Month: June 2023

What does “So Send I You” Really Imply?

On By missionmusingsIn Evangelism, Social/Medical Ministry, theology of missions.Leave a comment

In Evangelical circles there has been a strong emphasis on the “Great Commission.” Of course, as I have noted numerous times, there are several presentations of the Great Commission. The two most popular (again, in Evangelical Circles) are in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1. Acts 1 is popular because it points to the outward direction of the GC and its call that seems to suggest that we are to seek to reach everyone and everywhere. The Matthew 28 version is popular because it suggests a certain process— #1 (Wherever) You Go, #2 (evangelize and) You Baptize, and #3 You teach (or disciple).

Both of them are good. But it is funny how what is good can become kind of bad when poorly understood. One of the worst areas of misunderstanding (in my view, obviously) is the tendency to see Matthew 28:18-20 as providing limitations on either Missions or Ministry. I will address the more eggregious (and less common one) first.

A. I have heard it stated that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the full counsel of the ministry of the church. The church is suppose to evangelize, baptize (bring into the church), and disciple. And that is it. Any other ministry is not part of God’s commissioning. I almost feel like this is a strawman and it is a waste of time to knock this down. I will go to the slightly stronger perspective and then challenge it. I think that the challenge to it would also serve to challenge this point. (Decide for yourself.)

B. More commonly, I have heard that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the boundaries for what can be considered missions. This seems weak, but I think it is worth digging into a bit. This has come through a process of history. The Great Commission was to the Apostles… technically. It was directed to them. They were “sent out ones.” They were what we would generally call missionaries today, in that they were to go out of the church to where the church is not to establish communities of faith, expanding God’s kingdom on earth. Like most all of the Bible, it was NOT TO US, BUT FOR US. As such, it sometimes gets a bit confusing as to what things apply to us and what things don’t. In the US and the Philippines, people love to take I Chronicles 7:14 and say that it applies to us despite the fact that this promise was ABSOLUTELY NOT DIRECTED TO US. That being said, could I Chron. 7:14 provide an overarching principle of how God works that we can take comfort in (or more reasonably embrace with great concern)? Hard to say. However, in the case of Matthew 28:18-20, there are pretty clear indications that it applies to the church as a whole (especially the promise that Jesus said He would be with them (us?) even to the end of the age. William Carey used this universal call to the church as an argument for carrying out mission work. This is good… but in so doing, the Great Commission (all versions of it) became identified as the work of missions, rather than of the church. Not sure that is a great thing, but that still brings up the question, does Matt. 28:18-20 provide limits to what is missions? Is missions ONLY evangelism, church planting, and discipleship?

I will address this question from Part B, but only after looking at a different version of the Great Commission. Another version is John 20:21— “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.'”

While it looks a lot different from the Matthean, Markan, and both Lukan versions, we can be pretty comfortable that it is also the Great Commission. It appears to happen in the same conversation with the apostles, it has the same charge— to go out and continue the work of Jesus. It, however, is much more broad in what it says to do. It doesn’t give any suggestions of limits like only to evangelism, church planting, and discipleship.

Because of this, John Stott had argued that this version suggests “Holistic Missions.” By this is meant that missions is not just about proclamation, planting churches, and teaching doctrine, but also involves compassion ministry, social justice, healing and more. He notes that the apostles being sent out in the same way that Jesus was suggests that the apostles should generally do what Jesus did. What did Jesus do? Holistic missions— he healed, he fed, he taught, he evangelized, he baptized (or at least his disciples did), he declared the kingdom of God and everything that suggests.

I have heard this challenged, and the challenge is pretty simple. Technically it does not say to do holistic missions, it just says they are sent out, and this being sent out by Jesus is in some way related to Jesus being sent out by the Father.

I think there is some value in this. We can’t just take everything that Jesus did and say that we must do the same thing simply because he did. We don’t necessarily have to overturn tables in the Court of the Gentiles. We don’t necessarily have to exorcise demons. We don’t necessarily have to hike around the Middle East. We most certainly don’t have to atone for the sins of the world (rather beyond our capacity anyway).

On the other hand, we can’t take it so far as to divest it all meaning. To be sent, does suggest a purpose for being sent. I suppose one could come up with language (in English at least) that does not imply purpose. Perhaps, it could be something like, “And Jesus said, as I left Heaven, and I am asking you to leave now.” There is no implied purpose, but the Greek roots associated with “pempo” and “apestalken” do seem to imply (I think… I am not a Greek scholar) that this not an aimless act. But if it is not aimless, the aim must be linked it seems. The purpose of being sent out by Jesus is informed by being His being sent out by the Father.

Since Jesus’ ministry is very much holistic, it seems like Stott’s point stands. But maybe you don’t agree. That is fair. Perhaps the fact that it is not explicitly commanded means that holistic ministry is not part of the Great Commission. That is where Matthew 28 comes in. Matthew 28:18-20 explicitly states that all that God calls, wherever they go they are supposed to “teach them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded.”

