Robert Munson's Blog, page 30

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.

Missionary Burnout

I hope I don’t have to tell you which is better and which is worst in terms of self-care when one has already reached a state of psychospiritual burnout. But if you need help, one side is better than the other and the other side is worse.

Christian Theology, Missions and a “Healthy Agnosticism”

The following is a quote from C. S. Song

There is what I call “healthy agnostism” in some Eastern religions and philosophies. … There is also “healthy agnosticism” in the Apostle Paul. After agonizing over the convoluted relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the divine dispensation in the eleventh chapter of his Letter to the Romans, he finally has to say, not in exasperation, but in relief:

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways. (Rom 11:33)

This is Paul at his best— Paul not as a pretentious theologian. He knows how to keep silent in the presence of the inscrutable God. Most theologians try to say too much about God, but at the end of the day God is not any less real to the men and women who cannot make heads or tails of theological abracadabra.

C. S. Song “In the beginning Were Stories, Not Texts (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co,, 2011), 6-7.

While we often use the term agnosticism to refer to an uncertainty about the existence of God, the term in a broader sense means “without knowledge.”

In our counseling center, we have a phrase we use: “ASC before you ASK.” ASC is an acronym standing for:

-Agnostic— Don’t assume you already know the answers, and the “whole truth.”

-Suspicious— Don’t assume that what you are told or see is the whole story. It might not even be true.

-Curious— Don’t be satisfied with what you know or presume to know. Seek to clarify and know more.

This is a healthy agnosticism. It is not a denial of good and reliable knowledge. Rather it is the understanding that what is true is going to be in some ways different from what I think I know, and broader than I have the capacity to know.

Theologians should not presume to ‘know it all.’ Some, thankfully far from all, theologians give off the vibe that they got it all figured out. Good theology has a good dose of mystery in it. Theologians are explorers in the dark. Their reflective flashlight may help them see what is off the well-worn paths of others, but their understanding of what is beyond will always be limited.

Of course, if there is “healthy agnosticism” their is, presumably, “unhealthy agnosticism.” Some theologians drift so far from having a certain groundedness to their understanding that, perhaps, they are best described as students of “religious studies.” Theologians study the Christian faith and doctrines through the lens of faith. However, that “faith” has to have a certain substance to it. One cannot have faith without having faith in something or someone.

In missions we seek to localize or contextual the Christian faith in a new context. In so doing we are often exploring new theological territory. What does a healthy community of Christ worshipers look like that consist only of male Filipino workers building an airport in Doha, Qatar (to pick something at random that I have modest knowledge of)? It imay be easy to come up with “Al Yagoda” answers (All ya godda do is this, or All ya godda do is that). This probably involves labeling a bunch of guesses and presumptions as true. On the other hand, one can throw up one’s hands and say, how can I know anything about this situation. It is unknowable. That seems an error as well. Truth can be teased out, at least tentatively, only with a healthy understanding both what we do know and what we do not.

Jesus, Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith— Part 2

Continuing from Part One, if Jesus can be thought of as an (or “the”) Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith, then he was not trying to destroy the Jewish Faith, or replace the Jewish Faith, but transform it. As noted in the last post, the Jewish faith was what is sometimes called an “Ethnic Religion.” This is in contrast to a “Universal Religion” that sees its teachings, ethics, and practices as appropriate for all peoples, not one group alone.

What are some things that would have to happen for the Jewish Faith to be Internationalized? Here are a few:

—It cannot have a geographic center. The Jewish Faith was centered on the Temple in Jerusalem. We know there were other temples that were constructed to worship the God of Israel, such as Gerizim, and Elephantine, Egypt, but their validity was always questioned by the Jews who saw Jerusalem as the only place for proper ritual worship of Yahweh.

—It cannot be bound to ethnicity or an ethnic system.

—It cannot be tied to a national system. A state religion is not a universal religion.

—It must accept people of other ethniciies and cultures as equals.

When we look at the ministry of Jesus we see his focus on the Jews, and respect for the institutions of the Jewish faith, including the temple, synagogue, and annual festivals. He also clearly reverenced the Tanakh. Still in some ways, he undermined the more narrow aspects of the faith.

