Robert Munson's Blog, page 3

Greetings to 6th Triennial Congress: Mobiliation for Global Missions (2025)

This relates to the congress we joined a couple of weeks ago. More on that gathering by clicking on https://munsonmissions.org/2025/08/13/at-the-6th-triennial-congress-for-global-missions/

Three Aspects/Commands in the Great Commandment? Reflections

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” -Mark 12:30-31

Some people like to say that the Great Commandment is really two commandments— love God, love Others. I don’t like to say that because that implies the possibility, in theory at least, of fully obeying half of it. To me it that misses the point somehow. To miss one part of it is to miss the whole thing. That being said, the version of the Great Commandment in Mark (as shown above) does make it sound like the two aspects are separable. The version in Luke, however, suggests that it is one command with two aspects:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” -Luke 10:27

But if we look at the Commandment (or Command) as singular with two aspects, is it possible then to extend it to being singular with THREE aspects? These would be:

Aspect #1. Love God

Aspect #2. Love Others

Aspect #3. Love Self

This is an area of reflection of mine for some years. I have never delved into it theologically or expositionally. But here are my thoughts. I will look at a couple of reasons why the answer might be “NO”— there are only two aspects to the Command. Then I will delve into one reason why I think the answer should be “YES.” I will argue that one of the reasons for answer NO is ultimately invalid, but the remaining NO and YES arguments I think hold merit. Ultimately, you can decide for yourself.

–”NO” Argument #1. It seems like the command is two parts (Love God, and Love Others) with the rest providing clarity. How do we understand or love of God? It is to be understood in terms of our entire being—- all of our heart, all of our soul, all of or strength, and with all of our mind. How are we to love our neighbor? We are to love as we love ourselves.

–”NO” Argument #2. There is no command to love ourselves because either (a) everyone loves themselves, or (b) love oneself is a necessary prerequisite to love others. There are of course those who would say that one cannot love others unless one first loves oneself. I don’t believe one can argue that this is what this passage implies. Instead of trying to make the argument myself, I would like to push people to a video essay, “A Philosopher’s Guide to Self-Hate” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_icvgGo06A) on the YouTube channel, Lady of the Library. The essay is not about the Great Commandment, but I think the discussion is relevant. Not everyone loves themselves, and people who don’t love themselves can still love others.

–”YES” Argument #3. If one accepts what I said in the previous two paragraphs then, (a) Not everyone loves themselves, and (b) Love oneself is not a prerequisite for loving others, but (c) If one does love oneself, it gives clarity as to what it means to love one’s neighbor. All of this does seem to imply at least that loving oneself is good and something that God wants of us. Going back to the video I mentioned above, self-hate (lack of loving oneself) is often (always?) the result of being torn down by others around. The video looks at the situation through the lens of narrative therapy where our self understanding is seen in terms of stories we tell ourselves. Not loving ourselves then is a response to being sinned against by others. I think we are on pretty safe ground up to this point. But I would also suggest something more controversial— As we grow in our relationship with Christ, our love for ourself should grow. This is more controversial because some theologians like to point out our worthlessness. And perhaps they have a point. But God loves us and values us. God’s desire is to raise us up not tear us down, so it seems reasonable that God seeks for us to love ourselves in some sense as God loves us <Using an analogy of sorts, I love my wife and because I love my wife, I hope that she loves herself as she feels loved.> I think one can make the argument that God commands us to love ourselves.

So how would I bring all of this together. I do think that the Great Commandment is meant to be seen as having two inter-related commands. Nevertheless, God does want us to love ourselves, and while it may be too much to call it a “command,” loving ourselves is God’s desire.

It may not the same to say that loving ourselves is God’s command versus loving ourselves is God’s desire. But maybe it is correct to say that God commands us to root out the voices and stories that tear us down and bring short of God’s desire for us.

Appreciating Church History as a Baptist, Part Two

In my first post I noted the tendency of Baptists generally not to be interested in church history. Exceptions tend to be few and far between. I also note the belief of some people (generally Roman Catholics or Orthodox believers) that studying church history would, almost invariably, lead people to join one of the ancient Christian faiths. That certainly happened to John Henry Newman, as noted in the previous post, who became a Roman Catholic. I knew many Evangelical Christians who were shocked and confused (and dismayed?) that Hank Hanagraaff, “The Bible Answer Man,” had joined the Greek Orthodox church. I have heard of Catholics confused as to why C.S. Lewis did not become a Roman Catholic with the suggestion that if he lived longer, surely he would have shifted. This is despite Lewis giving pretty clearly stated reasons why he would not consider changing his faith tradition.

I will admit that if I decided to join one of the ancient faiths, I do think it would be Eastern Orthodox, although I really don’t have much interest, if any, in joining any of these. That is not to say that I am thoroughly happy with being a Baptist, or an Evangelical, or a Protestant, or any particular label. Every group has its flaws. It seems like many Baptist groups (including my own) are almost reveling in these flaws today. But here are a few thoughts on how I really appreciate Church History while being a Baptist. Or more directly, why I feel good about studying Church History without a compulsion to leave the Baptist tradition.

