Robert Munson's Blog, page 21

Quote on Death of Samuel Munson— no relation

Samuel Munson (born 1804) and his fellow companion Henry Lyman (born 1809) were early American missionaries to Sumatra. In their first year, they were killed by Batak tribesmen in 1834.

I have been asked more than once if I am related to Samuel Munson since I am a missionary in Southeast Asia and have the same last name. Despite this, it is unlikely that I am related to him. My great grandfather changed his name from Gadd to Munson when he moved to the United States in the 1880s.

Anyway, here is a quote of an early biographer of the two men. At the end of the book, the writer is encouraging Christians to be faithful to the missional task and not be dissuaded by the martyrdom of these two men of God.

“Of all who have gone from this country to preach the gospel among the heathen, Munson and Lyman only have been removed by violence. At the time of this appalling occurrence, candidates for missionary service, the patrons of the cause and those who managed its concerns were confessedly in great danger of yielding to human instruments a portion of that confidence which is due exclusively to him who “worketh all in all.” Cheering success has crowned our efforts to evangelize the nations, and multitudes supposed that the work would go smoothly on if a given amount of money could be raised and the requisite number of men sent forth. Knowing that mild expedients would not suffice to check a growing self-complacency among his people, a jealous God sent this sharp rebuke to admonish them of their entire dependence on Him. “Cease ye from man.” — “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.” — “The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.”

Such events as that now under review, need not fill the heart of any believer with anxious forebodings. The promises are yea and amen, in Christ Jesus. “Glorious things are spoken of Zion. God is in the midst of her. He will help her and that right early.”

If far greater sacrifices and disappointments await the church, still let her show that she “abates not a jot of heart or hope, but presses right onward” in the footsteps of her gracious and immutable Saviour.

Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Munson and the Rev. Henry Lyman, Late Missionaries to the Indian Archpelago with the Journal of Their Exploring Tour. By Rev. William Thompson. (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1839), 195-196.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsofrevsamu00muns/page/196/mode/2up

How Involved Should Missionaries Be with Local Churches?

A friend of mine shared on Facebook a post expressing concern that many foreign missionaries are not actively involved in local churches– that is, local churches in the area where they serve. He expressed it in terms of missionaries actively planting local churches should feel driven to “plant themselves” in local churches.

In general I agree. That being said, I would like to give my own nuance based on my own experience. I would also note, not that it matters, that not all missionaries are interested in, or involved in, church planting. I have been involved in church planting, but have never felt that it was my calling, or my primary role in missions. I might even go further and say that in some countries, like the Philippines, church planting is often not a particularly needed role for missionaries. In some places, it might even become a bit of a vanity project— slapping a name on a building to give photo ops for ones’ supporters. However, that is a trivial point, especially since the wording was probably more of a rhetorical device not a statement about the ideal role of a missionary. The questions still remains: missionaries— regardless of their role, should be actively involved in a local church, or not?

In my 20 years in the Philippines, my family and I have been involved with numerous churches:

ChurchTimeDenominationPreaching/Teaching?Leadership Roles?NotesChurch A2004-2007My denominationPreach occasionally, Teaching regularlyDirector of Missions, Church councilField Education church of my wife and IChurch Plant #12007-2010IndependentPreaching on rotation, teaching regularlyElder in churchLinked to our children’s outreach programChurch B2010-2015My denominationPreaching on rotation, teaching on occasionOn church council. Considered part of the pastoral staffChurch C2015-2017IndependentPreaching on occasion, no teachingWas asked to apply for role as pastor. I declined.This was our “resting time”Church plant #22017-2022IndependentPreaching and teaching fairly regularlyPart of the pastoral staff. Served as senior pastor for a portion of that.No consistent involvement2022-2024N/AN/AN/ADuring this time, spending half of our time in US.

Looking above, of the 20 years we have (so far) served in the Philippines, 18 years we have been active in local churches, 16 years have been VERY active, and 8 years involved in a church planting effort.

Based on this, what are my insights (if that is the right term)?

A. For missionaries whose primary ministry is NOT set in the local church, being actively involved in the activities of the local church is HARD. Over the 20 years, our primary work, even when involved in church planting, was always something else. Whether it was medical missions, children’s Saturday outreach, disaster response, pastoral counseling and training, and seminary teaching, our primary ministry was always with NGOs.

