Robert Munson's Blog, page 20

Is Prayer Needed in Missions? Reflecting on the Unrighteous Judge

Is prayer needed in missions? I truly believe that it is needed. But I must admit that I am not sure in what ways it does. Let me suggest a few possibilities.

#1. Prayer is needed in missions because God will not bless unless he gets enough prayers to do so. This sounds rather dubious when it is first said. It sounds like God has a lot of good stuff tucked away and won’t release them unless someone prays— or maybe someone prays a lot— or maybe a lot of people pray a lot. Is that how God works? Perhaps. James 4:2 says that we have not because we ask not. Matthew 7:7 says that if we ask we will receive. Some note that a broader look at the issue of prayer in the Bible makes clear that prayer should align with God’s will. But if a prayer is in line with God’s will but then is not asked, does God withhold it. I don’t know— it sounds pretty transactional. Is God that type of patron?

I don’t think so…. but maybe a better way of looking at it is in the Parable of the Unrighteous Judge. This is in Luke 18:1-8. God is compared favorably with an unrighteous judge. The judge cares nothing for the woman and cares nothing for justice. His only reason for assisting is transactional. The woman wants justice, and the judge wants peace. If he grants justice, she will grant peace. God is somewhat similar in that he will give justice to the elect (precious chosen ones) who call out to Him day and night. However, there is a key difference. The judge does it as a transaction. God does it due to who He is (loving and just) and who is asking (those precious to Him).

#2. Prayer is needed because it changes us. This is a classic alternative, especially for those that feel that the sovereignty of God suggests that God does not, or maybe cannot change his actions about anything. I think that takes things too far, but certainly, prayer is good for us. I believe it is emotionally, mentally, and spiritually therapeutic. However, if that was all it was, it would act no more than as a form of self-therapy. Its value would not depend on whether God even existed, much less listened.

Bringing Luke 18:1-8 into it again, there is nothing about that parable that relates to this. There is no suggestion that the woman becomes accepting of the injustice against her… or even that she should. In the latter part of the parable, there is likewise no such call for the elect to “get used to injustice. This possibility seems inadequate.

#3. Prayer is needed because it builds human relationships. When supporters pray for missions, they are thinking about missions, missionaries, mission fields, and unreached peoples. People who pray also support in other ways. Again, however, if that was all it was, it would be no more than a form of advertising.

This is a good possibility. It does not, however, relate much to the parable. That being said, one can certain imagine the parable where her pleas unheeded by the judge led to others coming to her side and adding to the cacophony that drives the judge to act. One could even imagine the judge calling soldiers to drive away the woman… but the soldiers gain sympathy for her based on her words and then help her out.

#4. Prayer is needed because it builds a relationship with God. Relationships are built on communication.

This seems to go along with the parable pretty well. God answers the prayers of the elect for three reasons it seems: (a) Who God is, (b) Our relationship with Him, (c) Our communication with Him. Answered prayer is not transactional… it is relational.

So is prayer needed in missions? Yes, but I don’t think we can put it into a formula. I recall Bill Bright writing a book about how fasting is the “secret” to get God to do what you want Him to do. I must admit that I lost a fair amount of respect for him in that book (not that this knowledge would concern him even if he had still been alive).

We don’t have a secret method to get God’s blessings. But prayer does change things:

A. Prayer changes us…. conforming ourselves to God who knows best.

B. Prayer builds relationships with others…. People support what they pray for.

C. Prayer closes the loop on our relationship with God, communicating with Him based on who He is, and or needs to receive what is best for us.

Do I believe in prayer as a mission strategy— tearing down strongholds, binding the strong man, tearing down barriers to the gospel. Let’s just say I have my doubts. Of course, we know from Mark 9:24ff that God blesses those who doubt as well.

Does Video Communication and the Internet Make International Missions Unnecessary?

Most real-world “Yes/No” questions have three good answers (in my view):

Yes, but…No, but…I don’t know, but here are some of my thoughts…

For the question above, the correct answer is “No, but…” and that answers fills out into ‘No, but it is a helpful tool.” Here are a few points in this.

Some types of missions requires physical or direct social interaction. Planting a church in an international or cross-cultural setting, pretty much requires boots on the ground. One may be able to evangelize online (with some people at least). One may be able to disciple online (some people). However, (ignoring cyber-churches), church planting is intensely personal and interactive. I did “pastor” a church in the Philippines completely online for several months due to the pandemic. However, most of that time I was in the Philippines, not my home country. And to say that I was pastoring the church is a bit of a stretch. It is better to say I was maintaining it. Of course, church planting is something quite different. Doing doing medical missions is very hands-on, along with most social ministries. Even ministries that can be done online is aided by face-to-face. I do a lot of work online. The area that my wife and I focus on in Missions is “Leadership Development.” Another term, one I like less, is “Ministerial Training.” This is an area where online communication, both audio and video. I teach some courses online. My wife does some counseling online. I can supervise theses and dissertations online. We can hold organizational meetings online. We travel back and forth between the US and Philippines. It is nice that we can continue a course even after crossing an ocean. But there is a cost. Most prefer face-to-face or hybrid training… unless the circumstances make it too awkward. There is always some loss in communication. I learned this working at Northrop-Grumman many years ago. We would send emails to people on the other side of the country. We would have phone calls. We would even have audio or video-conferencing (when that was still a fairly novel thing). We found that when things were important, people from different sides REALLY NEED TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM. Also, in trainings, some methods like group work are hindered by the physical disconnection. It is hard to be bi-cultural when one lives mono-culturally. I am not a master of being bi-cultural. I live in one of the most English-friendly and American-friendly cities in Asia, serving as teacher in a school that uses English exclusively. The city is very cosmopolitan/globalistic— a bit of a melting pot or tossed salad of cultures. Nevertheless, when I see mono-cultural Americans come here to Baguio, very often (although not always) I realize how I have connected with my two homes— Philippines and the United States. This bi-cultural bridge helps greatly in mission work. Those who are raised monoculturally tend to see the world in an extremely distorted way. That is absolutely a problem.The concept of “The Ministry of Presence” is real. In some sense you cannot show that you truly care unless you are willing to relocate yourself. Jesus, Philip the Evangelist, Barnabas, and Paul showed that they cared by going to the people they were trying to reach. Paul and Luke, especially, wrote a lot. But talk, in any form, is a bit cheap in comparison to presence. If you want to convince someone you care—- you show up.

