Robert Munson's Blog, page 29

Searching for a Robust Theology of Heaven

Okay, I may as well say it.

Heaven doesn’t sound like such a great place to be.

I suppose I need to clarify this a bit.

Heaven as it is popularly imagined in Folk Christianity sounds pretty awful.

This would be more forgivable if the Folk Christian views had a strong challenge in more rigorous Christian Theology. This, however, is commonly not the case. If one looks at Faith statements of Evangelical churches and organizations, often they are pretty specific as to what Hell is like (even though their statements are quite speculative). Statements about Heaven from these organizations are far less speculative, but only because they are much more vague.

This matters to me for a couple of reasons. First, as an Evangelical Christian, who believes in the eternal state of the faithful, I have a vested interest in that conditions of that future state. Second, again as an Evangelical Christian, when I quote John 3:16 in church a call unbelievers to conversion, and give comfort to believers, it is my hope that people will have a similar understanding of what “eternal” or “everlasting life actually is.

Frankly, if I embraced the popular images of Heaven, I am pretty comfortable in saying I want no part of it. I don’t have a particularly strong fear of death. If the religions of the world were wrong and the result of death is unconscious nothing… I am pretty sure I would be okay with that. More correctly, I am okay with that possibility at this time… in death I would not be able to reflect on that state. If, however, not dying involves a state of boredom or misery, that is most decidedly not a better option.

Before I go on, I probably should give a bit of a self-disclosure here. I am not a party person. When I was a teenager I was one who would bring a book with me to a party so I had something to do to endure the frivolities. While I know better not to do that now, I can still relate in many ways to my teenage self. Therefore, if some of the points I make don’t make sense to you, understand that perhaps we don’t share a common perspective as to what is “totally awesome.” Still, if my view of Heaven sounds completely awful to you, and your view of heaven sounds completely awful to me, most likely both of us are wrong. If Heaven is for ALL the saints in Christ, then it should be “heavenly” for ALL the saints in Christ. Additionally, Paul (in I Corinthians 2:9) pretty much makes it clear that our perspectives will be incomplete, if not completely wrong

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Therefore, in Part 2 of this post chain, I will consider some popular imaginings of Heaven and consider whether these a sound theologically reflective view, and what such a view may say about us. Part 3 will explore some tentative views of what it may actually be like.

If you are looking for the thoughts of a great theologian or Biblical scholar, you need to look elsewhere. But the reflection here is good for me… and if you find value in it— all the better.

Why Did David Have Five Stones Going Into Battle With Goliath?

One of the most famous stories in the Bible is the battle to the death between David and Goliath. The story has crossed over the cultural bridge to the point that one can reference it without actually talking about it. In this way, it is much like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” or the “Ugly Duckling.” “David and Goliath” in the US commonly refers to a storyline where a individual person— often a ‘man of the people’ is able to go up against a big juggernaut (often a soulless, corrupt corporation or government, or a person representing those entities). Of course, the original story had NOTHING to do with it. BOTH David are Goliath were representing soulless corrupt governments in the actual story. Malcolm Gladwell does make the point that David actually had an advantage over Goliath and so we can actually look at the story in a completely different light.

It is interesting that even though the story is very short, we often are shockingly unfamiliar with the details. It is in 1 Samuel 17 (or 1 Kings 17, if you are of the Orthodox faith tradition).

How did David actually kill Goliath? Probably, he killed him by cutting off his head. It is possible that Goliath was already dead, but unlikely. In the story David hit him with a river stone in the forehead with such force that it embedded itself in his forehead. Is that enough to kill him? Maybe… eventually. But we are never given the chance to find out. David comes over and takes Goliath’s sword out of its sheath (apparently Goliath wasn’t even prepared to fight yet) and cuts off his head. This is not even a trivial point. Earlier, David predicted he would cut off his head. Later, when David met King Saul, he was still carrying the head of Goliath.Goliath was not by himself. Even though pictures tend to show David and Goliath alone on the battle filed, Goliath had his shield bearer with him. It kind of makes you wonder what happened to that guy when David came over to cut of Goliath’s head. Perhaps he pulled a “not in my job description” and ran off. David came out to meet Goliath with two weapons, not one. David brought a sling, but also had a staff. In fact, that was the weapon that Goliath acknowledged with the crack about David coming out to him with “with sticks.”

