Robert Munson's Blog, page 8
February 19, 2025
Being a Bad Coach, and How that May Relate to a Bad Minister
I was listening to sports radio yesterday. The issue brought up was about an audio file of Rick Patino, a very successful college mens basketball coach. He was ripping into his team verbally and swearing at them. The question posed was whether today’s student athletes can handle this sort of coaching… or are they now “too soft.”
While I think there was some good discussion on being a good coach today, a lot of the comments came back to:
Complaints about either the present generation, or the parents who raised the present generation. Anecdotes on the order of “When I was young, I had a coach that would rip into us… and I greatly appreciate his influence as to who I am today.”I think I would like to push back on both of those things.
Point #1. The problem is that it is backwards. Good coaches need to adjust their coaching style to the people they are coaching. A Good coach does not complain that coachees do not adjust their personalities and temperaments to the coach’s preferred style of coaching. Coaches cannot change a generation, so they need to dust off some of the tools of coaching to do their jobs well.
Point #2. For every person who can give a “My coach inspired me to greatness,” is a story of a coach that sabotaged a young potential talent.
I do certainly think that there are generational characteristics; but there are variations within generations that are greater than the variation between generations. I suppose I would include myself in this. I am almost 60 years old and I am not really motivated by someone yelling and swearing at me. I feel pretty confident in this statement since one of my former bosses told me this. I served as an officer in the US Navy. Yelling and swearing was starting to fall out of fashion in the US Navy in the late 1980s, but it was most definitely still around. My department head liked to yell, cajole, and belittle as a means of motivation. One day just outside of the Officer’s wardroom he said to me, “Munson, you know… yelling just doesn’t really work on you, does it?” I think I gave some sort of non-committal agreement. But it is true… mostly.
But one thing I did learn from my Department Head was how to make him THINK that I was listening to him. For example, one day he came up to me and yelled, “Munson!! I was checking out the Aft Starboard P-way and saw that the our tools were left there overnight!” I responded with “$%$&!! He knows better than that. I am going to go down a rip him a new one right now!!” I stomped off like I was enraged. But as soon as I got out of sight, I relaxed and went to the division chief and calmly told him to talk to Smith to make sure that he takes better care of our tools.
If you think about it. My Department Head’s yelling was supposedly to make me a better officer, but in fact, what made him pleased is when I made the pretense to learning how to lead from him.
But why would I not be inspired by yelling? Most all military movies and many sports movies tell us that yelling and screaming are very motivational… and it is at least implied that they build character.
I think it did not work on me for perhaps three reasons.
A. Temperament. My natural temperament could be characterized as melancholic. I do remember reading somewhere that people in my group tend to find yelling as demotivating.
B. Parenting. My dad really did not get angry or yell. Frankly, he was pretty good at motivating and guiding me without losing his cool.
C. Personal. I am not sure where I got it from but I developed a belief that yelling and swearing is evidence of a character flaw. Thus, I tend to think that people who lose it in front of a group typically don’t have much for me to gain from.
Is that always true? Not necessarily. I expect some people do find yelling (or fake yelling like I would sometimes do in the military to trick my boss) to be motivating. However, I can’t help but wonder if this creates a self-fulling prophecy of sorts. You yell to motivate. Some get motivated and do better. Others are demotivated by it and move into something different where yelling isn’t done. It gatekeeps the system. The ones who do better have now learned that “yelling works” and then repeat the process in the next generation. After I left the Navy I went into engineering and later into missions and academia where yelling ans swearing is pretty much never done. Shockingly, people will manage to learn and grow in this non-toxic environment!!
Now that the newest generation has a much higher percentage of people who are not motivated by yelling and swearing, people who were led to think “This is what works” are stuck. They blame that generation instead of looking in the mirror and wondering, “Do I need to learn some new skills to motivate and train?”
This is, of course, nothing new. In Christian history it has been long understood that what trains, motivates, disciples, coaches, counsels, or whatever, a young believer to grow in faith and godliness may vary from person to person. There is no “one-size-fits-all” method.
In the Counseling Website I maintain (for our ministry in the Philippines) I shared an extended quote from St. Gregory of Nazianzus, a 4th century leader. I wonder if he and I had some things in common. He complained vehemently about the abusive process associated with his ordination. Anyway, he spoke of this fact that it is the job of a minister to adapt to the individual, rather than assuming the same problem has only one method for fixing.
