Robert Munson's Blog, page 28
September 10, 2023
Fast to Slow Missions: Part 3
This is a continuation (no surprises) of Part 2.
I have written before on the story of the Faithful Servant. Luke 12: 35-48
I have suggested that one could look at this parable being about time.
Option #1. The servant does not try to time the return of his master. Because he does not seek to figure that out, he just keeps doing his work continually. The master praises him NOT for doing things differently as his arrival time approaches but because he continues to do what he always did.
Option #2. The servant, after figuring out that the master is not returning as soon as was expected, starts to adjust what he does based on his own perception of when the master will return. He becomes lazy, selfish, and ultimately abusive. Yet, one should imagine that if this servant was able to figure out when the master would return, he would jump into work making up for misdeeds before his return so that he might give the appearance of faithfulness. Such a tactic, however, proves fruitless because the master inevitably returns when not expected, and the servant’s strategy falls apart.
I feel that the missiological strategy of doing short-term missionary tactics to get quick responses— whether it be focusing on
Projects over Programs
Focusing on verbal assents and evangelistic rallies over building discipleship and relationships
Focusing on Relief over Development
Ministering spiritualistically rather than holistically
is more in line with the second strategy. With the second option, “Slow strategies” of missions are downplayed because “the time is short…” Jesus is returning any day.
But is there any justification for thinking this way? Well, it is possible that Jesus is returning tomorrow… or 500 years from now. But should our behavior be different based on whether one has one day or decades to serve?
If you think the time of Jesus’s return should have an effect on our ministry work, I must challenge this. In fact, consider this question:
HOW MANY DAYS DO YOU HAVE PROMISED TO YOU HERE TO SERVE GOD?
Suppose that Jesus is NOT coming in the next century. How many days do you have then?
You might die before reading to the end of this post. You might die tomorrow, next week, next year. I am 58. I might not live to be 59. On the other hand, I know a missionary how is in her mid 90s who is still active in service. If I am like her, I might be ministering for an additional 3 decades or more. On the other hand, this might be my last day.
With no guarantee for the future, what should I be doing? Should I be doing frenzied quick fix strategies in missions? I really don’t think so.
First, I think I should be developing religious leaders. Regardless of the amount of time I have left, I am mortal. I will die. I should be preparing people for my passing to take over. Developing leaders is a slow and relational process.
Second, I should be committed to repeatable patterns that are not dependent on myself. I should desperately be avoiding the “superman strategy” of missions. That means establishing patterns in others that make myself ultimately unnecessary. This takes time.
Third, I should build “fires that endure” rather than ones that “flash and fade.” Thus I need to move away from quick responses and towards transformational commitments.
Am I saying fast missions is always wrong? No. There is a place for evangelistic rallies, rapid church multiplication, and (perhaps) regional saturation strategies. But Fast Missions should always be linked to Slow Missions. STM projects should be tied to long-term local church presence, or long-term mission programs. Evangelistic events should be tied to slow follow-up. Relief projects should fold into Development programs.
However, if Fast Missions needs to be linked to Slow Missions… perhaps it is better to cut out that first step, and put one’s effort most of the time into Slow Missions. Develop people, relationships, and communities. This process probably only rarely needs quick little projects.
I think the following statement sums up my meandering posts:
IF YOU TRULY THINK THAT JESUS MIGHT COME TOMORROW (OR YOU MIGHT DIE TOMORROW) THEN DO SLOW MISSIONS TODAY
September 9, 2023
Fast to Slow Missions: Part 2
You can look at PART 1, if you haven’t read that yet.
I would like to give three formative stories on my thoughts on this one.
Story #1. This is the least story-ish. I was reading T4T: A Discipleship Re-Revolution. It is a so-called CPM strategy. CPM stands for “Church Planting Movement” and refers to efforts to create a culture where churches rapidly self-propagate in a homogeneous setting. T4T I am tempted say is about multiplying evangelistic bible studies, not churches, but I won’t dwell on that. But as I was reading the book, a question came up about doing social ministries or felt-need ministry while following the T4T strategy. The advice given was NO. The reason is because it slows the strategy down. I guess I am still American enough to struggle with that for a little while. I really think social ministry is important— in fact, God-ordained. But if it slows things down, doesn’t that really speak against its need, or even its “rightness”?
I then was struck by a thought that if I wasn’t brought up in the American culture, I would have thought of immediately— WHY IS FAST A GOOD THING? I used to be an Engineer and I still remember the Design Triad. When thinking of designing/creating something new, one had three characteristics to aim for (beyond such direct things as function, durability, and aesthetics). The three are: High Quality, Low Cost, and Fast Development. Of those three, you can choose any two. If you want to have a fast development, you need to sacrifice either quality or cost.
If we assume (and I think this assumption would ultimately prove true) this principle applies to Christian discipleship as well. If you want quick multiplication and quick discipleship, quality will suffer or cost (include money, time, energy) will. Mostly likely it will be quality.
Looking at the ministry work of Jesus, we could imagine he would respond almost the opposite to that book. When asked about why He did social ministry, perhaps He would have said, “I do social ministry— healing and feed— to slow things down. They don’t just hear about the Kingdom of God, they get a small taste of it. I am looking for true, mature, self-identified disciples— following my example. And that takes time.”
