Robert Munson's Blog, page 7

Kites Dancing in the Skies (a parable)

A modest change to a story I wrote a few years ago:

[image error]Pexels.com" data-medium-file="https://munsonmissions.org/wp-content..." data-large-file="https://munsonmissions.org/wp-content..." src="https://munsonmissions.org/wp-content..." alt="" class="wp-image-23961" style="width:332px;height:auto" />Photo by Ammar Ahmed on Pexels.com

The kite hung on the back wall of the family garage. Most days it just sat there. Perhaps you might find it sad to be there so day after day in the dark. But for the kite, it was more more like half awake—- only vaguely aware of what was going on, or not going on, around it . It would come to life , as it were, when taken out into the world. The family loved to go to the par k on warm breezy days . On this particularly fine kite-flying day, they w ent to the park and launch ed their kite into the air. Some days, the kite could barely keep itself off the ground. Others, it would soar with ease. These were glorious occasions. This day, the wind caught the kite and s hot it upward, as if it was under its own power, into the skiy. The kite truly felt alive, as it was quickened by the breath of the sky.

The kite looked around in wonder and thrilled at the twists and turns it could make while tethered to the ground. The kite was very happy. It was a couple of hundred feet up , yet it seemed like miles. But then he noticed them.

They were big fluffy white things going by above it . The kite had noticed them before, but these were drifting so near . The kite thought to itself, “Soaring like this is great, but look at those things. They have nothing tethering them to the ground. They go wherever they like. They do whatever they want to do. I am stuck here as they see the world.”

As more line was let out, it got closer to some of the clouds. It could see that the gusts of wind that would send them twisting— pull ing off wisps of cloud and fling others together.

“What a joy it would be,” thought the kite, “to be so uninhibited. Oh, I wish I were so unconstrained. But I have these sticks that force me to stay one shape, and I have this tail that forces me to stay pointing up.”

The kite began to wonder whether they were things at all, or like the unpleasant smoke that came from the family car that would would look like a cloud at first, and slowly fill the garage before fading away. But what car could be big enough to send out smoke like this? But maybe being like smoke would not be so bad.

It watched further and saw one cloud come its way. It was lower than most of the rest. It soon became clear that the kite was going to be hit by this cloud. It did not know whether to be excited by the prospect or terrified. It had hit the ground a few times before, and did not like it. W hat did it feel like to be struck by one of these big white things?

Then it hit. Well, it did not really hit, more passed around the kite. It was amazed to find that it could hardly feel the cloud. It was like smoke, but different— gentle and rather pleasant. It was a slightly damp , yet feathery caress . The cloud continued on pas t as if the kite was never in its way.

“Wow! What a rush!” said the ecstatic kite. “Wouldn’t it be great to be so unaffected by one’s surroundings. I have to worry about trees, power lines and the ground. I am also forced to fly only at the whim of the one who holds my line. But they have no worries like that, they don’t answer to anybody or anything. Oh, I wish I could be like that.”

S ometimes wishes come true sooner than one would ever dream. In this case a gust came along and the extra tug caused the string to snap at the knot . In an instant the kite was free. However, before the kite could really begin to appreciate this new-found freedom, it sensed lack of stability in its flight. The wind began to toss and twist it violently and it soon found itself plummeting to earth. However, the kite never made it to earth. It hit the upper branches of a large oak tree. There it stuck with its crossbars broken, tail ripped off, and sail torn.

There it stayed for months as the elements broke its body down. Now, however, it rarely watched the clouds. Rather, it would love to dream as it watched kites dance in the sky.

Anti-Partisan missions in a Partisan World

At church a few weeks ago our pastor was speaking about God’s command to love one another. He then brought it around to politics. He spoke of the two major parties in the US (I am in the US right now, but will be soon going back to the Philippines). He said something like:

“And I know how some of you are. As a Republican you say, ‘I have to love my Democrat neighbors?’ Yes you do! And as a Democrat you say, ‘I have to love my Republic neighbors?” Yes you do!”

I noticed in one of those challenges, the people in the sanctuary smiled and chuckled a bit. But for the other, the smile and chuckle was a bit constrained and nervous. It was clear that for the majority, one of those challenges did not affect them, while the other one was a bit too close to home. I should note that my church is not nearly so embedded in the “Culture Wars” of the US right now. But regardless, the partisanship is still so intense that many could not even give a convincing fake smile and nod.