We see in John 4 in Jesus’ talk with the Samaritan woman that he saw the salvation of God coming through the Jewish nation, and that the Temple of Jerusalem as in some way more legitimate than the Temple in Gerizim. Despite this, he makes it clear that through himself times are changing. It will no longer matter where one goes to worship, and apparently ethnicity is not important since what is important is ‘spirit and truth.’ And as he reveals himself as Messiah, it is clear that he sees himself as much Messiah to the Samaritans as he does to the Jews. Despite actively focusing on reaching out to the Jewish people, on numerous occasions went out of his way to reach out to non-Jews. This traveling through Samaria and ministering there rather than avoiding it, teaching and doing miracles in predominantly Gentile, and ministering specifically to Gentiles such as the “Canaanite woman” and the Roman Centurian, support this. They were not looked down as 2nd class, but were used as examples of faith that few Jews could match. (Note that one really should read the whole story of the Canaanite woman… don’t just read the first couple of lines to understand what Jesus was really saying. One of the biggest miracles and teaching event happened in Decapolis, a Gentile region, ministering to Gentiles. This is known as the “Feeding of the Four Thousand.”His teachings focused on universal ethics (Great Commandment, Golden Rule) rather than festivals, sacrifices, and rituals. Perhaps most importantly, his ministry was centered on the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven)— a “spiritual” kingdom that is not tied to ethnic or national institutions. The Kingdom of God is open to all, and the Messiah is for all people

It is interesting to note that the Jewish faith after the time of Christ became more in line with the Internationalizing message of Jesus. With the destruction of the 2nd Temple in the 70s AD, the Jewish faith lost is central location. Rabbinical Judaism dominated with focus on the assembly of the people (in synagogues) and focus on ethical teaching and doctrines. With the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s AD, the last vestige of a link between Rabbinical Judaism to a nation or government disappeared.

It is in many ways too bad that the Internationalizing foundation of Jesus was often not embraced by the Christian church in the opposite direction. The early church became more distinctly, Greek, or Roman, or Coptic, or Syraic, or Celtic or whatever. It ceased, however, rather fast to be Jewish. Many seemed to believe that Christian liberty from Jewish requirements actually meant being obligated to avoid them.

Jesus told his disciples to be his witness to the ends of the world and to the end of the age. While Jesus did carry out much cross-cultural work, his internationalization of the Jewish faith, made the path fairly clear for his disciples (with occasional little nudges along the way).

Jesus, Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith– Part 1

In recent decades there has been the rediscovery of a truth so self-obvious that it is strange that it was ignored.

Jesus was a Jew in lineage, culture, and faith

If you say, “Well of course he was,” that is good. But the implications are a bit more profound than what it first appears. Embracing the tendency to put Christianity in stark relief with all other belief systems, there has been a tendency to see Jesus Christ as clearly, and only, on the side of Christianity, and in opposition to all else.

James Dunn speaks of this,

“As Susannah Heschel observes, liberal theologians painted ‘as negative a picture as possible of first-century Judaism’ in order ‘to elevate Jesus as a unique religious figure who stood in sharp opposition to his Jewish surroundings.’ A classic example is Ernest Renan, who wrote: ‘Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus’; after visiting Jerusalem, Jesus ‘appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. …Jesus was no longer a Jew.’ And Albrecht Ritschl drew a line in the sand, which was not decisively questioned for most of the twentieth century, when he pronounced that Jesus’ ‘renunciation of Judaism and its law … became a sharp dividing line between his teachings and those of the Jews..”

James D. G. Dunn in “The Historical Jesus: Five Views,” eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 217.

I am not sure why Heschel focused on liberal theologians. The same was true, with subtle differences of course with Conservative, Moderate, and other theologians as well. I was raised in a very conservative church. We did not deny that Jesus was a Jew, but Jesus was always portrayed artistically looking very different from the Jewish people around him. He looked different in physical appearance and bearing, in hair style, and in dress. Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, and Sanhedrin members, were almost always presumed to be bad people with evil aims. If one was seen as good— like the priest Zaccharias, or the Pharisee Nicodemus, they would be identified as being good DESPITE their role. We tended to look at the way of Christ and the way of Judaism in dualistic terms— the way of grace that leads to life, and the way of law that leads to death.

Nevertheless, things have been changing. Eddy and Bielby (pages 48 and 49 of the book referenced above) note that theologians have really gone away from centuries of this thought. Theologians revolted against the “Aryanizing” if Jesus by the German Nazis (and the theologians that supported their regime). Learning more about late Second Temple Judaism showed that much of what Jesus taught was harmonious with the teachings of others in Palestine. Further, the growing interest in learning more about “the Historical Jesus” meant that one had to study him in his context (in 1st century Judea, born into Jewish culture or Jewish lineage, and instructed in the Jewish faith).

