“Footprints” Thoughts

One of the great inspiring messages is “Footprints.” It’s author is unknown, but frankly that added to its popularity since it lacks any copyright issues. There are some claims as to who first wrote it. Some thoughts on the authorship and inspiration of it can be found at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/where-did-the-footprints-poem-come-from/

I always liked the story and can recall having one of

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-web/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/27130053/footprints.jpg

those wallhangers with the story on it. But writing a sermon recently I began thinking about it more, and had reason to disagree with the story… just a bit. That being said, I am not trying to say, “It is wrong.” Rather, I am saying that perhaps the imagery can be a bit misinforming in some ways.

On a positive side, the story utilizes the image of walking and walking with Christ as a metaphor for the Christian life. I feel that is a strong metaphor. I did several posts a few years back on the use of “Walking With” as a metaphor. You can look at these if you want

Walking With. Part 1

Walking With. Part 2

Walking With. Part 3

Walking With. Part 4

Walking With. Part 5

Walking With. Part 6

So why would I have any problems with Footprints then? There are three (somewhat) minor issues.

Issue One. Task-Focus versus Person-Focus. In the imagery, Jesus carries the writer during difficult times. To me the image is one of being task-focused. The person goes through a time that he can’t continue, and Jesus carries him. To stay with the person in a difficult time suggests person-focused. To keep moving by carrying the person suggests a bit of greater interest in keeping to the task than to the person. But I believe that Jesus is more committed to us as people, than to the tasks we do.

Issue Two. Dependency. In some manner we are to be dependent on God. But generally speaking, God seeks us to mature, and that maturity comes through the trials. Peter notes that we go through suffering. James notes that we develop perseverence through the testing of our faith. The image of the story suggests more of a coddling. Kelly O’Donnell (in “Doing Member Care Well”) has noted that Jesus Christ in His handling His disciples maintained a balance that could best be described as in the region of Comforter and Challenger, while avoiding the extremes of Coddler and Condemner. Carrying to me suggests coddling.

coddling

Issue Three. Example. As I noted in my sermon (HERE). Jesus is our model for ministry. God did not create us with great power. He gave us the ability to be present with others in their struggles. We can’t carry people through their times of pain and struggles. We can suffer with the suffering. We hurt with the hurting. We can struggle with the struggling. We can take none of these things away. We can embrace a ministry of presence. We can bear the burdens of another, but only with mutuality, where others also bear our burdens.

Of these three issues, the only one that I consider strong is the third one. The first two are picky. However, if we want to understand what we are to do, following the example of Jesus, we need to understand that Footprints does not give us a good understanding of that role. It does, however, give a good image of the Christian life.

Here is another perspective (thanks to Chaplain Sal for sharing…

Advertisements

Dreaming Small in a “post-Christendom” World

I am reading through the dissertation of one of my students when I was struck by a quote. She quoted Ed Stetzer who was in turn quoting Douglas John Hall.

“Our Lord’s metaphors for his community of witness were all of them modest ones: a little salt, a little yeast, a little light. Christendom tried to be great, large, magnificent. It thought itself the object of God’s expansive grace; it forgot the meaning of its election to worldly responsibility.”

(Ed Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 15)

This quote reminds me of one of my favorite posts, “Dream SMALL!!!” Feel free to read it HERE.

The context of the above quote is that of three eras of church history, as suggested by Alan Kreider (also referenced by my student):

  • pre-Christendom EraImage result for small
  • Christendom Era
  • post-Christendom Era

The pre-Christendom era began to end with Emperor Constantine (circa 311AD). The Christendom era began to disolve between the two World Wars. In Christendom, the Church and State are strongly linked.

I am a citizen of the United States and I minister in the Philippines. The Philippines is a product of Christendom. The archipelago was made up of many different peoples who did not have common identity until Spain came with a cross in one hand and a sword in the other. The first 300 years of its collective identity found Church and State strongly linked together. Since then the Philippine identity has been more complicated.