But the first big question that I have is “Why did David have five stones with him when he went to meet Goliath?”

Verse 40 of I Samuel 17. says that David took 5 smooth stones from the stream bed and put it in his shepherd’s pouch. Why 5?

I remember hearing a sermon that said that David had specifically chosen 5 because one was for Goliath and one was each of four member’s of Goliath’s family. That’s pretty dark if you think about it. It is like the preacher is implying that David is thinking, “I am going to kill this person I don’t and never met that I have no reason to have anything against except that we are on different sides of a political and (to a lesser extent) religious conflict— and then I am going to go kill his relatives for no clear reason.” Frankly, this seems pretty dubious. Also, even though David predicted that he would cut off Goliath’s head, there seems little evidence that David was particularly gifted at foretelling the future. Not only do we have no reason to think that David had any knowledge about Goliath’s family, but David would have no reason to think that one stone would be enough for each.

Another theory that comes up sometimes is from “Christian numerology.” Many have noted that the Bible often uses numbers in repeating and symbolic ways. Numbers like 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 40 show up a lot, even when there seems no good reason for it. Some like to look at these symbolic uses and then stretch them out, coming up with symbolic meanings for many numbers, and all of the small numbers. One website I saw said that 5 is the number of God’s grace to mankind. I struggle to see how that would apply to the five stones taken by David… except in the most general sense that God favored David in giving him victory. I tend not to appreciate “Christian numerology” because of the temptation to take it into esoteric mysticism for finding secret messages in the text of the Bible. Of course, the fact that some people take things too far does not mean that there might not be a less extreme position that is good. That being said, I doubt that David chose 5 stones to ensure some symbolic standard is being met.

I have another theory on why David took five smooth stones from the stream. My, admittedly controversial theory is that If the first stone misses, he would use a second. If that one failed he would use a third… and so on.

That sounds like a trivial conclusion but I don’t think it is. David placed his faith in God that he would give David victory, not because he was so special in God’s eyes, but because this was a battle between the God’s chosen people, and the enemies of God. I am not sure I would be so confident that God always picks sides in battles, but that is not the point here. David believed God would give him victory, but not necessarily know how that victory would come to pass. He had his staff with him and 5 stones. I have used a sling before. They would surprisingly well, but they are a bit of a challenge to aim. I am sure that David was much more practiced in it than I was, but even so, it is hard to be sure that one will hit one’s target every time. He brought four extra stones to be sure that he could try again. These stones were fairly smooth so they would fly with little resistance. They were also presumably round so that the air would not push the stones off course. Smooth round stones are best found in a stream bed, so that is where he got them. Why only five? I don’t know but he needed large enough stones to be impactful, but he did not want to overflow the pouch he had with him, or slow him down unnecessarily. I suppose five stones was a thoughtful balance.

This all leads to a second question: Why did the Bible tell us how many stones there were?

The numerologists would of course speak up to tell us that there is secret info in this. I doubt this is the case. Others could be quite prosaic and say that the writer mentioned the number because he or she knew the actual number (much like the recording of the number of fish caught in a story from the gospels— 153). However, in 1 Samuel 17, it lists “Israel and Judah” going up against the Philistines (verse 52). This suggests, to me at least, that the story was recorded long after when Judah and Israel were separate nations. Therefore, the number five had to have been passed on for quite awhile in oral form. (Some may not see it that way, and that is fine. But this seems reasonable to me at least.) Why would they add this detail. The length of David’s staff was not mentioned. What type of sandals he had on. Frankly, a lot of details are missing in the story. Why mention how many stones he had with him?

I will again add my controversial take. I suggest that God wanted us to know that David did not know how he would win the battle with Goliath.

Good faith is based on knowing who God is. Bad faith is believing one knows what God will do in things he has not told us. This faith is bad because it is not faith in God, but faith in oneself. It is like if David had taken only one rock thinking, “I know based one who God is, He will glorify His name by giving us victory… AND I know I will only need one rock since I know exactly how He will do it.”

When we read the life of David, he was wrong a LOT. God was with him and blessed him, but he messed up many times… including how God would respond to things. For example, David started to execute plans to build a temple only to be told (by a prophet) that this was not something he wanted David to do. David guessed wrong on this. We sometimes forget that David was wrong sometimes (often). It is a helpful reminder that in perhaps David’s greatest story, his faith proved true about God even while uncertain about how that faith would be proven true.

