will put their statement of faith prominently available on their website. This is to make it available to the public. We can’t even call this an “unintended audience.” Very often Creeds, Confessions, Statements of Faith, Doctrinal Statements, Catechisms, and the like have a proclamation or apologetic role to declare truth (as the group sees it) to a broad audience. If that language confuses, the language is bad. If it looks like word salad to some readers— in some ways that is exactly what it is.

I would suggest that statements should clear both to insider and outsider. If one is embarrassed by one’s own belief? Well, perhaps one should consider changing it. If one believes it true and good for others to believe as well, express it so that it is understandable. There is often room to explore it after. One can leave the technical language for the theologians (profession, ministerial, and lay theologians).

We need to be better at crossing cultural (and sub-cultural) gaps.

Hadrian Saravia. 16century Protestant Mission Theologian

Until about 48 hours ago, I had not heard of Hadrian Saravia (1530-1612. Dates vary slightly). He was a Protestant leader who was involved, among other things, in the translation of the King James Version Bible. He was, apparently, the only non-Englishman who worked on the translation— supporting the translation of the first third of the Old Testament. While that is a nice thing to have on one’s CV, for me the most interesting thing is that he was one of the first Protestants to push for Christian Missions.

In 1590 he published, De Diversis Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus Sicut a Domino Fuerunt Instituti. This was in support of Christian Missions over 200 years before William Carey’s “An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen” and only 73 years after Martin Luther’s “Ninety-five Theses.” So this is a pretty big deal. There just wasn’t much about Protestant Christian missions during this time.

The early Protestant Church was not very missional. I know this seems to be a hot take right now as a lot of Calvinists, and some Lutherans, try to argue that at least their part of the Reformation was missional from the beginning. In support of this, there is an awful lot of cherry picking from a tree without much fruit. An argument against this questionable view, outside of the general lack of missional writing and missional activity during the first two centuries of the Protestant Reformation, was the theological arguments between Savaria and Theodore Beza (1519-1605)— the intended heir to Calvin’s Geneva. Part of the argument appeared to actually be about the commission of the Church— the call to be missional.

In 1590, Savaria came out with a treatise in support of the Episcopacy. However, in it came a strong support for the call of the church to missions. The work was in Latin, but an English version came out in 1591 or 1592. Below is an excerpt on the Commission of Christ to the original apostles, and how it still applies to the church today. Some of the argument sounds a lot like that of William Carey centuries later.

This version was in 16th century English, but I modified it into 21st century spelling… but in other ways did not change it. You can read the original (English version, the earlier Latin version is easier to find online) with the original spelling in the link below:

The command, to preach the gospel, and the commission, to all nations, we understand to be so given in charge to the Apostles, that withal it obliges the church also; neither did the charge of preaching the gospel to the incredulous heathen, respect the apostles only, but all future ages to the world’s end. In the last of Mathew, when the Lord had said, that all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth, and had commanded, that they should go forth, and teach all nations, etc. he added; I am with you unto the world’s end. Which cannot be restrained to the Apostles only, seeing it concerns all whom he commands to preach, and to whom he promises his divine presence for ever: neither can this promise be divorced from the former command, and thereby it appears, that Christ commanded the church also; that Apostles having taken heaven, order might be taken, that the gospel might be preached to the Gentiles in all coasts, upon all occasions. And verily if the Apostolic authority had been Temporary, that also had been a personal gift, and particular: neither would they have presumed to have taken themselves companions and co-partners in that Apostolic charge, to the which themselves only were appointed of the Lord. But when as they knew, that their office, and whatsoever authority they had received, was rather given to the whole church, then to their sole selves; they thereupon were bold, to make others, joint partners with them in their Apostle-like power, whom they also knew should be their successors. Neither in nature, could so great a work be finished of so few laborers: and therefore also the commandment of the Lord, could no further bind the Apostles, then for the term of their mortality: in the which time, the Lord did not purpose to determine, either the promise of his help, or the preaching of his word.

