Robert Munson's Blog, page 4

Should a Missionary Love their Ministry Home More than Their Homeland?

There is a well-known story of David Livingstone the missionary/explorer, that when he died, locals prepared his body and carried it a great distance, around 1500 kilometers, so that it could be shipped back to England. This was by the request of the British government. However, his heart did not go with the rest of his body. It was buried under a tree in what today is Zambia— in Africa (in case you did not know where Zambia is). The note sent with the body back to England read, “You can have his body, but his heart belongs in Africa!”

I don’t know what the wishes of Livingstone were, but based on his life story, I can’t help but think that he would have approved. He felt responsibility to family, supporters, and (perhaps) country. He, however, felt a true love for Africa.

The immediate contrast to Livingstone was Henry Stanley who, while sometimes described as a missionary, was even more focused on exploration and adventure than Livingstone. His relationship with local peoples of Africa was…. complex at best. While having great respect for some, he seemed to have some pretty awful views of the broader crowds. Stanley was far more entrepreneurial than Livingstone, and had a sad role in the colonization of South-Central Africa. (Livingstone had a role in this as well, but not so direct, and not so self-serving.) I don’t think anyone would have considered burying his heart in Africa— perhaps however his wallet would have been an appropriate substitute.

While many missionaries in history were charged with being an agent of their home nations (and some indeed were), many (and I like to think far more) would place the well-being of the people they served above the wishes of their own countrymen and government. While most missionaries would not be seen as “subversives” or “revolutionaries,” they often were key in developing a sense among the people as being equal in abilities and dignity to their colonizers, and they also trained and empowered the locals to lead.

Of course, I have also seen a lot of missionaries who are very obvious exporters of their own home cultures, even if they were not exporters of their own nations’ political aspirations. However, I think in most of these cases, missionaries do this under the (misguided?) notion that the people they minister to would be happier and “better” if they adopted practices of the missionaries’ home countries.

Should missionaries love the people/country they serve in more than their home country? I certainly think so. It is a touchy matter, however. I recall MANY years ago, returning to the community in the US I was raised in, and visiting the church I grew up in… the same church where my father had been head deacon, as well as his father before him.

When I got up to speak I said, “The last time I got back to the Philippines, I told the people that I was glad to be home. When I flew back to Virginia to our sending church I told them that I was glad to be home. And now that I am back here in Ivory, I can also truthfully say, ‘I am glad to be home.'”

Afterwards, a cousin of mine— a lot of cousins go to my old church—- came up to me and said, “Bobby, I know you said that all of those places were your home, but you know that this is your REAL home, right?”

I said that I knew that… but I was lying. Each place was home to me in some sense. However, of the the places, the Philippines felt most like my home. Frankly, after spending decades overseas, the US does not really feel that much like home. I left in 2004 and a lot of things have changed in the last 21 years. Many of those things I would say were most definitely not for the better.

I have to be careful in what I say, American self-perception of their own culture is a touchy thing. Americans like to say that their country is the greatest in the world. Even before I went off on missions, my reaction to that was always, “How do you know? How many countries have you visited?” Usually, I kept that to myself… a good thing. Today, I would say that the Philippines, my mission home, has many many many problems. However, I tend to think they have less problems now than the US. Is that rational assessment of economics, politics, society, and more? Maybe. Or maybe it is an emotional attachment that I have for the Philippines that I really don’t have for the US at this time.

This is of course not to say that I am anti-US. I am a US citizen. I believe in obeying the laws of my homeland, generally… at least the big ones. I believe in doing my duty as a citizen, again for the most part. However, I cannot really put on the patriotic, nationalistic fervor that seems to be idealized in the states nowadays. In some ways I prefer the patriotism I see in the Philippines. There it is a bit more low-key, at bit more sceptical… and yet still hopeful.

Is my situation typical? I don’t know. My wife was born and raised in the Philippines. My children are bi-racial and dual citizens. My family then is half white American and half Filipino. Actually, it is more Filipino since the Filipino side has done a much better job of populating their corner of the world than my own “kin.” If my family was entirely American, would I feel different? Again, not sure… but I have seen so many missionaries that clearly love the people they serve. I have known some who had to go back to their home countries and there failed to reintegrate well because they long to be back in their “new home.”

I do think there are tiers of attachment. God comes first. Family comes next. Church may come next… not sure. But somewhere in that list comes one’s country. I do think, however, that for a missionary, the country in which one serves should be placed higher. Now when I am speaking of country, I am using that term very intentionally. “Country” to me speaks of people, culture, and society. “Nation” speaks more of the governance and power structures. I don’t know where nation (either home nation or nation in the field) fits into this list, but for me it is far below country.

Spirit preceding Order; Spirit with Order, Reflections on “Roland Allen’s The Ministry of Expansion”

Roland Allen is today considered a great missiologist from the early 20th century, even if not recognized as such in his lifetime. His most famous, and influential, works are “Missionary Methods” and “The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church”. So the little book (almost a brochure) “The Ministry of Expansion: The Priesthood of the Laity,” a late work of his was little noticed when it came out and little remembered… until recently.