As one who is anti-partisan, it is even tougher for me. The call to love all people means I get to struggle with loving ALL people—- and this includes people of all parties (Republican, Democrat, Green, People’s Worker, Libertarian, Constitution, Socialist, etc.). A personal aside to follow. You can ignore and continue below the highlighted section if you prefer.

I should explain what I mean by anti-partisan. I think there is a real name for this viewpoint, and I think I found it once, but now I can’t remember. Anti-partisan, for me, is NOT the same as Non-partisan. Non-partisan may simply mean that one has not (yet) chosen a side. Or it may mean that one has a partisan perspective but consciously chooses to bracket those biases and treat each side similarly. That is not what I mean. Let me use an extremely generic partisan opinion to explain what I believe via contrast. A partisan person, a person who aligns with a person or group, believes that if “their person” or “their group” was in charge, things would be better than they are now. Or if “their person” or “their group” had more power tomorrow than today, things would be better than they are today.

That is what I reject. To me, power is the ultimate drug. Too much power or too much of a power imbalance is bad. My goal is gridlock, balance of power, and undermining those with power. I can’t seem to find the right word for this. “Subversive” does apply somewhat but a partisan can be subversive as easily as one who opposes factions. “Anti-factional” tends to be used to describe the move by members of one faction against another… as opposed to being opposed to factions in the first place. James Madison speaks of opposing factions in Federalist Paper #10, and does express some of my concerns, but ultimately goes in a different direction.

Of course, the US is not the only place where partisanship is strong. In the Philippines there presently is a power struggle between Marcos clan and the Dutertes. I have been asked to express my opinion or choose a side. Due to my ideology, that is difficult. If I stand against one, that does not mean that I necessarily stand for the other. But this is even more difficult when one serves in missions. To what extent is it useful to side with one power group against another?

As a missionary (or cross-cultural minister if one wants to avoid a controversial term), I see Jesus as a model of anti-partisan missions. Jesus did not support power groups, but sided with the marginalized— the powerless.

And yet… when I look at the life of Jesus, I mostly see the difficulties of being anti-partisan.

First century Palestine was a hotbed of power conflicts. There were religious power struggles (pagan versus temple Judaism versus rabbinical Judaism), political (Roman Imperial versus Herodian versus Jewish Revolutionary versus …), and cultural (Hellenistic versus Jewish versus Samarian versus …). Jesus seemed to go out of his way NOT to side with any of them very strongly. Talking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, Jesus gives support to Jews over Samaritans (saying that salvation is from the Jews) but immediately follows that this no longer matters. Jesus appears to side with the Pharisees over the Sadducees (Matthew 22) but immediately after makes it clear that He is not really siding with them either. Jesus appears to support paying taxes to Rome but does so in a way that makes it clear that one’s adherence should be more focused on God than on any power group. He made it clear to Pilate that His own kingdom was ‘not of this world’ but makes attempt then to suggest that this makes Him harmless to Rome. Jesus, on the other hand, made every effort to side with the sick, the power, and the marginalized. He empowered the powerless.

But there was clearly a cost to this strategy. We find that Jesus often had to avoid certain areas for ministry because of His relationship to religious leaders. When told of the death of Lazarus, Jesus determined to leave to head to Bethany and Jerusalem. Thomas clearly recognized that leaving the relative safety of Galilee was potentially a death sentence.

The problem was even greater in his week before His death. On the first day of the week, He was hailed by the people as a Messianic character— very much in a way similar to Judas Macabbeus. Most likely they saw him in terms of political and power factions—- one who would restore political power to the Jews. But during the week, He did not do it. In fact, He seemed more interested in teaching and being in conflict with Jewish leaders. This failure to act in the way that many of His supporters wished seems to be part of the reason they rejected Him so thoroughly only a few days later. Perhaps this same thing is what drove Judas Iscariot. Perhaps he dreamed of a violent overthrow of the Roman rulership. If so, he became disenchanted with Jesus and so betrayed Him. Alternatively, perhaps he thought he could force Jesus’s hand. Turning Him over to the enemy of the Jews would force Jesus to act against that enemy. The trials of Jesus were a lesson in power politics, with the ultimate argument for His death to seemingly be, “whoever is not explicitly for us, MUST be against us.” After His resurrection, He still avoided choosing a side beyond guiding His followers to share the good news with the world— a message without political or ethnic agenda.

