Robert Munson's Blog, page 6

Christian Missions Books I am Reading Right Now

For someone who blogs a LOT on Christian missions and Missions Theology I don’t really immerse myself that much in the “Missions Scene.” There is a pretty good reason for this. My wife is a Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) supervisor and we have a pastoral counseling center. I end up doing a fair amount of work in training materials and articles in pastoral counseling and pastoral theology. I think it could also be argued that my more innovative (?) or at least important work is in pastoral theology.

But I also teach missions… and I don’t want to become yearly more out of touch and irrelevant. Therefore, one of my goals (or themes maybe?) is in terms of Missions/Missiology. I went to the EMS Southeast 2025 conference, my first missiological conference ever. This August I plan to attend a major missions conference in the Philippines (my first since 2022).

But right now, I am reading two missions books. This is not a review, since I am not done.

Book #1. “Make Disciples of all Nations: A History of Southern Baptist International Missions” edited by John D. Massey, Mike Morris, and W. Madison Grace II. (Kregel Academic, 2021).

I have been enjoying this book. While I don’t really wear my denominational badge very often, I am a missionary that was sent out by a Southern Baptist Church, and I teach at a Filipino Southern Baptist seminary. (Note: The Southern Baptist denomination— or convention if you prefer— is not the same as the Filipino Southern Baptists. They have historical ties, and the Filipino Southern Baptists tend to maintain a strong link to the Southern Baptists— for good and… less good.) As such, it is important to know the history of missions in my denomination.

I sort of cheated, reading the last two chapters first. Since politics has such a strong place in denominational… everything (pretty common in denominations generally), I wanted to see how modern Southern Baptist missions is written up. I was a bit surprised that it was handled quite well. Certainly there was an effort not to step on toes. Controversies were acknowledged, but with a lot less bias than I might have expected, especially since the editors are from seminary that has had a pretty biased position in many of the controversies. Also, these chapters helped fill in a lot of gaps in my knowledge on some of the changes of direction of Southern Baptist missions. These latter chapters pretty much exclusively focused on the International Mission Board of Southern Baptist Churches (IMB). While a lot of Southern Baptist missions exists outside of the IMB (my wife and I are examples of this), the size of the IMB relative to other groups is huge. Additionally, I have no idea how to study and classify non-IMB Southern Baptist missions.

After the last two chapters, I went back to the start of the book. I am happy that they started with pre-SB Baptist missions. They gave very appropriate honor to George Liele, in addition to the more commonly recognized William Carey, Adoniram Judson, and Luther Rice. Now, I am entering into the Triennial Convention period of Baptist missions. I am looking forward to seeing where the book goes from here.

Book 2. “Environment Missions: Planting Churches and Trees“ by Lowell Bliss. (William Carey, 2013).

Creation Care has gained prominence in missions in recent decades. I always struggle in how to look at it. Part of me wants to embrace a John Stott-inspired view of Social ministries and Spiritual ministries as two wings of an airplane or two blades of a pair of scissors. Part of me wants to give clear priority to evangelism, church planting, and discipleship. At the same time, I also feel that spiritual ministry is empowered in social ministry long-term. A church that ignores social concerns is an anemic church and, arguably, not a Christ-led church.

But then the question of Creation Care comes in. How do we look at this. Some would point to the first command of God to Adam to care for creation as a call of equal weight as the Great Commission(s). I certainly feel it is appropriate to roundly reject the view of many Evangelicals that God seems only to care about Creation to the extent that it provides an environment for humans. In other words, they believe that God only cares about people and nothing much else that He created.

But how should Environmental Missions be viewed in relation to Christian missions generally. Is it a distraction? Is it a platform for “real missions?” Should it be given equal status with Spiritual Missions and Social Missions? Certainly, ALL Christians should model good stewardship of what God created. If we embrace treating God’s creation like a landfill, that does say something (uncertain what) about our relationship with God.

Up to this point, I have only read a few pages at the start, and then looked at parts of the rest of the book. Will I read that whole book? I think I should, and it is quite interesting. I teach a class on “Holistic Missions” (or Integral Missions if you prefer), so I really should up my game in this area. I do think it is concerning that the people least concerned about care of God’s creation in the US and the Philippines often are Evangelical Christians. There seems to be something truly wrong in that. Some appear to think that this world is passing away and so it doesn’t really matter. That is a weird perspective I think, but also not really correct. Our eternal home is heaven and earth joined, not heaven alone. While this may be a “new” earth in some sense, the devaluing now of what will be our eternal home appears pretty unconscionable.

What I have read does suggest that the author, Lowell Bliss, recognizes that Creation Stewardship and Proclamation of the Good News of Christ are BOTH vital. I look forward to seeing how puts these together in practice.

Reflections on Aging and Thermoplastics

Decades ago I was a mechanical engineer before I went into international missions. Unlike some I don’t think I ever was very successful at leveraging the skills of engineering in my missions work and theological reflection. However, when my wife and I were asked to speak on retirement and aging (a topic rapidly becoming more relevant to us) I was reminded of something I did in my past profession.

Working on my Master’s at Old Dominion University, I did my thesis research on the topic of physical aging in glass-reinforced pultruded composites. The thermoplastics used in pultruded composites undergo a process known as “physical aging.” This is a process of crystallization of the plastic. As it does so, it becomes less flexible, less resilient, and more brittle. In some applications this process may not matter. However, in others, this process will reduce the useful life of a plastic object.

There are, then, three major ways in which a plastic item will negatively respond to time.

–Physical damage. By repeated use, accident, or mistreatment, an object may be broken or damaged. The damage can be partly reversed through repair. Additionally, the ability to prevent physical damage is limited.

–Chemical aging. This is a breakdown of the thermoplastic due to environment. The environment may have ultraviolet radiation, high temperatures, oxidizing/corrosive chemicals, and more. These break down the polymers changing the properties of the plastic object. One may have some ability to limit chemical aging through preventive care. However, once the damage is done, it is irreversible.

