Robert Munson's Blog, page 2

Christian “Debate Bros”: Wrong Tool for the Right Task?

I was talking with one of my former students yesterday. She was speaking about some of those who try to argue with non-Christians in public forums. The reason for doing this is often to promote the Gospel message— something I certainly can appreciate. Very often their Gospel message is also mixed with a political agenda— something I really don’t have any respect for. Regardless she was noting all the animosity that seems to swirl around these events. I cannot really speak to this because I neither participate in these activities nor support them through live or virtual attendance.

The term “Debate Bro” has become popular on the Internet. It describes a certain type of guy (guy or bro because it is usually a male) of a certain age and attitude who argue publically. Often they focus more on disparaging those who disagree rather than promote a thoughtful confrontation of different thoughts and values. They are not necessarily Christian. They can be. However, many different perspectives and created debate bros. In fact, in the early 2000s the “New Atheism” really developed an aggressive sort of public atheism. Often some of these people were quite aggressively “evangelistic” of their beliefs and sought debate online or live to promote their agenda.

I am well aware of some of the problems with debate as a method to persuade change (or even thoughtful disagreement), and I brought that up. My student had taken interreligious dialogue with me and so knew some of my (and others’ concerns) with debate as a method for persuasion. When I brought up my wish that Christian debaters would stop debating and use methods with a better track record, my student noted that the websites for some of these debaters share testimonies of those who were spiritually transformed through their ministries.

My immediate response was “How?” My student shrugged and said that she did not really understand it either but that what the websites say. Fair enough… I should not be one of those people who believes only things that reinforce my previous convictions. So here are my thoughts.

I could be wrong. Maybe it is the right tool. Maybe debate is a good method for conversion, change, transformation. I have read a lot of studies that point to the problem of pushback where people who disagree before a debate end up further apart afterwards. But assuming that is true, perhaps that is only for the average person. Perhaps there is a minority of people who find debates very compelling. Maybe the Holy Spirit uses different methods to reach the heart. Maybe it is the wrong tool but God can use it for the right task. I have written before on “Chick Tracts.” These were (are?) tracts done as mini comics. Many of them (most I think) tend to belittle those who disagree with them. If they don’t belittle, they scare— use fear as a motivation to salvation. I have known people who have found these tracts to be persuasive, even transformative. And yes, I am dumbfounded by this. But the Holy Spirit uses different means to get people’s attention and each person has different motivations. I am not motivated particularly by fear of death. To be brutally honest, living forever is not particularly enticing to me. For me, communing with my Creator, living aligned to thepurpose for which I was created is much more persuasive for me. But each of us is different and the Spirit of God can use even the wrong tool for the right task.Maybe the net results in terms of negative response overwhelms the limited positive response. In other words, maybe it is simply the wrong tool. My student was noting the animosity she has seen at some of the events. She was wondering how to minister to people like that. My first thought is not to use a ministry method that tends NOT to engender animosity. Debate tends not to involve thoughtful and heartfelt discussion of thoughts and meaning in a way that leads to increased understanding. Often it devolves into sophistry and rhetoric— protecting one’s view from the onslaught of arguments (even sound arguments) from the other side, and lashing out at the other side regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of either side.

With the above three in mind, let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Suppose a debate was held and three people who attended walked out of the event convicted of their sin and recognize the need to be transformed by Christ. Point One would see this as great and it could be argued that those three transformed lives justify most any effort made to reach them, including this debate. And part of me agrees with that.

Point Two may note, however, that most likely those three people were already experiencing questions in their lives… already having the Holy Spirit convicting them of sin, or the pointlessness of their present lives. They probably already know people of faith who have had impact on their lives. The debate was not so much an event that took them from radical opposition to radical faith. Rather, it was a place where they felt, through the work of the Holy Spirit, that they should “fish or cut bait.” They should not maintain a continued status of straddling the fence. Essentially, the divisive quality of debate may have a positive aspect in that God can use its divisiveness to encourage people to pick a side who were already under conviction through God’s work.

Point Three, however, would ask an additional question. If three followed God as a result of the divisive quality of debate… how many were turned off by the theatrics of the debate and felt confirmed in their rejection of God. As I noted, debate is divisive. If it pulls some to faith… how many does it push away. Also, while there is no requirement for debates on faith to also have debates on politics… sadly it does happen. The “debate bros” often have a certain…. controversial… view of politics and often link the gospel with a political agenda. However, many have been turned off to Christ because they were fooled into thinking that following Christ meant embracing an odious political perspective.

I suppose I can and perhaps should stay open-minded on this issue,. at least until I know more. I think there is ample reason to avoid debates. But I probably should not attack or belittle those who think it is effective. I should be open to the idea that perhaps there can be constructive debate, and find ways to encourage that activity.

But I don’t think I will. I will encourage dialogue and discussion. If there is good in debate… then that is awesome, but debaters don’t need my help.

