Robert Munson's Blog, page 19

Maybe Ethnic Religions Do Make Sense…

When studying religions, one simple classification is between “Universal Religions” and “Ethnic Religions.” There are religious perspectives that don’t clearly fit into either, but these two are useful categories.

Universal religions are a system to identifies with all people. As such, there is an evangelistic component normally. Ethnic religions, on the other hand, identify with a specific people group or governance. As such, there is a low evangelistic component. In some such groups, it may even be forbidden for outsiders to become part of it.

Not all religions fit clearly into these two, and there are many that sort of bridge the gap. Judaism was (and is) often seen as more as an ethnic religion. There are proselytes, and some members may even be somewhat evangelistic, but the efforts are rarely vigorous. Members of the Samarian Israelite faith originally actively prevented outsiders from joining, but that has relaxed somewhat in recent years. Traditional mystery cults were not evangelistic as this is commonly pictured, but they were open to selective recruiting.

But I always struggled with ethnic religions. For me, I tend to think about religions as answering the great questions of life. Who am I? Why am I here? What is our future? Do I need to be saved/rescued, and if so, how? These are universal questions. For me, then, if they give answers to universal questions, then the answers should be universal answers. And if that, how could adherents to that faith be comfortable about keeping those answers to themselves only.

I kind of knew the answer, but reading Nijay Gupta’s book, “Strange Religion,” he looked at Christianity through the lens of Roman State Religion (I suppose I could use “RSR”) for short. Gupta notes that RSR was not so much about faith, or about beliefs. It also, generally, was not about ethics, or a relationship with the divine. The two PRIMARY functions for RSR was:

Pax Deorum. This is Latin for “peace with the gods.” Rituals and sacrifices were done, first of all, to maintain a peaceful coexistence with the supernatural world— the gods who can be benevolent or malevolent, depending on how well we treat them. Magic. We are not talking about legerdemain here, we are talking about doing things so that we can manipulate supernatural beings or forces to work for us. Rituals, sacrifices, amulets, talismans, and more can be used to seek blessings, or to give curses.

Suppose, you were a Roman, you are pretty sure you want everyone who lives within the borders of your empire to practice the rituals and sacrifices of RLR. You don’t care what people believe. You don’t care what people do particularly, as long as they do the bare minimum to appease the gods so that they support the peace, and strength of the empire. As such a Roman, you would have little interest in the German tribes, or the Parthians, sharing the same religion. In fact, you might not really want them to do that at all. If they are the enemy and they start doing things to curry favor from your gods, what if your gods start to support your enemy? Really, you want only people in your group to be the ones who know how to keep your gods happy— in fact, keep your gods as YOUR gods.

A similar things applies to magic. You want the special favor and the blessings of your gods to be on you, and your friends, and perhaps your countrymen. You certainly don’t want them to be helping out the enemy.

Christianity, while not, strictly speaking, wholly unique in its initial setting, was pretty revolutionary in the Roman Empire. Its view of religion tied to relational devotion to God, faith/belief, and addressing universal questions, with universal answers, put it into a place that unique place— in a world where religion was commonly FAR different.

The Holy Bible Among Other Scriptures

So what might we say of revelation in other religions? In an era past, the Scottish missionary to India John Nicol Farquhar famously championed the idea that Christ fulfills the best in Hinduism,[46] an idea that could be applied to other religions and their sacred texts. At the other end of the spectrum there is the view that there is no relationship between the Bible and any other sacred text. A characteristic of biblicism is that we must never expect to find a spiritual truth anywhere outside the covers of the Bible. This position would undermine the possibility of general revelation (Ps 8; Rom 1:18–20). Craig Blomberg rightly prefers a third option: “If it is wrong to expect to find salvific truth in other world religions . . . it is equally wrong to expect to be able to learn nothing, even just about the human condition, from other religions.”[47] Copeland captures this sentiment in the image of dim flickering lamps with blackened globes.[48] What light they are capable of serves a purpose similar to that of the Bible, that is, of pointing to the Light of the World (John 8:12).

“On the Doctrine of Scripture: An Asian Conversation” by Havilah Dharamraj. in Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, edited by G Gener, Timoteo D.; Pardue, Stephen T. (p. 50). Langham Creative Projects. Kindle Edition.

From an Evangelical Christian perspective, only the Holy Bible is from God and therefore fully reliable. The contrast to this is “Not fully reliable” as opposed to “fully unreliable.” This goes along with Blomberg’s and Compeland’s opinion.

Norman Anderson suggests four views that Christian’s can have regarding other faiths.

Other religions come from God— as valid and valuable divine revelation.Other religions come from Satan— as lies, distractions, and traps.Other religions come from human aspirations— as tentative answers to the unknowable.Other religions are a mixture of the previous three.

Blomberg and Copeland would seem to embrace the fourth option. And that seems to be the best one.