—Physical aging. This is the embrittlement of thermoplastics due to gradual crystalization of the polymer. Unlike the other two forms of degradation, this is reversible. One can go through a heat treatment where crystallization is reversed and the original properties of the thermoplastic are restored.

How do these compare to how we age?

Aging of Thermoplastic ObjectsEquivalent Aging in HumansOur Level of Control Over ItReversible?Physical Damage

Accidents, Acts of Malice, and
“Acts of God.”
ModerateLimited (Repair only)Chemical AgingNatural breakdown of our bodies and mind as we age.LimitNoPhysical Aging“Embrittlement” of mind and behavior— getting “stuck in a rut.”HighYes

In our lives we can use proper safety precautions to minimize physical damage. One cannot prevent everything, and some things will need to be repaired as necessary.

As we age, there is also the natural breakdown of our bodies and minds. Diet, exercise, and general healthy living can slow down the process, but it is not really reversible.

These are all important. But I wonder if not enough importance is given to the third area. This type of aging is reversible in us along with thermoplastics. We can become “embrittled”— unable to be flexible in mind and behavior. Breaking patterns of behavior periodically, having a clear sense of meaning/purpose, A study (sorry, I don’t have the citation in front of me so you are welcome to be skeptical) recently done showed that having a strong sense of purpose reduced premature death in a group by up to 23%. Purpose gives direction, but also keeps one flexible since purpose is given a higher priority than pattern. Likewise, having a strong social network also helps. Social connections do provide a certain sense of pattern, but also forces a certain amount of flexibility as well. A different study (Sorry… research it yourself) had linked a strong social support system for the elderly with up to 29% reduction of premature death. Obviously learning new skills, taking on new challenges, embracing new roles are often described as things that “keep us young.” In a sense that is true.

This third category (I will call embrittlement) is the only area of aging that is thoroughly reversible. Now I am not anti-aging. I am not anti-death. Being against them don’t keep them from happening anyway.

The challenge really is to Age Well, and to Die Well. I would argue that we have some control in all three areas. It is good for each of us to identify which problem fits into which category.

— Some things we need to take safety measures as needed, to lessen the number of serious accidents or mishaps.

— Some things we need to develop preventative habits to reduce the speed of our gradual breakdown.

— Some things need to be done to keep us from becoming stuck in a cycle the makes our world smaller and reduce the expanse of possibilities before us.

All three are important.

Is It Okay for a Missionary or Minister to Retire?

I serve as a professor of missions in the Philippines, and administrate a Christian counseling center. Some would say that this makes me a “missionary.” Others might say that this makes me a “cross-cultural minister.” I don’t really care what term one wants to use— I hardly care about the term that I myself use.

It is also true that in 3 months I will be turning 60. My wife, who serves in the same role (whatever one chooses to call it) is somewhat older than me and so already well into the age where people often plan for (or are traditionally forced into) retirement.

But is retirement Biblical? I have certainly known Christians who idealize those missionaries who live, serve, and eventually die in the field. Is what they idealize actually ideal? Others suggest that the calling of God is forever, and so if one was called to be a missionary, and change plans later in life, well that is a rejection of that call. Some suggest that Peter and Paul did not retire, so who is to say that it is okay for us? (Of course, they were martyred before that option really came up so that argument is really weak.) Sometimes, the disapproval of retirement even extends to changing ministry roles. Calling is to an office, and that does not change (in their view). Some argue that retirement is a modern idea and so should be looked on with a certain amount of suspicion.

You may think that I am setting up a strawman argument here. Most mission agencies (as far as I know) recognize and support retirement. Most people I know accept that retirement is an option— people regularly ask whether my wife and I will return to the US when we retire or stay in the Philippines (a tough decision actually). Still, I do see some of these attitudes from the previous paragraph pop up on the Web as if they express a certain godly insight that we have lost.— we lack the the godly resolve of our spiritual forebears (they suggest).

I come from a Baptist tradition. I might have said Evangelical tradition, but in recent years that term seems to have become a political movement, so I guess I am no longer on that train. Regardless, both groups tend to ask the question ‘Is it Biblical?’ A second question often asked is whether it was a practice of the early (primitive) church or not. So I would like to look at these.

#1. Numbers 8:23–26. This passage speaks of the “retirement” of Levites. Those Levites that reach the age of 50 can assist their younger Levites but must not do the work themselves. Some would argue that this is not retirement because it speaks of Levites still being active after “retirement.” However, limiting retirement only to “stopping all things that is productive or ministerial” seems a bit too narrow.

#2. I Kings 19. Her we see an example of the “retirement” of a Israelite prophet. Elijah is burnt out and travels to the mountain of God and hides in a cave there. Elijah is tired, feels defeated, and wants to quit (or even stronger… wants to die). God instead gives him three tasks. The first and second are anointing two people as kings of their respective countries. This is not a particularly strenuous pair of tasks. The third was to find Elisha to be his replacement. I would argue that this implied moving to a role of mentorship. For some people, they might see Elijah retiring with his being taken up into the heavens. I would argue that his retirement started in that cave on Mount Horeb.

#3. The Didache speaks of several roles in and around local churches. One role was Apostle. This appears to be a church planter. Another role that is outside of the established local church was Prophet. This appeared to be a traveling preacher. In the Didache, there is a section where there is a process given for allowing a Prophet to stop being a prophet and become an Elder in a local church. This may not sound like retirement. However, it shows that the early church did not see ministerial “offices” as permanent. Why might a Prophet want to be an Elder in a local church? An obvious reason is that being a traveling preacher is wearying as one ages. At some point in being elderly, it may make a lot of sense to become an Elder in a church, where one does not have to move around.