Thoughts on the Corrosive Qualities of Power, as Well as Tacit Assumptions in Culture.

The other day (I am writing this in September 2025) an apparently well-known political and religious spokesperson was shot and killed in the US. It seems like everyone has expressed their opinion about this person. I won’t because it seems like I was one of only a small number of American Evangelical Christians who never heard of him. There is not much of a point to talk about someone I don’t know… and I really don’t take the time to learn much about him. I am not expressing shade, just a lack of interest.

However, I have come to know that he was one of those people in the US who tended to really mix politics and religion. I don’t really like to mix those. As an old joke goes, “What do you get when you mix religion and politics? Politics.” The joke points out a corrosive quality to politics. I think it is because politics is one of perhaps three institutions that most directly wield power. The other two are Military and Business. Both Politics/Governance and the Military wield power through coercion, while Business wields power a bit more directly, through money/wealth— the fuel of Government and the Military.

Not long after the shooting I read an odd bit of advice on social media. This person was trying to calm people who were all riled up. He said that Evangelical Christians should focus less on trying to get people to become political Conservatives. (Note to non-Americans— I am using the term “Conservative” in a way that has become popular in the US but has limited connection to the way it is used elsewhere.) He said rather we should preach the Gospel to all people so that they become Christians. I had no real problem with that… but the next thing he said I found, ummm, interesting. He said that once they become Christians and read the Bible, they will become Conservatives (again, in the idiosyncratic sense it is used in the US) naturally.

I was pretty surprised to see that. Years ago I would call myself a Conservative (though the term was used a lot different then), but even then I never really saw that my political stance was a necessary consequence of being a Christian and reading the Bible. Today, I would not call myself a Conservative, or a Liberal, or a Moderate. Being Antipartisan, I think that any political power bloc is societally corrosive (using that term, “corrosive’ yet again) and so I am, in practice, in opposition to whatever group is wielding the greatest amount of power.

But it did make me wonder… does being a “Bible-believing Christian” make one conservative in any sense? I think, perhaps, it does in one sense. Since the Bible is understood as God’s message for us, and it is a key source of truth (even primary source of truth), being a “Bible-believing Christian” would tend to have the conservative trait of seeing much of our answers in life as found in the past (canonical Scripture). However, I am not sure that I see other characteristics of Conservativism as being more “Biblical” or “Christian” than many other political philosophies. I certainly think that my “Antipartisan” view (a philosophy of which I MIGHT be the only member… if there is a group who shares this philosophy, I will make a point of not joining them) is more Biblical, frankly, than the Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Green, Red, or any other color group.

Why would this guy think that if people become Christian, they will become Conservative? I don’t think that the one characteristic that Christianity shares with Conservatism is enough. I might guess two things:

#1. American Evangelical Christianity is a very walled-in sub-culture. Many really lack the experience (really awesome experience) of meeting Christians from other traditions and other parts of the world. When everyone seems to believe the same thing, it is hard to imagine anyone thinking differently.

#2. Many churches in the US nurture a certain perspective. Once a person becomes a Christian, there is a good chance he or she will start being discipled in such a church and acculturated in a political flavor.

And I suppose that is fine, although I hope these new Christians find the opportunity to see the bigger world. . I was brought up in a political worldview that began to change around 2005. I was by then living in a different country. An outside perspective does help.

I think I will stop here. However, one article I wrote before I would like to share. It is not quite on the same topic… but somehow is related: https://munsonmissions.org/2016/12/22/why-evangelicals-struggle-with-social-justice/

That’s Me Rethinking Galatians 2:11-14

So… I have written before my thoughts on the above passage. This is where Paul describes an event at the Church in Antioch. Peter was visiting the church, and then some brethren from Jerusalem visited. While previously Peter would dine with the Gentiles, when those from Jerusalem joined, he separated himself from the Gentiles. Paul charged Peter with hypocrisy and was angry that his example led Barnabas astray.

I have never been particularly impressed by the argument of Paul that he was on the side of right while Peter and Barnabas were wrong. It seems almost universal agreement that Paul was right, but I was not so sure.

Some seemed to believe that Paul was right because it was Paul. But Peter and Barnabas are also people of great faith and authority. Paul can be wrong as easy as Peter. In fact, Paul seems to have made a number of bad decisions… most obviously when he decided to go to Jerusalem after the third missionary journey. Some believe that Paul was right because Paul believed he was right and the Holy Spirit confirmed it by making it canon. But Scripture is full of stories that are nuanced and we are supposed to “figure it out.” In fact the Bible is surprising in how it fails to be hagiographic—- instead showing the flaws of its heroes. Some believe that Paul was right because… well… Peter was a hypocrite. This is clearly the strongest point. However, I have noted before that from a missiological perspective, one can make the argument that Peter was contextualizing. Peter ate with Gentiles because he was in Antioch in that church. However, when those from a different church culture was present, he adjusted. One might argue that Paul failed to contextualize.