To say that a person of a different faith is completely and totally wrong about everything is not only insulting, but almost impossible to be true. Everyone must a correct about a lot of stuff— even spiritual stuff.

A somewhat related thought— Satan is not Satan because everything he believes is false. In fact, his theology is almost certainly better than any of us. The problem is that he aligned himself against God. We live in a battle for truth… but truth is NOT the primary battle. The Bible may be fully true, but so is a multiplication table. The Bible is valuable because it points us to God.

Is It Beneficial to Use Generative AI in Missiology?

I was asked to research and recommend some policies on the use of Generative AI (“Artificial Intelligence”) at the seminary where I teach. I had to do some study of this since my involvement with AI is quite limited. Reading experts, including policies of some universities, it is clear that a nuanced approach would be the best route. Some find value in the use of Generative AI in the learning process.

I wanted to try this myself. Therefore I submitted the following question to two different AI engines:

What role does the localization of theology have in the growth of the church in new regions?

On June 1, 2024, I submitted this question to Chat GPT (https://chatgpt.com/), and to Copilot (https://www.bing.com), these were the responses I got:

Chat GPT:

The localization of theology plays a significant role in the growth of the church in new regions by making the faith accessible and relevant to the local culture and context. Here’s how:

1. Cultural Relevance: Every culture has its unique values, traditions, and worldview. When theology is localized, it can be presented in ways that resonate with the cultural norms and beliefs of the new region. This makes the message of the church more relatable and understandable to the local population.

2. Language and Communication: Localizing theology involves translating religious texts, teachings, and rituals into the language spoken in the new region. This facilitates effective communication and allows people to engage with religious concepts in their native tongue, leading to deeper understanding and connection.

3. Contextualization: Localizing theology also involves contextualizing religious practices and beliefs to fit the social, political, and economic realities of the new region. This may involve adapting rituals, customs, and organizational structures to align with local norms while maintaining the core principles of the faith.

4. Missionary Work: When missionaries enter new regions to spread the message of the church, they often need to adapt their approach to effectively engage with the local population. Localizing theology helps missionaries build trust and credibility with the community, making it easier to establish connections and foster growth.

5. Inclusivity and Diversity: Embracing the diversity of cultures and perspectives within the church fosters a sense of inclusivity and belonging among believers. By incorporating local traditions and practices into the theological framework, the church demonstrates respect for cultural differences and encourages participation from a wide range of backgrounds.

Overall, the localization of theology enables the church to grow and thrive in new regions by making the faith accessible, relevant, and meaningful to the local population. It fosters a sense of belonging, builds bridges across cultural divides, and promotes the spread of the gospel in diverse communities.

Copilot

The localization of theology plays a significant role in the growth of the church in new regions. Let’s explore this topic further:

1. Contextualization and Relevance:
– Local Theologies: When the church engages with local contexts, it adapts its theological understanding to address specific cultural, social, and historical realities. Local theologies emerge as a response to these unique contexts.
– Relevance: By contextualizing theology, the church ensures that its message remains relevant and meaningful to people in the region. It bridges the gap between ancient truths and contemporary life.

2. Witness and Authenticity:
– Authentic Witness: Local theologies allow the church to bear authentic witness to the Gospel within its specific cultural milieu. It demonstrates that Christianity is not a foreign import but a transformative force that speaks directly to local needs.
– Credibility: When theology is localized, it enhances the credibility of the church. People are more likely to engage with a faith community that understands their struggles, aspirations, and questions.

3. Incarnational Ministry:
– Incarnation: Just as Jesus became incarnate in a specific time and place, the church’s theology becomes “incarnate” when it takes root in local soil. It reflects God’s love and presence in tangible ways.
– Ministry Approach: Local theology informs how the church ministers to the community. It shapes preaching, worship, pastoral care, and outreach strategies.

4. Challenges and Opportunities:
– Challenges: Developing local theologies involves grappling with complex issues. It requires discernment to avoid syncretism (blending Christianity with other beliefs) while embracing cultural expressions.
– Opportunities: Local theologies empower believers to engage in transformative action. They inspire social justice, environmental stewardship, and holistic mission.

5. Unity and Diversity:
– Unity: While local theologies celebrate diversity, they also contribute to the unity of the global Church. Each local expression enriches the larger body of Christ.
– Global Learning: Churches in established regions can learn from the theological insights of new churches. This mutual exchange fosters growth and maturity.

In summary, local theology is not merely an academic exercise; it shapes the church’s identity, mission, and impact. By embracing contextualization, the church becomes a vibrant witness, rooted in love for God and neighbor.

