Robert Munson's Blog, page 5

Evangelical Environmentalism

I have been reading “Environmental Missions” by Lowell Bliss. It has been a good book. But I have been struggling a bit with two or three issues that Bliss goes over quite a bit. I do think there is a healthy place for Evangelical Environmentalism. I know this is a bit controversial especially in the American form of Evangelicalism where Environmentalism is often almost seen as a dirty word. But that makes the coming to terms with three issues even more important.

Issue #1. Should we see the World around us as Robust or Fragile? Do we see the world as being a place that can be easily harmed or even destroyed, or do we see it as a place that resists any efforts to do long-term or serious harm?

Issue #2. Should we see the World as primarily sustained by God or by Man?

Issue #3. Is the World around us valuable? I would like to address this one. Yes, the world around us is valuable/important. First, it is important since it is important to God. God created it and declared it good. And if you read the Psalms, for example, God did not lose interest in it after the Fall. Second, it is valuable because we need it to live. We have yet to find another place in the universe that has the characteristics that we can live in. If the world ceases to be, we have no place else to go at this time, and no likely prospects. Third, it is our eternal home. As N.T. Wright regularly says (and this should hardly be a controversial stance since the Bible clearly states it), this World is our eternal home. Unlike what the gospel song says, “This World IS my home…. I am NOT just passin’ through…”. Heaven and Earth join together for eternity. Now some note that this world is supposed to be replaced by a New Earth… but we don’t really know what level of discontinuity this entails. But even if it involved a complete discontinuity, I don’t see that leading us to devalue it. Do we devalue our pets because they will eventually die? Do we devalue our house because it will not endure forever? Actually, the answer to both of these is “somewhat.” But even so we care for our pets and seek to keep them healthy as long as we can. We care for our houses and seek to keep them from setting into squalor. The ephemeral has at least some value… and we know that this world… in some sense at least… is eternal. If we value the ephemeral to any extent, we must value this world more.

So I will start from the presumption that this world should be valued by us… but for the other two issues, lets lay them out in quadrants.

Let’s start in the Upper Right Quadrant and work around counterclockwise. This is the view that the world is robust and God sustains it. This might be the most common (or at least most commonly expressed view) in American (political) Evangelicalism. I am calling it “Evangelical Consumerism.” I am sure there is a better term, but I am not sure what. Some would use the term “Evangelical Capitalism,” but I haven’t really seen evidence that political theories that contrast Capitalism (such as Socialism or Communism) are more concerned about the Environment. Consumerism, according to Oxford Languages can be defined as “the protection or promotion of the interests of consumers,” or more negatively, “the preoccupation of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.” The first definition is suggestive of priorities that are focused on human wants that may not be environmentally sustainable. The second definition is similar but a bit more explicit.

The logic is that God made a world that is either so robust that we really can’t do anything to ruin it, or that God has the will as well as the capacity to sustain to a point that we can’t really ruin anything. I recall listening to Rush Limbaugh (American radio personality a few decades ago). He was talking about global warming/climate change. He stated that it was “just plain hubris” to suggest that we as humans can do anything to change the climate in any sort of broad or long–term way. It certainly is hubris to think so if we cannot… but that is the question. Is the world so robust that we cannot effect it in a major way? I am not convinced. But let’s move on.

Upper Left Quadrant. Some would say that the world is so environmentally robust that we cannot do much to change things, regardless of whether there is a God/god who has the ability or desire to sustain it. From a theological standpoint, it could be seen as linked to Deism, in the sense that perhaps God created the world and then left it alone as a great clockwork. And it was so perfectly designed that we cannot really screw it up. For those who reject Deism, they may embrace a sort of Gaia Hypothesis of a resilient evolutionary system. Regardless, the end result is a secular sort of consumerism. Human responsibility for the environment is minimal or focused largely on consuming it and hiding the waste. with the presumption that doing so is “good” or at least “sustainable” regardless of what are actions or inactions are.

Lower Left Quadrant. This is Classic Environmentalism. The world is environmentally fragile, and we must protect it… or else. This is the one that a lot of Evangelicals like to hold up as the dichomistic “other option.” If we can show that the underpinnings of Classic Environmentalism are flawed, then our own view, Evangelical Consumerism MUST be correct. Of course, almost nothing truly fits into two USEFUL categories with no other options. There are most definitely other options.

Lower Right Quadrant. The world is environmentally fragile, but God is the sustainer. I would argue that this is the strongest position from a theological standpoint. There is good reason to see God as not merely the Creator… but also the Sustainer (as well as Redeemer) of this world. I would also say that there is good reason to see it as fragile. The fact that even before the Fall, Man was told to take on a steward role in nature at least suggests failing to do this would be… bad. Additionally, we have a growing collection of data that suggests that we can truly mess up the world when we make bad choices. This is part of theological discourse as well. Theology must draw from both special AND general revelation. A good bit of data in support of this view is the “Aral Sea.” Look it up. It is one of the most clearcut examples (in my view) that bad human decisions can devastate a region. What is especially concerning is that the decision was consumer-driven. Massive irrigation to increase cotton production and such led to the sea drying up and that led to huge secondary environmental problems. In the short-term at least, the environment in the region of the (former) Aral Sea was not resilient. Will things improve later with our efforts or without them? Time will tell.

But what makes the Upper Right Quadrant different from the Lower Right if both say that God is the sustainer? I think it boils down to this…

Upper Right: God sustains a robust environment and so doesn’t really need or even want our help.

Lower Right. God sustains a fragile environment and expects us to not only not undermine his work, but actually assist as faithful stewards.