That is a pretty explicit statement. We are to do what Jesus said we are supposed to do. So, for example, in Matthew 25, that includes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and so forth. I don’t see any reading of the Gospels that shows Jesus commanding anything less than a whole gospel expressed holistically.

Perhaps, however, the argument is made that missionaries are supposed to evangelize, church plant, and disciple, but in their discipling, the disciples are supposed to be holistic (social and spiritual ministry both) but not the missionaries. I see three problems with this (at least). First, it implies and interpretation like, “You missionaries go forth and train people to obey everything that I have commanded, but you are called NOT to do everything I commanded. You are to do less.” That sounds like a good point at first, but it can break down under scrutiny. Perhaps missionaries are to obey all the commands of Christ and teach others to do all things that Christ commanded, but missionaries are not actually doing mission work when they are doing things outside of… you know… evangelize, church plant, and disciple. But that brings us to the second point. Second, typically teaching in the Bible is active and participative. Jesus discipled using a master-apprentice model. He did not teach with words disconnected from practice. It is hard to imagine that Jesus was suggesting, “teach using a very different model of training that what I have been doing.” If teaching is participative, then concern about social and physical and psychoemotional needs is very much part of the Great Commission. Third, while the Matthean Great Commission certainly applies to missionaries, there seems no reason to limit it. William Carey’s analysis of the Great Commission does not lead to “The Great Commission applies to specially designated missionaries only.” Rather it leads to “The Great Commission applies to the church, yesterday, today, and for the foreseeable future.” If that is true, then one can absolutely not remove social concerns from the Great Commission. This undermines the strawman at the top of this post. The church is to carry out the Great Commission and that implies the total calling of Jesus in expanding the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth,

Bringing this all together? What does “So Send I You” imply? Understanding that John 20:21 cannot be separated form Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1, then Jesus sends (1) all of us (the church), not just missionary, out with purpose. That purpose is inextricably linked to (1) the commands of God that must be lived out in all of its dimensions (spiritually, physically, socially, and psycho-emotionally), and (2) the need for the Kingdom of Heaven to be lived out everywhere to the far corners of the world, as a testimony to all peoples.

If the Apostles Had Complete Disdain for Contextualization, They Had a Strange Way of Showing It

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, QuotesLeave a comment

I am taking a course with led by Tom Steffen. Tom shared a quote from John MacArthur. I don’t know the exact source, but I assume it is pretty accurate.

The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualizaation. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is “zip-code ministry.” The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel…. Does your message ignore the trends and superficial icons of culture, and bring heaven down in its transcendent reality? Can you take your sermons and preach them anywhere?

-John MacArthur

It is an interesting quote. I haven’t really listened to John MacArthur in decades so I am not sure how to read it. Logically, it is all over the place, and I had always remembered him as being more…. ummm logical, I guess? The most obvious one is that even if one defines the Gospel so narrowly defined as to be seen as completely supracultural, that in no way implies that one can “take your sermons and preach them anywhere?” If this quote is viewed as being part of a sermon, it exists within a context where it makes sense. In a different setting, this sermon would be completely confusing or meaningless.

I don’t really want to address the question of whether the Gospel is above culture or not. Part of that depends on where one places the boundaries around what one calls the gospel. I suppose one could make the boundaries narrow enough that one can ignore the “nuances of culture,” but the gospel came to us from God through culture. The language and metaphors make sense within the culture. A broad understanding of the gospel cannot be walled off from culture.

My big question is in the first line. Is it true that “the apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization?” If MacArthur is referring to Acts chapter 1, I suppose there may have been some truth to it. The apostles definitely thought of themselves as Jews reaching out to Jews with the Jewish message of Christ. Even if Acts 1:8 said that they would go to the ends of the earth, I don’t think they saw themselves as adjusting their message or themselves. However, the apostles soon did make adjustments. Acts 15 was a major adjustment. The issue of meat sacrificed to idols was an issue that had little relevance to the apostles until they crossed into Greek and Roman societies. Their response did not ignore the “nuances of culture.” The apostles chose to write down God’s revelation in Koine Greek and used a number of “Gentile” metaphors (hades, tartarus, Logos, Roman adoption, and more) to express aspects of the gospel message.

This is contextualization. But MacArthur certainly is aware of the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles. I assume it is a bit of a question of definition. The term “contextualization” only goes back to the 1970s. It could be thought of as coined by Shoki Coe related to a theological forum of the World Council of Churches. There are a lot of terms that overlap— contextualization, localization, indigenization, accommodation, and more. Many Evangelicals don’t like the term “accommodation” because of its roots in Roman Catholic thought. Many Evangelicals don’t like the term “contextualization” because of its connection to the WCC and conciliar missions. Still, I believe a majority of Evangelical missiologists and those interested in missions have come around to using the term “contextualization”— but in doing so have chosen to define this fairly broad term in a way that is not quite in touch with its original use. This is nothing new. The term “holism” is another term of the 20th century that Evangelicals have chosen to embrace, with modest adjustments to the definition from its original meaning.