So the answer is, “No. Video communication and the Internet does NOT make International missions unnecessary, BUT it is a useful tool.” Done right, it can enhance or fill in the gaps in ministry that happens when one is limited to being present.

Reflections on Sci-fi Aliens and the Incarnation (Part 3)

This is the final part of a three-part series. to start earlier, you can go to PART ONE or PART TWO.

Those of the Abrahamic Faiths have often struggled in their visualization of God. I will not pretend to have expertise of other faiths (including my own). With the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) God is not imagined with statue or representational symbol. There is value in this. In Greek paganism, Zeus was represented as an idealized man (physically). This not surprisingly led to assigning human pettiness and flaws. The inability to express God visually has value, as well as recognizing our inability to express God fully in word (ineffability). But there are problems with this as well.

The first problem, in my thinking, is that God can easily become too much of an abstraction. God becomes described by what he is not (apophatic or via negativa). In some circles, especially Muslim, but sometimes Christian, things get so far as to suggest that even describing God with attributes is wrong. For Christians, this is a problem. The Bible makes it pretty evident that God is seeking to have a relationship with mankind— creating paradise as a return to paradise— harmony between God, Man, and Creation. But can humans relate to an abstraction? Such a god so represented (or not represented) is too alien for us to relate to.

The second problem is related to the first. If we cannot have a relationship to God, the best we can have is an ideology and an ethics. That leaves, I believe, a hole in our souls— that ends up being filled by rules and horizontal relationships.

But, if God seeks to have a relationship with us, God must represent Godself to us in a way that we can relate to and understand.

To me this is the primary reason for the Incarnation (enfleshment or embodiment) of Christ. God as thunder on the mountain or the unseen sender of heralds, will not suffice. God as the outsider (from our perspective) chose to enter as alien in a manner that we could understand and relate to. This is essentially what the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews says,

Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So He became higher in rank than the angels, just as the name He inherited is superior to theirs. Hebrews 1:1-4 (HCSB)

Part way through this section it is clear that Jesus came for purification for sins, and some would say that is the one and only reason that God came to us as a man. Like saves like. While there may be some truth to this, I am not sure that we know enough to say that God could not have chose some other way. And frankly, this passage seems to point to something different.

God came as Jesus as the message of God and the radiance of His glory and exact expression of His nature. In other words, God chose to represent Godself in a manner that we can understand who God, relate to God, and understand what God has to say.

Much like a sci-fi alien we cannot heart and the mind of God through God’s representation only in the abstract. God represented Godself as Man for Man’s sake not God’s own. We cannot understand God otherwise.

And God coming as man did not do so as Mr. Manhattan or Kal el. Mr. Manhattan was a human who was transformed into a near god-like being and in so doing became more an more disconnected to humanity— becoming more alien. Kal el, was an alien who was raised up on earth looking so much like humans and enculturated so effectively as human that he became Superman, rather than Superalien. It is interesting that in more recent years, the comic writers of Superman have explored his alienness more and disconnection from humanity.

God did not display Godself as Mr. Manhattan (Adoptionism— losing humanity in the process) or as Kal el (alien living with us but not truly of us). Rather God came as God AND as Man.

Perhaps God could have come literally as a Sheep— a lamb without spot or blemish. That would line up well with the Jewish understanding of blood atonement. But if God did so, we would struggle, since we cannot relate to God through a sheep. God could have come in the form of Man… but primarily as a King or Conqueror. That might work. It may not even be wrong. However, God chose to (according to Philippians 2) represent Godself as a servant, as an example to us. Jesus came to serve, not be served, providing a model for us to practice with others.

Sci-fi writers understand that what is alien to us needs to be represented in a way to bridge the gap. We are pretty unable to bridge the gap. The form and the symbols of the alien in the encounter is critical. God understood this as well. and chose to represent/reveal Godself primarily in Jesus— loving God revealed in human form and expressed as a teacher/servant/sacrifice.

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. —Colossians 1:15-19 (NIV)

Reflections on Sci-fi Aliens and the Incarnation (Part Two)

If you missed Part One. you can CLICK HERE.

