Robert Munson's Blog, page 32

Value of Story-based Ethics

Some years ago, I read book on ethics by Norman Geisler, “Christian Ethics: Options and Issues,” that spoke of 6 broad categories of ethics. The six (Antinomianism, Situationism, Generalism, Unqualified Absolutism, Conflicting Absolutism, and Graded Absolutism) could be divided into two broad categories— Absolute and non-Absolute. Absolute means that ethics is based on a clear ultimate/absolute authority. That authority might be called God. There are non-Absolute ethical systems as well where greater authority is centered on the individual or the community. I found value in the book as I came to the conclusion that ‘Graduated Absolutism’ was the strongest viewpoint in terms of Christian ethics.

But of course there are other ways of dividing ethics. A different one was in David Augsburger’s book, “Pastoral Counseling Across Cultures.” He spoke of three broad systems of ethics: Deontological, Teleological, and Contextual. He saw Deontological as rule-based, “right versus wrong,” and “the means justifies the ends.” Teleological is pragmatic, “good versus evil,” and “the end justifies the means.” These seem pretty straightforward, but also inadequate. Horrible things have been done based on the idea that the end is good, so the means must be good. On the other hand, equally horrible things have been done based on “just following the rules” that ignored what the results were. Arguably, Christian ethics is NOT one or the other, but a bit of both. (I know that this goes against what is commonly taught— that Christian ethics is Deontological. However, the New Testament makes it quite clear that we are no longer bound by a written law of dos and donts, but are bound by the Law of the Spirit. The New Testament writers never fully clarify in written word what the “Law of the Spirit” constitutes. This in itself suggests a couple of things. First, it is Absolutist— God is the basis. Second, it is NOT deontological— not based on a written list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots.

But where does Contextual fit in. Augsburger puts it as “Fit versus Unfit.” In other words, is it culturally appropriate or not. Paul talks along those lines at times talking about how Christian liberty (things that are not in a legal sense “wrong” may still be inappropriate. Philemon really can legally keep Onesimus as a slave if he chooses to… but he should really really consider how inappropriate it is for a Christian to keep his Christian brother in (figurative) shackles. Paul limits his own ethical freedoms to impact more for Christ. It is not legally wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but one should consider the context before deciding to act on this sort of freedom. In these things, there is the legal limitations (deontology), the concern about the results (teleology), but the response must take seriously the specific situation (context). All three are needed.

Let’s give an example of Contextual ethics through a story:

One day, Missionary Tom received a plot of land from the village elders to live on. Tom planted some figs. Figs were not commonly grown in that part of the world, but they actually thrived in the climate. It was only a couple of years when fruits formed in quantity. Tom looked forward to begin harvesting. However, as they neared ripening, they would disappear. Tom at first thought it was some animal going after them, but finally he realized it was people in the village. One day, he saw a couple of pre-teen boys taking figs from his own trees. He went out and grabbed them and took the figs from them. He spoke harshly to them about stealing, and how unhappy God was at them. They were afraid at his strong language, but also confused. Not satisfied by their response, Tom took them to the chief elder, who was sitting down smoking in front of his house.

Tom explained the situation and asked the chief elder to discipline them. The chief elder responded:

‘Pastor Tom, I cannot discipline them because they did nothing wrong. They certainly did not steal anything. We gave you land ot live on, but of course you don’t own the land— no one can own the land— you just use it. The land gave fruit. You don’t own the fruit any more than you own the land. If you had harvested the fruit and they had then taken what you harvested, then YES, they would be thieves. But that is not what happened. They harvested the fruit and you took it from them. So you are the thief. But I won’t discipline you. I don’t think you know any better. Just give the figs back to the boys and I think that is enough.”

This story gives an example of contextual ethics. Missionary Tom knew what the Bible (God) says, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” However, the Bible does not define what stealing is. Stealing varies in terms of context. Each country has a different understanding of what ownership entails. I recall watching an episode of Gold Rush–Parker’s Trail, where Parker Schnabel, a gold mining businessman, goes gold prospecting in Australia. While there, they had a claim set up to do some surface mining. However, a couple of his comrades found poachers— people illegally harvesting gold from their land. They went after the poachers aggressively and might have even injured them if they hand not driven off quickly. Soon, however, they found out from local authorities that the poachers were not poachers at all. Until the claim reaches its formal initial start, it is freely available for people to come along and prospect for gold. The people were not stealing and if Parker’s friends had injured them, they would have been in deep trouble. Stealing is always wrong, but ownership is based on context.

It is in stories where ethic becomes really tested and there is opportunity for real understanding. Jesus would heal on the Sabbath Day, and seemed as if He made a point of doing this just to irk the religious authorities. One time he asked them after their complaint, “Is it wrong to do good on the Sabbath Day?” This is a great question, but it lacks the visceral impact of a story, Consider His question put into a story fragment in Luke 14:5,

“Then he asked them, ‘If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will not immediately pull it out?”