Again, I am throwing out one of the issues— the question of the value of the world around us. I know many don’t accept this… but once the theological paucity of this perspective (that we cannot or should not value the world around us) the four options really must push us towards the lower left quadrant.

Book Review “Make Disciples of All Nations: A History of Southern Baptist International Missions.”

The book, title above, edited by John D. Massey, Mike Morris, and W. Madison Grace II (Kregel Academic, 2021) is an important book of missions history for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and to a lesser extent the Baptist movement. Baptists, especially as it relates to the American form, developed a group identity out of mission far more than doctrine, governance, or form. As such, when studying SBC missions, one does get a goodly dose of denominational history.

The book is made up of chapters written by different authors, but the theming and style do a good job in not making the changing authors too noticeable. Generally, the structure is built around the Secretaries (or later Presidents) of the Foreign Mission Board (or later International Mission Board). However, there are times when it drifts off the structure— especially in the pre-SBC material (where there were no FMB and FMB secretaries). The book spoke of missions prior to the SBC— particularly with George Liele, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, and the Triennial Convention. It was especially heartening to see George Liele given proper credit for his role as a Baptist missionary pioneer. It was also good to hear a Southern Baptist historian state that the SBC formed due to its support for slavery. Often, SBC historians try to say that it was one of several factors— but this book notes that there are no real differences in doctrine or practice between the Northern and Southern Baptists except with regard to slavery.

I found the book had a lot of good information with the goal, usually, of not drawing TOO deeply into denominational politics. I could be reading into things, but it does seem like the writers tended to take a clear side when it was a topic in which all participants are dead. However, when people involved are still alive (such as the Conservative Resurgence and the controversies regarding the 2001 Baptist Faith and Mission with regards to missionaries) the writing seemed more cautious. Again, maybe that was just me.

Two things I miss are a Bibliography, and a Subject Index. Footnoting is done well throughout. However, for a history book, I feel that more should be added to aid research.

For Southern Baptist Missionaries, and more generally for Southern Baptists, I believe the book is excellent. I have often complained that Baptists (of which I am one) often don’t take their history (or anyone else’s) seriously. I do hope they will take this book seriously.

Character of a Missionary Candidate (In 1944)

I have been reading a book on Southern Baptist missions history (“Make Disciples of All Nations,” edited by Massey, Morris, and Grace. Review will be posted in a few days). In it, they quote from and summarize the characteristics sought for a missionary candidate drawn from the 1944 Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention. I decided to quote the entire passage from the annual. While I would disagree with bits and pieces of it, I feel that it was pretty well thought out at over 80 years old (I have much worse lists that are much more modern).

Qualifications for Missionaries
The basic essential for foreign missionary service is a personal loyalty to Jesus
Christ as Saviour and Lord. The candidates should be committed, heart and soul—
life, money, and all — to the cause of the world-wide missions. The original Great
Commission is still ours: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature” (Mark 16:15). The world mission of our Lord, however, does not rest
wholly on the Master’s Great Commission; it rests on all that he was and said and
did. It is inherent in the very nature of the Christian faith.

Physical Qualifications
Health. Good health is essential to successful service on all mission fields.
Extremes of altitude and climate, the prevalence of disease and the comparative
scarcity of medical facilities in some countries to which missionaries are sent,
make it imperative that missionaries and their families be robust in health. This
Foreign Board requires a careful and thorough medical examination of each
candidate, . and of the wife or husband, to determine physical, emotional, and
temperamental stability. Any physical disabilities and their possible relation to
the effectiveness of the missionary’s service are carefully considered before a
candidate is appointed.
Age. Missionaries should be between twenty-four and thirty-two years of age
at the time of their appointment. Persons past thirty-two are likely to have
difficulty in learning a new language and in making adjustments to a new
environment.
Personal Appearance. Neatness and attractiveness are as important on the
mission field as at home, both in their psychological effect on observers
and in the witness they give to the “inner self.”

Intellectual Qualifications
Other things being equal, the higher the educational attainments, the more
efficient is the missionary.

General Missionaries. All missionaries are required to have both college and
theological degrees or the equivalent.
Medical Missionaries. In addition to the college training the medical doctor
is required to have an M.D. degree from a Class A medical school, two years
of internship, and at least one year of missionary training in a theological
seminary or missionary training school approved by the Board.
The missionary nurse should have a college or university degree, the R.N.
degree and a missionary training school or theological seminary degree.
Experience, especially administrative, is desirable; and for some
appointments courses in pedagogy are required.
Educational Missionaries. Both college and theological seminary or missionary
training school degrees are required. Graduate degrees in special fields
science, music, sociology, education, and so forth— are desirable and often
required, especially for those who will teach in mission colleges,
universities, and seminaries.
Technical Missionaries. In addition to the required college and seminary or
missionary training school degrees, this missionary should have standard
technical training in his specialty: agriculture, building, vocational
training, printing, cinematography, and the like.

Whether those appointed are preachers or teachers, doctors or nurses,
agriculturists or builders, they are thought of as missionary-evangelists and so
regard themselves.

Spiritual Qualifications
“The missionary is God’s man, doing God’s work, in God’s way, in God’s field, for
God’s glory.” To be a missionary is to be engaged in the greatest work in the
world; to be an ambassador for Christ is to be a successor to the Apostle Paul. A
missionary is “one sent on a mission.” He must be sent of God. Herein lies one of
the greatest responsibilities of the Foreign Mission Board — to discover and appoint all whom God wants our Board to send to some foreign field of service.