But here is the deal. John MacArthur was clearly writing to Evangelical Christians. It seems like MacArthur is using the definition for contextualization of the WCC. At least that is the only way I can see the paragraph making sense. But if that is the case, he should have been using the Evangelical understanding of contextualization. Yes, some definitions of the word come much closer to a relavistic understanding of faith, or even syncretism, but in the context of the writing, the definition that needed to be used was far from this.

If he was writing to Evangelicals and using a word commonly used by Evangelicals but attaching a non-Evangelical definition to it— well, that is a true failure to contextualize.

In answer to the title question… The apostles clearly sought not to syncretize their faith. They did not seek to relativze the gospel of Christ as just another set of ideas in a world of ideas. However, they did try to answer the questions of other cultures with the message of Jesus utilizing the language and symbols of that culture.

The Temptation to Manipulate as Christian Leaders

On By missionmusingsIn Christian Ethics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Many (most?) of you are aware of the report that came out on Ravi Zacharias and some of his sexual misconduct (and the associated misuse of funds, as well as deception, to maintain the misconduct). I have friends who are real fans of Ravi, but I must admit I don’t really know much of his work. I did read a book he wrote, but that was literally decades ago (I remember liking it, but I can’t recall the title). I appreciate the fact that the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) chose to have the allegations thoroughly investigated and then reported the findings publicly. While I know some Christian leaders balked at the “unbiblical” route for handling the problem, I feel they did exactly the correct thing. In pastoral counseling, a common dictum is that “A family is as sick as its secrets.” One can take it further and say that “An organization is as sick as its secrets.” While I don’t recommend airing all of one’s dirty laundry all the time, the bigger the problem the sicker the organization becomes in trying to hide it.

I do know that there is one or two passages in the Holy Bible that COULD be interpreted as keeping church secrets secret. Paul recommended that church members try to handle their problems in-house rather than rely on outside authorities. That passage has been abused by so many for so long in the church, I would almost ask people to skip that passage when reading the Bible. Now, don’t take me too seriously on this point. All Scripture is useful, but my concern is that there has become such a culture of dubious beliefs within the church over the centuries around that passage, that people almost automatically read it wrong. The passage doesn’t say,

  • Hide your secret sins and evil behaviors from unbelievers.
  • Establish a culture within the church where people can behave in a predatory manner without any real repercussions.

No one, of course words it that way exactly, but it is pretty clear the passage is used that way by many. It is much the same with Matthew 18, a pattern that Jesus gave for addressing confrontation within the assembly. Many have weaponized it to maintain patterns of abuse— from both sides. Some use it as a pipeline for trying to push people out (rather than seeking reconciliation). Others try to turn the tables on the confronter, essentially saying, “I am not at fault, you are, because you didn’t follow Matthew 18” regardless of whether the situation fit the context of that passage.

With Ravi, part of what I found most disheartening was that he used his training in apologetics and rhetoric to manipulate women. A term used a fair bit in recent years is “grooming,” as in a predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position of being compliant to abuse. The skills to groom and the skills to do apologetics often overlap. So when Ravi referenced Old Testament patriarchs who had more than one wife, or telling a woman to keep quiet about their actions or she will be responsible for potentially millions not coming to Christ, this is the rhetoric of manipulation. I really doubt Ravi really believed that (commonly pretty toxic) polygamous relationships in the age of the patriarchs is prescriptive for how men and women should ideally relate today. I also doubt that Ravi really believed that holding a religious leader accountable for his (or her) actions should be avoided to keep from dooming populations of people to hell. Most like, he did not believe either one, but used them because they suited his purposes in the moment.

And I get that on a certain level. Years ago (in my pre-Internet days) I was on Compuserve Religion forum. I was holding a religious thread with a person from a very different religious perspective. I recall no details of that conversation, except one. At a certain point, I shared a Bible verse to counter the other’s point. I felt guilty about it afterwards… and still do. Why? Because I misused the verse. I used the verse in a way that, I believe, confused the meaning of the Bible in context. The wording of the verse ripped from its context made it sound like I could use it as I did… but in context I was misusing it. And it is actually worse than that because the person I was talking to did not know the Bible well enough to know that I was speaking out of context. That is a pretty bad thing to do. If you don’t think it is bad, try to recall a time when someone grossly misuses your words to support something you do not believe. I really don’t think God likes that either.

I do recall a pastor who was speaking at a large gathering of other pastors. They were going to vote on something. He told the group, “You must vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ You cannot vote ‘Abstain,’ for the Bible says, ‘Let your Yeas be Yeas, and your Nays be Nays.” Of course, that is a huge misuse of the Bible, and the words of Jesus. However, to be a wee bit fair, perhaps the pastor was being funny, and he assumed (right or wrong) that these pastors knew their Scripture well enough so that there was really no deception or manipulation involved. I can’t be certain in this case.

But in the case of Ravi Zacharias, I do believe he used his position as a big name Christian leader (at least within one branch of Christianity) and his knowledge of rhetoric and apologetics for selfish purposes, not for truth. I believe the temptation for this is great. This is because the skills for apologetics (debate, rhetoric, logic) are neutral. That can be used for good or bad. But the temptation to “win” can overcome one’s desire for truth.