The least commendable reason is inertia. Change is wearisome. To change I need both PUSH (something driving me out of where I am at) and PULL (something pulling me to an alternative). I think it is safe to say that there is some PUSH in terms of dissatisfaction with what is going on among “Evangelicals” in the United States where the faith tradition is being driven way off-course, in my view. However, that PUSH generally just makes me look for a more nuanced and perhaps integrated understanding of the Christian faith rather than a desire to wholly change identity. That is because I don’t feel a PULL to an alternative. Again, this may not be the most commendable reason. It is, however, honest and the driving reason for a large percentage of the population not changing faith identity. Another reason that is not that commendable is enculturation. I was enculturated into the Baptist tradition, and there are many things I greatly appreciate in that tradition. One of the biggest one is its flexibility— a quality that many of the ancient faiths are less known for. And while I see the value of liturgy, especially in primary orality cultures, I don’t really have much of a desire to be part of a group that is “high church” (even though “low church” megachurches that make services appear more like a pop concert is not really for me either).

As I said these first two reasons are pretty common to most people, but are not all that interesting. Let’s go to more important reasons.

3. I look at church history through the lens of cultural anthropology. I really think it is the way that all Christians should. Here is what happens with most (?) Christians. When they read church history, that look for “their tribe.” This goes back to how Christians view Jesus. A theologically liberal versus theologically liberal Christian versus a Christian mystic is likely to see Jesus through his or her own tribal lens. A theologically liberal Christian may focus on passages of Jesus emphasis on the poor and loving one’s neighbor. A theologically conservative Christian may focus on passages of Jesus proclaiming salvation and following the one true way. A Christian mystic may focus on “the hard sayings” of Jesus. We look at history through a cultural lens and if we cannot find our tribe in church history we might invent the tribe (like the “trail of blood” theology of Baptists). But our culture exists in locale and in time. Baptists in Ghana, Africa today are VERY different from Baptists in England, which are very different from Baptists in Arkansas in the United States. But this is true of time as well. Baptists in the 1725 are very different from Baptists in 1825, 1925, and 2025. And this is true of Christians of all sects and traditions. One should absolutely anticipate that Christians of different ages will be different. It is Christ first and Scripture second that give us our centering as a diverse unity. If I find that Christians at a time in history typically would venerate (or at least “seem” to worship) Mary the mother of Jesus, I don’t have to pretend that they are like me or that I should be like them. To imitate them exactly, at any point in history, is flawed. I am not supposed to recreate the church of 34AD or 534AD or 1834AD. I am supposed to be part of the 2025AD church which should be dissimilar to all of these other churches. Finding that there is a church that tries to maintain a greater continuity with one of the streams of church history is fine—- perhaps even commendable in some sense— but it does not make it superior. If the church is centered on Christ and Scripture it is part of the same family as the other traditions. That is not to say that one cannot learn from history. WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD LEARN FROM HISTORY. Learning from is not, however, the same as imitating. The arguments for and against icons in church history can give us insight into struggles that we may face today. However, to identify one side as being right and one must completely follow their lead and the other side is wrong and must be shunned, is probably not really learning from history.

4. The last reason I will give is that as one studies church history one finds that simplistic views break down pretty fast. I was brought up to see Baptists as the ones who pretty much got everything right and every other tradition getting it more wrong (and the further away from Baptist distinctives the more wrong one finds things). Church of Christ (at least some denominations within this faith tradition) see their denomination founded in 33AD (and even put this on their church signs). History does not seem to support this, but also doesn’t wholly contradict it. There are doctrines that can find themselves weaving through the earliest times in Christian history until today, even if these threads may be considered insignificant by others. The Roman Catholic church has at times seen itself as the one true church… sometimes going to great length to drive home that point (even with the use of violence). One can, however, see reasons to support the ancient aspirations for the Roman Catholics, while also seeing clear challenges to this primacy. Pentecostals and Charismatics also often see church history supporting a thread of their traditions from the time of St. Peter until today. While these interpretations seem rather “Procrustean” (look it up if you want), their views are not completely unwarranted. The point is that Christian History or Church History can be better described as Christian or Church HISTORIES. While there has always been a desire to simplify, sanitize, or reduce histories to a simply and straight line, this correlates poorly with the events of the past. The histories of the church are messy and the church is often at its best (in my view) when it embraces that diversity rather than desiring to crush it.

So Yes, I am very comfortable with being Baptist while loving Church History. I don’t need to find Baptists hiding between the lines of “official” church history. Even if this was so, and there were certainly “proto-Protestants,” they would still be very different than myself. And that is fine. No Roman Catholic or Coptic or Armenian, or Church of the East, or any other group should expect to find their faith culture in the present mirrored perfectly in history— even in those streams of church history that seem to be the source of their form of Christianity today.

Some may see this as cop-out— like I am trying to make something positive in history out of something negative for my tradition. But I really don’t think I am doing mental gymnastics. In fact, I think those who try to push their own flavor of Christianity into the 1st century church (for example) has to go through an awful lot more mental gymnastics than simply recognizing that they, in the early church, are culturally separate from us due to the barriers of space and time.

I also believe we can learn more from Church history (or histories) if we don’t try to remake them in our image.

