I wrote an article for Bukal Life Journal. The journal is the publication of Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center, and deals with topics relating to pastoral care and counseling, and pastoral theology.

One of my favorite topics is looking at how Christian Missions and Pastoral Care intersect.

The article is titled, “

Theological Reflection through Storying in the Orality and Clinical Pastoral Training Movements

It is originally published in the 2022 edition of Bukal Life Journal, pages 27-42.

It is also available at academia.edu.

The link is here:

https://www.academia.edu/89426385/Theological_Reflection_through_Storying_in_the_Orality_and_Clinical_Pastoral_Training_Movements?source=swp_share

The copy of the Bukal Life Journal is also available at academia.edu. Clicking Here.

I wrote a textbook for seminary students in the Philippines. I still use the book (“Ministry in Diversity”). However, I stopped selling the book because I wanted to make some changes.

One area I have been struggling with is the use of the term “Cultural Anthropology.” The term is used both by missionaries and (secular) cultural/social anthropologists. However, some firmly believe that the term cultural anthropology has the built-in presumption of cultural relativism. I am not totally convinced of this, but that did bring up the good question of what should missionaries hold to in terms of culture.

Upon reflection, I think there is value in separating between culture and religion. Now before anyone jumps all over me for this, I am only suggesting that there is some value in separating them even if one cannot truly separate the two.

If one pretends that one can separate religion and culture, then one can identify two spectra. One relates to culture ranging from cultural relativism (all cultures are equally valid and cannot be judged by outsiders) to cultural imperialism (all cultures can judged by my own culture and changed to be like my own culture). Religiously, one can see a spectrum from religious pluralism (all religions are equally valid and cannot be judged by outsiders) to religious exclusivism (my own faith/religion is the only one that is completely valid and is to challenge other faiths).4

Simplifying the spectra into two regions each, one can create quadrants. The Green Region I am calling “Civilizing” Missionaries. This goes back to many of the Great Century missionaries. Many were Religious Exclusivists and Cultural Imperialists. This makes me think of David Livingstone’s 3-Cs— Christianity, Civilization, Commerce. Such a model separates between religion and culture but still sees part of the missionary endeavor to change culture (“civilize”).

The Pink and Orange Regions are where there is Cultural Relativism. I am using the term “Presence” Missions here. This hearkens back to the developments especially associated with conciliar missions especially as popularized in the 1960s. Missions in this view was done by missionaries that would focus on a ministry of presence— often with the presumption that God’s work in and through the culture meant that the message of the gospel was unnecessary to be shared. I put out Presence Missions for both categories regarding culture. After all, in some forms of Christian community development, there may be a strong effort to change the culture even if religiously there is little desire to proselytize.

That leaves Transformative Missions in the Yellow region. There is an embracing of an Exclusive view regarding faith. However, the goal is not destroy culture. The hope, at least, is that the Gospel will fulfil or bring out the best in culture.

As I said, it is not realistic to separate culture from religion… but we do in many ways. We do separate Secular from Sacred… Holy from Mundane. Some of the boundaries are artificial, but Acts 15 (among other passages) do suggest the gospel transforms cultures without undermining them.

I need to make changes in the book but must figure out how to wrestle with this issue better.

Yesterday, I attended a theological seminar. I should do it more often. The main speaker was Dr. Federico Villanueva, a Filipino theologian of the Langham Partnership. He is an OT scholar with special focus on the Psalms of Lament. He presented a paper, but also made a strong appeal to the Filipino audience to develop not only localized theology, but localized theology in one’s own heart language.

After lunch, there was panel discussion with Dr. Villanueva, as well as Dr. Armand Canoy and Dr. Michael Janapin of Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary. A lot of great questions were asked and answered. I will list two here.

1. The first on was by me. I said something to the effect, “Catholic theologian Stephen Bevan’s says that one of the tests of good contextual theology is dialogue with the Universal Church— willing and able to both challenge or critique others as well as receive critique from outside. I believe heart language helps in developing localized theology, but it acts as a barrier to dialogue with the rest of the church. How do we find a healthy balance?” A shortened version of the answer given by Dr. Villanueva was “Yes balance is important. However, there is such a dearth of theology in Tagalog that it really needs to be encouraged to strengthen Filipino theology. Later, translations can be done for dialogue with the broader theological community.”
2. Francis Samdao, a doctoral candidate at ABGTS had a follow-on question somewhat like mine but with a different focus. “How can one avoid theological tribalism, ignoring the broader globalistic community?” Dr. Villanueva (summarizing here again) said, “We always need to maintain connect to and learn from outside sources. I truly gained a greater understanding of my Filipino culture when I read theological works by Americans, British, Germans, and more. But before I did that, I first had to be well-immersed in my own culture and our history.”

I think these were good responses. Also, my wife and I are reading through a book the speaker wrote (in English) that we definitely would recommend.

Over 19 years plus our work in the Philippines has been complicated. I decided to make a chart of all of the organizations we have been involved in. History is valuable for self-reflection. I think it shows at least two things. First, we had no idea what we were doing for many years. Second, God did have a plan to guide and sustain… but part of that plan involved experimentation and learning. There were relatively few FAILURES…but there were many opportunities to learn through mistakes.