I am not really sure why I chose to read this book. The major concern of the book is not something that I can really relate to. The primary concern of Allen here is the issue of who can hold or officiate the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper). It is a problem for him since he is a “High Church” Anglican. As such, he accepts a very traditionalist understanding of apostolic succession. “Traditionalist” is a loaded term. Perhaps it is better to say that it is traditionalist within his own faith tradition. In his tradition, clergy are vital to the church and clergy must identify and authorize/ordain the next generation. Relatedly, there are many things that laiety cannot do. The main concern here is the issue of sacraments. Sacraments appear to be considered very vital to Allen such that for Christians not to practice them would be a great deprivation. It seems as if Allen saw the sacraments as being in some sense a matter of life and death. I am not quite sure HOW important sacraments are to Allen salvifically, but this little book suggests that it was important enough for him to struggle with the issue of sacraments (and particularly the Eucharist) for approximately three decades. Since in the high church tradition, one of the things that only clergy (who are formally recognized as part of apostolic succession) can do is administer sacraments, these concerns become highly relevant to him in places of missional expansion, where formal and local clergy may not be available.

As a Baptist, these issues simply don’t hit me the way they hit Allen. First of all, although Baptists have dabbled with apostolic succession at times, generally Baptists would consider apostolic success as being more organic and perhaps spiritual… but not so much formal and ecclesiastical. Second, sacraments (Baptists like to use the term “ordinances” although I am personally ambivalent) for Baptists are more symboic rather than being a necessary or vital source of grace. Finally, the sub-title “The Priesthood of the Laity” was certainly controversial to Allen’s intended target, but the priesthood all ALL believers (including laity) is a key distinctive of Baptists.

I had every reason not to take this book seriously then. But one thing caught my attention. The editor of this book was J.D. Payne, a Southern Baptist missiologist. He thought it worthwhile, so perhaps I would as well.

Allen’s main argument seems to be this (I am not quoting… I am summarizing in my own words.).

I accept that (1) sacraments are vital to the life of a Christian, and (2) it is also vital for administers of sacraments to be properly ordained according to the principle of apostolic succession. However, these two principles break down when they are forced to coexist in the missions setting. As churches expand and new converts to Christianity increase, large groups of new believers may be forced to be deprived of the blessing of sacraments due ecclesiastical policies of the church. Priority to the first must be given to the first when the second is nonfeasible in a particlar setting. Where there are no priests, the laity must fill the role (temporarily).

I should note here that the book I read with Payne as the editor includes not only Allen’s short book, but articles by scholars regarding Allen and the topic at hand. A phrase used by one of the writers, Steven Rutt, I appreciated greatly. It was “Spirit Preceeds Order, and then Spirit With Order.”

This can be understood as addressing how things change as the church expands. The church at the beginning is going to be chaotic:

-The founder of the church may be a lay person. It may be a a traveling clergy who cannot stay with the new converts and church. It may be a self-identified (or perhaps spirit-identified) “charismatic leader.”

-The young church may be led by lay persons, or local “clergy’ established with no formal training by the church planter.

-Sacraments will be handled by ordained ministers when possible… but by local clergy/laity or elder family members.

-There is little structure in the church, often meeting in homes or in small groups with few if any formal policies and roles.

At this time, the work of the Spirit in the community comes before church structure/order, and must take priority to it.

However, over time as the church develops and the number of Christians grow in the community, it is reasonable and healthy that things change.

-The founder of the church has less impact, or no active participation.

-The church is led by ordained (fully trained and recognized) local clergy.

-Sacraments would be handled as part of the activity of the local clergy.

-The church has a recognized structure, formalized roles, and perhaps formal relationship within a church denomination.

In this stage, the goal is not Order over Spirit, but Spirit with Order. I think this is also an important point. Often there seems to be a bit of animosity between those churches that are rather chaotic and those that are quite formal. Often the argument is that the chaotic are more “Spirit-led” while the formal, ordered, churches are less so. I believe that Allen is not suggesting this at all. Both Spirit and Order are important in the church. In a missions setting, it is normal that Spirit drives the growth, preceding the gradual development of order. However, as order takes on a stronger role, that does not mean (or certainly should not mean) that there is a decrease of Spirit.

Lacking Spirit (guidance from, dependence on, and empowerment by the Holy Spirit) is critically bad in the church, but so is Chaos. It is simply that in the life of the church, the work of the Spirit precedes the development of structures in the church… and that is fine. However, to stay in that situation— maintaining chaos— is to fail to develop as the Spirit desires. Churches start out with the Spirit preceding Order… and then over time, Order is important to develop, but without losing the guidance/dependence/empowermant associated with the working of the Holy Spirit.

I would argue that this is part of a broader principle of how God works. Consider divine revelation. I have written on this before. In the Old Testament times, divine special revelation was primarily oral— through prophets and sages normally. However, over time the written word began to take on a prominent role such that Intertestamental Jews believed that divine oral revelation ceased with Malachi. Or course, when one reads the rabbinical writings we find that they did not believe all oral revelation ceased, but rather that it lacked the same authority it had before. The Spirit (spirit-driven oral revelation) precedes Order (written revelation). Then over time, Spirit (spirit driven word and interpretation) coexists with the Order of canonized Scripture.