The United States has been complicated from the very beginning. I have many friends back home that will loudly declare that the United States “is a Christian nation.” They argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and has some unique link between the Christian faith and the governance and identity of the US. I also have friends that make a nearly opposite claim— that the United States is the first “secular state.” The US governance radically separated ecclesiastical power from civil power, and absolutely rejected the notion of a “state religion.” Both views have strong support (as well as weak aspects). Probably a more accurate statement than either is that “The United States was the first post-Christendom nation.” The governance of the US was not founded on rejection of Christianity. On the other hand, it was seeking to break free from the strong link between church and state found in Europe. It was post-Christendom.

That is not to say that everyone was comfortable with that back then, or now. I am a Baptist missionary. I find it interesting that the Protestant Reformation was a challenge to (Catholic) Christendom in Western Europe. The Baptists, Anabaptists, and other Dissenter groups challenged the Westphalian Christendom accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. Despite this double-strength rejection of Christendom, Baptists are likely as any other group to struggle with understanding the Christian faith in post-Christendom terms.

We like “Big Dream” metaphors:. War (“Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War), Victory, and “Civilization.”

But the metaphors of pre-Christendom are small— As noted by Hall above, Jesus utilized yeast, salt, and light to describe Kingdom of God. That is interesting since the term “Kingdom” sounds big and much in tune with the thoughts of Christendom. Yet, Jesus makes it clear that the Kingdom is small— it is here and not here— it is inside of us… it is a bit of yeast worked into dough, a tiny seed hidden in the soil. It is a small grapevine in a big vineyard. Paul’s metaphors are not any bigger. The church is as a human body, or as a family.

In post-Christendom we can disengage our faith from our culture. We are not stressed out whether our government is passing laws that make our faith practice more comfortable or less comfortable. We are not concerned whether geopolitics appears to be working in our (however we define “our”) favor vice anothers’. We can be that bit of salt, light, and yeast used by God to transform bit by bit where we are.

Our language is not “Winning the world for Christ,” but being a witness of God’s grace to my neighbor and being an agent of transformation in my community. As I noted in the other post, “Dream SMALL!!!,” the Great Commission is actually pretty small— share your faith with someone, bring them into the church body, disciple them to be faithful followers of Christ, and repeat. It’s success is in its smallness— a perfect process for the post-Christendom world.

Three Servants: Guiding, Healing, Sustaining

Seward Hiltner was a leading, some would say THE leading, Pastoral Theologian of the 20th Century, serving as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He saw the pastoral function as best understood with the metaphor of the shepherd. A few weeks ago, Ptr. II Samuel spoke on this metaphor of the shepherd. Within the pastoral role, Hiltner saw three primary functions of pastoral care: These are Guiding, Healing, Sustaining. Others later added more. But for today, let’s stick with the primary three— Guiding, Healing, and Sustaining. I find these primary pastoral care functions illustrated in three servants in the story of Naaman the Leper. Please open your Bibles to II Kings 5: 1-14. So for those taking BP, you should note that I am using a passage from the Bible for illustrative purposes, rather than expositional or topical.

Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the Lord had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.

2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”

4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said. 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets of clothing. 6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”

7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”

8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”

11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.

13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.

The first servant here is described as a young girl from Israel… living as a captive… a slave in Aram… Syria. This young girl typifies the first function of Pastoral Care. That is Guiding without much knowledge. This young girl did not seem to have a lot of knowledge. But that is okay. Hiltner points out that good guidance is not highly directive. He states that it should be more eductive than deductive. Deductive guidance is acting like a detective. I have studied your situation, and I am able to deduce that THIS is what is going on and THAT is what you need to do. Eductive guidance is drawing out. Picture a bucket that draws water from a well. It presumes that the other person already knows most of what they need to know… so you as a pastoral care provider help draw that out of him or her. Consider the case of the prophet Nathan speaking to King David. The story or parable of the Ewe lamb is a classic example of Eductived Guidance. Nathan really did not tell David anything he did not already know. David already knew that it was wrong for a rich and powerful person to use his power to steal from the poor and needy. This was not an issue he was confused about… but he needed to be reminded. Maybe he had sort of forgotten. Maybe he had rationalized his behavior. Or maybe he had bracketed his knowledge, compartmentalizing what he knew to be true from what he did. Nathan drew out what David knew, guiding him eductively. In this case, the young servant knew something that General Naaman did not know, but he needed to know, so she gave the guidance. There is a prophet in Samaria who can cure him of his leprosy. Apparently she did not know the prophet’s name or where he lived. If she knew these things, they would have been added to the letter and the King of Israel would not have been so distressed. She did not know much… but she knew enough to guide Naaman.