I have been slow in getting to the Incarnation of Christ, but I will delay it a bit longer. Consider a change of perspective. If you were a being visiting an alien world full of… well… aliens, how would you want to present yourself. You have a few choices.

Option 1. Perhaps you would want to instill fear. If you want to conquer their world, or at least gain a certain hegemony or economic concessions, you might want to present yourself in such a way as to show yourself as powerful, dangerous, scary. In the Bible, the revealing of God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai may perhaps be seen in this way. God is powerful, separated, and deserving of fear and reverence.

Option 2. Perhaps you would want to instill awe or worship. One might think of the movie “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” One might watch the movie and see it as an attempt by an alien species to make peaceful contact with humans. However, while it may be peaceful, the place, time, and context of the encounter is completely controlled by the aliens, and the encounter clearly is meant to demonstrate their awesomeness, otherness, and superiority. A humorous variation on this is the Far Side cartoon that has first encounter with aliens where an alien is seen on the ground clearly having tripped and tumbled down the gangway of the space craft. One of the aliens at the top of the gangway says to another, “Wonderful! Just Wonderful! … So much for instilling them with a sense of awe.” Perhaps the theophany n Isaiah 6 is closer to this. God is shown in high majesty. While fear may be a reasonable response, the encounter feels more like awe and reverence as the goal rather than fear and reverence.

Option 3. Perhaps you would want to make a connection of familiarity. If you have features that look similar to the beings on this world, your job is somewhat easy in this. If you have the ability to look different, such as if you are a shape-shifter, you might consider changing your appearance to look like them. If you are not able to look like them, a possible solution would be to have a representative who looks more like those one is trying to reach. If no such representative is available, perhaps a “robot” or android could be used. In the Bible, God has at times reached out in a visual way through representatives. Sometimes, these were prophets (fellow humans) or angelic messengers. Genesis speaks of God walking with Adam and Eve in Eden before the Fall. We are not sure of what form this took, but it is pretty clear that they felt comforted by God’s presence, until they disobeyed. Apparently sometimes these angels look so much like humans, their extraterrestrial origin is not immediately recognized. Obviously, the incarnation of Christ could also be seen (in a general sense) as part of this option.

Of course, the physical form is helpful, but the accessories or symbols are necessary as well. This goes back to the “world of hats” trope. The hat, or uniform, or associated paraphernalia will be interpreted just as much as the physical form. If one comes to a new planet with things that look like weapons, this will be interpreted differently than if one comes with gifts. Of course, symbols can be misinterpreted, either by accident or by intention. One is reminded of the Twilight Zone episode where aliens come to earth with a book that says “To Serve Man”— something that sounds benevolent. Later, it was discovered that the book was a cookbook— far more malevolent than benevolent. Philippians 2 reminds us that Jesus did not only come incarnated— as human, but also as a servant— a benevolent role.

Okay, we are talking somewhat more about the Incarnation. The third, final post will draw these two posts into the issue of God with us. To go to the third post, CLICK HERE.

Reflections on Sci-fi Aliens and the Incarnation (Part One)

Science fiction writers have long been challenged in how to portray aliens— or more precisely, sentient physical beings from other places in the universe. The most common way of doing this to make the aliens humanoid. The aliens should look more like humans than other non-human living things. There are reasons for this. The plot of the story is likely to necessitate communication and other forms of interaction between humans and aliens. It is so much easier for the reader to imagine communicating with someone or something that looks like us. In fact, the use of the terms “someone” and “something” are important here. We are more likely to think of an alien as “someone” if (he/she/it/they) look like us. Additionally, for pulpy sci-fi, romantic interaction is especially problematic if the aliens don’t look rather pleasant and human-like. If we see an alien who looks like us in some sense it is easier to attach an awful lot of presumptions of humanness to the beings. These include intelligence, feelings, volition, and desire for social connectedness, and ambition.

There have been, however, attempts to explore alternatives. Can non-organic life exist? Do certain physical designs allow a path to sentience and society. I remember a sci-fi story that explored this one where a scientist in the story was convinced that a humanoid structure was almost necessary for alien society. A creature with wheels could not exist because how could the transfer of nutrients to the revolving body parts take place? A bird could not form societies because it has two legs for walking and two for flying. It has no easy appendages available for manipulation of objects. That sort of thing. I wish I could remember the name of the story and the author. However, the author of the story used the scientist as a bit of a strawman— suggesting that his beliefs were not based on good research and analysis, but presumption and bias.

Perhaps the biggest reason for sci-fi writers to use humanoid aliens, however, is that very commonly, writers use aliens to talk about ourselves. They can take on proxy roles— sometimes in a rather ham-handed way, but at times with great skill and nuance. To do this, we need the story to act as a mirror that looks back at ourselves. It is hard to do this when what we see in the mirror doesn’t remind us in some ways of ourselves.

Pareidolia— seeing human faces (and human emotions and other human qualities) in things that are not human.

Cinematographers have an added problem. Some have purposefully sought to have aliens that push the bounds of what an alien can look like. One of these is “The Thing”– a movie from 1982 but based on a 1938 novella by John W. Campbell Jr.named “Who Goes There”— has an alien that is a shape-shifter. It could look like different people, but its non-humanoid, perhaps “natural” state is more of a blob, more like a giant amoeba. It is interesting that much of the tension is more in the interaction of humans with the alien when it has taken on the form of another human. When the creature is outed and it is now in its writhing amoebic form, it is terrifying, but somewhat less so, because it is now fully revealed as non-human, othered, and able to be attacked and killed without remorse.