The New Testament has a similar process. The early revelation was oral— the words of John the Baptist and Jesus. Then it was a mixture of oral pronouncements by apostles and prophets and exposition by pastors of the authoritative writings. In time, the prophetic role faded away, not because the work of the spirit was rejected or lost, but the role was less necessary. Order in canonized scripture takes the lead, with the Spirit interacting mostly in interpretation and application.

One could also argue the same thing when it comes to miracles. Miracles are often seen as very overt signs of God’s power. They are often identified in places where the church is expanding into new areas. However, as the groups localizes and grows in the new place, such miracles often lesson or even completely fade out. Some groups are uncomfortable with miracles, while other groups try to keep identifying miracles as regular and normative well after the church has developed. I would argue that a middle ground in line with Allen is appropriate. The Spirit precedes Order with God working in unusual ways to intiate the church. Then the Spirit works with Order where God works with the church usually through less unusual ways through the believers.

I do believe that the issue of sacraments in the mission field is not particularly relevant to someone such as myself. However, the principles he struggled with in the missions setting really is helpful for many many issues in the expansion of the church.

If you want to read Allen’s short book, with the commentary articles before, the info for the book is

“Roland Allen’s The Ministry of Expansion; The Priesthood of the Laity,” edited by J.D. Payne Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2017.

Should the Gospel Be Viewed as BAD News?

I was glancing at my FB feed— something I don’t do that often, and hope in the future to do even less. One of my friends shared a quote. The quote does not have a name attached to it, but there was a picture of the speaker. He looks familiar. He is an Evangelical preacher in the the US, but I can’t remember his name. Anyway, the quote goes like this:

The Gospel is not salvation for everyone but salvation for those who believe, for everyone else it is a death sentence.

While I understand where this is coming from, I do have to push back on this a lot. The Gospel message “euangelion” literally means the “good news” or the “good proclamation.”

As I said, I do understand where the preacher is coming from. He is saying that the message is a message of hope for those who believe, but one of condemnation for those who don’t. On the face of it, it just makes sense. But, one must consider what the boundaries of the message of the Gospel truly are.

If we assume that the Gospel message includes both hope and condemnation, and we assume (correctly or incorrectly— God did not give us the ability or right to judge) that a majority will not embrace the hope side, then the Gospel message really is, for the average person, bad news. This is true regardless of whether one believes God chooses who to save (“Reformed Christians”) or one believes we have some level of agency in the response (“the Rest of Us”).

On the other hand, suppose one takes the Gospel message to include only the hope side of things. What happens then? It is indeed good news for everyone.

Consider the following. Suppose there is a cave-in at a mine. A bunch of miners are trapped down in this labyrinth of tunnels in the darkness. But a rescue team clears a shaft whereby people an be rescued. That would be good news correct? I don’t think they would say, “We have good news for those who follow our advice… but horrible news for those who don’t.” At least I wouldn’t. Or consider another scenario. Suppose I fell overboard on my ship (I used to be in the Navy), and the ship immediately carries out a man overboard maneuver, and then sends the SAR (search and rescue) swimmer into the water to bring me back safe. I would call that good news. The fact that rejecting that help pretty much guarantees my demise is not really part of the good news. It is a failure to respond to the good news.

I assume that the quoter above was simply trying to say that the Gospel is not a message of universal salvation. This I grant. We don’t know the limits of God’s mercy, and only God can judge the heart, but nothing in the Gospel message implies universal salvation.

Strangely, the person who shared the quote above on FB also gave a quote from R.C. Sproul. It goes:

“God just doesn’t throw a life preserver to a drowning person. He goes to the bottom of the sea, and pulls a corpse from the bottom of the sea, takes him up on the bank, breathes into him the breath of life and makes him alive.”

This seems to be a much more theologically sound quote, and conflicts a bit with the previous one. Now, you may not be concerned about the nuance here… but I think it does matter. The gospel in no sense condemns us. We were condemned. The Gospel gives life and hope.

The Fourth Servant and the Copper Coin

The master of the estate called his four servants before him. He said to them,

“Tomorrow I must depart on my journey to the East. I don’t know how long I will be gone… so I have decided to split up my wealth with you all to invest for me. I am placing my trust in you to increase it considerably for me in my absence. I will give you according to your ability.”

Then he called each up to give then money for investment. The first came up and the master gave him five bags of gold. The first left struggling with the burden, as the second came forward. To the second, he gave two bags of gold. As the second left, the third came forward and was given one bag of gold. As he left the fourth servant came forward. The master gave him one copper coin.

The master wished him well, as he had the others, and  was about to signal him to leave until he saw the look of pain on the servant’s face.

“What is wrong? You look disconsolate.”

The fourth servant responded, “Oh Lord, don’t fret yourself. I have no reason to be sad. It is your wealth… and you have no one for whom you need to justify your actions. But… you said you are giving to each according to his abilities, and you gave me just one copper coin.”

“Yes I did. What is your concern?” replied the master.