This growing concensus does not solve all problems however. The old argument of whether Jesus was the most influential (Jewish) rabbi in history (as Reformed Jewish Rabbi describes him… see This Article) or first Christian” does not go away with this.

I would rather leave some of this to others— but I would like to address a somewhat related question:

If Jesus saw himself as a rabbi, a prophet, and as Messiah, did he see himself those roles with an implied “Jewish” in front of each role. Did Jesus see himself as a Jewish rabbi only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish prophet only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish Messiah only for the Jews?

There are those who would affirm this noting some statements such as in Matthew 15:22-24, “And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and were pleading with Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting [a]at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””

Now I would note argue the setting (Jesus chose to go to a predominantly Gentile region), that he used the woman as an example of faith for Jew and Gentile alike, and then followed up with his biggest Gentile ministry (the feeding of the four thousand) immediately after. These certainly undermine taking Jesus’ statement too literally. It seems to be more rhetorical for the sake of his disciples, rather than a self-identification of his personal calling. Still, most of his work was within the Jewish context. Because of this, some argue that the Great Commission (Acts 1:8 version especially) is an odd add-on that lacks a certain continuity with the rest of his ministry.

My argument was that in addition to (Jewish) rabbi and prophet (and I must add Messiah as well), he was the First and Great Internationalizer of the Jewish faith.

Of course, non-Jews joined the Jewish faith prior to Jesus. When Moses left Egypt with the mixed multitudes (Exodus 12:38). There is some question of who these are, but generally they were non-Israelites (by lineage) who joined the exodus and most likely became incorporated into the Israelite identity. Over the centuries, others did as well. Rahab and Ruth are well-known. The Gibeonites gradually became part of the Jewish identity. A similar thing could be said of the Idumeans. There were also formal procedures for non-Jews to be proselytes to the Jewish faith, including ritual bathing and circumcision.

In all of these cases, joining the Jewish faith (whether during the time of the Tabernacle, First Temple, or Second Temple eras) meant a loss of outside identity. Being Jewish (Israelite) in faith means becoming, gradually at least, Jewish in culture.

The examples before the time of Jesus of non-Jews embracing the Jewish faith without necessarily becoming Jewish in cultural identity is a bit more uncertain. The story of General Naaman, of the Arameans, seems to describe one who changed his faith to the God of Israel, and even took dirt from Israel (presumably to scatter around his courtyard) to identify with Yahweh. He probably did not visit Jerusalem for sacrifices and festivals. However, in the end we don’t really know. The Phoenician sailors in the story of Jonah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel are others who changed their worship to the God of Israel. It is uncertain of what happens next. There did not appear to be any real way for one to be Jewish in faith while Gentile in culture. With the Exile, this changed a bit, as Jews spread to Mesopotamia and Egypt (and then beyond) ad found ways to practice their faith in a region where their faith identity was different from that of the broader populace. The growth the the synagogue helped this— a gathering place for the faithful that was not only in Jerusalem. Still, even here, being a Jew in terms of faith, meant being part of the Jewish sub-culture.

An example of becoming Jewish in faith without becoming Jewish in culture, is the Samaritans. Presumably of “mixed race” background, they embraced the God of Israel, without identifying themselves as Jewish in self-identity or in culture. Broader Judaism, however, rejected this (although in more recent centuries, attitudes have changed and most see Samaritanism as a sect of Judaism).

In other words, before Jesus, to follow the God of Israel generally meant becoming a Jew in terms of culture… with rare and uncertain exceptions.

Jesus did not target Gentiles (non-Jews) in his ministry (with a few exceptions), but he did internationalize the faith so that the God of Israel could be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” and not limited by ethnic/national identity, or location (John 4).

Part 2 will explore this more.

Should Missionaries Fund Their Church Plants and Schools?

I was talking to a missionary friend of mine who is involved in what is one of the largest Evangelical Churches in the Philippines. He mentioned something interesting to me that I did not know. He said that that particular church was founded by missionaries but those particular missionaries specifically made a point of not funding the church with mission money. In other words, the planted church was required to be financially self-sufficient from the beginning. Apparently the church struggled early because of this. However, as noted, it is now one of the most successful Evangelical Churches in the Philippines (and, arguably, the world).

