Council of Nicea: Early Christian Academia. Image via Wikipedia
One of my favorite books is “The Gospel Blimp and Other Modern Parables”. It is by Joseph Bayly and has a lot of great stories that challenge our notion of our faith. A number of these stories are (HAPPILY!!!) available online at http://www.ccel.us/howsilently.toc.html#Eleven One of these stories is Ceiling Zero. In this story some people are able to fly (without aircraft and without balloons). But as the story goes on, the focus shifts from the excitement of being able to fly and wanting to help others learn to fly, to studying Aerodynamic Theories, and questioning whether seeking to help people fly helps or hurts those who are bound to the ground.
The story is meant to be a parable about salvation and evangelism. But to me it also is looking at Missions.
Missions often seems to be more about strategy, writing books, speaking engagements, and missions conferences than it is about… well… doing missions. I find this tendency in missions to be rather seductive formany… including myself. I am an analytical type. I am also task-oriented, rather than people-oriented. Additionally, my skill set is more organizational. So I find myself:
-Developing syllabi for missions classes and “powerpoints” for seminars.
-Writing reports and developing plans
-Reading books on missions and theology and synthesizing them in my mind and on paper
But is this missions? I think it is to a certain extent… but there is a caveat. Utilizing ones talents and training to serve God is good; but there is the risk that one will simply drift into one’s comfort zone and refuse to leave. I used to go outside of my comfort zone a lot, back when I was running (with my wife) medical mission trips, and assisting in a churchplanting effort. But my forays into missions that directly interacts with people in need has been less in recent times.
An additional concern is that missions strategy and theory becomes disconnected from reality. This seems to be common in missiology today. Missiology must be grounded in sound theology and social sciences… but must also be rooted in the real world (not just academia).
I see myself at risk in this area. That is why I am looking to go outside of my normal comfort zone. I have been working on administration and training at our counseling center. I am now moving into doing regular (instead of occasional) counseling. This is somewhat scary for me. I much prefer to type than talk (especially one-on-one). But this is important. It is not to remove myself from the more normative work I do. Rather, it is to keep myself from losing my connection with reality… people in need.
I keep changing my mind about how to define “missions”. I have heard good definitions and bad definitions. The one that I am leaning towards right now is as follows.
Missions is: 1. Human response to God’s mission. (This requires faithfulness on our part)
2. Human response to God’s love. (This requires worship on our part)
3. Human response to human suffering. (This requires compassion on our part)
I think that when missions gets too grounded in academia, the third part (compassion) becomes abstract. Additionally, missions begins to become less an act of worship (and the term “worship” becomes taken over by singers, shouters, and dancers). Academic missions becomes mostly limited to “faithfulness”. But what is it that we are faithful to? Is it God? God’s Mission? Or our vocation?
I don’t have all this worked out in my head yet. That’s okay. It’s a lifetime pursuit with God.
I think we all need Self-Reflection. And I think we need honest appraisals from friends. Being successful in what one is doing does not mean that one doesn’t have important blindspots that must be addressed.
There has been a lot of concerns about Christian missions and its role in RELIEF and in DEVELOPMENT. Much of this is in the area of perception. Here is some variety with regard to perspective regarding these forms of social ministry.
1. Perspectives regarding the relationship between these forms of social ministry and “spiritual” ministry in mission work. Jerry Ballard ( “Missions and Holistic Ministry.” In World Missions: The Asian Challenge: A Compendium of the Asia Mission Congress ’90, (Held in Seoul, Korea August 27-31,1990), 342-344) speaks of 5 basic perspectives. These are:
a) Spiritualist. Spiritualistic ministries (evangelizing, discipling, church-planting, etc.) are the only God-ordained ministries. Other ministries distract.
b) Social Gospel. Doing good, socially, IS doing Christian mission.
c) Convenience. Spiritual ministry is the only REAL ministry, but social ministry does not distract from REAL ministry as long as one has adequate time and resources. (It is nice to be nice)
d) Ulterior Motive. Social ministry opens the door for Spiritual ministry (which is the “real” ministry work of missionaries).
e) Wholistic (or holistic). Ministry is concern for the whole person in their social setting. Therefore, ministry must be holistic… social and spiritual.
Social-Spiritual Ministry Spectrum
The people I tend to work with tend to be either “Ulterior Motive” or “Wholistic”.
