I have been reading Grenz and Olson’s book, “Who Needs Theology?” and found that they have a nice section of contextual theology. The following is a quote addressing the question of whether contextualization of theology should start from the Bible, as opposed to starting from culture. (I am reading the Kindle version, so I don’t have the exact page):
Going to the Bible first is a helpful proposal, yet it poses one grave danger. In our quest to read and be faithful in Scripture, we may overlook our culture. We may not give sufficient attention to the questions people today are asking. As a result, our doctring— as biblical as it may appear to be— may in the end be irrelevant to the world in which God calls us to live as disciples. In short, our attempt to construct a biblical theology may short circuit our attempt to construct a biblical theology.
Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), chapter 7
Grenz and Olson later in the chapter support a “Trialogue” between Bible, Setting, and Church History. Quoting from later in the chapter, “How do we construct contextual theology? Our answer is: By bringing our understanding of Scripture, our cognizance of our heritage and our reading of our cultural context into creative trialogue.”
It is interesting, to me at least, that Stephen Bevans in his six modesl of contextualization, seemed to have a trialogue of Scripture, Culture, and Reflection. It is interesting to me because Bevans is a Catholic theologian and so would, presumably, take church heritage more seriously than Grenz and Olson. However, Bevans in speaking to a group of Catholic theologians (youtube video I saw) seemed to suggest that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church is somewhat of a obstacle to overome in contextualization. However, the Intertradionality of the Synthetic Contextualizaiton model may suggest the drawing on church history/heritage.
Although there were many travelers in history who regaled people back home with tales of distant lands, often it was missionaries who were the first to record document other cultures to bring clarity and understanding. That is not to say that they went in without biases or agendas. They certainly did, but often they did so better than other professions (diplomats, military personal, merchants) who had to interact with outsiders. Some early “ethnographer” missionaries include Bernardino de Sahugan in 16th century Mexico, and Abraham Rogerius in 17th century India.
Cultural anthropology as a “science” really took off in the 1870s. However, in some ways, 20th century cultural anthropology had more similarity to the early missionary ethnographers than to the anthropologists of the previous generations.19th century anthropologists tended to be “armchair” researchers analyzing data from libraries, unlike missionaries who studied the people in their own setting. 19th century anthropologists also tended to be more interested in learning about present cultures to understand the past. They wanted to explore cultural diffusion (change due to external influence) and cultural evolution (change due to internal influences) more than present cultures. A great example, in my view is the book “The Golden Bough”– an immense book (regardless of the abridged or unabridged version) by James G. Frazer in 1890. The book is a collection of bits and pieces of cultural data around the world. with the primary purpose of justifying his theory behind a novel practice in a Roman cult two millennia ago.
20th century anthropologists were interested in analysis, taxonomies, and theories like their 19th century counterparts. However, like missionaries, they believe in learning with the people (participant-observer), with the goal of understanding the present more than the past.
Research Location
Use of Data
Interest
Ethnographer missionaries
Culture of Interest
Practical ministry
Present
19th century anthropologists
Libraries
Analysis and Theory development
Mostly Past
20th century anthropologists
Culture of Interest
Analysis and Theory development
Mostly Present
I don’t believe that missionaries need to apologize for being more focused on practical ministry than on theory Missionaries have a primary calling to service, not to science. Some missionaries were chastised by boards and superiors for being focused on understanding and documenting local cultures rather than their “real work.” But service to God cannot be separated from service to the people. Service to the people involves trying to understand them. Missionaries can research, analyze, and still seek to learn how to serve better.They can serve God, serve the people, and serve academia as well.
I am reading the book “Who Needs Theology?” by Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson. I am almost half-way through and it is a good read so far. I have seen some mixed reviews so possibly their complaints will hold more weight in the second half. Smooth sailing so far.
Grenz and Olson note several reasons that Christians often push back against theology.
Killjoy Objection. Theology ruins everything in the Christian experience.
Divisiveness Charge. As they worded it, “Jesus Unites, Theology Divides.”
Speculation Accusation. Theology is too impractical and focuses on things that were were never meant to understand.
Stalemate Indictment. Theology is stuck, unable to progress because ultimately it is just a bunch of people saying to each other, “Well no… YOU are the ones who are WRONG!”