The Apostles then had need of many helpers in the Lord, and fellow-laborers for the business of the Lord: the which when they could not accomplish themselves, they left their posterity to finish that, which themselves could not effect. Had the Apostles carried their commission to heaven with them, and besides the private care of particular Churches, the Bishops (whom the Apostles left their successors) had thought the further propagation of the gospel did nothing pertain to them: I doubt me, the confines of Christ his kingdom had never been enlarged to so great a monarchy as it is. What need I remember you of the rare and memorable examples, of the thrice reverend fathers in the Primitive church? With what serious study, with what earnest desire, with what constant endeavor, and last of all, with what great labors, and many streaming showers of the blood of Martyrs, were the churches of old planted, watered, and increased? It is a thing better known and commended, then that I need to repeat it, or themselves to repent it.

Notwithstanding there be some in these days, which take up but to shrewdly this sentence of ours: as if it were some Anabaptist fancy, when it is said, that the Church has at this day, if not Apostles, yet Apostolic Ministers: but as for the fancy, (if Anabaptist) let themselves look to that, lest they take themselves by the nose. For my part, I would but know, whether the gospel eyet at this day, now after a 1500 years, be come to the ears of all Nations.

—“Of the diverse degrees of the ministers of the gospell. Of the honor which is due unto the priestes and prelates of the church. Of sacrilege, and the punishment thereof.” By Adrian Savaria, 1591. Chapter 17. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A11498.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

It is so strange I have not heard of him. If it was not for a chance remark by David Hesselgrave in his book “Pardigms in Conflict” I will would not know. Perhaps this is because there are not as many Episcopalians desperate for any crumb of evidence that their historic roots were missional.

Yes… Choosing a Symbol Carefully Matters

I would like to use the example of a ministry I am involved in, to support the title of this post.

Back in 2011 we founded CPSP-Philippines. CPSP (College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy) is an organization based in the United States that deals with accreditation and certification for CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) training centers, as well as clinical chaplains, pastoral counselors, and pastoral psychotherapists.

Their logo is simple, meant to combine the idea of a vibrant human being and a growing plant. It is below:

Since we were a daughter organization of CPSP and were seeking to symbolically show a connection with our parent organization, while still showing some uniqueness, we went through a few iterations. Only a couple of them I will show here.

First, we tried keeping the primary signal (vibrant plant/human), but then make it seem more like the Philippines by adding a symbol associated with the Philippines. So first we added a coconut palm next to it. While coconut palms are certainly associated with the Philippines, with it being a major Philippine agricultural product, and intimately tied to the culture, coconut palms are linked to much of the tropics, especially closer to the beaches. The symbol can give the wrong impression. This is not CPSP taking a vacation on a tropic beach.

The next one was rather a fancy one with a stylized Philippine flag overlaying it. It actually looked quite good. There were, however, a couple of potential problems:

-It was a complicated logo. Logos should not be too complicated. If we want to, for example, do logo-embroidered ball caps or shirts, complexity is a problem. While we might think that making a logo complicated allows for deeper meaning… often it can obscure meaning. Periodically, little articles would show up online (maybe they still do) helping people see things in logos that people were missing— the Bear in the Toblerone logo… the guys eating nachos in the Tostitos logo… the A arrow Z in Amazon… and so forth. I am not sure much is gained in finding these. I don’t think much was added. As far as this logo, I would also add that the overlay of the flag required some transparent imagine which is not ideal.

-Using a national flag can be problematic. First, for some people, a flag is a symbol of nationalism. The fact that we are in the Philippines does not mean that we are linking ourselves necessarily to the nation-state. I know for some people this does not matter. They will throw their national flag over their FB profile, hang it from the back of their pick-up trucks, and display it in front of their church right next to the cross. That is up to them… but that is not an association that we are seeking to make. There is an additional problem in that according to the heraldic law of the Philippines, one is really not supposed to use a Philippine flag in one’s logo anyway.

Therefore, we went in a somewhat different direction. We used the colors of the Philippine flag and tied it to the CPSP logo, but without the design features of the flag.

We went with this for a long time… several years. However, one day, one of our leaders decided to share something with me. He noted that when a Philippine flag is hanging, the blue is viewed to the left and the red to the right. The orientation of the logo above is red on the left and blue on the right. That is only to be done in times of war/conflict.

My first reaction was “This is not a flag”— it is a logo using the colors of the Philippine flag!” But the more I thought about it, the more I saw that it needed to change.