The problem with the perspective of ulterior motive is that it devalues the person (don’t really care about the person so much as “saving souls”). Additionally, it tempts one to do “bait and switch”. On the other hand, Jesus did social ministry because of compassion (holistic) and as a sign (ulterior motive). So saying what is the absolutely correct perspective is not cut and dry.
2. Perspectives of social ministry in the social sciences. Social ministry can seem like a no-win situation. Relief work can be perceived as charitable or paternalistic. Development can be viewed as transformational or as culturally imperialistic. The good news is that you simply can’t please everyone so you don’t have to. However, it is good to listen to both supporters and detractors. Relief can drift from an edifying work to a destructive work. The same can be true of development.
3. Perspectives of development and relief (from their own proponents). The biggest detractors of Christian relief tends to be from Christian community developers. To developers, relief disempowers, demotivates, and creates dependence. Of course, people doing Christian relief can point out problems in development. Development has a high failure rate, and is too slow to deal with immediate problems.
Double Vortice Model
Focusing on the third perspective area, I (as usual) prefer a Both/And idea rather than an Either/Or.
The diagram above is the “Double Vortice Model” that was part of my dissertation on medical missions. It suggests that when outsiders come in, they have the resources and skills. Thus, initially, health ministry in a community is focused more on relief (although partnership and collaboration with local individuals and groups is still essential). One can see that as the right vortex being dominant… outsiders coming in, partnering with locals, carrying out wholistic ministry, and going away, with the possibility of repeating the cycle as necessary. However, locals have the cultural knowledge and the long-term presence, so to move from “healthy” relief to “healthy” development, there must be skills and resource transfer to the local population so that the left vortex will eventually dominate (with limited continuation of the relief cycle since there is no society on earth that is completely self-sufficient).
An unhealthy situation is where there are no skills or resource transfer to the local population (or no partnership). Jesus fed the 5000 as a relief ministry of compassion. This demonstrated His concern for their immediate short-term needs. That was good. But if he fed them every day… what was a wonderful expression of love and a sign of the Kingdom of God, would become damaging. This would create dependency and diminish local capacity to deal with problems. On the other hand, a complete absence of outside support lives in denial of our own interdependence. We are stronger as we share, learn, and grow with and through each other.
Dependence is not the ideal, but neither is Independence. We all need Interdependence.
Great quick article on the “Worst-Paying College Degrees of 2011” from Monster.com. These numbers were based on things in the USA. But I doubt things elsewhere drift too far from this.
Rather than repeat the article (which is linked above anyway), consider the following from this top 10 list:
Working and caring for the young or helpless:
1. Child and Family Studies
2. Elementary Education
3. Social Work
5. Special Education
9. Public Health
Additionally, there are some that often, but don’t exclusively, focus on the needy:
6. Recreation and Leisure Studies
7. Religious Studies and Theology
The final three are the only ones that (typically) are not focused on the needy:
4. Culinary Arts
8. Athletic Training
10. Art
It is pretty clear from this list that caring for the young and the needy does not pay well in society. This includes Religious Studies and Theology.
Of course, maybe that is the way it should be. There have been times when “going into religion” was considered a good way to make a living… even if the person was not dedicated to serve God and his fellow man. Maybe, if the sacrificial nature of service was removed from these jobs, they would be corrupted. Maybe it is good that missionaries commonly struggle to survive. Perhaps if missions paid well… something valuable would be lost in the process.
I don’t know. I certainly got paid a lot better when I was a military officer and when I was a mechanical engineer than I get now (but I truly have no reason to complain). I still think it is a shame that our society rewards behavior and jobs that (sometimes) are self-serving and unnecessary, over ones that (I think, at least) are critical.
I know the term “missional” is a bit… faddish. But an obvious value in it is that it breaks away from the excess baggage attached some other terms such as “missions” and “missionary”. When we talk about missions, we start talking about strategies, and contextualization, and organizations. When we talk about missionaries, we start talking about calling, support, and methods.
Maybe “missional living” is a way around the morass.
Decide for yourself. Look at the article below… and the other articles on this blog.
We rely on the parables of Jesus… and in many ways, rightly so. As God’s Word, and the words of our Savior and example, the 50 some parables of Christ should provide a foundation from which much of our Christian thought and practice is built off of . But that does not mean that the parables of Jesus set the limits on our use of analogy, simile, metaphor in expresses ethical and spiritual thought.
As we reach out to a secularized (and sometimes hostile) world, we need to learn to express great truths that challenge the norm, in the form of stories that appear (at first to be) harmless.