This is a good list, and the authors do a good job undermining these objections to theology. I can think of one more that it worth bringing up although it probably doesn’t belong on the list.
I will call it “The Switcheroo.” In my faith tradition, theology is often not really taken very seriously. However, most commonly it is not because they do not speak unfavorably about theology. They will often talk about how important theology is, but when one delves into the issue, what one finds is that what is meant is “Dogma and Defense” or “Indoctrination and Transmission.”
Grenz and Olson see the fourth objection to be the strongest. If theology gets to a point where nothing changes— people form trenches on the battlefield of theology and the lines never move— the point can be made that it is essentially a dead exercise.
Grenz and Olson state that if one feels that progress is only evidenced if there is a unanimous change of opinion, then indeed, theology will NEVER progress. Unanimity is to high of a standard, however, for pretty much any field of study. They do give an example that they view as real progress.
It has to do with the issue of the Impassibility of God. God, in this view, does not feel pain or pleasure from others. God lacks emotions— at least in ways that we can relate to. Some have struggled with passages that clearly show God responding emotionally in the Bible, in apparent response to the behavior of His creation. Others have tried to come up with a way of saying, as St. John did, that “God is Love” while still seeing God as impassible. Still others have wrestled with the presentation of Jesus, “fully God, fully man,” as a fully emotional being.
But in the 20th century a strong movement came along that went against “Dogma and Defense” and said that maybe the reason we are having trouble defending the Impassibility of God is because God clearly revealed Himself to us as Passible— able to suffer and feel emotions. Perhaps the classical understanding of the God of Abraham was imagined (in this area at least) through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus— The One… The Unmoved Mover…. Perfect in Unchangingness, rather than through God’s one self-revelation.
While there are still defenders of the Impassibility of God, the change of the battle lines has been dramatic enough to say that there has been real progress.
I agree with this, but Theology also shows progress in its correlation to contemporary needs. Progress, then, is not always demonstrated by the moving of the trenches, but also in the finding of new battlefields.
The growth of human population and of industrialization, has forced us to explore theologically the issues of ecology and creation care. I have known many people who don’t see the relevance of these because the Bible doesn’t spend much time on these issues (at least at first glance). However, the Bible is not a theological work, primarily, but a revelatory work. Theology uses God’s revelation to explore new, and old, questions in the present context. The present context (over population and pollution) did not exist two to three thousand years ago, but that doesn’t mean we have no insight from God in this matter.
Another question has to do with inter-religious dialogue, and living in a pluralistic society. In this one, we do have insights of theologians in the past— particularly during the Roman Empire in the West, and n the Caliphates in the East. We even have wisdom to draw from in the Old Testament from writings during the Exile, and in the majority (arguably all) of the New Testament. However, an awful lot of theology has been developed over the centuries in the context of monocultural Christendom.
These questions (on ecology and multiculturalism) are in themselves evidence of progress as theologians (lay theologians, ministerial theologians, and professional theologians) wrestle with these.
The risk is that the loudest voices will be the least sound theologically. It may end up like in the 19th century when often the loudest so-called theologians addressed the important contemporary issue of slavery and abolition with the trite statement, “Well, some people had slaves in the Bible.” Theologians needed rather to explore “What does God say about slavery as it is expressed in our situation today, and in the structures of today?” The similar things must be done in terms of ecology, multiculturalism, nuclear threat, and so much more.
If we don’t ask these questions seriously about our present setting, then YES, theology is stalemated, and (effectively) dead.
<I was recently asked to create a Bachelor’s level course on Holistic Missions. I think it will be called, “Foundations of Holistic Missions.” Anyway, in my latest book, “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions,” I had written a chapter on holistic missions— or at least theological perspective that supports holistic missions. However, in the published version, the chapter was missing. Although it is a topic that I am very interested in, and one that is important in Theology of missions, in the end, my three part structure on my reflections, left this topic as the odd one out. I removed it. However, here it is. I don’t think it made it to a final edit, so please excuse any typos or other forms of awkwardness.>
Chapter 11
Nature of Ministry in Missions
As noted in a previous chapter, there is a great disagreement of what ministries should qualify as missions. Part of this is because of the reaction between conservative and liberal Christianity. Often the argument is centered on where social ministry fits into the overall ministry of missions. This conflict has not always been an issue. For example, consider the “Nestorian” mission work that extended across Asia during the first millennium.