We are a Christian ministry. Now some Christian organizations really like to embrace the “War” metaphor. This is not necessarily wrong— it is used sometimes in the Bible. But that metaphor does suggest a certain orientation with regard to the world around. It suggests a certain hostility. And I get why some may want that message. Some groups really like to embrace Spiritual Warfare as their understanding of the world, and their participation in the world.

But that is not what we want to say. Our focus is on “Cure of Soul.” That is, we seek to participate in God’s work to heal persons in community. We are focused less on warfare and more on peacemaking (and not “peacemaking” as a euphemism for warfare).

Therefore, I finally got around to changing it.

The symbol is pretty simple. However, it tries to link three ideas together.

— It seeks to link our organization to CPSP while still making it clear that we are separate.

— It seeks to link our organization to the Philippines without appearing to link to politics or nation-state.

— It seeks to show, in a subtle way, that we are seeking to be peacemakers… healers.

Symbols mean something. When people see one, they don’t just see it, they interact with it. In Christian ministry, symbols should never be taken lightly. They often inform in powerful ways… often in ways that we don’t intend.

In Missions, a Bad Idea is a Good Idea Taken Too Far

Yes, the above statement is not always true. There are bad ideas that are simply bad. But consider some good ideas in Christian missions:

It is good to evangelizeIt is good to church plantIt is good to discipleIt is good to meet felt needs of the peopleIt is good to address issues of social justiceIt is good to ensure the missionaries needs are being taken care ofIt is good to make the Bible available in the heart language of all peoples.It is good to have short-term mission teams.

The list could go on and on. But here is a Bad Idea:

Focus on only one good idea to the detriment of other good ideas.

This has happened in missions a lot. Some groups wanted to focus on “presence missions” to the extent that proclamation, church planting, and discipleship did not happen. Some were so enamored with the church growth movement, that only things that “bumped the numbers” (in terms of evangelized, baptized, or made members) would be seen as “real” missions. Some would argue that missions was ONLY about unreached people groups— and can’t seem to talk about anything except UPGs and UUPGs. Some say support local ministers, but in so doing push back against sending ANY people cross-culturally. In each, there is a core bit of good that is taken too far.

Let me give a specific example:

Back in 1998, the Overseas Leadership Team of a major Evangelical mission agency set up as its mission statement:

“We will facilitate the lost coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ by beginning and nurturing Church Planting Movements among all peoples.”

Is the above statement a ‘good idea’? Yeah, I think it is, Church Planting Movements (CPMs) are pretty cool, and it is nice to try to get them to happen. But I suppose the terms I use here, “pretty cool” and “nice,” might suggest that I have some mixed feelings. This is because while it is a Good Idea, it is a Terrible Mission Statement.

Letting Bing answer the question for me, “A mission statement is a short statement that explains why an organization exists, its overall goal, the product or service it provides, its primary customers, and its geographical region of operation.

Looking at the mission statement, the leadership team, and the hundreds of missionaries under its purview, are to have as an ultimate goal of leading people to Christ, but ONLY through establishing CPMs.

In practice, what did this mean? Well, when I came to the Philippines, as an independent missionary not under this or any mission agency, the above mission statement was still in the process of being implemented. There were still missionaries in the Philippines whose ministry did not directly align with this CPM thrust. Most missionaries of that agency serving in the Philippines did not fit this thrust for two reasons:

#1. The Philippines has a large Christian majority. The CPM thrust became associated with limiting mission work by this agency to where there was no truly viable indigenous church. Alternatively, they could also work where there were indigenous churches, but only where there was less than 2 percent of the people would could be labeled as “Evangelical.” (Apparently sheep-stealing of “non-Evangelicals” was okay.)

#2. The Philippines was used as a training ground for missionaries and Asian leaders, as well as a place for publishing, medical ministry, and more. These sound good… but they don’t sound like CPMs.

During my early years there I saw a lot of missionaries from that agency leave. Some moved to new missions grounds. Some left the agency entirely. Some felt betrayed, unsurprisingly, since the agency broke promises with some of these missionaries, as well as local partners, to do this. A lot of mission-owned properties suddenly were up for sale. Myself and a fellow missionary colleague sought to buy a nice property that agency owned. We were planning to do something good training Christian leaders and supporting Christian Community Development— both good but decidedly unrelated to CPMs— and we were part of the same denomination. As such, it seemed like we were a good fit to buy and take over. However, the price was too high. It was too high because the mission board decided to base such sales not on future ministry or partnerships but on finances— getting money back to funnel into their CPM work. Nothing wrong with that, and I am actually glad now that we did not get the property, but this was consistent. Decisions were made based on achieving their own new mission statement, NOT on considering God’s mission in the Philippines.