An added reason in cinema for having humanoid aliens was cost. Before CGI, one needed to use practical effects to show aliens. Supposedly, in the movie above (“The Thing”) around 10% of the budget was on the practical effects to show the alien creature in its non-humanoid form. Puppets could be used or animatronics, or animation. Regardless of what is done, the results are likely to look unconvincing and cheap at one end or convincing and very expensive at the other. Using a human actor with prosthetics is likely to be cheaper.

An actor with make-up and prosthetics is expensive and time-consuming but prior to CGI, but the results could be very impressive, as long as you could embrace the idea that alien beings would be built on an essentially humanoid frame.

Today, even with CGI, there is a good reason to make alien creatures in movies to look humanoid. and it is the same reason as sci-fi writers did from the earliest times. We cannot recognize feelings very well without having a fairly similar facial structure, as well as corresponding body movements. We don’t really know what an emotional “shrug” looks like for a creature without shoulders, for example.

Now this is not the whole matter. Often the alien beings we create may be humanoid in structure, but have other elements that make them both alien but familiar. Going back to Egyptian mythology, all of them, as far as I know, were humanoid, but a number of them were human looking with the head of an animal such as a jackal or a falcon. The item chosen to make the being alien was still something that made them familiar. While this might sound lazy, from a storytelling standpoint, this is very helpful. It provides a short-hand guide in how to relate. If the head is massively large compared to the rest of the body, perhaps we should identify it as super-intelligent. If it has mouse-like features, perhaps it should be seen as peaceful or timid. A humanoid lion may be presumed to be vicious, or regal, or heroic, depending on which path is chosen. This also allows the creatures to behave in ways that are not particularly human (such as purring or licking) and be understood by connecting the behavior to the appearance that is referenced. In some cases, the features chosen may be intentionally counter-intuitive. Consider the example of Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke, where the aliens have devilish features and yet were ultimately to be understood as benign or even helpful. The choices may be lazy at times (unusual haircuts and colored eye contacts), but the storylistener, storyreader, or storyviewer is likely to be a bit lazy and needs help to figure out how to relate to the alien beings. This goes back to the old trope of the “World of Hats” (I talk a bit about this in the following post: Mindfulness on the World of Hats).

After all of this, I am saying that there is a connection in how we envision alien beings, and how to understand the Incarnation of Christ. I will talk about this in the next post. However, I would like to have you reflect on this question. If Jesus is God (not simply godly or god-like)… if Jesus is God Incarnate, then God is distinctly, ontologically different from us, even alien. If we understand that God is not a physical being and thus lacks any inherent humanoid features, how should God present God to us in a way that we can understand?

Maybe We Can Work on a More Biblically Sound Missiology…

I almost hate writing that title. I am involve in Pastoral Counseling, and there are so many people who come up with some principles or methods of counseling and label them as “Biblical” often meaning nothing more than that they have linked them to a few key Bible verses. Alternatively, it can mean even less and simply means that the person feels it is true.

But in Missions, there is often such a disconnect from the Bible, that saying that good missions should be drawn from good theology is simply not enough. A few points:

A couple of posts ago I noted that the two most well-known versions of the Great Commission (in Matthew 28 and Acts 1) do not emphasize going far away. The Matthews passage focuses on discipling wherever one goes. The Acts passage emphasizes that being a witness is to happen everywhere… with no greater emphasis on far than near.

I was just reading an article who noted (not for the first time, but still noted well) that “panta ta ethne” is really not best understood as “people groups.” It is better understood as “All Gentiles.” As such, it is more of a uniting term than a dividing term. A real industry has developed with homogeneous groups, UPGs, UUPGs, and more, While these may have limited value, there is no real justification in linking them to the that Biblical phrase. And since the term is a uniting term, it truly seems to be a bad misuse of the term that can easily lead to bad practices.

Matthew 24:14 has been used as a motivation to hurry up missions— often in ways that are rather short-sighted. There just is no justification from that passage to suggest that Jesus is waiting on our timing for His return. Considering the odd methods that have been driven by this misuse of Scripture, it is a good time to plan for transformation, not simply affirmation.

One could go on and on. What is missions from a Biblical standpoint? What does a missionary correspond to in the Bible. There is a lot that needs to be regrounded.

This is not to say that one has to base everything on the Bible. One can focus on unreached people groups even if the term is unknown in the Bible, and its imperative is only indirect. We don’t necessarily have to limit the roles of a missionary to the roles of an apostle in the Bible. But we need to understand God’s revelation first and foundationally, as we develop our work.

What Would a “Decolonization” of Missions Anthropology Look Like?

I was talking to a couple of colleagues at seminary recently who were speaking of how a major university near us in Baguio City, Philippines, is really focusing on “Decolonization” as it pertains to Anthropology, among many other things.

My immediate response was to be pretty skeptical. I think this is largely because of my experience with some in the past who would speak of restoring the pure and real culture of the Philippines— something that existed prior to Americans, Japanese, and the Spanish, and perhaps the Chinese and Muslims as well. My problems are at least two-fold. One of course is that there was never a “pure” culture— cultures are always diverse, changing, and messy. More importantly, you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Culture is what it is. Attempts to remove adulterating influences are likely to be fruitless, arbitrary, and in some cases ruthless.

