Robert Munson's Blog, page 27

Missions Course “Teaching in Oral Cultures”: A Review

Recently I took an online course, led by Missiologist Tom Steffen called “Teaching in Oral Cultures.” It is part of a collection of online courses under “Ephesiology Master Classes.” that is overseen by Missions Professor Michael Cooper of Kairos University.

Under Ephesiology Master Classes, I took one regular course, “Teaching in Oral Cultures” (as noted led by Tom Steffen) and one Seminar (an “Areopagus Symposium” on Contextualization) led by Michael Cooper. The following reviews Steffen’s course, with a bit on the Contextualization seminar as well.

Course Review

I found “Teaching in Oral Cultures” to be a valuable course especially for one like myself who teaches Christian Missions but has limited experience and training in what is needed to teach in Oral Cultures. The course is Asynchronous Online utilizing a web-based module system. My online training experience is Moodle and Populi. This is noticeably different from either of those, but others with more experience with online training may find the format quite familiar. There were no live forums Zoom gatherings for this course. However, it sounds like some of the Ephesiology Master Classes do have those. Major types of modules include:

-Reading assignments. Three books of Tom Steffens served as textbooks for the course. At least two of those books had to be fully read through. I honestly can’t remember if the third one needed to be fully read or not (I had already been reading the third book on my own at the time I started the course, so I can’r remember if I finished it on my own or was required to). One of those three books is no longer in print, but Tom was kind enough to give me an electronic copy, even though I decided to purchase a used copy online). There were some additional articles that were required readings as well.

The three primary texts are:

Tom Steffen, Business as Usual in the Missions Enterprise? La Habra, CA: Center for Organizational & Ministry Development, 1999. (Written in story format).

Tom Steffen, Reconnecting God’s Story to Ministry: Crosscultural Storytelling at Home and Abroad. IVP, 2005.

Tom Steffen, Worldview-based Storying: The Integration of Symbol, Story, and Ritual in the Orality Movement. Richmond, VA: The Rainmaker, 2018.

-Videos. Each module (I think the term used is “lesson” not module) had one or two videos that one would watch of a video lecture by Tom.

-Assignments. Each lesson had at least one written assignment that must be submitted.

-Asynchronous Forum. To compensate for the lack of synchronous gatherings, a forum system was set up with required discussion inputs and discussion responses.

-Final Project. Research topic related to the course needed to be submitted. It is supposed to be (potentially at least) a publishable article on one of the many topics covered in the course.

I found the course to be a big help for me to become familiar with the movement and major issues in teaching in oral cultures. The course does not just focus on primary oral cultures (“illiterate” although this term is sadly often pejorative), but also secondary oral cultures (learn primarily through non-written channels).

I do highly recommend the course, especially for missions professors, and practitioners of teaching in primary or secondary oral cultures. I do however need to add a few notes to clarify this:

#1. I believe that I was the first person to take this course, as it is brand new. There were a couple of minor glitches the online format, but I was able to communicate with the instructor and move forward without problem. A bigger issue for me was that since I was the first, I did not have the interaction that comes from an asynchronous forum with other students. I truly believe that this would greatly enhance the course (depending on the students and their passion for the topic of course).

#2. Additionally, because I was taking it as an asynchronous course, and was taking it by myself… I took it VERY MUCH at my own pace. I moved, generally, at a decent clip, but got bogged down a couple of times. I started in early May and finished in early October. I took over a month for the final project, but even ignoring that, it took me around twice as long as the course was, I believe, would ideally take. If there were other students, I would have to stay more in line with the others because of the discussions. I am sure I could have taken the course faster if I needed to, but I am not sure how important it is to keep pace with a cohort.

#3. I found the course to be very valuable and interesting. However, I think the class would benefit from a follow-up “practicum” where there is both practice and discussion of more practical issues.