Story #2. Years ago I was in a mission organization, “Dakilang Pag-Ibig DIADEM Ministries”— DPDM. Our primary ministry was medical mission events. This is a Fast form of ministry. You take a team to a community in the morning. We did registration, blood pressure, evangelism, medical care (or dental or surgical or eye care) and then pharmacy. And then we would leave. We would work with local churches and give them the registration forms with giving them the call to do follow-up. Now some people have complained about this form of ministry, — and sometimes I am one of these. The medical care is generally of a very limited nature— and an evangelism presentation tied to medical care can sound an awful lot like a cynical manipulation. But let’s ignore this for a moment and look at some of the transitions we made.
Over around a 5 year period we did 70 medical missions, reaching around around 30,000 with over 10,000 “praying to receive Christ” (not getting into the question of authenticity of such prayers). Early on, we were quick to say yes to churches or churchplanters who would invite us. However, over time, we started to discover three things. First, we realized that medical mission events work better in certain communities, and not so well with others. Second, we realized that it was really really important that we visit a potential site for a medical mission beforehand, as well as talk to the local church, local school and so forth weeks before we go there for the mission. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we needed to have really good local churches to partner with.
Taking the third point— we would do a medical mission at a particular site and a few months later we would contact that host church and would ask them how things have gone since we met— has anything changed? Many would say that pretty much nothing has changed. Others on the other hand would give a very different report. Perhaps one would say, “We did follow-up on the names we were given. When we did so, we were able to establish three new Bible study groups. A few weeks ago we expanded the ministry to have a Saturday morning kids ministry. Hopefully, we will start gathering them into a separate Sunday morning group once a month in the not too distant future.”
We gradually learned that doing more is not necessarily doing more. In fact, we probably could have done more like 25 medical missions in those 5 years and got as much ministry done. Utlimately, we learned that we needed to slow down— focus more working on locations that make more sense in a manner more tailored to that location, and working with partners who are more committed to take a quick project and turn it into a long-term program. Fast projects need slow planning and slow partnerships.
Story #3. This story is not part of my story but of Evangelical missions back in the 1960s. I recall reading about the tension that existed in the Evangelical missions community. The WCC and IMC had moved further and further away from traditional (and rather conservative) missions, and the Evangelical community rebelled and established its own structures for missions. But the question came up what to do about social missions. Some like Donald McGavran, Billy Graham, and Peter Wagner looked on social ministry rather negatively. In some cases they were not actively opposed, but did not give priority (seeing social ministry as taking the lead on proclamation ministry) or weight (seeing social ministry as being part of the Great Commission). Billy Graham, for example, said that he believed that a lot of social problems solved themselves if enough people become saved. I think the data on that is truly lacking— especially if those who are saved had already been indoctrinated with the belief that social problems are not really their problem.
However, one other reason that social ministry was pushed down at that time by some Evangelicals is what I would call “Apocalypticism.” This perspective goes like this— “Jesus is returning ANY DAY, and so we must do methods and strategies that will lead to the most spiritual responses in the least amount of time. Social or Developmental ministries are slow and therefore don’t make sense in these ‘last days.'” Of course, there were three problems. The first is historical. Jesus did NOT return in the 1960s, or 1970s, or 1980s, or… . They made strategic decisions based on a guess that proved wrong. Second, I believe that the idea of trying to make strategic missiological decisions based on trying to time Christ’s return is inherently flawed. I have written on this before and so don’t want to repeat myself. Generally, Jesus said it is not for us to know the time of His returning and that we are to be faithful until the end. Bringing these two together leads to the conclusion that we are to do what is right and what is right is not dependent on how close it is to Christ’s return. If it is right today with Christ not returning for 500 years, it is right today if Christ was coming this afternoon. Third, I theorize at least that if in the 1960s investment was placed on developmental transformational ministries rather than on short-term quick-fix programs, I think there may have proven to be more long-term tangible results than what we have. This last point is hard to prove, but I would push back on this by pointing to my second story. Definitely in that setting, doing holistic ministry that properly tied projects to programs, social to spiritual, and sought to be slow and careful in selection of work proves more effective than doing a lot of fast projects without the long-term in consideration.
I think I will go on to a Third post on this topic. We shall see.
Fast to Slow Missions, Part 1
This is a section of my book, “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions.” It is available by CLICKING HERE. In this section I promote three types of “paradoxical” missions:
Strong to Weak MissionsBig to Small MissionsRich to Poor MissionsSo most of the rest of this post is about those three— from the book. After that, I would like to add a fourth and talk about this, primarily in the next post:
Fast to Slow MissionsMoving Beyond
I would like to promote a vision for future missions that I would like to call “Paradoxical Missions.”2 It is called that because it suggests values that are traditionally not encouraged in missions. Generally, these are things qualities that are counter-intuitive when it comes to Missions.