True story. When I was at Church A, both myself and Celia, we both told the pastor that we would like to join his church but he had to understand that our primary ministry was outside the church so we had to limit our involvement. And for the first couple of years we did. However, after he left, we started becoming more involved in the preaching, leadership, and the politics of the church. Still, we TRIED to maintain some boundaries. However, because I was a missionary (and a guy— that denomination doesn’t use this designation for women), they would call me pastor, and would always identify me as part of the small pastoral team. I asked the church council to actively discourage this. My argument is that Celia and I really cannot be fully invested in the life of the church. Sometimes, we may not be able to do much more than be there Sunday mornings. We felt that if a person in the church is called “pastor” and yet is not deeply investing time in the church regularly, that might encourage a similar lack of investment by the church members. In the end, the church leadership would not make that adjustment for me, so we left.

B. Local churches often have a LOT of politics and love to draw missionaries into those politics. The missionaries in the generation before me, especially those whose primary role was teaching in seminary, often kept their relationship with a local church at arm’s length. That is, they would be part of a local church, but avoided roles that would draw them into the politics. I tend to think that often that is a good thing. Missionaries can often be a bit quick to embrace a leadership role, creating a passive and dependent church. I will also note that I have seen missionaries get involved in church and denominational politics, and often in my (perhaps biased) they were on the wrong side of the battle. But even if they were on the right side, is their input necessary?

C. The other side is that there are downsides of not being involved enough in the local church. First, it can be all too easy for missionaries to become “cloistered”— with other missionaries and expatriates— or in other ways lose track of those they are meant to serve. This is especially true if one is involved in ministries that are not directly involved with the majority of locals, such as Bible translation, Bible school teaching, training material production, and so forth. Such cloistering can create missionaries who are out of touch and not integrated into the local culture.

I suppose the end thing is that it is important for missionaries to be involved in local churches. The fact that I not right now is tied to two things. First, we got rather worn out from our involvement in a recent church planting effort. Second, from 2021 to 2024 we have been spent half of our time in the US. As such, we have been actively building our connections with our sending church. We expect that we will become involved in a local church in the near future as we go towards spending more time in the Philippines again. However, we will have to do it with strict boundaries.

Framing and Patriotic Bibles?

Many expect have seen the news that former US president, Donald Trump, is selling a Bible called the “God Bless America ” Bible. Apparently, it costs US$59.99. This seems for a KJV (public domain) Bible. However, I suppose that is not a key thing.

I do have issues with a Bible that appears to embrace what is sometimes called “Christian Nationalism” or its sibling faith— “American Civil Religion.”

Of course, this not the first time this happened. Years ago a good friend of mine gave me a Bible. It is called the “1599 Geneva Bible— Patriot’s Edition.” It has an American patriotic scene on the front and then has a number of documents added to the end of the Bible that are seen as being part of the heritage of American culture.

–Magna Carta

–Mayflower Compact

–Declaration of Independence

–Articles of Confederation

–The United States Constitution

–Washington’s Rules of Civility

–Washington’s Circular for the States (1783)

–Washington’s Prayer for the United States

My friend, a retired pastor from where I was raised, gave it to me but noted is concern about the mixing of the Bible with political/cultural documents. He felt it was a bad idea. So why did he give it to me? He said he was given it a few years before, and thought that since I teach in a seminary, having a Geneva edition of the English Holy Bible would be of value to me. I could not argue with that. It was a kind gift.

It does bring up the question of what happens when you mix Holy Scripture with other writings. Does it lower the status of the Holy Bible in the readers’ eyes? Does it raise the status of the other works in those same eyes?

I don’t really know. Another friend of mine was talking about some books (it MIGHT have been “Purpose Driven Life” as the impetus of the talk) and expressed concern that at the beginning of the chapter there would be a Bible verse listed, and then a quote from some person. This person expressed concern that this format might be seen as raising those other quotes to the status of passages from the Bible. I nodded my head at the time, but I wasn’t so sure. When I preach, I quote the Bible, I add my own commentary, tell stories, and may quote theologians, historical leaders, or even pop celebrities. I don’t feel that I am demeaning Scripture or exalting anything else.