The link to the chart is below.

bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/2022/10/02/ministry-chart/

One of the statements given in missions is that contextualization or incarnational ministry is about “walking in another person’s shoes.” Clearly, this is a metaphor, but a metaphor that I think has value to us.

But how does one know that one is walking in “another’s shoes” or whether one is imagining the other of walking in “one’s own shoes”?

I think a bit of an answer exists in Pastoral Counseling. A principle in PC can be described as a formula:

Facts + Feelings = Meaning

I will use an example that I use is the book that my wife and I wrote (The Art of Pastoral Care), but I will do it as two different conversations… between Tom and Susan.

Conversation #1.

Tom: “Hi Susan. What is new?”

Susan: “Hey Tom. Well, my next door neighbor just died last night.”

Tom: “Oh my, Susan. I am so sorry to hear that. What can I do to help you? Please let me know what I can do to help you.”

Susan: “Uhh… no. That is not necessary. What’s new with you?”

Conversation #2.

Tom: “Hi Susan. What is new?”

Susan: “Hey Tom. Well, my next door neighbor just died last night.”

Tom: “Oh my, Susan. I had not heard. How are you feeling right now.”

Before finishing Conversation #2… we have to consider some of the possible responses from Susan.

Conversation #2— Feelings Options

Susan (A): “I am so angry. He threw away his life leaving his wife and two children.”

Susan (B): “I don’t feel much of anything. I hardly knew him.”

Susan (C): “I am devastated. He was like a father to me.”

Susan (D): “I am thrilled. He was such an evil man. I am glad he is gone.”

Each of these feelings give the first statement (death of the neighbor) greater clarity. Up until that point it was only a fact. Once the feeling is known, the meaning of that event for Susan is known. And, typically, once the feeling is known, this opens up the conversation for more facts that give the meaning context.

Obviously for conversation #2, Tom would need to respond differently depending on the feeling response of Susan. Suppose, for example, that the statement was option D: “I am thrilled. He was such an evil man. I am glad he was gone.”

Now, Tom must look at how to respond to this.

One option would be to reject those feelings and say something like, “Susan! You shouldn’t feel that way. That’s not very Christian…”

Another option would be to accept those feelings and seek to understand more the context. He could seek to (gently) draw out more from Susan regarding the relationship between her and the neighbor.

Conversation #1 is not contextualization. Tom does not try to “walk in her shoes.” Rather, the response could be one of two things. First, it could be a failure to understand her context. Tom could be thinking, “Well, I am pretty sure I should say something soothing because that is what people do when a person dies.” However, worse, a second option could be trying to “get her to walk in his shoes.” Perhaps, he had a neighbor who died who he was very close to. In essence, he is saying to her, “Your neighbor died so you must feel the same way I did when my neighbor died.” Both of these are a failure to contextualize.

Conversation #2 is an attempt to contextualize. Tom seeks to gain meaning as to what is going on rather than simply go with facts. That is good, but one can still fail. As I showed in one of the options after finding out the meaning that Susan gave, Tom judged her and said that she (as a good Christian) shouldn’t feel that way. While this MAY (or MAY NOT) be true, Tom is not really in a position to judge. He doesn’t know enough about the neighbor and his interactions with Susan to speak. He needs to gain a greater understanding. If he fully knew the situation, he may well have said, “Wow Susan. I am so sorry to hear that. If I was in your shoes I would be happy he is dead as well.” Of course, we don’t know because we still don’t know the context.

So what does this have to do with missional contextualization? In missions we need to know more than facts (observations and data). We need to know meanings. If someone says something or does something, if we don’t understand the meanings behind these what happens? Well, we supply our own meanings. In other words we think something like “If I did that, what would I be thinking and feeling in that situation.” That is not being incarnational or attempting to contextualize. That is trying to get them to walk in our own shoes.

However, once we find the meaning, we still need to delve deeper. We cannot simply go… “Okay, I understand the situation fully now. Now I can judge.”

The classic case of this that people use is the practice of ancestor veneration. We see a place in the house with pictures of ancestors, with incense and fruit and things. As an outsider, we might look at that and say, “If I had something like that in my house it would either be because I am worshiping” (like a household god) “or have an unhealthy obsession” (like stalkers who set up a “shrine” to whoever they obsess over). Either way one must talk to the person with this ancestor “shrine” to find out what it means. Is it a place of worship— drawing out feelings of religious adoration and awe? Is it a place of entreaty (seeking help from a family member, even though deceased)? Is it a place of honoring (like flowers placed at a gravesite? Is it a place of carrying out a family tradition, with little meaning beyond doing one’s cultural duty?

The truth is that even after one discovers what it means to a person, one is likely still not in a position to judge. As I have said in previous posts, when Jesus said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” I think it is more than simply a warning about being judgmental. I believe it is also pointing out that we lack competence to judge. We don’t get to “peek over God’s shoulder” (as Merold Westphal would say).

Incarnational ministry involves an active continual quest for meaning that searches beyond facts to feelings to meanings, and then from meanings to more facts that must be tied to feelings to new meanings.