You might not say it is a story, but it has the elements of a story. It has an implied status quo— a relaxing and holy Sabbath day. It had a initiating conflict— child (or ox) falls into a well. There is the moral conflict— what is the righteous action: leave the child in the well until the next day (if the child is still alive then), or take the child out of the whole. There is an implied resolution to the conflict— the person decides that it is more righteous to do good on the Sabbath day, than to allow evil to perpetuate on that day.

The story does more than a propositional statement— Honor the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy. The story provides the real world circumstances to challenge the sparse and inadequate proposition. What makes the Sabbath more honored. Is it honored by folding one’s hands while great evil runs wild? Or is the Sabbath more honored and holy when good is done (even if such benevolence requires some human effort)?

Previously, I challenged an interpretation of II Corinthians 12:14-15.

“Look! I am ready to come to you this third time. I will not burden you, for I am not seeking what is yours, but you. For children are not obligated to save up for them parents, but parents for their children. I will most gladly spend and be spent for you”

Some have argued that this means that children have no obligation to take care of their parents in their old age. This bumps up against the cultural ethics in many places (including in the Philippines where I live) where many parents anticipate being cared for by their children.

I believe the depending on a propositional statement loses the understanding of the passage in a way that would not be confused if put into a story form. Comparing parents to children and Paul to the (young) church of Corinth would lead to a story where the children would be young and the parents in the prime of life. Reading the story with the parents old and feeble and the children in prime of life would fall apart immediately since Paul clearly is describing himself as capable to take care of himself and not needing the support of this immature church.

So stories can make ethics more visceral, can challenge presumption and limits on propositional statements, and aid in interpretation. Additionally, stories are open-ended. They lead to discussions that help to understand other situations better. Rather than give an example here, I will ask you to look at another post I wrote. It is based on an ethical system used by the Kankana-ey people of the Northern Philippines. They use stories to give ethical direction. If you look at the story, there is a lot said, and a lot not said. This gives a great place for people to discuss and explore the “Why”s and the “What Next”s. This can lead to a much more ethically nuanced understanding.

The article is found by clicking here: Watwat is What?

Subversion of the Symbol of the Cross Quote

The planting of the first cross on Philippine soil is depicted in a painting by Vicente Manansala. Here the artist clearly shows the link between “mission” and “imperialism.” A priest blesses a large cross which has just been planted by indigenous laborers while Spanish soldiers carrying spears bark orders at them.

We are forced to ask whether, then as well as later, the message of Jesus and therefore his image was not thus turned into its opposite: the cross as a sign of the execution of an innocent victim having been turned around to function as a sword that could be used against Jews (culminating in the Holocaust, Muslims (the Crusades) redskinned Indians (Indian wars), and blacks (slave trade and slavery).

Anton Wessels, Images of Jesus: How Jesus is Perceived in Non-European Cultures. English translation by John Vriend

Manansala’s painting “The Planting of the First Cross” doesn’t seem to fit the description in the quote. The one’s planting the cross are clearly not indigenous laborers. Perhaps there is a different version of this painting done by Manansala. However overall, the analysis is spot on. The symbols of Christianity (priest and cross) are clearly supported by symbols of war (soldiers, armor, and halberds).

Vincente Manansala’s “Planting of the First Cross” (1965)

I think this subversion is pretty easy to do. Missionaries were often seen as supporting colonial imperialism because they utilized the might of the colonizers (guns, soldiers, ships, etc.) to be able to work. The fact that many missionaries were highly discomforted by what the colonial governments and colonizing populations were doing does not negate the fact that they would be seen as part of the problem by many. After all, in the painting described above, the priest utilized the spears and the soldiers used against the Cebuanos (local people) regardless of whether they approved of the behavior.

When evangelical short-term mission teams headed to Iraq after the (latest) Iraq War was over, were they seen positively (sharing their love and concern for the people there), neutrally (another voice in the dialogue of faith), or negatively (an invasion supported by the first invasion from the West)? I recognize that all ministry work takes advantage of the political landscape. St. Paul used his Roman citizenship to allow him to minister at times. But there also seems to have been some reticence in this. Most of the places that Paul traveled were conquered lands. His citizenship opened some doors, but it could shut others as well since his legal protection came through the sword and great bloodshed.

I am able to minister in the Philippines because it is a nation whose government supports a high level of religious freedom. I am grateful for the freedom. We have even done some ministry projects in partnership with local government or government agencies. That is a blessing, but we have to be careful not to be pawns of the government (US or Philippines) or seen as too closely linked to them.

History of Missions Class at Faith Bible College

It is good to keep learning. I am taking a course, “Teaching in Oral Cultures,” the first full course of study I have taken since 2013. It is also good to keep teaching. That is true for at least two reasons— one is that teaching forces one to keep learning. The other is that it helps others to learn as well.