The fourth servant responded, “Is your opinion of my abilities really so low?”

The master looked at him in confusion for a moment. But then his face turned to a smile as he realized the confusion.

The master laughed and said, “I must not have made it clear. I suppose it is my fault, but why would you think that it is the one with the MOST ability to whom I would give the largest share?”

The fourth servant bowed and left the master. He had work to do.

This story draws from a parable of Jesus in Matthew 25. Although I did add an extra servant, I really did not change much else. I bring this up because readers I think just assume that the one given more wealth must be the one deemed to have more abilities. The text doesn’t actually say that. It would be equally valid to interpret the story as the master giving less to those with more ability. After all, those with less ability may need a little extra help. I am not saying that this is the correct way to view the story. Rather, I am just noting that perhaps we are a bit too quick to presume how God works.

We might too often connect God’s favor with money.

Permission to be Heard, and the Risk of Anti-Evangelizing

As I note regularly in my posts, my wife and I are part of a counseling center. One thing we like to tell our trainees (and I would like to think we practice) is “We have have to earn the right to be heard.” A similar way of looking at it is “We need to be given permission to be heard.” There is, I suppose, a whole constellation of aphorisms or adages that point toward this sort of truth. For example, the statement “Actions speak louder than words” gives a different bit of wisdom, but it still points to the challenge of any speaker that it is actually the hearer who is in control. We may (or may not) be able to make people hear us… but we simply cannot compel people to listen.

What is making me reflect on this for a bit is a presentation I was at recently. The speaker was sharing (and I was listening). She is a Evangelical Christian who teaches courses or seminars in a secular setting. She was sharing that she always made sure she would include an evangelistic gospel presentation during the first session… and early in that first session. Her reason is sound enough generally. She does not want to have any student of hers to come to her course without hearing the gospel message.

But what about the “permission” thing I was mentioning at the top. If one is teaching a course— especially one in which students/trainees have chosen to take the course, rather than by compulsion— one might assume that the hearer has given permission. But even for the voluntary students/trainees, such permission is limited.

Suppose I am teaching a class on Holistic Missions here in the Philippines, and further suppose on the first day of class, I stand up and start expressing my beliefs about Philippine politics. Perhaps I side with PBBM or perhaps Du30, but then suppose I not only express my opinions but then seek to exhort them to reject their own political stance and embrace mine. Do you think the listeners will be swayed by my words? Probably not but who knows? But here is a more important question— could there be a backlash? Is it possible that students who are forced to listen to my “political ad” may actually be turned off by my talk. Will it drive people away from my viewpoint? Probably not— but might it harden their resolve against my view? I think this is more likely. Sometimes this is called the backfire effect… or pushback. Quite possible. Could it even undermine my influence in the topic that I am actually supposed to be teaching? Again, quite possibly.

Now I don’t think that means that one should always keep one’s cherished beliefs (political, faith, culture, etc.) to oneself and never seek to change others’ minds. But when one does seek to do so— one should not do or say things that undermine the presentation.

A bad presentation of the gospel, or a good presentation done poorly is not at its worst neutral. If it was neutral at worst, why not simply share under any circumstance, using any method. In such a scenario, the assumption is that one does no harm.

But I think under certain circumstances one can do harm. In the situation of evangelizing— I think having an American short-term missionary screaming in the face of a destitute Filipino “You have to be saved!!! You have to be saved!!!” may actually be a form of anti-evangelizing. I have seen that situation occur. Having a medical mission where high pressure evangelizing is done where there is an implication (I think) that getting free medical and dental care and pharmaceuticals is dependent on how they respond could be a form of anti-evangelizing. I have seen that as well. Luring students to a study methods seminar and then after a few minutes transition into “forced” 1-on-1 evangelizing may also be anti-evangelizing. I personally involved myself in that one many years ago.

I don’t always know when one crosses the line from net positive to net negative. However, I do think that we need to earn the privilege of being heard, and earning the right to speak is NOT the same as earning the right to be heard.

Eschatology and Christian Missions. Is it a Healthy Relationship? Part 2

In the previous post, I suggested that while Evangelical Christian Missions is often guided by Eschatology (the theological study of last things), it is often guided poorly. In fact, I would suggest that often it is guided by personal preferences and then justified (poorly) using poor eschatology.

One of the most egregious, in my mind, is the abuse of Matthew 24:14. See my previous post on that one. But it is true that Matthew 24 is a chapter where Jesus addresses “last things.” Therefore, it might be a good source for guiding missions IF missions should be guided by eschatology.

I would like to suggest looking at Matthew 24:36-51.

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day on which your Lord will come. But understand this: If the homeowner had known in which watch of the night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. For this reason, you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect.

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household, to give the others their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

But suppose that servant is wicked and says in his heart, ‘My master will be away a long time.’ And he begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not anticipate. Then he will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This passage is similar to the one in Luke 12: 35-38, as well as Mark13:32-37. Both Matthew and Mark place the passage in the context of nearing the end of the ministry of Jesus. Luke does not, and puts it in the middle of the Gospel. That may have been placed there for thematic purposes; or possibly it shows that this message of readiness was part of Christ’s regular message throughout His ministry.