#4. St. John. We know of John as an Apostle— a proclaimer of the gospel and planter of churches. We believe he was never martyred and had a full lifespan. We also have some confusion about his later life. Was he the Apostle John who eventually resided in Ephesus and wrote Revelation? Or was it a person known then as John the Elder? One possible answer was that in his later years, he retired from being an apostle and became an elder in the church of Ephesus. This would be consistent with what the Didache described regarding prophets. This last point is speculative but consistent with the previous points.

Putting these things together, what might one say?

God recognizes we are limited human beings. We age, we change, and we die. Ministerial success involves passing the torch. Change of life certainly may necessitate change of roles. I have heard people talk fondly and proudly of W.A. Criswell, a Baptist pastor, who rejected retiring and served as senior pastor for over 50 years. But is that something to applaud or condemn? I have seen missionaries fail to hand over their leadership to others. Did they think they were immortal? Did they not care what happened to God’s work after they died? I don’t know… but failing to transition and pass the torch is not necessarily virtuous. Retirement does not mean stopping ministry. It does, however, mean changing the nature (quality and quantity) of ministry. Retirement does not necessarily mean a once in a lifetime event. There may be multiple changes of roles and changes of scope in ministry. I have a friend who “retires” about every two years. He sheds some more work and responsibility each time. I THINK he finally went through his last retirement about three years ago, but we will see.

Happy Easter and Good Friday

I would like to wish fellow Christians around the world a Happy Easter. Here in the Philippines, Holy Week is a big thing, the keystone to the Christian Liturgical calendar. Of course, in some parts of the world, it is more subdued of necessity. In other parts, Secular Easter (bunnies, eggs, and the like) may dominate.

I do appreciate YouTube Channels such as “Religion for Breakfast” that have recently worked to debunk the pop argument that Easter is essentially a Pagan holiday with Christian trappings. However, if it was true… that Easter has deep Pagan roots… that would still be fine. Every day is big enough for more than one celebration.

I will share a link to a post I did on Good Friday. It may not be Great, but it is certainly Good enough.  Good Friday is Good Enough

Salvation: Unearned? Yes! Free? Not So Sure

I remember being told over and again that our salvation is free— Free grace. As a kid, this seemed fine and good. Who doesn’t like free? And in a sense the word “free” is correct… but I believe there are problems with the term that should not be ignored.

Simply in terms of common definition, there are problems. Two common meanings are (1) No cost, and (2) Under control of no one and nothing. Both of these definitions make a sense on some level, but both are false on some level as well. For the first definition it could be said that there was no cost for each of us… but I would argue that this is not completely true. More on that later. As to the second definition, we can say that we are not under the bondage of sin or the Law… but that does not mean that we are lawless or have no responsibilities to another. A careless mixing of these two definitions can lead to a certain “cheap grace” and “antinomianism.” In the real world, when we hear the word “free” bandied about, especially in terms of the first definition, a lot of bad connotations can arise. One is, that which is free is worthless. Psychologically, we also tend not to value things that are given free. Finally, when I hear that something is free… I tend to look for “what is the catch.” Is it bait-and-switch. Is it really, “purchase something and get something “free” at no additional cost? Is it free now… costly later? Most importantly, I do question the main premise… that salvation costs us nothing. I would argue that it is extremely costly to turn from making our own choices to placing ourselves under God’s will and plan. That which is seemingly free involves giving up our freedom. Now if someone counters that we are giving up bondage to one thing (sin particularly) so that becoming a bondservant of God is (by comparison certainly) freedom, I would still say that reorienting our lives to be under the law of grace is still costly. I think that, at least for some people, free salvation from our end means free salvation from the side of God. Evangelicals do like to say things like “Salvation was free for us, but cost God everything.” It is a nice saying, but is pretty abstract. What does “cost God everything” really mean? I don’t think people say it really reflect on what extent that is true or not true. In practice, I think too many see salvation as transactional. If it is freely received, it must ultimately be easily given (like the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).I think it pushes a poor evangelistic method. A number of them go in the direction (I will use the Hand Illustration for guidance): “So because of what God did, what are we to do? Just one thing… one small little thing. Just pray, ask forgiveness and ask Jesus to come into you heart. Can you do this ONE LITTLE THING TODAY?” Is that a little thing? I don’t think so. I think it is a big and serious thing… a momentous and life-changing thing. The respondent should never view it as anything less than this. If that leaves someone not ready to respond positively… that is probably a good thing for everyone.

I prefer to say that salvation is unearned. We cannot work our way to being saved. We cannot impress God by our efforts and piety. I feel this leads us better toward an understanding of our commitment as a child of God, as well as having gratitude to God. Having studied so many different religions, the idea of salvation as being unearned is fairly unique. Most tend toward the old Egyptian understanding of a balance. Our bad works are put on a balance, or perhaps the purity of our hearts, and if whatever it balances against, leans the correct way, we are saved… but if not, bad things follow. This is not how it works. Through our own labors, the balance would always work against us.

Christ sacrificing and humiliating Himself as an act of love on our behalf helps us understand how far God is willing to go to seek us out and draw us to Himself. He has done the “heavy lifting” because we cannot. We cannot earn it, we do not deserve it, but we can accept it unearned placing ourselves under Christ’s realm and authority. In a sense it is free… but it is really better than free.

It is costly and unearned.

Evangelical Missiological Society (Southeast) Conference

I attended the EMS (Southeast) Conference on April 5, 2025 at North Greenville University. I have never attended a missiology conference before— in fact, I don’t go to mission conferences all that often. I hoped this would be a good and new experience for me.

Truthfully, it was a good experience. I am not sure how many attended… perhaps 50? 60? There were also some online, but I have no idea how many. The event started with a plenary gathering with a presentation by Travis Kerns.

Kerns was supporting a view that evangelism is tied to apologetics. I must admit that I have never been sympathetic to this viewpoint. I have generally felt that apologetics is better a giving comfort to adherents rather than changing the view of “opponents.” That being said, I feel that Kerns made a strong case for his perspective, and I can see that some of the difference in opinion comes from where apologetics tends to get lumped. Often apologetics is seen academically as part of Philosophy. Kerns would prefer that it was seen as part of Missions/Evangelism, or at least more generally with Theology.

