Free Book for Download

Recently I finished my sixth book. As I looked them over, I realized theostoryingthat four of the books I did because I was teaching classes in which textbooks were not really available (or adequate) here in the Philippines. One book I wrote because I had to— the book form of my doctoral dissertation. However, there was one book I actually wrote because I wanted to.  That was “Theo-Storying:  Reflections on God, Narrative, and Culture.” I have made a few changes over the years, but ultimately, I still like the book.

Therefore, I thought I would make it available for download. It is not that long— less than 130 pages.  If you do want to buy a copy, it is available online (HERE), Certainly not against this, but the free option is simply to click on the link below:

Theostorying 2019 Revision

I would also like to add the note that one of my former students, a Muslim Background Christian, has written a book on how to have a dialogue with Muslims, and lead them to Christ, and disciple them. It is almost done and should be available soon. I will let you know when it is up on the WEB.

The 13th Pig

My wife’s family raised pigs. One year their sow had a litter of 13 piglets. The sow could feed 12 simultaneously. So, not surprisingly, it was the smallest one, the runt, who was left out. Without intervention the 13th pig would starve and die. But my wife’s family did intervene, periodically the largest piglet would be pulled away from the mother so the 13th pig can feed.

Some feel that nature should take its course. But in this case that would be foolish. No intervention results in 12 healthy pigs. With intervention the 13th could survive. I see the story of Jesus at the pool of Bethesda as choosing intervention. The fastest could get to the pool first, but Jesus did not go to the fastest. He went to the one who was too slow.

I have noticed that the best fund-raisers are often the best at raising funds, not necessarily the best missions, and even more so not the most needy missions. The flow of support often goes to the wrong places. Laissez-faire fails sometimes…often. So how does one intervene wisely? Not totally sure— but having eyes on the ground who are able to make real decisions in the field can help. Decisions from a distance have the problem of being able to identify the noisiest and the flashiest— not necessarily the most deserving.

The Church can support more than the biggest and most aggressive. Supporting the runts does not mean weakening the rest. The 13th pig grew to be a healthy pig, but so did the other 12. Missions is not zero sum.

Religion as Societal Parasite?

Religion has an important role in society. Emile DurkheimImage result for parasite among others have recognized that one of the roles of religion in a society is to safeguard it. It provides the support and underpinnings of a culture’s worldview. As such, it provides the norms for behavior as well as interpretation of experience. In a sense then it is true that religion does provide a conservative force preventing change. However, hopefully, it does not simply prevent change or idealize the past or present, but identifies principles that center our behavior. Religion commonly takes on the role of arbiter of change and conflict.

Therefore, at its best, religion is a benefactor to society. This role as benefactor may change in a multi-cultural, multi-religious setting… but the role doesn’t disappear.

Consider, however, another scenario. This was referred to by Alan Tippett in his book, “Missiology” (in Chapter 14).

“In passing, however, I may suggest that even in our modern society, if religion today seems to have become dispensable, it is probably because the Church has come dangerously near to forgetting its responsibility to society and has concerned itself too much with its own survival. It is just as this corresponding point of time, when the witchdoctors turn from being social “benefeactors” to being social “parasites” that the populace of animist societies turn to Christianity.”  (Tippet, 161)

Consider the story of the Longhouse Religion of the Iroquois. It has been suggested that part of the growth of this religion, based on the revelations of their prophet Handsome Lake, came as a revitalization movement. The former religion was polytheistic and led by shamans, and supported the worldview and values of the people. However, around the time of Handsome Lake, the people were inundated by vices from European settlers and pushed back economically, and militarily. As such, they were under great cultural stress. However, the political and religious leaders of the Iroquois, the supposed benefactors of their society had become corrupt, given into the vices that were destroying the people, and now had a parasitic role in the society. The Longhouse Religion came as a revitalization movement but also as a conversion movement. It was a monotheistic movement and supported a strongly ethical standard for the people. Despite the differences from the previous faith, it in many ways better supported the Iroquois’ self-understanding and values than the previous faith. It took on the role of being a benefactor to the people rather than a parasite.

Ezekiel 34 speaks of a similar thing where the “shepherds” of Israel, both political and religious had taken on a parasitic role in society.   I would recommend reading the whole passage, but I will put here the first 10 verses:

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy, and say to them: This is what the Lord God says to the shepherds: Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who have been feeding themselves! Shouldn’t the shepherds feed their flock? You eat the fat, wear the wool, and butcher the fattened animals, but you do not tend the flock. You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost. Instead, you have ruled them with violence and cruelty. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd; they became food for all the wild animals when they were scattered. My flock went astray on all the mountains and every high hill. They were scattered over the whole face of the earth, and there was no one searching or seeking for them.