The “Golden Mean” Theory of Creating Cultic Groups

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, EvangelismLeave a comment

Yesterday I was riding with other faculty to a resort on the outskirts of Davao City (Mindanao). We were talking about a couple of religious groups that spun off of Christianity to the point that they could not be called orthodox, and perhaps not even Christian. Some would call them cults… but I like to be cautious. For me a ‘cult’ is both heterodox in teachings and coercive in leadership. (A coercive group that is not really heterodox, I would just say has ‘cultic qualities.)

Any, back on the van. I said that such “cults” can be blamed on missionaries. I prefer to say that with caution— since I don’t want to accept blame for problems in my ministry I want to be cautious in pointing fingers.

HOWEVER… since I already said it, I would like to reflect on this.

Paul Hebert noted that in missions, “critical contextualization” is important, essentially the ‘golden mean’ between non-contextualization— expressing one’s faith with the language, explanation,and symbols of home and uncritical contextualization— utilizing too much of local symbols and explanations to hold onto the unique, orthodox understanding of God’s message. Diverging too far from the golden mean can lead to syncretism. Mix in a bit of coercive leadership and one suddenly has what I would call a cult. One doesn’t need to create coercive leadership, that comes naturally from potential leaders who love leading/controlling more than serving.

Another “golden mean” exists for the missionary between the extremes of “Evangelizer” and “Indoctrinator”.

The Evangelizer (an extreme stereotype I am presenting here) preaches a form of the gospel that allows for a quick and measurable response. Often there is little doctrinal content. In it’s extremes, such as here in the Philippines, it can be as little as, “Believe what you already believe, but also repeat the prayer I have told you to say.” The Evangelizer often does not disciple much, and commonly has little interest in church planting. Many don’t even seek to get others to do (the little) they do. Many get bored staying in the same place too long or or working with the same people too long. They want measurable and documentable results. In some ways it is like a man who wants to “make babies” but does not want to raise a child in the role of a father. The Evangelizer produces young Christians perhaps, but poorly prepared living out their faith in the world. Like young children, they will find others to model off of, or perhaps “wing it.” Cults are a reasonable possibility here … either produced as a natural outcome, or coming along and gobbling up those Ill-prepared for them.

The Indoctrinator, on the other hand cares much about what they believe. They put great effort in teaching their own doctrinal stands. They may even train them in apologetics in the areas of doctrines that the Indoctrinator us most concerned about. At first glance it seems likely that this would not produce cults. Evangelizers often produce a weak faith, but Indocritinators often produce a brittle faith. It has the semblance of strength, but when hit by concerns the missionary was not concerned about, the people are likely to either give in or react emotionally against. Neither response is likely to be well-grounded in their faith and experience since they were not trained to reflect theologically.

The Golden Mean is a Discipler. A Discipler doesn’t just evangelizer and doesn’t just (and this is a key point) indoctrinate. The people need to know the Bible but also must be empowered and trained to reflect theologically.

A good discipler is one who prepares the people for his or her absence. Indoctinators don’t because they only prepare the people for the concerns of the past in the missionary’s home setting. The Evangelizer doesn’t because he or she presumes that someone else will take up the slack. But that is the problem. The one taking up the slack is as likely to be unreliable as reliable.

The GOLDEN MEAN in Missions is a Discipler who assists the people in Critical Contextualization so that they can be competent to Reflect Theologically so as to be resilient in the faith.

Diverting too far from the mean produces an environment attuned to creating or supporting cultic groups.

A Centered-Set View of Christian Missions

On By missionmusingsIn Mission TheologyLeave a comment

Years ago, Paul Hiebert spoke of Evangelism and Conversion in terms of Centered-Sets rather than bounded sets, or even simple open sets. We don’t really know who is saved and who is not. God alone knows. I am not being a Calvinist here (which I am not). I am just saying that God alone knows the heart… we don’t. Because of that, in Evangelism we don’t know where the person was before we witnessed to them, and we don’t know are after (with respect to God). Hiebert suggested then that we should see the set of mankind as a bounded set with Christ in the center. We don’t know the exact boundary between a person and Christ, but we know that the redeemed can be thought of as closer. As such, Evangelism should be seen as moving people toward Christ. As such, statistics are a bit artificial. We can’t really measure “being closer to Christ then they were before.” See Paul Hiebert, “Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues,” Chapter 6.

Missions is also a thing that is hard to place boundaries on. Any definition for missions tends to cross off things that we all pretty clearly accept as missions. For example, many of the definitions would exclude Paul and Barnabas (as I have noted before). They did not serve internationally, and barely qualified as working cross-culturally. Even things like being cross-cultural may not apply to Missional Churches, or Diaspora Missions, for example. Stephen Neill years ago, however, pointed out the warning that if everything is Missions, then nothing is. I think this is valid, but it becomes difficult to find a consistent boundary.