One key point that makes this passage valuable for missiologists is that it undermines the two misuses of eschatology I noted in the previous post. The first point is that some missiologists believe that we should do a “different type of missions” because we are nearing the end of this age. In other words, they believe they can time the return of Christ and in doing so, feel they should adjust their work accordingly. The second point is that some missiologists believe they can CAUSE or hurry up the return of Christ. This passage in Matthew (and Luke and Mark) appear to thoroughly undermine these views. We don’t know when God will come— we cannot time it, we cannot change it, we cannot cause it. All we can do is watch and be ready.

A second point is found in the parable at the end— The Parable of the Faithful Servant. The story is meant to drive home the idea of being watchful and ready. What does watching and being ready always look like for a servant of the master (or paralleling across, what does it look like as a servant/minister of God)? We have heard stories of people standing on their houses in white linen at certain points in history (like 1000AD or 1848AD) believing they had figured out when Jesus was returning, and this was how they would show themselves as being watchful and ready. The parable in this passage suggests something very different. This parable does not refer to two servants, but only one… but that one has a choice. Option #1 was a servant who was always watchful and always ready. That readiness is not evidenced in trying to time the return of the master. It is not evidenced in trying to adjust behavior at the last minute based on seeing the master from far off. The servant is watchful and ready being doing what he is supposed to do every day.

However, the servant has a choice and perhaps, Option #2. Perhaps he starts out as he should, but at some point in time, a thought may come to his mind. “I can do what I want to do. Then, when I see the master coming from a distance, I can fix everything up like it is supposed to be.” In other words, the bad servant may also be watchful (seeking to anticipate the arrival time). But such watchfulness is used to excuse selfishness and laziness. Behavior is based on figuring out how to catch up on things if he can time the return of the master.

I feel like this is a bit of the logic in Christian missions today. A lot of decisions/strategies are based on trying to figure out when Jesus is returning and making short-sighted choices based on this. The faithful servant does not do things different because the master MIGHT come today or Might come tomorrow. MAKING WISE/GODLY DECISIONS EVERY DAY IS BEING WATCHFUL.

The wise servant, feeds the household staff and the animals every day. He ensures people are paid every day. These short-term activities are important. However, I expect that he also would send out his workers into the field to plant wheat, even if he does not know for sure whether the master will return before harvest in a few months’ time. I suspect he would also send workers to plant grape vines, pomegranates, and all sorts of fruiting trees even though there is a possibility that the master will return long before the first bears fruit. I also suspect he also would have buildings built for future expansion as the household may increase, or new livestock is purchased. Also, newborns in the household, I am sure he ensures gets proper education and training that may not directly benefit the child and household for literal decades. It seems reasonable that such a faithful servant is also training up other servants to be able to take over his role if he passes away before the master returns.

Such a faithful servant I believe is a good model for a faithful missionary. Dumping theological education so as to put more people into open air revivals, because the end is near is not the work of a faithful servant. It is the work of the servant trying to time the master’s return. Focusing on church planting movements or other programmatic work so much that holistic work and community transformation is defunded, is not the work of a faithful servant. The faithful servant honors both sides— the things that give short-term results AND the things that are invested in long-term potential rewards (that may or may not happen).

A good missionary is always faithful and always ready… but never trying to time or control God’s return.

Eschatology and Christian Missions. Is it a Healthy Relationship? Part 1

I feel like I should dust off one of my Missiology books before writing this one… but I won’t. The thing is that Christian Missions as it is commonly identified today (at least the Evangelical Protestant flavor that predominates) sees Christian missions driven by Eschatology.

Estchatology is the study of future or last things. In the Christian theological context, it is the study of the “end times” as revealed in the Holy Bible. Sometimes, I hear Eschatology broadened out a bit to include the “Grand Narrative” of Scripture, or its ‘Salvific History.”

But I was wonderin— Suppose Scripture was very open-ended as far as the future, so the Bible looks quite different. Perhaps the Bible has Jesus saying, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh until the Father but by Me.” And suppose it has the Great Commandment and the Great Commission and the Golden Rule and the essentials of Christian ethics. Perhaps it still has the “Two Ways” metaphor. But also suppose the Bible leaves the future a mystery (or MORE of a mystery). “Que Sera Sera. Whatever will be will be. The future’s not ours to see.” Would such a lack of data have a major effect on Christian missions?

I don’t really know. No shock there, but consider a couple of ways that Eschatology has seemed to negatively affect missions.

#1. Time-limiting Urgency. Back in the 1960s, mission leaders were talking about focusing on rapid methods of evangelism while devaluing forms of missions ministry that are slower— education, community development, holistic missions, and even church planting. The argument was “Christ can return any day, so we need to get as many people saved in as short of a time as possible— we don’t need to worry about the long-term repercussions of our actions, since Christ can return any day.” (I think I just wrote an ‘inclusio’— neat!)