I have a course set up on Populi at Faith Bible College this Summer. It is titled “History of Missions.” It is fully online and asynchronous (“max-flex” That’s because I have to go back and forth between the Philippines and the US. That makes it hard to guarantee a set face-to-face time. However, unlike some course, I think this works for “History of Misions”

I teach a number of courses at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary and Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary. However, PBTS is focused on God-called, Church-affirmed ministers. As such, there are greater limitations on who can take courses there. This is even more true of ABGTS. On the other hand Faith Bible College trains a wide variety of people— both traditional and non-traditional Bible school students. Of course, I absolutely do recommend PBTS and ABGTS for those seeking to do ministry— especially in Asia.

For those interested, you are welcome to try out the course this Summer. This sort of training format is new to me. I would love to get feedback. I need to keep learning.

https://www.faithbiblecollege.com/courses-by-semester-1

Purified, Strenthened, Permeated, Concretized and Actualized Cultural Values

My daughters attended a Catholic University here in the Philippines, and Religious education was part of the curriculum. My daughters found some of the classes interesting and valuable… others drab and dull. It seems like the interest and investment of the instructors in their topic tended to rub off on the students. Anyway, they gave me their text books and I like a lot of the materials.

Here is an extended quote on what I would describe as Contextualization of the Christian Faith. The book describes it as “Renewed Catechesis.” Catechesis means Religious education, and renewed suggests making the teachings of the church relevant and resonant in new cultural settings.

“‘Catechesis today must be Christ-centered… Everything— the Blessed Virgin, the saints, the sacraments, word of life, devotions, etc. — must be taught in relation to Christ, and with the purpose of leading the catechized into intimacy with Christ’ (PCP-II 157). For Catechesis to be Christ-centered, it ‘must be rooted in the Word. Nothing and no one speaks better of the Incarnate Word than the scriptural Word of God… ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ” (PCP-II 159).

Renewed Catechesis must also be authentically Filipino and systematic. It becomes authentically Filipino if it is inculturated. Inculturation implies, first of all, communicating the Christian message using the language of the people (PCP-II 160). According to the NCDP, ‘the Christian message must be expressed through images, symbols, rites that are indigenous to Philippine culture.’ (NCDP 381).

PCP-II further describes inculturation as ‘the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures’ (PCP-II 202). A similar idea is expressed by the NCDP when it says that ‘authentic Filipino cultural values, attitudes and practices must themselves be viewed in the light of Christ andin terms of their basic Christian dimensions…’ (NCDP 381). Further, inculturation can happen because ‘Filipino values can be purified, permeated, and strengthened by Gospel values. Gospel values in turn are concretized and actualized in Filipino values and patterns of action’ (NCDP 383).

—Growing as a Missionary Church, by Romano M. Bulatao, Reynaldo O. Dumpayan, and Lawrence D. Dumayas (Philippines, CPSP Publishing House, 2013), pages 5 and 6)

Clarifying a bit, PCP-II refers the “Second Plenary Council of the Philippines,” while NCDP refers to the “National Catechetical Directory of the Philippines.”

This is expressed somewhat different than I might. I would not necessarily focus on the Mother of Jesus, the Saints, and the Sacraments. But it can be argued that this quote doesn’t either. It says that everything points to the centeredness of Christ, and training must be centered on the Word of God (Christ) and the Holy Scriptures that reveal Christ. There is a lot of common ground there.

I rather like the way the quote describes inculturation of the Gospel message. Some people always focus on the risk of “tainting” the message of God with local values. Here however, inculturation describes a two-way street where Christian teachings and Cultural Values are aided in the process.

The Gospel message can purify Cultural values— it identifies the best in local beliefs, not just pointing out what is wrong.The Gospel message can strengthen Cultural values— demonstrating that the good is not merely opinion of local culture, but also of God. (Much of Filipino traditional values are highly commendable, and need to strengthened, not undermined by the Christian Church.)The Gospel message can permeate Cultural values— it does not have to be like oil and water or a veneer of one covering the other. A person being sanctified in Christ does not become a completely different person, but instead becomes what he or she was meant to be. In like manner, renewal of culture in Christ changes culture to be what it is meant to be— distinct, unique, and purified.Filipino values concretize and actualize the Gospel message. The Gospel message will enter a culture feeling abstract and foreign. It will not be understandable on a visceral, emotional, spiritual level until it is connected with the way of life and manner of thought of people in the culture.

By the way, This book quotes from the PCP-II (“Second Plenary Council of the Philippines”) where it in turn quotes, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is the ignorance of Christ.” Until I looked it up, I did not know that this is a quote of St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate translation of the Bible.

While, as a non-Catholic, there are many aspects of the book that I cannot wholeheartedly accept. Nevertheless, I am glad my daughters received this religious training. They went to an Evangelical high school, and I must admit that at least some of religious education at the school was overly simplistic and trite. As sadly, much of it was most definitely NOT a Renewed Catechesis.

How Does God Use Deeply Flawed Servants?

One of my favorite books in the Bible is Habakkuk. In it, the prophet (Habakkuk) is trying to figure out when is God going to take care of all the evil that is happening in the Kingdom of Judah. God responds to the effect that, ‘Don’t worry. I am sending in the Babylonians and they are going to destroy everything.’