In this manner, David was like Abraham who obeyed God in going through the steps to sacrifice his own son even though not totally certain how to reconcile this act with who God is and with what God promised. It reminds me of the three friends of Daniel who were willing to go into the fiery furnace as an act of faithfulness to God even though they were not entirely sure whether God would decide to protect them or not.

I think that the five stones of David here is a great thing to reflect on without having to delve into esoterica, or clever interpretations. Sometimes simple interpretations are good enough.

Evangelism and Naaman’s Servant

I saw an interesting quote regarding evangelism that I can really resonate with:

The other irony in my writing this book is that I do not possess the gift of evangelism. I have led very few people to Christ. I remember all too well the weekly evangelism assignments in Bible School when we were required to spend an evening witnessing on the street. I dreaded those evenings. I certainly was not a street preacher, and I hated approaching total strangers. Predictably, I stopped using this evangelism approach as soon as the class was over, but sadly this experience left a rather rancid taste in my mouth that poisoned my view, not only of street evangelism, but of evangelism in general.

Tom A. Steffen. Reconnecting God’s Story to Ministry: Cross-cultural Storytelling at Home and Abroad (Kindle Locations 64-68). Kindle Edition.

In contrast to this, I have friends who were part of Campus Crusade for Christ (now CRU) who in their training of young believers would say something to the effect of:

“Now that you are a believer, a follower of Christ, you of course have a desire to share your faith with others. It is just natural that you would want to do this.”

I must admit that this perspective certainly DOES NOT resonate with me. Frankly, I don’t think I am alone. When my friends were doing their discipleship training, they would say it so often it occurred to me that they did not believe it themselves and neither did their trainees.

For most people, evangelism is not easy, fun, or “natural.” I have met some people in which I think perhaps that it is somewhat. So what should one do about it? Should one put a guilt trip on those who don’t “feel” the desire to evangelize? Should one imply subtly that they don’t really have a valid experience of conversion if they don’t excitedly chase people down on main street to share one’s faith presentation?

I don’t think so. I am involved in Christian leader development, ministerial and theological writing, teaching, and academic supervision. I could blame other Christians who don’t do those things and suggest that they are, in some ways, lesser Christians. But I don’t think that is right.

Still, the Great Commission is the call to be witnesses of Christ to the whole world. The Great Commandment is to love others as one loves oneself, and certainly that must somehow include sharing the message of the Kingdom of God, right?

Perhaps rather than being embarrassed about not evangelizing in a certain way, one can thoughtfully embrace a different way of evangelizing— sharing the Hope of God’s Kingdom. In fact, this other way may be the way you are SUPPOSED to be a witness.

Consider the servant girl of General Naaman in II Kings 5. Naaman contracted leprosy. At that point, the servant girl told Naaman’s wife about a prophet of God (the God of Israel) who could heal him. In the context of things, it seems as if Naaman and his wife were not very informed of the religion in Israel. Naaman knew about the king of Israel but not much of anything else, as far as we can see. In fact, at the end of the story, Naaman taking dirt from near Elisha’s home seemed to be a way of bringing the God of Israel to his house, based on his own understanding of the gods being tied to the land of their followers. The girl’s sharing of hope through the God of Israel was linked to a specific occasion and need rather than forced.

We see a similar thing in Daniel. It seems like Daniel did not go around preaching all of the time. Perhaps he did, but with him and his friends, it appears as if their witnessing or proclamation was linked to issues related to behavior. The conflict between their diet and the diet placed on them in Babylon led them to share at least a little about their beliefs. Similarly this happened when dreams needed to be interpreted, when the three friends could not bow down to the golden image, when laws were passed forbidding worship of anyone outside of the emperor, or when miraculous writing appeared on a wall. In general, their sharing of their faith was driven by questions regarding their behavior, or based on a felt need of the other person.

This makes me think of Titus 2 where Christians are told to live lives that were worthy of admiration. Verse 10 says that such behavior “adorns” or “decorates” the gospel. Behavior drives the witness more than words. This also reminds me of I Peter 3:15, were faith is shared in the context of curiosity of the other person.