A concern with this that revealed itself as I was reading “Make Disciples of All Nations: A History of Southern Baptist International Missions.” That book quoted a mission movement from the late 1800s that argued the exact same thing. The problem is that the methods they were advocating 130+ years ago make more sense if there was not 130+ years of future for Christians to work with. The arguments in the 1960s don’t make as much sense when we realize that there has been 60+ years of ministry time available. Perhaps focusing on sustainable programs of discipling, church development, theological training, community transformation, and more would have given better long-term results than saturation strategies (as an example) for evangelization.

Now to be fair… this is not the fault of Eschatology. GOOD Eschatology does not set dates. Good Eschatology might, perhaps, say Christ may return tomorrow… OR… may return in 1000 years. The urgency thing does not really come from Eschatology. Rather, Eschatology is used as an excuse for urgency.

I should note that urgency is not a bad thing of itself. Good urgency says, We must seize today and every day. We must plan, organize, speak, and act to proclaim Christ’s Kingdom and Divine Hope for the world. Bad urgency says, we must “throw gospel tracts from the blimp” (a reference to the great novella, “The Gospel Blimp” by Joseph Bayly) rather than building relationships with our unsaved neighbors.

#2. Speeding up God. I have seen it in more than one place— Matthew 24:14 tells us that we are in control of when Christ returns. The ESV version of the verse says (Yes… I know I am not a big fan of the ESV… work with me here):

“And the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

This little verse has created a whole set of doctrines. The “to all nations” (pasin tois ethnesin) has been refigured into “every single people group” and then goes on and creates a concept called a “people group” so that other organizations can then list how many people groups there are today based on the criteria of the moment, and how many have been proclaimed to as a testimony (based on other made-up criteria). From a Biblical studies standpoint (I am hopefully justified in trusting the expertise of others on this one) a more Biblically consistent understanding of the phrase “to all nations” is “to the Gentiles.” The Bible does not really have people groups as it is defined and used today. The bigger issue in some ways is the latter part, “and then the end will come.” This has been interpreted by some to be causative. In other words, “Once every people group (as we define the concept) is reached, the door preventing Jesus to return will be unlocked, and He and the heavenly hosts will suddenly, immediately, return.”

I hope you can see that the wording simply does not say that. It does not say that the first causes the other (again… I must rely on experts in Koine Greek for this since it is among my many non-specialities). It also does not say that Jesus will return immediately after. Again this seems to be an attempt at urgency by misusing a Scriptural passage.

For me, I feel like there are a number of problems with embracing this sort of missiology. First and obviously, it appears to be built on a lie, or at lease a completely unjustified interpretation. That is not ideal. Second, it can lead to weird and problematic strategies. One might think of the case of (presumably a wonderful person) John Allen Chau, who illegally charged into North Sentinel Island to proclaim the Gospel to an “unreached people group.” I am not necessarily against doing something illegal, but a strategy that does not make one appear like an invader probably would be a better option.

Third, and here is a weird thought for you, if our job is to speed up the return of Christ (something I do doubt), then it would be much faster to destroy unreached people groups then proclaim the gospel to them (especially in the age of “weapons of mass destruction.”). Fourth, another weird thought… sorry, but suppose there is NO Biblical mandate to “speed up” Christ’s return and yet we have control over when Jesus returns, then it seems reasonable that we should actually slow down the return of Christ. After all, suppose there is a group of 2000 people who make up the last people group that has not had the gospel proclaimed to them. If they were reached tomorrow— perhaps 3 people from that group responded positively to the Gospel message— then Christ returns immediately. Because Christ returned that day rather than 10 years from then (for example) literally thousands/millions will be lost, presumably. Three were saved versus countless lost. The argument could be made… that for good missions… seeking to share the Gospel with everyone and expand Christ’s kingdom would be more effectively done, if one people group, a small one hopefully, is identified and sheltered from the gospel message, so that more can enter the Kingdom.

A final point, sixth if I am counting right, suggests the focus on people groups can create more problems than it solves. For example, years ago Ralph Winter advocated strenuously for people group missions and even encouraged using the term missionary only for those who are reaching unreached people groups. He was very influential in Evangelical missions but was not able to sell this idea. But suppose he had? Would there by more missionaries going to unreached people groups. Maybe, maybe not. But what would happen to all of missionaries who work in support roles, or other ministries that are not pioneering. Most (?) evangelical churches have Missions funds and committees, but don’t have “Cross-cultural Ministry” or “International Ministry Support” funds and committees. I have seen missionaries who were doing great ministry work here in the Philippines who had their funding slashed from 100% to 0% because their work did not appear to be people group and evangelism focused.

Of course, such odd thoughts become pointless if we are to simply be faithful in our missions work to the end, and we do not control God, and “people group’ is a human construct, not a divinely instituted category.

Part 2 I will suggest a different way to look at missions from the standpoint of the Bible that, arguably, could be described as eschatological.

Mano Po

A few days ago, I was asked by one of my students here at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary what my view regarding “Mano Po” is. Now among the many things I am not an expert in is the Filipino cultural practice of “Mano po.” However, since he, a Filipino pastor, was asking me, a foreigner professor, I don’t think he was expecting someone with vast knowledge of the topic. He wanted a foreign perspective perhaps and a theologically reflective one as well.