However, I was reading a book by Eugene A. Nida, “Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions.” This is an old book, and the following quote and extended section got me thinking.

Some missionaries make it a practice not to shake hands with “natives” if there are any whites around, and they object seriously to having “natives” in for tea or refreshments.

–Eugene A. Nida, “Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions.” 1954. Page 66.

I would recommend reading the extended section, but I won’t type it in here. It feels very easy to look at this situation and condemn. For me it is at least. To maintain such an “US” versus “THEM” situation in the mission field is unconscionable. The “natives” need to see that all are equal before God and in the church. And, it seems, that the missionaries need to see it even more so.

The situation Nida was relating was white missionaries in sub-Saharan lands, almost certainly while the lands were under white colonial rule. Thus, added to the prejudiced behavior was the sin of maintaining the cultural norms of a morally bereft system.

The situation in Antioch was distinctly different in some ways. Antioch was a Gentile town, although quite cosmopolitan. The Jews did not have power there. However, in the early church they did have power.

Peter needed to show that things had changed. All were welcome together and equal. I don’t think the charge of hypocrisy was particularly accurate. And if it is accurate, I don’t think that was the big problem.

How to Make Your Thoughts UNCONVINCING

I have been thinking about the topic of making one’s thoughts unconvincing over the last few weeks based on some interaction with an acquaintance of mine. He is promoting some ideas. Some of the ideas have genuine merit, I think. Others at least have potential for good topics of discussion.

While there was some merit to his ideas, I would say that his arguments for those ideas was not only unconvincing, but “anti-convincing.” That may not be true for everyone, but for some people, the arguments would tend to make an uncertain person pretty confident that his ideas were wrong. I won’t discuss his ideas or his arguments. I am neither seeking to promote his views nor disparage them. But here are some ways to make your thoughts unconvincing.

Argumentation Using Esoteric Ideas or Knowledge. The term “Esoteric” means “intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.” Often it is used for tiny religious movements, especially those who limit the sharing of there group’s wisdom with outsiders. However, I feel it can also be used for an sub-culture (including Internet sub-culture groups). For example, suppose one is convinced that the fortifying cow’s milk with Vitamin D is a government plot to control elementary school children. (With my luck, there probably is a group that believes this.) Referring to millennia-old Siberian shamanistic practices or stone engravings at temple sites in the Yucatan peninsula is likely not to be very convincing. It is like saying, “Hey! You know how you don’t know if this statement is true? Well here are a bunch of other statements that you don’t know is true to support this.” In practice, use of esoteric knowledge is really only convincing (normally) for those who are insiders on the shared beliefs. It feels convincing to a person because members of the same group already agree with it, or at least share many of the beliefs that are related to it. The “Spaghetti Principle” of Argument. Often when one does not have a very strong argument, it is tempting to share in rapid-fire a whole bunch of weak arguments. It is like the saying “Throw a bunch of spaghetti against a wall and see what sticks.” Many years ago, James Frazer wrote an amazing work of cultural anthropology, “The Golden Bough.” Its full unabridged length is well over 1000 pages, and its abridged form is a better part of 1000 pages. He uses the whole book to support one argument regarding a somewhat obscure Roman era cult. It is page after page of obscure vignettes from “primal cultures” around the world. It seems as if he thought that putting so much stuff out there that people would ultimately be convinced that he must be right. It is a classic case of quantity as a substitute for quality. More than a century later, most (all?) cultural anthropologists believe that Frazer’s beliefs are wrong… or at least not convincing. “Trust Me, I’m an Expert” Argument. Of the three, this is the one that is probably the most likely to work. There is an expression— “If you can’t blind them with brilliance, then baffle them with bu$$$$it” If you can convince the reader that you must really know the subject because you “sound so knowledgeable (or informed)” then you must know what you are talking about. In terms of logical fallacies, this is “Appeal to Authority.” If you can convince people you are an expert, you don’t have to go through the difficult process of demonstrating what you are saying is correct. Recall how Luke in the Book of Acts describing the Bereans as being of “nobler character” because they listened to what Paul preached, but then later studied on their own to see if what he said “held water.” This statement by Luke suggests that in at least some of the places that Paul went, his words were accepted or rejected based on their determination of his authority (or lack thereof). One problem with appeal to authority is that many people simply won’t grant you it. For these people, they will quickly see behind the curtains and recognize that you have given nothing substantive to compel one to accept your argument. This alone may make your case collapse like a house of cards. Another problem is that those who believe based on your authority can suddenly reject later since their convictions tend to be shallow.

To argue successfully does not necessarily mean that one must avoid all logical fallacies. It does not mean one must use well structured inductive or deductive reasoning. Frankly, many people don’t find such arguments compelling. But I do think two things are important (at the least).