The God-appointed mission of the missionary must never be minimized. Surely he must
feel the burden of lost souls. He should have the compassion of Paul: “Brethren, my
heart’s desire and prayer to God is for Israel, that they might be saved.” The
missionary candidate must have this qualification, here and now. Is he likely to be
missionary-minded in Africa, Asia, or South America, if he is not missionary-minded
in North America? Evangelism is the passion and work for all Christians. At home we
call it evangelism; abroad missions. It is the same.

It is essential for missionaries to have Christ’s attitude toward people of all
other races. No volunteer who cannot love and share and work as an equal with his
Negro friend in America, should ever go as a missionary to Africa, or to any other
place.

Candidates for appointment as missionaries, whether for life service or forspecial
terms, should bring a good witness of marked Christian character and culture, deep
conviction as to the essentials of the faith, and a strong desire to serve Christ
in wholehearted consecration, as already evidenced in Christian life and work at
home. The supreme value of a Christlike life renders a small number of such
candidates preferable to a larger number of those with inferior Christian
experience and less devoted consecration.

The performance of the central task of Christian missions, making Jesus Christ
known as Saviour and Lord, requires men and women possessed of

(1) a vital and growing Christian experience
(2) a wholehearted devotion to the interpretation of Jesus’ message to life
today
(3) an unusual insight into Christianity and essential human nature
(4) a love for Christ that compels a sharing of faith and experience
(5) an ability to state clearly and convincingly the teachings of Christian
faith

Social Qualifications
The difference in cultural environment on the mission field, as compared with that
of the missionary’s native land, makes certain social characteristics unusually
important. Among these are: tact, graciousness, poise, courtesy (especially in
regard to manners and customs of the country to which he goes), and ability to
maintain cordial relations with diplomatic and commercial communities. These
outward courtesies, however, must be founded in basic attitudes such as the
following: a co-operative spirit, willingness to defer to the judgment of
associates of wider experience, patience, adaptability to men of all classes and
circumstances, a genuine love for people, and a spirit of friendliness.

Qualifications of Temperament
Due again to the unusual difficulties and privations which may be incident to the
missionary life, only men and women of unusual emotional and mental stability can
be used. The importance of a cheerful and optimistic disposition, of an
irrepressible sense of humor, of persistent energy, courage, and resourcefulness
cannot be over-emphasized. The missionary must be mature emotionally,as well as in
his judgment and common sense.

Marriage and Family Qualifications
No standards as to family background are set up, since these factors, even more
than others, are conditioning rather than determining. Certain principles regarding
the candidate’s immediate family relationships are considered. It is required

(1) that the wife or husband also be called and dedicated to the missionary
task
(2) that financial or other domestic responsibilities be no greater than can
be assumed without too heavy a strain by the missionary
(3) that one’s husband or wife and children be as well able to adjust
themselves to the special circumstances of the missionary life as is the
candidate himself
(4) that the marital relationship (or attitude toward marriage on the part of
an unmarried candidate) be healthy and stable

Practical Experience Qualifications
More and more the Board is requiring that the new missionaries, like the doctors,
serve an internship in the homeland, thus allowing all the first personal and
professional mistakes to be made among one’s own people, who can more easily
understand and make allowance for beginners, than can those of different
backgrounds and cultures.

At least one year of successful experience in work similar to that to which the
missionary will be assigned is desirable and often required. Successful experience
here is one of the best indications of success there. Actual experience in any kind
of full-time salaried position is valuable preparation for missionary service.

https://digitalcollections-baylor.qua...

Research in History of Missions

I always liked history. I like to think chronologically and to see causal relations. In Sixth Grade, our Social Studies teacher, Mrs. Mattocks, was teaching Greco-Roman history. She gave a test. At the end of the test, she gave an extra credit question. She said she would give 25 extra credit points (!) to any student who could put a series of historical events in chronological order. She was confident that no one could do it. I was the only one who got it right. I don’t think I got it right because I had mastered the subject so much. Rather, I think in chronological terms, so I did not find that question difficult. I ended up getting 119% on that test— my highest grade ever. I loved reading books about the history of mathematics far more than I was interested in mathematics. I enjoyed history of engineering and design more than engineering or design. Now that I have moved from the “sciences” to ministry, I am interested in the history of Christian missions, and history of the pastoral care movement.

I have been teaching a class in Research in History of Missions. Because it is a research class, I chose to leave the students to the task of coming up with a topic, embracing a problem, purpose, research, and writing. I tried giving some good advice in how to do such research, the end result was a bit of a struggle.

Each struggled a bit with one aspect of the topic. If the three key words of the main words in the title (Research, History, and Missions) each one missed the mark a bit in one aspect.

The strongest paper was one that might be described as week on the “Missions” component. The student wrote on the history of a denominational group. However, because the group was founded out of very intentional missional effort in an area that would typically described as a mission-receiving region, I do feel that the task was essentially to my expectations. “Missions” is a poorly defined term, in my opinion, but there is a sort of culture that accepts certain things a pertaining to missions and certain things that don’t. Additionally, there are certain things that are explored by missiologists or are commonly accomplished by missionaries and things that are not. A second paper was a good paper on a very common missions topic. However, the student did not really embrace the “History” component. The topic was well explored as a present-day phenomenon, but not its historic roots, or how it changed over time. I gave some recommended sources to explore its history, but the student chose not to address them. I was frankly confused by this. It is a research class in history… why ignore the history. I do realize however, that a lot of people really tend to embrace the now. I come from a denomination that tends to not take history very seriously. Why? Well, I have my theories but it is not pertinent to this article. But to understand the present, one really must understand the past—- synchronically and diachronically. A third paper was an interesting paper but, for some reason, did not embrace the “Research” component. The topic was a very obscure one, but an interesting one. There would be almost no literary sources. The student wrote a good paper, but completely without footnotes or references. As noted, almost no literary sources exist. But does that mean that no sources were used? Did the student talk to anyone, interviewing them? Were there non-published local sources that were reviewed? Or did the student write completely from stock or personal knowledge? I don’t know since there were no citations. Research is needed not only because it is a research class, but such research must also be cited in the paper

I don’t feel like I did something WRONG. However, perhaps I did not take into account the individual characteristics of students. I also was also perhaps too flexible. When some were a bit slack in updating me, I did not put a lot of pressure on them. But if I had placed pressure on them, I may have caught some areas where their work was drifting off course.