“Mano po” (or more formally “Pagmamano”) is a form of greeting in Filipino culture where one of the two people is younger and the other is, unsurprisingly, older. Filipino cultures seek to demonstrate respect for elders in words and in actions. When a younger person talks to an older person, they will add the word “po” to the sentence. So to say “Hello” one might say “Kumusta,” but if they are older, one would say “Kumusta po.” Additionally, older brothers are given the title “Kuya” while the older sisters are given the title “Ate.” (Note: “Ate” is pronounced “ah-teh”.) There are a lot more on this, but I hope the point is made.

The practice of “Mano po” is pretty simple. A younger person will come over to the older. Often the older will hold out their right hand palm down. Regardless, the younger will take the right hand of the older and press the back of the hand to their forehead. Often associated with the action is saying “Mano Po” or in some cases, “Bless.” The action reminds me somewhat of saluting at a navy command. Once you have saluted a superior officer once, you are good for that day. You don’t have to keep doing it. In like manner, “Mano po” once done has met the cultural requirement of that form of respect to that person for the rest of the day. In some settings, like around Christmas, the action also may involve a bit of gift giving like coins or candy. The younger honors the older, and the older blesses the younger. In this sense, in addition to maintaining the value of respect for the elder, there is also maintenance of the values of Reciprocity and Patronage.

I suppose here is where some conflict comes up. Not everyone supports the practice in the Philippines. In Baguio City where I live, it is not practiced all that much, especially in public settings. In Pampanga, on the other hand, it is practiced strenuously. I have heard people speak against it in a couple of ways.

I had a relative, a relative of my wife actually, who was from the Philippines but lived many years in the United States. When he was back visiting the Philippines, he would actively refuse “Mano Po” despite being quite elderly. He did explain his reasons for this, but not sure if I fully recall them. Overall, he seemed to think that the “American way” was better, and that the Filipino practice was old-fashioned. Additionally, it seemed that he liked the ideal of egalitarianism and felt honorifics in terms of words or actions maintained an unhealthy “unequalness.” He has been dead for many years now so I am not able to verify that I got his concerns right. But I have certainly heard others who have shared these concerns. Many Filipinos I have known maintain a certain exoticism’ regarding culture. That is, they suspect that other cultures are superior their own. (“Why can’t we be more like the Americans?” (or Japanese? or Koreans?)) While I see a fading of this attitude, with greater respect for their own culture, this sense of cultural inferiority does persist in some ways.I have heard people in religious circles (in particular, Christian Evangelical circles) who oppose the practice. I have heard it described as being rooted in Spanish colonial, and especially Roman Catholic, practice of “Kissing the ring.” As such, it is not seen as “Real Christian.” Now personally, I think a lot of this simply goes back to Point 1. As an Evangelical myself (although every year I become less comfortable with the term) living in the Philippines, I often see American Evangelical Christianity as being set as the ideal. If Filipino Christians do something that American Christians don’t, then the Filipino practice must be suspect. And if one can link it to Spanish colonial practices, then it is even more “Un-American” and therefore suspect, and if it can be linked to Roman Catholic practices, then it is double problematic for (Americanized) Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines.

Now, as I said, I am not an expert on “Mano Po” but I do have some problems with the above points. First, “hand kissing” as a show of honor is deeply rooted in the present cultural practices as well as cultural heritage of many places around the world… including many Asian cultures. Certainly, “Mano Po” may have been influenced by the Spanish. The term “Mano” is the Spanish word for “Hand,” after all. However, I am pretty confident that the practice, or something similar, well pre-dates the Spanish. As such, saying the practice points to Spanish colonialism or to Catholic practices is dubious. (I am, as always, prepared to be wrong, of course.) Second, it is a treasured part of Filipino heritage (pamana) and so should not be tossed aside without deep and careful consideration. It supports cultural values, including the honor of elders, and reciprocity. As such, the practice is far from being a cultural artifact. Third, from a Christian point of view, the practice appears to be perfectly compatible with, and even supportive of, Christian values. Honoring those who are older in words and actions is very much in line with Biblical teachings. The fact that some Christians do not do “Mano Po” in other place is in no way problematic. We seek to live God-honoring lives within the culture we are embedded in. As such, Christian behavior can and should look different in different places.

Now I must confess, I PERSONALLY don’t really care for Mano Po (Pagmamano). I was not raised up with it. Additionally, (and please don’t get me wrong when I say this) I am not much of a physical contact person. I am not a germaphobe at all, I am okay with hand shakes, fist bumps, “High Fives” and such, but I often tend to prefer a simple wave or a nod. In some ways I prefer the Korean practice of a slight bow. I usually try to avoid hugs, and especially “beso-baso.” BUT, when one is talking about culture, especially, in missions, or role is not simply bringing our own personal biases, or cultural practices in with us and share them as if they are better, or more godly, than the practices that are already there. Frankly, regardless of whether I like the practice (as it pertains to me specifically) I do practice it. When someone approaches me for Mano Po, I do my part. And when I am with older relatives, I will often initiate it. It is not about personal preferences after all.