A. Convince them about something they don’t know through using things they do know (or believe they know). Don’t tell them something they don’t know is true by using supporting evidence that they don’t know is true. Often it won’t work. Even if it does work, it can hardly be satisfying to be a manipulator through falsehood (unless you are a person who absolutely does find satisfaction in manipulating people through falsehood).

B. Work within the culture and thought structures of the people you are talking to. What makes one group find something compelling may be very different from what another person would find compelling. For example, if a Mormon or Muslim was trying to convince me that their associated faith was correct and I should convert, quoting from the Book of Mormon or Quran (respectively) would be a poor move. I have no reason to consider either work to be authoritative. The fact that they find such an argument compelling is understandable, but they would need to realize that their arguments must be based on my thought patterns, not theirs.

I know we live in an age where the people who talk loudest tend to be believed. Does this negate what I am saying her? I don’t think so. Christians are a people of faith. However, we should also be a people interested in truth. Ignoring truth because we are trying to get people to faith— well, I think that puts us at war with truth and ultimately in conflict with God.

Exploring Matthew 25:31-46

This passage sometimes referred to as “The Sheep and the Goats Judgment” or something similar has been a rather confusing to interpret over the centuries.

Here is the passage:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I don’t think I have clear answers. The best short answer I think is that this passage should be looked at more like a parable than a literal description of future events.

My two main reasons for this are pretty simple. First, the whole chapter may be describing one sermon, but even if it is not, it is thematically linked— a bunch of parables that speak to the link between what we do now and what happens at the end of days. Second, the language is heavily metaphorical. It actually overlays two metaphors. One is that of a herder with his animals. Herders often kept sheep and goats together, but at times would have to separate them. The second is that of a king speaking to his subjects. While some may argue that using two metaphors simultaneously points away from it being a parable (a reasonable point), it certainly should at least guide one toward looking at this passage as imaginative storytelling rather than a collection of propositional truth statements.

The highlighted statement above is not very complete and not very satisfying. But let me go through the process of getting there before moving forward.

When I was young, this passage was described to me as describing a special event in the future. I was raised in a tradition that tended toward Dispensational Premillennialism. That is a mouthful, and the explanation is no less daunting. However, Dispensational means that God works in different ways at different times (something that is pretty self-evident I think) and that Israel and the Church are in an eschatological sense separated in term of God’s future plans (a much more doubtful point). Premillennial means the belief is chiliastic (the 1000 year reign of Christ will literally happen) and that literal event happens after the “Church Age” and before the “Eternal State.” I am agnostic regarding chiliasm (millennialism). As far as dispensationalism… the key word for me is not agnostic, but “unconvinced.” The thing is, if you don’t accept Dispensational Premillennialism, then the Sheep and Goat Judgment falls apart almost immediately. And even for those who believe in DP, this passage is a very difficult fit. Within that perspective. Jesus comes back to establish the Millennial Kingdom. At that point, He brings the various Gentile nations together and then separates them between those who have been kind to the Jews and those who have been unkind. The kind nations enter the Millennial Kingdom, while the unkind ones don’t. The problems with this are many. One is that the listeners back then when Jesus was speaking would understand the terminology to be referring to Gentiles… not to political entities or even people groups. Another is that the language later on is clearly pointing towards the Eternal State, NOT a Millennial Kingdom.I have heard some use this passage to explain why missionaries MUST or MUST NOT do developmental ministry. The MUST seems easy enough. The passage says helping people out in their “nonspiritual” needs is good… I mean REALLY GOOD. The MUST NOT is harder to grasp, but the argument seems to be something like this— If this passage is about Gentiles (the nations) treating the King’s “brethren,” these brethren must be Christians. (Would Jesus call unbelievers His brothers?) So if this command is for how we treat Christians, it gives no guidance how we are to treat unbelievers. This is a very weak argument. It kind of sounds like a strawman argument… and truthfully, I have not heard it used very often. Clearly, one only has to read the rest of the commands of Christ to know that regardless of how limiting one wants to make this particular passage, it points to a broader universal command— the Great Commandment. That one cannot be limited.I have heard people get all bogged down in this passage because it can be interpreted as saying that we are saved (enter the Eternal State) based on how good our works are. I will leave it to others to wrestle with this idea since the question of salvation really must be looked at through the lens of the whole of Scripture, NOT one passage. But I find it strange that people tend to interpret this part of chapter 25 of Matthew very different from the rest of the chapter. After all, I don’t think many people would argue that our salvation is dependent on how patient and prepared we are for Christ’s return (verses 1-13) or how we spend our (God’s) wealth (verses 14-30). This is part of the problem, in my mind, of looking at these earlier sections as parables, and looking at the final verses as being something very different.

It seems to me that the Kingdom of God is made of “God’s People.” Chapter 25 does not focus on how one is saved, but rather the characteristics of citizens of heaven (technically, the eternal state of heaven on earth):

Expectant… looking longingly for the full establishment of the Kingdom of God.Always Prepared… ready for Christ’s return today, tomorrow, 20 years from now… 800 years from now. Faithful and Obedient. Good servants of God now.Love put into action.