In general, these relate broadly to the idea that Missions should move – From Great to Good. With due respect to the book by Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t,3 I would like to promote a move in missions from Great to Good rather than Good to Great. I am not the first to suggest this. Back in 2003, Eric Swanson wrote an article in Christianity Today, “Great to Good Churches.”4 I really enjoyed that article. Of course, the idea is that the two terms (great and good) are on two different scales. Great is on a scale of Success. Good is on a scale of Righteousness. Of course, one can try to combine the two. One article tries to merge the scales a bit– Good to Great to Godly by Mike Bonem5 and a book, Good to Great in God’s Eyes by Chip Ingram,6 seeks to move the term Great fully into the Righteousness scale. I have no issues with any of these works. However, for me, the term “Great” is inherently problematic. Much like the term “Prosperity,” even though it has good potential meanings, it commonly becomes a toxic lure. To me, Christian missions should avoid anything that tempts one towards greatness. There are enough people and organizations striving for greatness. Let them get the accolades, and we should strive for goodness instead.7
Related to the move from Great to Good, are the following paradoxical characteristics:
Strong to Weak. Missionaries have commonly, and traditionally, come into a new culture from a position of strength. Early on, many missionaries considered mission lands as places that are under colonial rule, and often, although not always, served with support of the colonial authorities. Missionaries often would come in and be in a position to get their way because of funding from outside sources that locals lacked. In recent years, this strategy has been questioned.It may not be good for missionaries to be linked to colonialism/imperialism.It may not be good for missionaries to be seen as sources of economic blessings (leading to odd constructs such as prosperity gospel or cargo cults).It may not be good to promote dependency in developing churches in developing countries.It may not be good to keep a faith “foreign” by keeping it under economic hegemony of a foreign church or agency.Out of this has come the growth of Vulnerable Missions. While I don’t really care for the term “vulnerable” I don’t have a better one. I do personally prefer “Weak Missions” but I know that is just too prone to misinterpretation. But in weakness, a missionary enters a culture as a lamb, not a lion. He or she has a more catalytic role than coercive. Reliance on God takes precedence over reliance on State, Denomination, or Financial supporters. (In Christian missions, I do have a lot of respect for the Honor-Shame Movement, which gives greater respect to “patronage.” Vulnerable Missions would seek to avoid patronage as something that can lead to dependency. I have not reconciled these— the support for dependency in the patronage system and the rejection of dependency in Vulnerable Missions. Maybe someday I will figure it out.)8
Big to Small. For many, Great implies Big, as does the word Strong. In missions, we talk about church-planting movements, saturation strategies, and “discipling a whole nation.” They sound Great, they sound Strong, they sound Big. However, having been raised in the “Burned Out District” of Western New York– a region of big revivalism and saturation strategies in the 19th century, I feel justified in being a bit cynical about the long-term repercussions of such big strategies. While AD2000 (the most well-known such activity) and other mission programs have pushed big goals with poorly justified deadlines, change is commonly occurring in the mustard seed activities around the world. Some like to modify the “Dream Big!!” mantra with the more realistic “Dream Big, Start Small.” For me, however, it doesn’t honor small. Small doesn’t have to be apologized for. We are all small, and it is entirely possible that a God-size vision is often a small vision. 9From Rich to Poor. Jesus instructed his disciples (both the Twelve and the Seventy) to go in groups of two without money. Many in the early church believed that Apostles (evangelists/church planters) were to take a vow of poverty as part of their role. The early church grew through lay people who were typically poor, and sometimes enslaved. The most successful and commendable mission work done in the Roman Catholic church was often done by the Mendicant orders. The Christian Community Development movement emphasizes strongly the importance of identifying with the poor. This is not to say that money is irrelevant or always counterproductive. However, many ministries would benefit from having less money– even in ones that may really need large amounts of money. For example, a Christian missions hospital requires a great deal of money to function. However, more money might not make them better. Less money, for example, may lead to better long-term solutions in ministry such as developing home healthcare programs.This is not an argument against financial support for missions. Rather it is a caution against presuming that big vision, big finances mission work is better. But often I have seen missionaries who do great things but with woefully inadequate support, while mediocre missionaries are highly funded. Sadly, missions support is often based not on need, but on the ability of the missionary or mission organization to fund-raise.
I think of Gideon and his 300 soldiers. Gideon started with a large group of men ready to fight, and slowly whittled them down to 300. Why 300? Were the 300 the “best” warriors? Probably not. They were selected based on those who were not afraid and those who drank water in an unusual way. I heard one preacher suggest that a person who cups water into his hands and then laps the water like a dog is more vigilant than one who drinks water another way. I have my doubts… and such a view seems to undermine the main message of the story. God told Gideon in Judges 7:2, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’” The purpose of the drinking was not to find the most valiant, the toughest, the most vigilant. Rather, it was to get the numbers down. If 300 people just stuck their heads in the water to drink, I expect they would have been chosen. God wasn’t looking for the strongest. He was not looking for a big army. He was not looking for a strong army. He wanted a small and weak force so that when they were victorious people would be forced to say, “Praise God, for He has delivered us from our enemy.”
If one looks at some of the most effective times in Church History, one must note the growth during the 1st three centuries of the church in the Roman Empire and neighboring lands. One must also consider the growth of the Chinese Church in the 20th century. Both grew without superstars or super-programs or super-anything. They were good people, faithfully doing small activities, reaching out from a position of weakness.
2 Much of this comes from a web article of mine, “Paradoxical Missions.” https://munsonmissions.org/2019/08/28/paradoxical-missions/
3 Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). Technically, I am not using this book, only referencing the title. As should be pretty obvious, I am following the pattern of Eric Swanson of using more of an ethical understanding of “good” and “great” in contrast to Collins’ use of the words in terms of gradations of excellence.
4 Eric Swanson, “Great to Good Churches.” Christianity Today, Spring 2003. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2003/spring/3.37.html
5 Mike Bonem, “Good to Great to Godly.” Christianity Today, Winter 2010. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2010/winter/goodgreatgodly.html
6 Chip Ingram, Good to Great in God’s Eyes: 10 Practices Great Christians Have in Common (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).