So maybe it is better to have a centered set where the center is most clearly Christian Missions, and as one moves further from the center, it becomes less so, but with no clearly boundaries of when it moves beyond.

Using this, one might say that <A> loosely to be described as being in the center is the most clearly missions. One could define

<A> is “Cross-cultural Pioneering Missions.” This is the Ralph Winter ideal for missions. Going to places where the church “Is Not” to evangelize and plant churches.

<B> is “Cross-cultural Missions.” This is the most common understanding of missions. It is serving God oversees or across cultural lines in a variety of types of ministries to expand the Kingdom of God.

<C> is a category that I like to use when I talk about Missions. Maybe because of my Baptist roots, I like to look at missions from the perspective of the local church. When the church reaches out beyond itself for the growth of the Kingdom of God (without expecting its own growth) this could be called Missions. This would include both local church planting as well as long-distant or cross-cultural ministry.

<D> is the broadest category that could include all forms of ministry of the church. This could be said to be the Missio Ecclessiae. the full ministry of the church in response to God’s ministry work (Missio Dei). Essentially anything that lines up with God’s will and work could be said to be carrying out missions in this sense. This is where things get a bit questionable since Stephen Neill’s warning start to truly apply. Still, doing the mission of the church (Missio Ecclessiae) is indeed Missions in some sense.

The boundaries, except for the outermost are porous because there are no clear boundaries. I noted Paul and Barnabas before. They were clearly Pioneer Missionaries. However, they were not international missionaries and were barely even cross-cultural (in my context more like going from one part of the Philippines to another). So where do they fit? The fit inside of the <A> circle, but almost don’t really fit inside of the <B> circle. The problem goes away somewhat when one recognizes that the boundaries are approximate and loosely defined. Diaspora missions is often International but to one’s own culture, so it is also hard to fit clearly. Centered set doesn’t solve everything but does help gives some insights I believe.

A similar set of circles could be done for types of ministries as well. Churchplanting, Evangelism, and Discipleship are clearly mission work. Holistic ministry (especially in places where the gospel has had limited impact) is also in a broader circle of mission work. I teach missions in a seminary in a different country (from my own). That is missions, I think, but a different circle. Social justice, Bible translation, Missionary member care, and others also fit into missions but the definition is becoming gradually looser and poorly defined. Rather than saying certain types of work is missions and others are not, one should look at it from a centered-set perspective.

Melba P. Maggay Quote on Communicating our Faith

On By missionmusingsIn Evangelism, QuotesLeave a comment

The Truth we communicate is a Person, not a system of thought. … While we know this very well, it is often our practice to speak as if we were engaged primarily in an intellectual combat. We waste a lot of gunpowder shooting down people’s ideas, but spend very little time in understanding why they have come to such ideas. It is possible to answer a question brilliantly without having truly interacted with a person’s need. A whole universe lies behind a person; a whole story behind a question. … People are rarely persuaded by the abstract symmetry of ideas. Contry to current propaganda about the power of ideas, the mass of men live by things they feel and see.

—Melba P. Maggay The Gospel in Filipino Context (Manila: OMF Literature, 1987), 21-22. Quoted by Tom Steffen, Reconnecting God’s Story to Ministry: Cross-cultural Storytelling at Home and Abroad (Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2005), Ch. 5.

That Nagging Feeling About Premillennial Dispensationalism

On By missionmusingsIn CommentaryLeave a comment

I have been trying to work on more interesting titles to my posts, and this CERTAINLY is not one of them. But anyway, I was raised up in a faith tradition that almost invariably supported Pre-Trib, Pre-Mill views regarding the Second Coming of Christ. And there was a time that I studied that intensely. And while I certainly doubted some of the more extreme attempts to interpret some aspects of Revelation (such as identifying the giant dragonflies with long hair as Apache helicopters), I would say that I agreed with the basic premises of the idea of Premillennial Dispensationalism.

If you are not familiar with the term, the common view is that Jesus comes back in the first part of His Second Coming to take away the church. Then there is 7 years of hellish times on earth followed soon after (presumably) by the second part of Christ’s return where He crushes all opposition (in earthly and spiritual realms) and establishes His kingdom for 1000 years. After that, Satan is released, leads another attempted overthrow. This time, all rebellion is crushed, there is a new heaven and a new earth, and the saints of God join with Him in full harmony in the eternal state. There are other Tribulational views, as well as views regarding the Millennium (or lack thereof). There are also wildly different interpretations of the Book of Revelation in general.

As I said previously, I pretty much embraced this perspective… but doubts began to form.

A. It started with Revelation 12. Reading it, it just does not seem to fit into the futurist interpretation of the middle section of Revelation. Instead of sounding like it involves the 7 years of Tribuation. It seems pretty clear that it is an allegorical look at Salvific History. BUT… if it is not about the 7 years of Tribulation, why are we assuming the surrounding chapters are about that period in some sort of play-by-play linear history?