After that plenary gathering, the rest of the day the group could choose one of four rooms for a paper presentation. Each presentation was 25 minutes long with an additional 10 minutes for questions and answers. This allowed for a lot of presentations. There were several interesting presentations that I attended. I am not even sure I can say which ones were more impactful. Three that come to mind were all in the afternoon.

I attended one on considering Cultural Intelligence (CQ) as applied to “Kingdom culture.” The notes handed out were very accessible… and I feel like I will gain from exploring this more.Another was on the issue of “embodiment.” I had no really understanding of this. I was familiar with Virtual Reality churches as well as online faith gatherings and communities. The issue has to do with the link (or the failure of link) between the online person (or persona) and the embodied IRL person. While I must say that I was aware of this disconnect, I never really thought about its impact on Christian community online.Perhaps the one that hit me most was one that surprised me. It addressed the disconnect between “White” church and “Black” church missions. It is noted that black churches in the US typically are not strongly involved in international or cross-cultural missions, in comparison to white churches. However, that fact obscures some important facts. First, most leaders of white churches see “missions” as called by the Great Commission (particularly the Matthew version). Leaders of black churches in US commonly see their missional calling set by Luke 4— that is, Christ’s declaration of His own calling. This one clearly links proclamation with liberation. With this in mind, it is pretty clear why black churches are very active helping out their community and more holistic in their strategies. Additionally, their work is less guided by pragmatics. Rather than saying that one side is all right and one side is all wrong… both can value from learning from each other. (That being said, I feel that black churches may be closer to the heart of God in many ways as opposed to many white churches… but I could be wrong.)

I found it to be a valuable time. That being said, I will bring up a few criticisms, while noting that there were valid reasons for pretty much all of them.

A. 25 minutes is not really long enough to present a full paper. Almost all of the presenters struggled with the time constraints with some kind of buckling under the limitations. This goes along with the next point.

B. There was no real down time. Outside of the quite adequate lunch break and two short coffee breaks, there was no real time to chitchat. Perhaps it was enough for the purpose of the gathering but for an outsider such as myself, more opportunities for formal as well as informal interaction would be helpful.

These issues were based on the role of the gathering. Primarily it was to present and respond to papers that are to be submitted to the national gathering. They had a lot of papers to review. Ideally, an extra day would have helped… but that would cost more and challenge the schedules of many (including myself).

C. Different presenters were given freedom on what materials would be shared. Some printed off papers, some made available illustrations, or QR codes to the presentations. Others really did not provide anything. It would be nice to standardize this… making them available to all who attend.

That all being said… I look forward to, hopefully, attending more of these sort of events in the future.

Race Matters… Sort of. But Should It? (Part 2)

My previous post is HERE.

In the Bible, there is no EXACT equivalent of “Race” as we presently use the term. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to come up with any sociological term that has an exact equivalent two millennia ago. People group? Culture? Religion? Ethnicity? The closest to something that is constant is “family” perhaps but that is not to say that the range of groupings we might define as a family would be identical to what might be in other settings

The Bible has terms that get translated today as “nations,” “tongues,” and “tribes.” These terms all point toward the clumping together of people into social groupings beyond individual and family. They don’t however, line up exactly with “race.” Frankly, there are inconsistencies in how we use the term today. From a biological frame of reference, there are no races. There are no sub-categories of human that are sneaking up on developing into a new species. We are remarkably similar and compatible genetically to each other. Therefore, we we put together a hodge-podge of differentiating qualities and label them races. But consider Revelation 7:9

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

John is given a vision of Heaven. I don’t see this as our eternal state in the sense that I don’t believe this should be interpreted as what we will do minute by minute, hour by hour, century by century, forever. First of all, that would undermine other visions of Heaven that include the joining of Heaven and Earth, a city with many gates, a river with fruiting trees, animals in peaceful coexistence. What is the point of telling us all about these if we will never have a chance to walk the restored Heaven/Earth? Eat the fruit from the trees along the river? Enjoy interacting with animals in a restored creation? Use the gates for entering and leaving the heavenly city? If we are only standing in a big room all the time, much of what we know about the eternal state is irrelevant.

Instead, we should see this verse as a snapshot, a performance to reveal some things to John and to us. God’s reign is universal. It is for all. The differences we see in people around us are not particularly important in God’s Kingdom. We see visualized the complex interaction of UNITY and DIVERSITY

There are representatives of every nation, tribe, people and tongue. Are these differences discernible to us? Is praise here done in different languages? Don’t know. Do people have different skin tones, hair types, sexes, apparent ages, and more? Presumably. Does the cultural backgrounds have an honored place in Heaven? Not sure.

The key point is that there is diversity. But there is also unity. They are all dressed in white robes– not to stifle individual and cultural uniqueness but shown for the sake of John of their moral purity– despite their differences because of the Lamb of God. All of them have palm branches in their hands. Again, this is probably not seeking to suggest a cultural sameness, but to help John (who was a Galilean Christian) to recognize celebratory praise.

But what does this tell us about the church today?

-The ideal is where all people are welcome and join together as followers of Christ— placing none above or below others.

-Differences do not undermine the common goal and oneness through Christ.

Paul speaks of this Unity and Diversity

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Paul suggests those under the Law and those not under the Law (Jew/Greek), those of different social or legal statuses (bond/free), and those of different sexes (male/female) are united, or one, in Christ. The passage goes on to make clear that we all part of the Abrahamic promise— heirs of the Kingdom. This, however, brings up the question of whether diversity is still honored or recognized. I would argue that differences are still honored. The Jerusalem Council sought to find ways for Gentile and Jewish Christians to identify themselves as united in Christ while practicing their faith differently. Unity did not suggest blind to unique differences. The same can be said as to social status. The older are to train the younger. The master is to be benevolent to the enslaved. The enslaved are to serve in good conscience. Social status was not to be ignored completely. Men and women are seen in the Bible as having (somewhat) different roles.