If you want to read this quote, click on https://bukallifecare.org/2025/02/17/pastoral-care-according-to-st-gregory-of-nazianzus/
February 16, 2025
“I am Not Political, But…”— A Bad Strategem and Its Relationship to Interreligious Dialogue
Okay, maybe you see this, or maybe you don’t… but my FB friends often put up things like:
—“I am not a or , but….” then goes on to list all of the character flaws one group communally has that the other group completely seems to lack. The characterizations appear so completely blind to both the failings of the “good group” and the virtues of the “bad group” that clearly the person is siding completely with one side and against the other.
Why is this done? Well, I should note that it is pretty clear that my FB compatriots are not writing these messages. In some cases it is because they did a direct share from someone else… someone I don’t know. But even ones that look like they might have been personally written by a friend typically don’t have the style of the person who put it on their own page. I am PRETTY SURE they were cut-and-pasted there. So let’s break this down.
#1. Why do my friends share these sentiments? Because they like the political person described, or the characterization given to the political factions. This part is pretty easy.
#2. Why do they choose to share ones that use the stratagem of feigning an unbiased perspective? This one I find more difficult. I can think of two possibilities that are not mutually exclusive. First, some may feel comforted in their opinions that someone “unbiased” or “level-headed” believes the same things they do. Second, some may self-identify as unbiased and reasonable, and so they feel comfortable in sharing it unaware that it undermines that self-perception.
#3. The more important question, I think, is why do the originators of these posts create them using this strategem? While I think, perhaps, that the sharers of these posts may do this with good intentions, I don’t think the originators do it in good faith. That is, I doubt they do see themselves as unbiased or unaffiliated. However, doing it in bad faith doesn’t necessarily mean that they are being bad per se. Rather, I think they are utilizing a technique that has been around for years. Consider this little story:
I was talking to a friend of mine who was Jewish about our respective faiths. During the conversation, I started to say, “Now I am not trying to convert you or anything, but…”. At that point, my friend jumped in with a laugh, and said, “It seems like all of the Christians I know at some point use that phrase right before they start trying to convert me.” I found that surprising until a thought back in my mind to where I got the phrase from and realized that I have heard it used in Christian movies and gospel presentations over and over. I had even heard it recommended in training in evangelism.
Let’s be honest here… a salesman doesn’t go up to a potential customer and say, “I am about to give you a highly biased presentation on why you should buy __________ from me. Purchasing it may or may not meet your needs and budget, but it will certainly help me out greatly.” On the other side, most salesman know better than to state that they have no opinion or preferences as to what the potential customer buys. However, in a more subtle way, many will seek through behavior to do exactly that. For big ticket items, for example, the salesman will sometimes try to slip into the role of the customer’s buddy, as if he or she had come to the dealership with them to throw in their own opinion.
Bringing it back to the original example— politics and politicians— I suspect that the strategem does not work very well. The lack of nuance undermines it. The originator wants to appear unbiased, but can’t bring himself (or herself) to express failures in the side he supports, or the virtues in the other side. So instead of being unbiased in the presentation of the options, the originator simply states that he (or she) is unbiased. I don’t think anyone on the other side buys it. In practice, I think these posts do not change people’s minds. Rather, they give comfort to those who agree with them. They want to have their minds soothed that their opinions are shared by others, and that those others are unbiased, reasonable, “good” people.
Let’s bring this to religion. Apologists often like to think that they are evangelists. Are they? Perhaps some are. I know there are people who thing that apologetics can be useful in evangelism. However, most commonly, they give comfort to those who share the same faith as the apologist. They want to be comforted that a wise person like Alistair McGrath or C.S. Lewis or Ravi Zacharias (bad example?) who can express their faith in logical and reasonable ways to others. And that is fine. I do even think that it may lead some to change faith at times.
But there is a poor version of such apologetics. It often is built off of a sort of ad hominem logic. It comes off like, “Christians are awesome, kind, loving, godly people all the time, and everyone else kind of sucks.” Obviously, it is not worded that way, but it ends up boiling down to that. The reality is, however, that there are some pretty awful people who describe themselves as Christians. I will even go further that there are some people who are truly followers of Christ who fail in some pretty awful ways. Likewise, there are non-Christians who are highly virtuous and commendable. Showing your bias in your words undermines claims of lack of bias.