I do think there is a relationship between the start of that church and its success now is very relevant. I have seen churches that were dependent on missionaries (in terms of finances and leadership) succeed… but it is not that common. One large successful church was set up by a missionary I knew. It was doing great…. until a conflict happened between the missionary family and the local leaders. It got so bad that the church split. Eventually the missionary died but that did not make the problems go away. Missionaries don’t last forever and their funding does not last forever. Another successful church in my area is still run and funded by foreign missionaries. The top leadership is foreign and that position is transferred to other foreign leaders. Is that bad? Not necessarily I suppose, but it is like keeping a person on life support. As soon as the equipment breaks down or the electricity ceases, the person is in a dire state. Churches cannot rely on outside support forever, and a failure to empower local leaders will likely create dissent, breakdowns and lack of informed innovation. I know a denomination that has been in the Philippines for the better part of a century, but whose leader of work in the Philippines has been local for less than 10 years. Has that had a negative effect on their work? Looking at this denomination, while there is much I admire with it, it does feel very foreign (from a Filipino perspective) in some ways.

My greater experience is with Bible Schools and Seminaries. A lot of these in the Philippines were founded by missionaries. Many of them are still essentially run and funded from overseas. One seminary I have some connection with is really struggling in this post-COVID era. The leader is foreign and has resisted making changes that make sense locally. Its survival is truly in doubt. And I get that. I am part of a seminary here in the Philippines. It is making sizable changes that I probably would not do if I was in charge. However, it is most certainly good that I am not in charge. The changes are driven by local necessities in terms of relationship to prospective students, alumni, and other local entities. Local leadership gives authority, responsibility, and accountability to the people most invested in the local school in their local community.

Another school I have some connection with was founded and funded by missionaries for decades. Then over a ten year period it transitioned to local leadership, local teachers, and (mostly) local funding. I recall talking with people a couple of decades ago, when the school was going through this transition. Some people were looking forward to the transition. However, many thought the school would fail. Other’s thought that another foreign denomination or mission organization would come in and take over. I can’t help but think that these negative feelings of local leadership sprang from a bit of a Can’t-Do (post-colonial) perspective. It is good that that particular school has survived the transition and is arguably strong than it was when it was under foreign control.

From a personal standpoint, it seems like we have been able to do much more with less. Money sometimes undermines creativity and partnerships. Interdependency is better than dependency or independency.

Money is power, and power is not neutral. It is not necessarily bad to fund and rule… early on. But the cost of doing it long-term is potentially far more than money.

Cultural Anthropology and Christian Missions

In my previous post, I gave the link to the Amazon.com page for my updated book on Cultural Anthropology. However, that is for the paperback. Sorry, but if you want the paperback book, you need to pay for the paper, printing, and shipping. No choice.

But, if you want an electronic copy of the book. That is a different matter.

You can download an Electronic copy of the book but CLICKING HERE.

Updated Book on Cultural Anthropology

Finally updated my old book, Ministry in Diversity. Made numerous small updates, as well as including a new chapter. Decided to retire the old title and go with a name that is more accurate… “Cultural Anthropology and Christian Missions: Ministering to a Multicultural World.”

What does “So Send I You” Really Imply?

In Evangelical circles there has been a strong emphasis on the “Great Commission.” Of course, as I have noted numerous times, there are several presentations of the Great Commission. The two most popular (again, in Evangelical Circles) are in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1. Acts 1 is popular because it points to the outward direction of the GC and its call that seems to suggest that we are to seek to reach everyone and everywhere. The Matthew 28 version is popular because it suggests a certain process— #1 (Wherever) You Go, #2 (evangelize and) You Baptize, and #3 You teach (or disciple).

Both of them are good. But it is funny how what is good can become kind of bad when poorly understood. One of the worst areas of misunderstanding (in my view, obviously) is the tendency to see Matthew 28:18-20 as providing limitations on either Missions or Ministry. I will address the more eggregious (and less common one) first.

A. I have heard it stated that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the full counsel of the ministry of the church. The church is suppose to evangelize, baptize (bring into the church), and disciple. And that is it. Any other ministry is not part of God’s commissioning. I almost feel like this is a strawman and it is a waste of time to knock this down. I will go to the slightly stronger perspective and then challenge it. I think that the challenge to it would also serve to challenge this point. (Decide for yourself.)