I am not saying there is no place for “Cold Call” evangelism. However, in the Bible, very often the sharing of the message of hope is actually driven by the other person… their felt needs, or their questions about your behavior.

I have heard it said that if you let your actions serve as your form of evangelism you will never share your faith. In some sense I agree. It is likely rare that people will ask you straight up “What is different about you?” However, often Christians don’t really act that much different than people around them, or when they do, the differences are more in terms of sub-culture than of character. Naaman’s servant was not merely living a faithful life (presumably) but having genuine concern for the well-being of the General and wife. As such, she was ready and able to respond benevolently and faithfully when a problem came up.

Many years ago a friend of mine came up to me and asked what was different about me. The person said that I “had it all together” unlike so many others our age. I did not feel I had it all together, and I gave some lame response. I still feel rather bad about that… even though the person knew I was a Christian— I was actually asked at a Christian youth event. I feel bad about that, but not about the fact that I don’t walk over to the Palengke (public market) and stand on a box preaching salvation to the passersby (I have had friends who would do this).

The question is not necessarily how good are you at forcing a conversation, but “Will you live a faithful life adorning the gospel, and ready to respond faithfully and appropriately to questions and felt needs of others?”

Importance of Writing, and Not Writing Contextual Theology

WRITING!!

We had two seminars in the last two weeks on the importance of writing in the theological context:

On August 1st, we had members of Langham Publishing visit our seminary to encourage Filipinos to write theological and ministerial books, monographs, and such. It was a good training. Also since I recently took on the role of overseeing the seminary’s “Research and Creative Works” office, this is important to the move at PBTS to become less reliant on Western books and research.

On July 24th, CHED supported two professors who were giving guidance in how PBTS can do research and publishing based on the standards of CHED. The goal is that theses produced meeting standards for publishing in journals (rather than standards for collecting dust in one and only one library).

NOT WRITING!

I am taking a course and reading numerous articles and books on the Orality movement. The Orality movement focuses on those who are illiterate or semi-illiterate (primary orality groups) and those who are able to read but it is decidedly their non-preferred form of learning. They don’t go running to a library, or even an online article. They will watch a Youtube video to learn something.

Orality Online Group

The call to write and the call not to write are not necessarily contradictory. Or perhaps I would say that they are in substantive contradiction rather than fundamental contradiction. Consider the case of an American football (I think this illustration will make sense for those who don’t really know the sport.) In the higher echelons of the sport, a team will have multiple coaches who deal with different aspects of the game. One might be an Offensive Coach and another might be a Defensive Coach. Suppose you talk to the Offensive Coach and ask him the secret of winning. He might say, “It is all about a multi-dimensional high power offense.” Now suppose you talk to the Defensive Coach and ask him the same question. He might say, “It is all about having a stifling defense.” Are they contradicting each other? Yes. They substantively disagree with each other. The disagreement is not fundamental, however. Why? Because they are on the same team and work for the same head coach. The head coach appreciates their different perspectives and even probably doesn’t want them to change. If each can achieve their goal— a multi-dimensional high-power offense AND a stifling defense, the team would be practically unstoppable.

We need those who live and minister in the two-thirds world to be theologically reflective and ministerially dedicated. They would be writing and publishing their own understandings, not what they picked up from overseas writers. We also need those who are storytellers and visual artists and singers who can teach and transform their communities.

Sadly, there has been a history of conflict between written and oral (with written winning the battle at least until the last decade or so). This does not need to be. Both are likely inadequate of themselves.

Holistic Training in Ministry

I am planning to teach a course on “Foundations of Holistic Ministry” this coming semester at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary.

This got me to think about a presentation that my wife and I did years ago on integrative learning. It is based (loosely) on Bloom’s Taxonomy, and looks at three learning domains:

-Cognitive domain

-Affective domain

-Behavioral domain

Bloom had taken each of those domains and identified them as having steps from the most basic to higher levels of learning. My wife and I played around with these a bit. Then we theorized what a “Spiritual domain” of learning might look like with something akin to Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The reason is that the goal of holistic training is to bring these up the steps together. The following is the presentation we did. Hopefully when I use it in my class I will find reasons to improve it.

https://www.slideserve.com/RMunson286/integrative-steps-of-learning-in-christian-ministry

https://www.slideserve.com/RMunson286/integrative-steps-of-learning-in-christian-ministry

Planting Mangos— A Parable

Paolo and Tomas, cousins, lived on a small island in a big river. They were born there as were their parents before them. In the fields, they found a spot of shade as they ate their merienda before returning to work the land.