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 6/2/2024
(1) The theological foundations for church growth – Bible Society. https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/content/explore_the_bible/bible_in_transmission/files/2018_spring/The_theological_foundations_for_church_growth.pdf.
(2) Re-Thinking Homogeneity: The Biblical Case for Multi-Ethnic … – 9Marks. https://www.9marks.org/article/re-thinking-homogeneity-the-biblical-case-for-multi-ethnic-churches/.
(3) LOCAL THEOLOGIES IN THE LOCAL CHURCH: ISSUES AND METHODS – Boston College. https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/download/3018/2637/.
(4) Globalization and Church Growth: A Reflection on African Evangelism and …. https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijrsa/v7-i2/1.pdf.
(5) The Evangelical Church Interacting between the Global and the Local …. https://lausanne.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The-Evangelical-Church-Interacting-between-the-Global-and-the-Local-Global-Listening-Team-Report-21.11.03.pdf.
(6) Theology, Ethics, and Church Growth – Biblical Research Institute. https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Theology-ethics-and-church-growth.pdf.
(7) 5 Top Effective Church Growth Strategies. https://jesusleadershiptraining.com/effective-church-growth-strategies/.
(8) Strategies for Effective Church Growth Planning. https://jesusleadershiptraining.com/church-growth-planning/.
(9) Church Growth Theology. http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/654/WendlandGrowth.pdf?sequence=1.

Neither gave me footnotes, but Copilot was kind enough to give me references. Looking over the responses, I can see uses at the Pre-drafting stage. That is, Generative AI can help me evaluate topics, give me some references to study more, and even give possible ideas for outlines. Doing this should help the learning process— something that definitely does not happen if one simply “cut-and-paste” the answer as one’s own completed work.

Of course, there are cautions.

First, AI is known to hallucinate. It can make up references.

Second, AI can share false information and reference incorrectly. I had this happen before where I asked for a biography of a person, and it indicated that he worked for me. The reference the AI gave was to my website but it certainly did not say that he worked for me.

Third, AI crowdsources data so it shares opinions and biases without good verification.

Fourth, related to the previous point, does not necessarily verify the quality of the data it draws from.

Are Good Missionaries “Spiritual”?

I have often liked to surprise people by saying that Missionaries (or Cross-cultural ministers if you prefer) are FLEXIBLE and WILLING, but not particularly SPIRITUAL. And I upon reflection, I think most people kind of get what I mean by that. However spirituality is visualized in a faith tradition, missionaries within that faith tradition tend to exhibit it less. If a particular faith tradition demonstrates spirituality with loud and frenetic, missionaries in that tradition tend to be more sedate (from what I have seen). Faith traditions that are more contemplative in terms of spirituality have missionaries that tend to be… less so. Those in which Bible study and prayer define spirituality will again find missionaries coming up short.

There is one fairly obvious reason why. Missionaries are active— but often active in the mundane aspects of ministry. Time is a limited and so missionary cannot do their job and meet or beat the standards of spirituality in their corner of Christianity. A second, perhaps less obvious, reason is that missionaries bridge gaps. They contextualize. In each faith tradition there is a “lingo of spirituality” and missionaries have to use it less because they need to talk with and work with people of other faiths, traditions, and culture.

Of course, an obvious counterargument is that I am not talking about “real spirituality” but am talking about how spirituality is perceived. A person who shouts, claps, and dances in the aisles more than anyone else is not necessarily more spiritual, but may be seen as more in their own group. The same could be said of a person who lives in a cave and contemplates God, or one who sits on a mountain and communes with nature, in other settings.

The lack of consensus on what defines spirituality is much of the problem. I do think that Gary Thomas’s “Nine Spiritual Pathways” is very useful in that regard— looking at how spirituality is identified in different settings. However, that is still far from defining spirituality.

The term spirit (spiritus, pneuma) is extremely broad. Paul Tillich (I think) described spirit in its early sense as the overlap of power and meaning (or power and purpose). This idea does not ever require any connection with God or even the supernatural. While we certainly use the term that way even today, (a “spirited horse” or a “spirited competition.”) most of us in Christian ministry would say that that is not the idea we are thinking of when we speak of spiritual.

A couple of months ago, my wife and I went to the plenary annual gathering of CPSP (College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy). This is a collegial body of pastoral counselors, pastoral psychotherapists, pastoral supervisors, and clinical chaplains. A lot of people in these ministries share some things in common with missionaries. Many of its members (especially those who identify as clinical chaplains) are “feet on the ground” serving and reaching out to people outside of the church. Part of the evaluation of candidates for clinical chaplaincy (and the other sub-specialties) is a spiritual evaluation. The chaplain who presented things on this evaluation described three aspects of the evaluation.

The three aspects of spirituality are:

Strength of Spiritual RelationshipStrength of Spiritual ResilienceStrength in Spiritual Reflection

I wish I had taken better notes. However, the way I see it Spiritual Relationship means (in the Christian context) dependence on and closeness to God and seeking to be guided by God. Spiritual Resilience is one’s ability to handle circumstances without losing one’s homeostasis, faith, and sense of calling. Spiritual Reflection relates to one’s skill and competence to process experiences, conversations, and ideas through the lens of faith (theological/contextual reflection).