However, upon reflection, I don’t think that is what Decolonization involves, at least as it pertains to anthropology. After all, especially pertaining to Missions or Missionary Anthropology:

The questions asked in anthropology is driven by traditionally colonizing groups. How would the questions in anthropology change if the questioners were different?What taxonomies would change if the categories were not established historically from colonizing groups?How might pedagogy and methodology change?While noting that anthropology often likes to presume a non-judgmental attitude, what would things look like if others decided what entails being non-judgmental?Despite protests to the contrary, there is always a bit of applied anthropology in the field— and of course this is freely admitted to in Missions Anthropology. What goals or ideals would there be if the liberated or decolonized had more say in this process?

I admit lack of knowledge in this. I am going to looking more into this in the next few weeks. If I find anything of value, I will try to share it here. Of course, I may find my bad attitude given greater conviction. Time will tell.

Sermon: “Every Christian is a Missionary”

I believe every person in this room can be a missionary. In fact, I believe that each of you here, if you are a follower of Christ, already is a missionary. The question here is what type of missionary are you, or will you be?

CALL

I rarely use the term “Call to Missions” For some it implies a “struck by lightning sort of event.” If you are struck by lightning, go to a hospital not the mission field. I prefer to talk about a Process or Journey to Missions. I will give a very brief version of ours right now.

As a teenager, I wanted to be a mechanical engineer, but I also wanted to serve God in a more full-time capacity. During the school year, I trained to be an engineer. During the summer, I served as a counselor at a Christian Summer camp.I did that for 5 summers. I found great joy and purpose in it, but I left it uncertain whether I really should serve God in full-time ministry or not.

Celia served God in Norfolk with an evangelism and discipleship organization that focused on navy personnel at the Norfolk Naval Base. She found it rewarding, but hard to balance with a job as a nurse. She decided that she would quit her job, go to Moody Bible Institute, and train to be a full-time missionary. She was accepted into MBI, but when she was not able to sell her townhouse— she could not go. Like me, she was left uncertain about what God wanted in her life.

Since she did not go to Moody, we met and got married–. Over the first few years we would talk sometimes about missions, but generally saw it in terms of something to do when the kids are grown up and we were ready to retire. However, we realized that doesn’t always work. My mom attended Nyack Missionary Training School when young planning to be an overseas missionary. But life got in the way. She then hoped to go late in life, but health problems kept that from happening. If God wants us now, it may not be right to tell Him, “Happy to go… in 20 years.”

Celia tells the story of my coming home after work one day and telling her that I had good news and bad news. The good news was that I believed that God was leading us to serve Him as full-time missonaries. That, however, was also the bad news.

Our first step was to learn more about missions. We began to read up on missions, watch missions videos. We began to get information from mission agencies. We found that the number ONE reason that people are rejected is financial debt. Therefore, we worked to pay off our debts and live on less.

Our second step was to prepare for missions. We homeschooled our children because in the mission field there may not be schools available for our children. We started visiting more unusual restaurants, to get ourselves and our kids comfortable with food from around the world. We focused more on foreign movies and foreign news, and less on American movies and American news.

In 2002 our pastor at Spring Hill spoke to us and shared his vision that we serve God full-time either locally or overseas. We had never shared with him our thoughts before… so it was an affirmation for us. We all are social beings. Few can self-motivate. We need support and affirmation from others. We actually applied with the International Mission Board (IMB). I went on a short-term mission trip with members of Spring Hill to Londrina, Brazil. Awesome. We tried to do a family mission trip to the Carolinas, but health issues or something came up. Things were going fine with the IMB, but then they slowed things down because the IMB wanted me to lose weight— I was chubby. This problem I have obviously since solved. … maybe. Then the IMB ran out of money… slowing all mission candidates. Pastor Dan said that if we chose to go on our own, Spring Hill would support us— But there were problems… One was that Spring Hill could not work out the arrangements for us to get into another country for long-term service. Also, the church could not address the issue of retirement. However, in our research and planning, it seemed like God was bringing us to the Philippines where Celia was raised. Laws had changed recently making it easier to stay long-term, and there was a seminary there in which we could train. Our former jobs as engineer and nurse could help provide for our retirement.

Up to this point, we still had not accepted the call to missions. I think one should always research, plan, and pray. After a lot of prayer and discussing, we finally agreed, accepting the call-— we were going into missions. I notified Northrop-Grumman that I was leaving. We sold our house and in March 2004 we flew to the Philippines. We placed our trust in God… but not in ourselves. We agreed that if everything fell apart we would return after 1 year. But after 1 year we decided to stay. We considered coming back after 3 years but then decided to stay. We seriously mulled returning at the 9 year, 10 year, 11 year and 12 year points. We considered it again at the 17 year point. But we are presently at the 20 year point, and will be returning in 3 days.

Don’t focus on a “Call to Missions.” Focus on seeing the journey God is leading you on and sharing this with others.

CATEGORIES OF MISSIONS

I like to talk about missions in terms of Three big picture categories. They are…

Missions is serving God where the church IS NOT

Missions is serving God where the church HAS NOT

Missions is serving God where the church CANNOT

A. Missions involves going where the Church IS NOT.

The gospel has not reached everyone on earth. There are those who have never heard. Additionally, there is a far greater number who have never heard the gospel presented in a way that is understandable to them and culturally resonant. In some cases there are no churches around, while in others, churches may exist in their neighborhoods but these churches target people who look, sound, or act different.