I feel like I am throwing out random thoughts. Let’s ‘cut to the chase’– Here are some thoughts I have:

-The Bible supports common purpose, but not sameness.

-Differences can be celebrated without undermine commonality.

I add, with caution the conflict between Paul and Peter recorded in Galatians. I struggle with whether Paul was right or Peter was right. Paul was the writer of Galatians and he clearly thinks he was right. But the Holy Spirit blessed us in making the story available enough for us to decide for ourselves. Was dishonoring a cultural tradition of one group/race the way to show spiritual unity (as Paul suggested), or would honoring the differences better show such unity (as Peter at least was practicing). I truly don’t know. And that is part of the problem of celebrating differences.

We see a similar struggle in the US with ethnic churches. Do having churches for different ethnicities express a moral good by honoring differences? There were, presumably different housechurches in cities in the first century church where different languages and other discernible variations were practiced. On the other hand, bringing together different groups into one local church setting— does this better express unity, or does it stamp out variety?

In the US we have had centuries of systemic racism. In the 1960s and 1970s there was growth of affirmative action and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion)— where hiring and other selection activities may be done based on race and other characteristics to broaden the diversity of the membership. Right now, that is being undermined by a call to “color-blindness”— or completely ignoring race in selection. Some see that as a noble goal. Arguably that is true. However, if things were lopsided for decade after decade and century after century, to (almost literally) turn a blind eye to the problem simply leaves the problem unaddressed. DEI at least acknowledges the problem and seeks address it, even if it is not a long-term solution.

The same problem can happen in the church. We are not particularly good at being race-blind, gender-blind, language-blind, nationality-blind, citizenship-blind and more in the church. The goal would be a place where differences are celebrated while unity is fully maintained. However, we are nowhere near that point. Pretending that differences don’t exist, sadly, mean that we will leave inequities unaddressed— unaddressed because they won’t be seen by people who benefit from the inequities.

Race Matters— Sort of. But Should It? (Part 1)

“I am not racist, but …” Do you love talks that start out like that? Almost always it goes into uncomfortable places pretty quick. Often to say one is not a racist is either a ploy to try to get people to listen. Perhaps more often it is something like, “I like to envision myself as NOT being racist and am blind to the implications of many of my beliefs I have not deeply reflected on.” I can’t pretend not to be racist… and perhaps one of the surest evidences I have for being racist was my decades-long lack of interest in race. While some would describe this as “color-blind” it also can be a backdoor to supporting racism and other forms of bigotry. Years ago, I wrote a textbook of sorts for my students at seminary on Cultural Anthropology. In it, my shortest chapter was on Race. My main two reasons for this were (1) Race doesn’t really exist, and (2) Race should not matter. Of course, the second point flows from the first.

Throughout history, however, it seems as if Race does matter, so perhaps it does exist. The problem is that no one has really comes up with a universally accepted list of races. Consider the case of Colonial Philippines. There were several groups that could be identified as Racial Groups (or perhaps Ethnic Identities) during the Spanish era:

-Blancos (“Whites” or of European descent)

-Indios (Full-blooded ancestry from the Philippines, Malayo-Polynesian in looks, and Christian)

-Sanglay (Full-blooded Chinese)

-Negrito (dark-skinned tribal peoples in the Philippines, such as the Aytas)

-Igorot (Animists from the Cordilleran region of the Philippines)

-Moros (Muslims from Southern Philippines)

-Mestizos (Mixed race peoples)

While race is often seen as a genetic thing by some, or at least by appearance, only two groups above are identified fully in this way (Blancos and Negritos). The others are at least in part defined by culture, country of origin, or religion). The groups were defined by the Spanish based on their values and how they wanted to legally segregate people. Blancos had the most privileges. Mestizos were below the Blancos but still above the other groups. Sanglay were ghettoized. Moros and Igorots were lower than Indios since they were not Christian. As you might guess, Mestizos kind of mess up the system. And that sort of messing of things is part of the reason, I suppose for historical laws against miscegenation (marrying and procreating across racial boundaries) in many cultures. I was married in a state that 30 years earlier would not have allowed it due to anti-miscegenation laws.

In the US, many states had laws based on race. However, due to the large numbers of people who don’t fit into neat little categories of race, many states simply divided between Whites and Coloreds. This could get pretty weird at times. My father-in-law was Filipino but he was considered to be non-Colored in the Southern US, while his brother (not step brother or adopted brother) was deemed Colored and so was treated worse… legally.

Just looking at the previous two paragraphs, one can identify a few things.

Race tends to be tied to (a) superficial physical characteristics, (b) ancestral homeland, (c) religion, and (d) cultural grouping. The determination of what people should be grouped together is likely to vary wildly depending on the perceived “needs” of a particular society. For example, in the United States, it has been considered important to identify those who are of “black” African ancestry, but not so much for those considered “black” from other parts of the world (such as the Aytas of the Philippines, or people from Melanesia). In the Philippines, it was traditionally exactly the opposite. It was seen important to identify Aytas (“Negritos”) while not so much to identify people from Africa.

We would then say that Race is “Socially Constructed.” It is NOT genetic. It is NOT “real,” at least in ways most people would consider real. It is interesting that in the US there seems to be a move against those who believe that race is a social construction, in favor of those who believe it is genetic. And people have made it a bit of a political thing. But it is not really a political thing. Race has ALWAYS been a contextual taxonomy for political or social purposes. If that is unpopular with one segment of society— fine. But that won’t change anything.