7 More on this topic in my post, “Great to Good Christians” at https://munsonmissions.org/2012/03/03/great-to-good-christians/
8 More on this in my post, “Praying for Weak Christian Missions” at https://munsonmissions.org/2013/07/12/weak-and-vulnerable-missions-its about-time-part-1/
9 More on this topic, “Dream Small,” at https://munsonmissions.org/ 2017/06/01/dream-small/
Okay… moving onto the next thing, I would like to promote the idea that Slow Missions is better than Fast Missions.
Let’s consider some forms of Slow Missions:
-Community Development
-Bible Translation
-Chronological Bible Storytelling
-Theological Education
-Localization of Christian faith and practice
In contrast, there are also Fast Missions
-Evangelistic Rallies
-Relief of Project-type missions
-Short-form faith indoctrination
-Canned evangelistic presentations
-Packaged foreign structures in localized setting
-Church-Planting Movements (this last one is a bit controversial. Will deal with that in the next.)
-Short-term Missions (another controversial one. Also dealing with next time.)
August 23, 2023
Cultural Exploration of a Filipino Breakfast
I am teaching Cultural Anthropology in our seminary and so I thought I would explain a couple of aspects of the subject through the use of a Filipino Breakfast.
This morning right before class I had a very classic Filipino breakfast. Although there are many different variations of what constitutes a Filipino breakfast, this certainly constitutes one.
SiningagSawsawanCoffeeGuyabanoFried SpamLet’s consider each one as to what it is and how it fits into culture.
#1. Siningag. This is essentially fried rice. It’s roots are deep in Filipino culture as well as breakfast. It is typical, traditionally, to have rice every meal. However, by the next morning, the rice that was cooked the day before is losing some of its vitality. The most common way to deal with old rice is to fry it in oil as well as some onion and garlic. The roots of Siningag are deep in Filipino culture.
#2. Sawsawan can be thought of like a condiment for food. It can vary. Later in the day if you go to a restaurant for a typical “Rice Toppings” you may be given a tiny dish with a calamansi (small Filipino citrus), a thai chili pepper, and a shared bottle of soy sauce. One combines them together to make a spicy “toyomansi” (soy sauce and calamansi joice combination). For breakfast, it may be more common to have the type of sawsawan that I had. This is diced tomato with sliced onion and garlic with soy sauce. The mixture goes great with fried rice. Although this type of sawsawan has deep roots, it borrows some from outside. Tomatoes are orginially from the Americas and came to the Philippines through the Spanish. Soy Sauce came through Chinese traders.
#3. Coffee is well embedded in Filipino culture. Living in Benguet province we grow a LOT of coffee here ranging from very smooth to very ummm…. LESS smooth (to put it nicely). Yet coffee is not originally in the Philippines. It comes from East Africa through Arab traders (or Arab traders and the Spanish… not quite sure).
#4. Guyabano is a wonderful fruit with the unfortunate English name “soursop.” It grows all over the Philippines and is commonly eaten fresh or (better yet) served as a fruit shake. However, it is originally from Americas and (again) comes to the Philippines via the Spanish.
#5. Fried Spam is a wonderful addition to breakfast. Actually, Spam is very expensive now in the Philippines, so my wife and I had a Korean version of the same basic product. People may be tempted to say that Spam is not a traditional Filipino food. However, it is. The Philippines, along with Hawaii, are among a very few number of places where it is culturally acceptable to admit, non-ironically, that one loves Spam. A common form of breakfast here are the “-Silog” breakfasts. “Silog” is a combination of “Si” in sinangag (fried rice) and itlog (egg, or in this case, fried egg). <In fact, the most un-Filipino aspect of my breakfast was that I did not have an egg with it.> So if one wants to have these two with longanisa, one has a “Longsilog.” If one wants to change out the sausage with tocino, one orders a “Tosilog.” If one wants “Tapas” instead, it is “Tapsilog.” The list goes on. “Spamsilog” is… well… you already figured it out. Spam (and much of the canned meat that fills Filipino groceries) came originally from the US canned food industry.
SO WHAT CULTURAL PRINCIPLES COME FROM THIS.
A. Cultures borrow from each other. It is as correct to say that Spam and Coffee are Filipino food items, as it is to say that pizza and spaghetti are American food items, and chicken masala is a british food. Cultures borrow things from other countries and often make them their own. American pizza is quite different than traditional Italian pizza. Philippine spaghetti is quite different from American spaghetti. One can call this cultural diffusion— as long as one does not seek to link it directly with the theory of “cultural diffusionism.”
B. Cultures change. Although I had a traditional Filipino breakfast, it would not be considered traditional 100 years ago, 300 years ago, 600 years ago. In fact, many of the items in my breakfast would be unknown some centuries ago. Change is not necessarily bad. And even if change was always bad (and it is not) that is irrelevant since change happens anyway. The only cultures that don’t change are dead cultures.
August 22, 2023
Theological Reflection on Land
Taking a course on “Teaching in Orality Cultures” (led by Tom Steffen) has been great so far and I do recommend it for anyone who is seeking to embrace storying or more generally seeking to communicate effectively with people who can’t read, don’t read, or choose to learn through other means than the written word.