“As part of their missionary strategy, the Church of the East set up a number of schools in the Persian Empire where monks studied theology, medicine, music and other academic subjects before being sent out to evangelize. Whenever the Nestorians established a new episcopal see (the seat of a bishop), they also set up a school, a library and a hospital, thus combining educational and medical work with their preaching.”1
The monks served as the missionary arm of the Church of the East. For example, a mission team to the Haphthalite Huns in the sixth century included four missionary priests, one missionary bishop, and two merchants. They were to move to an unreached city on one of the major trade routes. The team would establish a church, library, and hospital— evangelizing, healing, and training. The merchants not only provide funding for the mission, they also provided a very acceptable reason for being there.2
This may be innovative in some ways, but is not without precedent. Paul and his partners evangelized, planted churches, trained leaders, healed the sick, and even collected moneys for the needy. They also made tents. This tentmaking certainly provided funding for their mission trip, but it also gave them a purpose to interact with people in the marketplace.
We see this same sort of multifaceted ministry work with William Carey. William Carey evangelized and sought to plant churches, but also was involved in legal reform, translation, publishing, teaching, and more. With such patterns from the Bible, early missions history, and early Protestant missions history, it seems like it should be obvious that mission work should be broad in scope. However, there were factors pushing towards a more narrow interpretation.
First, many see the Great Commandment as a calling for missionaries, rather than a calling for the church. Further, the Matthew version of the Great Commandment is seen as the guidance for what missionaries are supposed to do, and by inference, what they are not supposed to do. The Matthew version of the Great Commandment can be seen as describing a 3-part cycle.
Evangelize (proselytize them)
Baptize (bring them into the church)
Teach (train them to be multiplying Christians)
Looking at this, there seems to be no room for other forms of ministry. John Stott and Leslie Newbigin, among others, noted that this limited view of missions ministry is in no way supported by other Scripture. They would point out the John version of the Great Commission that notes that the apostles are commissioned to be sent out as Christ was. This suggests that Jesus is the model for the apostles. Jesus integrated social ministry (healing), signs, evangelizing, and teaching.
The Great Commandment and the Great Commission
The Great Commandment, not the Great Commission, should be seen as the key guide for Christians. The Great Commandment guides one’s relationship to God, others, and self. But how does one apply the Great Commandment? Jesus used the Parable of the Good Samaritan to not only explain who is one’s neighbor, but apparently also what obedience to the Great Commandment looks like lived out. Much of Sermon on the Mount is application of the Great Commandment. The same is the Great Commission. One of the ways that one lives out one’s love for God and for one’s neighbor, is to go into the world and act as witnesses and messengers of God’s love and message to all.
Why does this matter? It matters because this means that one cannot say one is accomplishing the Great Commission if the activity is inconsistent with the Great Commandment. For example, activities such as forced conversion (“Cross or Sword Evangelism”) is not obedient to the Great Commission. Some may not have trouble with such a method because it may be seen as an end that justifies the means. However, most I believe would say that forced conversion stands condemned by the Great Commandment.
What about social ministry? If one proclaims the message of God while refusing to meet evident physical, psycho-emotional, or social economic needs, can one justify this by the Great Commission, understood as an application of the Great Commandment? Good people can disagree, but the process of testing the methodology requires both the Commission and the Commandment. It needs to be “Doubly Great.”
20th Century Rejection of Social Ministry
The Liberal-Fundamentalist conflict of the early 20th century had its effect and how missions and ministry were viewed. As noted in a previous chapter, there was increased questions about missionaries going out and proselytizing those of other faiths and cultures. Religious Pluralism grew in the early decades, drawing into question of whether proselytizing was necessary, or even desirable. Tied to this was the growth of what became known as the Social Gospel. While proponents of this view have often been unjustly exaggerated in their views, the thought was that missionaries should focus on works of social ministry rather than proselytizing. As some mission work became lopsided toward social ministry, other missionaries and mission agencies moved in the opposite direction, rejecting social ministry.