Habakkuk is, not surprisingly, not happy about this. He was a Jew as were the people of Judah. He wanted repentance and revival. He did not want them to be destroyed. And… he certainly did not think it was fair and righteous that God would use a people who were (seemingly) worse than the Jews..

God’s response is a bit… poetic… roundabout. However, the argument seems to be something like, “Don’t worry. I will use whoever or whatever I want as my tool of discipline. The Babylonians may be useful in the moment, but I will replace and judge them when the time is right.

But is this a general principle? What about people who are God’s servants by intention rather than merely by sovereign circumstances. What if a minister— pastor, missionary, and such— was deeply flawed. Will God use them? I have heard ministers, such as televangelists, who seemed to be horrible horrible people supported by the argument that their success and at least some of the fruit of their labor proves God’s favor.

An example that comes to mind is someone I will call Bernard. That is most definitely NOT his name. Also, he died decades ago so I am definitely not talking about you, the reader.

Bernard was a minister and a missionary. I won’t give too many details on his ministry. His primary role is in training no Christian servants. Bernard and his family were sent as missionaries by their denomination to Asia. His wife worked with local women, while Bernard established a training program for Christian ministers. He did this for 4 years. After that, however, he and his family had to leave. Bernard had been acting out sexually causing deep problems where he was serving.

Going back to the United States he found a position that would not be described as missionary work, but still essentially doing the same thing. He served there for awhile, but the same problems sprang up and he and his family had to move again. Bernard did continue to do ministry work, but in (relative) obscurity for a few more years.

This sounds like failure to me… but it is a bit more complicated than that. Bernard became known as the founder of the training program in the mission field because his first trainee (I will call him “Ben”) took the mantle of the ministry and ran with it successfully for decades. Now, this program is successfully being implemented where Bernard served in the field, as well as many other sites in Asia. Ben is commonly seen as the “Father” of this ministry, even though Bernard is still seen as the initiator.

In the United States, the place he worked was with a young colleague/trainee who went on to be a major leader and innovator in this minister training movement.

I chose to be very vague here. I have a friend who likes to tell stories where he changes the name but keeps enough details that those who are in the know… well, they know. I don’t like to do that. I am focus on principle here, not personality.

In principle, God used Bernard to jumpstart the work in Asia, and continue the work in America. You might say that God used him to plant the seeds. Others, however, cultivated and harvested the fruit.

I think God uses who God uses. God uses the best and the brightest. God uses the humblest and the most servant-minded. But sometimes God uses the most flawed. God used Balaam in the Old Testament and God used Judas Iscariot in the New. The former appeared to have a divine prophetic gift, the latter was a miracle worker. God used them when he needed them, and then set them aside for others who were motivated by love for God rather than adulation, money and other things.

I still think this topic needs more consideration… but I think this is a good start in my reflection. For now.

Contextual Biblical Theology Quote

I have been reading Grenz and Olson’s book, “Who Needs Theology?” and found that they have a nice section of contextual theology. The following is a quote addressing the question of whether contextualization of theology should start from the Bible, as opposed to starting from culture. (I am reading the Kindle version, so I don’t have the exact page):

Going to the Bible first is a helpful proposal, yet it poses one grave danger. In our quest to read and be faithful in Scripture, we may overlook our culture. We may not give sufficient attention to the questions people today are asking. As a result, our doctring— as biblical as it may appear to be— may in the end be irrelevant to the world in which God calls us to live as disciples. In short, our attempt to construct a biblical theology may short circuit our attempt to construct a biblical theology.

Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), chapter 7

Grenz and Olson later in the chapter support a “Trialogue” between Bible, Setting, and Church History. Quoting from later in the chapter, “How do we construct contextual theology? Our answer is: By bringing our understanding of Scripture, our cognizance of our heritage and our reading of our cultural context into creative trialogue.”

It is interesting, to me at least, that Stephen Bevans in his six modesl of contextualization, seemed to have a trialogue of Scripture, Culture, and Reflection. It is interesting to me because Bevans is a Catholic theologian and so would, presumably, take church heritage more seriously than Grenz and Olson. However, Bevans in speaking to a group of Catholic theologians (youtube video I saw) seemed to suggest that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church is somewhat of a obstacle to overome in contextualization. However, the Intertradionality of the Synthetic Contextualizaiton model may suggest the drawing on church history/heritage.

Missionaries as Cultural Anthropologists

Although there were many travelers in history who regaled people back home with tales of distant lands, often it was missionaries who were the first to record document other cultures to bring clarity and understanding. That is not to say that they went in without biases or agendas. They certainly did, but often they did so better than other professions (diplomats, military personal, merchants) who had to interact with outsiders. Some early “ethnographer” missionaries include Bernardino de Sahugan in 16th century Mexico, and Abraham Rogerius in 17th century India.