Often the best stories to do this are children’s stories. Children’s stories seem harmless, so they are often accepted with less skepticism. Additionally, a good children’s story can teach many different ages. They may be effective with a simple moral for children, but have deeper relevance as one gets older.
Often the best stories are “secular” stories. We expect Christian stories to preach to us. People are less likely to presume that a story without a Christian tagline may hit us where it hurts.
Here are a couple of my favorite secular children’s parables.
1. “The Giving Tree“, by Shel Silverstein, Harper and Row. This is familiar to many people. It was first published in 1964, and is still around. For a child, it expresses selfless love. This same message applies to adults. However, the message may even be stronger for adults who have greater experience with selfishness and love with conditions. Adults can compare the actions of “the boy” with that of the tree, and with their own actions and relationships. The story can be taken further to consider sacrificial love in terms of Jesus.
2. Stone Soup. This is an old folktale, that was the basis of a book by Marcia Brown in 1945. It is one of my favorites. For children, it can simply be a funny story about the values of generosity and teamwork. For adults it can go further.
-I have used this in missions fund-raising to demonstrate that God can do great things with what is little and seemingly useless. Once again, the idea of generosity and teamwork is included.
-The challenging concept of “catalyst” can be shown in two ways. First in terms of the traveler, and second in terms of the stones placed in the soup.
If you have other examples… why don’t you add them here????
One of the problems of not getting a real liberal arts education (most of my education is in Mechanical Engineering and military leadership), is limitations in communication and the arts.
One of these is in the role of parables. When I was young going to church, parables were defined as “earthly stories with a heavenly meaning”. This is a nice and (obviously) memorable definition. However, what really defines a heavenly meaning? Is an ethical story a parable?
Later, I learned a parable as being “an extended simile”. This is a way of contrasting it with an allegory, which is an “extended metaphor”. The obvious problem with that meaning is that it is disconnected from its purpose.
More recently, I learned a meaning for “parable” that I find more satisfying. A parable is a story that challenges our own beliefs or world view. This definition contrasts with the term “myth” which involves stories that reinforce our own beliefs (etiological purpose). Of course, both a parable and a myth, with these definitions, can be fictional or non-fiction. Therefore…
1. The first power of the parable is that it engenders change. It is suppose to challenge our preconceptions and beliefs, and point us in a new direction… a new orientation.
2. The second power of the parable is that it is memorable. Years ago I worked for Northrop-Grumman. I remember that during the first week we were in orientation class, the VP of Engineering told us a parable. It is pretty much the only thing I remember from orientation. This is the story.
Back in the 1800s were two small companies that made buggy whips… Smith Brothers and Jones Brothers. The vision statement of Smiths Brothers was “We seek to make the best buggy whips in the world.” Jones Brothers had a vision statement “We provide navigational control solutions to the world.” The first vision statement makes a lot of sense, but the second one is rather strange… correct?
However, back in the 1890s the horseless carriage (automobile) was perfected and that began the demise of the horse-drawn buggy. What happened? The Smith Brothers company kept growing, for awhile, gaining market share in the buggy whip market. The Jones Brothers market share of the buggy whip market kept shrinking. BUT… this was because Jones Brothers began developing steering and control devices for automobiles. So over time Smith’s Brothers became the dominant company in a dying market, while Jones’ Brothers moved into strong niches in automobile, boat, and eventually airline navigation and controls.
The lesson is that our vision limits our behavior. To grow in a changing world requires flexibility, and flexibility requires broad vision.
While this may not be a “heavenly” parable, I have found it useful in both business and Christian missions.
3. The third power of parables is that it attracts interest. Having attended seminary in Asia, I have been told many times that the Eastern mindset is built around stories. This is supposed to be in contrast to the Western mindset that is propositional. However, I have some doubts in this. While it is true that Western preachers and theologians tend to be propositional, and have a fascination for the Pauline Epistles over much of the rest of the Bible, I don’t think this is true on a broader level in Western Society. People will pay good money to watch a movie or buy a comic book, but can hardly be talked into attending a public lecture or debate.
Consider the origin story of Spiderman. It begins with a young somewhat self-serving college nerd, and ends with a man of power and responsibility. In fact, the story is really a parable that teaches the lesson “Where there is great power, there is great responsibility.” This lesson contrasts the normal human response that says great power means the ability to accomplish self-gratification. This story is hugely valuable as a comic book and developed into a hugely popular movie. The story is now part of the shared cultural experience in much of the world.