I had a friend who was JW (Jehovah’s Witness). We got along pretty well. We did talk about religion at times and he did really want me to join his religion (he was a “Pioneer” in his group). One thing was pretty clear– he would never say anything remotely bad about his own group. He would, rarely, give compliments to those outside of his group, but it was always with caveats. A couple of times, in our talks we got to the point where it seems like I hit a bit close to home as far as concerns about his own religion. At that point he would stop and change the subject. While I never seriously considered changing faiths, I would say that his lack of candor did not make his religion enticing to me.
I teach Interreligious Dialogue. One of the “rules” I teach is “Accept the best in other faiths.” Identify and state what you see is good in other faiths, and be willing to admit failings in your own faith. I have gotten some pushback on this from some of my students. It just seems like a bad idea to them. If you want someone to become a Christian (the students are Evangelicals after all, so they will always see someone becoming a Christian as a good outcome), why admit failings in Christians, and virtues in others? Well, I hope the reflections above may give some insight in this.
And as far as the political stuff at the top, my recommendations are:
— Admit your bias. People know you are biased and don’t trust people who claim they are not.
— Express your biased views in unbiased ways (that is, fairly and honestly).
February 12, 2025
Nobody Becomes a Missionary Because They Like to Listen (Part 2)
I do think that missionaries are better in proportion to their being good listeners.
I sometimes have made the mistake of couching the issue in terms of extrovert and introvert. Some mission boards idealize the missionary who is rather loud, chatty and very active socially. However, the key point I think is not about temperament, but developing a skill—- ability to ACTIVELY LISTEN. Extroverts Make the Best Missionaries?>
Some “REAL” (active) listening helps.
It helps build relationships. It establishes a relationship of courtesy and respect. Missions generally is very relational. Listening shows that one cares about what the person thinks, feels, and values. Missionaries are NOT simply purveyors of the Gospel (good news). It it was, then dumping religious tracts all over (a la “The Gospel Blimp“) or filling the airwaves with a Gospel presentation (such as the “He Gets Us” commercial shown at this year’s Super Bowl) would be ultimate forms of missions.It is foundational to interreligious dialogue. People respond openly to what you have to say if you first respond openly to them. If, however, one is listening only to the extent that one is trying to figure out how to undermine what they think, feel, and value, there is likely to a tendency to socially disconnect or to push back. It is needed for contextualization, incarnational ministry, and inculturation. All three of these (related) roles involves entering a culture as a learner. We learn through observing, participating, and listening.It is Biblical. Christians are supposed to answer questions from outsiders. Both I Peter 3:15 and Colossians 4:5-6 point toward listening first. In fact, they arguably suggest that it should be the non-Christian who drives the conversation.I Peter 3:15 states
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Colossians 4:5-6 states
Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
These verses are specifically related to conversations with those who are outside of the church. As such, this certainly applies to missionaries. And of course, it is reasonable to add the most well-know passage on listening in the Bible:
James 1:19 states
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,
February 10, 2025
Nobody Becomes a Missionary Because They Like to Listen (Part 1)
My wife and I oversee a pastoral counseling center that trains ministers in Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). I also teach some mission courses at a couple of seminaries here in the Philippines.
A saying (one I coined as far as I know) is “Nobody Becomes a Pastoral Because They Like to Listen.”
Similar thoughts could also be:
— Nobody becomes a Preacher because they like to listen.
— Nobody becomes a Theological Professor because they like to listen.
— Nobody becomes a Politician because they like to listen.
And as noted in the title:
— Nobody becomes a Missionary because they like to listen.
The fields listed above (pastoring, lecturing, politics, missions) are all fields where people join because they hope to influence others with words. And they tend to think (often wrongly) that influence is stronger if the communication is more unidirectional. Two-way communication or two-way learning does not tend to FEEL like having more influence.
A. Ego
Consider being a theology professor. I was listening to a podcast (Theology in the Raw) with Preston Sprinkle. He spoke of attending a seminary in California. While he found great value in aspects of his training, he felt that often the professors were focused on indoctrination of the seminary’s unique beliefs (premillennialism for example). He recalled one time a professor getting up in before the student body and challenging them along the lines of (heavily relying on my memory here), “How dare you think you know more about Christian doctrine than your professors!” Since this comment before the seminarians happened one day after Preston wrote a paper that COULD be interpreted as challenging Premillennialism, he wondered if he was the target of the comment– or at least one of the targets.
Of course, this is not unique. One of my colleagues had expressed appreciation of our school for the openness given to students to develop their own beliefs without indoctrination. From his experience, apparently this is a rare quality for Evangelical seminaries in the Philippines.