B. More commonly, I have heard that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the boundaries for what can be considered missions. This seems weak, but I think it is worth digging into a bit. This has come through a process of history. The Great Commission was to the Apostles… technically. It was directed to them. They were “sent out ones.” They were what we would generally call missionaries today, in that they were to go out of the church to where the church is not to establish communities of faith, expanding God’s kingdom on earth. Like most all of the Bible, it was NOT TO US, BUT FOR US. As such, it sometimes gets a bit confusing as to what things apply to us and what things don’t. In the US and the Philippines, people love to take I Chronicles 7:14 and say that it applies to us despite the fact that this promise was ABSOLUTELY NOT DIRECTED TO US. That being said, could I Chron. 7:14 provide an overarching principle of how God works that we can take comfort in (or more reasonably embrace with great concern)? Hard to say. However, in the case of Matthew 28:18-20, there are pretty clear indications that it applies to the church as a whole (especially the promise that Jesus said He would be with them (us?) even to the end of the age. William Carey used this universal call to the church as an argument for carrying out mission work. This is good… but in so doing, the Great Commission (all versions of it) became identified as the work of missions, rather than of the church. Not sure that is a great thing, but that still brings up the question, does Matt. 28:18-20 provide limits to what is missions? Is missions ONLY evangelism, church planting, and discipleship?

I will address this question from Part B, but only after looking at a different version of the Great Commission. Another version is John 20:21— “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.'”

While it looks a lot different from the Matthean, Markan, and both Lukan versions, we can be pretty comfortable that it is also the Great Commission. It appears to happen in the same conversation with the apostles, it has the same charge— to go out and continue the work of Jesus. It, however, is much more broad in what it says to do. It doesn’t give any suggestions of limits like only to evangelism, church planting, and discipleship.

Because of this, John Stott had argued that this version suggests “Holistic Missions.” By this is meant that missions is not just about proclamation, planting churches, and teaching doctrine, but also involves compassion ministry, social justice, healing and more. He notes that the apostles being sent out in the same way that Jesus was suggests that the apostles should generally do what Jesus did. What did Jesus do? Holistic missions— he healed, he fed, he taught, he evangelized, he baptized (or at least his disciples did), he declared the kingdom of God and everything that suggests.

I have heard this challenged, and the challenge is pretty simple. Technically it does not say to do holistic missions, it just says they are sent out, and this being sent out by Jesus is in some way related to Jesus being sent out by the Father.

I think there is some value in this. We can’t just take everything that Jesus did and say that we must do the same thing simply because he did. We don’t necessarily have to overturn tables in the Court of the Gentiles. We don’t necessarily have to exorcise demons. We don’t necessarily have to hike around the Middle East. We most certainly don’t have to atone for the sins of the world (rather beyond our capacity anyway).

On the other hand, we can’t take it so far as to divest it all meaning. To be sent, does suggest a purpose for being sent. I suppose one could come up with language (in English at least) that does not imply purpose. Perhaps, it could be something like, “And Jesus said, as I left Heaven, and I am asking you to leave now.” There is no implied purpose, but the Greek roots associated with “pempo” and “apestalken” do seem to imply (I think… I am not a Greek scholar) that this not an aimless act. But if it is not aimless, the aim must be linked it seems. The purpose of being sent out by Jesus is informed by being His being sent out by the Father.

Since Jesus’ ministry is very much holistic, it seems like Stott’s point stands. But maybe you don’t agree. That is fair. Perhaps the fact that it is not explicitly commanded means that holistic ministry is not part of the Great Commission. That is where Matthew 28 comes in. Matthew 28:18-20 explicitly states that all that God calls, wherever they go they are supposed to “teach them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded.”

That is a pretty explicit statement. We are to do what Jesus said we are supposed to do. So, for example, in Matthew 25, that includes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and so forth. I don’t see any reading of the Gospels that shows Jesus commanding anything less than a whole gospel expressed holistically.

Perhaps, however, the argument is made that missionaries are supposed to evangelize, church plant, and disciple, but in their discipling, the disciples are supposed to be holistic (social and spiritual ministry both) but not the missionaries. I see three problems with this (at least). First, it implies and interpretation like, “You missionaries go forth and train people to obey everything that I have commanded, but you are called NOT to do everything I commanded. You are to do less.” That sounds like a good point at first, but it can break down under scrutiny. Perhaps missionaries are to obey all the commands of Christ and teach others to do all things that Christ commanded, but missionaries are not actually doing mission work when they are doing things outside of… you know… evangelize, church plant, and disciple. But that brings us to the second point. Second, typically teaching in the Bible is active and participative. Jesus discipled using a master-apprentice model. He did not teach with words disconnected from practice. It is hard to imagine that Jesus was suggesting, “teach using a very different model of training that what I have been doing.” If teaching is participative, then concern about social and physical and psychoemotional needs is very much part of the Great Commission. Third, while the Matthean Great Commission certainly applies to missionaries, there seems no reason to limit it. William Carey’s analysis of the Great Commission does not lead to “The Great Commission applies to specially designated missionaries only.” Rather it leads to “The Great Commission applies to the church, yesterday, today, and for the foreseeable future.” If that is true, then one can absolutely not remove social concerns from the Great Commission. This undermines the strawman at the top of this post. The church is to carry out the Great Commission and that implies the total calling of Jesus in expanding the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth,