You will notice that I am not actually noting differences in doctrine in this post. Sure, I could express my rejection of some aspects of Mariology, or Sacramental Theology or Adoration of Relics. And yes, those are (somewhat) important issues to me. However, the question in these two posts is the effect of Church History on one’s faith journey. I can look back, for example, to the Medieval church and find inspiration in the chaplains who served in roadway chapels for the Christian pilgrims enroute to holy sites and relics of saints for healing or other blessings. I can see in these chaplains something that is valuable to me in serving those in need in their spiritual (or non-spiritual) life pilgrimages. I can be inspired by the faith that drove the pilgrims to holy sites without necessarily embracing their theology. I can desire to emulate some aspects of the Nestorian missionary priests who moved along the Silk Road in the first millenium establish trading posts, churches, hospitals, and educational institutions. I can do so without trying to make them like me… or try simply to copy them.

Appreciating Church History as a Baptist (Part One)

There are those who might say that being a Baptist and being a lover of Church history is a contradiction. Perhaps the most famous to say this, in essence, was John Henry Newman (1801-1890) when he stated “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Obviously this observation is autobiographical for Newman (having switched from Protestant to Roman Catholic after years of reflection) but says essentially nothing about others’ experiences.

But as a Baptist, I will admit that there does seem to be an aversion to studying church history. Let me give a few quick examples.

Decades ago, i went into Lifeway Bookstore (a Southern Baptist book provider back when they still had brick and mortar shops). I was young in my interest in church history. While looking through walls of books on discipleship, missions, Bible studies, Christian self-help, and the like, I was surprised and pleased to see “Ecclesiastical History” by Eusebius of Antioch. I quickly brought it up to the cashier. The man there said to me, “Oh, I’m so happy you got that book. My manager did not want it to be on the shelf, but I lobbied for it to be there. I feel vindicated.” I have a fear that if I had not walked into that store, it would have been the manager who had the last laugh.I teach Missions history on occasion. It is a fun course, for me anyway. I require my MDiv students to do historical research on a missionary from history. The first time I did this, I was wise enough to tell my students that they must write on a missionary who is already dead. (I once had a student who tried to do a historical study of an organization that formed in 2022.) Unfortunately, I made a mistake in not putting limits at the other end. I ended up having 1/4 of my students choosing Paul of Tarsus. The following year I added the limitation that it could not be a missionary whose name appears in the Bible. For my doctoral students, I give a list of missionaries they can choose from— none of whom any of them are likely to have heard of and none of them Baptist. Baptist seminarians will go to great lengths (seemingly) to avoid learning about church history. (It is only fair to note that this story may not demonstrate a lack of interest in history, but rather a general student desire to do as little work as possible.)In Church History class, I recall the three main “theories” of the formation of the Baptist movement/tradition. The three were “Formed out of the Anabaptist movement,” “Formed out of the Separatists from the Church of England,” and the “Trail of Blood Theory.” Looking at church history, one finds clear evidence of the Separatist roots for Baptists. One can also find early interaction with Anabaptists suggesting some role as well. The Trail of Blood theory, that Baptists go back throughout history… back to the “First Baptist Church of Jerusalem,” is thoroughly without basis. I have heard people, with straight face, claim John the Baptist as the founder of the Baptists. (Of course Baptists are not alone in this— Pentecostals Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses among others have also gone through amazing mental gymnastics to see their faith or tradition going back to the primitive church.)Among Southern Baptists, I have heard entertaining arguments as to why the Southern branch broke away from the Northern branch. These arguments either deny slavery being the reason, or allowing it as a minor reason among many. This is despite the fact that the resulting convention only differed significantly from the North in its view of slavery. Some Baptists (and other groups of a similar bent) often may go the opposite direction from the “Trail of Blood” theory and embrace a Restorationist perspective. I am using that term in this case to mean that many think that the early church was simply awesome (and essentially Baptist) but then corruption came into the church as it slowly decayed… only to be given new life (restored) through the Protestant Reformation, Pietism, and growth of the Baptist tradition. This is simply a viewpoint regarding what is good or bad (as such is immune from challenge regarding historical accuracy) but in practice it gives justification for ignoring several hundred years of church history. Years ago, I found a Chick Tract decrying Roman Catholicism. Chick Tracts were super-mini comic books. This one was not so much written to get people to leave the Roman Catholic church, but rather to make Protestant (particularly Fundamentalist or Conservative Evangelical) Christians feel good about not being RC. Even when I was young I saw the problem with the tract. It made outlandish claims and some mildly negative claims. The mildly negative claims were pretty well–known in some circles and were footnoted. The wildly outlandish claims… shockingly no footnotes at all. It was far worse in its historical analysis of the Church than “The DaVinci Code.” As a young Christian in a Baptist church, I recall hearing about Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, John Bunyan, and perhaps Roger Williams, as Baptists before the 20th century, but I don’t rememberr hearing how they related to church history, or even their place in Baptist history. They were simply men of renown who happened to be Baptists. Okay, one more. A few years ago, I was in a bit of a religious discussion on Facebook (back when I would have discussions on FB). In my arguing a point, I brought up a passage from “The Didache” (or The Teachings of the Apostles). The immediate response was “Is that in the Bible?” Of course The Didache is not in the Bible, and the responder knew that. However, it is perhaps the oldest non-canonical Christian document we have today. As such, it is incredibly valuable to gain insight as to what the earliest Christians understood about God, the Church, and the Faith. Quoting from The Didache is far more relevant than quoting from John Piper, or R.C. Sproul, or any of the book writers being bandied about. Unfortunately among Protestants the distaste for the Catholic and Orthodox seeming over-reliance on church councils, creeds, and saints has often turned “Scripture First” into “Scripture Only.” (Yes I know that the early Reformers would say Scripture Only, but it was clear that they were really giving Scripture highest place, not only place in their faith and practice.)