———–

Michael Cooper led a symposium on Contextualization. One would register for it on Ephesiology Master Classes. One could join the online seminar live. However, I live in the Philippines and so I would have to be up at 3am for it. So I did not join. I viewed it later, and then read a chapter on the topic later. I found it interesting and valuable. In truth, I have always had a different understanding of what “Under-contextualization” and “Over-contextualization” mean from how Michael defined and used it. Regardless… it gave me fuel for further thought and study.

For those interested, here are a couple of websites that relate to my reviews.

Ephesiology Master Classes: https://masterclasses.ephesiology.com/pages/innovating-theological-education

Kairos University: https://kairos.edu/

Social Concern and Christians. Too Little? Too Much?

Quote from “Good News and Good Works: A Theology for the Whole Gospel” by Ronald J. Sider –

It is… “simply incredible that so many modern Christians, especially evangelicals, have largely ignored this central truth about God. I remember talking to a prominent evangelical leader about fifteen years ago. He had just discovered the hundreds of biblical verses on God’s concern for the poor. How, he asked me, was it possible for him to study at an evangelical college, take his theological degree at an evangelical seminary, and become a faculty member at an evangelical school and never learn about God’s special concern for the poor? It is difficult to overstate the importance of this biblical teaching about the poor—but it can be done! Some liberation theologians[11] and some statements from the World Council of Churches12] make it the central biblical truth, the criterion of biblical faithfulness and evangelism. That, too, is wrong. That is to overstate a crucial point. Concern for the poor is not the only important aspect of Christian social concern or mission. We dare not become so preoccupied with it that everything else becomes secondary.”. Page 139

Finding Missions Books in Odd Places

I live in the Philippines. That really limits my access to new books on Christian missions. Christian bookstores tend not to have such works, and online sources are pretty expensive if one wants them shipped to Luzon.

In the US things are somewhat better. At least, online purchases are cost effective.

The strange thing is that the most reliable place I have been to for perusing books on Christian missions is not a Christian bookstore. Here in the Philippines there is a book chain with a less-than-inspiring name— “Book Sale.” It sells lightly used and overrun books from the US. There is a section for religious books. The selection, unsurprisingly, is very much hit-or-miss. But sometimes they have numerous good missions books.

Today there were several and ended up buying three of them.

#1. “Vulnerable Missions” by Jim Harries. I have been wanting to read this for some time now. There are many views on the proper relationship between mission work and money. This is not the only one, but worthy of serious consideration.

#2. “Serving Jesus with Integrity: Ethics and Accountability in Mission”, edited by Dwight Baker and Douglas Hayward. I am not familiar with the book, but it is put out by the William Carey Library as part of the EMS series. Topically, it is very important. Looking forward to reading it.

#3. “Student Mission Power: Report of the First International Convention of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions”. This is a reprint of the report from 1891. Since I am teaching a course on Missions History next term, this is immediately useful to me.

Curiously, in the US, the best place I have found to peruse missions books has been the Restore Store of Habitat for Humanity. With that one at least, I think I know the reason. I think some pastors who die or retire donate their books to H4H. Many of the books are on missions or pastoral care.

Online is a great blessing, but sometimes I really want to look through something to know if I want it. Some online books have samples. That is good but I wish for more options. Still I am happy for blessings in surprising places.

Is Quoting the Bible the Wrong Way to Use it Sometimes

I wrote an article for our counseling center the answers the question “Aren’t You the Counseling Center that Doesn’t Use the Bible?”

My view is that we do use the Bible… while SOME of the groups that use the Bible are using it… sub-biblically.

Anyway… you can decide for yourself:

http://bukallifecare.org/2023/07/19/arent-you-the-group-that-doesnt-use-the-bible/

Learning From Missionaries of Other Religions

When I was a young(er) missionary I would get confused by what I would here from older missionaries. For example, I was talking to a mentor of mine (Evangelical Baptist Type) and he was talking rather positively about a friend of his who was a Mormon missionary. Of course, in those idealistic days, they were simply the “enemy”— or perhaps more kindly, the “opposition.”