So does Jesus provide a good model for missions or a cautionary tale regarding missions? I think the answer is both. His siding with the marginalized is a great thing to emulate. His fighting off the lure of power and politics (include the direct temptation of this by Satan in Matthew 4) is also very commendable.

But there is a cost. To not stand with one group solidly, is often to be seen as the enemy. On the other hand, to stand against something evil, thus perhaps siding with one group against another (at least on that specific issue) may make one be viewed as wholeheartedly being connected to that group. In the Philippines, I was (and am) repulsed by the extrajudicial killings (“tokhang”) associate with the drug war. This puts me at odds with former President Duterte. That does not, in itself mean that I am in support of the power bloc that is on the other side. In the US, I am very unhappy with the anti-immigrant policies, that puts me in opposition to the present leadership. Again, that does not mean that I am on the side of the opposition.

But in the case of Jesus, not playing power politics did not make Him immune to the dangers of those who are highly partisan and concerned about power.

There was a Russian movie that came out in 1994 called “Burnt by the Sun” (Утомлённые солнцем). It spoke of the dangers of getting too cozy with those in power.

Colonial missions often involves missionaries cozying up with oppressors. Some ultimately proved to be a thorn in the flesh of the colonial rulers, siding with the colonized over the colonizers, or even the established mission organizations. They stand head and shoulders in my mind over those who supported the colonizers.

But what is the equivalent today? What are the power factions now? Does being a guest in a country require one to acquiesce to the local government? 

I am still thinking through this.

Well… Decided to Try Out Bluesky

Many years ago I thought I would try out Twitter. I hated it and so deleted my account. A couple of years later I tried again… maybe I hadn’t given it a chance. I was wrong. I had given it enough time. I deleted my account again.

{Now, perhaps you haven’t heard of Twitter, but I believe it still exists but with a different name. The name and logo were pretty much perfect so it is hard to imagine how they improved on it…}

Anyway… I thought a lateral change may be in order. I thought I would try Bluesky. I am not sure if having a name the reminds me of a defunct animation studio is an improvement… but the logo is nice.

Below is the link.

https://bsky.app/profile/rhmunson.bsky.social

Institutions as Shoes, not Feet

In one of my rare forays into FaceBook, I saw the following post shared by one of my friends (I still don’t understand why people like to share other people’s posts…. although I guess that is what I am doing here.)

This is clearly a bit of American political advertizing. If you don’t know the context, then don’t worry about it. But is the statement true? Maybe, maybe not. If it is true, it is no more true than saying, “When you love for one man is greater than your love for our country, you are likely part of the problem.”

But I think that both are morally anemic. I would like to explore a different statement.

The first statements are about partisanship (support our team regardless of how you feel about a member of our team). But the second image/statement I believe supports a moral truth:

GOD LOVES PEOPLE MORE THAN INSTITUTIONS

I feel this is a safe statement to make. Now if you don’t find it compelling… no worries and I won’t seek to dissuade you. But if you do agree, let’s go to the next statement:

INSTITUTIONS WERE CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

Some institutions were divine creations (family, government, and church for example) and some are human creations. Regardless of the source, institutions are valued to the extent that they benefit people. The Church was made for people… not people for the Church. Government was created for people, not people for Government. Family was created for people, not people for the Family.

People do struggle with this. Of course, some come from Individualistic cultures and others come from communitarian cultures. I am not seeking to push an agenda of either. I am from the United States which is quite individualistic (usually) and I have served in the Philippines for more than 20 years which is (mostly) communitarian. Both perspectives can become ugly when taken to extremes. I just believe it is important to understand that people and institutions are not equal before God. God expressed His love to us (people) through Jesus Christ firstly, and secondly through establishing institutions for our good.

PEOPLE ARE VALUABLE TO GOD ALWAYS NO MATTER WHAT. iNSTITUTIONS ARE VALUABLE TO GOD ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY BENEFIT PEOPLE.

National identity can be a tricky one. For some people, their national citizenship has become an intrinsic part of their self-identity. Perhaps the perspective one gets as a missionary is healthier. I have lived approximately 2/3 of my life in one country and 1/3 of my life in another. I am American because of my citizenship and that comes from my birth. My wife is a dual citizen through a combination of birth and a couple of conscious choices. But for neither of us does our citizenship define us. And this is true of all institutions.

INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT FEET.

INSTITUTIONS ARE SHOES.

FEET ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN SHOES

Shoes are for our benefit— our comfort, our protection, and our productivity. They are important. But they are not feet— they are not part of us.

If our family, or our educational system, or our church, or our government tells us to hate or abuse a person… that person is not the problem. It is the institution that is the problem. When we go along with the institution in that case, we become complicit with that problem.

The Value of Being Remembered

Many years ago, soon after I got married, a leader in our church began working with me, taking a role in mentoring me in life and ministry. We only did it for a year, give or take a bit, because I got a job that moved my family to a new city, but I valued the help I received in my spiritual/ministerial journey.

I was in the new city for 8 years and then we moved to the Philippines as missionaries. Perhaps 2 or 3 years after becoming missionaries, we visited our old church and saw my former mentor. I walked up to him greeting him. He was friendly, but a little vague. It took me a moment to realize that he was trying to hide the fact that he had no idea who I was. I will admit that I was hurt by that a bit but tried not to show it. It had been at least 10 years since we had last seen each other, but I still felt that he should remember.

A few months later I learned that he was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. I was part of a broad swath of information and relationships that had become lost due to the ravages of this terminal illness.

I think almost everyone wants to be remembered. Teaching at a seminary, former students will come up to me, often shyly, to say “Hi” often with a self-depreciating “I doubt you remember me, but…”

Usually I do remember, and I try to ensure that they know it… and then try to add something else to show that I know more about them than face recognition and name. People want to be remembered.

I will admit that sometimes this doesn’t happen. Sometimes, I have completely forgotten them. If anything, this happens more often now because some of the classes I teach are online. It is much easier for students to have less impact when they are a tiny head on a screen.

The movie “The Book of Life” spoke of one’s dead ancestors sort of fading away when the living forget them. While we may not take it that literally, it is common to view that the dead are in some sense still alive when they are “alive in our hearts.” But that does require remembering them.

I need to work on my remembering others. It is, I think, an important aspect of the Golden Rule, and the Great Commandment. We remember as an act of love and because we want to be remembered.

 “The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” John 10:3

Ranking Doubt

One of my favorite topics is that of Doubt and Faith. I have long believed that doubt is not bad… but it is a precursor to faith. Recently I read an Islamic article where the writer said that doubt is a healthy first step to Islam with doubt leading to belief. I think I will stick with doubt leading to faith, not belief. However, both views support the idea that DOUBT CAN BE RELIGIOUSLY HEALTHY. (https://hackingchristianity.net/2012/10/doubt-is-the-acid-that-eats-away-the-false.html)

But not all doubt is healthy. I thought I would take my shot at ranking different types of doubt from best to worst. I haven’t seen a good taxonomy of doubt. The one’s I have seen were pretty limited. So here is my list from best to worst. You may disagree with my categories. You may want to add more categories. You may not agree as to what is better or worse than others. Feel free to share those thoughts in the comments.

#1 (Best) Methodical Doubt. This is Descartian Doubt, or the doubt that is used in the scientific method. It is withholding judgment until something can be demonstrated to be true logically or empirically. I like to think of this more generally as NOT immediately pushing the “I believe button.”

When running an experiment, or in doing research, we are supposed to be more interested in finding truth, rather than proving our own beliefs or agenda. I have had to turn down thesis proposals before (or asked the author to rethink and modify) that essentially said, “This research is seeking to demonstrate that…”. In such a case, one is not seeking truth. One is seeking validation. Methodological doubt establishes a foundation of formal doubt. This doubt may not be emotional. Rather, one seeks to bracket one’s biases and beliefs, in the quest of truth.

#2. Reasonable Doubt. In many nations, the standards of jurisprudence support the notion that (legal) guilt is determined based on overcoming reasonable doubt. So perhaps John is caught on video shooting and killing Bill. It may be considered reasonable to verify that the video was not manipulated, or that there are secondary means to show that John probably did it (like documentation of him going to and/or leaving the scene of the crime). It is probably not reasonable to surmise that an extraterrestrial being duplicated his physical form and beamed to the location and beamed away after killing Bill. Reasonable is kind of subjective… but generally we as a culture tend to agree what is reasonable and what isn’t. Reasonable doubt is contextual.