Rethinking Member Care “Models”

Maybe three years ago, I did some work on member care models after going through an online training course with Harry Hoffmann. It was great, but I was not fully sold on the “Pyramid Model” he used. But recently I have had a change of heart and agree that model is great. His model is:

I suggested making self-care more explicit, which makes sense from a logical perspective. Doing that makes an octohedron:

What sold me on Hoffmann’s model was actually seeing him do a presentation live at a missions conference I attended in Cavite Province, Philippines. In that presentation, he took four bamboo poles. Then he got five volunteers. One volunteer was the missionary. and each of the other volunteers took on a human role— family/friend, people helper, church, professionals. Each of these for held on to one of the bamboo poles. Then he showed visually how each group comes along to support the missionary. As these poles come together they form a protective pyramid— the apex of which can be seen as God who brings all parties together in caring for the missionary. Then he shows what happens when a missionary moves and loses parts or all of the pyramid and what happens after that. Seeing it presented in this way, the minor limitations of the model I think are more than compensated for by the visual, almost visceral, way it shows missionary care. Thus, I don’t see myself using the octahedron model in the future.

2. That being said, I still have issues with O’Donnell’s model even if it is more comprehensive than Hoffmann’s model.

It is good in many ways, and as I said is more comprehensive than Hoffmann’s but there are a couple things I don’t like. (A) I don’t like Master Care being in the middle. This sounds bad since the model is built on the idea that that which is toward the center is more key or important. Master Care (God’s care) is certainly the most key, correct? My issue however, is that God’s care is commonly done through people, so it is not useful in my mind to separate it from other forms of care. In fact, to me it it is better to show Master Care as the outermost ring with the implication, hopefully, that Master Care encompasses everything within it. (B) I never really cared for the next ring where it is cut into half rings with Self Care on one side and Mutual Care on the other. I must admit that it is hard for me to verbalize this dislike of mine. It just seems like a random way to show it.

I have no reason to think anyone will prefer this way, but I feel that it is clearer this way. Yes, putting God in the center suggests… well… centrality. But putting Him outside implies that He is all-encompassing, and suggests that the human care resources are part of that divine care.

Book Review: “Polycentric Missiology” by Allen Yeh

Book: “Polycentric Missiology: Twenty-First-Century Mission from Everyone to Everywhere” by Allen Yeh. InterVarsity Press, 2016.

This book I got through Kindle essentially based on the title alone. I really never do this. However, the title sounds like one that I wish I had come up with. When I opened the book I was surprised and (briefly) was disappointed at the framing of the topic. Then as I started getting into it, I found (happily) that the framing was interesting and a relevant way to bring up many topics.

The framing of the book was a look at missions through the lens of five mission conferences/congresses from 2010 to 2012. Allen Yeh is an associate professor of Intercultural Studies and Missiology at Biola University. Yeh was one of only two people— the other being Todd M. Johnson— who attended all five of these gatherings. (I saw online those who said that Yeh was the only one… but I know he said that Johnson joined all four of the 2010 conferences, and I THINK he said that Johnson joined the 2012 conference as well). Anyway, this author was well-positioned to speak of and compare all five events.

The five gatherings are:

Tokyo 2010Edinburgh 2010Cape Town 2010 (Lausanne III)2010 BostonCLADE V (Costa Rica 2012)

Yeh notes that the five different conferences (I will use the term “conference” rather than “congress” for personal convenience although noting some prefer the other term) are geographically diverse. Asia/Tokyo, Europe/Edinburgh, Africa/Cape Town, North America/Boston, South America/Costa Rica. Now before anyone complains that Costa Rica is NOT part of South America, Yeh notes that people in South America do not really divide the Americas between North and South, and Central America is culturally linked to South America.

The author points out that the geographic locations reflect the globalism of Christianity. He also notes that some of the conferences were organized and/or led and/or funded primarily by majority world Christianity rather than “the West.” There is also a range of perspectives missiologically, from Tokyo 2010 that is more limited to Pioneer Missions and evangelism (despite the advertised theming of discipleship) to ones such as Capetown 2010 with broader topics and greater emphasis on integral missions, to Edinburgh 2010 with its focus on missions theology. There was range from conferences (such as Capetown 2010) that was limited only to Evangelicals, to more open groups (including those that might be thought of more as conciliar missions, 2010 Boston and Edinburgh 2010). All five of these might be described as “Protestant Christian” although some had Catholic and Orthodox participation (such as CLADE V). CLADE V was Spanish and Portuguese language-focused, while the others were English focused, although most made attempts at bridging language barriers (to varying degrees of success). Some conferences focused on mission organizations, while others were more denominational, while 2010 Boston targeted students. The variety, while far from all-encompassing, did give a flavor of what Global Christianity and Global missions includes.