Bringing this all together? What does “So Send I You” imply? Understanding that John 20:21 cannot be separated form Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1, then Jesus sends (1) all of us (the church), not just missionary, out with purpose. That purpose is inextricably linked to (1) the commands of God that must be lived out in all of its dimensions (spiritually, physically, socially, and psycho-emotionally), and (2) the need for the Kingdom of Heaven to be lived out everywhere to the far corners of the world, as a testimony to all peoples.

If the Apostles Had Complete Disdain for Contextualization, They Had a Strange Way of Showing It

I am taking a course with led by Tom Steffen. Tom shared a quote from John MacArthur. I don’t know the exact source, but I assume it is pretty accurate.

The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualizaation. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is “zip-code ministry.” The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel…. Does your message ignore the trends and superficial icons of culture, and bring heaven down in its transcendent reality? Can you take your sermons and preach them anywhere?

-John MacArthur

It is an interesting quote. I haven’t really listened to John MacArthur in decades so I am not sure how to read it. Logically, it is all over the place, and I had always remembered him as being more…. ummm logical, I guess? The most obvious one is that even if one defines the Gospel so narrowly defined as to be seen as completely supracultural, that in no way implies that one can “take your sermons and preach them anywhere?” If this quote is viewed as being part of a sermon, it exists within a context where it makes sense. In a different setting, this sermon would be completely confusing or meaningless.

I don’t really want to address the question of whether the Gospel is above culture or not. Part of that depends on where one places the boundaries around what one calls the gospel. I suppose one could make the boundaries narrow enough that one can ignore the “nuances of culture,” but the gospel came to us from God through culture. The language and metaphors make sense within the culture. A broad understanding of the gospel cannot be walled off from culture.

My big question is in the first line. Is it true that “the apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization?” If MacArthur is referring to Acts chapter 1, I suppose there may have been some truth to it. The apostles definitely thought of themselves as Jews reaching out to Jews with the Jewish message of Christ. Even if Acts 1:8 said that they would go to the ends of the earth, I don’t think they saw themselves as adjusting their message or themselves. However, the apostles soon did make adjustments. Acts 15 was a major adjustment. The issue of meat sacrificed to idols was an issue that had little relevance to the apostles until they crossed into Greek and Roman societies. Their response did not ignore the “nuances of culture.” The apostles chose to write down God’s revelation in Koine Greek and used a number of “Gentile” metaphors (hades, tartarus, Logos, Roman adoption, and more) to express aspects of the gospel message.

This is contextualization. But MacArthur certainly is aware of the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles. I assume it is a bit of a question of definition. The term “contextualization” only goes back to the 1970s. It could be thought of as coined by Shoki Coe related to a theological forum of the World Council of Churches. There are a lot of terms that overlap— contextualization, localization, indigenization, accommodation, and more. Many Evangelicals don’t like the term “accommodation” because of its roots in Roman Catholic thought. Many Evangelicals don’t like the term “contextualization” because of its connection to the WCC and conciliar missions. Still, I believe a majority of Evangelical missiologists and those interested in missions have come around to using the term “contextualization”— but in doing so have chosen to define this fairly broad term in a way that is not quite in touch with its original use. This is nothing new. The term “holism” is another term of the 20th century that Evangelicals have chosen to embrace, with modest adjustments to the definition from its original meaning.

But here is the deal. John MacArthur was clearly writing to Evangelical Christians. It seems like MacArthur is using the definition for contextualization of the WCC. At least that is the only way I can see the paragraph making sense. But if that is the case, he should have been using the Evangelical understanding of contextualization. Yes, some definitions of the word come much closer to a relavistic understanding of faith, or even syncretism, but in the context of the writing, the definition that needed to be used was far from this.

If he was writing to Evangelicals and using a word commonly used by Evangelicals but attaching a non-Evangelical definition to it— well, that is a true failure to contextualize.

In answer to the title question… The apostles clearly sought not to syncretize their faith. They did not seek to relativze the gospel of Christ as just another set of ideas in a world of ideas. However, they did try to answer the questions of other cultures with the message of Jesus utilizing the language and symbols of that culture.