B. The next issue was about the Telescopic interpretation of Revelation. Many had noted that a lot of the horrible things in Revelation kind of repeat each other, and a linear tabulation of all of the bad things and how many die appear to wipe out most everyone too soon. As such, many suggested that the stories repeat or at least look at certain areas again but in increasing detail. That seemed like a good solution to the problem in Revelation. But that brings another nagging question… if one cannot interpret the middle section of Revelation as linear history, perhaps that, like the point “A”, undermines much of the underlying premises of Pre-Trib Pre-Mill.

C. The next thing really came up as I was thinking about some of the principles of hermeneutics. A couple of the principles are pretty obvious actually. (1) The different passages of the Bible were written FOR us, but NOT TO us. As such, we cannot just take statements given to others and take them for ourselves (Biblical “name it and claim it” or “claiming promises” is often non-Biblical thievery). (2) Related to the first, since it was not to us, it was written to be understood first of all by those it was TO, not necessarily for the broader category of those it was for. With these two points, I think it is pretty self-evident that— (3) The language and the symbols of a Biblical passage should make more sense to the people it was written to than those it was written for. As such the strange symbols, metaphors, and references in Revelation probably made a lot more sense to the late 1st century hearers than it does to us now. However, those who write about interpretation of the end times assume the opposite. They assume that the symbols and images in Revelation are more easy to interpret today than 2000 years ago. That also suggests that the book was written more to US rather than to the original readers. They assume, for example that QR scanners, invisible tattoos, RFIDs and other technologies make the mysterious “mark of the beast” easier to understand. On the other hand, it may actually do the opposite— confuse us in ways that the original hearers would not been hindered by.

This is more controversial. After all, we could argue that the Messianic passages of the Old Testament make more sense in the Church age than they did in the pre-Church era. But one has to look at it from a parallel situation. The information on the Messiah came progressively, but we would say that the canon closed on that around 400BC. We say that the canon closed for the New Testament around 100AD. So the equivalent case to our present case would be this: Did the Jewish people become more capable of understanding the prophecies of the Messiah as time approached the Incarnation (closer to 1AD than 400BC)? I think it could be argued that the answer is “No.” Did they become worse in this? That is harder to say. Sure they got better after Jesus came, died, resurrected, and ascended. In like manner, we will understand Revelation better after Jesus has already returned. I don’t think where we are in history makes us better at interpreting Revelation.

D. Dispensationalism is built off of the presumption that Israel and the Church have a prophetic wall between them. The New Testament sometimes supports this, but other times it is pretty clear that that wall has gaps and and holes. Sometimes the the Church and Israel are very much conflated and so one cannot separate them in terms of God’s future work. Other times it sounds like the Church replaces Israel. The lack of consistency of the language should give us caution. If one cannot separate the prophecies of the Church and Israel consistently, then a lot of the underlying assumptions of eschatology based on Dispensationalism start to become undermined.

So does this mean that I reject Dispensationalism? What about Pre-Trib Pre-Mil eschatology?

Not necessarily. However, I definitely embrace doubt. The Pre-Trib view seems especially weak— wishful thinking based on really shaky evidence. Pre-Millennial eschatology… well, I definitely think it is possible, and I do THINK that the earliest church fathers believed in it. However, some of the basis for believing it breaks down based on the comments above.

I do think there are several things that I can say with confidence.

  1. The Book of Revelation seeks to do two primary things— encourage continued faithfulness of the Church, and the warn against falling away. Reward is great for the faithful, and the future is dire for those who stray from the path.
  2. We are ABSOLUTELY NOT SUPPOSE TO KNOW THE TIME OF CHRIST’S RETURN. To me, even saying that the time is near (except in the broad sense that it is closer today than it was yesterday) is counterproductive. Our call is to be as the faithful servant— serving faithfully day after day without dwelling on the exact time of his master’s return. Timing Christ’s return is probably futile, and almost certainly will lead to the sloppy shortcuts that have plagued Christian missions in the last several decades.
  3. The children of God will live in harmony with God. This is a promise we can embrace. Those that reject God’s message will suffer and perish. This is a comfort, a caution, and a call to all of us.
  4. Those who are dogmatic about how everything is going to go down at the end probably will suffer some level of disappointment. The rest of us who don’t place their hope in a particular theory will just have to place their hope in God.

The old joke is that I am a Pan-Millennialist… because I believe it will “all pan out in the end.” If you don’t understand the term, it is American slang from gold prospecting. In short, things will work out as God intends it… regardless of how I think it is supposed to turn out.

This is a Christian Missions Blog. However, I believe that embracing with confidence what we KNOW the Bible promises and what it warns about will lead to better missions— certainly better than what exists at present.