For the future, I will have to remember this as part of my history to learn and grow.

Two Parables About Planting Trees

Here are a couple of stories on planting trees. These are stories associated with my family, and I look at them as parables or apologues.

Story #1.

A few years ago, a little before the Pandemic, my wife Celia was involved in a ministry. The ministry was with those who were struggling to get away from illegal drugs. As I am sure you know, there are many problems with being involved in illegal drugs— not only can it be bad for your health and bad for your finances… your money. It is also bad on relationships. So Celia was working with a team that ministered to people who had already stopped using drugs, but were in the process of rebuilding their relationships with their family, their community, and with God. It was a good program that went on for something like 12 months. Eventually, however, the members of this group graduated. They had finished the program and were ready to move on without the program.

So it was time for the graduation. We held it in a gazebo on the grounds of Lualhati Barangay. It was a beautiful day. Members brought food to share and we had a great meal together. But before eating, we all sang some songs, one of the pastors prayed over the group. I gave the graduation sermon.

I gave the sermon completely in Tagalog. Everyone laughed and laughed at how bad I pronounced every word. Everyone had a great time.

When we were done with the main program, we went to the special project. Weeks earlier, Celia asked the group. “What does everyone want to do to celebrate finishing the program?” We had talked about going to a hot spring or traveling to a resort or something. That could be fun. That might be a good celebration.

But NO. That is not what they wanted to do. They wanted to do something to benefit their community— Lualhati Barangay. After some discussion, they decided that they wanted to do a tree planting project in Lualhati. When asked why did they want to do that… instead of something fun— one replied (and the others agreed)— “Because we were in trouble with the law in the past. Because we had done bad things. We are looked down on by our community, and sometimes even our families. But NOW we want people to know that we can be a blessing to our community… and to our families. We WANT to be a blessing.

So for the next couple of hours our group went around planting trees. The barangay captain and kagawads identified places to plant trees. We had lots of Benguet Pine seedlings. One by one a hole was dug and a seedling was planted. But as each one was being planted, a little bottle or sachet was planted with it. Inside was a message. We did not ask people to share what the message was. However, generally, they were statements of blessing, or were prayers. Their gift to the community was meant to grow as their prayer of blessing for their community, family, and themselves, grew.

Story #2.

This story is about my father-in-law… my wife’s father— George. Decades ago, they lived in a small place in Pampanga. At the time my father-in-law was a farmer— farming on land that he rented from someone else. One day my father-in-law George told his friends and family that he was going to plant some mango seedlings on the land. His neighbors thought that this was a foolish idea.

“Why plant mango seedlings?” They asked. “It will take years for the mango to grow up to produce fruit. It is a waste of time.”

Others said, “You don’t even own the land. You won’t be able to enjoy the fruits. Even if you are still on this land, the landlord will stop by, as he does now, with his family, and they will take all of the fruits from the tree. It makes no sense.”

My father-in-law replied. “But we don’t know the future. Maybe by then I can buy the land and enjoy the fruits! But even if I don’t… it is hardly a waste and it is hardly senseless. If I plant them now, someday people will be blessed.”

Later, he was able to buy land and able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

Environmental Missions— Some Initial Thoughts

I have been reading “Environmental Missions: Planting Churches AND Trees” by Lowell Bliss. I have finished 5 chapters. I have 8 more to go, not including Epilogue and Appendices. Still I have some thoughts.

I thing very obvious is that Lowell Bliss knows his audience. He is writing to Evangelical Christians, and with perhaps an additional narrower focus— those in the Evangelical Missions community. He makes clear his credentials as a “traditional” Evangelical church planting missionary. He notes his traditional Evangelical training. He quotes from respected evangelical sources— especially Evangelical missiologists and Evangelical missiological congresses. He acknowledges Evangelical attitudes about the environmentalist movement, and seeks to address them. I almost said “American” Evangelical attitudes. However, it has spread to other parts of the world. For example, in recent years there have been strong disagreements as to whether mining should be outlawed in parts of the Cordillera mountains where I live. A number of Christian groups such as UCCP and the Episcopalians (along with some of those who hold to traditional local religion) generally oppose mining. The Evangelicals tend to want it to expand. Their argument tends to be— more mining means more money which means more good. He even talked about the various names he could use for this sort of integral/holistic missions, based in part on how Evangelicals would react.

But Bliss does not stop there. He next goes into a Biblical/Theological look at the topic. As one who trains pastoral/Christian counselors I have learned this all too well. You can talk about what works. You can talk about what is good. You can talk about church history. You can talk about a lot of things, but Evangelicals will always ask “But is it Biblical.” I have no problem with this… since I am an Evangelical myself (although the politicization of the term in the American context is starting to make me wonder when I should shed the label). But all too often when Evangelicals ask “Is it Biblical,” they are too often satisfied when someone says, “Yes it is… look at this verse I have ripped out of its context and its broader Scriptural, Historical, and Cultural setting.” Bliss, however, is using Old Testament and New Testament passages to build a Theology of Creation and then from there to a Theology of Environmental Missions. I have a lot of respect for the effort.