I recall, somewhere around 2006 maybe, hearing the head of that Philippine component of that agency speaking to a large group of Filipino Christian leaders… talking, almost joyfully, about his role in getting the mission agency out of the Philippines. He saw his job as getting everyone out and shutting the door behind him. I found it dumbfounding to see how out of touch this guy was with the attitude and values of that audience. While they were not necessarily against that agency continuing to transfer expertise and structures over to local control, they did not want to see the group gone, and certainly did not want things shutdown or transferred without evaluating issues of ministerial viability and missional value.

A decade later, things really began to change. In fact, I found it rather funny when I was at a gathering with a number of missionaries from that agency now serving in the Philippines, shortly after the worst of COVID was over. Almost every one of them when I talked to them said (almost word for word)— “This is the New ________. Things are not like they were.” I heard that so many times, I finally asked one of them if that was something that they were coached to say. He said, No, it is just true. They have tossed aside that old mission statement and are trying to rebuild what was broken down.

Of course, there was a lot to rebuild. There were definitely some hurt feelings, and distrust to overcome. (Some of that still exists.) They have done, I think, a lot to move forward with local partners again. Still, that particular agency likes to come up with new initiatives and strategies— sending them out of the US and into the rest of the world. I am still waiting for some new leader to come along and decide that some “good idea” is all they should be doing. Then things will start all over again.

CPMs are fine… they are good… they may even be great. But missions is a lot broader than that. The mission agency I am talking about has hundreds of (actually more than 1000) missionaries. They have traditionally been a “full-service” mission agency. Truthfully, they probably would do well in spinning off more ministries. No one can do all and be all— especially in Christian missions. But spinning off should never mean moving to one single strategy.

In missions, at least, a bad idea is a good idea taken too far.

I Still Kinda Want to Hold onto the Term “Missionary.”

There is a scene I like in the movie “Harvey” (1950) where Elwood P. Dowd, played by Jimmy Stewart, is talking to Dr. Sanderson, a psychologist played by Charles Drake. Dr. Sanderson is trying to psychoanalyze (insight-based psychology) Elwood as to his apparent delusions of an invisible creature he calls “Harvey.” Sanderson seeks to explore Elwood’s childhood to see if the name Harvey is meaningful. Presumably, he is trying to show that this invisible friend is a figment of Elwood’s imagination meeting a deep-seated need that is revealed in the name he gave him. Frustrated in the lack of progress this dialogue draws to a close with…

Dr. Sanderson: Think carefully, Dowd. Didn’t you know somebody, sometime, someplace with the name of Harvey? Didn’t you ever know anybody by that name?

Elwood P. Dowd: No, no, not one, Doctor. Maybe that’s why I always had such hopes for it.

When it comes to the term “Missionary,” I can’t quite say the same thing. I have known many people who call themselves a missionary. My mother went to Nyack Missionary College decades ago with the hope of becoming a missionary. My wife and I are considered by many people to be missionaries.

However, the term has had a rough time.