Cultural anthropology as a “science” really took off in the 1870s. However, in some ways, 20th century cultural anthropology had more similarity to the early missionary ethnographers than to the anthropologists of the previous generations.19th century anthropologists tended to be “armchair” researchers analyzing data from libraries, unlike missionaries who studied the people in their own setting. 19th century anthropologists also tended to be more interested in learning about present cultures to understand the past. They wanted to explore cultural diffusion (change due to external influence) and cultural evolution (change due to internal influences) more than present cultures. A great example, in my view is the book “The Golden Bough”– an immense book (regardless of the abridged or unabridged version) by James G. Frazer in 1890. The book is a collection of bits and pieces of cultural data around the world. with the primary purpose of justifying his theory behind a novel practice in a Roman cult two millennia ago.

20th century anthropologists were interested in analysis, taxonomies, and theories like their 19th century counterparts. However, like missionaries, they believe in learning with the people (participant-observer), with the goal of understanding the present more than the past.

Research LocationUse of DataInterestEthnographer missionariesCulture of InterestPractical ministryPresent19th century anthropologistsLibrariesAnalysis and Theory developmentMostly Past20th century anthropologistsCulture of InterestAnalysis and Theory developmentMostly Present

I don’t believe that missionaries need to apologize for being more focused on practical ministry than on theory Missionaries have a primary calling to service, not to science. Some missionaries were chastised by boards and superiors for being focused on understanding and documenting local cultures rather than their “real work.” But service to God cannot be separated from service to the people. Service to the people involves trying to understand them. Missionaries can research, analyze, and still seek to learn how to serve better.They can serve God, serve the people, and serve academia as well.

Good Theology Comes from Good Questions

I am reading the book “Who Needs Theology?” by Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson. I am almost half-way through and it is a good read so far. I have seen some mixed reviews so possibly their complaints will hold more weight in the second half. Smooth sailing so far.

Grenz and Olson note several reasons that Christians often push back against theology.

Killjoy Objection. Theology ruins everything in the Christian experience. Divisiveness Charge. As they worded it, “Jesus Unites, Theology Divides.”Speculation Accusation. Theology is too impractical and focuses on things that were were never meant to understand.Stalemate Indictment. Theology is stuck, unable to progress because ultimately it is just a bunch of people saying to each other, “Well no… YOU are the ones who are WRONG!”

This is a good list, and the authors do a good job undermining these objections to theology. I can think of one more that it worth bringing up although it probably doesn’t belong on the list.

I will call it “The Switcheroo.” In my faith tradition, theology is often not really taken very seriously. However, most commonly it is not because they do not speak unfavorably about theology. They will often talk about how important theology is, but when one delves into the issue, what one finds is that what is meant is “Dogma and Defense” or “Indoctrination and Transmission.”

Grenz and Olson see the fourth objection to be the strongest. If theology gets to a point where nothing changes— people form trenches on the battlefield of theology and the lines never move— the point can be made that it is essentially a dead exercise.

Grenz and Olson state that if one feels that progress is only evidenced if there is a unanimous change of opinion, then indeed, theology will NEVER progress. Unanimity is to high of a standard, however, for pretty much any field of study. They do give an example that they view as real progress.

It has to do with the issue of the Impassibility of God. God, in this view, does not feel pain or pleasure from others. God lacks emotions— at least in ways that we can relate to. Some have struggled with passages that clearly show God responding emotionally in the Bible, in apparent response to the behavior of His creation. Others have tried to come up with a way of saying, as St. John did, that “God is Love” while still seeing God as impassible. Still others have wrestled with the presentation of Jesus, “fully God, fully man,” as a fully emotional being.

But in the 20th century a strong movement came along that went against “Dogma and Defense” and said that maybe the reason we are having trouble defending the Impassibility of God is because God clearly revealed Himself to us as Passible— able to suffer and feel emotions. Perhaps the classical understanding of the God of Abraham was imagined (in this area at least) through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus— The One… The Unmoved Mover…. Perfect in Unchangingness, rather than through God’s one self-revelation.

While there are still defenders of the Impassibility of God, the change of the battle lines has been dramatic enough to say that there has been real progress.

I agree with this, but Theology also shows progress in its correlation to contemporary needs. Progress, then, is not always demonstrated by the moving of the trenches, but also in the finding of new battlefields.

The growth of human population and of industrialization, has forced us to explore theologically the issues of ecology and creation care. I have known many people who don’t see the relevance of these because the Bible doesn’t spend much time on these issues (at least at first glance). However, the Bible is not a theological work, primarily, but a revelatory work. Theology uses God’s revelation to explore new, and old, questions in the present context. The present context (over population and pollution) did not exist two to three thousand years ago, but that doesn’t mean we have no insight from God in this matter.

Another question has to do with inter-religious dialogue, and living in a pluralistic society. In this one, we do have insights of theologians in the past— particularly during the Roman Empire in the West, and n the Caliphates in the East. We even have wisdom to draw from in the Old Testament from writings during the Exile, and in the majority (arguably all) of the New Testament. However, an awful lot of theology has been developed over the centuries in the context of monocultural Christendom.