“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. As I live”—the declaration of the Lord God—“because My flock has become prey and food for every wild animal since they lack a shepherd, for My shepherds do not search for My flock, and because the shepherds feed themselves rather than My flock, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord!

10 “This is what the Lord God says: Look, I am against the shepherds. I will demand My flock from them and prevent them from shepherding the flock. The shepherds will no longer feed themselves, for I will rescue My flock from their mouths so that they will not be food for them.

Today, we see religion in many forms. We see it providing group identity and supporting high values that are to be attained to. As such we see religion still being a benefactor. But we also see religion corrupted by power, coercive, and self-serving. Rather than step on toes and point out places and ways religion (very much including Christianity among the other faiths) has often moved from being a benefactor to being a parasite, I would just suggest the following question:

If the church is worried about losing influence in society, it is better to ask the question of whether it is being seen as a hoarder of human blessings (wealth, power, etc.) or a channel of God’s blessings.

 

Fulfilling Culture

H. Richard Niebuhr wrote a book that has become a seminary classic: “Christ and Culture.” Actually, it was a series of lectures that were compiled into a book. Niebuhr suggested five major philosophies or categories as to how Christ can interact with human Culture. The five are:

  1. Christ Against Culture
  2. Christ Of Culture
  3. Christ Above Culture
  4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
  5. Christ the Transformer of Culture.

<If you want to read a VERY BRIEF description of each category one can go to an article in Focus on the Family HERE. The first half of the article is beneficial. The second half was a waste of time as the article writer feels the need to demean Niebuhr as a “liberal.” Apparently, because he is liberal, he should not be trusted, while D. A. Carson (who is less liberal) is more trustworthy. I have trouble with this. First, trusting a person because of how closely he conforms to your preconceived opinions is a dangerous road to go down. As a second point, Niebuhr’s categories are a framework. As such, they are useful or not useful, rather than true or false. Judging a framework on who established it is kind of foolish if you get right down to it.>

I find the categories rather useful. I think that the first two categories (Christ Against Culture, and Christ Of Culture) are simply wrong. However, the remaining three have potential value. So I am adding another expression here with a bit of caution. But here it is:

Christ Fulfilling Culture

This one is not distinctly different from one or more of the latter three categories. Rather, I like this expression because it gives a better image of what I think Christ’s role is in terms of culture. To me Christ Transforming Culture is a good descriptor of Christ as one who takes what exists and makes it better, but does tend to focus more on the role of changing what is bad over the role of preserving what is good. Christ and Culture in Paradox is good and I think it fits well as a term with Bevan’s description of countercultural theological contextualization. However, the expression focuses on conflict… and that is a bit too simplistic. Christ Above Culture is good in that it makes clear that Christ and Culture are not equal— Christ has priority. However, in every other way, the term is unclear.

I prefer the expression “Christ Fulfilling Culture.” It suggests the idea that in Christ the work started in culture is completed in Christ… or that in Christ culture can become what it was meant to be, rather than what it is. Culture is generally (but not universally) understood to develop organically to meet the needs of a group as well as the individual members of that group. Culture guides behaviors and interpretations so that people can meet their holistic needs (physical, psycho-emotional, social, and spiritual) within a society as well as to attain human potential/flourishing. As such, culture IS because culture seeks to be good. However, culture always falls short of its lofty goals. Culture always ultimately fails to satisfy completely the felt and real needs of the group— because it is a construct of flawed humans in a flawed world. Christ, then, fulfills or satisfies what was dissatisfying in a culture.

Consider a couple of stories that point me in this direction.

Story #1. I was talking to one of my students who is of the Kachin people. The Kachin people are a group of tribes in Northern Myanmar, and parts of China and India. He was describing the beliefs of his forefathers. He noted that the Kachin people believed in one supreme creator god. They believed in the fallenness of man. They believed that God had given a message to the people but that message was lost. They believed in the need for sacrifice for reconciliation with God. When Christian evangelists came from the Karen tribe to their people, large numbers responded. However, many of them did not see themselves as leaving the religion of their ancestors. Rather they saw the Christian faith as fulfilling or completing the religion they already had. They now had the message they lost, and the completion of the sacrifices, through Christ.