As time went on, however, I began to be able to separate things— a missionary is (1) a person, (2) a professional, and (3) a religionist. One can COMPLETELY reject the religion and/or theological stance of someone while still liking them as a person or respecting them as one who is competent in their profession.

I do admit that I tend to prefer that people I don’t like, or people of a religion that I disagree with are poor a mission professionals. I recall talking to the lead imam (Muslim religious leader) here in predominantly Christian Baguio City, and being rather pleased that he was not very good at making his religion seem desirable. But, really, in many ways it doesn’t matter whether the person is good or bad at their role, or whether he/she is nice or pleasant. It is actually more important what I learn from them.

When I was young(er) JWs (“Jehovah’s Witnesses”) would visit the house. They would always go in twos (a smart idea) normally with one who was older and one younger. The older did the talking while the young tried to look pleasant. JWs got a reputation of being unpleasant. However, I had never really met any that were particularly unpleasant. That being said, I would keep the encounter as brief as possible. I don’t like to talk to salespeople of any kind, and they are, most certainly, salespeople.

Moving to the Philippines, there are quite a few JWs in some places. Some mornings one would see them fan out 2×2 in the neighborhood. They were easy to recognize by the bag carried to hold literature and clothes that were formal and just a bit unstylish.

However, what I saw more of for many years were JWs who would line up down in the city center. They would, again, be standing there with somewhat doudy (is that spelled right?) clothes. No shame in that— no one has confused me with one who was “matikas” (refined or stylish). But they would be holding Watchtower literature in one hand a look so unhappy. Sometimes I almost wanted to pay them to do exactly that every day. What a great way to steer people away from that group!

Eventually, they figured things out. Instead they would stand up straight in clothes that looked professional— although out of place in the setting— in groups of two or perhaps three with a portable magazine rack with some of their literature on it. The literature also looked less ‘old-timey’ compared to what they had in the past. Additionally, the people would be… well, not smiley exactly but alert and looking like they are ready and happy to talk to anyone who shows them any attention.

Today, however, something different happened. I was sitting down at a traditional Filipino restaurant. The others in my party had not arrived yet. Two young ladies behind me started to try to make conversation with me (well, the older one at least). The older one talked and the other tried to look pleasant. That should immediately have keyed me in that these were JW missionaries. However, I did not think so at first. They were, in fact, kind of giving off Mormon missionary vibes. However, the one talking had a wedding ring on so I was pretty sure they were not Mormon. I really don’t like to get into conversations with strangers… except taxi drivers (for some reason) so the older woman (far younger than I… just older than the one she was with) was doing all of the conversational heavy lifting. However, when the others in my group showed up, they took over (my wife can talk to ANYONE). It was very much trivial chitchat to the point that I began to wonder if I was wrong and perhaps they weren’t actually missionaries after all. They both kind of dressed like missionaries but their outfits really did not match in any sense. Then they got up and one started to reach into her purse to get a card and of course I knew that my first opinion was correct.

They were indeed JW missionaries… just very much low-key in their approach compared to others I had experience with. The card was simple and small— QR code to http://www.JW.org and how to contact to set up a Bible study. No Watchtowers or Insights one had to refuse or throw away. No awkward pushing them away… they left on their own.

What do I say to that. Well, first, they have slowly learned and adjusted to changing times. No one in the US wants to answer the door to someone uninvited or one they don’t know. In the Philippines, especially in the cities, this is also true. They have also learned that looking glum or stressed just doesn’t work… and it seems as if they have learned that trying to force a conversation into a specific direction often creates a negative reaction.