I know people tried. When I was young, in church, I was taught that there were three races— “White,” “Black” and “Asian” (or brown or Semitic or whatever was the preferred term). Whites were linked to Noah’s son Japheth, Blacks to Noah’s son Ham, and everybody else it seems to Noah’s son Shem. This sort of genetic view was a bit racist but also a bit progressive. It was racist partly since it seemed to justify mistreating blacks (Ham, the father of the blacks supposedly, was the “bad” son of Noah). On the other hand, in the early centuries of Catholic and Protestant Missions, there were always those who wondered if some races were sub-human (not children of Adam). In scientific circles in the late 1800s and early 1900s, biological evolution gave justification for racism by suggesting the possibility that some people were genetically advanced/superior while others were genetically primitive/inferior. So I suppose being taught that all people descended from the sons of Noah wasn’t such a bad thing compared to some other options. Of course, within a couple chapters of the Flood narrative in Genesis, the three-part division of races appears to be upended in the story of the Tower of Babel, where the dissemination of people throughout the world was driven by language rather than family ancestry.

The late 1800s grew what was called Race Science that sought to categorize races in a way that is… well… scientific. These efforts were, most would agree, pretty much a failure. variations in appearance tend to fit not only into a spectrum (as opposed to clearly delineated categories) but a series of not-always-related spectra. In the early 1900s people were classed into five groups—- Black, White, Red, Yellow, Brown. Another list did not have “Brown” but add “Dusky” and “Orange”(!). Of course, it is not hard to see issues with these classifications as well. For the most part, they claim to be based on skin-town, but really are on region of ancestral origin (mostly). What really separates, for example, Red, Yellow, and Brown? In the other system, Black versus Orange appears to be based on region rather than skintone. In the US this was compounded even more since these groups were not very useful for meeting the “othering” needs of Americans. Often religion and language would be worked into the process as well.

Bringing it together– Race is a Social Construct, driven by a Social Purpose— to define Them versus Us.

But what should we as Christians do in terms of race? St. Paul makes it clear that race has no real role in the Kingdom of God. John idealizes unity with diversity where people of every tribe, nation, and tongue join together in common purpose as equals before the throne of God. Aristides speaks of different races. He categorized all Christians as being “of the same race.” Of course, one could respond, correctly that race as a concept was handled differently back 2000 years ago. That being said— the function was still the same… to identify who is “Us” and who is “Them.”

Does this mean that the church is to be “color-blind”? As a member of a multi-racial family, I generally desire for the the answer to be “Yes”— the church should not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

But, like everything else— there are nuances to this that can’t be ignored. I will try to play around with some of these in the next post.

Maybe St. Paul Was NOT a Good Mission Strategist?

Paul and Barnabas Ministering in Cyprus

Roland Allen wrote his influential book “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours,” published in 1912. The book challenged colonial mission strategies. He suggests that we would gain greatly from following Paul’s mission strategies.

And generally I agree that there were many problems with the traditional way missions was being done (and is still often done). I do also believe that we can gain much by taking seriously the strategies used by Paul in the Book of Acts.

But did the strategies come from Paul? I would like to suggest that Barnabas was the strategist. Of course, I don’t know this. However, there are reasons to suspect this.

#1. The successful strategies used by Paul were primarily associated with his first two missionary journeys— and these were associated with Barnabas. Barnabas and Paul traveled together on the first mission trip. The second mission trip did not include Barnabas, but they had actually planned out the trip together (before their fight). This is far from convincing, but when we see the innovation being associated with them working together, one must wonder who the source of the strategy came from. (more on this in a later point.)

#2. Barnabas was the leader of the first mission trip. This seems pretty clear. For one thing, Luke, the author of Acts, listed Barrnabas before Paul during the early parts of that trip. This is despite the fact that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Second, the people of Lystra seemed to think that Barnabas was the leader. When the decided that Barnabas and Paul must be gods among them, they identified Barnabas as Zeus and Paul as Hermes. This suggests an age difference since Zeus was the father of Hermes. It also suggests possible roles. Zeus was the head/leader of the gods, while Hermes was the messenger of the gods. Perhaps Barnabas was seen as the leader, while Paul did most of the preaching.

#3. Barnabas was likely a mentor of Paul. Barnabas was known as a mentor— his real name was Joseph but was known by his nickname, “Son of Encouragement.” Barnabas was the one who presented Paul to the Twelve and vouched for him. Later he sought out Paul to assist him in his work at the church of Antioch. Later, we see Barnabas in his role as a mentor in his work with his nephew John Mark.

#4. We don’t see much in terms of good mission strategy from Paul after this. The third mission trip was pretty similar to the second. After that Paul’s activities seemed to be pretty suspect in terms of mission strategy. He decided that he needed to go and minister in Jerusalem. The prophet Agabus sought to dissuade him of this as well as other church elders. Paul went anyway and seemed to be generally ineffective. Truthfully, when I read Acts 23, it seems like Luke is pretty uncertain whether Paul was correct in his decision. Later, Paul decided that he needed to go and testify before the Roman Emperor despite the fact that he had opportunities to be released. He ended up wasting, apparently 5 years of his life. It simply does not seem as if he was good at mission strategy when he wasn’t with Barnabas.

Now are there counterarguments here? I think one might argue that his approach to reaching out the Stoics and Epicureans in Athens (Acts 17) does seem to show a very clever strategy. I suppose that contextualization of theology was already established in the first mission trip (if not before in Antioch) with using different methods to reach out to Jews (such as in the synagogues) versus Gentiles (such as the people in Lystra). Still, it could be argued that Paul’s work in Athens (although not seen by some as highly effective) could be a clear demonstration of good strategizing in a new situation.

I am not seeking to minimize the importance of Paul. Paul was a great theologian and a great writer. He was even a great missionary. Paul became a good, perhaps even great mentor. But no one is good at everything. By his own admission, Paul was not seen as a great preacher. He was seen as a much better writer than speaker.

If he was not a great mission strategist, that does not take anything away. God works through teams more than individuals. Paul was a great part of a great team.