It is not surprising that Jesus used parables. They engender change, they are memorable, and they attract interest. In missions, they should be developed and used.
I probably should look at more forums, blogs, and such more than I do. However, did come across a nice forum thread on the issues regarding missionary support and church support (and control?) of missions. It has numerous perspectives… all of which are worth thinking about.
Numbers matter, on some level at least, but I believe we all know that numbers are highly limited in their ability measure what matters. I remember a Dilbert Cartoon (November 21, 1994) where Dogbert suggested that corporate health can best be measured by employee turnover rate. The “pointy-haired boss” (PHB) noted that their turnover rate was very low since they keep their employees poorly trained so no one else would want to hire them. PHB ends the comic with the victory cheer “NO METRIC HAS BEATEN ME YET!!” He was pointing out that as soon as you set a statistical standard for performance, one can find ways to “beat the system”. A couple of years ago, some milk product manufacturers in China were found putting melamine (bad stuff) into milk products because it would make a test give higher protein readings. Clearly evaluating by numbers alone is inadequate.
It is not surprising that today, in an age of technology, statistics, and analysis, numbers have grown in import. The Church Growth Movements often focus on numbers: biological growth, transfer growth, conversion growth, “back-door” losses, baptisms, and memberships. But by these standards, the Peoples Temple, led by Jim Jones, would be considered a very successful church, even after Jones declared himself God. From a numbers standpoint, the problems with the People’s Temple would not have really shown up until the church members did a mass suicide (huge back-door losses). The “spiritual disciplines” sometimes become metrics for holiness: how many verses memorized, how much of the Bible is read daily, how many times does one prayer or fast, or go to church, or join worship rallies, journal, or a host of other measurable behaviors.
Missions is often hugely statistical.
Missionaries are often judged by the:
-Number of people “reached” with the Gospel.
-Number of events held.
-Number of people they have led to Christ.
-Number of churches they have planted.
-Number of people they are discipling.
-Efficiency of work (“bang for the buck”)
Mission sites are often judged by:
-Number of unreached people groups.
-Percentage of “Evangelicals” in the region
-Baptism rates
-Church planting patterns and stats
-Statistical viability for church-planting movement (CPM)
But is missions (Missio Dei) truly something that can be measured?
I believe that in missions organizations and missionaries, like the Pointy-Haired Boss in Dilbert, can use numbers in ways to enlighten or disquise. Let me give you an example:
I used to be involved with a lot of medical missions. I don’t have a problem with medical missions (my dissertation is on doing medical mission events in the Philipines), but some are done poorly… and that is never acceptable.
Let me give you some numbers of a typical evangelistic medical mission (partnered with a local church) here in the Philippines.
-People treated: 500
(Medical treatment) 350
(Dental treatment) 100
(Minor surgical treatment) 50
Prayed to Receive Christ 300 (high rates of external response common in PI)
Desire Home Bible Study 80
Cost? About $1200 (pretty efficient!!)
These are pretty good numbers!! One could use these numbers to demonstrate that one is a pretty good missionary.
But suppose one wanted to show this mission was a failure, not a success?
People helped, physically, long-term? Maybe 70-80 (and these only modestly)
How many people now involved in church? Maybe 15
How many trained for healthy and wise living? 0
How many are empowered (versus made dependent) by the event. 0
From this, one could argue that it is a big waste of time.
Which view is correct? Recall the quote: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” (probably first coined by Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke). The truth may not be so easy to measure. For example:
Did the medical mission express the love of God to the community in a way that people could understand and respond to?
Did the local church build bridges/healthy relationships with the broader community?
Did it inspire local and outside volunteers to greater faithfulness and service of God?
Did it engender dependency within the community or ill-will?
(Most importantly) Was the mission doing God’s work or one’s own work?
These are frustrating questions because they reject quantification… but these are the ones most important for us to answer.
Missions commonly today focuses on the idea that contextualization is necessary. Contextualization is the enculturation of the gospel message. A Christian 1st century Greek did not, and should not live like a Christian 1st century Jew. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 recognized Unity within Christ while maintaining Diversity in Culture. Today, in missions we seek to do the same thing.
But who, actually, does the contextualization? Options:
1. The missionary. This is the most common explicit or implicit answer given. Missionaries are the cross-cultural experts. Their etic (outsider) perspective of the culture in question and (presumed) Biblical understanding should make them the best at bridging the gap.