The 1960s brought strange trends to missions. As noted before, there was a shift in concilliam missions (missions associated with the World Council of Churches) to see missions as incompatible with proselytization. In reaction to this, Evangelicals created their own alternative first with the World Congress on Evangelism, held in Berlin (1966). The group’s noble goals were driven by an attempt to restore evangelism to missions. However, there was a tendency to overreact, and pull away from Social ministry. Part of this was aided by supporters of Donald MacGavran. His work in missions and church growth, while ground-breaking in so many ways, did sometimes tend towards a pragmatic approach to missions and narrowing of the missions call to churchplanting. The pragmatism could also be seen in a tendency to take missions theology less seriously.3
Additionally, during this time there was a promotion of what I might call “Apocalypticism.” In this I mean that many believed that Jesus Christ was ‘returning any day.’ As such, Christians had to put all of their efforts into quick conversions. As such, medical ministries, community development, and work on human rights, could be seen as more of a distraction than part of real missionary work. This is hardly new. The Student Volunteer Movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries had a slogan, “Evangelization of the world in one generation.” This idea was repeated with the AD2000 movement, and others. While goals are not a bad idea, it is a bit troubling that the Great Commission is seen to have an expiration date built into it, rather than that Christians are to be faithful until the Lord comes. Further, quick methods for evangelization may seem more effective up-front. But 50 years later, one must wonder if development ministries would have proven more effective in time.
Perhaps the most odd of these reasons for minimizing social ministry is the view of some missiologists that they can “speed up” Christ’s return. They point to the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Some have taken this verse to mean that if the gospel message is preached effectively to every people group on earth, Jesus will suddenly return. This perspective reminds me of the short story by Arthur C. Clarke entitled, “The Nine Billion Names of God.”4 This story is about a fictitious group in Central Asia who believed that if they could write down all 9,000,000,000 names of God, the Universe would come to an end. Considering that to be their noble quest, they buy a supercomputer (back in the day when such a task would require a supercomputer) to speed up their slow, pain-staking work. As an outsider to this group, one may wonder why this group would want the Universe to end, but one could also question why some missionaries wanted to speed up the return of Christ. If one has compassion for the lost, lessening the opportunity for them to respond seems out of sorts with such compassion. Thankfully, there seems no good reason to see this verse as saying that God is timing the return of Christ on our mission work. And if, by some chance He is, it is really uncertain what criteria would qualify as the gospel being preached “in all the world for a witness unto all nations.”
The 1960s and 1970s were challenging times for Social Ministry in Evangelical Missions. John Stott as a conservative Anglican, bridged the gap between Conciliar and Evangelical missions. He worked very hard to change the minds of several Evangelical leaders, such as Billy Graham and C. Peter Wagner, who sought to define missions in more “Spiritualistic” terms. It seems as if Stott was not really able to change their minds. However, he was able to change the wording of some the early pronouncements of the Evangelical Missions movement that formed in the 60s.5
While I know this is still a touchy subject in Evangelical circles, I am thankful for the work done to prevent a view that undermined the value of Social Ministry. If Jesus embraced both social ministry and proclamation ministry, why would we seek to do less?
Views Regarding Social and Spiritual Ministry
Jerry Ballard in his article “Missions and Holistic Ministry”6 describes several major perspectives regarding how social ministry is viewed by Christian missionaries or ministers. This section will use his work as a starting point. Spiritual Ministries would include things that are, right or wrong, seen as more spiritual than other ministries. This is not very informative, but such ministries may include: evangelism, churchplanting, discipleship, prayer, worship, and so forth. These may be (perhaps) seen as having eternal value. Social Ministries would include pretty much everything else— those ministries that are primarily addressing, physical, social, psycho-emotional, economic, and ecological concerns. These (again perhaps) may be seen as having temporal value.
Figure 14. Spiritual versus Temporal/Social Ministry7
If Spiritual Ministry is seen as the vertical axis and Social Ministry is seen as the horizontal axis, then one has created a plane of ministry. Figure 14 shows this plane. A rectangle of Spiritual Ministry covers any ministry that is highly “spiritualistic,” while a different rectangle shows ministry that is highly “social.”
A Spiritualist perspective may be seen as the view that Christian ministers should only be doing spiritual ministry. Other ministries are essentially a distraction, drawing one away from what God has called to be done.