I could go on, but I hope the point is made that Baptists, as a whole, either ignore church history, or embrace a form of history that is not particularly historical. But does this have to be this way?

“Gospel Simplicity” is a YouTube Channel that seeks to look at doctrine and history of Christianity without polemics and conflict. The host is a Protestant, but has noted that many Protestants have watched his videos and have decided to become Roman Catholic or (it seems more commonly) Eastern Orthodox. History appears to be a big issue for some. Much of Church History was dominated by the 5 ancient churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Abyssinian, Coptic, and Amenian), not counting the ones that were seen to be outside the fold of “orthodoxy” such as Jacobite or Nestorian Christians. How can we as Protestants or Baptists feel good about our relationship with God if we seem to take a 90 degree turn off the stream(s) of church history?

I will explore this in my next post… which will hopefully be done tomorrow.

At the 6th Triennial Congress for Global Missions

I don’t get to too many missions conferences. It is kind of awesome I was able to join a missiology conference (EMS) in South Carolina, USA, and now a missions convention in Cavite, Philippines. Aug 13-16, 2025.

I will add to this post later. So if you don’t see more here, consider it a placeholder for more later.

Christian Missions and the Three Flaws of Thanos

Before I start talking about missions and its awkward relationship to Thanos, I must clarify that I am speaking of “Movie-Thanos.” Others have noted this, but Thanos in comics was very different. I used to collect comic books, and one series I collected was “Captain Marvel.” This was the Captain Marvel of the 1960s Marvel Comics Group. Thanos was the ultimate enemy of Captain Marvel, but their motivation for conflict was due to motivations. Thanos (unlike in the movies) was driven by a fascination with death. In fact, he had a fascination with Death (the cosmic personification of the abstract concept of death). In fact, that fascination (romantic or perhaps more) drove him to kill to impress Death, or serve as a gift (akin to bringing flowers and candy to a date).

Movie-Thanos was different. This Thanos appeared to be ecologically driven (or perhaps there is a better term for this). Thanos saw the great population of living creatures throughout the Universe and saw it as a plague on the limited resources of… everything. His solution was to kill 50% of all living beings everywhere.

But lets look at Movie-Thanos and see how what he did does not give good guidance for Christian Missions. This may seem too obvious to bother even noting. Yet I will.

#1. The Method is Evil (Bad). Murdering half of all living things is pretty evil. I hope that can be agreed upon. Ignoring whether Movie-Thanos had a worthy ultimate goal (ecological sustainability of the Universe), the method is morally repugnant. Can that happen in Missions? Can worthy goals in Christian missions drive missionaries to use morally unacceptable methods? Absolutely.

The “Cross or the Sword” method of evangelism, started as far as I know with Charlemagne, King of the Franks. This has morphed into “Gunboat Evangelism” and some other dubious methods used in Colonial Missions. Even things like “buying” local ministries and converts could be argued to be immoral, at best. Jesus not only gave us guidance on what we need to do, but also how to do it. Focusing on the goal too much, and not enough on how to do it right, is a deep concern in missions.

This issue relates to “Deontological Ethics” (The means must be ethical)

#2. The Results are Ineffectual (Bad). It has been noted by others that Movie-Thanos had a method that really would fail to do what He sought to do. For example, suppose 50% of all microbes died everywhere, how long would it take for the original population to be restored? Potentially, the population could be restored in a matter of days. In reality, populations are controlled by resources and predation. Humans would take longer, but one should expect the population to recover in less than a century (unless limiters occur). Removing half of the population would not have much effect on the resources— not much more than a “BLIP” in the history of the Universe.

There is not necessarily complete agreement on the goals of Christian missions. John Piper suggests that it is worship. More Biblically, one might say that it is to expand the Kingdom of God, or to make more disciples. Yet others make speak in terms of holistic transformation. Yet much Evangelical (especially) missions is often to get as many affirmations to the Gospel message in as short of a time as possible. While this may seem both reasonable and noble, it may often fail to develop ANY of the above listed goals (worshipers, Kingdom servants, disciples, or transformed peoples). Other missions may be centered on planting as many churches as possible, or meeting felt “social” needs through missional “presence.” I would argue that these methods, if in absence of other broader activities, may feel to achieve Biblical goals, and so are sub-Biblical.

This issue relates to “Teleological Ethics” (The results must justify the means used)

#3. Rejection of Morality is Wrong

Even though Movie-Thanos had a moral code of sorts, everything he did was based on power. The power was demonstrated in physical power of himself and his army, monetary power as indicated, again, by his army and war machine, and his expensive quest, and cosmic (near divine) power of the Infinity Stones. Power does more than accomplish change (regardless of good or bad), it also tends to justify its own actions. Lord Acton’s warning about the corrupting nature of power is apt.

It is easy for Missions to fall into that as well. Three-self churches and vulnerable missions (among others) seek to eschew outside (missions) power. Still, many missionaries and mission agencies use power (ecclesiastical authority and money particularly) to control the work, as well as local Christians and congregations. Frankly, missions has often engendered anger and pushback NOT from non-Christians, but local Christians.