Many people associate the term with colonialism or with ethnocentrism. I get where that comes from. Missionaries, good pragmatists as we often are, will often walk through whatever doors are open. If a region has been “opened” by a colonial government, missionaries would commonly see that as God’s way of allowing his/her (as in the missionary’s), as well as His, work to be done. There certainly have been cases of missionaries actively supporting colonizers, or passively supporting them (often by promoting passivity among the colonized), but that doesn’t seem to be as common as has been suggested. As far as being ethnocentric… well, it depends on what one is comparing to. What are the other cross-cultural representatives? Were missionaries more ethnocentric than invading nations? Were they more ethnocentric than colonial rulers? Were they more ethnocentric than foreign trading countries? Were they more ethnocentric than historical travelers and explorers? Were they more ethnocentric than the armchair anthropologists of the 1800s? Generally, the answer is a resounding “No!” The issue is not how bad they have actually been as missionaries, clearly called by God to follow in the line of Paul and Barnabas in the missions endeavor, but that they should really have COULD have done better than they did. But “they could have and should have done better” is not exactly a hard-hitting complaint. Commonly, missionaries will use the stories, and the cultural practices and artifacts of a people. As commonly, when talking to people “back home” they have to justify why they are “using heathen things rather than just preaching the Bible.” Often missionaries appear to be more nationalistic or denominational than they really are because they have to not only contextualize their ministry in the field, but they have to also contextualize their reports to their home country and supporters. Many people associate the term with something it really isn’t. I remember in my early days typing in the term “mission” and getting page after page of businesses talking about their mission statement. This is despite the fact that the term “mission” comes from the Latin for ‘to be sent out.’ I can see looking at the word “mission” as linked to business in the sense of purpose for our coming together and going out into the world. But the term mission is the Latin equivalent for Greek where we get Apostle (apostolos). It is rooted in the cross-cultural (being used outside of the Bible like a government envoy or ambassador) as well as religious (tied to the Great Commission). The term “missionary” would get page after page of references online to Mormonism. I must respect the Mormon religion in that they really know how to SEO religious terms (although it does seem like they gave up trying to get Bible verse requests to automatically recommend to one of their websites). Still, being honest here, I really feel that members of that religion co-opted the term. I don’t want to let go of the term. I know Christians often do this. Some group comes along and says, “All Hallow’s Eve” is tied to Samhaim, and then some Christian groups come out telling people that they can’t do anything fun or religious on that day because it is a “devil’s day.” That does not make sense to me, and neither does just turning over a Christian term to another faith just because they plaster that term as their own all over the Internet. (I will admit that when I type “Munson” and “Missions” today in a search engine, I mostly find stuff that I have some connection with… or sometimes articles about Samuel Munson, a missionary of the 1800s. It used to be if I typed those terms in, I would see page after page on Thomas Monson and his connection to Mormon missions. I will take a small win on that change.)I also know that some people, who are Christians, really like to broaden the term, or make really narrow definitions of the term that disregard the majority of workers. Some use the term to include Short-term missionaries. By the way, I don’t really have a problem with the term “Short-term missionary.” I just don’t really like STMers calling themselves missionaries. It is kind of like the phenomenon found in the Philippines, of a person going to a 3-day seminar and “earning” a title of “Doctor” (honorary), or “Chaplain” or “Bishop.” In these cases, the transfer of money is more critical than the transfer of knowledge, skills, or wisdom. At the other extreme, some people, like Ralph Winter, really wanted the term to be used only for Pioneering Missionaries— thus negating more than 90%. Others would not honor the term for people who are not strictly focused on intentional evangelism and church planting. Between those who want to water the term down so that it has almost no meaning (including those in the Missional Church movement) to those who want to reduce through relabeling those called missionaries, or what defines a “real missionary,” it is not surprising that we end up with a term that has seen better days.

Truthfully, part of me really doesn’t want to use the term missionary. I teach in a couple of seminaries, so I can call myself a professor. My wife and I run a Pastoral Counseling and Training center so I can call myself a counselor (although my wife is much better at that than I). Since we focus on Christian leadership development in Asia, it is probably better to call myself a “Cross-cultural Minister.”

Still, I want to hold onto the term.

A. I don’t really want to give up the term to other groups. It is ours, part of our heritage for good or for ill, so let’s embrace that.

B. There is much good in Christian missions, and throwing away the term can seem like throwing away that good.

C. The term links us theologically to Apostleship, and I really don’t want to give up that term completely (either) to Peter Wagner’s disciples. Apostles were Missionaries, NOT religious power brokers accountable to no one except God. Those who say that “Missionaries” are a wholly non-Biblical category gain some truly undeserved credence if we allow the terms to be redefined or removed by others.

D. The term is, ultimately, descriptive of what we do. We are sent out by God on a mission, bridging cultures, continents, and countries to embrace an ambassadorial role on behalf of Christ. The term “missionary” explains that well… as long as we don’t lose the term to misuse by foes… or by friends.

——————-

Dr. Sanderson: Think carefully, Mr. Munson. Don’t you know all the problems with the term Missionary? Don’t you ever struggle with the use of that title?

Bob Munson: Yes, every day, Doctor. Maybe that’s why I always had such hopes for it.