One might argue that reasonable doubt and methodical doubt are essentially the same thing. However,
I think of methodical doubt as being more, well, part of a method. Reasonable doubt is more simply an honest recognition of one’s limitations— in terms of lack of information, uncertainty as to the trustworthiness of information sources, reliability of perception, and ability to deduce truth from falsehood. Methodological doubt is a step for finding truth above all else. Reasonable doubt is the healthy response to the realization of our own humanity, in all of its limitations.

#3. Existential Doubt. Existential doubt is the anxiety associated with questions of existence or being. Why am I here? Why does everything (or anything) exist? Do I (or us as a whole) have a purpose? What happens when I die? Was I designed, or just happened? Am I on the right path, or IS there a right path? Does anything I do truly matter?

#4. Volitional Doubt. Just as one can hold a belief in conflict with sound evidence, one can doubt in conflict with sound evidence. One might call this Unreasonable Doubt. One might also call it Emotional Doubt. Essentially one wants to doubt something (or outright reject something) and so one seeks to create “wiggle room” to embrace doubt even though sound reason would remove that doubt.

What is reasonable versus unreasonable is contextual as suggested before. However, within a culture, we are likely to share a lot in common as to what is reasonable and what is not.

#5. Suppressed Doubt. I think I need to explain this with my own experience. I was raised in a church that was fundamentalist. (I wrote ‘fundamentalist” in small case, because its form of fundamentalism was definitely not extreme, or FUNDAMENTALIST.) I was often told that we are saved by faith, and that faith is the absence of doubt. This led me to deny or suppress doubt. It took me many years to get to the point that I could see doubt as not necessarily bad.

Suppressed doubt is bad, in my view. First, suppressing one’s doubts makes it hard to relate with those who more openly and honestly struggle with doubt. Second, I believe that suppressing doubt means that one is not well-exercised in how to handle doubt when it bubbles out later in life.

#6. Pathological Doubt. Too much doubt can cause problems… like making it hard to make any plans, or decisions. It has been suggested that Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a “disease of doubt.” This is because it involves an inability to distinguish between what is possible, probable, and unlikely to happen. I suppose phobias could be framed in terms of unwarranted doubt or distrust rather than fear.

#7. (Worst) Radical Doubt. (coined by Arne Unhjem) and defines it as “the recognition—often implicit, rather than explicit—that there is no truth and no meaning that deserves man’s unqualified acceptance.” Looking at his work on this in “Dynamics of Doubt” starting on page 40, it seems like Radical Doubt is Existential Doubt that has become morbid. As reasonable doubt can devolve to volitional doubt and finally to pathological doubt, existential doubt can devolve into radical doubt— with the symptoms of meaninglessness, hopelessness, and despair.

———-

If these groupings have value, there are a few things worth noting.

A. Doubt should be seen as far more than a cognitive thing. It also involves emotions and volition.

B. Contrasting it with faith appears to be misguided. Arne Unhjem’s book mentioned above is called Dynamics of Doubt, and I think it is best to think of doubt as a dynamic process (or cluster of processes). This process may lead one towards faith or away from it.

C. Doubt exists in many forms… many of which don’t really live in conflict with or even opposition to faith.

D. From a religious standpoint. the first three categories of doubt are helpful to faith. I have written too much on this in the past. You can look at the links below on that.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I do wish that theologians embraced the productive study of doubt more. There are some who do it… but there needs to be more.

Links:

“Dynamics of Doubt by Arne Unhjem.” Available online by CLICKING HERE

“In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic” by Peter Berger. Available at Amazon by CLICKING HERE.

“Doubt: A History” by Jennifer Michael Hecht. Availabe at Amazon by CLICKING HERE

I have also written a whole pile of posts on Faith and Doubt. The category listing is found by CLICKING HERE

The Wise (and Godly) Fool

I am working on an article (actually, hopefully it will be a chapter of a collaborative book. In it, I have a small section on “The Wise Fool.” I am using it in the manner used in Robert Dykstra’s book “Images of Pastoral Care” as the concept is addressed by Allistair Campbell, and Donald Capps. I see it as a useful paradoxical metaphor for ministry. But I decided to look up more on the issue of the Fool.