Excerpt from my Chapter on Localization of Theology

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, theology of missions.Leave a comment

The following is an excerpt of a chapter that I am writing for a compilation of works that relate the Filipino theology. Along with writing one chapter, I am co-editor. Hopefully it will be available by the end of the year. It is a bit unusual in that close to half of the book is in Pilipino while the other is in English. Will give more information on it as it nears publishing…

“…good theology comes from a “friendly conflict” between the theologies that are contextual and inter-contextual. This can be described as a dialectic, or utilization of the dialectical method. It utilizes a conflict or debate between two opposing viewpoints. However, it differs considerably from typical debate. Firstly, the goals of debate and dialectics are different. In debate the goal is to win, while in dialectics the goal is discover truth. In a debate between viewpoints “A” and “C” the ideal ending is an agreement that one wins and the other loses. In dialectics, the presumption is that neither side has full grasp of truth, so the ideal result is “B,” a synthesis of “A” and “C” (or perhaps two groups still holding to their positions, but modified through the interaction). Secondly, debate uses a broader arsenal of tools to win the argument. Debate places more value on emotional arguments (“pulling at the heartstrings”) and rhetorical skills than does Dialectics. Dialectics values these to the extent that they are used not to manipulate or confuse, but to lead to truth.1 This is not implying that emotions are unimportant, but their role is to support values and meaning rather than to manipulate. Thirdly, as implied by the first point, the people who are proponents of viewpoints “A” and “C” should not see themselves as enemies or even at cross-purposes. Ideally, they should see each other as being on the same team— seeking truth. However, an overemphasis on the focus on commonality can lead to its own problem— which will be discussed next.

Debate versus Dialectics can be seen as relating to Interreligious Dialogue (IRD). Proponents of two different Christian theologies is far different from conversations between adherents to two different religions. Still, the strategies involved in IRD should make sense between two theological perspectives as well. In IRD, three strategies generally considered are didactic, dialectic, and dialogic.2 Didactic strategies are those that focus on one side teaching the other side. As such, the presumption of each side is they have the truth and must impart their truth to the other side. Implied in this is that the other side has nothing to offer back. Preaching, lecturing, and debate all fall into this category since the focus is on changing the other side while remaining essentially unchanged. Emphasis is given to differences between the two positions, while similarities are often glossed over.

Dialogic strategies are those that focus excessively on belongingness or social connectedness. It is in some ways the opposite of didactic strategies in that it seeks to avoid conflict by suggesting that the two groups are essentially one. Emphasis is placed on the similarities of the groups (“common ground”), while differences are given little attention. While the ideal of the didactic strategies is that one admits defeat and joins the other side, in dialogic the ideal is that the two groups have little effect on each other. Beliefs tend to be relativized.

Dialectic strategies are a mix of the two previous strategies. Dialects values both the similarities and differences between the two groups. As such, much of the activity involves clarification of views. Dialectic strategies see both sides as having a commonality of goal, seeking what is true, but does not assume either side has full grasp of it. One might be reminded of the interaction between the Apostle Peter and the Roman centurion, Cornelius.3 While one may assume a disciple of Peter would have nothing to learn from a Gentile, the truth is that both of them learned and gained from the interaction. It could be argued that what Peter learned was no more than what he already had been told by Jesus or by a vision previously. However, God used Cornelius to drive that point home. The openness of both Peter and Cornelius to learn from each other meant that both were humble enough to recognize that they had something important to learn from God, through the other person.

1 I will make no attempt here to explore the question of whether emotions explore a form of truth. It is, however, worth exploration.

2 More discussion of this is in Robert H. Munson, Dialogue in Diversity: Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World, Rev. A. (Baguio City, Philippines: MM-Musings, 2019), ch. 11.

3Read about this in Acts Chapter 10. Try to look at it from the standpoint of two people with different beliefs, that God brought together to learn something important from each other.

Bob Munson’s Random Areas of Interest June 2023

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

This website is not generally my conversation with the world. For the most part if I want to talk to people, I talk to them face-to-face or through direct emails or messaging. I put up my “musings” on topics of Christian missions, theology, and ministry and people can read them or not. At the same time, this website. http://www.munsonmissions.org does serve as a log (not a diary) of my personal/professional/intellectual/spiritual journey. As such, I occasionally put stuff that is a bit more about me. However, none of my posts here, including this one, will be about my personal pains, or dreams or aspirations. I am not convinced that blogs are the best place for that.

I have been working on quite a few things lately. The fact that the school year in the Philippines has shifted by a couple of months has given me a couple of months to move forward learning or projects for later this year. Here are a lot of them:

#1. I am co-editing a book on Grief and Loss in the theological milieu of the Philippines. This is a project of several members of our seminary (Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary). Editing a book comprised of different chapters by different writers is new for me. I am trying get comfortable with how gentle or vicious I should be with it. Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines very commonly mimics that of the United States (thankfully with a somewhat less toxic political theology). Ultimately, I am glad to see a more serious attempt in recent years for theologians here to find their voice. The book is bilingual (English and Tagalog). That is an interesting challenge in itself.

#2. I am working on cleaning up my old book on Cultural Anthropology. I have had a love/hate relationship with my book “Ministry in Diversity.” I pulled it down from being available online a year or two ago, but I still use it for the classes I teach. I have decided to fix a few problems I have with it… especially in adding a chapter on the History of Cultural Anthropology. This is an area in which my own education was weak, so I am studying up to finish the chapter. I am still not sure if I will put it up on online book stores or just make it an e-book freely available on this website. I also have the option of submitting it to a local publisher for schools in the Philippines. I am just not sure.