However, missionaries often have no clue. Their understanding of the culture they’re working in is often limited to behavior and artifacts, not the underlying beliefs and worldview. They also have problems in that they see the world through glasses shaded by their home culture.
Example: Consider Asian Ancestor worship. To an American missionary, the whole Eastern way of dealing with ancestors seems like worship and so should be ended. However, consider American practices with the dead. We commonly:
-Take the dead and dress them up and embalm them much like Egyptians did.
-We put them in expensive wooden boxes and place them in the altar area of a church (or a church-like funeral home). There, we walk up solemnly to the box look down at the deceased and commonly say a prayer.
-We cover the box and surrounding area in the church with flower offerings and, often, money gifts.
-We place them in the ground in an area generally considered sacred, and erect a graven statue, plaque, or altar shaped stone.
-We commonly keep the area where the deceased is buried cared for, returning to give flower offerings and often say a prayer when we visit.
American Christians would almost unanimously assert that NONE of this is worship of the deceased. They would say they are honoring (showing respect) for the dead and going through socially appropriate steps of mourning. To an outsider these behaviors may look like worship, but they are not. Therefore, missionaries need to be very careful when looking at Asian death practices before assuming they know which things are honoring (a good thing), and which things are worship (worship being something only to be reserved for God). Missionaries should also be careful before assuming which prayers are directed to the ancestor (not acceptable in Christian belief), those directed for the ancestor (questionable, but more acceptable), or directed to God with the ancestor as the focal point of remembrance.
2. The local believers. This makes more sense. The local people have an emic (insider) perspective of their own culture. As they grow in faith, they begin to recognize the good and bad aspects of their own culture.
There are problems here as well. First, young Christians (like young people) learn through modelling. If they become Christians and are serious in the faith, they will look to the only other Christians in the area to determine how they should live. In many places, these models are the missionaries. In other places, it may be other Christians who have been trained up by missionaries who are more culturally imperialistic. In yet other situations, the models may be heterodox groups quick to jump in to snatch away the little faith these new believers may have. A missionary who does not assist and equip young believers in the integration of their faith with their home culture, is leaving baby lambs out with the wolves.
Still, the positive side of this cannot be ignored. Consider the ancestor worship again. Many Asian Christians believe that they can practice a majority of the practices of “ancestor worship”. They can still pray (to God), they can still give little offerings (like American Christians putting flowers on graves). However, they will not light incense at the graves. They believe that within their culture, this crosses a line and is not consistent with being an Asian Christian. (This is not a universal understanding, of course. This is just one perspective).
3. God/Holy Spirit. Some might argue that God contextualizes, we don’t. The Holy Spirit reveals how we should live.
This always sounds spiritual… but one should always watch out for things that “sound spiritual”. If God has called us to do something, we are NOT being spiritual by refusing to do it and tossing it back to God. Secondly, far too many people use the Holy Spirit to squelch discussion. After all, if the Holy Spirit said to do something (even if it seems to be foolish, or even evil) there is not a lot of wiggle room for discussion. One must either reject the message (and the messenger) or accept it without condition.
4. The Bible. Again, this sounds spiritual, but it is not. The Bible does not give a lot of details of how to apply the faith to specific cultures. We know how it applied to 1st century Jewish society, 1st century Hellinized Jewish society, and 1st century Greek society. This does not say much about contextualizing for a people group in Tawi Tawi, Philippines, or a village in Nunuvut, Canada.
In practice, when people point to the Bible as the full guide for behavior (not just principles), they are generally pointing to a 20th (or 21st) century interpretation of the Bible in a different culture. Cultural imperialism is restored. Contextualization is theologizing (study of man and his relation with God within a specific setting). Theologizing bridges the gap between God’s revelation, and man’s context. God’s revelation may be set, but man’s context is fluid, so theologizing (contextualizing) must be fluid.
5. Local Society. Since contextualization involves theologizing within the context of the local society, one could let that society judge what it means to be a Christian within its own context. Of course, there is not a supermind called “local society”. In practice it means that contextualization is the work of everybody and nobody.
Clearly, the problem is that local society has good and bad aspects. Societies are often blind to their own failings (and may not even be that aware of their own strengths). Contextualization is not simply blessing what a culture does. It involves a critical judgment.