I am not sure that the chaplain who presented this would have defined them this way, but I think this will suffice. You will note that none of these characteristics are faith tradition-dependent., They may work themselves out differently in different settings.

From these characteristics, should a missionary be spiritual? I would say yes. A missionary should be dependent on God and seek to be guided by God. A missionary needs to be resilient— whose faith is challenged by circumstances, but is able to do so without breaking. (I think of Elijah who at his lowest point of depression decided he needed to go to God— on Mount Horeb.) A missionary needs to be spiritually reflective. The mission must be able to process, learn and grow— a reflective contextualizer in new settings.

So, Spiritual Strength (as defined above) should be a characteristic of missionaries.

Book Review: “Strange Religion” by Nijay Gupta

I had never heard of this book, nor its author until he was on the Preston Sprinkle’s podcast “Theology in the Raw” (Episode 1170). They were talking about Nijay’s new book, “Strange Religion: How the First Christians were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.”

I have always wanted to gain a clearer understanding of the early church. I tended to find this difficult. Most attempts to describe the early church tended to have a pretty obvious agenda. Denominational apologists would use the Biblical text to “prove” that the early church was (fill in a faith tradition here). Promoters of a church structure (house church network, multi-site, cell, “simple church”) would seek to show that their own physical or leadership structure is “Biblical,” at least in terms of how the early church existed.

Frankly, much of what we know about the early church is what is found implicitly in Scripture, and explicitly in external sources. This is that the broader society, as the sub-title of this book states, found Christians, “Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.” Roman and Greek society found Christians to be weird— even more weird than the Jews. But why? And Christians were seen as more dangerous than most of the other religious sects that permeated Roman society. Again, why? And perhaps more perplexing, Roman society found it so compelling that in less than 300 years, this religion mostly of the poor and enslaved became the favored religion of the state, and only a few decades after, the state religion.

Nijay Gupta draws from a large quantity of church and non-church sources of the first two centuries to help us to understand why. In many ways Christian turned religion and society in Roman culture on its head. I will give one example here. Roman state religion (religio) was about action and duty. It was fine to have beliefs, and it was certainly commendable to be virtuous, but the primary purpose of religion was to maintain peace with the gods. This peace was partly individual, but primarily corporate. The Romans didn’t really care what you believed— but they wanted people who were willing to carry out the rituals and sacrifices that will maintain the good relationship between the state and the gods. Early Christians did not do sacrifices, did not have a priesthood, did not have temples, did not have statuary identifying their deity, and had very little that could be called rituals. All of this made them “weird”— but the Roman Empire had many weird groups— especially the Mystery Cults. However, what made them “dangerous” was their unwillingness to participate in the duty to state of ritual and sacrifice for the emperor and the gods. The Jews had a somewhat similar problem but (prior to AD70) they had a temple, priests, rituals, and sacrifices. As such, they were seeking peace “with the gods” as far as the Romans were concerned. With the promise that the Jews would pray for the emperor and empire, they were not seen as dangerous in the same way as the Christians. Christianity was seen as a “superstitio”— where stately decorum, ritual, and sacrifice to maintain peace with the gods is tossed aside for religious excess. The more one sees the contrast between Christians and other citizens of the Empire, things become clearer— like why Nero would blame the fire of Rome on the Christians. Christians, as a secretive people (meeting in homes, not temples), rejecting rituals and sacrifices that maintain peace with the gods, and a fascination with “end of the world” makes them an easy scapegoat. In fact, if Nero did not actually cause the fire, it would not be unreasonable for him to actually believe this.

Personally, I find this book very helpful. One of my favorite early church documents is “The Epistle to Diognetus.” Chapter 5 demonstrates contextualization of the Christian faith— living culturally assimilated in many ways, while still being radically different. The passage, although useful, still leaves some gaps as to how this is worked out. “Strange Religion” does demonstrate how the early church navigated aspects of being thoroughly enculturated in Roman society and yet still radically (even dangerously) different.

That being said, Gupta does not idealize the early church. It had its failings. Many of the failings were a failure to live up their high standards of following Christ. He notes others as well, like their unwillingness to take on the cultural blight of slavery. The author notes that the argument it was an economic necessity or too tightly woven into society to be upended doesn’t really suffice. Even then, there were groups such as the Essenes who did not practice slavery. Additionally, the early Christians gradually gained animosity for their nearest religious brethren— the Jews.

I think most all Christians— especially those who seek to understand the New Testament in its original context— would find the book valuable. It is a shockingly easy read despite its academic depth. I also think that those interested in contextual theology would find the book valuable since it, as noted above, gives a good example of Christians seeking to find that balance of “living in the world but not of the world” or being both assimilated and separated at the same time.