Nathan’s Trap

Nathan was enraged. The King had not only yielded to adultery, but had a man killed to cover it up. And not just any men— one of his select men— Uriah! He was one of only a very select group of individuals who knew what was going on. But he was the only one of them who was a prophet. He was the only one who was tasked by God to give God’s message, no matter what. Being a court prophet is tough— one is supposed to give the word of God, but one must also deal with the toxic political intricacies of the royal court.

Unfortunately, Nathan had no idea how to do it. The King was a man who feared God, and yet was very… complex. His ability to rationalize was truly impressive. When young, he could live as a rebel against his predecessor, King Saul, and still claim to be a loyal subject. He could shake down landowners for food and lodging while denying he was a criminal. He could even serve the hated Philistines while believing that he was not treasonous. If he simply tells the king the truth? Well, David would certainly have his story already set up.

“Oh no, Nathan,” King David would surely say. “You have things completely misunderstood. It is too bad about Uriah… but I did not kill him. Death is a part of war. It is sad, but true. And now he has left behind a grieving and pregnant widow. I will take care of her. It is the least I could do for my dear friend.”

As a court prophet, Nathan knew all too well how politicians are. He realized that a frontal assault would not work. Much like a battle, he must strike the king where his defenses were weakest.

The King was the richest and most powerful person in the kingdom. But that was not how he looked at himself. Even all these decades later he would tell stories of his life as the youngest son of a family of shepherds. He saw himself as the underdog attacked by beast, giant, and king. Those days were long gone, but he still saw himself as one who is weak who must fight against the powerful.

That is the trick! He must tell David a story where he would identify with the one who was unjustly treated… unjustly treated by a powerful abuser. Anyone else would clearly recognize David as that powerful abuser— he is the king after all. But Nathan would not tell anyone else– only King David himself.

A sleepless night of reflection and prayer and he had it.

When David was alone, Nathan knew it was time. “Oh King, I must tell you a story of great injustice.”

“There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle,  but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

“Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

David burned with rage. He thought of the lion and the bear who tried to steal his sheep. He thought of King Saul who in jealousy tried to kill him. Jealous of a shepherd boy who had almost nothing? Ridiculous!! He killed the beasts as they deserved. He did not kill Saul— it was not his place to do that. But things have changed. David was now the king and he can execute swift and righteous judgment on such a greedy and godless man as the one Nathan described.

“As surely as the Lord lives,”

cried David,

“the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

Nathan responded matching the power and emotion in David’s voice,

“You Are That Man!”

The trap was sprung. David stepped into it— there was no sidestepping. There was no backing up. As the curtain lifted, there was no knife or spear to strike him. Instead, he was face to face with a mirror. He could not look away.

Losin’ My Religion– 17th Century Style

Yea, whereas it was wont to be made the certain mark of a graceless wretch to deride the godly, how few are there now that stick at secretly deriding and slandering those that are not of their opinions! A pious
Prelatical man can reverently scorn and slander a Presbyterian; and a Presbyterian an Independent; and an Independent both. And, what is the worst of all, the common ignorant people take notice of all this, and do not only deride us, but are hardened by us against religion; and when we go about to persuade them to be religious, they see so many parties, that they know not which to join; and think that it is as good to be of none at all, as of any, since they are uncertain which is the right; and thus thousands are grown into a contempt of all religion, by our divisions; and many poor carnal wretches begin to think themselves in the better case of the two, because they hold to their old formalities, when we hold to nothing.

The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (1656), page 89. https://ccel.org/ccel/b/baxter/pastor/cache/pastor.pdf

This quote almost 400 years ago gives a bit of a hint at a problem we see a lot today. Today we talk a lot about the problems of Pluralism. We may believe that as Baxter above says, “… they see so many parties, that they know not which to join; and think that it is as good to be of none at all, as of any, since they are uncertain which is the right;”. However, if one reads the larger passage, one sees that the main issues is not that there are options. The existence of options does not lead to contempt for religion. Rather it is the contempt that members of one sect display on other sects.

Demonstrating contempt on each other leads to confusion of who is right, but in the end it is quite understandable if the hearer will ultimately throw up his or her hands and say, if all of these groups are so bad… and are quick to point out the bad in others… maybe it is better to reject them all.

The “Spiritual but not Religious” category today has largely grown BECAUSE of us, NOT despite us.