The extreme opposite of this view could be described as the Social Gospel perspective. If the Spiritualist perspective is drawn from the Great Commission as described in Matthew 28, the Social Gospel perspective could be seen as drawn from Matthew 25. In Matthew 25: 31-45, obedience to God is seen in doing social ministry. In the extreme of this perspective, if one is doing social ministry, one is doing the whole calling of God.
The Convenience perspective is somewhat similar to the Spiritualist perspective. However, one who embraces the Convenience perspective would accept the premise that “It is nice to be nice.” As such, this person may not really think their calling is to do social ministry. However, this person would not see social ministry as a distraction. If there is a need, and helping out would not undermine doing their “real work,” the missionary will try to be a blessing.
The Ulterior Motive perspective sees Social ministry as an important part of Christian ministry. However, one who accepts this perspective doesn’t see social ministry as inherently important but as valuable to open doors for spiritual ministry. This person may see spiritual ministry as “the real ministry” but recognize that social ministry is still an important part of the process. I used to be involved in medical missions. In these medical missions activities, we would provide free medical, dental, and surgical services, along with free medicines and vitamins. Normally, we would also evangelize. Many of the people I worked with in this activity would say that their real ministry is to evangelize and get people to be part of a home Bible study and a church family. They saw the medical and dental services as the way to draw them in and get them to respond positively to the “spiritual ministry.”
The Holistic perspective sees Social Ministry and Spiritual Ministry as both being part of God’s call to Christian service. As such, a person with this viewpoint would value both and seek, when possible, to integrate both in their ministry work. This view may be seen as being more in line with John Stott’s imagery of ministry being like a pair of scissors, or wings on an airplane or bird. Some may see one as having priority over the other… but in for those who have the Holistic perspective, priority doesn’t mean choosing one over the other. (An emergency room team may prioritize certain forms of care in rapid response, but that does not mean that they don’t provide all forms of care.) In the medical mission work I was involved in, there were also many team members that saw spiritual ministry and the medical and dental care as important and working together. As such, they saw no value in separating them and prioritizing one over the other.
Returning to Figure 14, the perspective is likely to have affect behavior. A missionary who embraces a Spiritualistic perspective is going to invest time, energy, and other resources into spiritual ministry, and little into social ministry. One who embraces a Social Gospel perspective is likely to be the opposite, putting most resources into social ministries, with little into spiritual ministries. Figure 14 shows Convenience and Ulterior Motive perspectives as sharing the same space on the diagram. Both do not highly value social ministry. One does it because the missionary wants to be nice when possible. The other sees it a means to the end of doing “real ministry.” As such both are likely to be invest more seriously in spiritual ministry, and much less diligence in social ministry. Finally, one who embraces Holism will seek the overlap of the two ministries— high quality and resource investment both in spiritual and social ministries.
Summary
Missionaries should, as part of developing their own theology, address the issue of what truly entails mission work. How narrow or broad is one’s calling. The answer is not simple since our chief example, Jesus Christ, did not make it simple. He embraced a broad understanding of what it means to serve God, guided by the Great Commandment. At the same time, God does empower people differently and places them in unique situations. As such, even if one a Holistic Perspective in theory (for example), one’s circumstances and giftings may place one in a position of doing ministry that leans towards one extreme or another.
In my case, I presently teach missions in a seminary as my primary ministry role. That role is not overtly holistic. Some may see it as more Spiritualistic since it involves training people to do Christian ministry. Others may see it as more Social ministry since its focus is on education and research rather than evangelism, discipleship, and church planting and growth. I spend very little time worried about the bounds of Spiritual Ministry and Social Ministry. In fact, it is entirely possible that dividing Christian ministry into two categories is a human construct rather than one that God would recognize as valid.
3 We are back to Rodger Bassham’s book, Mission Theology.
4 Arthur C. Clarke, “The Nine Billion Names of God.” Originally published in Star Science Fiction Stories, Frederick Pohl, ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1953).
6 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.
7 Much of this is expanded on in Robert H. Munson, Christian Medical Missions:: Principles and Practices in the Church’s Role for Effective Community Outreach in the Philippines and Beyond, Rev. A (Baguio City, Philippines, MM-Musings, 2013). Also video on this available, “Social Ministry as Part of an Integrated Mission Strategy, Parts 1 and 2.” These can be found at https://vimeo.com/user42611623
MMM -- Mission Musings 