It is worth noting that in the Movie-Thanos story arc, his plans were not thwarted really by opposing power. It could be argued that his plans were ultimately thwarted by a mouse. Then his final undoing was in the use of the power he had against him. Considering that the action of the mouse is seemingly so random, and so trivial, one might argue that the power of Movie-Thanos was undermined by a nearly powerless “divine’ activity. While this was an act of fiction, Biblically we often see God acting through methods that appear small or weak, to overthrow the mighty.

Summarizing. Movie-Thanos utilized bad methods (murder) to try to achieve results that would ultimately fail to meet somewhat noble but misguided goals, aided by power that was thwarted through the action of the powerless. There just might be something we in missions could learn from this.

Sermon— Be a Good Steward of Your Future

The following sermon I will not be preaching. I wrote it up but decided that the first part of it is too focused on a missiological issue that too many in seminary may not connect with. My point is, after all, not to complain (again…) about “Fast” missions, but rather to drive home the idea that a proper understanding of our future (on earth) as Christians should guide us to faithfulness to God. Simple idea. I am still delivering a sermon on this topic, but just changed considerably.

Around 60 years ago, Evangelical missions was starting to embrace a separate identity from other Protestant or Conciliar Missions. Leaders of this movement wanted to embrace mission work that they saw as more Biblical and more in line with Evangelical tradition. In this time, the mid-1960s there a serious controversy developed at the heart of what it means to do mission work as an Evangelical.

At risk of oversimplifying at bit… Two camps developed. One group was driven by the followers of Donald McGavran, as well as Billy Graham, Ralph Winter, and Peter Wagner. They believed that Missions should be limited in scope to Evangelism and Church planting. Things like discipleship, theological education, and social ministries like community development and health care should be downplayed, or even not considered to be missions. The other group, led by John Stott, Lesslie Newbigin and others, believed that missions was broad… as broad as God’s mission. As such, social ministry, transformational development, theological education, discipleship, and leadership development are a part of Christian missions along with evangelism and discipleship.

Although it was a controversy among Evangelicals, the issue was not primarily about what is “Biblical.” Clearly meeting physical, social, psychoemotional, and so forth is Biblical. Rather it was predominantly a conflict over eschatology. One group argued that Jesus was returning any day. Could be today, it could be tomorrow. Perhaps the day after. Because of that, we don’t have time to wait. We must evangelize as many people as possible in as short of a time as possible. The other group, led by Stott and Newbigin did not disagree that Jesus could return any day. But we should carry out the whole work of Jesus every day.

I am not trying to make this a History of Missions class. But I want to give a little example of how one looks at the future greatly affects how we do ministry. This is nothing new, in the decade before 1900 and the decade after, the Southern Baptists had a group known as the Gospel Mission Movement. They had some commendable beliefs. But they believed that Jesus would return any day and therefore, we should focus only on evangelism and not discipleship, leadership training , and so forth. More recently, some Missions textbooks teach that we need to reach every people group on earth as soon as possible… that when we do, Jessu will return sooner. A very popular recent Southern Baptist book, on chrch planting suggests that doing social ministry is not a good idea because it slows things down. Planting new churches as fast as possible is good, and doing anything that slows that work is bad… again, because Jesus might return any day.

How we look at Eschatology… how we view futrue events can have a huge effect on how we do ministry. And that is not jst my opinion. We can see what Jesusu says on this topic.

Consider the Parable of the Faithful and Wise Servant. Matthew 24:45-51.

We start with one servant. The master of the servant is going away for a time… exact length of the time is uncertain. The servant, or steward, is responsible for all that the master owns while he is away. Things go along well. He does his job well. He takes care of the business of the master. He takes care of the other servants of the master. He takes care of the property and goods of the master. He takes care of the financial books of the master, and he takes care of planning for the next year and the year after that. Every day, he does what he is supposed to do.

But one day, he had a thought. “My master is delayed.” I don’t know. Maybe the steward thought the master would only be gone a month, but after a month he had not returned. Maybe the steward thought the master would be gone a year… but now it had been a year and he still had not returned. I don’t know… maybe it had been 5 years. But here is one of those pivotal moments. Jesus gives two scenarios… two paths, but does not explain the thinking pattern behind them. However, based on what was done, we might make some guesses.

In one scenario, the servant, or steward, simply keeps going on as he had before. He took care of things that needed to be done that day. He prepared things for the next day. He probably planned for the changes of season and the coming year. He may have even planned years in advance. Perhaps he planted olives and pomegranates— trees that would only bear fruit many years later.

Perhaps we could call his understanding of the future as Confident Uncertainty. He was confident in his master, and he was confident in what he said. The master said he would come back. But he was uncertain about what the master did not say. He did not say when he was coming back or how he would show up. Therefore, the servant said, I better do ever day what I was told to do, because the master could return tomorrow. OR the master may return in 30 years. Either way, I and his place will be ready for him.

But Jesus says at the critical point when the servant was thinking about the fact that the master was delayed, that there was a different direction he might go. In this scenario, he does his job poorly, begins mistreating the servants, and using everything that the master has as his own, and takes everything that the master created and treats it like his own garbage dump.