Story #2. Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, was a major event where an important issue was decided. Do Greeks have to become Jews to become Christians? The end result of the council was “NO.” Christ’s message is relevant to Greeks in the same way it is relevant to Jews. Christ fulfills the Jewish Religion and Culture, and Christ fulfills the Greek Religion and Culture. As such, Christians may behave considerably different in many key ways and still be understood as living according to the will of God. In the end, I feel that fulfill best expresses this.

What Do We Do With All Them Pagan Holidays

Image result for pumpkins halloween

Okay. I am here to help. Social media gets pretty confusing around Halloween time. People are, again, saying how evil it is for Christians to celebrate the day. In a few weeks more articles will come out talking about how Pagan Christmas is, and then three months later the same for Easter. No one complains about American Thanksgiving– a harvest festival much like those practiced by Pagan cultures around the world. If you don’t find that strange, consider that Halloween is lambasted annually for being related (a bit loosely) with Samhain, a Celtic harvest festival, after all. And no one seems to complain about the “Fourth of July” despite its use of fireworks— a pagan instrument used by cultures for centuries to scare away evil spirits. With all of these inconsistencies, I would like to offer a bit of help to know how best to deal with all of these different “pagan holidays.”

I would like to suggest a range of Christian responses or non-Christian responses to the issue of celebrations. <Note: for the last 15 years I have lived in the Philippines where Halloween is not celebrated much, being a distant second to Undas or All Souls Day. Therefore, I haven’t had involvement in Halloween in many many years. You can decide if that makes me a better or worse opinion.>

Possible Good Christian Responses.

#1.  Celebrate every day. All days are created by God so every day is holy and worthy of celebration.

#2.  Celebrate no days. Arguably this is just the same as the previous one. To celebrate each day means to treat each day as no more special than any other. So, in essence, one is celebrating or honoring no day as special. Since primitive Christianity gave us no days that MUST be honored above other days, celebrating no days is certainly a viable option.

#3.  Celebrate some days. This one probably needs to be sub-divided.

#3A.  Celebrate those days that have become considered to be “Christian Holidays.” As Christians we share a common heritage— a two thousand year heritage. When we celebrate Christmas, Easter, Palm Sunday, Lent, Pentecost, Epiphany, and many many other days in the liturgical calendar, we connect in some small way with our brothers and sisters in faith around the world and across time. That seems a good enough reason by itself to celebrate. I don’t feel like we have to triplecheck to make sure that no pagan, neo-pagan, or satanic group is trying to lay claim to the day. If Christians decided to view July 19 (to grab a day somewhat at random) as a new Christian holiday, I don’t think we have to be worried that some group has already messed it up.

#3B.  Celebrate those days that are culturally or civically significant that are not “anti-Christian.” We are part of a culture and a community that goes beyond the church. We are not only citizens of heaven, but citizens of nations, and products of history. Therefore, days that honor civil institutions, or historical events certainly can be celebrated. In fact, if Christians do not celebrate these, it could be argued that this makes Christianity alien to the culture and foreign to the nation in which it exists. Christianity is suppose to fulfill culture, or perhaps subvert it, but certainly not destroy it or ignore it.

#3C.  Celebrate those days that are one’s neighbors celebrate even if they are “non-Christian.” We know meat offered to Zeus is not tainted by Greek gods. We know that each day is created pure and good by God. We can redeem any symbol we wish, and we can avoid any symbol that we are uncomfortable with. If Christians were able to “Christianize” an instrument of torture, murder, and shame (the “cross”) we can certainly Christianize or redeem any symbol. The roots of symbols have no power any more than Zeus has power.

Possible Bad Christian Responses

  1.  Picking one of the options above and then telling every other Christian that it is the only moral choice. You can exercise your freedom in Christ or not, but it is not your place to tell everyone else what they can and cannot exercise.
  2. Listening to one-sided religious salespersons and taking what they say as the “gospel truth.” Most concerning to me are those who are taking the words of alleged Satanists as the truth when it comes to Halloween. Think about that statement– Why would we? In fact, we are missing the point. Those humorous quotes of Satanists expressing shock that Christians celebrate some aspects of Halloween are not understood for what they really are. They are attempts by a fringe group to appropriate a Druidic (non-Satanic) holiday and then push Christians away from celebrating All Saints Day, and All Hallows Eve. Of course, some Christians go the other way and assure us “It is all harmless” because… well, they did it as kids so it must be okay. I feel we can do better than this.

It seems like the articles that show up on social media right now embrace a certain ignorance and a touch of cowardice. I think we need brave scholars in Christianity, rather than ignorant cowards.