So far, I have only gotten as far as the OT basis for a Theology of Creation. I am looking forward to where it goes from there.

As I was reading, I thought about the different attitudes that missionaries have regarding the environment or environmental ministry. I love diagrams, so I used one I used before in my book on Theology of Missions (The Book is Here). Here is the modified version.

So in ministry, there an be a “spiritual focus.” When I talk about spiritual focus (and I admit I am using the term “spiritual” in a way I don’t care for) I am referring to types of ministries that get lumped together as distinctly Christian in nature— evangelizing, church planting, discipleship, prayer, worship, and so forth. Environmental focus can be a wide range of works regarding Creation Care, Environmental factors relating to health, sustainable fishing, agriculture, and so forth. Others can come up with a better list.

Where do ministries or missions fit into this. One area, I colored RED. I called this “Spiritualistic Missions.” With this perspective… missions is all about “Spiritual ministries” For such people— they are likely not to consider environmental work to be Christian ministry or missions. In fact, environmental work may actually be an impediment or a distraction.

The GREEN area an be labeled “Traditional Environmentalism.” Many in this category may not see themselves as Christians, or if they do, do not see their work in Christian terms. Some may see a spiritual component to what they do… but may not fit into a form of spirituality that most Evangelical Christians would identify as… Christian.

The ORANGE area I might call “Traditional Missions.” Consider someone like William Carey or Robert Moffat. They were actively involved in environmental or agricultural concerns. But to what extent do they see this work as being missions in the same way as preaching, evangelizing, and church planting? It is not necessarily certain. Now I do think that this category may be broken into two groups. Group A might be described as those who think that environmental focus may be valuable or good… but not necessarily “real ministry,” or they may seen it as a lesser good ministry. Group B are those who see their environmental work as a means to spiritual ends. This is known as the “Ulterior Motives” group. Environmental work is important if (and only if) it opens doors to spiritual opportunities or outcomes.

The final group is the YELLOW area. This could be called “Environmental Missions.” This is what Bliss called it. The Great Commandment is expressed both in the Great Commissions, and the Creation Command. When one does both (as opposed to one versus the other) and values both (especially when they are integrated together) one is fitting into this category.

Anyway, I have more to read. I don’t think I will every be an Environmental Missionary. But I think that (so far) Lowell Bliss is making a good care for its importance and value.

In Tepid Praise of Independent Missionaries (Part 2)

Over the night, I feel like there is one more area of praise when it comes to Independent Missionaries.

E. Finances. I have seen the budgets set aside for a missionary family to serve overseas through an American mission agency. The numbers can be pretty staggering, at least compared to what many independent missionaries have. Independent missionaries TEND to be more cost effective in the work they do. Additionally, they have tseen he ability to invest their (limited) funds in areas that they see are best… without having to convince a team mobilizer and accountants back in the home country. We have seen that in times of local disasters where we could immediately put some money into specific areas well before agencies are able to respond.

Okay, so I gave some positive things… what about negative things. After all, I said my praise is tepid.

#1. Poor vetting. Independent missionaries often have had little vetting to verify their competence, education, and spiritual resiliency. Of course, sometime agency vetting ends up setting aside good people. However, such vetting often does identify people who REALLY SHOULD NOT GO INTO MISSIONS! I have definitely met a few (thankfully only a few) independent missionaries who I question whether they should be in missions.

#2. Training. Independent missionaries have to develop their own self-training program. Some do that and, in fact, may do better than what some agencies do. However, some independent missionaries may be woefully under-trained, or mis-trained.

#3. Finances. Independent Missionaries often struggle to stay supported. This can be true of Agency missionaries… especially those that get (humorously) labeled as “faith-based.” Nevertheless, I have seen far too many independent missionaries have to leave because of support issues. This is even more noticeable when it comes to education for children and medical care. While Independent missionaries may often be able to minister more frugally… that is not always a good thing. Additionally, I have know at least a couple of examples of independent missionaries who were REALLY GOOD AT SUPPORT-RAISING. In fact, I would argue they were TOO good. There can be a problem with lack of oversight/accountability in this area. This leads to the next point.

#4. Accountability. Independent missionaries must create their own accountability partners to some extent… especially in the field. Agency missionaries USUALLY have an accountability system in place. If independent missionaries decide that they don’t need accountability partners, or choose ones that are not good holding them accountable… that is a problem.

#5. Independent missionaries have to do it all in some sense. They have to support raise, take care of their own education, medical care, legal status, among many other things. That can be draining.

The freedom and flexibility that can help an independent missionary be more successful, can also lead to their downfall. It is not for everyone. I would say that people who are rejected by mission agencies should do some deep soul-searching to see if the concerns of the agencies have merit. Independent missionaries have to create their own accountability, training, partnerships, and more. There is great potential, but also great potential pitfalls.

In Tepid Praise of Independent Missionaries (Part 1)

My wife and I are independent missionaries. By this I mean that we are not under a traditional mission agency. We were sent out by a single church… who serves as our primary accountability partner. We also serve in and with a seminary in the Philippines. Neither of these (nor the counseling center or accreditation organization that we cofounded and are a part of) operate at all like a traditional mission society or agency.