But that brings us to the question of FRAMING. Framing relates to the schema in which we try to interpret what is around us. This is very broad… but consider an example, the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” That song, originally composed by Frank Loesser in 1944, was created as a song sung between two people. The women is expressing the intention to go home, while the man is trying to convince her to stay seeing that it is “cold outside.” How the song is interpreted depends on how people frame it. One can interpret the song in a framework of romantic flirtation between two essentially consenting adults. However, one can also interpret the song in a framework of power differential and manipulation. In this, the song can suddenly be seen as deeply problematic— even rape-y. Which interpretation is correct? As much as we might want to say that authorial intent is king, the truth is that we live NOW.

Consider the hymnal that was in my church when I was young. Near the back were several patriotic songs. How do people frame hymnals. In one perspective, a hymnal is a collection of songs that are used in church. In such a view, one could argue that if a song might be used in the church setting, it is appropriate for the hymnal. However, that is probably not the more common framing. It is more common, I think, to see a hymnal as a a worship document. To have songs that were written to praise one’s country, while mixed in with songs that praise God creates in the minds of many as creating a very unhealthy equivalency.

Or consider flags. In the US, and in the Philippines, many churches place a national flag in the front of the sanctuary, along with the “Christian Flag.” As a child, I remember in Vacation Bible School reciting the Pledge of (National) Allegiance, Pledge to the Christian flag, and Pledge to the Bible. For some people each pledge is fine— expressing allegiances in different settings. However, others may see these as giving equivalency to things that are inherently unequal. Yet others, may be opposed to all of these, interpreting all three as oaths.

Now these examples, I feel are more about a personal perspective. But when we get to the Bible, the stakes are a bit higher.

Consider a typical study Bible. It has the Biblical text, study aids in the back and study notes below. It is pretty much understood that the aids in the back and notes below are in no sense to be considered to be God’s word, or having some sense of infallibility. The same might be added when it comes to personal annotations added to a Bible. Most agree on the delineation of the holy and the mundane. But what happens in translations where the commentary may be incorporated into the text. How can one separate between holy scripture and mundane commentary when they are incorporated together. Of course, all translation involves some creative interpretation. I have been surprised, for example, at how often the ESV really makes translation choices that push a specific agenda. Even when there is no translation involved, we draw meaning from whatever framework that we have in our own minds.

But what about the case presented with the Bible sharing space in a book with secular documents. Is this a problem? Would it push people to seeing equivalency? Would people see the Bible and the US Constitution as equally coming from God?

While I have been sounding wishy-washy up to this point, I do think there is a right and wrong perspective, taking into account culture. In the US, particularly, there is a tendency to see the US in exceptionalist terms— seeing the nation as being a “Christian nation” (a questionable term in general) in a unique way, and seeing it as having a divinely ordained role in God’s plan. I don’t believe that is a healthy view. Even the ancient nation of Israel, although established by God, found its special place in God’s plan a temptation that needed to be tempered.

I hold the Bible to be good, while the other documents are good except to the extent they are bad, or until they become bad. Having them share the same book does not raise one or lower another. But Americans are too tempted to conflate politics and God— that does affect how both will be interpreted.

Quote on Transformation and Holy Scripture

…. lA] scripture can function directly by itself operating as the instrument of transformation. It is “as if divinity indwelt the words and caused them, through articulation of them, to bring about altered states of being.” Here, scripture becomes “incantatory or sacramental.” Typically, this is how the shrŭti canon of Hinduism works, as also the Qur’an in its capacity as the very communication of Allah. In contrast, the Bible effects transformation by pointing to Jesus as the only means by which fellowship with God becomes available to anyone, and beyond that, by calling into being that fellowship. When the religions of Asia sit down together to answer the question “What is Scripture?,” the Christian answer differentiates itself by calling attention not so much to the “text,” whether oral or written, but to a triune God seeking to himself all the people of the earth.

Havilah Dharamraj, edited by.Gener, Timoteo D.; Pardue, Stephen T.. Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives (p. 57). Langham Creative Projects. Kindle Edition.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that different faiths hold Scripture differently. We cannot help it if people of other faiths get confused as to how we revere the Holy Bible, but it is important for us to know what that means (or is supposed to mean) and how other groups may see things differently.