I found a very interesting book on the topic— “A Social History of the Fool” by Sandra Billington (The Harvester’s Press: 1984). I was a bit surprised to see a chapter on the “Theological and Philosophical Attitudes of the Fool”.

Billington noted that the term “fool” is a bit too encompassing. It needs to be broken down a bit. First, one needs to separate between “Artificial Fools” and “Natural Fools.” A natural fool is one who is by his or her own nature or condition. An artificial fool, on the other hand, is one by choice— essentially one who mimics in some sense the natural fool. Another term for this is “jester.” This is what “The Wise Fool” in in Dykstra’s book is referring to. The jester has a long history in the royal courts around the world. The jester mimics the natural fool or simpleton, but is not one by nature. The jester is normally full of wit. He (assuming that the jester was always a male role, although I haven’t verified if that was universally true) would be a musician, give an appearance that would lighten the mood, and tell stories, jokes, and other things to entertain.

Curiously, in the Bible we may have an example of this in David. I Samuel 16:15-18

15 Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better.”

17 So Saul said to his attendants, “Find someone who plays well and bring him to me.”

18 One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the Lord is with him.”

While we think of David as simply one who played music for the king who was struggling with something (anger? paranoia? depression?). However, the king’s servants noted other qualities that they felt were important as well. Not only could he sing and play the lyre, but he speaks well and is “fine-looking.” The term “speaks well” suggests a certain skillfulness or even sagacity of speech. That could mean that he is a good storyteller or a sharer of jokes. It may also mean that he could speak wisely, or even prophetically. In the previous chapter, the prophet Samuel had rejected King Saul. Having a young man in which “the Lord is with him” was an added bonus.

Much of these qualities are shared with the jester (or artificial fool). The jester entertains but also shares the truth when others could not would not. The term “jester’s privilege” describes the permission given to a jester to speak things before the court that would not be permitted of others. This not only allowed him to give insults without punishment, but also to express uncomfortable truths. The fact that the jester lived among the nobility but was a commoner also potentially gave him a perspective that the king was normally shielded from. Since most leaders tend to fall into the temptation to surround themselves with the obsequious, the role of the jester can actually be critical for national health.

While the artificial fool can be useful as a metaphor for ministry, there is theological value in the natural fool as well. I was taught that in the Bible, a fool is a morally bankrupt person. The book of Proverbs makes it clear that a fool is one who rejects God and turns to a path of sin and vice. What I was not aware of until I read Bibbington’s book is that there are two Hebrew words the can be translated as fool, and these express two categories of natural fool. One is “Tam” and the other is “Kesil.” (“Nabal” is anot”her one, but is pretty similar to “Kesil”) The first describes what could be called the “Innocent Fool” or one lacking guile. “Tam” can be used simply as being blameless. The other is the “Evil Fool” such as is used in much of Proverbs.

The Innocent Fool has a role in the Bible as well. I Corinthians 4:9-10

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised.

The innocent fool acts based on integrity rather than for money or prestige. They are often looked down upon as being simpleminded, but also respected often. One might recall the command of Jesus to his followers in Matthew 10:16.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Perhaps we see the strength and the weakness of an Innocent Fool. An innocent fool is commendable because he is unmoved by greed or temptation. However, he is at risk because he can be too trusting and thus be tricked. One might see Jesus saying, “Be an Innocent Fool in one’s motivations, but at the same time aware of the dangers that lurk around every corner.”

Perhaps the Innocent Fool also relates to Jesus’s idealizing the faith of a young child. The young child believes and trusts implicitly. Clearly, this is not the endpoint. We start as the innocent fool, as the young child, in our faith journey. However, we also need to grow up. In growing up, we still need to hold onto a bit of the Innocent Fool.

Embracing the Blessing(?) of Social Media

I don’t do much social media. Outside of blogging, I don’t do much. I update things on the Bukal Life Care group on Facebook, as well as the CPSP-Philippines Page. I rarely put anything on my page. The same applies even more to Linkedin. I do use Instagram, but exclusively to put up occasional photos I took. I can’t stand Twitter (X), and consider my life improved immensely when I left it. I have on occasion put videos on Youtube or Vimeo, but almost always just for my students.

The point is, I don’t really take advantage of Social Media much. But today, I looked at my FB feed as I occasionally do, and found my friends simply cutting and pasting (sharing) the “hot takes” or “spins” of other people.