Today at seminary chapel, a colleague of mine (Korean missionary who could be described as independent to the same extent that I am) described his coming to the Philippines. He noted how he came all focused on evangelizing and churchplanting. However, as he had been here awhile, he realized a few things:

Filipinos can evangelize and churchplant, and are normally better at it that foreign missionaries. He and his wife, like most all of us, come over with very ethnocentric attitudes… feeling that they know what is best and are “better” in some sense than Filipinos.He needed to be educated in the mission setting. He needed to focus on what he as a foreign missionary could do better than what Filipinos (at this point in their ministerial history) could do.

Celia and I had a similar path a few years after them. We did not come to evangelize and churchplant (primarily) but we started doing what Filipinos, frankly, could do as well or better than us. We needed to be educated in the Philippines, and focus on what we could do based on our unique training (training chaplains, and missionaries).

As one reads this post up to this point, you can see a few things that are good about being an Independent Missionary.

A. Being an Independent Missionary allows one to make “audibles” or on site pivots in strategy. This is actually a big thing. When we were looking into going into missions, we approached a mission agency. We liked that agency (and still do). But when one read their vision and mission at the time, there were a few things that annoyed me. The third one I will list later. The first one is that they said they really only wanted missionary candidates who were really sold out on evangelism. In other words, they really wanted people who really wanted to evangelize. That sounds like it makes sense… but does it? In many parts of the world, other passions and competencies may be more important. Frankly, being a motivated evangelist in the Philippines as a foreign missionary is not particularly useful. There are far too many far better local evangelists. The second thing was they were, at the time, really putting all their efforts into church planting movements (CPMs). I have a bit of mixed feelings about CPMs. But ignoring that, the mission agency at the time was “gutting” its other ministries to put all of their efforts into CPMs. That was something that I have real problems with. Now perhaps they were right (but they weren’t), but at least for Celia and I, I don’t think that was what God had for us. Being independent allowed us to change directions two or three times until we found our long-term role.

B. Independence allows one to choose one’s own partners. The mission agency were applied to had in their vision statement a strong emphasis on supporting the denomination linked to that agency. That wasn’t necessarily a problem… but perhaps for us it is a problem. We did not really want to limit ourselves. Missionaries really need to have a coalition of the willing, but some agencies really want to limit who one works with. Admittedly, there are times when such limits are beneficial (I told my support is ‘tepid’) but we have done well in have partnerships that definitely cross some major denominational barriers.

C. Being an Independent Missionary allows one to decide when it is time to leave. I have seen mission agencies pull the rug out from under established agency missionaries. While there are advantages in terms of stability and platform being an agency missionary, often agencies can downsize very competent missionaries. While they can, in theory continue in the field as independent missionaries, most lack the experience of “going it alone.”

D. Independent Missionaries are more able to “go native” theologically. They can adjust to the cultural in terms of missional practice and missional theology. For example, I come from a denomination in the US that does not allow women clergy. As an independent missionary, I don’t have to support that viewpoint… and can work with groups with a very different perspective. If I see value in aspects of liberation theology, or in critical race theory… I don’t have to worry much about what the board thinks about these back home. (Of course, most independent missionaries have accountability partners and financial supporters, so there are definitely limits on this freedom.)

I will stop here… and in Part 2, may add one or two more advantages, but also talk about the problems in being independent.

“Footprints in the Sand” Revisited— A Story

Child look backed along the shoreLINE. The sandy beach appeared to extend to the horizon and beyond.

“Hmmm….” said Child.

“Yes?” asked the Companion.

“Oh, it’s nothing. … I mean it is not important.”

“A lot of unimportant things are still worth saying,” replied the Companion.

“Well, looking back I see our footprints. They continue as far as I can see,” said Child.

“We have walked a long ways,” agreed the Companion. “But there is still farther to go.”

“I… well… I thought that maybe you would have carried me at times. I don’t have the strength and endurance that you have. You could have carried me. But looking back, you did not carry me, even once.”

“I don’t really do that sort of thing,’ replied the Companion.

They continued to walk along the shoreline in silence. The vast ocean to the right of Child and the Companion seemed endless with waves crashing and pulling away land bit by bit in places, and adding land in others. The changes were imperceptible but inevitable… unstoppable.

Several minutes passed in silence. This silence was not unpleasant, but a question hung in the air between them, not quite spoken— until it was.

“Why?” asked Child.

“Why?” responded the Companion.

“Why don’t you carry me? Not all the time of course. But I get tired. The journey is long. I need your help sometimes.”

The Companion stretched his arm backwards and said, “Look more closely.”

As Child looked back, he could see places where the walk appeared to stop, and there were indentations in the sand of both sitting down or lying down.

“See,” said the Companion. “When you needed rest, I stopped with you. You you were stubborn and refused to continue forward, I waited. When you were despondent and wondering about stopping the journey, I stayed with you and encouraged you to continue when you were ready.”

This explanation satisfied Child… for awhile.

“I appreciate that. I don’t think I could make this journey alone. But really, if you carried me sometimes, we would make it a lot faster. We must be way behind schedule by now, rght?”

The Companion smiled and after a minute or two responded. “I don’t carry you because I care about you far more than I care about our schedule. We will arrive where we need to be when we need to be there.”

Child already knew this somehow… but hearing it made the journey feel more pleasant somehow. Walking like this is at least as important as the destination.

Sandpipers darted back and forth along the water’s edge, as the ocean roared and the breeze off the water cooled the two of them. Child and the Companion continued walking along the shore that seemed to stretch to the horizon.

Of course, many love the poem “Footprints in the Sand.” It describes the companion as one who carries the poet when the poet is too weak or tired. I have no problem with that imagery.