Rather than be unhappy about that… it is better for us to learn. I still remember a Christian (I guess) short-term missionary from the United States screaming at a Filipino man leaning against a wall, “YOU GOT TO BE SAVED!!! YOU GOT TO BE SAVED!!” Unless “Irresistable Grace” is true, he absolutely does NOT have to be saved… and regardless, yelling at him doesn’t help. I have a lot of familiarity with gospel presentations that seem more interested in talking about the horrors of hell than the grace of God. I had to read a book on evangelism in a class at seminary (a good class, actually) where the author offered a way of presenting the gospel. Much of it seemed to be good… at least until the person rejects the message… whereupone the evangelizer was supposed to be (frankly) pretty obnoxious until there was no option but to give up. I have become familiar with people who think arguing is a great way to share the gospel— where (as one has said) evangelism is spelled “APOLOGETICS.”

Maybe instead of complaining about other groups, we should learn from them— learn what they do right and learn what they do wrong. And examine ourselves.

Is Christian theology war theology? [Question faith #14]

Read this article, linked below, just recently. I must admit that I am not a pacifist. While I do believe that war always involves sin, I believe that there are times (in this completely broken world) that war is the only acceptable choice in a series of unacceptable options.

I served in the US military for a few years and am proud that… well, that I got out when it was time. I feel no shame in serving my country in that manner, but think I am now serving in ways that are of greater value.

I do tend to think that many American Christians are fascinated with war in an unhealthy way. I personally, don’t think the solution is pacifism necessarily, but the “peace that passes understanding” should, I think lead us to be peacemakers. Anyway, consider reading the article below and you might want to look over that website for more thoughts.

https://wp.me/p1gdK4-2wQ

Poisoning the Waters of Learning

I was looking up two things this week with quite similar results. First, I was looking up Narrative Theology. I really see value in narrative theology but it is a challenging topic to wrap one’s head around. It really steps back from some of the common ways of doing theology— emphasis on word etymologies, establishing taxonomies of topics, establishing propositional (or even creedal) statements. So I wanted to read a bit more on this topic… so I did a search engine on articles. The first thing that came up was an article that was put out by The Gospel Coalition. Sometimes there articles are useful. I began reading that article and it soon became clear that the article was not trying to get me to understand narrative theology. Rather, it was trying to “poison the waters”— making me see narrative theology as bad and to be avoided.

That is a pretty rotten thing to do… darkening a topic rather than shedding light on it. It don’t remember too much of the article but two things I remember were (1) many people who are really into Narrative Theology are (theologically) liberal, and (2) Narrative Theology is less focused on truth (apparently because of less focus on propositions). Yet, these could be considered strengths not weaknesses. If Narrative Theology is found useful by a wide variety of Christians from a wide variety of theological and ministerial perspectives (including the theological liberals) that should evidence its value. If Narrative Theology places less value on propositions that does not mean that it places less value on “truth.” Arguably, the presumption (faith statement) that truth can be constrained and limited to propositions and truth is always best presented that way is truly dubious.

Today, I am researching a paper on creating Biblical stories from limited Scripture passages. So for some reason I thought looking up the term “form criticism” online might be helpful. The first article I read was from “Got Questions?” and it was quite unhelpful. It did little more than try to steer readers away from the subject rather than towards it. Once again, it embraced a very narrow understanding of the topic and emphasized that “people like THEM not like US” are the people who value it. The short article emphasized non-Evangelical perspectives of Form Criticism. This is despite the fact that Evangelicals utilize Form Criticism quite often (and probably should more). Form Criticism does not in any sense require one to assume that everything in the Bible developed organically, non-supernaturally as an oral tradition and eventually got put into written form after a lot of starts and stops and edits. Again, the goal wasn’t to share truth— to enlighten— but to poison the waters.