What was the servant thinking that led to this? We were not told, but it was clearly a misplaced confidence. I can think of two possibilities.

Possibility One. Perhaps he thought to himself, “The Master is delayed. I believe the master will NEVER come.” Perhaps the master changed his mind and decided not to return. Perhaps the master is now dead, and everything here is mine to enjoy. This was the mindset of the vineyard keepers in a different parable.

Possibility Two. Perhaps he thought to himself. “The Master is delayed. But I can figure out when he is coming. That way I can do whatever I want, but before he arrives, I can clean up everything and will be impressed by everything he sees.

I tend to think the second possibility is more likely. It is certainly the more interesting possibility. Nothing in the text suggests that the servant believed that the master would never return. So, if he was doing a poor job while still believing, he had to believe either that his master would be very forgiving, or that the steward could get everything fixed up before the master arrived. Frankly, many of us can remember when we were younger… perhaps teenagers. Maybe our parents went somewhere and we were supposed to take care of chores and maintaining the place while they were gone. Many of us, I suspect were a bit lazy in maintaining the house or doing the chores. Perhaps we thought… I think they are coming back tomorrow afternoon, so I can get everthing done around lunchtime, and they will never know the difference.

I think that mindset is pretty common today—- the idea that we can figure out the mystery of when Jesus will return. I mean go into a Christian bookstore. It is quite likely to have a wall of books on Eschatology. When is Christ returning? Some books will even give a date? And when that date is past, the writer will give a new date. Other books will tell you how to look at current events through the lens of some theological perspective to come up with a roadmap for understanding when He will return and how He will return.

In the parable, in both scenarios the master returns. That is certain and unaffected by whether the servant did his job well, or did it poorly. What is also certain is that in both cases the servant did not have time to prepare for the master. The master did not give warning. One day, there was a knocking at the gate of the courtyard and there he was.

But what happens after is dependent on what direction the servant chose. If the servant had said to himself, I know the master will return but do not know when… so I must do what I am supposed to do every day, he was surprised when the master returned, but not disturbed. Everything was as it should be. The master came in and found everyone doing what they were supposed to be doing, and every aspect of the household being properly managed. The master is pleased, and rewards his servant with even greater responsibilities.

But it might not happen that way, there is a knocking on the gate, the master is at the gate, and it is too late to do anything. The estate is in shambles, the financial books are a nightmare. The servants show evidence of neglect and abuse, and the farm is barely cared for. No amount of manic activity will fix things. It is too late… with only punishment to follow.

This is not a story that helps us understand some sort of abstract truth. This story is not merely an ethical story, it is deeply personal. Each of us is quite literally, not just figuratively, that servant. Jesus, the Master, has literally and specifically given guidance for what we are to do, and has gone away. We know what we are supposed to do, and we know that Jesus will return, but we do not know when. We face the exact same situation that the servant in the parable did.

Years ago, I had a friend who was a self-funded missionary. I will call him Tomas. He was Filipino but had worked for many years in the United States. Tomas retired, and decided to return to the Philippines, and serve God over here. His home church in the US said we are supporting three local pastors… church planters in the Philippines. We get periodic reports from them, but we are hoping you can go over there and see how they are doing and encourage them. So Tomas traveled to the Philippines and went to visit each of these pastors. But he did so without warning that he was coming.

Tomas told me that the visits were very interesting because each one was so different. Tomas visited the first pastor. This pastor had a church. It was small. He opened it up at 9 in the morning on Sunday, he preached and led the Sunday school. At noon he closed the door and he essentially did no ministry until 9 am the following Sunday. This pastor took the support he was given and did the bare minimum with it.

Tomas then visited the second pastor. Things were very different. This pastor had a very vibrant and growing church, and there were other church plants that he had started, training local leaders to take them over. This pastor took the support he received and used it faithfully every day.

Tomas then visited the third pastor. Things here were different still. There was no church. The inforrmation he sent to his supporters was a lie. This pastor had set aside all ministry work. Instead, he was using the money he received from his benefactors to put into his tricycle business.

Would Tomas have found things different if given warning? What might have happened if Tomas called each of them, “I am coming to the Philippines to check on your work. I will see you in three months.” Maybe the third pastor who was doing nothing could have done some things to make it look like he was serving God as he should. Most definitely the first pastor who did little could have quickly started some Bible studies and added some things to make it look like he was much more active in ministry than he really was. But for the second pastor, he had no need to change. He was ready every day, because he did what he was supposed to be doing every day.

But they had no warning. Tomas never told me what happened when he sent his report back to the supporting church. I am sure they cut off all support to the third pastor. Perhaps they shifted that support to the second pastor who was doing so well. I am not sure. I am most unsure about the first pastor, the one with only a minimal ministry.

What I do know is you all are here today. You don’t know what will happen tomorrow or the day after. But I do hope you trust the One who has called you. I do hope you have confidence that He is coming again. I do also hope that based on that surety, you will choose to be faithful every day.

While you are at seminary, you will develop yourself spiritually to serve God faithfully every day as if Jesus could come very soon, even today. I hope you will also study and develop yourself, and serve relationships and partnerships to prepare you to serve God for 10, 20, 30, maybe 50 years.

The faithful servant is a good steward of the future— prepared for his master to return today, or decades from now.