As they were eating mangos, Paolo put his mango seed in a small sack. Tomas was confused. Dropping his seed on the ground, he said to Paolo, “What’s with that? Are you so hungry you are hoping to eat the stone later?”

As if to double down on his action, Paolo picked up the seed left by Tomas and placed in the same sack.

Paolo responded, “I am saving them to plant them. Who knows, maybe they will grow into great trees where we can get all of the mangos we want.”

Tomas looked at Paolo with scorn. “Paulo,” said Tomas, “You have lived here since you were born, but you still don’t know how things work? We work land that we don’t own. We live in homes that we don’t own. The Santos family own everything. We give 70% of all we grow to them. They don’t even give us the seedlings for the next season’s plantings. As if that is not enough, every year, the whole family comes in their pugpug (river boat) and they start collecting all the fruit that grows on the trees that are on their land. Even the children do that. And they don’t take 70%— they take everything that is ripe and commonly end up destroying much of what is not ready for harvest.”

Paolo just nodded. No need to respond to the obvious.

Tomas continued. “Those seeds may never grow and if they do will not fruit for many years. And what if they do someday bear fruit? You plant trees and the fruit just goes into the bellies of those who don’t deserve it… much less need it. It is like investing in your making your house nicer. THEY own the house, not you. They can kick you out anytime. Knowing our landlord, if you make the house too nice, he may tell you that should pay 75% of what you grow… or tell you to move out.”

“You are right Tomas.” said Paolo. “It might be a waste of time, But not much of a waste. 5 minutes of work may come to nothing…. who knows. Maybe someday I will enjoy these mangos. Maybe I won’t but my children will. Or maybe new people tending the land will. Or perhaps the Santos family children and grandchildren will. That is all okay. 5 minutes of work is worth the risk.”

Years later, the work proved worth the risk. Paolo got a job overseas sending money home to his wife and family so that they eventually were able to buy the land on which they lived. The families of Paolo and Tomas were both able to enjoy the mango trees— their shade in the heat of day and their strong and expansive branches to be explored by the children. Every year they enjoyed the sweet wonderful fruits and sold extras in the market.

New Book Coming… Soon?

The book that our team at PBTS has completed the first draft of our new book— Dalamhati at Luwalhati: Theological Reflections on the Filipino Experience. It is now being reviewed by our publisher. We shall see what happens during that process, but we are expectant of having good news soon. If things go as planned, the book will be available in the Philippines by the end of the year.

It is a bilingual book with some chapters written in English and others in Pilipino. Quoting the (first draft of the) back cover:

This book is the fruit of a presentation by Federico Villanueva that explored a Biblical response to grief, suffering and loss. Reflections on this presentation led to several essays that are compiled here. These reflections can be loosely categorized into three types— Biblical, Theological, and Contextual. After the first two chapters present the paper of Dr. Villanueva along with the symposium responses, the next two explore the topic as observed in the Old Testament.

The next two chapters explore the topic from a more strictly theological viewpoint. These two, along with the other essays, explore grief, suffering, and loss in the Filipino context. As such, they are activities of contextualized theological reflection. However, the final two chapters address the process of contextualizing or localizing theology. They consider what it means to say that a theology is contextual or local.

It is the hope of all contributors that this work would help each reader to gain insight on one of the most challenging topics— understanding and responding to grief, suffering, and loss in the Christian life. Further, it is hoped that this book will inspire others to take up the mantle to study, reflect on, and produce theological insights drawn from God’s revelation through the lens of the Filipino experience.

Joseph— The Boy Who Could Not Read a Room

Joseph one day walked into the tent where all of the male members of Jacob’s family were together. Joseph’s brothers pretended not to notice him.

Jacob said, “Joseph. You are late. Was their anything wrong?”

“Oh no Father,” replied Joseph. “It just took me longer than I expected. With my brothers, who were supposed to be helping me, off gambling and drinking and I don’t know what else, there was an awful lot for me to do.”