Note above, the author uses the term “shruti.” This is a term used in Hinduism to represent “higher” or more authoritative holy scripture, as opposed to “smriti” for lesser, but still authoritative. Many groups have this same character. Islam seems to have a higher (Qu’ran) versus lower (Hadith). In Christianity, we typically see the Holy Bible as authoritative, holy, and nothing else— at least in Evangelical Christianity. In theory at least, we see all 66 books as equally authoritative. However, in practice we sometimes give more weight to some over others.

I would like to suggest, however, that it may not be ridiculous to consider that Christianity does also have two tiers of special revelation. The lower is the Holy Bible. The higher is Jesus Christ— the Logos… the Word. Of course, most of what we reliably know about Jesus we get from the Holy Bible. This blurs the line between the two. Nevertheless, no matter how important the Holy Bible is to us as Christians, it will never be as true of a revelation about God than Jesus.

Why ELSE Did Jesus Die For Us?

I was raised up in a faith tradition in which the question of the theological purpose of Jesus’s death is pretty simple— PSA. PSA stands for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Jesus died as a willing perfect sacrifice taking on our deserved punishment before God and giving us access to eternal life.

I am still part of that faith tradition and I see that as a valid aspect. However, I don’t want to be guilty of being reductive… or sliding into a theological rut. I have a friend in whom whenever someone talks about how it is good for Christians to do good things, seems to feel compelled to say, “You know we are saved by grace, NOT through works.” I have known people that not only see the Bible in terms of salvific history (a true thing, I believe) but feel compelled to interpret every portion of Scripture through the lens of conversion.

So can we see the death of Jesus in terms that include PSA, but other things as well? First, I would note that PSA is valuable in that it links well to not only the Old Testament practice of sin sacrifice, but also to a myriad of cultures that see sacrifice as needed as needed for positive response from the spirit world. The metaphor is a strong enough one that “Jesus as Sin Sacrifice” could be seen not merely as a metaphor, but as a model. (I believe it was Sallie MacFague who spoke of models as broad, strong, and enduring metaphors.)

That being said, PSA focuses on the Guilt/Innocence focus in culture. Is that a valid focus. Sure… but it is not the only one. That leads to…

Second, It expresses God’s plan to honor. This lines up with the Shame/Honor focus in culture. This interpretation is quite common. The death of Jesus and His resurrection is seen as taking away our shame and giving us access to honor and blessing. This is similar to PSA in that it is a different facet of salvation. Rather than focusing on being justified, the emphasis here is on being glorified, adopted into the family of God, joint heirs with Christ.

Third, the death of Jesus is used as an example for us. In Hebrews 12, it is an example to us to persevere through suffering. In Philippians 2, it is part of the overall example of Jesus as a call to humility.

Fourth, it is an example (ultimate example?) of God’s love. Romans 5:8, while in a passage about justification, notes that Jesus dying for us demonstrates His love for us. John 3:16. While one could make the argument that love is a motivation to an end (justification and adoption), it should not be glossed over. It is common to say that “there was no other possible way for God to save us except through the death of His Son.” We don’t really know the limits of what God COULD have done— all we have access to is what God ACTUALLY DID. And what He did, shows how much God is invested in His creation and the desire He has to draw us to Himself. Perhaps (being imaginative for a moment), there were a thousand ways that God could have undid the Fall, potentially reconciling us to Him. If that is the case, He chose the one that most clearly demonstrated His love in a visceral way.

Fifth, His death allowed us to see His resurrection, thus showing His victory over death. Death is perhaps the defining quality of being a living creature in this world. For each of us, our end is assured and any destination after is uncertain. Even the prophets of the Old Testament seemed a bit vague or questioning about what happens after we are in the grave. Jesus demonstrated that victory over death was not merely a possibility, but a reality. Resurrection is important to us, but can only be demonstrated if there is first a death. Also, since death is linked to the Fall of Man, victory over death can also be seen as victory over sin.

Sixth, His death demonstrates the truth of His message. This is a bit more practical. But Jesus was seen by many of His generation to be either mad (a “demon-possessed Samaritan” as He was at least one time tagged) or a blasphemer (identifying His Sonship to the Father). A natural death and burial leaves his words as uncertain— much as the words of most other “prophets.” A death of causes, such as execution, may actually be seen as divine retribution— the righteous end to an unrighteous teacher. But resurrection is an undeniable stamp of approval on Jesus and His words.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is important… but it is not the only thing that makes the death of Jesus important. PSA is good doctrine, but when it becomes the rut with slip into every time we talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus, we miss a LOT.