I have tried to fight the urge as a professor to speak much and listen little. I tell my students not to assume that I have all of the answers. I tell them that I am (literally) “wrong every day” and so if they think I am wrong about things, it is quite possible it is because I AM WRONG. I also note that my advanced degree in no way means that I should be seen as an expert. Rather, my advanced simply means that my guidance and insight should be taken seriously.
Looking at the previous passage, does this mean that I practice what I preach? Not really. I still tend to fall into the trap of dominating the talking in class. I also fall for the classic temptation of hearing other perspectives and immediately believing they are wrong.
B. Job Description.
A lecturer… lectures. They are not called listeners. Pastors are often called “preachers,” as opposed to listeners. Professors are called professors (professing their beliefs/doctrines) not listeners. Missionaries are often seen as evangelists, and this means “spreader of the good message.” Again, The term does not suggest the importance of listening. Even the term “Counselor”– involving a role where listening is often deemed as key— still, in terms of title, gives the impression of talking more than listening.
Listening is often seen as so passive… easy… even lazy, that there is no job that (that I can think of) where the title emphasizes the listening role. In fact, listening is so demeaned that when it is used in a positive or professional sense it needs an adjective, making the term— “Active Listening.”
C. Change Agent
A common label attached to missionaries is “Agent of Change.” Although sometimes the label “Agent of Preservation” is also included, change is generally seen as the more critical. In politics a similar thing arises. A politician often gets judged by how many changes are enacted. That makes no sense— leadership is about guiding on the right path, not simply a new path— but such change often implies that not only that others and situations change, but that one as the agent of change does not in himself or herself change.
One way that one can ensure that one does not change is to not listen to others.
Spiritual Warfare
Missions, especially, is seen as involved in spiritual warfare. This metaphor tends to undermine the value of listening. It draws into question the value of interreligious dialogue…. especially as it pertains to finding common ground or insight. For Evangelicals, especially, value is placed on debate, emphasizing differences, and “countering the lies of the enemy.” It is understandable that Missionaries are not used to thinking in terms of listening.
I will look at some positive aspects of listening… especially for missionaries… in Part 2.
February 5, 2025
Inculturation, Enculturation, and Acculturation
I have never really used the term “Inculturation” before. I was editing a doctoral paper of a friend of mine and saw he was using that term and was getting ready to correct him. He was, however, using the term correctly and I wasn’t. Therefore, I am going to put this post here for my sake, even if it benefits no one but me.
All of the above terms has to do with gaining cultural competency, or “fitting in” to a particular culture.
Enculturation is the normal and natural process of a human being going from being born without culture (“tabula rosa”) and acquiring ‘nativeness’ as an insider of a culture.
Acculturation is the process of a human acquiring a new culture, or cultural competency, in addition to the one he or she already had (through enculturation). Acculturation is more intentional than enculturation. Enculturation ‘just happens’ while acculturation does involve some level of self-training.
Inculturation is the process of a religion adapting in practices or structure to harmonize better, or be more relevant/resonant to a new culture. In some sense, Inculturation is acculturation for a religion.
I really haven’t used “inculturation” before because I always used contextualizaiton or accommodation. Contextualization was originally a term developed for religions in a new culture, but is now often used for secular things as well, and may be broader in terms of context. After all, context can vary for many reasons, not just in terms of human culture. Accommodation essentially is contextualization but is more often used by Catholics.
January 30, 2025
Some of My Stuff Online
I was asked about “PowerPoint” Presentations and stuff and so I suppose I should give some links where they can be found. I have generally stopped filling up this website with files.
Slideshare. (I don’t really add anything new to Slideshare since they were bought by Scribd, but there are a fair bit of older stuff.)
My Slideshare account: https://www.slideshare.net/bmunson3
My wife’s Slideshare account: https://www.slideshare.net/CeliaMunson
Slideserve. https://www.slideserve.com/RMunson286
Also have quite a few other types of words on Academia.edu. https://pbts.academia.edu/BMunson
I also have a number of sermons on my and Celia’s personal website: You can go to https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com and look in the SERMON drop-down menu.
And of course, you are welcome to peruse my books on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Robert%20H%20Munson/author/B017DGJSEW
January 29, 2025
862AD 1st Millennium Missions History. Holy Language
I am not an expert on Cyril and Methodius, so I feel like whatever I say here would be based on knowledge too thin to be of value.