Overall, be good stewards of your past, to learn and grow from that in the present. Be good stewards of your future, faithfully serving in the present for that future that will come when we don’t expect it.

Worry Not? (Is there anything good about worry?)

One of my jobs (I have 4 non-paying jobs) is serving as an administrator of a Pastoral Counseling Center. I like the term “pastoral counseling.” Some people prefer “spiritual counseling” but since no two people on earth (as far as I can tell) can agree what the word “spiritual” means, and what it doesn’t, I consider it a poor modifier. The same can be said for “Biblical” Counseling. Added to the ambiguity of what it means is the suggested arrogance in the term that other types of counseling than their own is “unbiblical.” Sadly, my denomination is largely bought in on the use of the term “Biblical Counseling.” But they can use any term they want as long as the principles utilized are sound.

But a lot of times they are not. One problem is the temptation of many to use the Bible like a collection of self-help aphorisms. What does this mean? Well, you may have seen this sort of thing shared on social media. It might be a list of problems and a Bible verse to go to as an “answer” to each problem.

“Oh, you are exhausted? Well look at this verse, ‘Come unto Me, ye heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Does this help? Doubtful.

“Uncertain about the future? Let’s read this together, ‘Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not on thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct thy path.'” Is the person less uncertain now?

“Oh you are always worrying? Don’t you know the Bible says, ‘Be anxious for nothing’?”

The problem with verse dropping is that it often makes an aphorism out of a part of a larger discussion— essentially ripping a passage out of its broader context.

For example, I am a worrier. I worry about lots of stuff. Back when I organized medical mission events, I would tell people in the preparation… “I worry so you don’t have to!” I would say it as a joke… but I wasn’t really joking.

Some people say worry is wrong or that the Bible says that worry is a sin or that worry is a lack of faith. I don’t find that very helpful, because it does not stop me from worrying. In fact, it is likely that my worry is increased since I am now worried about my worrying.

Pastoral counseling does use the Bible when appropriate, but avoids superficial verse dropping.

To me pastoral counseling would be better described as a theological form of counseling. It is integrative.

This is not going to be a full theological or pastoral examination of worry, but here are a few thoughts that strike me as relevant for theological reflection.

First, worrying is a universal human condition. We are born in distress and continue in life this way until death. It may, or may not, be accurate to describe worry as “sin” but if it is, it is very different from other sins because it seems to be built into us to ensure that important things are taken care of. Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount speaks of worrying about what we will eat or drink and more. Jesus in no way suggests that these concerns are irrelevant. They are important needs that must be addressed. The passage does not seem to dwell on whether it was a sin to worry about these things, but rather He makes clear that God is concerned for us, invested in us, and (therefore) willing and able to provide for us. Worry should lead us to remember God’s benevolence and provision.

Second, it is not so much about worry itself, but what we do in response to it. Emotions are not really good or bad… they are built into us after all. Rather, it is what we do with those emotions. Philippians 4:6-7 is a classic passage people use to say that we should not worry. But I think that is a careless reading of the passage. In the passage it is pretty clear that the issue is not worry/anxiety. After all, the continuation of the passage speaks of what you should do when you worry, which implies that one does actually start the process with worry. In other words, the passage seems to really be saying, “Don’t dwell in a state of worry,” or perhaps “Here are some things you should do when you are anxious.” And that passage is valuable. Embrace thankfulness. Talk to God. Seek help from God. Center your life on Christ.

Third, worry is meant to be addressed socially. One of my favorite chapters in the Bible is II Corinthians 1. Around verses 3-7 is an area where it talks about comforting one another. It says that we are able to comfort those around us utilizing our own experiences we have with comfort we have received from God. Rather than focusing on worry and anxiety as “bad,” understand it as the first step of healing through the comfort of God or from others. Additionally, the Epistles talk about this specifically as the work of the church body. We are not just to comfort one another, we are to love one another, accept one another, encourage one another… and more (I think there are something like 16 or 18 different “one another” passages. I forget the actual number.)

If one brings it together, a good understanding of worry, I believe is to spend less time on judging those who worry (I know as a chronic worrier I don’t like to be judged) but recognize worry as an opportunity to:

-Draw closer to God and communicate with God.

-Seek support from others.

-Use the process as an educational experience to be better at supporting others.

A Sermon in Shoes

Yesterday my wife and I were talking… I can’t really recall what now… but something she said triggered a kids song in my head that I had not heard in decades. The song goes like this:

Do you know, Oh Christian, you're a sermon in shoes?
Do you know, Oh Christian, you're a sermon in shoes?
Jesus calls upon you, to spread the gospel news,
So walk it, and talk it,
Live it, and give it,
Teach it, and preach it,
Know it, and show it.
A Sermon in Shoes.

Apparently, if online is to be trusted, it was written by Ruth Harms Calkin. I was actually a bit surprised to find it, but when i put in the words in the search engine, there were several YouTube videos of kids singing this song.

I have looked up “Bible” songs of my childhood with mixed results. One i remember that I have completely failed to find anywhere online goes as follows;

There's Nebuchadnezzar and Zerubbabel,
Shadrach and Meshach and Gemaliel,
____________, _____________, and Mephibosheth,
I would tell you more but I's all out of breath!

If i wasn’t clear enough, the lines are markers for Biblical names in this little song that I have forgotten. Of course, it is just a bit of a nonsense song— a tongue-twister.