But an interesting thought was presented by Tom that I had not heard before and it got me thinking. It is a definition (or theological reflection perhaps) of the word “Land.” It can be put into a formula of sorts:
Land = Dirt + History + Emotion
Obviously, the Bible takes seriously Land in these terms. The history and emotions of the nation of Israel (speaking of ancient Israel… not referring to the present State of Israel) is very much tied to region— “The Land of Promise.”
As important as this is. We see underlying principles that go further.
Land is tied to both life and death. Moses described himself as a stranger in a strange land. Joseph asked to have his bones taken with the people when they leave Egypt to be buried in the land promised to Abraham. Abraham wanted to ensure that Sarah and himself were buried in land that was owned by them rather than land owned by another.It was commonly believed that God’s were tied to the land and the residents of that land. We see that with the people who populated the northern regions of Israel after the Assyrian exile learning the customs and requirements of the God of Israel so that they would have peace. We also see that with Naaman. When he was healed by Elisha, he brought bags of soil from the vicinity of Elisha’s house to take back with him to Damascus. The implication was that the God of Israel will be the God of Naaman if the land (dirt) of Israel covers the courtyard of Naaman.The Genesis creation story emphasizes that man was created out of the dust/dirt of the earth. We are not only tied emotionally and historically to the land, we are tied by substance to the land. While it has been catchy to say “Christians are IN the world but NOT OF the world,” Others will say something to the effect that, “We were created for Heaven.” While there is some truth to that, I feel both misinform more than they inform. We ARE created of this world— earth, dirt, land. We are not of the “cosmos”— system of this world… but we are of the created world. We also may be created for Heaven… but if one gets technical, the vision is for Heaven on Earth, or Heaven and Earth combined.A good theological understanding of the land is not to distance ourselves from it, but to honor it as a part of us, and a gift from God to be cared for and cherished.
On a personal level, this is challenging. I was raised on a hill in southwestern New York State. I was raised in a house owned by my great grandparents on a road named after them. I also lived near another road that was named after another set of great grandparents. I have had some relatives living on that hill for closing in on 200 years (a pretty impressive thing for that part of the world). When the military moved me away, I held onto the land. But eventually, I sold the land. That was hard. It wasn’t just dirt. It has my family’s history stamped on it. To sell the land almost felt like a rejection of my family. However, on the other hand, I could not live there… and young people from town would drive up on the hill, have parties, and leave trash on my land. My inability to deal with this sort of desecration also seemed to dishonor my family as well. In the end, I sold the land to a family friend who could properly take care of the land.
As a missionary, I am a bit like Moses— having no set home— no land that is my own. Recently, the local government in the Philippines is buying out the land on the island that my wife was raised on and generations before her. Soon neither of us will have land that is tied to our family heritage. That is sad in a way, but part of our calling as missionaries. In many ways, I have come to terms with it. That being said, I mustn’t fall into the trap of putting my perspective onto others. For many, their land is their family’s legacy, and their (in some ways divine) inheritance. I should never downplay or disrespect this perspective.
Anyway, I am just putting down some thoughts as I think of them. I have not processed them much yet.
August 15, 2023
Does Being Foreign Make You a Better Religious Minister?
I am a foreigner working in the Philippines. My answer to the above question is generally “no.” However, there was a time that I would wholeheartedly say “NO.” With some reflection, I have had to be a bit more nuanced in my response.
#1. Talking with a couple of my students, they felt that in their contexts, missionaries from other cultures were more effective in evangelism. One was from India and believed that people in their own country tended to listen to people from other cultures more intently than they did local ministers. The other student was from Philippines and worked with Korean ministers. He believed that because of the Filipino interest in Korean culture (such as K-dramas and K-pop), people often listened more closely to ministers from Korea than they did to local ministers. I will admit that I grew up in a very monocultural, racially non-diverse community. On rare occasions we would have a minister or missionary from a very different setting (like we had one who was culturally Jewish and another who was from Nigeria)., I think I did listen to them a bit more closely. Perhaps this is exoticism (seeing other cultures as better than our own). Or maybe it is simply the logic that one should pay more attention because what they are likely to say is going to be different, rather than what people like oneself is likely to say (probably a repeat of what one has heard so many times before). Alternatively, it could just be a bit of ordinary curiosity— they look different from me… I wonder if they think different as well.
#2. Foreignness can create barriers, but those who seek to overcome those barriers are often given a bit of extra attention. I knew of an American man who spoke fluent Kapampangan (my wife’s first language). He could speak it like a native Pampanguenyo. When he shared the Gospel message, he was given more attention than most. A friend of mine would talk of having Mormon youth doing their 2-year “mission” who would knock on her door and ask in somewhat rough Cebuano, “Excuse me, but can I tell you a story.” Even though she was in no way on the market for a different religion, she almost felt that she couldn’t say no… because it was such a novel thing to see a young white person trying to talk in their language. Sometimes, people trying to cross the cultural gap are given extra credit. This is not always true… but definitely sometimes.