People act as missionaries when they go to such people. The Role is PIONEER. They Evangelize, Baptize, Church plant. This does not happen all that much in its strictest sense in the Philippines. A large percentage of the population would describe themselves as Christians… and the vast majority of places there are churches within range of a jeepney or tricycle.

I have known pioneer missionaries. I have a friend who is a retired missionary who was the first to effectively bring the Gospel to the Ifugao Antipolo tribe in the Northern Philippines. We have friends/colleagues who work with groups in Indonesia in which there are so few churches and the culture so hostile that they hold church meetings in private homes in rooms with no windows so that they won’t be caught and have their members abused or worse.

A far larger group of missionaries minister where the church technically is… but is in some sense unavailable— especially people who are marginalized or ignored. Aaron and Emma Smith, who this church supports, have worked in the slums or settlements of Manila with informal settlers— a group that used to be called “squatters”— an insulting term. Celia and I are presently discipling a group in Caloocan city— a group of leaders of a church that reaches out to informal settlers and the destitute. There are churches nearby, but these churches are unwelcoming— because the the residents are poor, and viewed as outsiders. But this leads to the second category.

B. Missions involves going to where the Church HAS NOT.

Missionaries serve where the Church Has Not. Missionaries really should not have to plant churches for the poor, for Muslim background believers, for Night entertainers (singers, dancers, prostitutes), for those struggling with substances. But churches have blindspots and biases. Sometimes the churches need help. I remember back in 2004 how worried many church leaders were in Baguio that so many Filipino Muslims were moving to the city from the Southern Philippines. They feared they would take over and turn the city into an Islamic state. Thankfully, today there are many churches and ministries that work specifically with Muslims and Muslim converts to Christ in Baguio.

Although Celia and I run a counseling center, to help church members, church families, pastors, and missionaries, we see our primary role as a training center. A lot of churches are not that good at pastoral counseling… but they can be. The church is meant to be a place for holistic healing. But many have not been trained. The Smiths train up Christian leaders to reach out to the Great Urban Centers of the world. This is a Parenting role… one trains, one inspires, one motivates one mobilizes with the intent of passing things on to others. If we do our jobs well, we work ourselves out of a job. A few years ago, whenever we traveled to the US, much of what we did… stopped. Today, much of what we normally do is being done by those we have trained. That is a good thing. Missionaries are mortals… they must always train the next generation.

C. Missions is serving where the Church CANNOT.

The line is not clear between what a church cannot do and what it can be has not. But here is an example.

For years we did medical missions. We worked with local churches. Local churches did not have medical doctors, dentists, surgeons or nurses. They did not have access to pharmaceuticals. They did not have the finances to reach out to hundreds of their neighbors. We, as a parachurch ministry, could do all of that. But there were a lot of things we could NOT do. We were from outside, so we needed the local church to work with community leaders to make arrangements for the mission. We needed them to help us to know what they really needed, to tailor what we were doing to their context. We needed them to invite their neighbors. And, most importantly, we needed them to do follow up, discipling those patients and bringing them into the church. Serving God where the church CANNOT makes us not really Pioneers, and not really Parents. Rather, we are Partners.

I teach missions at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary and Aaron Smith teaches at Asia Theological Seminary. Celia supervises an accredited chaplaincy program. Seminaries, counseling centers, and accreditation organization, and other Non-government organizations, are partners with churches— along with Christian publishing houses, Bible translators, Radio ministries, Mission hospitals, and more.

So those are three— where the church is not (Pioneers), church has not (Parents), and the church cannot (Partners).

So how does this relate to everyone else. How is every Christian a missionry. Of course, one way is that every Christian can work with overseas or cross-cultural missionaries without leaving home. When you send finances or goods to missionaries or mission organizations you are involved in the mission effort— You are a Sender/Supporter. When you help a missionary on furlough, visiting home, You are a Welcomer. When you send emails, letters, care packages and such, You are an Encourager. When you pray for missionaries— you are a Prayer Warrior. When you provide oversight of what is being done through reviewing reports or even doing field visits, you serve as an Accountability Partner. These are all vital… but I want to focus on other ways every Christian can be a Missionary.

COMMISSIONING TO MISSIONS

Missionaries focus much on the Great Commission. This was Christ’s charge to His disciples before He left the earth. There are several versions of it found in the Bible. The two most well-known are in Matthew 28 and Acts 1.

Matthew 28:19-21.

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” HCSB

People often read it as GO, therefore and make disciples. But in the original, that was not the emphasis. For a clearer emphasis it could be translated, “MAKE DISCIPLES, wherever you go.” All of us go… somewhere.

In Acts 1:8. Jesus says,

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Jesus was saying, Be my witnesses. Back home… Jerusalem… be my witnesses. Nearby… Judea… be my witnesses. In Samaria… the neighbors we often ignore, be my witnesses. Anywhere, everywhere… even to the ends of the earth…. Be my witnesses.

Both versions place less emphasis WHERE it is done— way over there, or over here. The emphasis is on WHAT is done— serving as a witness to the lost and a discipler of new followers of Christ.