Guidance without much Knowledge is good… because the temptation in pastoral care is to be Clever. It is tempting to show off what we know. Someone comes to you about a marriage problem. It is tempting to start talking about the 3 Greek words for love… or the 4 Greek words, or 6, or 7 (depending on which book you are reading at the moment). But while you are showing off all of the cool things you learned in seminary, what you are doing is caring for yourself— satisfying your need to be seen as clever, knowledgeable, wise… when really they need just a little guidance, and have a great need to be listened to. Times of Guidance are actually great opportunities to practice the Ministry of Silence. That is not easy. Pastors love to talk… they don’t like to listen all that much. Seminaries have classes in Preaching. They have classes in Teaching. Some even have classes in Arguing or Apologetics. Not too many have classes in Listening. Yet guiding a little in an environment of unclever, silent listeing is commonly what the other person really needs. I struggle with this principle because I want to be seen as clever. Maybe you share that same problem with me. However, the second principle I am much better at.

The second principle is Healing… but without much skill. I am much better at this… since I have no real skills at healing. When Naaman finally gets to Elisha’s home. Elisha does not come out. Instead he sends a servant, described as Elisha’s messenger to pass on the healer’s words to him— go to the Jordan River and wash yourself 7 times to be healed. Naaman was angry. He wanted to be healed by the prophet… the professional healer… not simply get a message from his servant. People want to see an expert. In fact… in pastoral care, that is the temptation for a pastoral person— to be seen as the expert… especially an expert healer. If you as a pastor, or a chaplain, or as a seminarian visit a sick person, you will be asked to pray for them. Why? Typically, they believe that you as a religious professional have prayers that are just a bit more UMPHH then their own. And often, we love that. We love it when people believe that we are closer to God… that our prayers have more power— that our requests are put on the top of God’s to-do list. The temptation to be an expert can show itself in other ways as well. Celia is a nurse, and it is tempting when doing chaplain work at the hospital to draw from her nursing background and second-guess the doctors, nurses, psychiatric staff, and social workers. She fights that temptation. There are some ministers who believe that they have received from God the gift of supernatural healing or deliverance. That’s fine. Maybe they do. But most of the time, God doesn’t look for us to be the expert. Most of the time, God wants us to serve in a ministry of mediation. We connect those in need with the resources of healing— within themselves… with God… and with others.

Reading the passage here… Naaman wasn’t happy that a servant came out rather than Elisha. Naaman said “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.” In a different context he may have said… “I expected someone who would sprinkle me with holy water… mark me with olive oil… dust me with salt… blow cigar smoke or spit Tanduay on me… all while saying some holy incantation. Why didn’t he put his hand on my forehead and shove, while declaring “I declare you healed!!” But the servant was not a healer and that’s okay because Naaman did not need a healer. He needed a mediator— one who connected him to the one who truly heals. He did not need someone to wave their hands over him. He needed to hear the word of the Lord and obey it. Elisha’s servant did not provide what Naaman wanted, but rather what he needed.

The third servant is listed as the servant who joined Naaman on his journey. Actually it describes Naaman as having several servants, but one presumably served as the spokesperson for the rest. The servants exhibited the pastoral function of sustaining. Sustaining but with not much power. Naaman was a sick man… having leprosy. Skin diseases were a public shame… not just in Israel but throughout the world and throughout history. Such skin diseases were contagious, and the shame, the stigma, associated with such visible illness are also contagious. Shame is always contagious. But the servants traveled with him in his illness and shame through Israel— enemy territory. They even called him “Father,” a term of both honor and affection. They sustained him. But they did not sustain with power… they were simply servants with very little influence or strength.