These questions (on ecology and multiculturalism) are in themselves evidence of progress as theologians (lay theologians, ministerial theologians, and professional theologians) wrestle with these.

The risk is that the loudest voices will be the least sound theologically. It may end up like in the 19th century when often the loudest so-called theologians addressed the important contemporary issue of slavery and abolition with the trite statement, “Well, some people had slaves in the Bible.” Theologians needed rather to explore “What does God say about slavery as it is expressed in our situation today, and in the structures of today?” The similar things must be done in terms of ecology, multiculturalism, nuclear threat, and so much more.

If we don’t ask these questions seriously about our present setting, then YES, theology is stalemated, and (effectively) dead.

Theology of Holistic Missions

Chapter 11

Nature of Ministry in Missions

As noted in a previous chapter, there is a great disagreement of what ministries should qualify as missions. Part of this is because of the reaction between conservative and liberal Christianity. Often the argument is centered on where social ministry fits into the overall ministry of missions. This conflict has not always been an issue. For example, consider the “Nestorian” mission work that extended across Asia during the first millennium.

“As part of their missionary strategy, the Church of the East set up a number of schools in the Persian Empire where monks studied theology, medicine, music and other academic subjects before being sent out to evangelize. Whenever the Nestorians established a new episcopal see (the seat of a bishop), they also set up a school, a library and a hospital, thus combining educational and medical work with their preaching.”1

The monks served as the missionary arm of the Church of the East. For example, a mission team to the Haphthalite Huns in the sixth century included four missionary priests, one missionary bishop, and two merchants. They were to move to an unreached city on one of the major trade routes. The team would establish a church, library, and hospital— evangelizing, healing, and training. The merchants not only provide funding for the mission, they also provided a very acceptable reason for being there.2

This may be innovative in some ways, but is not without precedent. Paul and his partners evangelized, planted churches, trained leaders, healed the sick, and even collected moneys for the needy. They also made tents. This tentmaking certainly provided funding for their mission trip, but it also gave them a purpose to interact with people in the marketplace.

We see this same sort of multifaceted ministry work with William Carey. William Carey evangelized and sought to plant churches, but also was involved in legal reform, translation, publishing, teaching, and more. With such patterns from the Bible, early missions history, and early Protestant missions history, it seems like it should be obvious that mission work should be broad in scope. However, there were factors pushing towards a more narrow interpretation.

First, many see the Great Commandment as a calling for missionaries, rather than a calling for the church. Further, the Matthew version of the Great Commandment is seen as the guidance for what missionaries are supposed to do, and by inference, what they are not supposed to do. The Matthew version of the Great Commandment can be seen as describing a 3-part cycle.

Evangelize (proselytize them)Baptize (bring them into the church)Teach (train them to be multiplying Christians)

Looking at this, there seems to be no room for other forms of ministry. John Stott and Leslie Newbigin, among others, noted that this limited view of missions ministry is in no way supported by other Scripture. They would point out the John version of the Great Commission that notes that the apostles are commissioned to be sent out as Christ was. This suggests that Jesus is the model for the apostles. Jesus integrated social ministry (healing), signs, evangelizing, and teaching.

The Great Commandment and the Great Commission

The Great Commandment, not the Great Commission, should be seen as the key guide for Christians. The Great Commandment guides one’s relationship to God, others, and self. But how does one apply the Great Commandment? Jesus used the Parable of the Good Samaritan to not only explain who is one’s neighbor, but apparently also what obedience to the Great Commandment looks like lived out. Much of Sermon on the Mount is application of the Great Commandment. The same is the Great Commission. One of the ways that one lives out one’s love for God and for one’s neighbor, is to go into the world and act as witnesses and messengers of God’s love and message to all.

Why does this matter? It matters because this means that one cannot say one is accomplishing the Great Commission if the activity is inconsistent with the Great Commandment. For example, activities such as forced conversion (“Cross or Sword Evangelism”) is not obedient to the Great Commission. Some may not have trouble with such a method because it may be seen as an end that justifies the means. However, most I believe would say that forced conversion stands condemned by the Great Commandment.

What about social ministry? If one proclaims the message of God while refusing to meet evident physical, psycho-emotional, or social economic needs, can one justify this by the Great Commission, understood as an application of the Great Commandment? Good people can disagree, but the process of testing the methodology requires both the Commission and the Commandment. It needs to be “Doubly Great.”

20 th Century Rejection of Social Ministry

The Liberal-Fundamentalist conflict of the early 20th century had its effect and how missions and ministry were viewed. As noted in a previous chapter, there was increased questions about missionaries going out and proselytizing those of other faiths and cultures. Religious Pluralism grew in the early decades, drawing into question of whether proselytizing was necessary, or even desirable. Tied to this was the growth of what became known as the Social Gospel. While proponents of this view have often been unjustly exaggerated in their views, the thought was that missionaries should focus on works of social ministry rather than proselytizing. As some mission work became lopsided toward social ministry, other missionaries and mission agencies moved in the opposite direction, rejecting social ministry.