I would like to give an alternative. Ronald Sider, in his book “Good News and Good Works,” has a bit of an excursis on the fate of the unrighteous. He wrestled with the topic. The book is not a theological work on Hell and the Damned, but did seek to look at the topic based on God’s revelation. He only expressed a lot of uncertainty because the Bible is really pretty unclear on some of the specific details. This section of his book is quite caution in making clear doctrinal statements on these topics rather than theologians who have clearly chosen a side, regardless of whether it is ECT (eternal conscious torture), Annihilation, Purging, Second Chance, or Universal salvation. The fact that these theologians come up with clear unambiguous propositional statements doesn’t mean that they hold to a higher position on truth. Arguably it is lower since they are taking a topic where God has left a lot of uncertainties and then they plugged up those holes with their own theological interpretation. That, arguably, is placing greater value on subjective (interpretative) truth than on objective. Now I might argue that Sider is simply being ambivalent and non-rigorous if he left it there with uncertainty. Sider does not do that. He goes on with something of the sort as ‘If we don’t know everything on this topic, we at least know as much as God felt that we needed to know. Based on this, what can we say, and what must be do.’ In other words, how is our story meant to change as it interacts with God’s Story?

I know it is tempting to do the same thing. I have felt it. When I dearly hold to a perspective, I am tempted to poison other topics so that they won’t investigate there. On occasion, I have given into that temptation. I am, however, doing a disservice. I am not helping people to learn but rather I am trying to stifle learning.

I don’t think God is ready at that point to say, “Well, done good and faithful servant.”

Cultural Anthropology before It Was a Science

Cultural Anthropology developed into a social science in the 19th century. But there were most definitely those who studied other cultures before this. However, such study was rarely systematized. Here is a section of my book on “Cultural Anthropology and Christian Missions.” This following is from Chapter 3

Ancient Travelogues

Cultural Anthropology is a modern science. It only goes back into the 19th century. The term “anthropology” actually goes back to the 16th century, but its use was more in line with what today would be known as Theological Anthropology— looking at humans as physical, rational, spiritual, and moral beings. That is not to say that there was no one who looked at foreign cultures. In fact, there were many who did. Table 1 has a few examples of cultural travelers.

None of these individuals would have thought themselves, primarily, as students of culture. Generally their job forced them to travel and interact with other cultures. Most had a surface level understanding of culture (Level 1 or 2 of acculturation. See Table 3 in Chapter 6). Additionally, the writings of these earlier travelers often contained things that were not true. In some cases this may be because they were told things that they did not personally verify. In others, it may have been more intentional, not wanting the truth getting in the way of an entertaining story. Finally, most commonly, the writings of these early travelers were very ethnocentric. They judged other cultures negatively through the lens of their own home culture. Each commonly saw their own culture as the pinnacle of civilization.

NameEthnicityOccupationWrote aboutTimeframeHerodotusGreekMilitaryMediterranean region5th century BCAhmad Ibn FadlanArabianReligious envoyCentral Asia, Eastern Europe10th centuryMarco PoloItalianMerchantAsia14th century ADZhau DaguanChineseDiplomatKhmer Empire14th century ADZhen HeChineseNaval captainIndian Ocean region15th century AD

Table 1. Select Early Travelers

“Ethnographer” Missionaries2

Some would call Bernardino de Sahugan the “First Anthroploogist” or “Father of Ethnography.” He was born in Spain around 1500AD and died in 1590. He was a Franciscan friar and in 1529 traveled to Mexico to work with the native Aztecs. He studied the Aztec language and became an expert writing a dictionary and a book of grammar.

Being a Christian monk, part of his work was to convert Aztecs to Christianity, and to instruct them in the faith. However, de Sahugan saw his ability to communicate effectively with the native people came through understanding them not only in terms of language, but also in terms of broader culture. In Tepeopulco, he asked from local leaders to be assigned to work with experienced men who he could instruct, and who could instruct him. This interaction led to considerable writing on the history and culture of the native peoples in addition to language.

De Sahugan saw his work as more than an academic study— he saw it of value for Christian ministers to understand and relate to the people. Not everyone saw it that way. For example, his “Historia” was not made readily available to others during his lifetime, nor in subsequent generations. There was a fear that the work would encourage natives to dwell too much on their “heathen past.” Additionally, the work also spoke harshly on aspects of the Spanish conquest. The work sat in a convent for over two centuries until “discovered” in 1800 and published in 1831.