Finally, I kind of lost it a bit. I responded to a political cut-and-paste of a former seminarian,

“I cannot figure out why people use their FB page (a great privilege) to cut and past others’ propaganda. I feel like one of the reasons to go to seminary is to gain theological and ethical insight into the world around us. Simply sharing a (probably) bad take by someone else is such a waste of opportunity. Don’t get me wrong… it seems like everyone is doing it. I might have done it before as well (I can’t remember). If you believe that DT is an ethical and godly leader, then share why that is, based on your training and experience. The same applies if you think that he is an evil troll.”

I must admit that the blurb he was sharing I strongly disagreed with. I feel much less motivated to challenge people who share propaganda that I agree with. But the principle still applies.

The ability to express one’s opinion and put one’s ideas out further than one’s voice can reach is a privilege that was out of reach to all but a few for millennia. So what do people do with it. The share Tweets and FB posts. Are there times to do this? Well, I kind of get it when it comes to images. The ability to capture an idea visually is a gift that not all of us have (I certainly don’t have it). But when it comes to writing… make your words your own. The academic view is best I think. Read, synthesize, share your own words, and quote only occasionally. Additionally, share original sources, and (ideally) identify biases.

Embrace the opportunity to share your originality.

Guidelines for Protestant Missionaries, from 1664

Justinian Von Welz, a Protestant missiologist before all but a few Protestants even thought much about Christian Missions, wrote a treatise in 1664. The English translation of the title is “Christian and Sincere Admonition to All Orthodox Christians of the Augsburg Confession Concerning a Special Society through which with the Help of God Our Evangelical Religion May be Spread.”

Welz gives a number of guidances— both spiritual and practical— as to the life and behavior of missionaries. The following are a few as he describes them. Page numbers are from the book, “Essays by an Early Prophet of Mission” by James A. Scherer (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1969) where I found the English translation of the treatise.

#1. A strong prayer life is key to mission work. “Therefore, dear reader, whoever will be used in the worthy activity of spreading the evangelical faith must be diligent in prayer in all his doings.” (page 70)

#2. The missionary must exhibit a godly life. “The other thing that all departing students should do is to allow the light of their devotion to shine in all places where they go— in their speech and conduct— according to the command of Christ.” (page 71)

#3. Given freedom to serve God freely according to his gifting. “In this society of followers of Jesus everything is done in free will, spontaneously without coercion. Everyone is to serve Jesus Christ our High Priest according to his ability. Everyone is to use his gifts, as they are entrusted to his stewardship, until the last day. (Page 71)

#4. Allow flexibility in terms of place and duration of ministry. “Everyone remains free to undertake this preaching office abroad for two, three, or more years, and if anyone wishes to return to his fatherland after that, or to travel to his own people, or take up a parish in Germany, nothing shall prevent him. If it happens, however, that a member of the society did well in a foreign place and hoped that he might be of further use, then I believe that he will not be able to answer for it at the last judgment if he leaves the congregation he has gathered. … This, too, should be noted, that a student is not bound to travel continuously from one city to another without ever settling down. No, that is not my intention. Rather, in the first place, where he does he may stay. But if he hears that something is to be done elsewhere, he may transfer there, or send an associate there, as Paul did. But frequent travels back and forth cannot accomplish much good.” (pages 70-71)

#5. The missionary candidate must be vetted carefully before being considered to be sent out. “… [D]iligent inquiry is to take place regarding how a student has behaved in other palces, which he must demonstrate through the testimony of his ruler and his pastor. For a drunkard, or a man who leads a scandalous life, seduces women, engages in frivolous talk, or curses and swears, cannot be a disciple of Christ or administer this office. With his wicked life he would more hinder the course of the gospel than advance it, however learned he may be, or gifted as a talker.” (page 72)

#6. Don’t be a troublemaker or argumentative. “The young men should know that they are to act discreetly on the journey, not making themselves known in all places, also not beginning to convert inopportunely or engage in disputes, especially when one has learned from private conversation that nothing is to be gained.” (page 73)

#7. Be content and moderate in one’s living. “Certainly, pious students, if one wills to be content, he finds compassionate people everywhere. But if you want to live well, after the habits of the children of the world, have three or four well-cooked dishes on the table and lie in a soft bed— that requires a lot of money and such a degenerate fellow will never be contented. No matter who looks after his welfare he is frustrated, and frustrates the one who travels with him. Therefore it is best that one observe moderation in eating and drinking. For by a moderate and honorable life as much edification can be given as by much preaching. If the society members are peaceable, avoid quarreling, do not allow themselves to be tempted to prestige, and avoid avarice, they will gain respect, which will sustain them in their work.” (page 73)

What SHOULD Happen When You Become a Supplier Rather Than Consumer for AI?