Consider the Jerusalem Council. This council in Acts 15 was the culmination of many steps.
a. The model of Christ (particularly in Matthew) as an international, not simply national leader and God.
b. God working with Philip the Evangelist, Peter, Cornelius, Barnabbas, and Paul, as well as many believers of different cultural backgrounds.
c. The gathering for reports, discussion, and prayer of different Christian perspectives for a group decision.
If you see this, you find God working in it (Christ modelling, the Spirit guiding, and the Father saving/transforming). You see missionaries interacting with local cultures and believers.
Let’s return to the bridge. If one side of the bridge is God’s revelation (His word), and the other side is the local culture, then the bridge itself is the contextualized theology. This bridge is built anchored at both ends (by God’s word and local culture) and is built by local believers, empowered by missionaries, both seeking God’s will throughout.
So who contextualizes? It guess all parties contextualize. However, the role of the missionary should decrease over time as the local believers self-theologize.
How is the process done best? I don’t know… I have seen far more bad examples of contextualization than good. What about you?
Nehemiah and the Walls of Jerusalem. Image via Wikipedia
I wrote an article a few years ago called “Wholistic Ministry and Nehemiah.” One of the central points was that we often think of development backwards. I pointed out that Nehemiah worked to create change in a specific order.
It is strange that when people think of Nehemiah, they focus on “THE WALL”. While it is true that the wall takes up several chapters of the book, but there is so much more.
Consider some of the problems Nehemiah dealt with… presumably in chronological order.
1. Lack of a city wall around Jerusalem (STRUCTURAL PROBLEM) Chapters 1-4
2. Debt/Usury/Oppression of citizenry (ECONOMIC PROBLEM) 5:1-13
3. Taxation issues (ECONOMIC) 5:14-19
4. Housing problems (STRUCTURAL) 7:4-73
5. Ignorance of God’s Law (SPIRITUAL/EDUCATIONAL) Chapter 8
6. Sorrow about Sinfulness (SPIRITUAL/EMOTIONAL) Chapters 8-9
7. Need for population relocation (SOCIAL) Chapter 11
9. Breaking of Religious Laws (SOCIAL/LEADERSHIP) 13:14 – 15:30
What problems were dealt with first?
A. Nehemiah dealt with felt needs first. What were the felt needs? The people felt they needed walls, they felt they needed housing, and financial relief. They did not feel that they had spiritual problems. By first addressing the people’s felt needs, they were more open to recognize other needs that they had. Additionally, by demonstrating his willingness to listen and respond to their needs, Nehemiah was seen as someone who cared for the people.
B. Nehemiah dealt with the easy things first. We might be fooled into thinking that building the wall was the most difficult thing in the book of Nehemiah… but it wasn’t. The Great Wall of China was built with money and coersion. Nehemiah had money and authority, so this problem was fairly straitforward. The wall took 52 days of labor. Wouldn’t it be great if all community problems could be solved in less than two months if enough money and manpower could be thrown at it? The financial and housing circumstances were fairly simple since Nehemiah had the authority to make, modify, and enforce laws. But social and spiritual problems are more difficult. You cannot coerce spiritual changes, and social problems, likewise, have a nasty habit of resisting legislation. The most difficult were leadership difficulties. Local leaders have power. The power that these leaders had, Nehemiah needed at the beginning to get things done. To turn against these leaders at a later date, was a great risk. Nehemiah did the easy things first. By doing this, he developed the reputation of being a problemsolver, and ultimately gained the influence he needed to do more difficult things later. We often think that the big problems we face are ones involving money and manpower… but these are the easy ones.
C. Nehemiah appeared to be focused on God, focused on the needs of the people, and open to a level of pragmatism. It is quite evident that God loved the people of Jerusalem and that he was dedicated to serving God. However, we often don’t notice his pragmatism because we focus on Nehemiah’s uncompromising attitude with the opponents of the wall. However, he showed a great willingness to work with local leaders who were highly flawed, only addressing the problem with these leaders at a much later date.
It would seem that these provide good principles to follow when possible. Prioritize concerns the community has. The community is more ready to support working on what they value. Of these concerns, prioritize those that you are well suited to achieve based on your experience, resources, and authority. Later on one can (and should) expand to changes that are needed, but may not be immediately appreciated by the community. Finally, we need to accept a certain amount of pragmatism in our plans and methods as long as they don’t contradict our love of God and the people we are serving.
MMM -- Mission Musings 