However, I chose 862 since that was the year that the brothers Cyril (ca 826-869AD) and Methodius (ca 815–885AD) were asked to evangelize the Slavs. The brothers were from Thessalonika (Greek city) but may have been at least partly Slav by blood. This was a time of growing tension between the Western Church (based in Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (based in Constantinople) although they were still seen as in communion.
Cyril and Methodius brought Christian Scriptures to the Slavs by developing the Glagolitic alphabet. This alphabet served as the basis for the modern Cyrillic alphabet. While I do know that literacy is not an absolute requirement for evangelization (the growth of orality methods have shown the power of the spoken Word, and not just the written Word)… so often bringing God Word in a written form has greatly impacted a people and culture.
And I do believe that this work had a great impact among the Slavic people that continues to this day. The two priests (Cyril and Methodius) struggled under the pressure of Rome who wanted them to hold Mass in Latin, rather than in Slavonic. This repeated itself centuries later with Jan Hus at the end of the 14th century and early 15th, preaching in Czech (a Slavic language) to the people…. ultimately martyred as a “heretic.”
I am also reminded of Ola and Minnie Hanson centuries later. The served with the Kachin people of Northern Burma. The Kachin is a group of tribes/languages. They developed an alphabet for the written word to the people. The Kachin today are among a small minority of peoples in Asia who are predominantly Christian.
The Word of God to the people in the language of the people is important. It has been the temptation of Christians throughout the centuries to assign “holy languages” whether it be Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, or King James English. I understand the temptation. However, Acts Chapter 2 I believe was the point in time that God placed His undeniable stamp of approval on all languages. Where I live in the Philippines there is a common joke of sorts that says that “Ilokano is the language of heaven.” Although I don’t know what the language of heaven is… but I am sure that Ilokano is as welcome as any other language.
ALL LANGUAGES ARE HOLY LANGUAGES
I recall talking to a missionary to Jamaica who described the patois of the common people as being a bit of a “gutter langauge” (I forget the exact term, but I think I definitely recall the spirit of that conersation.) I must wonder whether such a missionary could really reach out to the common people effectively.
Perhaps I am wrong about the need of language localization. Islam has done fairly well without adjusting for local languages (with some notable exceptions such as Farsi and Turkish). The Catholic Church (pre-Vatican II) managed to spread successfully to many places with a Mass that was incomprehensible to the local people. My wife was raised up in Macabebe, Pampanga going to the Catholic Church and not understanding anything that was being said. More recently we traveled to Pampanga and was at a Roman Catholic Church there that had an English Service, a Tagalog Service, and a Kapampangan Service. Up in Baguio, they do have Latin-language Mass available, but it is done in a small side chapel, not in the primary sanctuary. This language accommodation is actually often greater than what is found in many Protestant churches in the Philippines. I am glad the Catholic church has learned, but fear that the Protestants have sometimes left behind respect for local languages— a critical part of the begin of the Protestant Movement in Bohemia, Germany, and England.
862AD Christian Missions History Musings (CMHM). Holy Language
I am not an expert on Cyril and Methodius, so I feel like whatever I say here would be based on knowledge too thin to be of value.
However, I chose 862 since that was the year that the brothers Cyril (ca 826-869AD) and Methodius (ca 815–885AD) were asked to evangelize the Slavs. The brothers were from Thessalonika (Greek city) but may have been at least partly Slav by blood. This was a time of growing tension between the Western Church (based in Rome) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (based in Constantinople) although they were still seen as in communion.
Cyril and Methodius brought Christian Scriptures to the Slavs by developing the Glagolitic alphabet. This alphabet served as the basis for the modern Cyrillic alphabet. While I do know that literacy is not an absolute requirement for evangelization (the growth of orality methods have shown the power of the spoken Word, and not just the written Word)… so often bringing God Word in a written form has greatly impacted a people and culture.
And I do believe that this work had a great impact among the Slavic people that continues to this day. The two priests (Cyril and Methodius) struggled under the pressure of Rome who wanted them to hold Mass in Latin, rather than in Slavonic. This repeated itself centuries later with Jan Hus at the end of the 14th century and early 15th, preaching in Czech (a Slavic language) to the people…. ultimately martyred as a “heretic.”
I am also reminded of Ola and Minnie Hanson centuries later. The served with the Kachin people of Northern Burma. The Kachin is a group of tribes/languages. They developed an alphabet for the written word to the people. The Kachin today are among a small minority of peoples in Asia who are predominantly Christian.