Those who are hurting, struggling, shamed, need our presence… a ministry of presence. We walk with them, sustaining them and encouraging them to keep progressing. But when things get too difficult and they refuse to go on— we don’t carry them… we can’t. We stop and remain with them until they move forward. (For those who are familiar with the Christian poem, Footprints, I feel it is a bit of questionable imagery. I believe Christ is best understood as one who does not carry us in difficult times, but remains with us where we are.) Certainly that is what we can do. We don’t have the power to carry them. We can barely carry ourselves. That is not exciting. We have a temptation here as well. Our temptation is to “Be the Hero.” To be the Savior… to be the Messiah. But Jesus is the Savior… they don’t need you to be a second one. They need your presence. Chaplains in the olden days had two different roles. One roles was mobile and one was stationary. Some chaplains would travel with military forces or other trading groups to be a constant presence with the group. Others lived along traderoutes or other major roadways. In that setting, they were a stationary presence for those to be cared for as they passed through. Both are forms of presence. Sometimes your role is to be a mentor for someone… a supportive companion and accountability partner. Sometimes, you are the one to show temporary presence to people who need support is that pass through where you are.

In the story, Naaman had servants who traveled with him to care for him wherever he went. They not only sustained, but they also guided. In this case they practiced eductive guidance. Remember eductive guidance is where one guides by helping to draw out what the person already knows. Namaan was ranting about how he had been insulted and told to do some stupid silly thing to be healed. His servants said, My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” Naaman was willing to give a king’s fortune to be healed. He was prepared to walk through fire or do most any extreme thing to be healed. He already showed this by traveling into enemy territory as a military general without his army risking his own life to be healed. Naaman already knew that he would do most anything… even something seemingly stupid or silly to be healed. He just needed a bit of help to remember this.

In Pastoral Care, the Cure of Souls, there are many temptations. When I came here back in 2004, I was told that people who took CPE, Clinical Pastoral Education, were often prideful about it … acting like they were better ministers or seminarians than those who had not taken it. Was this bit of gossip true? I don’t know. As Paul might say, “May it Not Be So” or in another translation, “Horrors No.” But maybe the perception was correct. There is the temptation to be the Clever One, to be the Expert, to be the Hero.

But… We are NOT called to be Clever, but rather to be a Guide with little knowledge, practicing the Ministry of Silence.

WE are NOT called to be the Expert, but rather Be a Healer without much skill, practicing the Ministry of Mediation

We are NOT called to play the Hero, but rather to Be a Sustainer without much power, practicing the Ministry of Presence.

My hope is that each of you will seek to develop the ministries of silence, mediation, and presence. My desire is that the people you provide care for will not see you as clever, as and expert, or as a hero. My prayer is that you will embrace a life-long ministry of care for others where you will be seen as having little knowledge, little skill, and little power.

Meriting Dialogue. Kärkkäinen Quote

““Dialogue has to be about the question of truth, evenImage result for veli karkkainen if no agreement about the truth can be reached. For consensus is not the goal of the dialogue. . . . If two people say the same thing, one of them is superfluous. In the interfaith dialogue which has to do with what is of vital and absolute concern to men and women—with the things in which they place the whole trust of their hearts—the way is already part of the goal.” Moltmann rightly says that only those people are capable of dialogue—“merit dialogue,” as he puts it—who “have arrived at a firm standpoint in their own religion, and who enter into dialogue with the resulting self-confidence.” Thus, Moltmann continues, “it is only if we are at home in our own religion that we shall be able to encounter the religion of someone else. The person who falls victim to the relativism of the multicultural society may be capable of dialogue, but that person does not merit dialogue.””