So let’s parallel this to the situation right here at Spring Hill Baptist Church.

-We can serve God where Spring Hill IS NOT. Here in the Ruckersville area, there are lots of churches… for most people a church is within a short car ride. However, for many of you, when you start a Bible study, or do a backyard Bible club, or a similar activity out of your house, you are bringing the church in a meaningful way into your neighborhood. One might call this Jerusalem or Judean missions. Or one may reach out to people who do not FEEL as if there is a church for them. Our Samarian missions. The impoverished, or the homeless, documented or undocumented migrants, Muslims, Hindus, other faiths. International college students, people in hospices, special needs individuals, those sensory impaired, those whose jobs make them unavailable on Sundays, shut-ins and more, there are people who in one way or another the church has missed. You can be a pioneer in your community. If there is not this sort of diversity in your neighborhood, check the next neighborhood over. Or… pray that people of other races, ethnicities, languages, religions, or legal statuses would move into your neighborhood. Your present neighbors may not like this… but you don’t have to tell them what you pray for.

-We can serve God where Spring Hill HAS NOT. Spring Hill has many wonderful ministries, but many if not most of them were started by one or two people taking on a ministry, building it up, inspiring others, and training the church to embrace this new form of service. Of the ministries that are now deeply engrained in our church’s DNA— Hope For Appalachia, Spring Fling, Trick or Trunk, and more, there was a time when these were not done. In many cases, these started by the inspiration and determination of one or more members. I pray that God will inspire some of you to open up our church to new and great things.

-We can serve God where Spring HIll CANNOT. Sometimes you are in a unique position or have unique skills to serve in a setting or ministry that others in the church cannot. We have had people in Spring Hill who had special ministries that due to distance, specialization, or other barriers, found ways to serve God where the church as a whole could not. That is not bad. Each of us are part of the church— and an extension of the church— and a partner of the church. Look around and see if God has placed you in a unique place to serve where Spring Hill cannot.

Missions where the Church is not, has not, or cannot is important. But so is Missions where Spring Hill Baptist is not, has not, or cannot. I am hoping you will pray that God will lead you into one or more of these categories of missions. Whether Pioneer, Parent, or Partner, All Christians are missionaries.

If you believe that God is speaking to you in some way about Christian missions, Celia and I will be hanging out here after the service and we would love to hear from you. However, I will admit, we MIGHT not be the best to talk to. The best people are probably your families and in your Bible study or other small groups, or your ministry teams. It is with the pastoral staff or deacons. They are the ones who know you the best and can encourage and empower in what and when and where to serve.

I REALLY Don’t Like the ESV

When it comes to English translations of the Bible, I can be pretty broad-minded. I can appreciate the historical treasures that are the King James 1611 and the Geneva 1599… even though I would rarely use them (since I don’t speak that language). I can appreciate the likes of The Message,  The Amplified Bible, or The Living Bible. Of course I am bothered somewhat that they essentially combine commentary with Scripture in a way that really confuses which is which. At least they don’t pretend to be otherwise. I am okay with a certain amount of paraphrasing, dynamic equivalence, and more “literal” translations.

I am not so happy when a translation pretends to be something it is not. When that happens, I get that feeling I got with Dan Brown’s ” The Davinci Code.” The book is a fun read— quite enjoyable. But the beginning of the book claims that ALMOST all of the history in the book is accurate. I knew people who embraced that most doubtful claim. I had a friend who told me that I should accept the history of Christianity described in Brown’s work (of FICTION!!) because, as he said, “That’s just the way it is.”

I get the same feeling about the English Standard Version (ESV). I remember when it was being marketed in the Philippines. It was marked as superior to the NIV because it was a more literal (allegedly) translation. That is not necessarily high praise. Meaning is more important than wording. On the other hand, translators may assume the meaning that is not actually in the text, so there can be problems with dynamic equivalence too. (Yes, this happens a lot.)

Marketing is, in truth, rather a squirrelly thing. NIV was marketed in the Philippines as superior to the NASB, since the former is “International” rather than “American” in the latter.

Bringing things to the ESV, the intro speaks (I am using the Intro to the ESV Study Bible, which draws from the ESV Intro) as follows:

“ESV Study Bible uses the “essentially literal” ESV (English Standard Version) Bible translation as the foundational text for creating the study Bible notes and other features. Emphasizing word-for-word accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning, the ESV Bible is especially suited to be the basic text for a study Bible.”

As I have at least implied before, I am not particularly impressed by ‘essentially literal’ and even less the claim of ‘word-for-word accuracy.’ But for many, people will interpret this as unbiased and reliably connecting the modern reader to ancient texts.

Of course I heard about charges that the ESV translated based on a Complementarian perspective. By this is meant that the translation is done based on the presumption that men are supposed to have leadership over women in, well, pretty much everything. Often the translations are surprisingly creative to achieve this. The short video at the bottom summarizes some of this.

What surprised me, however, was when I was working on a presentation on Apostles. If course Romans 16:7 is a common bugaboo for Complementarians as the passage certainly seems to say that a woman was recognized as an Apostle. But the ESV took a rather unique way to try to get out of that problem. Again one can look at the video below in that. But I found out that the ESV is problematic when it comes to Apostles in other ways. There has long been discussions on the difference between the function of apostle versus office of apostle, and who is an apostle. The ESV doesn’t really provide a good translation for this discussion because the translators simply decide which are apostles (and translate it accordingly) and decides others are not and use other terms instead. Doing this is worse than unhelpful, and makes me question the quote above that says it is especially suitable as a basic text for a study Bible.