“Snitch,” mumbled Napthali to no one in particular.

Jacob beamed at his son. “Well done Joseph. You boys,” apparently referring to all of the rest of his mostly adult sons, “should follow the fine example of your brother. Come near the fire, it is a cold night.”

“Thank you father,” replied Joseph, “but this coat that you gave me keeps me comfortable in the heat and the cold alike. It is simply amazing!”

Jacob beamed at his son, while the others stared at Joseph with barely disguised anger.

One morning as the family gathered to eat before the day got underway, Joseph came over last, put on an exaggerated yawn and stretch and said, “Oh wow, but did I have trouble with sleeping. I had such a crazy dream. I couldn’t help but think about it all night.”

“Well please then Joseph, share this amazing dream with us,” said Simeon with a sardonic smile.

Reuben gave Simeon an elbow in the side and a look as if to say, “You know our brother can’t recognize sarcasm. Now he will be compelled to tell us.”

Reuben was correct. Joseph continued. “Well, my brothers and I were gathering wheat. But suddenly the sheave I made went straight and upright and your sheaves all came around and bowed in the direction of my sheave. Crazy dream right? I have been thinking about it all night but can’t make any sense of it. Can you?”

Judah could not hold his tongue. “What are you telling us, runt. Are you saying that you are going to rule over us?”

“Judah, what an interesting interpretation. I never thought of that. Ohohohoh… and I had this other dream. In it the sun and the moon and the stars were all bowing down to me. I wonder what that means?”

Their father, no longer amused, jumped in and told his sons to stop the idle chatter and get on with their day. As Joseph’s brothers went off together to take care of the sheep they mumbled to each other.

“Do you think Joseph really had those dreams?” asked Zebulun.

“Of course not!” said Levi, with a chorus of nods from the others. “He is acting like a spoiled firstborn son rather than a worthless 11th born.”

Reuben laughed humorlessly. “Well in our line, being firstborn seems to mean next to nothing. Neither our father nor our grandfather were truly firstborn. Perhaps Joseph thinks he can continue that family tradition.”

A few days later Joseph’s brothers were tending the sheep while Joseph had remained with his father. Jacob said to his son, “Joseph, I would like you to find your brothers and check on our flock and then let me know how things are going.”

So Joseph went out to find his brothers. It took him awhile since they had traveled far to find the best pastures for their sheep.

Finding them, Joseph called out, “Brothers, I finally found you. Our father asked me to check on you and find out what is going on.”

Napthali whispered to his brothers, “The snitch has come to spy on us.”

Judah spoke louder, “So father’s little spy. What report do you intend to give him.”

“I don’t know,” joked Joseph. “What will you give me to improve my report?”

That was it. They were tired of their little brother with the fancy coat. They took away his coat and dropped him in one of the old cisterns. They sat around and laughed about Joseph and began to banter about what they were going to do with him. They came up with more and more elaborate and unlikely revenge fantasies.

Gradually, the laughing lessened as each of them realized the same thought— they had tossed their father’s favorite son into a hole imprisoning him— a son that cannot keep his mouth shut.

This realization hit Reuben first. As the oldest son, he realized that any blame would first fall on him. He went over to the top of the cistern. He called down to his younger brother.

“Joseph. Well, we have had a little fun. I hope it was fun for you as well. How about I pull you up out of there. You can have a good meal and you can go back to Father and let him know that everything is fine. How does that sound to you?”

“Oh no.” replied Joseph, “When I get back. I am going to tell Father EXACTLY what you did! He is going to be so mad. He will probably put me in charge of all of you.”

Pondering what to do next, a Bedouin caravan entered the oasis where the brothers were staying. It was a tough decision… but clearly their brother must never talk to their father. At the same time, they (with the possible exception of Levi and Simeon) did not want to have blood on their hands. So they sold Joseph to the caravan.

Of course, most of us know the rest of the story. Joseph becomes a servant in the house of Potiphar, an official in Egypt. We learn about Potiphar’s wife becoming infatuated with Joseph as she had with a number of her servants. She would give him looks that Joseph completely misinterpreted. Then she made some rather seductive remarks to him that he thought were jokes and responded back in like manner to continue the joke. This mutual misunderstanding rapidly ended up with Joseph running at full speed out of the house naked.