The 1960s brought strange trends to missions. As noted before, there was a shift in concilliam missions (missions associated with the World Council of Churches) to see missions as incompatible with proselytization. In reaction to this, Evangelicals created their own alternative first with the World Congress on Evangelism, held in Berlin (1966). The group’s noble goals were driven by an attempt to restore evangelism to missions. However, there was a tendency to overreact, and pull away from Social ministry. Part of this was aided by supporters of Donald MacGavran. His work in missions and church growth, while ground-breaking in so many ways, did sometimes tend towards a pragmatic approach to missions and narrowing of the missions call to churchplanting. The pragmatism could also be seen in a tendency to take missions theology less seriously.3

Additionally, during this time there was a promotion of what I might call “Apocalypticism.” In this I mean that many believed that Jesus Christ was ‘returning any day.’ As such, Christians had to put all of their efforts into quick conversions. As such, medical ministries, community development, and work on human rights, could be seen as more of a distraction than part of real missionary work. This is hardly new. The Student Volunteer Movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries had a slogan, “Evangelization of the world in one generation.” This idea was repeated with the AD2000 movement, and others. While goals are not a bad idea, it is a bit troubling that the Great Commission is seen to have an expiration date built into it, rather than that Christians are to be faithful until the Lord comes. Further, quick methods for evangelization may seem more effective up-front. But 50 years later, one must wonder if development ministries would have proven more effective in time.

Perhaps the most odd of these reasons for minimizing social ministry is the view of some missiologists that they can “speed up” Christ’s return. They point to the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Some have taken this verse to mean that if the gospel message is preached effectively to every people group on earth, Jesus will suddenly return. This perspective reminds me of the short story by Arthur C. Clarke entitled, “The Nine Billion Names of God.”4 This story is about a fictitious group in Central Asia who believed that if they could write down all 9,000,000,000 names of God, the Universe would come to an end. Considering that to be their noble quest, they buy a supercomputer (back in the day when such a task would require a supercomputer) to speed up their slow, pain-staking work. As an outsider to this group, one may wonder why this group would want the Universe to end, but one could also question why some missionaries wanted to speed up the return of Christ. If one has compassion for the lost, lessening the opportunity for them to respond seems out of sorts with such compassion. Thankfully, there seems no good reason to see this verse as saying that God is timing the return of Christ on our mission work. And if, by some chance He is, it is really uncertain what criteria would qualify as the gospel being preached “in all the world for a witness unto all nations.”

The 1960s and 1970s were challenging times for Social Ministry in Evangelical Missions. John Stott as a conservative Anglican, bridged the gap between Conciliar and Evangelical missions. He worked very hard to change the minds of several Evangelical leaders, such as Billy Graham and C. Peter Wagner, who sought to define missions in more “Spiritualistic” terms. It seems as if Stott was not really able to change their minds. However, he was able to change the wording of some the early pronouncements of the Evangelical Missions movement that formed in the 60s.5

While I know this is still a touchy subject in Evangelical circles, I am thankful for the work done to prevent a view that undermined the value of Social Ministry. If Jesus embraced both social ministry and proclamation ministry, why would we seek to do less?

Views Regarding Social and Spiritual Ministry

Jerry Ballard in his article “Missions and Holistic Ministry”6 describes several major perspectives regarding how social ministry is viewed by Christian missionaries or ministers. This section will use his work as a starting point. Spiritual Ministries would include things that are, right or wrong, seen as more spiritual than other ministries. This is not very informative, but such ministries may include: evangelism, churchplanting, discipleship, prayer, worship, and so forth. These may be (perhaps) seen as having eternal value. Social Ministries would include pretty much everything else— those ministries that are primarily addressing, physical, social, psycho-emotional, economic, and ecological concerns. These (again perhaps) may be seen as having temporal value.

Figure 14. Spiritual versus Temporal/Social Ministry7

If Spiritual Ministry is seen as the vertical axis and Social Ministry is seen as the horizontal axis, then one has created a plane of ministry. Figure 14 shows this plane. A rectangle of Spiritual Ministry covers any ministry that is highly “spiritualistic,” while a different rectangle shows ministry that is highly “social.”

A Spiritualist perspective may be seen as the view that Christian ministers should only be doing spiritual ministry. Other ministries are essentially a distraction, drawing one away from what God has called to be done.

The extreme opposite of this view could be described as the Social Gospel perspective. If the Spiritualist perspective is drawn from the Great Commission as described in Matthew 28, the Social Gospel perspective could be seen as drawn from Matthew 25. In Matthew 25: 31-45, obedience to God is seen in doing social ministry. In the extreme of this perspective, if one is doing social ministry, one is doing the whole calling of God.

The Convenience perspective is somewhat similar to the Spiritualist perspective. However, one who embraces the Convenience perspective would accept the premise that “It is nice to be nice.” As such, this person may not really think their calling is to do social ministry. However, this person would not see social ministry as a distraction. If there is a need, and helping out would not undermine doing their “real work,” the missionary will try to be a blessing.