Maybe Struggling in Faith is Good?

I was listening to a podcast. It is a series called “God After Deconstruction” hosted by Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller. The two hosts have gone through somewhat of a “deconstruction” of their faith and understanding of God over the years. Oord was raised up and active in the Church of the Nazarene, while Fuller has his roots in the Southern Baptists. The podcast series is tied to “Home Brewed Christianity.”

I don’t really care for the term “Deconstruction” since it is a term that means pretty much whatever one wants it to mean. Some may speak of a “Crisis of Faith” but although the word crisis suggests the Venn diagram overlap of Danger and Opportunity, we most often see crisis in negative terms. Additionally, the phrase “God After Deconstruction” can be confusing to people who might see in it changing God. What is being spoken of is (of course) the deconstruction of our own personal perception(s) of God. I suppose I would tentatively prefer replacing “God After Deconstruction” with “Reconstructing Faith.” Of course, no one asked me.

In preparation for the series, they asked a bunch of American (as soon becomes evident) Christians who are going through this Deconstruction or Reconstruction to explore what was the conflict or crisis that led to this process. I think these are valuable because many of them are the issues that people who think deeply about their faith within their lived context would also struggle with.

Loss of Certainty. While I think that a crisis of faith or a deconstruction can be a good thing, this particular cause I feel is sadly unnecessary. I was raised in a faith tradition that commonly (not necessarily universally) correlated doubt with lack of faith. To have faith in God meant to have certainty— and often certainty not only in the nature and role of God, but in one’s own interpretation of God. While that may make sense for 5-9 year olds, churches really need to give a more nuanced understanding of what faith is. Loss of certainty should be understood as a healthy part of a faith journey.Deciding that the Bible is Untrustworthy. In some cases people find what they believe are errors in the Bible, or see the God presented as being inconsistent. These sort of struggles can be difficult but can be beneficial in the long run. Theodicy. If God is loving, good, and all-powerful, why does the world we live in seem so rotten. This is to me the biggest challenge… and is something that every Christian (in fact every theist) should struggle with to some extent.Church abuse. There is a well-known quote/rhyme: “To live above with saints we love, that will be glory. To live below with saints we know, that is another story.” I am not sure who first said this— perhaps Victor Borge. Awful things happen due to awful Christians doing awful things, and then awful churches supporting the awful Christians, implicitly or explicity perpetuating awful things. Even when the perpetrators are not Christian or at least not part of the church, often the church is not good at handling things. Separating between Christ and Christian, and between God and Church, is hugely important. While there is no universally agreed upon definition of the word “cult” one of the qualities commonly thought to be cultic is seeing the group as the only true and perfect manifestation of God’s work in the world and pure revelation. In this, such groups are understanbly linked with God because if the leaders do it, it must have God’s seal of approval on it. No Christian church should ever be like that. Leaders need higher accountability from those within and without the church, not less. Christian nationalism. This is very much an American thing— although it can happen elsewhere. As an Evangelical Christian I struggle with the fact that a lot of Evangelical leaders not only support a political agenda that I don’t, but suggest it is not simply their own preferences, but that it is God’s preferences as well. (As one who is anti-partisan— opposing all political parties and all political leaders— I end up being on the outside of all such political engagements.) When the church supports horrible leaders and horrible policies, that can be stressful. But when they claim they are following God’s clear leading in doing so— not surprising that there will be some crisis of faith. Conflicts with Science. Traditionally, Science and Religion were friends for the most part, but in recent decades that is often not seen to be the case. In many cases I feel that it is not Science versus the Bible, but rather an interpretation of the Natural Science versus an interpretation of the Bible. Many however, struggle with those Christians that seem to think that they must be 100% correct and everyone else is 100% wrong. Since NO ONE is 100% correct on pretty much anything, that is a hard standard to place one’s faith on.Religious Diversity or Pluralism. There are bad Christians (sadly) and their are (happily) good people of other religions. This should hardly be a reason for crisis. However, when our interaction with people of other faiths is based on caricatures and stereotypes, being faced with reality can lead to crisis. Purpose. This one was not as clear to me as the others. It seemed to be existential questions about meaning and purpose of life in general, as well as individual purpose. Not sure how this relates to a religious crisis… but I suppose it could.