Anyway, getting back to my student, I said that while I was aware that some people saw the practice as being problematic due to colonial or religious ties, I felt that it was a good practice that supports Christian values (especially honoring of our elders). I feel that is a pretty good answer.

When Your Dissertation Cannot Be Your Specialization

Back years ago when I was attending Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary (ABGTS), I wasn’t sure what my specialization would be. Actually, I originally thought about going with a Doctor of Missiology. Later, however, I decided to switch to Doctor of Theology (ThD) with a focus on Missions. Topically, I originally wanted to do my paper on Church-Initiated Community Development in the Philippines. The problem was that there were so few examples to study. I mean, well… there are examples of a sort. They are, however, usually relief-type projects, not development programs. If I had stuck with the DMiss, I could have done a missions project where I established a church-initiated community development project, see the project through, do the post mortem (if it is limited in length) and then write it up. However, it did not seem to be a promising topic for a ThD dissertation.

I decided to switch to what I knew best. I was involved in organizing and running short-term evangelistic medical mission events in different parts of the Philippines. I knew how to run them… but I wanted to look at how other people did it, and hoped to learn how to do it better… or more effectively.

But there was a problem. The more I read on the topic, the more I began to wonder if it is a form of missions that I want to promote. I certainly came up with a set of criteria that make this type of ministry better. However, the very nature of the ministry makes the type of medical car that could be done of limited value, and its activity really to quickly drift into ulterior motives.

I finished the dissertation. I feel I was pretty honest, and I definitely pointed out ways that it can be done well as done poorly. After my dissertation was done, I broke up the paper into 3 journal-type papers, and also produced a book on the topic. I feel good about the papers.

However, by the time I had turned in my dissertation, I had already almost completely stopped doing medical mission events. I wanted to be more involved in leader development, and in forms of care that are more relational an long-term.

Truthfully, I don’t feel this is a problem. Sure, if my dissertation was tied to my present passion and my present activity, I suppose I could be writing more books and giving seminars or coaching sessions on this topic. However, while this did not happen, it did help me to see the direction that I should go.

In many ways, my dissertation helped guide me to my new specialization. That is pretty important.

Genius: Generalists, Specialists, and “Overlappers”

I have heard it said that “genius” can seen as the ability to see connections between things that others do not or have not. This can exist by digging deeper in an area that others haven’t. (I will be using digging in the earth for precious metals or gems as a metaphor in this post.) In physics, I might think of Newton, Kelvin, Maxwell, or Einstein where each explored in one area (motion, energy, electromagnetics, and space-time) of physics, who hit gold by digging a little deep than the others around them. These could be looked at as specialists within their field.

Genius seems to be identified more commonly with specialists than generalists. Generalists often impress. They also often write great books or are enthralling speakers. Still, while they might be thought genius by the general public, they might not be thought so by specialists. Part of this might be because generalists rarely dig where no others have first. Often they take what others have unearthed and presented them with the finds other others. Additionally, fields of study may have a certain amount of gatekeeping. Insiders in a field of study are more likely to identify genius in their field as insiders rather than outsiders. Generalists often are seen as outsiders, or at least “not serious” in any specific field.

But I was thinking about a third category that I will call “Overlappers.” There may be a better term out there, but I will stay with this one. I would like to give examples of this.

I am doing a presentation of the Clinical Pastoral Movement. CPM (for short) that draws from theology, psychology, and medicine. Three major figures in its formation in the early 1920s are:

-Anton T. Boisen

-Richard Cabot

-Helen Flanders Dunbar

Anton Boisen is often described as the “Father of the Clinical Pastoral Movement.” He was a theologian (and curiously a silvologist). However, because of his mental illness (he had several recorded psychotic breaks during his lifetime) he became fascinated by Psychology— especially psychodynamic theory as expressed and developed by Sigmund Freud. Later on, he also drew from Harry Stack Sullivan. He established a training program that utilized the clinical method (drawn from medical training) for theology students, that later became known as Clinical Pastoral Training (CPT) or Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE).

Richard Cabot was a well-respected medical doctor. He taught medicine in University and also theology in Seminary. He became known as the “Father of Modern Medical Ethics.” Additionally, he identified the value of case studies utilized in Law School, and applied them to medical education. The case study approach was then also brought into CPE.

Helen Flanders Dunbar had degrees in 5 different fields of study. She was an early disciple of Boisen in terms of clinical pastoral care. Today, she is often considered the “Mother of Psychosomatic Medicine.” This is a holistic study that sees body health linked inextricably with mental, emotional, and spiritual health. This holistic view was key to the clinical pastoral movement.

I consider these three to be overlappers— all three linked theology with other fields— medicine or psychology especially. As such, they were not really specialists— at least not specialists in already established fields of study. They also were not generalists— each did indeed dig deep where others had not dug. However, they did not dig where others dug… but in the overlaps of disparate fields.

As overlappers, they still built on the works of those before them, as this is how human knowledge develops— but they were also pioneers. They created new specialties. In other words, they were not so much specialists in a field of study, but pioneers in new fields.