Nijay Gupta, “Strange Religion: How the First Christians were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling” (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2024).

The Gospel of Hosea

When we speak of the Gospels (Good News) we speak of the four Evanglists— the stories of Jesus by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But the Good News is presented in other ways as well. The 2nd chapter of Acts is a great example of this. Some describe the Parable of the Prodigal Son (probably better called the Parable of the Prodigal Father) has been described as the Gospel in the Gospels.

But the Book of Hosea is really a good example of the Gospel presentation— the plan of God to redeem mankind. Truthfully, this is stated pretty explicitly.

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”  So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. -Hosea 1:2-3

The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek[b] of barley. Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.” For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods.  Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days. -Hosea 3:1-5

The story of God and Israel is compared (or acted out) in the marriage of Hosea and his wife Gomer. Hosea is, presumably, a good man and husband, while Gomer is sexually unfaithful.

A good story is not simply a one-to-one connection between its plot and character and its meaning. There is always some areas of question and doubt. I would like to deal with a couple of them. Arguably these are not necessarily the most interesting or the most relevant.

#1. Gender Roles. God is linked with the husband and the sexually unfaithful wife is linked with Israel. But why is that? Could it have been reversed. Hosea was male, but there were female prophets so it could have worked in reverse. God is usually imagined in masculine terms and metaphors, but that is not universally done (God described as a “mother hen” caring for her chicks is the most well-known example). One might suggest that it has to do with power dynamics. After all, when the “mother hen” metaphor is used, it still places the hen over the chicks. But I don’t think any of this is critical. Jesus is described as a servant after all.

I think the strength of the story is evident when one tries to reverse it. One can, after all, imagine a prophetess who married a sexually unfaithful man, and then the man starts taking mistresses and cheating on her whenever he gets a chance. One can imagine this prophetess being told to forgive him and take him back in with her. If anything, the problem is that it is way too easy to imagine. The unfaithful husband is a trope. I was listening to someone this last week joking about “the myth of the monogamous male.” In addition, polygynous marriages (one man with multiple wives) was a thing. Truthfully, I can’t find evidence that it was recognized as a good or healthy thing. But it did happen. That, in itself, can add complexity to marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Mankind.

The story gains a parabolic aspect when the roles reverse. The man is the one who is singularly faithful. The woman is the one who is remarkably unfaithful (infidelity is certainly common for women but not to the point that it is often presumed as it is with men). And then the man is the one who pursues and restores. This is more common, culturally, with women. Most cultures, at least, women are encouraged to ‘stand by their men’ and look the other way at the moral failures of their spouses. For the reverse, this is more challenging. In the Gospels, when Joseph believes he has evidence that his betrothed has been sleeping around, he is described as taking the noble path— quietly end the relationship. Less generous responses would be considered the norm. There seems nothing in the story that suggests that it would be considered culturally noble for him to forgive and forget, restoring the relationship.

So does the story support a patriarchal power dynamic? Yes and no. The story does not support the patriarchal setting necessarily, but it utilizes the presumptions of those living in that setting to shock them into seeing themselves as being like a faithful wife. Additionally, they see God is the shockingly faithful husband, even when the circumstances justifies rejection or even vengeance.

#2. A very different question of this story comes from my youth. I was part of a fairly conservative Baptist church, and denomination. I remember people struggling with the story. The struggle is from verse 2 in the book. “How could God have told Hosea to marry a ‘promiscuous woman’?”

There are different nuances to this concern.

First, part of this comes from the presumption that God predetermines who we are to marry. There is little evidence of this in the Bible. Some would say that because God is sovereign, he must be the one who decides these things. This is despite the fact that sovereignty is not the same as control. The right to rule or control in no way an obligation to control. Delegation is a normal and healthy part of sovereignty. Strangely, one of the few places that seem to support that God chooses one’s spouse is the story of Hosea and Gomer. We know that God chose Gomer and Hosea. And we know that God chose Adam and Eve. Soon, the evidence dwindles. One could argue that the story of Isaac and Rebekah sounds a lot like foreordaining. However, for every part that seems to support this, there is another verse where individual freedom of choice is suggested.

I think the concern here is that people read this and think, “Well, if God requires a man to marry a “bad” woman, what does that say about what he may do with me or perhaps with my children?” I don’t think the story says much of anything about how God works. The passage says explicitly what he was asking of Hosea. Essentially, God was saying, “Hosea, you are a prophet, and as such he share my message to the people— with both word and deed. I have a particularly difficult but hopeful message to the people and to drive this home I am going to ask you to do something difficult.”