#3. Sometimes it seems as if people from other cultures are given religious roles because of being from a different culture. I recall Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, a Spanish explorer from the era of the Conquistadors. Lost in what is now known as Florida, he and a few others survived and eventually worked their way back to their own people through being faith healers. None of them saw themselves in this role beforehand. Perhaps because of their foreignness the local tribes thought they might have secret knowledge or powers that others do not have. Alternatively, maybe it was less exotic, but more practical— you can’t fish or hunt or do much of anything else well that we need, maybe you can pray and heal. In a somewhat similar way, shamans seem also (in some cultures) to be chosen because they are outliers within their culture. Being an outlier might mean that their are few other jobs they can do… or perhaps they are thought to be closer to the gods or the spirits because they are further away from us. Older women sometimes became healers based on the presumption of accumulated knowledge regarding herbs and such (and unfortunately sometimes later described perjoratively as ‘witches’) to give them a role in the culture— especially if they did not have an extended family to act within.
With this reflection, I guess I would go to a modified view. Usually, local ministers are more effective than foreign ministers. But in some cases, foreign ministers may be able to open doors and start conversations that local ministers may not be able to. I will admit that being foreign has closed doors for me at times in the Philippines and has also opened doors at other times.
Quote on Bible Storying
The beginning Bible storyer may be tempted to take one of the existing popular model sets of Bible Storying lessons, translate the story lessons verbatim, and begin using them. While this may serve to produce some quick, though limited results, it must be realized that each story lesson model must be crafted for addressing worldview issues in culturally acceptable ways and means to the end that biblical truths speak claerly to a particular group of listeners. If the new listener group happens to be similar in worldview and at about the same point in their spiritual knowledge and quest as a group for whom the Bible story lessons were originally crafted, the use of existing models may produce acceptable results. As the worldview differences between the original and new listener groups increase, the end results typically become more unpredictable.
As the worldview that the existing Bible Storying model is based on differs from the worldview of the new listner group, unanswered questions may arise and many spiritual issues can remain unchallenged and unaddressed. …
Two prolems areas stem from the failure to customize the Bible Storying process for particular peoples and their worldviews. First, the failure to address spiritual issues can and does lead to potential syncretism. Second, failure to customize the storying to the culture may increase the resistance and hostility of the listeners by actually innoculating them against the gospel. By the inappropriate choice and crafting of stories or poorly adapted lessons and teaching themes, Bible storyers may delay or obstruct the acceptance of the Message.
-J. O. Terry, Basic Bible Storying– Preparing and Presenting Bible Stories for Evangelism, Discipleship, Training and Ministry, revised edition (Church Starting Network, 2008), Foreword
August 13, 2023
Mission Quote after the Opium Wars
In the Spring of 1877, Protestant Missionaries joined together to meet in Shanghai to discuss a Christian missions view of opium in China. There were two wars often referred to as the Opium Wars. The first Opium War was 1839-1942 and the second 1856-1860. In both cases, much of conflict was driven by trade between Great Britain and China, with France also involved in the second one. Opium was not the only issue, but certainly was the most problematic, with European powers working against the Qing dynasty trying to suppress the opium trade.
Some of the results of the Opium wars aided missionaries— such as the ceding of Hong Kong to England. With that in mind, it is valuable to see how Protestant Missionaries viewed this.
Cornell University is nice enough to make a paper from the 1877 gathering available as a scanned document online. If you want to read it, you can CLICK HERE.
To my own mind the great hindrance which opium as distinguished from other vices and evils presents to the Gospel must be traced not so much to its use, as to the history of that use, and Mr. Stevenson in the course of his speech fully coincides
Here is a quote from that paper.
I must be permitted also in passing to notice the fallacy which somewhat persistently underlies the arguments of those who criticize the present Anti-opium agitation. It is assumed that our great object is to cure the Chinese of opium-smoking, and that one mearns to attain this most desirable end is the stoppage of the Indian supply. Surely this is a fallacy and a mistake. Our great object is to rid Christian England of the shame and wrong connected with her opium-selling, more than to cure Heathen China of her vice of opium-smoking. So far as human agency is concerned, China must cure herself. Hospitals and Opium Refuges practically useful as they are, must yet ever be so few and feeble as to act the part of protest prompting and suggesting, never of universal efficacy.
This is the true issue. England has not only injured China by her share in the trade; she has through the moral effect of the history of that trade, crippled her power to apply the one remedy for all China’s woes— the Gospel.
A. E. Moule ‘The Use of Opium and Its Bearing on the Spread of Christianity in China,’ A paper read before the Shanghai Missionary Conference, May 19, 1877. pages 2 and 3.
Reading this quote, one sees some nuance. Moule, an Anglican missionary under the Church Missionary Society recognized the dangers of opium use. On the same page as the quote, he notes that opium is a vice, not necessarily better or worse than other vices. While around 150 later, we might feel that opioids are a bigger vice than other vices, I do see a positive side in this. It is a common tendency for people in Culture A to see the vices associated with Culture B to be more repugnant or more immoral than their own associated vices. Moule sees opium as a vice that leads to great moral problems but doesn’t assume that the vices of the English are better, or more “Christian.”
He notes that actions of the Anti-opium contingent are commendable, as well as those trying to help those who are suffering from opium use and addiction. However, he adds the note that the opium solution in China, from the human side of things at least, can only be solved by the Chinese, not by foreign missionaries.
In the quote, he notes a problem that is of bigger concern to himself at least. Because Great Britain has had a hand in actually promoting (at times at gunpoint) the expansion of opium use in China, the empire has undermined its self-identification as a “Christian Nation” and has undermined its testimony, and that of its missionaries, in bringing the message of Christ to China.