Which Stone Killed Goliath?

This is a reflection on a previous post I wrote about David and Goliath. If you want to see the first one, you can CLICK HERE>

38 Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. 39 David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off. 40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.

… 48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. <I Samuel 17: 38-40, 48-49>

Good morning. The passage read a moment ago is from a larger story in the Bible commonly known simply as David and Goliath.

Our part of the story has David trying on the armor of King Saul, putting on the helmet, and fastening the sword over his tunic. He tries them out. They feel awkward… uncomfortable. Instead he takes his sling and his staff, and gathers five stones from a stream. He runs out to the battle, takes a stone out of his pouch, launches it at Goliath, and kills him. Later David goes over and cuts off his head because… well, why not?

This is an amazing story of how a pretty ordinary guy, with a sling and five stones, and don’t forget the staff, killed a giant of a soldier. And he did it with only one stone. But here is a question… a question the Bible leaves unanswered—Which stone was it? Was it the first? Second? Third… fourth? Maybe it was the fifth one. We don’t know. But let’s speculate on this a bit. Let’s think about some possibilities.

1. We can try logic or experience to figure this out. I have used a sling before. In the artwork in Bible story books, they always show David using a sling over-head. Maybe that is the way he did it. I don’t know.

From personal experience, that it is extremely difficult to aim that way. I would do it underhand… which works great, by the way. Doing it this way, it is easy to control azimuth— moving towards the right or the left. But it is still hard to control height.

Letting go of the strap even a fraction of a second early or late will affect the angle of release and the height it achieves. The overhead method I find even harder because you don’t have good control of either height or azimuth.

Whatever method David used, I am sure he was very very good. But clearly he knew he wasn’t perfect. That’s why he chose five stones… not just one. As David took each shot he was likely to get more accurate as he adjusted to the terrain, the distance, and the wind.

On the other hand, each subsequent stone was likely to be worse and more likely to veer off course. The first one would probably be his best— very round and smooth… likely to fly straight and true. The last stone… probably more flattened and rough likely to go on an unintended path. So each time David shot a stone he was likely to become more accurate with practice and less accurate due to stone selection. I feel that logic and experience may not give us the answer.

2. From a ballistics standpoint, the ideal stone would be the third stone. One of the odd jobs I had long ago was gunnery director officer. Our ship had a Mark 42 gun. This gun used shells that weighed about 30 kilograms. We would fire at a target. My job was to spot where the shell hit and give guidance to the gunnery crew on how to adjust the gun so that we would eventually hit the target. I did this by bracketing. So if the first shell was long, I would intentionally adjust so that the next one would be short. Now the target was bracketed, and it was relatively easy to then adjust and hit it on the third shot. So maybe what David did was bracket his shots to hit Goliath with the third stone. Possible.

3. But let’s also look at it from a storyteller’s point of view. David and Goliath is History… but it also is a story. If the storyteller says David collects five stones and then says that David killed Goliath with the very first stone… well, the storyteller just wasted four stones. Good storytellers don’t do that. Making it the fifth stone adds dramatic tension. It also provides structure in the story where one can add details, build drama… and teach.

Consider a different example from the Bible— In the Book the Judges, Samson has his hair cut by some Philistines while he slept. The story said that Samson had seven braids. Imagine a storyteller sharing with a group. He may say, “Now Samson was sleeping, and the Philistines snuck into his room. They were so quiet because the Spirit of the Lord was mighty upon him. Samson’s long hair was gathered into seven braids. Carefully, so carefully they began to cut his hair.

Samson took light his Nazarite vow—SNIP, the first braid was gone. Samson used God’s empowerment for selfish and fickle purposes— SNIP goes the second braid.” The story continues and builds until “Samson was unfaithful to Adonai, the God of Israel— SNIP the final braid was gone and the Power of the Spirit of the Lord left him.”

Perhaps with David and Goliath, the storyteller used the stones to build a similar tension. “David ran into the field of battle. 15 meters from the mighty warrior he stopped— just beyond the range of Goliath’s spear. He put down his staff and reached into his shepherd’s pouch and pulled out a smooth round stone. He placed the stone in his sling, Plants His Feet Firmly, SWINGS HIS SLING OVERHEAD AND AS THE MOMENT ARRIVES DAVID RELEASES THE STRAP AND…

Oh wait… I need to talk about Goliath. We know he is big… but how big? That’s important to the story. Some texts state that he was about 9 ft 9 in. Others state that Goliath was about 6 feet 9 inches. Now I don’t know which is correct. But from a storytelling standpoint, the shorter height, 6 foot 9 inches, is much better. Why? Well, the immediate conflict here is David versus Goliath, but in the broader narrative the conflict is David versus Saul. And what do we know about Saul? We know he was a warrior king. He did not direct his armies from the palace, but fom the battlefield. He had armor, helmet, and sword and knew how to use them. We also know from an earlier story that Saul was described as the most impressive man, physically, in all of Israel. And it states that Saul was shoulder and head taller than other men of Israel. So if the average man in Israel is 5 foot 6 inches, for example, Saul was definitely over 6 feet… maybe 6 foot 3 inches. So if Goliath was 6 foot 9 inches, then King Saul was probably the only person in all Israel who had the physical size and strength and military skills to challenge Goliath. But what does he do. He gives his sword, armor, and helmet to a teenager who was much smaller, and untrained in hand-to-hand combat. The story works better if Goliath was shorter.

Also, if he was really 9 ft 9, he was probably slow, clumsy, and in poor physical health. So there’s that. Sorry… back to the story.

DAVID SWINGS HIS SLING OVERHEAD AND AS THE MOMENT ARRIVES HE RELEASES THE STRAP AND… his timing was off. The stone hit the ground, skittering across the rocks and settling near the feet of his enemy. The rumbling sound of laughter and jeering wafted across the battlefield from behind Goliath. Even from David’s camp could be heard some stifled laughter and nervous sighs. Goliath waved his shield bearer away. This will be even easier than he thought.