Second, some think that God would never ask a righteous follower of Him to marry someone who is unrighteous. This seems to by theology built from Christian High School “purity culture.” The fact is that every person you might marry (whether by divine mandate, established by family arrangement, or by personal choice) will be a sinner. That person will also have some desires (both sexual and otherwise) that will strain the marriage. This is simply true. Now, did Hosea KNOW that Gomer would be unfaithful? The story suggests that God to him what to expect up front. However, I do wonder whether verses 2 and 3 of chapter 1 are more about reflecting on God’s work in his life. Not sure. The story makes sense as a parable either way. Perhaps it works a bit better if Hosea did know what to expect. God knew what to expect with Israel, after all. But the pain of infidelity would be more visceral if it came as a surprise. No one enters into marriage perfect. Pointing to Gomer as being too bad to be wed is probably too out of touch with our own failures, struggles, and unworthiness.

Enjoy the book of Hosea. Don’t skip it. It is far more relevant to our own situation than we would like to admit. I hope it is clear that when we read Hosea, we should NEVER be reading it connecting ourselves with Hosea. We are absolutely to see ourselves as Gomer. We are a complex mix of good and bad— desired by God to be redeemed and perfected.

Oh yeah. Since this is a Missions website, be very careful in trying to apply this story to missions. As missionaries we are every bit the faithless wife— more so than anyone you are trying to reach.

Struggling with that Whole Decolonizing of Anthropology Thing

In a previous post I said I was going to read up more on “decolonization” as it pertains to anthropology, as it is considered a pretty important trend right now.

I did some reading… but I kept bumping up against two issues.

Issue #1. I kept reading takes on decolonizing anthropology related to racism that I saw strange.

Issue #2. I kept reading things related to decolonizing anthropology that seemingly has no real relationship with the colonial legacy.

Issue #`1. I was reading some materials from http://www.strangeminds.org (and its follow-on website— http://www.anthrodendum.org). One of the main contributors was complaining about some of the comments they were receiving in which they (since the website is authored by a collective of anthropologists) were getting backlash in the way they were talking about race. The writer responded something to the effect that— it is generally recognized that racism refers to racial biases within a power dynamic. Therefore, it is impossible for a marginalized person to be racist.

Well, I have definitely heard that before, but I don’t think that it is generally recognized. Racism is sometimes understood in that context, but I I don’t see this as a universal understanding. And it really shouldn’t be universal. If it was, we would have to invent a new word that applies to any person or group that judges people based on their race and presumes superiority over other groups based on that race. If, however, “racism” only applies to a power dynamic, then it is really not about race, it seems to me.

Then again, if racism is inherently associated with a power dynamic, one must seemingly face the fact that a power dynamic may reverse in other settings. My wife is a Filipina and so in the US perhaps she is racially oppressed by the majority because of her minority racial status. I am Swedish-American and living in the Philippines, the power dynamic is quite different. I would not call myself oppressed… but I do have a minority status, fewer rights, and some level of racial discrimination when in the country. Things get even more complicated when one enters sub-cultures or sub-regions where the tables may likewise turn.

This is where I get a little suspicious of the term “decolonization.” There have been ethnic or racial oppression, subjugation, and cultural extermination done by many groups all over the world. Arabs, Chinese, Turks, Persians, and Japanese over the centuries are just a few of many such ethnic groups that have projected power and ruled others seeking to undermine the local people and their culture. These sort of imperialistic activities rarely got labeled as colonization, even when it had many of the same characteristics. It makes me wonder if the choice of the term “docolonization” comes from the fact that in today’s parlance, the root term “colony” is used almost exclusively in the context of non-Western European (non-white) countries in the last few centuries.

On the other hand, (and there ALWAYS is another hand) since anthropology was developed in North America and Europe to understand cultures unlike themselves, there is almost inherently a “West versus the Rest” built into the discipline. This sort of perspective may be poorly tied to the analogy of colonization. Additionally, oftentimes anthropology was carried out in a colonial setting. The setting was conducive to research because researchers were given a level of respect and protection in their work. Additionally, there would likely be a level of funding from and interest in their findings from the colonial power.

In the end, I suppose “decolonizing anthropology” makes sense as a metaphor for the reworking of the foundations/presumptions of anthropology. However, it does feel as if some of those involved in decolonizing are already presuming the structures that exist in neoliberal Western nations. I recall one article on decolonizing anthropology that was praising Marxist anthropologists— even though Marxism is very much a system developed in colonizing nations among the elite, based on Western understandings of power and honor in a society, and transformed through the Cold War. The risk is much like some of the theological arguments here in the Philippines where attempts for a “local” theology seem to devolve into arguments over preferred foreign theologies by locals who keep quoting foreigners in their debates.