This is, however, very different from “Sermon in Shoes.” I consider this song a quite profound one. At least I think so now. When I was young, the song seemed weird. “Sermon in Shoes”? What does that mean. I think our Sunday School teacher explained it, but the metaphor then did not strike home. Now, however, it seems most relevant. Frankly, we live in an era of words— written, spoken, audio recorded, video recorded, and even AI-generated. If ever there was a time in human history where “talk is cheap,” it is now.

A true “sermon” or proclamation of the God’s message is something that is lived out. In our walk, in our lived out existence, we can in effect “Say” the Gospel, or “Betray” the Gospel.

Of the short phrases near the end, I think three of them are quite relevant. Live it and Give it. Know it and Show it. Walk it and Talk it. In each one, one could take the first part as how the Gospel of Christ should be incorporated into one’s life. It should be something that we Know and understand. It should be part of our Walk (actions). It should be Lived out (affecting every part of our being). The other part is more directly how we evidence/proclaim the Gospel to others. We Talk it (in what we say and how we say it). We Show it (through what we do and how we do it). We Give it (freely based on our love for others).

Now you may not see them divided up like that, and certainly the fourth pair kind of ruins it. Teach it and Preach it doesn’t really fit that pattern. But it is a nice rhyme, so i get it. It certainly does not ruin the song. There are not many things that rhyme in a way that would keep the pattern using either teach or preach. I guess one could say, “Reach out, and Preach out,” but I have a feeling that I would be the only one who would see it as an improvement.

It is funny that there are many Children’s songs that have surprisingly good theology. Wouldn’t it be great if adult worship songs took theology so seriously. And I am not just speaking of P&W or Contemporary Christian. Hymns also often are shaky. Not throwing shade…. I just am happy that at least some of the songs of my childhood do stand up to scrutiny. As one who is teaching “Foundations of Holistic (or Integral) Missions” I like a childhood song that sees the Gospel message as something more than propositions to be passed on only through verbal proclamation, and recognizes that that the Gospel message has implications for one’s whole being— and not just a “ticket to heaven.”

We can use more songs like that.

Five Marks of Mission

I began teaching “Foundations of Holistic Missions” at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary. It is a class I enjoy, and I think it is useful for any Christian seeking to serve God in the world— not just for Mission Students.

As I was prepping for the class, I reviewed the Five Marks of Mission that was developed by the Anglicans. I really like the list. As an Evangelical, I might call it “Five Marks of Missions” (ending with an “S,” but that is not important.

The mission of the Church is the mission of Christ

To proclaim the Good News of the KingdomTo teach, baptize and nurture new believersTo respond to human need by loving serviceTo transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliationTo strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth 

<https://www.anglicancommunion.org/mission/marks-of-mission.aspx>

I much prefer these 5 “Marks” to the 3 “P’s” of “The Seoul Statement”

Christ-filled presence, our Christ-centered proclamation, and our Christlike practice.

This does not mean that I have problems really with The Seoul Statement from the 4th Lausanne Congress in 2024 (You can read a bit more on the statement by CLICKING HERE). Also the 3 P’s is more of a launching point for talking about Christian missions, not a full understanding of missions.

The Five Marks is broader… more encompassing… of the Mission of Christ. Therefore, it is more encompassing of our mission (or “missions”).

Now some people would read the Five Marks are likely to say something like, “All of those are good and true, but the first two must be given priority over the latter three.” In other words, all of them are important, but discipleship is critical, and evangelism is foundationally critical. When I noted the importance of Environmental missions a few weeks ago, one person said in the comments almost that exact thing. Caring for the environment is good and important, but not as important as evangelism.

And I agree. Nevertheless, I am going to push back on that.

If I agree, why would I push back? It is because of human nature. When we create a sentence that has the structure:

“A” is TRUE, but “B” is ALSO TRUE

or perhaps

“A” is TRUE, but “B” is EVEN MORE TRUE

It is often very much human nature to interpret such statements as

“B” is TRUE while “A” really isn’t

“Yes, But…” often gets interpreted as a “No.” When someone says “Black Lives Matter, but more importantly ALL lives matter,” in theory one is affirming both statements, but it is human nature to hear it as the second statement negating the first part. “But” can be a powerful but confusion-inducing word. And frankly, it is not merely a problem of bad interpretation. Often people very intentionally use this method to confuse or manipulate. For example, some people on FB have put out canned statements that go something like this:

“I am not really a fan of , but

That sentence clearly shows that the writer is a great supporter/fan of but wanted to manipulate people by pretending to be a non-supporter/non-fan.

So when we say that the first two marks are more important or more critical than the latter three, I do agree, but I would not say it that way, since some people would interpret the statement as saying that the latter three marks are NOT important, and I might even sound like I am a person trying to undermine those latter “marks.”

So for me, If I use the “Yes, But” structure, I would want to choose my words carefully to avoid someone hearing something different than what I believe is true. Thus, here is a statement I would make about the Five Marks of Mission that I believe embraces an Evangelical prioritization without falling into the trap of Evangelical minimization of mission:

“I believe that the first two marks of the Five Marks of Mission are of higher priority than the latter three, BUT an understanding of Christian mission that rejects any of the five is sub-Biblical.”