     –by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, in “Christ and Reconciliation,” p. 28.  Quoting Jurgen Moltmann in “Experiences in Theology”

 

 

 

Truth and Dialogue– Bringing Them Together

David Hesselgrave, in his book “Communicating Christ Cross-culturally,” has an interesting figure in Chapter 9 called “The Contextualization Continuum.”

Here is a version of it.

Hesselgrave Chapter 9

I find the figure interesting in some ways, and even useful. However, there are some aspects of it I disagree with.

1.  One part of the figure I disagreed with so strongly that I removed it from the figure here. Associated with “Orthodoxy” is something called “Apostolic Contextualization.” Associated with “Neo-Orthodoxy” and “Neo-Liberalism” is something called “Prophetic Contextualization.” Associated with “Liberalism” is “Syncretistic Contextualization.” I somewhat disagree with the last one, “Syncretistic Contextualization,” but to me the terms Apostolic and Prophetic Contextualizations are used randomly. I can see no linke between the terms and the concepts. In fact, if I did feel like I had to use the terms, I would probably switch Apostolic and Prophetic. The NT Apostles (I am thinking primarily of Paul, Barnabas, Peter and John) actively promoted and/or applied the idea that Eternal truths in Scripture are laden with cultural/temporal truths. Paul, Barnabas, and Peter recognized that Greeks do not/should not embrace Jewish culture to be Christian. John, did considerable work, especially in the Gospel of John, to express Christian teachings in with Greek concepts. To me that effort is more than simply a translation process.  Since OT Prophets, at least, generally deemphasize such an openness to other cultures, it seems like Apostolic Contextualization comes closest to relating to Neo-Orthodoxy and Prophetic to Orthodoxy (at least as the figure presents them).

2.  There is no way that one should describe the Method associated with Liberalism as Dialogic. Dialogue in no way expresses an opinion about truth. Perhaps the term was chosen because of the novel tendency of Evangelicals back in 1978 (when Hesselgrave’s book was written) to understand dialogue in line with John Hick and Raimon Panikkar. Their understanding of dialogue could arguably be seen as linked to a Liberal or Pluralistic perspective. On the other hand, perhaps the terms were chosen to be clever. Aliteration sounds nice (Didactic, Dialectic, Dialogic) even when it (perhaps) misinforms.

3.  The figure could be interpreted to mean that the more supra-cultural one interprets the Bible, the more orthodox one is. In my understanding, Orthodoxy has always questioned normalizing (blessing) one’s own culture, as well as any particular Biblical culture. As such, there should be a category further to the left on the figure for Schismatic or perhaps Particularistic groups.

This figure reminds me of the figure I use for dialogue:

Dialogue spectrum

One can bring these two figures together– relating Strategies of Contextualization and Strategies of Dialogue.

Strategies

Interpretation: 

The red line shows the theoretical spectrum of theology from more conservative to more liberal. The Green region would be the more normative strategies associated with the theological perspective. The Yellow region would be less normative, and Orange quite unlikely.  Of course, the redline as shown doesn’t truly exist. The range of theological perspectives do not fit comfortably onto  a single thin line.

The more conservative theologically, the more likely that the contextualization strategy is Didactic (focusing on how to translate the Bible and Christian teachings into the language and thought patterns of a target people). There is also a greater likelihood to utilize an Apologetic strategy of dialogue, emphasizing argument as a way to share the Christian message.

Of course, that is not always true. For example, many Conservatives may choose a Clarification strategy for Dialogue believing that it could be a more successful strategy. It would, however, be quite unlikely for Conservatives to utilize a Relativistic strategy for Dialogue or a “Dialogic” strategy for Contextualization since both tend to minimize the uniqueness of Christian revelation.

At the other end, being more theologically liberal, a “Dialogic” strategy of Contextualization and a Relativistic strategy for Dialogue would be more likely because of the tendency not to see Christian revelation as unique. That, however, is not automatic.

For me, I strongly support a Clarification strategy for Dialogue. For Contextualization, since I tend towards a “Counter-cultural approach” of contextualization, on this chart I suppose it is in the area close to where Didactic and Dialectic meet. That means I am not on the Red Line, but still in the Green Zone.