#2. Much of the concern in decolonizing anthropology was not so much about perspective— white versus non-white, or emic versus etic, although this was definitely a fair bit of it— rather it was often about the question of objective truth. Can ethnologies and ethnographies be considered identifiers and sharers of truth? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with decolonizing. It is about the battle between positivistic modernism and post-modernism. Truthfully, I thought the battle in this area was long over. I thought that pretty much everyone accepted that we bring a certain amount of subjectivity into our studies, and as such, ethnographies must always be seen as being subjective… perspectival… tentative. It wasn’t clear to me whether those writing on decolonizing anthropology were pointing out that this is indeed a battle that still rages, or whether they were simply attacking a strawman. Regardless, although modernism coincides with the colonial age, I think it is pretty far-fetched to suggest that moving to a post-modern perspective is in any sense moving to a post-colonial perspective.

A stronger point in favor of a decolonizing of anthropology has to do with perspective. Traditionally, the etic (outsider) perspective is given greater weight in anthropology than the emic (insider) perspective. Perhaps, this was because of a racial bias. Lisa Uperesa (https://savageminds.org/2016/06/07/a-decolonial-turn-in-anthropology-a-view-from-the-pacific/) spoke of the battles of Mead and Freeman over the nature of the culture of Samoa. She noted that it was said that there should have been three battlers, not two— Mead, Freeman, and the Samoans. Of course, the insider perspective is important and must not be ignored. The Participant-Observer is still, in the end, an outsider who has been trained in a methodology that was created by outsiders.

That being said, as an American who has lived twenty years of my life in the Philippines, I can say with a high level confidence than some aspects of Americans’ self-understanding of their own culture is humorously off. I have seen situations in the Philippines also where an outsider perspective may add value and nuance to Filipino self-perception.

To me decolonizing should be a move away from the presumption that Western anthropologists have the perspective that should be weighted more favorably than other groups. Tipping the scales and saying that Southern or Majority world perspectives should be given great weight, however, may be a short-term corrective, but hardly a long-term goal.

Some of the discussion on decolonizing anthropology suggests a total change of epistemology and methodology.

For me, the most important aspect of decolonizing should be to stop considering cultural or social anthropology to be a science. It may be a discipline, it may be an art, but if it is a science, it is certainly stretching the definition of “science” considerably.

I would argue that a better term than “decolonization” of anthropology should be “descientization” of anthropology. (Sadly, the term “descientization” has already been grabbed by others (like Mark Dobritza) and used for a very different thing.) The categories, theories, and methods used in cultural anthropology presume an empiricism based on universal categories to arrive at objective truth. If we can’t get past that, it seems to me the decolonizing movement is always going to be getting stuck back where it started.

Note 1: Despite how assured I may sound in some of my opinions, I am still very much a Newbie in this topic. Perhaps I will change my mind on some of this or all of this. Time will tell.

Note 2: While I may disagree with some of it, if you want to read some things on this topic from those who spend a lot more time thinking about it than I, you can go to https://savageminds.org/2016/04/19/decolonizing-anthropology/.

Learning in Four Dimensions

The following is a presentation that I did years ago for learning cognitively, affectively, behaviorally, and spiritually. It is loosely based on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. Although it is old, I still don’t have too much of a desire to update it. I think it is still pretty valid.

A major concern I have is that in the church there is often a lack of desire to integrate the different learning modes (head, heart, hands, habit) in discipleship. Even at seminary, we only focused on the cognitive side.

Integrative Steps of Learning from Robert Munson

Integrative Steps of Learning from Robert Munson

God as a Corrupt Judge?

One of my favorite parables of Jesus is the Parable of the Unrighteous Judge… or the Unjust Judge… or the Persistent Widow. I prefer, “The Parable of the Corrupt Judge.”

It is in the Gospel of Luke 18:1-8. Below is the NIV translation of the passage.

 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”

6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

Verse 1 tells us the purpose of the parable, and that is nice. We don’t have to guess or theorize. Jesus is telling us that we should continue to pray without giving up.

The parable tells us WHY we should keep praying but the first glance reason is a bit confusing. God is compared to a corrupt judge. It essentially says to the effect… “If even this corrupt judge would do what this persistent widow asks, how much MORE will God do for those who persistently pray to Him.

However, the parable/story is more than an example in how persistent asking is a good thing. That is because Jesus pulls it out of being a simple illustration and into a character study. Consider the table below:

Sympathizes withFeelings about be talked to…Form of InteractionCorrupt JudgeHimselfAnnoyedTransactionalGodThe plight of the “elect”PleasedRelational

SYMPATHY. In the story, the Judge doesn’t care. See this in verses 4 and 5. He doesn’t care about God or what He thinks. He doesn’t care about others. He does not care about doing his job well. He does not care about much of anything, except himself. He has great sympathy as it pertains to his own well-being and comfort. He delayed responding in the hope that she would give up and go away. When she didn’t he decided to do what she wanted so that he can get some peace, and to ensure that she doesn’t ramp up the pressure and attack him.