There were supposedly 9 main ones, but when I was listening I only heard 8. Maybe I missed one or two were similar and I thought they were part of the same thing.

One I am surprised wasn’t on the list was Christian lack of concern (sometimes perceived, sometimes real) for the here and now— focusing only on the eternal state.

With the exception of the first one, I feel these are all potentially valid. The first one is not to me because the church should NEVER suggest that great faith means having great intellectual certainty. The fourth and fifth ones are rather inexcusable. Christians should be pointed to Jesus not to church leaders, churches, or church denominations. Christians should also deal with problems with care and concern for victims/survivors— more than protecting reputation and leaders. And churches should never suggest that they share the same political party with God.

Hopefully, this will be a good series.

Is the Bible “Perspicuous”?

Reading my posts it should be pretty obvious that I am not a Systematic Theologian. In some sense, I am not much of a theologian at all. But I still try to see how to build a bridge between God’s (relatively) unchanging revelation and Man’s changing context.

As such, theology is really supposed to be fluid. Nevertheless within faith traditions there is the assumption that certain theological concepts are solid… not changing. One of those solid/static concepts comes from the Protestant Reformation. This is the Perspicuity of Scripture.

This odd term essentially says that the Bible is “Clear.” It came out as a reaction to a (former) Roman Catholic practice of discouraging, or even forbidding, Christians from reading the Holy Bible. The belief was that the Bible could only be understood by religious professionals who had been properly trained in the doctrines of the Church.

While I do believe there is great value in all people reading the Holy Bible, I do wonder about this theological concept (Perspicuity). As one reads more about it, writers add so many caveats to it that I wonder whether they actually believe in the clarity of Scripture or are holding onto the term in honor of their faith tradition. Obvious questions, noted by others as well, include:

Is the Bible “clear” only to Christians (as in it is only clear to those who receive illumination from the Holy Spirit)?If it is clear, why do so many come up with contradictory understandings of it?If human context (cultural and personal) affect understanding, would all contexts find Scripture equally clear or would some finding it more clear or less clear than others?

There are actually a lot more questions and caveats related to this doctrine. However, I tend to think that when one keeps having to come up with more and more complicated ways to support a concept (such as happens at times in the hard sciences), perhaps it is time for a paradigm shift. Certainly we don’t want to go back to a perspective where the Bible is accessible only by the trained elite. And we certainly don’t want to go to a situation like Muslim theologian I was reading earlier today whose way of dealing with the fact that the Holy Bible is at odds with some of his own doctrines is by saying it was untrustworthy due to language and copying. (This argument could be defended somewhat before 1948— perhaps— but it is time for him to catch up on present Biblical literary criticism.)

I think that the some of the problem with the Perspicuity of Scripture is that it assumes clarity has to do with propositional statement and doctrines. I would like to suggest an alternative.

That alternative is related to a quote from a book I am reading that is speaking of the 1978 Willowbank Report regarding the “heart of the gospel.”

‘It is important to identify what is at the heart of the gospel. We recognize as central the themes of God as Creator, the universality of sin, Jesus Christ as Son of God, Lord of all, and Saviour through his atoning death and risen life, the necessity of conversion, the coming of the Holy Spirit and his transforming power, the fellowship and mission of the Christian church, and the hope of Christ’s return. While these are basic elements of the gospel, it is necessary to add that no theological statement is culture-free. Therefore, all theological formulations must be judged by the Bible itself, which stands above them all. Their value must be judged by their faithfulness to it as well as by the relevance with which they apply its message to their own culture. ‘

Interestingly, the report did not come up with propositional statements on the nature of the gospel. Instead, it gave biblical theological themes or faith commitments that flow from the biblical story, from creation to new creation. The statement talks about these themes as basic elements of the good news of Christ. It is the biblical story that determines the shape and content of biblical teachings, and not a presupposed doctrinal system with corresponding proof-texts or Bible references. Evangelical theologians have critiqued this approach as one that treats the Bible as “a sourcebook of Christian doctrines” and tends to “overlook, suppress or deny [Scripture’s] narrative character.” But does this mean abandoning the use of system in theological construction.

Gener, Timoteo D.; Pardue, Stephen T.. Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives (p. 26). Langham Creative Projects. Kindle Edition.