The Ulterior Motive perspective sees Social ministry as an important part of Christian ministry. However, one who accepts this perspective doesn’t see social ministry as inherently important but as valuable to open doors for spiritual ministry. This person may see spiritual ministry as “the real ministry” but recognize that social ministry is still an important part of the process. I used to be involved in medical missions. In these medical missions activities, we would provide free medical, dental, and surgical services, along with free medicines and vitamins. Normally, we would also evangelize. Many of the people I worked with in this activity would say that their real ministry is to evangelize and get people to be part of a home Bible study and a church family. They saw the medical and dental services as the way to draw them in and get them to respond positively to the “spiritual ministry.”

The Holistic perspective sees Social Ministry and Spiritual Ministry as both being part of God’s call to Christian service. As such, a person with this viewpoint would value both and seek, when possible, to integrate both in their ministry work. This view may be seen as being more in line with John Stott’s imagery of ministry being like a pair of scissors, or wings on an airplane or bird. Some may see one as having priority over the other… but in for those who have the Holistic perspective, priority doesn’t mean choosing one over the other. (An emergency room team may prioritize certain forms of care in rapid response, but that does not mean that they don’t provide all forms of care.) In the medical mission work I was involved in, there were also many team members that saw spiritual ministry and the medical and dental care as important and working together. As such, they saw no value in separating them and prioritizing one over the other.

Returning to Figure 14, the perspective is likely to have affect behavior. A missionary who embraces a Spiritualistic perspective is going to invest time, energy, and other resources into spiritual ministry, and little into social ministry. One who embraces a Social Gospel perspective is likely to be the opposite, putting most resources into social ministries, with little into spiritual ministries. Figure 14 shows Convenience and Ulterior Motive perspectives as sharing the same space on the diagram. Both do not highly value social ministry. One does it because the missionary wants to be nice when possible. The other sees it a means to the end of doing “real ministry.” As such both are likely to be invest more seriously in spiritual ministry, and much less diligence in social ministry. Finally, one who embraces Holism will seek the overlap of the two ministries— high quality and resource investment both in spiritual and social ministries.

Summary

Missionaries should, as part of developing their own theology, address the issue of what truly entails mission work. How narrow or broad is one’s calling. The answer is not simple since our chief example, Jesus Christ, did not make it simple. He embraced a broad understanding of what it means to serve God, guided by the Great Commandment. At the same time, God does empower people differently and places them in unique situations. As such, even if one a Holistic Perspective in theory (for example), one’s circumstances and giftings may place one in a position of doing ministry that leans towards one extreme or another.

In my case, I presently teach missions in a seminary as my primary ministry role. That role is not overtly holistic. Some may see it as more Spiritualistic since it involves training people to do Christian ministry. Others may see it as more Social ministry since its focus is on education and research rather than evangelism, discipleship, and church planting and growth. I spend very little time worried about the bounds of Spiritual Ministry and Social Ministry. In fact, it is entirely possible that dividing Christian ministry into two categories is a human construct rather than one that God would recognize as valid.

Chapter Eleven Endnotes

1 Mark Dickens, “Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia”. 2000. in AV-STM Leadership Development Program 2006. [CD-ROM] Baguio City, 2006, 2-3. Article is available online at https://www.academia.edu/398258/Nestorian_Christianity_In_Central_Asia.

2 More on this with article, Robert H. Munson, “The Role of Trade Routes in the Spread of Christianity in Asia During the First Millennium.” https://www.slideshare.net/bmunson3/the-role-of-trade-routes-in-the-spread-of-christianity-in-asia-during-the-first-millennium

3 We are back to Rodger Bassham’s book, Mission Theology.

4 Arthur C. Clarke, “The Nine Billion Names of God.” Originally published in Star Science Fiction Stories, Frederick Pohl, ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1953).

5 A couple of interesting articles on John Stott’s work are: Just Distraction: What does the Bible say about social justice? By Katherine Ladd (2019) https://www.uccfleadershipnetwork.org/blog-post/just-distraction-what-does-the-bible-say-about-social-justice

When John Stott Confronted Billy Graham by Trevin Wax (2013) https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/when-john-stott-confronted-billy-graham/

6 Jerry Ballard, “Missions and Holistic Ministry.” In World Missions: The Asian Challenge: A Compendium of the Asia Mission Congress ’90, Held in Seoul, Korea August 27-31, 1990. 342-344.

7 Much of this is expanded on in Robert H. Munson, Christian Medical Missions:: Principles and Practices in the Church’s Role for Effective Community Outreach in the Philippines and Beyond, Rev. A (Baguio City, Philippines, MM-Musings, 2013). Also video on this available, “Social Ministry as Part of an Integrated Mission Strategy, Parts 1 and 2.” These can be found at https://vimeo.com/user42611623

My Book is finally in my hands

It took something like 7 years, but I finally have a physical copy of my book in my hands. Feels good.