I will admit that I can relate to that a bit. I remember visiting a Brazilian church in Parana. That church supported Brazilian missionaries around the world. One of the major mission sites they supported was work in the Palestinian Territories.
It occurred to me at that time that Brazilians have an advantage in ministering to Palestinians. Brazilians tend to have a rather positive reputation world-wide. I think most people don’t feel conflict with Brazilians except in terms of sports perhaps (futbol, F-1, volleyball, etc.) This contrasts with Americans. Years before that, I was in the US Navy, involved with the First Iraqi War (“Desert Storm”). One day, when we were on port call in Haifa, Israel, I had the oportunity to visit Jerusalem. It was a nice visit— got the vibe of a “Christian Disneyland” in some ways, but I still treasure that visit.
Coming out of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre there were a bunch of young Palestinian boys. They were hoping to sell us stuff. None of us were interested at that point in time, so the boys shifted the sales tack to… “Buy before you die. Buy before you die. Die for the glory of Saddam Hussein. Buy before you die.”
Years later, in Brazil, it occurred to me that as an American I was not likely to have much of an impact on those Palestinian boys, or Palestinian adults either. Americans have tended to have a rather aggressive role in the Middle East, and many American Christians (drawing from Christian Zionism) have often seen the Palestians as “the enemy.”
I serve in the Philippines so I don’t have to deal much at all with the Israel and Palestine. Still, the challenge remains that Americans will often have trouble in working in a number of Asian countries because of geopolitical issues that American missionaries have no direct role in.
At risk of being a bit controversial here, perhaps meddling is a bit of an American vice. Or maybe not. I don’t know. But there are repercussions. That is why I am more focused on training Asians for mission work to Asia. Frankly, the problems of Asia, humanly speaking, are going to be solved by Asians, not by American missionaries.
August 12, 2023
Searching for a Robust Theology of Heaven– Part 3
In part 1 (Post 1) I expressed my concerns about the lack of a solid theology of Heaven in Christian circles. There is a robust theology of Hell— even if many of the teachings are drawn from traditional images of Hell rather than what the Bible actually teaches. In part 2 I listed a few visions of Heaven that I feel are particularly problematic.
For part 3, I decided NOT to try to develop this ‘robust theology.’ Partly, this is because I am a missiologist, not a Biblical scholar or systematic theologian. Partly, it is because there is another topic I want to get working on… Christian missions in the late 19th century. Therefore, I want to give a few characteristics of a good theology of heaven.
#1. It is a restoration of paradise earth, rather than a replacement for it. Our final state is Heaven on Earth, not Heaven away from Earth. Because of this, we should probably look at the eternal state as more in line with Genesis 2 rather than Revelation 7.
#2. It is what we are created for. As such, Heaven will not be about making us something we are not… but maturing us to what we always, in some sense, wanted to (and were meant to) be.
#3. Heaven will be in some ways countercultural. It will challenge our understanding of what it means to be a saint in heaven. Perhaps, as noted in the previous post, we will accept in people characteristics that we today would consider flaws. We likely exhibit a full range of emotions in Heaven, since God exhibits a full range of emotions in Heaven. This is not a flaw to overcome. Our variety and range are part of what it means to be human— created uniquely by God.
#4. Heaven will be purpose-focused. Jesus on a number of occasions speaks of the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven (in which the eternal state is its full consummation) in terms of responsibility, purpose, and service. Heaven is not a place of being lazy and ‘blissed-out.’ Rather, it is a place of living and doing what we are created to live and do passionately.
#5. Heaven is a place of harmony and relationships. Heaven is not a place of individuals enjoying their ‘golden ticket.’ We were created to live in community, and dwell in full harmony— God, Man, and Creation.
#6. Heaven cannot be adequately described or imagined. I Corinthians 2:9 makes it clear that is beyond what we witness, beyond what we can explain, and beyond what we can imagine. As such, any detailed description of heaven must be taken as highly doubtful. In fact, it probably should be looked at as heresy.
When I was young, I had a dream of Heaven. It was a nice dream. I did not write any books on that dream. I did not preach on it. Why? First of all, it is probably a dream of my own imaginings. This would be fine, no problem with it. But even if it was from God, it is for me alone. Even if I could explain it (and I cannot), It is NOT what Heaven is like. At most, it is what God wanted me to envision about Heaven when I was that age. Heaven is far more and different than anything I could dream.
Let’s comfort ourselves with this.
Searching for a Robust Theology of Heaven– Part 2
In Part 1, I talked about the fact that heaven as it is imagined in folk Christianity often sounds rather awful. In fact, it often sounds pretty bad for a short period of time, to say nothing of countless eons. But let’s consider some of those dubious pictures of heaven.
#1. Cartoon Heaven. This one is a bit of a Strawman. That is, I doubt that many actually believe this is what heaven is like. You have seen it in cartoons, comics, movies, and so forth. Common features are being dressed in white robes, standing in clouds, often having wings, often holding a lyre (small harp) and perhaps having a halo. It is more of an image rather than an imagination. It is shorthand for some things we think about heaven. The white robes comes from some imagery in the book of Revelation that symbolizes purity and perhaps unity. The halo comes from European painters that used it as a short hand for holiness of Jesus, Mary and the saints. The lyre points to our role as worshipers of God, and the place given to singing in some heavenly scenes. Being in the clouds perhaps comes from the ascension of Christ in the clouds, the note that with the second coming of Christ, we will meet him up there where the clouds are, and generally being in the clouds sounds right because of picture of Heaven is almost universally understood as involving “Up.” Finally, the wings reminds us that Jesus said that we would be “like the angels” (at least in terms of marriage policies)— and frankly, having wings seems pretty awesome.