I would like to suggest, tentatively, that the clarity of Scripture makes more sense when speaking of the narrative of the Bible— its stories, and Story— and the primarily themes of Scripture.

So my thought is that in answer to the question, “Is the Bible Perspicuous?” the answer is “Not as it is commonly formulated.” Rather, the Bible is clear in terms of its primary themes/threads, and its story structure. In fact, in my view, the Bible starts to become opaque when one starts to devalue its narrative form and tries to distill it into propositional statements and dogma.

Holy Week 2024

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, so we are now in the Middle of Holy Week. Soon it will be Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Black Saturday, and then Easter (or Resurrection) Sunday.

Easter is the other holiday (along with Christmas) that exists as two holidays in one— a Religious Holiday for Christians, and a Secular Holiday for non-Christians. Easter as a secular holiday has never really caught on as it has with Christmas. That is generally a good thing, I think. Christmas as a secular holiday has gotten rather out of control.

That being said, it is a great blessing that we have a couple of days that Christians can celebrate along with non-Christians. Most days this doesn’t happen. Outside of Christmas and Easter, there are “saint days” like St. Valentine’s or St. Patrick’s (or a myriad of saint days as fiestas in the Philippines) where Christians and non-Christians can celebrate. There is also Mardi Gras, I suppose. But in these, for me at least, the religious aspect has become subsumed by the secular. I feel that Christmas and Easter still hold their own… and that is a good thing— they in no way become less just because some others focus on something else more.

This year, Holy Week overlaps with Ramadan so many are recognizing this week as holy in a different way. My wife and I were talking to a JW who talked about the commemorating of the Resurrection of Jesus— so even members of a group that like to undermine most celebrations as pagan do in some way see this time as special. And there are many who are more secular who may celebrate Easter as a fun time of chocolate and Easter egg hunts with their children. I hope all Christians can celebrate the Resurrection of Christ while not ignoring those who find other reasons to celebrate.

A post I feel pretty good about from a few years ago is “Easter. It’s Okay… Really.” You can see it by CLICKING HERE.

Does the “Infinite Offense” Argument Make Sense?

I was at church Sunday. The preacher was doing an explicitly evangelistic sermon. Overall, I thought the message and delivery was solid. However, in the middle of it, he shared an argument that I have heard many times, but never really struck me as particularly compelling. Perhaps it is just me. I will completely paraphrase what he said, because I did not write anything down. It was something like the following:

“So how can God just send us to hell for eternity? Doesn’t seem fair, right? Well… consider this. Suppose you sinned against a rock, if such a thing were possible. What sort of punishment would be appropriate? Not much of anything, right? It’s a rock. Or suppose you sin against a neighbor. This will be take a lot more seriously, because a person is much more than a rock. Now suppose you sin against the President. What would happen then? You might actually be executed. Now consider this… if you sin against a completely holy and infinite God, how much greater is this offense. It is an infinite offense and so deserves an infinite punishment. God is completely fair.”

There are some arguments that I find more compelling than others. However, arguments built around an inherently subjective thing such as “fairness” are especially problematic. When I was young, and my sister was two years younger than me, my parents would give us “an allowance”— some spending money. They gave me the exact same amount as they gave her. They told me this was fair because… they were giving me the same amount as her. My response was “No,” it is unfair. When I am 11 years old, for example, my sister is receiving the same amount as I. However, that is more than what I received when I was 9. In fact, since we started receiving allowance at the same time, she started getting allowance when she was two years young than me. Clearly not fair, right? Well… it is not that clear. Fairness is pretty subjective. The argument crumbles pretty much as soon as one says, “Nuh-uh. That does not make sense to me.”

The infinite offense argument is taking a small truth— mistreatment of an inanimate object is treated less severely than against an animate object, and lesser still than against a human— and extending it to God who is (for any practical purposes) infinite.

However, many of us would balk at this. First, when one tries to pull out High School math, it cuts both ways. After all, if the one offended is infinitely “big” then the offender is infinitesimally “small.” If that is the case, does that make the offense infinite or infinitesimal. If fact, does that make ANY possible punishment infinite or infinitesimal, fair or unfair?

Playing around with the math essentially means nothing. It is a way to obscure issues, with the hope that at the end people will be comfortable with eternal punishment.