The Word of God to the people in the language of the people is important. It has been the temptation of Christians throughout the centuries to assign “holy languages” whether it be Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, Latin, or King James English. I understand the temptation. However, Acts Chapter 2 I believe was the point in time that God placed His undeniable stamp of approval on all languages. Where I live in the Philippines there is a common joke of sorts that says that “Ilokano is the language of heaven.” Although I don’t know what the language of heaven is… but I am sure that Ilokano is as welcome as any other language.
ALL LANGUAGES ARE HOLY LANGUAGES
I recall talking to a missionary to Jamaica who described the patois of the common people as being a bit of a “gutter langauge” (I forget the exact term, but I think I definitely recall the spirit of that conersation.) I must wonder whether such a missionary could really reach out to the common people effectively.
Perhaps I am wrong about the need of language localization. Islam has done fairly well without adjusting for local languages (with some notable exceptions such as Farsi and Turkish). The Catholic Church (pre-Vatican II) managed to spread successfully to many places with a Mass that was incomprehensible to the local people. My wife was raised up in Macabebe, Pampanga going to the Catholic Church and not understanding anything that was being said. More recently we traveled to Pampanga and was at a Roman Catholic Church there that had an English Service, a Tagalog Service, and a Kapampangan Service. Up in Baguio, they do have Latin-language Mass available, but it is done in a small side chapel, not in the primary sanctuary. This language accommodation is actually often greater than what is found in many Protestant churches in the Philippines. I am glad the Catholic church has learned, but fear that the Protestants have sometimes left behind respect for local languages— a critical part of the begin of the Protestant Movement in Bohemia, Germany, and England.
January 26, 2025
Reflecting on Myself and Christian Missions Education
I just finished reading a book on teaching missions. The book is “Equipping for Global Mission: Theological and Missiological Proposals and Case Studies.” It is edited by Laura P Saunders, Gregory Mathias, and Edward L. Smithers. It is published by William Carey Publishing in 2024. This is not a review of the book (though I do like the book). Rather, this is some of my reflections from reading the book.
I teach at two seminaries Christian missions subjects. I have also served as a cross-cultural missionary for 21 year. Those two things would, presumably, make me an expert at teaching Christian missions. Alas… not so. There is the humorous dig that: “Those who can’t do— teach.” There are reasons for that joke, and the system often supports that. In many educational settings, one must have an advanced degree in education to teach. This is especially true for teaching in primary or secondary schools. For teaching adults, accreditation often demands even more advanced degrees to teach. To block of a period of one’s life to earn a Masters in Secondary Education, or a PhD in many (but not all) academic fields involves gaining new skills while the skills related to “doing” the subject tarnish.
However, the inverse of the dig above is also often true– “Those who do— can’t teach.” There can be several reasons for this.
The passion to do may not demonstrate itself in a passion to teach others to do.The focus on doing may mean that one has never developed the academic interest to know one’s field better.The focus on doing may mean that one has never developed the skills to teach.But the other side has its problems as well: For adult education especially, often the skills gained associated with advanced degrees are more associated with research and writing rather than teaching.
Also from a personal standpoint, my uniqueness in terms of learning makes it hard at times to teach others. When I was young, my classmates would joke that I would go home after school and curl up in a corner with a dictionary. Was that true? Not particularly. With an Encyclopedia? Yes. With an atlas? Yes again. And yes goes to books on animals, astronomy, dinosaurs, and more. I suppose the term “nerd” at the time was not inappropriate. At seminary, I took some classes in creative teaching methods. I found them interesting in theory. However, a lot of them felt like, to me, things to do INSTEAD OF learning rather than a means for learning. But over time I came to two realizations.
A. At least some of the creative teaching methods do aid learning… even cognitive learning.
B. A lot of traditional classroom and library training does not lead to people competent for the tasks that the classes are, theoretically, preparing them for. (As an example, I was a mechanical engineer doing four years for my Bachelor’s degree and another three for my Master’s degree. People were shocked to learn that I did VERY LITTLE design in those seven years of formal education, and had no formal training in fastening, choosing metals, paints, electrical harnessing, or so much of what is the main work in the type of engineering I did.)