While de Sahugan was an early and good example of missionary as ethnographer, many missionaries found themselves in this role, producing works on local cultures for both religious and academic purposes. An early example of a Protestant missionary in this was Abraham Rogerius (1609-1649)3 who wrote considerably on the Hindu faith. Four aspects of the work of these early missionaries involved:

Learn to communicate effectively in the culture.Learn to behave and interact positively and effectively with the people, including in subtle aspects of culture.Develop effective strategies to convert members to the Christian faith, with wisdom as to what aspects of the local culture can be beneficial to contextualize or accommodate.(Sometimes) Create written works to share their learning to those from their home country for purposes of government, church, or academia.4

Cultural Anthropology today focuses on seeking to understand and document rather than change. Because of this, the work of these early missionaries, and especially their motives, would be strongly challenged. Nevertheless, their efforts serve as the beginning of movement to understand, often sympathetically, other cultures and share this understanding with the broader world.

Was St. Paul a Good Contextualizer of the Faith?

Okay, the short answer I am giving to this question is “I don’t know.” But now I will give the longer answer.

Good

I believe there are evidences that Paul was a good contextualizer of the faith. In this, I am specifically focusing on Paul as a Hellenistic Jew reaching across to Hellenistic Gentiles. One might describe this as E-2 evangelism. The first good example for me is Acts 17. I know this is a controversial one. I have a good friend who decided after a lot of study that this was a “Fail” on Paul’s part. Trying too hard to be relevant to a bunch of pagan philosophers, he gutted the message of God and gave a vague “pagan-friendly” version of that message resulting in little response. I grant that this is a possible interpretation. In fact, I had that view for a long time. Teaching cultural anthropology I eventually reversed and came to view this as an excellent attempt. Paul linked philosophers of the Areopagus with the message of God through stories and thought patterns that they were familiar with. The message was not watered down and still did not deny the “skandalon” (call to respond positively to an aspect of the gospel that would scandalize that culture— responding to the bodily resurrection of Jesus). The lack of the use of the Old Testament was perfectly appropriate since the case he was building was based on recognized authority. The Greeks did not recognized the authority of the Hebrew Bible, so he did not use it. That does not suggest that he was promoting a Bible-less faith, but rather trying to move people from wholeheartedly rejecting the message to being at least open to it. The fact that there were relatively few who responded is in now way an evidence of failure. Impacting academics is hard, and based on the Gray Matrix getting someone from either (or both) hostility or ignorance to the gospel to positive response and encouragement in one session is a pretty amazing feat. Even though response is ultimately through the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, the message of Paul could make that work easier or harder. I believe that Paul’s speech well-contextualized the gospel.

Another example is Paul’s way of applying the commands of Jesus (particularly the Great Commandment and Golden Rule) to the unique circumstance of meat sacrificed to idols. His response appeared to be a solid attempt to help people be obedient followers of Christ while still living in a land that was very foreign to the teachings of God.

Bad

I think most people know this story regarding Paul. Paul and Barnabas in Lystra (Acts 14) healed a man publicly and that led to a big mess as people attempted to worship the two of them and sacrifice a bull to them. In hindsight this was pretty predictable. Even in Judea, Jesus was pretty cautious at times regarding healing publically. In Judea, such a miraculous act would link him to the Messiah, or to the great prophets of old. Despite this, Jesus was cautious of how people would react to such shows. In fact, he would sometimes tell the healed one to keep silent about it. In a fully pagan culture such a public display seems almost destined to go awry. Personally, I believe the two of them did it out of compassion… but perhaps it would have been best to do it privately.