Yeh also seeks to link the five conferences to historical movements in missions including the tracks of Protestant Missions, Evangelicalism and Evangelical missions, Ecumenism, and “The Great Reversal.” Always in the background are certain events. Key among these is the 1910 World Missions Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland. Others include the work of William Carey and his early vision for world mission conferences, and the path of conferences through the IMC, Lausanne, CLADE, and more.

The author was willing to provide various critiques to the events, and open to discussing some controversies. However, these were dealt with using a gentle touch, yet with glossing over issues. The lack of Chinese participation, the struggles of non-English speaking members, and the role of women in the conferences were recurring themes.

Now here comes a challenging question. Do I recommend this book? My quick answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. I found it to be structured, research, and presented very well. I really appreciate missions history, especially when it is clearly linked to church history and current events. The concern I have is that I know many interested in missions (and sadly a majority of Evangelicals) have little interest in the history of missions or the church. I would recommend the book even more strongly for such individuals, but I am aware that these people may have a very different experience with the book than I.

The Kindle Version I got worked for me especially while I was on a mission trip to an Internet-challenged region of the Philippines last week. But the book is available through many sources online, so I won’t recommend one to you. A websearch will give you a number of choices.

Integral or Holistic Ministry

I have written on Holistic or Integral Ministry or Missions before. I prefer the term “Holistic” but there are many who prefer the term “Integral” and I suppose that is fine. I used to be an engineer so perhaps my dislike for the term “integral” relates to its use in calculus.

Anyway, I have often described how holistic ministry is the intersection of what is commonly thought of as “spiritual ministries” (evangelizing, church planting, discipleship, etc.) and “developmental ministries” (social justice, feeding, medical care, psychoemotional care, etc.).

However, there are many varieties of holistic ministry not only in terms of the types of ministries involved, but also in how they relate to each other. In the figure below, consider that the green area (holistic ministries) as a region with two axes. The horizontal axis could be seen as far as the focus. If the focus is more on developmental ministries, it would be more to the right (and obviously more to the left if the emphasis is on spiritual ministries). The vertical axis is whether the ministries involved are more integrated or more separated. If a developmental ministry is done along side of spiritual ministry but the two do not work hand-in-hand, but connection is really only temporal and spatial (happening at the same time and place) we might say they are separated. If the ministries work together in such a way that work together and strengthen each other, one may say that they are integrated.

Is Sharing the Good New of Christ ALWAYS a Good Thing?

Is sharing the Good News of Christ always a good thing? In theory it always is… but theory can fall apart when bumping up against reality. I will give a few little examples that I have shared before, but then will put more focus on the last one since I haven’t talked of it before.

1. Brad Vaughn in his book “One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization” gives an entertaining presentation of the gospel by taking a lot of imagery from the Bible that he puts together into one paragraph that sounds contradictory and culturally “tone-deaf.” The end result is a bit nonsensical. Vaughn does not do this to tell us not to share the Gospel. Rather, he is noting the importance of good contextualization. If contextualized poorly, the Good News can sound like the Bad News… or sound irrelevant. Titus 2:10 says we are to adorn the Gospel… or make it look good. In the context of the passage, it is clear that the emphasis is on linking the message to godly living. In general, though adorning the Gospel should also involve maintaining the truth of the message while making it understandable and enticing.

2. A number of years ago a church in Texas invited youth to a school gym they rented out for a sleep-over— sometimes known as a “lock-in.” Unfortunately, they took the term too much to heart and literally locked the doors so that participants could not leave and then “forced” them to listen to the gospel message. This activity was considered dangerous (which it clearly was), and was tantamount to kidnapping (which could be argued to be true as well). Personally, I don’t like situations (such as in jails or schools) where people are forced to listen to the gospel message. This happens a lot in the Philippines. More on that later. But even for those who feel differently about that, I hope you would agree that the method most likely would have a greater likelihood of pushing people to respond negatively to the gospel rather than towards it. If one looks at the qualifications for an overseer (bishop/pastor) in I Timothy, one is that the individual has a good reputation in the community. I really wish churches (especially congregational churches where selecting the pastor is done by the local church) would be more concerned about this than whether the person is divorced, single, or male versus female. The reason I feel this way is two-fold. First, the good reputation qualification is pretty straightforward and explicit, while the other concerns really are not nearly as clearly spelled out in Scripture. Second, having a bad reputation is likely to sabotage the influence the church has in a community. If a church wants to have a positive influence in a community, don’t kidnap their children.