Does this mean that ESV is worse than other translations? I am not sure. But I find it concerning that they imply far better than they actually achieve. Since the first time I used ESV was regarding Apostles, (and am already aware of how they translate creatively roles of women and the office if Deacon), I am worried about what other problems are waiting in the wings. And since the role of apostle is inextricably linked to the role of missionary, I can’t really use it when I teach courses on missions.

Is the Primary Purpose of Church to Worship God… Really?

So I was listening to “Theology in the Raw” (Preston Sprinkle’s podcast) in an interview of Nijay Gupta. Gupta has recently published a book, “Strange Religion: How the the First Christians Were Weird, Dangerous, and Compelling.” I have only read a tiny bit of the book so far, but it looks very interesting.

During the conversation, they were discussing the primitive first century church and how it contrasts with the church(es) of today.

One of the things Gupta spoke of was an article written by I. Howard Marshall (1934-2015). Marshall believed that churches (communities of believers) gathered together regularly but NOT for the purpose of worshiping God. They came together for “mutual up-building” and practice “reciprocal spiritual gifts to invest in one another personally.”

Gupta did not agree with Marshall that the gathering of the early church did not involve worship. When using the term worship, I think what is meant is traditional ideas of ritual or group activity to demonstrate adoration or proclaim the greatness of God. And I would have to agree with Gupta. The early church did sing and if Philippians 2 is indeed an early song, it sure sounds like worship. They did do baptism and love feasts and eucharist as a community. However, the ritual of love feast does not feel like it is an act of worship. Rather it seems more like a ritual (or activity) of support and living out the Kingdom.

Gupta does agree with Marshall, however, that the primary purpose for the gathering of the church in the first century was mutual edification and supporting with mutual blessing of spiritual gifts.

This view resonates with me. I have long wondered whether the recent Evangelical focus on worship, regardless of how spiritual it sounds, is an unbalanced perspective.

Consider Acts 4.:32-35

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all  that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales  and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (NIV)

We see here community (heart and mind). We see sharing. We see proclamation and training. We see God’s sustaining. We see no mention of worship. This of course does not imply that worship did not happen in community gatherings. Consider a few verses before this. Act 4:23-26

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them.  When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.  You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

“‘Why do the nations rage
    and the peoples plot in vain?
 The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
against the Lord
    and against his anointed one. (NIV)

Here we see a prayer that includes thanksgiving and adoration. Later it moves into a request. Certainly this fits, broadly at least, under the umbrella of worship.

In church, I would here so many sermons where Hebrews 10:25 is used as a reminder that we are supposed to come to church every Sunday. However, looking at verses 23-25:

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.  And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

What is NOT said, keep meeting together because God needs more worship. I fully accept that worship was part of the gathering of the church, but the reason for doing so was for our own sakes more than God’s. broadening the context on that passage further… God has given us a great gift, but also a great burden. We need to come together to provide support for each other to persevere in the way we are to go.

I might argue that the key part of the gathering is to support living out the reign of Christ through mutuality supported by the giftings of the Spirit.

In missions a similar question comes up. John Piper has a famous quote:

Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. (John Piper, “Let the Nations Be Glad)

Again, I can’t really argue with this completely. The basic premise that worship is greater than missions because worship is eternal and missions is not, is compelling. Still, is worship Ultimate? Did God give the Great Commandment and the Great Commission(s) because He did not have enough worshipers?

Maybe… or maybe the focus on the Reign of God (the Kingdom of God) is ultimate, and worship is ONE of the characteristics of being an active participate within His reign.

But if that is true, what are other characteristics of being under that reign? Living according to the commands of Christ (Matthew 28:19-21), love of God (Great Commandment), and love and care of others (Great Commandment). Love, however, suggests a certain relationality. In fact, I John 4:19 notes that our love of God is a response to God first loving us. The church is where the Great Commandment is to be lived out in mutuality. We love God in response to His loving us… and we demonstrate love for each other in mutuality. Obedience to God’s commands is certainly important in all of this, as is thanksgiving, adoration, praise. I struggle with saying, however, that worship (regardless of how one defines it) is “ultimate.” in either missions or in church.

But since I spent several paragraphs “hemming and hawing” on this, you may wonder if I wasting my time… and yours. Perhaps… but I do think there are important questions if the church (as it was initially envisioned) was more about mutual support and communal use of God’s giftings for the benefit of the body.

#1. Is today’s focus on performative worship in church really what the focus should be? In fact, worship in general be the focus of the worship services?

#2. Is todays “worship services” more like “worshipers being served” (by ministerial professionals)? Is that a problem?

#3. Is the ability today of someone coming to church participating passively in the gathering and leaving without talking to anyone an evidence that something is clearly broken?

#4. Has the focus on the “worship experience” enriched the church or left it relationally shallow?

While I certainly have my opinions… I have to admit my uncertainty of what would be better. I do believe that recreating the first century church is not our call. We are to create the 21st century church. Still, if we get the purpose of the church (“raison d’etre”) wrong, it is pretty unlikely we will get much of anything right.