Not Sure

I am not the first to suggest this, but some of Paul’s metaphors do seem to be a bit… awkward when it comes to contextualization. An obvious one is in Galatians 4 where the metaphor of Sarah versus Hagar is used. It is used to contrast free versus slave and between two covenants. Still, he is writing it to a church that is multicultural and it is hard to see how that metaphor could possibly do any good for the Gentiles in the group. Of course, he wrote it to them, not to me, so I am not in a position to be sure, but I have to wonder about it.

Another one is also in Galatians where Paul gets into a strong argument with Peter. Paul repudiated the alleged hypocrisy of Peter for separating himself from the Gentiles when a delegation from the Church of Jerusalem joined. I do think that Paul has a point— Peter COULD have used the situation as a ‘teachable moment’ for the delegation. From a contextual standpoint, I am not so certain about Paul’s approach. To disrespect someone (Peter) seemingly for attempting to contextualize his behavior based on the people he was with and calling said behavior hypocrisy seems questionable. It makes me wonder whether he was particularly good at contextualizing.

Again, the last section (“Not Sure”) is there because I am not sure. It has me wondering, but I was not there. And even if he was a bad contextualizer at times, that seems pretty understandable. He was a trailblazer so there was not a lot of experience in the church in contextualization. Additionally, I am not so sure that anyone is consistently good in contextualizing. That is why my answer for the title question is “I don’t know.”

Book Review: “Basic Bible Storying” by J.O. Terry

Basic Bible Storying: Preparing and Presenting Bible Stories for Evangelism, Discipleship, Training, and Ministry, Revised Edition, by J.O. Terry

Christian non-fiction is fairly diverse. At one end I call Inspirational/Devotional (not completely sure what publishers call them). These are books that have some generally positive Christian theme (perhaps on how to pray, or “have victory,” or create a good Christian marriage. They have some Bible verses, pleasant illustrative stories and Christian platitudes. If I sound negative about these books— well I am, but only because they are little interest to me, not because they are bad. They are popular because they are readable, and promise (correctly or incorrectly) to fix some broken area of a Christian’s life. The other end are very academic, theologically dense, and generally impractical works. These books are not so easy to find, and often for good reason. In between are books that seek to bridge the gap a bit, taking theology and research seriously, while still seeking to be applicable.

This, I think is the “sweet spot” I find “Basic Bible Storying,” by J.O. Terry. In fact, one of the things I really like about the book is that the title is a bit, in my opinion, misleading. To me the title suggests something rather formulaic— perhaps a “no assembly required,” ready to use story system for missionaries or ministers, or a very general look at how good it is to use stories in ministry. This is decidedly not what the book is. It is basic more in the sense that it seeks to be somewhat comprehensive– looking at the full gamut of the use of storying in its many iterations across a wide range of fields. However, I did not feel that its breadth worked much against its depth.

One reason it achieved this is that it provided good theological or practical complexity while also helping with more cut-and-paste answers for those who need them. For example, Terry makes a point that storying should be crafted to the situation— the worldview and context in which the storying is done, the time and place constraints of the storyteller, the type of learners, and the primary purpose for telling the stories. In this, he is going against the pre-packaged story sets, as well as the (in my view self-servingly lazy) view of some Christian storytellers that Bible stories are “supra-cultural” and so do not need to be contextualized for a specific audience. Despite this, however, he also gives specific information on gaining access to some of these story resources. He would prefer, it seems to me, that people would do the process of storymaking on their own, but understands that everyone needs a helping hand at times.

The book addresses the process of holding storying sessions (pre-story, story, and post-story) along with a lot of personal stories to illustrate the opportunities and struggles of this form of ministry. The book has a lot of “best practices” and “lessons learned” but built on a foundation of theology and missiology. That does make this book a bit unusual.

Terry is a retired missionary and the book is clearly missiological in tone and target. Nevertheless, he does make clear that a lot of the principles in the book work in many settings— including literate societies. While I agree that a missionary would gain more from the book than others, the principles of storytelling and narrative preaching are valuable for all ministers. Stories are not just for children any more— and never were.