A year ago I wrote our seminary’s policy for Generative Artificial Intelligence— which I will simply call AI here on out because I am lazy. The policy tries to seek a balance. How can one utilize the potential of AI to enhance the learning experience, and NOT allow it to become a substitute for learning?

So obviously the concern is one being a consumer of AI. It is actually a bit weird that I was asked to come up with a policy for AI since I really don’t use it. I have tried out some of the things one can do in terms of answers, articles, and images, but only as part of research for the policy. I haven’t used it for any other purpose. I am not claiming to be taking the moral high road on this— it is just my personal choice. And here I am not saying that there aren’t moral issues relating to the use of AI. Rather, I am saying that one CAN use AI in a way that is both moral/ethical and beneficial. I just don’t use it. Some day that may change. Who knows?

This website has been gradually getting more views. Last year grew markedly over the previous years, and this year is already trending higher. I find it a bit mystifying since (1) I don’t advertise my posts at all, (2) I don’t use images or SEO strategies that attract attention, and (3) my topics are interesting to me and few others. But… as I was looking at REFERRERS to my website I began noticing something. (Referrers are outside websites that are guiding people to my website.) There has been a growth of AI sites like ChatGPT that are guiding people to my website.

Is guiding the correct word? Probably not. Rather, material I am posting is being used by the AI program to guide output to someone asking a query. I am assuming (correctly?) that actually my website is being used far more than the numbers I am seeing. That is because, assuming again, that the numbers I am seeing are only of people who clicked on the reference of the AI response. That could be wrong. Perhaps the REFER is actually the AI Bot visiting my site. Not sure… doesn’t really matter.

What does matter is that AI is using my website to produce answers, and in some cases actual papers. How should I respond to this? Here are a few things.

Ambivalence. I created this website to express my ideas as my own public diary of sorts. The fact that more people are reading it (at least those who have similar interests) is nice, even if some of the readers are doing so indirectly. I could be offended because AI (Gen AI) is sort of a “plagiarism machine”—- but I have always been more interested in having impact in the world of ideas than I have in being recognized… or being paid (I don’t monetize this site). Where it DOES annoy me a bit is that if it is pulling from my website— essentially a personal weblog— that means it is probably drawing from a lot of other similar ones as well. Many are sketchy. That is part of the reason that in academics, referencing blogs is discouraged, or even forbidden. Responsibility in Research. If a person is reading one of my posts, I feel I can be a bit more opinionated since it is fair to assume that the reader is going into the read not in fully gullibility mode. If they are reading what I write with the “I Believe” button fully pressed, they probably should not be on the Internet. But AI doesn’t necessarily (yet) have that critical sense. Therefore, I have a responsibility to research better and write more carefully.Responsibility in Originality. As I said, I don’t use AI. However, in recent months there has been a growing concern about Model Collapse. What happens when AI queries AI that draws from sources that came from AI researched by AI from AI… continuing that cycle back further and further. I cannot prevent that from happening. However, I can control my little bit of things. I will do my own writing. It may not be better than what AI can produce (although I hope it is), but at least I am a non-AI supplier to AI programs.

If I remember right, the world of DUNE (Frank Herbert) involved a society that had rejected computer AI out of fear of what they could do. The Terminator movie franchise expressed that same fear but in a different way. Frederic Brown’s short story “Answer” succinctly expresses this fear. I have known some people who have interpreted the book of Revelation as “The Beast” having a supercomputer that ultimately can be used to control the lives of everyone on earth.

I cannot control the future, and I think there are enough messed up things clearly going on February 28, 2025 by human beings. I can influence people in tiny ways but I can’t control them or change them. AI is here and is not likely to go away. I cannot control it or change it. I can simply try to influence it in tiny ways… with the hope of have some tiny influence on the consumers of AI.