David quickly reached into his bag and found another stone… not as good as the first stone— but still good. Again he set his feet and launched it. This one drifted right missing the giant man by inches. The third stone was far from the mark, but the fourth hit Goliath straight in the middle of his chest. It made a harmless dent in Goliath’s armor. He laughed and bellowed, “Is that the best you got, boy?!” He started to move forward. David imagined that he felt the earth shake with every step, as he reached into his bag and pulled out the last stone.

It was the worst of the five, flattened on one side, likely to fly off-course. Still David put it into his sling, whispered an impassioned plea to God and launched it at the giant with all of his strength. The stone flew true and embedded itself in Goliath’s forehead.The great man stood there for a couple of seconds like nothing significant happened. But then dismay showed on the faces of the Philistine army as their champion, Goliath, crumpled to the ground— never to rise again.”

That would be one way… I like the story that way… but I am just speculating. I can’t know for sure, and neither can you. Still, I can come up with a few personal reflections.

#1. I am not able to know which stone will work.

I have to wonder if not knowing which stone in the story does the job is actually important in itself.

David trusted God that He is benevolent and will care for His people, but David did not know which stone would hit its mark. In fact, he did not even know if any of the stones would work. That was why he also brought his staff out there with him. He was prepared to go against Goliath’s spear and sword with a stick. Even before this, he tried on King Saul’s armor, helmet and sword. According to the text, he rejected them… not because of faith that they were not needed, but because he was unpracticed with them. They were tools he was unfamiliar with.

You don’t know which stone will work for you either. You don’t really know what God has for you. Perhaps you think you do… but you probably don’t. At seminary, you don’t know what experiences or what courses will prove key in preparing you for your future. When I was a student at PBTS long long ago, I took all of the missions courses that were available in the schedule… and even two that weren’t in the schedule. My final term before graduating, I was supposed to take one more elective. I was excited but there were no missions classes offered that I had not taken— no theology electives or history electives or CE electives. There were music electives, but I wasn’t going to take those. The only elective that I could take was Individual Counseling… a PC course. I did not want to take that. Yet it is one of the most valuable classes I took at seminary as I serve as I now serve as administrator for Bukal Life Care— a pastoral counseling and chaplaincy ministry. Expect to be surprised.

If you have your life all planned out. Wonderful. But be prepared to follow God to Ninevah… even if you already booked your tickets to Tarshish.

#2 God rarely gives me success with the first stone—

2A. Success with the first stone may lead me to think it is all about ME. We are prone to hubris— or ungodly pride. Christian ministers can fall for the trap of thinking that our success is all about us.

Maybe we start collecting titles and awards, and begin putting our name on every ministry we are involved in. Go around as celebrity ministers, speakers, and consultants. Or perhaps run for president of the Philippines, or start calling ourselves the owner of the universe. We ALL need a few failures in life for our moral, psychoemotional, and spiritual health.

2B. Success with the first stone may lead me to think it is all about the STONE. Stones are not all the same.

A good stone for a sling should be as close to spherical as possible a certain size and weight… as smooth as possible, and lacking defects that might cause it to shatter. I am sure that David would choose the best stone as his first stone. If that worked, David might think that it was that stone that brought him success. Perhaps after the fight, he might collect that stone, put it in a display… or wear it around his neck as an amulet or talisman.

In Christian ministry, we can also fall in love with the first stone and think that it was the secret of our success. Write books and lead seminars how we have found the key to exponential ministry and blame others for not being as visionary as we are. The Bible is full of Plan A failures, starting in Genesis 3 and continuing through Scripture.

2C. Success with the first stone will give me less opportunity to learn and grow. When things go well the first time, we tend to believe we have nothing more to learn. It’s our nature. But… when things go wrong… we are fully focused on learning and improving. 17 years ago, the first time I was the team leader for a medical mission trip we were in Kapangan, Benguet. The first mission day, I had managed to schedule the medical mission the same day as a wedding… reducing greatly how many patients we had. On day two, at a second village, I managed to leave one quarter of our team in the first village almost sabotaging that mission event. In the end, things came together and it was a fairly successful trip.

I can assure you, however, that I did not come back from the trip thinking I had nothing to learn. Expect some failures, and recognize them as opportunities to learn and grow.

2D. Failing with the first stone helps me rely on God more. I am sure that David prayed as he prepared to use his first stone. But I am confident in saying that he was REALLY praying by the time he got to the fourth or fifth stone. He understood that he could not depend on his skill… he could not depend on the stone he chose. He could only depend on God.

#3. It is not a lack of faith for me to have multiple stones. God knows the mind of God. We don’t. God knows His plans for us. We don’t. I like the term “Proactive Availability.” This means we are ready to serve even though we don’t know what we will be called to do. So we prepare for different things. This is not a lack of faith…. It is an ACT OF FAITH. Having faith in God is not the same as believing that you know the full will of God, or believe that you can control God. David had faith that God would give him victory over Goliath… but he did not know how that victory would come about. He was prepared for what God would bring.

#4. God will give me a chance to use the second stone. God wants me to learn and grow so He gives me a chance with a second stone. Because of this, it is wise to always have a second stone with me. If I do fail, I mess up with the first one, I shouldn’t worry. God will give me another chance. God, I believe, will give you another chance too. God is the God of the second stone, God is the God of the third stone… and the fourth. Maybe even the fifth stone. So be prepared.

As I said, I don’t know how you feel about my reflections to this question that the Bible does not answer. Regardless, here is some reflecting you can do this week.

— Do I have faith in God… or faith in myself that I can control or predict God?

— Am I prepared to be surprised by what God has planned for me? Can my faith handle uncertainty??

— What stones am I gathering here in seminary to prepare me for the spiritual battles?

Now is the time to prepare for the giants that will come into your life.