3. Here and there in church, as well as mission, history there are examples of coercive evangelism tactics. Most obvious were forced conversions– choosing the cross or the sword. Another is buying conversion… particularly giving out jobs or food if a person converts. I recall being in Egypt at a time when a Muslim group was giving very extravagant gifts, such as cars, for Coptic Christians converting to Islam. Or so I was told… I never saw primary data on this. That is creepy… but to me it is even creepier if Christians try to do that. I have very little interest in evaluating the actions of Muslims (or adherents to other non-Christian faiths). But I am concerned about Christians who behave badly… and even more so when that bad behavior is associated with the sharing of the Good News of Christ.

4. This is the story that got me interested in writing this post. A friend of ours (a disciple of my wife actually) called us about a concern she had about a Protestant preacher who is going around to public schools in the Philippines and proselytizing (sharing the gospel message and seeking people to accept salvation). She wasn’t bothered by this happening in public schools (the wall between church and state is much more permeable here in the Philippines than in many other countries), it was because of some of the associated messaging.

The gospel presented was pretty old-timey. When I use the term old-timey I am not saying “wrong” or “false” necessarily, although I think in some ways it is wrong. It was very hellfire and brimstone. Salvation is not about following Christ… being a disciple of Christ. Salvation is not about communion with God. Salvation is not even about abundant and/or godly living. In the presentation, salvation is about believing something so that one will not BURN BURN BURN.

This also is not really what our friend was concerned about. The presentation had an extremely simple (too simple in my opinion) view on belief. Belief seemed to be really nothing more than a mental assent to something. Some might call this “easy believism.” In support of this, the speaker made it clear that it does not matter if one’s life became even slightly more godly. The “believer” could be a bad after as they were before and they would still be saved. After all, one is saved by faith, not by works. Now while I would agree we are saved by faith and not by works… God has called us to be followers of Christ… disciples. A definition of belief that does not include repentance or a change of course seems to be sub-biblical. This is getting much closer to our friend’s concern about this speaker… and mine as well.

But where things really went off the rails was when he really tried to drill home the doctrine of eternal security. He really focused on that. He started going into stronger and stronger statements to drive home the idea that “once saved, always saved.” And by the way, I do hold to that doctrine. I am aware that there are some passages in the Bible that certainly can make one pause and wonder if that doctrine is true, but on the whole, that seems to be the Biblical message. So my concern at least here is not so much about eternal security… but we are about to hit the key concern.

In an effort to drive home his view on eternal security he started giving examples. I am choosing not to direct quotes here… but his presentation is on Youtube. He said to the effect, “If you steal something from someone, can you lose your salvation? No. God may punish you in some way on earth, but no punishment follows you in Heaven. Your salvation is secure.” Then he goes into other things as well. I think he spoke of murder. He definitely spoke of suicide. He made it clear that suicide has no affect on one’s eternal state (and apparently earthly state either since God can only punish a person on earth and the suicide is now already dead). He mentions three persons in Scripture who committed suicide and says that all three of them are now saved and in heaven for eternity. The three he mentioned were Samson, Saul, and Ahithophel. (I don’t remember any place in the Bible that speaks of the eternal state of those three, but never mind.) While talking of Samson’s state of eternal grace, he described how Samson “suicide” as essentially the same as a suicide bomber.

Okay, let’s back up and look at this. Do I believe one cannot lose one’s salvation? As I said “Yes” but would not want anything I said to imply that our behavior now has no consequences. There are clearly places in the Bible, especially in the Gospels, where it is strongly implied that our behavior on earth has consequences, both positively and negatively, in the eternal state… even for Christians. BUT… more to the point, he was telling CHILDREN this. Even if what he is saying is technically correct (and I do think that there ARE some technical problems), the message is pretty much designed to give these kids the wrong understanding. There was very little difference in what he said than if he said, “Hey, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins today, you can walk outside of this classroom, rape one of your classmates, stab to death a couple more, and cut your own throat, and immediately you will be welcomed into the eternal state with Jesus saying, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’”

Is it not clear how toxic that is for children? St. Paul talks about the milk of the Word versus the meat of the Word. Children cannot understand nuance that well. The presentation, in an attempt to make it clear that one is not saved or maintained in being saved by works, gives a message that focuses on how bad you “can get away with” once you are saved— a lifelong moral “hall pass.”

That is a concern… but in some sense it gets worse. You see, this particular pastor (actually an American missionary working in the Philippines) got permission from the school to share the “gospel message.” Of course, public schools don’t really care that much about sectarian concerns. They care about values education and morality. In fact, in the Philippines, to go to college, one needs to have a form from high school that attests to the student’s “good moral character.” In the request letter, this pastor said that he would share the gospel and talk to the children to “work hard, strengthen their character, and be a blessing to their community.” I think it is safe to say that this latter part is either simply untrue, or at best presented in the form of a very mixed message. To me, his training goes against part of what he was permitted to do… the part that the school actually cares about.

James Fowler spoke of stages of faith. While I don’t really accept everything he says (I still can’t see how “universalizing faith” should be seen as the pinnacle) he does make some good points. One of these is that there is a process of faith in relationship to moral development. To ask a young person or more generally a young believer to do right because it is right— well that is a bit naive. In a similar thing from pedagogy, Bloom notes the stages of affective learning. There is a process of increasing valuing, to identifying with, to naturalizing right beliefs.