As soon as Joseph could find some clothes he sought out Potiphar at the city gate. Joseph came up to Potiphar and the other local leaders. In a loud voice he said, “Sir I need to talk to you about your wife.”

Potiphar knew what was coming. Potiphar knew well his wife. Early on, he would have servants killed who had fooled around with her. Eventually, he realized that it was expensive to keep having to replace servants. Besides, it is not as if his behavior was always above reproach with the servants.

Potiphar broke in. “Shhhh, Joseph. Let’s go somewhere else and we can talk quietly.”

“Oh no, my lord. I must tell you. Your wife tried to seduce me, and when I rejected her advances, well she said that she would tell you that I tried to… well, you know… force myself on her. But I would never do that! She looks fine for an… older woman I suppose. But that is not the point. I would never ever ever…” He continued on as Potiphar tried to shut him up.

Finally, Potiphar gave up. His friends now knew what happened. He could not just cover things up. Potiphar was not happy to lose more money on another servant, but he had no choice.

“I can’t keep him,” he mused. “I would look weak. But I don’t need his blood on my hands— having him killed because he lacks common sense on when and where to talk.”

After some thought he knew the right answer. He can put him with the political prisoners. Know one will know what happened to him. And that is what happened. Joseph was secretly placed in the Pharoah’s prison.

And there he sat. But God looked on him with pity. “Our poor, flawed Joseph. He cannot help but talk when others know to keep silent. I will turn his weakness into a strength. I will give him the ability to read people’s dreams. He will invariably tell people what their dreams mean, even if the meaning is bad.”

With God’s gift to interpret dreams, and his own lack of caution and common sense, Joseph rose from an imprisoned slave to the second-in-command in Egypt.

If God can do that with someone as messed up as Joseph, imagine what he can do with messed up you?

Missionary Member Care Presentation

The video Celia and I did on missionary member care (a very light, scratching the surface). Feel free to view it.

Member Care Support System

There are different ways of showing the levels of support in Missionary Member Care. Harry Hoffmann has a nice way of showing it— The Pyramid of Care.

I like this way of showing care. I did suggest a slight modification from a pyramid to an octohedron. The only reason for doing it is to show “Self-Care.” One’s resiliency can be thought of as relating to the volume of the figure. If one is looking at it that way, adding self-care as a dimension makes sense. I show that below. That being said, I am not sure that my figure adds much to what Hoffmann has done.

Another model is the one by Kelly O’Donnell. It is a classic one of concentric circles with one’s toward the center being “more important” in some sense while moving outward, the circles are less critical (less “central.”)

I think it is a good model… but I do think that it may be better for some missionaries than for others. For me, I don’t find it as useful. Some concerns:

I will start with the most controversial. I don’t think Master Care should be in the middle. I think Self-Care should be in the middle. It always sounds the most spiritual to put God in the middle of every figure we do…. but there are costs to this. My biggest issue is that Master Care (God’s Care) is very often done through others. As such, God’s care encloses the other’s care. It is better shown by putting God’s care as the outermost all-encompassing circle. Secondly, and this is very much personal taste I admit, even the most spiritually centered missionary (and missionaries as a group I have not found to be especially spiritual) we tend to relate to the world with him/herself at the center. We have an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric perspective. I feel it is more honest to show that in the figure— and that anthropocentric perspective is even more true when we are under stress. Putting God as the outermost ring shows this reality, while still challenging by showing God’s care surrounds (and includes) all of the other forms of care.For me, I don’t see much use in separating between Network Care and Specialist Care. My view on that could easily change… but personally, it seems adequate to put both in the same circle. I was always a bit uncertain about the Mutual Care (half) Circle. It includes expartriates and nationals. In other words, I suppose that includes people I would call Welcomers. These are people who live in the field where a missionary serves. I fully agree that they are potentially a great source of help. However, it was never clear to me where Friends, Family, and Sending Church fit into this diagram. Perhaps Friends who are supporters and the sending church could be loosely put under Sender Care, but that does not make sense to me— the attachments one has with friends family, and church members far exceed the connections one (normally or initially) has with one’s mission sending organization, or mission partners, or mobilizing structures, etc.

So I would suggest the following figure. If you don’t find it an improvement— well, you are probably right. But I hope it at least gives something to think about.