There is also the somewhat humorous sequel to it— “Butt Prints in the Sand.” It takes the imagery of the companion carrying the poet, but then getting frustrated at the poet’s laziness and stubbornness. I suppose I have nothing against this imagery either.

When I read “Footprints,” I see a different thing. I see the Companion as being more concerned with schedule and accomplishment than with the Poet. This attitude is made far more explicitly in “Butt Pints.” I model my story off of the Flight of Elijah in I Kings 19. Elijah ran from the City of Samaria out of fear and burnout. He finally collapses somewhere near Beersheba. At this point he crawls under a Broom tree and asks to die. It is at this point we find that God was with him on his whole trip. An angel appears who feeds him, gives him drink, encourages him to rest. Only after he was fully restored that the angel tells him he better get moving again because he still has a long way to go.

In that story, God did not carry Elijah. God also did not complain (“dropping him on his butt”) for being tired and emotionally drained. Rather, God waited on him, comforted and restored him. Eventually, God encouraged Elijah to continue. The destination… the end task… is important, but Elijah is more important than that .

CLICKING HERE.>

Three Pastoral Functions Seen In Three Biblical Servants

Please open your Bibles to II Kings 5. Part of the story was read earlier. I would like to recount it in my own words.

The story starts in Israel. A young girl… I am going to call her Nachah… because… well why not? We don’t know how old she was but she lived with her parents in Israel. A raiding party, essentially a group of criminals… plunderers attacked a village in Israel. They probably killed the parents of this girl, kidnapped her and brought her back to Damascus, capital city of Aram, to be sold as a slave. She was purchased by General Naaman and his wife. Losing your parents and being enslaved is horrible. However this seems to be about as good as it could be for her under the circumstances. The General’s wife was kind and Nachah was well-cared for.

So General Naaman contracts leprosy. We don’t have a complete understanding of what leprosy was back then. We know it was a contagious skin disease or a group of contagious skin diseases. On a practical level it was also a social disease. People would avoid those with leprosy… making them outcastes. It is hard to hide because it is a problem that shows up on the outside and we are quick to see and respond to superficial or surface-level problems. There was also a spiritual stigma because people then…. as now unfortunately… tend to assume that if you have a visible flaw, that you must have done something wrong and are now punished by God.

Nachah heard about this and she told the General’s wife… “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.” The wife told her husband, and her husband, a very important person, a VIP, in the court of Damascus, told the king… who supported General Naaman going into Israel in search of this prophet. Now did this military general trust the word of Nachah so much that he would go on such a risky and doubtful quest? I don’t think so. But he was desperate. When you are desperate weird or doubtful ideas seem good. I have been there. You embrace hope no matter how uncertain because if you don’t, all you are left with is hopelessness.

The king of Aram writes a letter to the king of Israel, because kings tend to take letters from other kings seriously. Naaman and his servants and a lot of gold, silver, and fine clothes to reward, or perhaps bribe, the prophet traveled into enemy territory.

Arriving in Israel’s capital city of Samaria they have audience with the king there. The king of Israel was frustrated. “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!” The king is a little bit whiny, to be honest. The king also tore his clothes because that was how people back then expressed grief.

Thankfully, Elisha the prophet heard about this. We are not told how… but he sends a message to the king, “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.”

Naaman and his entourage of servants, horses, chariots and treasure all arrived at Elisha’s home. That must have been quite an amazing event to have witnessed. But Elisha does not come out to greet the general. Instead, he sends out one of his servants with a message. We can call him Rapha. Rapha tells Naaman

“Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”

Naaman was enraged. The general went to the king of Aram and was welcomed in as a VIP. The general went to the king of Samaria and was accepted in as a VIP. But here he is at this dumpy little house of a prophet, and the prophet will not even come out to meet him. Instead, he treated him like maybe a salesman of tanned leather… only sending out a servant who essentially says, go away and take a bath.

Naaman was a desperate man… but he was also a prideful man. Desperation can lead us to make sometimes foolish decisions, but that is also true with pride. He decided to go back immediately to his homeland. His servants stepped in at this point. One acting as a representative, we can call him Azar, encouraged him to do what Rapha, the servant of the prophet said. The general came all this way… why not do one more little thing?

The general agreed… went to the Jordan river. He washed in it 7 times and was healed. An amazing day!

Now I am going to stop there. Of course, I am sure that most of you know the story continues and there are two major twists that happen later on. I am not downplaying those at all… but I just want to focus on this arc… healthy, to sick, and back to healthy.

And I want to focus on the servants in the story. You are training to be ministers… essentially servants. Servants of God and servants to your people. If that knowledge is uncomfortable for you, now is a good time to rethink your path. There are many stories in the Bible that focus on the servants, even if we often ignore them.

———————————-

Servant #1. Nachah. She is the initiator of the story. General Naaman had leprosy, but if she did not tell Naaman’s wife about the prophet in Samaria, there would be no quest… no story.

Nachah provides the ministerial function of Guide. This may seem a bit strange. A young girl in a foreign land guiding a general of the armies of Aram? Frankly, this young girl did not seem to have a lot of knowledge. There is a prophet in Samaria who can heal the general. No name. No address. No cellphone number. Nothing. But good guidance does not need to be highly detailed and directive.

So let’s change the ministerial function to “Guidance without much Knowledge.” This is good… because the temptation in the ministerial role is to try to be Clever. It is tempting to show off what we know. Someone comes to you about a marriage problem. It is tempting to start talking about the 6 types of love based on Greek and Latin. Or perhaps you begin explaining to them their incapatabilities based on the Enneagram, or Myers-Briggs, Taylor-Johnson, or the Big Five. But while you are showing off all of the cool things you know, are you caring for the other person? Or are you caring for yourself— satisfying your need to be seen as clever, knowledgeable, wise. You do not know the situation of the other person as much as God. You do not know what the person needs do as much as God knows. Guiding with a little knowledge helps the other person depend on God— God’s Word and the Holy Spirit… rather than depending on you.