I would be surprised if that argument has worked on anyone. God, frankly, has never been fair. I don’t mean this in a bad way at all. God’s mercy has always been greater than His justice. Our hope is built on God’s “unfairness.”

I think there are ultimately three further things to note about this argument:

#1. The Bible does not really tell us much about Hell. It is pretty clear it is a real place (at least real destination). It is pretty clear that NO ONE should want it to be one’s destination. Much of what is popularly taught about Hell is speculative. Speculation is fine… but one should be careful not to build one’s theology on mere speculation.

#2. The Bible does not give details about Hell for a reason, I believe. It is not, and never has been, the reason for following Christ as our act of worship. Guessing about the nature of Hell, and using it as a foundational aspect of the Gospel presentation is suspect. I know wonderful people who would argue exactly the opposite. Hell is important and vital for people to “wrap their head around.” Perhaps they are right. Generally, I don’t really think it is true.

#3. Perhaps the biggest point for me, however is that I think the problem comes from being stuck in one metaphor for too long. The Western church has fallen in love with the Righteous Judge metaphor of God. That leads to a lot of arguments on whether God is really righteous or fair. In my mind, since the Bible makes it clear that God is Righteous but unjust (showing mercy when mercy is not deserved), the metaphor does tend to break down when it is extended too far. A stronger metaphor from the Bible is God as Adoptive Father. This is one especially promoted by Jesus and has a strong place in the rest of the New Testament. The Parable of the Prodigal Son (“The Gospel within the Gospel”). Even God as a Good Shepherd overlaps with this metaphor as one who seeks to rescue FROM Hell, rather than sends TO Hell.

So, did I help people come to terms with the issue of fairness? Absolutely not. That is for each to wrestle with as they see fit. However, I believe we should focus less on the “fairness of God sending people to Hell” and more on the “unfairness of God drawing people to Himself as a loving Father.”

Review of “Character Theology: Engaging God through His Cast of Characters” by Steffen and Neu

The book “Character Theology: Engaging God through His Cast of Characters” by Tom Steffen and Ray Neu, published 2024, is a book that I highly recommend to missionaries, church leaders, and theologians alike, despite the frank admission that the book is not really written for me. I think I need to explain this.

If it was written for me, it could have started out as “Hey. You know how people are designed by God to think in terms of verbal language, metaphors, and stories; and that it is primarily in stories— characters, setting, and plot— that God reveals Himself to us?” I would then respond back to the book (as I often do) “Why yes I do!” Then, the book would go forward with some additional insights with examples and practical advice. Such a book might only be about one third as long.

The book, however, was written for a very different audience. It is written for the “Western” Evangelical Christian who sees the Bible primarily as a collection of doctrines and that the Christian faith is best transmitted by teaching them as (propositional) truth statements. Such readers are apt to see stories as mere illustrations of such principles (at best), see the written word as clearly superior to the spoken, and look on narrative theology with deep suspicion. To counter this, Steffen and Neu go to great lengths to reference a copious number of theologians and Biblical scholars to challenge such presuppositions.

Character Theology is an extension of the Honor/Shame and Orality movements that have been transforming missions. The book appears in many ways to be the natural follow-on to two of Steffen’s recent books: “Worldview-based Storying” (2018) and “The Return of Oral Hermeneutics” (2020).

Despite the book not really being written for me, I appreciated the breadth of the book as it deals with orality instruction, storying, hermeneutics, and more to bring the reader to the main thesis— the power of instructing using Biblical stories and questions, with the focus on Biblical characters in interactive study groups.

I will admit that I am uncertain of the appropriateness of the title “Character Theology.” I wonder if “Character Criticism” is more appropriate. After all, it is in many ways learning about God through analyzing the characters in the Bible. However, it is more than analysis and interpretation. It is also instruction, evangelism, and theological development. Perhaps Character Theology is the best description.

I do highly recommend the book. The practical activity of the book of Jonah was hugely helpful, as was the interviewing of the story listeners and the story facilitator. Perhaps other examples would make it even better. A book promoting stories can certainly benefit from more stories. I would love to hear how different orality groups would deal with a very nuanced story like “Rizpah and King David” (II Samuel 21) or “Elisha and the Two Bears” (II Kings 2).

The book is available in paperback or Kindle and is published by Pickwick Publications.

The Book is Available HERE.