God is shown in contrast to this. The people praying to Him for justice are chosen ones of His— those he specifically chose to bless. While people are told to keep praying, it is clear in verses 7 and 8, He will not turn His back. He will quickly respond to the plight of His chosen.

FEELINGS. In the story, the Judge seems to be annoyed, and maybe a little fearful.

God is very different. He does not appear to be annoyed— He could, in theory at least, not listen. And there is nothing that His people can do that can instill fear in Him. He appears to welcome His chosen, and He appears ready to quickly respond to their requests.

INTERACTION. In the story, the Judge’s interaction with the widow is Transactional. There is an implied deal here. The Judge will do what the widow requests, and the widow will leave him alone.

While the reasoning for God to respond is not given clearly, I would suggest that the interaction is Relational. If God is motivated by sympathy (love if you prefer), and is quick (even eager) to respond… then why is persistence sought out by God? In the story of the judge and the widow, persistence is to create annoyance, so that the judge would accept a transaction. But if God is already sympathetic and eager to help, I would suggest that God is eager for communication since communication is foundational to a relationship.

I think this last point is important. Many Christians struggle with it. I recall reading a book by Bill Bright about how fasting was the way to get God to answer one’s prayers— as if God is transactional. I recall being given a book of “Powerful Prayers.” Apparently, if one says these prayers in the right way, God will release His power to accomplish what WE want. Transactional thinking is pretty common. Read Micah 6:1-7. This describes transactional thinking. Micah 6:8 makes clear that this is NOT how God operates.

For me, at least, this parable is a great message of hope because GOD IS THOROUGHLY UNLIKE A CORRUPT JUDGE IN TERMS OF SYMPATHY, FEELINGS, AND INTERACTIONS.

God as a Corrupt Judge

One of my favorite parables of Jesus is the Parable of the Unrighteous Judge… or the Unjust Judge… or the Persistent Widow. I prefer, “The Parable of the Corrupt Judge.”

It is in the Gospel of Luke 18:1-8. Below is the NIV translation of the passage.

 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’

4 “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”

6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”

Verse 1 tells us the purpose of the parable, and that is nice. We don’t have to guess or theorize. Jesus is telling us that we should continue to pray without giving up.

The parable tells us WHY we should keep praying but the first glance reason is a bit confusing. God is compared to a corrupt judge. It essentially says to the effect… “If even this corrupt judge would do what this persistent widow asks, how much MORE will God do for those who persistently pray to Him.

However, the parable/story is more than an example in how persistent asking is a good thing. That is because Jesus pulls it out of being a simple illustration and into a character study. Consider the table below:

Sympathizes withFeelings about be talked to…Form of InteractionCorrupt JudgeHimselfAnnoyedTransactionalGodThe plight of the “elect”PleasedRelational

SYMPATHY. In the story, the Judge doesn’t care. See this in verses 4 and 5. He doesn’t care about God or what He thinks. He doesn’t care about others. He does not care about doing his job well. He does not care about much of anything, except himself. He has great sympathy as it pertains to his own well-being and comfort. He delayed responding in the hope that she would give up and go away. When she didn’t he decided to do what she wanted so that he can get some peace, and to ensure that she doesn’t ramp up the pressure and attack him.

God is shown in contrast to this. The people praying to Him for justice are chosen ones of His— those he specifically chose to bless. While people are told to keep praying, it is clear in verses 7 and 8, He will not turn His back. He will quickly respond to the plight of His chosen.

FEELINGS. In the story, the Judge seems to be annoyed, and maybe a little fearful.

God is very different. He does not appear to be annoyed— He could, in theory at least, not listen. And there is nothing that His people can do that can instill fear in Him. He appears to welcome His chosen, and He appears ready to quickly respond to their requests.

INTERACTION. In the story, the Judge’s interaction with the widow is Transactional. There is an implied deal here. The Judge will do what the widow requests, and the widow will leave him alone.

While the reasoning for God to respond is not given clearly, I would suggest that the interaction is Relational. If God is motivated by sympathy (love if you prefer), and is quick (even eager) to respond… then why is persistence sought out by God? In the story of the judge and the widow, persistence is to create annoyance, so that the judge would accept a transaction. But if God is already sympathetic and eager to help, I would suggest that God is eager for communication since communication is foundational to a relationship.

I think this last point is important. Many Christians struggle with it. I recall reading a book by Bill Bright about how fasting was the way to get God to answer one’s prayers— as if God is transactional. I recall being given a book of “Powerful Prayers.” Apparently, if one says these prayers in the right way, God will release His power to accomplish what WE want. Transactional thinking is pretty common. Read Micah 6:1-7. This describes transactional thinking. Micah 6:8 makes clear that this is NOT how God operates.

For me, at least, this parable is a great message of hope because GOD IS THOROUGHLY UNLIKE A CORRUPT JUDGE IN TERMS OF SYMPATHY, FEELINGS, AND INTERACTIONS.