The servant girl, Nachah, in the story of General Naaman the Leper did not know much. But she was able to guide him in the area that he truly needed. He needed to know that there was hope, and a gentle push in the right direction. The little guidance she gave was enough.

—————————————

Rapha, the second servant was Elisha’s servant who served as a messenger, letting Naaman know how to be healed. The second pastoral function is Healing… Healing… but without much skill.

When Naaman finally gets to Elisha’s home. Elisha does not come out.

Instead he sends Rapha, described as Elisha’s messenger, to pass on the prophet’s words to him— go to the Jordan River and wash yourself seven times to be healed. Naaman was angry. He wanted to be healed by the prophet… the professional healer… not simply get a message from his untrained servant. People want to see the expert. Years ago one of our children had a serious eye problem. It was an unusual problem and the closest expert on this specific problem was in Manila. We set up the apointment. Had some specialized tests done in Baguio. Then we got up really early, collected the results of our tests, took a bus to Manila and after a few hours we were at the specialist’s office. It was there we found out that the expert doctor had decided to take leave and cancel all appointments. Another doctor talked to us who was not the expert. We were angry. We were frustrated. We did not go all of that way to Manila simply to have our appointment canceled by the only person who could help us. We wanted an expert.

In fact… that is the temptation for a pastoral person— to be seen as the expert… especially an expert healer. If you as a pastor, or a chaplain, or as a seminarian visit a sick person, you will be asked to pray for them. Why? Typically, they believe that you as a religious professional have prayers that are just a bit more UMPHH then their own. In our chaplain training at Bukal we encourage trainees not to yield to that temptation. We want the sick to trust God, NOT trust the chaplain.

Naaman wasn’t happy that Rapha, a mere servant, came out rather than Elisha. Naaman said “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.” In a different context he may have said… “I expected someone who would sprinkle me with holy water… mark me with the sign of the cross with olive oil… dust me with salt… blow cigar smoke or spit Tanduay on me… all while saying some holy sounding incantation. Why didn’t he put his hand on my forehead and shove, and say “I declare thee healed!!” But the servant was not a healer and that’s okay because Naaman did not need a healer. He needed a messenger… a servant. The servant could not heal. Frankly, even Elisha could not heal of his own ability. Naaman needed to hear the message of the one who truly heals. He did not need someone to wave his hands over him. He needed to hear the word of the Lord and obey it. Rapha did not provide what Naaman wanted, but rather what he needed.

We in ministry love to be the expert. We love it when people believe that we are a bit closer to God… that our presence and words have more power— that our requests are put on the top of God’s to-do list.

God doesn’t need a bunch of experts. The second servant, Rapha, WAS a healer— he connected Naaman to the Message of healing. We connect those in need with the resources of healing— the One who truly heals.

———————————–

The third servant, Azar, is listed as the servant who joined Naaman on his journey. He served as the spokesperson for the rest. The servants as a group exhibited the pastoral function of sustaining. Naaman was a sick man… having leprosy. But the servants traveled with him in his illness and shame through Israel— enemy territory. They even called him “Father,” a term of both honor and affection. Azar carried out the ministerial function of Sustaining… but really Sustaining with Little Power. They had no real authority, wealth, or influence. They had little power. They were simply servants.

Those who are hurting, struggling, and shamed, need our presence… a ministry of abiding. We walk with them, sustaining them and encouraging them to keep progressing. But when things get too difficult and they refuse to go on— we don’t leave them behind. And we don’t carry them. We can’t. We stop and remain with them until they move forward. Many here are probably familiar with the Christian poem, Footprints in the Sand. It describes Christ carrying us when we are too weak or tired. It is a nice poem, but I don’t think that God works that way very much. I don’t think God carries us very often. I think God is more conerned about us than He is about getting to the destination on time. Usually when we stop, he stops and abides with us. What about us as ministers? We certainly can’t carry others even if we want to. We can barely carry ourselves. Our temptation is to “Be the Hero.” To be the Savior. But God is the Savior… the Hero. Really, people need us to abide with them…. helping to sustain them through the difficult times.

In the story, Naaman had servants who traveled with him to care for him wherever he went. They sustained him, abiding with him and encouraging him. Unlike the case of Nachah, who told Naaman something he did not know, Azar told the general something he already knew. Namaan was ranting about how he had been insulted and told to do some stupid silly thing to be healed. Azar said, My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!”

Naaman was willing to give a king’s fortune to be healed. He was prepared to walk through fire or do most any extreme thing to be healed. He already showed this by traveling into enemy territory as a military general without his army risking his own life to be healed. Naaman already knew that he would do most anything… even something seemingly stupid or silly to be healed. He just needed a bit of help to remember this.

—————————-

So here are my three bits of advice for those of you getting ready to leave here and serve in the place prepared for you…

Be like Nacha. a Guide, without much Knowledge. Don’t try to be the Clever One… the know it all. The world is overflowing with such people. God is the one who knows it all… not you. Help gently guide people to seek wisdom from God.

Be like Rapha. A Healer without much skill. Don’t try to be seen as an expert. Far too many experts out there. God is the expert and the one who truly heals… not you. Help people trust in God as healer.

Be like Azar. A Sustainer without much power. Don’t try to be the Hero. God is the true Hero. In their struggles, help them to call on the name of the Lord.