Based on all of this, I realize that I do need to make some changes. The book I just finished dealt with a lot of ideas and themes. Among them are:
The importance of both formal education and non-formal education, with bringing them together in partnership being an ideal. Both are important and should not be seen as at odds with each other.Related to non-formal education, it is good to develop credentialing/certification programs, that are ladderized. (The book did not use the term ladderize… but that seemed to be the idea they were going for.)The recognition that face-to-face is GENERALLY a better way to learn… and for most people in the field, communal learning is superior. Further, developing training that does not have to remove the missionary from the field is best (for most trainings). There was also, however, recognition that what is ideal is not always possible in some situations.Holistic learning should be the norm for missions training. That is, training should focus on the cognitive (head), affective (heart), and behavioral (hands), with the understanding that these three areas should be integrated together not kept separate. Mission training ideal is integrated with mission doing. (I did my formal education in the mission field and I think that was an advantage.)Mission training should be done to shift people away from the outdated assumption of “The West to the Rest.” It is “Everyone to Everywhere” and “Everywhere to Everyone.” Training should motivate Christians in areas that are traditionally missionary-receiving countries to go on mission, and should give them the tools to do it.Mission training should never be built on the presumption that the Old Sending Countries (have figured everything out). Mission training should not only be contextualized to the learner, but the learner should be given skills and freedom to modify methods and even underlying principles as is needed.Mission training is a key area where CBTE (Competency-Based Theological Education) should be done. In other words, one should start from the end result desired, what competencies graduates should have, and work backward to the curriculum and method of learning. Adding the contextual issues the come up in missions, one could change this to CBME (Competency-Based Missiological Education). One must be aware of the trend to remove “missions” or “missiological” from the titles of programs and departments. It is more common to speak of “Inter-cultural studies.” (I don’t have any problem with this personally, as long as the clear vision and mission are solid.)I am sure there was a lot more, but this will do for now. Got a lot of thinking to do as I have two different classes to prepare for this week.
January 25, 2025
782AD 1st Millennium Missions History. Interfaith Dialogue
Patriarch Timothy I lived from around 740AD to 823AD. For a little over half of his life he served as Patriarch of the Church of the East (780 – 823). Supposedly, in 782 he had a discussion of religion with Caliph Al-Mahdi (reigning 775-785).
In some ways this appears to be the earliest (or at least best early) conversation between informed passionate adherents of two different faiths that is at the same time respectful.
I would recommend reading it yourself… it is not a horribly long read. CLICK HERE
The document is interesting on several fronts. Some have suggested it is fictional. Of course that is always a possibility, but that leads to the question not only of who would make it up, but (more importantly) to what end. While Islam is treated with considerable respect, Timothy gives a remarkably strong case for Christianity if it was from a Muslim writer. If it was from a Christian writer, one might expect it to be more hagiographic in terms of portraying Timothy, and frankly, the Caliph gives a pretty strong case as well for his faith. It could be argued that it was written to be read by both Christian and Muslim. However, as it is a document that ultimately was passed down through the church, it can’t be assumed to be completely ambivalent regarding religion.
To me, it seems to be some honest history. Timothy was a newly minted Patriarch of the Church of the East when there was a lot of political controversy, and while under the control of a regime that sought to be benevolent, but whose faith is competitive and has been from its roots. As such, Timothy sought to present Christianity in a positive way, while still being very respectful of the ruler and the ruler’s faith.
We see a similar thing with Francis of Assisi when he speaks to the Sultan in Cairo during the Fifth Crusade. While the aspects of this story are arguably uncertain, it seems clear that his interaction with the Sultan was respectful. An article on this can be reading CLICKING HERE.
My previous post which was based on an event just a few years before Timothy’s interaction with the Caliph expressed a different revolutionary idea. Timothy interacted with “the enemy” with reasoned word and respect, while with Charlemagne, interaction was marked by killing and forced conversion.
These two paths met in the Holy Land a little over 3 centuries. There the forces that identify themselves with Christianity fought with forces that identify themselves with Islam. In that setting, Francis and his friars cross the battle lines to wage a (non-) battle for peace with dialogue with what would generally be considered to be the enemy. The juxtaposition of these two traditions are stark in their contrast.
Of course, Timothy was not the first to talk to government leaders of a different faith. John the Baptist did, as did Paul. Some of the Apologists (like Aristides) wrote letters to the emperor to argue in support of the faith.
Still, I think it is in Timothy we see the power of the Christian faith and message when it is in a position of powerlessness.
Prayerfully, we will achieve such powerlessness again, and soon.