The preacher in an attempt to distance himself from Catholics (the majority sect in the Philippines) and from Lordship Salvation, gives a message that is not only “not completely true,” but one that a young person in the faith would clearly not be ready for. Additionally, by making the concept of belief so weak (little more than mental assent) the preacher may give an unregenerate person a false sense of immunity from eternal punishment.

So I am going to say it. Sometimes it is better to NOT share the gospel message. Sometimes the manner or specifics of the message can do more harm than good.

If We Don’t Use the Term “Missionary,” What Should We Replace It With?

A few years ago, one of my daughters was working as a caregiver for a Jewish family. This family treated her very well. But when they found out that her parents were “missionaries” their response was immediate and perhaps best described as “distaste.” They gave a verbal response that I don’t remember now, but it was clear that their distaste was from their assumption that missionaries seek to push their religion on other people. This assumption is certainly understandable. In Celia and my case it does not really apply since we focus on leader development of ministers (pastors, missionaries, counselors, and such) in a cross-cultural setting. However, missionaries commonly are involved in proselytization, and I am not going to pretend that Celia and I never are involved in that activity.

The point in the story is simply that the term “missionary” has some baggage. Some of the baggage is a bit out of touch, such as issues with the historical connection between missionaries and colonization. For some others the baggage may be more associated with cultural imperialism. For the family above, it was with proselytization. Some of these connections may be commonly true (proselytization), sometimes true (cultural imperialism), and sometimes, “It’s Complicated” (colonization). In some places, the term “missionary” is seen very negatively, and the role might even be illegal.

This begs the question of whether the term “missionary” is passe’. I struggle with this myself… but the struggle comes from multiple directions.

Direction #1. From the outside, the term missionary may be looked at negatively. For example, I teach in a seminary and I am the administrator of a pastoral counseling center. If I say that I am a teacher, or a professor, or an administrator, or a counselor, it is likely that I will be judged more favorably from the outside than if I call myself a missionary. If I call myself an engineer (because that was my “real job” years ago) or say that I am a retiree (since I am 60 and don’t have an employee salary) these also may be looked at more favorably.

Direction #2. From the inside, there is strong pressure to limit what is called a missionary. Some try to limit it to “pioneering” roles. Others to evangelization or church planting. Yet others want to limit it to clearly cross-cultural or international roles. Since I am not a pioneer missionary, and have sporadic (at best) involvement in evangelization or church planting, and my wife is serving in the country in which she was born and raised, there are many reasons why some would not call us missionaries. Sometimes it can get confusing. I was recently at a missions conferences where missions was almost completely about people going to work with UPGs and UUPGs (unreached people groups and unreached unengaged people groups). Missionaries were almost assumed to be those who do pioneering work. What made it strange was that almost all of the missionaries associated with the organization sponsoring the conference were involved in activities that don’t meet the definition of pioneering. Some were arguably not even cross-cultural in their primary work (such as diaspora missions). This makes it very confusing.

So if we don’t use the term “missionary” what should we use?

A. One might use the word “apostle.” This is simply the English term based on the Greek that means missionary. This, however, is a bad choice since over the centuries the term has drifted from the original idea to being one who has (ecclesiastical) power and authority. In my mind, that is almost the opposite of what a missionary is supposed to be.

B. A term I had not heard before until a couple of weeks ago was “Message Bearer.” This was promoted by Ryan Shaw of GMMI. I don’t have a problem with this, even though it does sound like it got filtered through a marketing committee. Frankly, I am expressing concern about how the term “missionary” looks in terms of marketing, so I should not complain about an attempt to grab a term with more cachet. I think it is a strong candidate.

C. I sometimes like the term “cross-cultural minister.” For some people, the key thing that makes a missionary a missionary is that they minister in a cross-cultural setting. With that in mind, the term fits. Of course, some don’t serve in a cross-cultural setting. And even some that do may focus more on diaspora or expat ministry. For someone like me (teaching, counseling, and administrating) in the Philippines, the term may be quite apt.

D. Can focus less on an overall title, but choose to describe based on function. Perhaps one might say that one is a “church planter,” “discipler,” “medical doctor,” “community developer,” “business owner,” “translator,” “teacher,” “counselor,” and more. In many cases this may be the best answer since it also often the most accurate.

I don’t have the answer. I usually go with choice D. With outsiders I usually say, “I teach at a seminary.” They already know that I am foreign. They know that “seminary” in the Philippines means that I serve in the realm of religion. Thus, I am still saying that I am a missionary, but doing so in a way that gives more clarity to my role in the Philippines. In churches, or missions settings, I will commonly describe myself as a missionary.

For others, I think they must decide for themselves.