#3. I am working with my wife on a couple of projects. One of these is a webinar that she is doing with some church leaders on Leadership Principles. We are focusing on Servant Leadership (and related types such as Democratic Leadership and Transformational Leadership). Additionally, we are SLOWLY working on an online class that will hopefully start at Faith Bible College in the United States. The topic is on forms of Christian Counseling.

#4. I am taking a class on Ministry to Orality Cultures. This is an online Masterclass, led by Tom Steffen (a missiologist and former missionary to the Philippines). It has been good so far and forces me to think more on the role of storying and narrative theology.

#5. I am working on developing a Bachelor level course, “Foundations of Holistic Ministry.” This is one of my favorite topics and hope that it will be done in time to offer it at PBTS this coming semester. We shall see.

#6. I was working on editing a journal for our pastoral counseling center. I had even written an article for it. But with some reflection, I decided to that we put it out next year (2024) and so I put the article I already wrote (on the history of CPE in the Philippines) online, and so will have to come up with another topic in the next few months. CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) will celebrate its 100 year anniversary in 2025. It will also celebrate its 60 year anniversary in the Philippines that year.

#7. A couple of my students at ABGTS are almost finished with their papers (one a thesis and the other a dissertation). It is gratifying to be so close to the end of this journey.

I think this pretty much is it for now. If you are reading this, thank you for your time. If not… no worries. I just wanted to document this snapshot in where I am right now.

Are there Cursed Days and Infected Objects?

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, cultural anthropologyLeave a comment

A couple quick reads hit me within an hour of each other.

#1. The Altar of Confession in Vatican City had to have a penitential rite to resacralize it after a man jumped up on it naked as a political move to support Ukraine in the war.

#2. I was taken care of some business here in Baguio, and I saw a document on the back wall of the business. The title of it is “Solemn Act of Disownment of Infected Objects.” I looked it up and it is a prayer done to disconnect from objects that have had a curse placed on them.

Of course, this sort of thing comes up here in Asia, and not just in Christianity. Back in 2012 I remember a Muslim Prayer Room at a Malaysian resort was torn down and rebuilt because a Buddhist group had a prayer and meditation time in that space.

The two at the top were Catholic practices, but Evangelicals seem just as prone to some of this. Many groups do Prayer Walks, and commonly this is done not simply to get some exercise and to pray thoughtfully , but it is commonly viewed by many that they are “praying down territorial spirits” or “spiritual strongholds.” Some would say that this is Charismatic or Pentecostal practices, and that mainstream Evangelicals do not do this. However, I have known many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe that certain days are forever tainted. For some, Christmas is not a celebration of the birth of Christ, but a Pagan Festival, Saturnalia, even though that was not when Saturnalia was actually held. Some do the same thing with Easter seeing it as a pagan festival. More common than these are those who see All Hallows Eve, as a day for demons (“Samhain”). Certain others will embrace a certain

What does one do with all of these.

  1. One can simply reject all of this as “Silly Superstion.” That is a valid option.
  2. Often more common is to pick and choose. Certain practices feel weird and are rejected, but others may “make more sense” because they kind of fit with their own faith tradition.
  3. Others take a more non-critical position and accept things quite generally.

My Reflections:

I know many missionaries who came to Asia or to Africa with a very Western, critical, and secular-Christian perspective. As they have served in more “pagan” or animistic settings, they come face to farce with the spirit world manifest in ways that defy their own worldview.

I have to admit that this hasn’t really happened to me. On occasion I have seen interesting things, but none that have forced me to rethink my only belief.

And yet… I don’t want to be that person who becomes so bound in their own perspective that they are blinded to what is, potentially, out there. Good theology always has a good dose of mystery in it.

With that in mind, I have a few principles that I TENTATIVELY hold to at this time.

  • Skepticism is good and healthy up to a point. Doubting a curse is probably right most of the time… maybe all of the time.
  • However, I should never become so locked into my own views that I find myself with nothing new to learn.
  • People’s experiences matter as well as their interpretations of their experiences. Experiences are power regardless of its reality or the correctness of its interpretation. I should never be quick to discount or undermine these (anymore than I want my experiences or interpretations trampled on.)
  • IF there is validity to this sort of thing, then redemption must always be part of the theology. Thus maybe a repurification or resacralization should be part of such a theology. Disowning sounds more questionable, but it at least seems to honor a form of self-purification even if it seems to assume that the cursed object cannot be redeemed. Generational bondage is similar to the idea of disowning. If it were not for the fact that the Bible explicitly rejects generational bondage, I might argue that it also sits in a gray zone like disowning.
  • The most clearly flawed view of all, in my view is the idea of cursed days. This is built on the idea that certain days have “pagan roots” and so are permanently under the control of demons or Satan. Any view that a day or a place is nonredeemable by God must be rejected as completely unChristian.
  • All the views above are subject to change. Doubt is not disbelief, and my strongest doubt is in my own omniscience.