Cartoon Heaven generally sounds pretty bleak. Life is narrowly limited to a few activities, most of which seems pretty boring after a short time. The imagery is also generally one of social disconnection. Social interaction is generally limited. Outside of having wings, most of it seems rather depressing. Perhaps the being in the clouds thing also points to our hope that in death we have the opportunity, in some small way, to stay connected with our friends and loved ones… even if only watching from a distance.
As I said, Cartoon Heaven is a bit of a strawman. It does not correspond to a Biblical view of Heaven. I don’t think anyone truly believes in Cartoon Heaven. However, as a symbol and a picture it is pretty pervasive and is likely to misinform at an unreflective level at least.
#2. Rock Candy Mountain. Many of you have probably seen “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” In it they revive an old song by Harry McClintock called, “The Big Rock Candy Mountain.” It is supposed to be a picture of Heaven to members of a hobo community. The lyrics can be found HERE if you want to read them. Heaven is described as a big rock candy mountain with lemonade springs and cigarette trees, box cars are always empty, hens lay soft-boiled eggs, and the cops are too slow to catch you.
The Rock Candy Mountain view of Heaven is generally, “Whatever you really like here, you will have all of that and more there.” Some of these views seem to be more driven by wishful fantasy than by what the Bible actually describes as Heaven. The fantasies appear often to be like “pipe dreams”— It can be a big feasting and carousing hall like Valhalla. It can be a place of sexual opportunities without responsibility such as in some Jihadist literature. Revivalist messages are often vague but exuberantly positive— “Pie in the Sky in the Sweet by-and-by!” Vaguely exuberant is not really a description of Heaven… it is marketing literature for proselytization.
Often it is also described as the place of your idealized self. You are forever at some ideal age— maybe 30 years old. You don’t have a limp, or a scar, or any physical abnormality. This may or may not be true, but it is that is based on a rather flawed image of what is ideal. We are shallow in this world— does God affirm such attitudes? Revelation does make a point of undermining our attitudes about race, ethnicity, language, and nationality, in showing us all together in unity despite the differences. Perhaps God challenges our perception of imperfections as well. I wrote an article on this very topic. You are welcome to read it by CLICKING HERE.
#4. Christian Pop Music Concert. Some take imagery in the book of Revelation and extend it to eternity. Some images like in Revelation 7 show Christians of every type dressed in white robes (there is the white robes again) singing praises to the Lamb of God forever and ever. It sounds like a rock concert in some ways… and some take it as the “eternal state.” Even if one takes it as a fully literal vision that corresponds accurately to what was going on in heaven at one specific moment of time (and there is enough symbolic and metaphorical language in the book to make one at least consider other options), we can be pretty sure that there are breaks. In that sense, worshiping God may be continuous (without end or breaks much the way that love, hope, and faith are without end), corporate worship events are almost certainly continual (without end, but with breaks, starts, and stops). We are pretty sure it is continual, because there are other images of Heaven that outside of being in one really big room. Not much point of talking about streets of gold, gates of jewels, and a river flowing out of the throne with fruit trees lining the banks if the saints of Christ will never see them because they are always in one room.
#5. The Doppleganger. This one is the one that I consider most, well… “disturbing.” Yes, I think that is the correct word. I have seen it show itself in a couple of answers to an important question:
-How can I enjoy the wonders of heaven knowing so many of my loved ones— family and friends— are suffering? Perhaps they are suffering on earth, or perhaps suffering in their most unwelcome eternal state.
Two answers I have heard are:
a. You will be having such a wonderful time in Heaven that you won’t even be thinking about them.
b. God will take away all your memories of this life, so you will not miss them.
I have even heard a third answer once or twice that kind of boils down to (labeling it ‘c.’: We will have such zeal for the Lord and His justice and holiness that we praise Him for dooming others to hell… ‘getting what they deserve’. Thankfully, I have not heard this very often… but it is out there.
I have deep problems with these. Letter B is the worst one in some ways. When we are glorified, we have a new body. In some ways, at least, we have new values and interests. If we lose all of our old memories, in what way do we have enough continuity of self to say that we are the same person after as before? Our memories make us very much who we are. If we lose our memories. the hope of salvation in Christ is for all intents and purposes, for someone else that we would not recognize as ourselves. Could this truly be described as “Good News”?
For “a” and “c” it works if one assumes a form of sociopathy where we lose all natural affection or compassion. In the world we live in, such a person— so caught up in his own good times that he doesn’t even think about the suffering of others, or is even happy that they are suffering— would be thought of as a monster. Is the quality that we trending toward is not godliness or love, but being a monster? I hope not.
Some of the reason for the Doppleganger theory is based on Revelation 21:3b-4
He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away
Isaiah 25:8 says something similar. Neither the Revelation passage nor the Isaiah passages says that we have no compassion for anyone else. In fact, if one wants to be technical, both passages describe followers of God as people who receive comfort from God, NOT people who have no need for comfort.
We don’t fully know what Heaven is like, but I hope you can be thankful that it is not like any of the one’s above. The third post will cautiously suggest some things we can say about heaven.