Month: July 2023

Holistic Training in Ministry

On By missionmusingsIn EducationLeave a comment

I am planning to teach a course on “Foundations of Holistic Ministry” this coming semester at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary.

This got me to think about a presentation that my wife and I did years ago on integrative learning. It is based (loosely) on Bloom’s Taxonomy, and looks at three learning domains:

-Cognitive domain

-Affective domain

-Behavioral domain

Bloom had taken each of those domains and identified them as having steps from the most basic to higher levels of learning. My wife and I played around with these a bit. Then we theorized what a “Spiritual domain” of learning might look like with something akin to Bloom’s Taxonomy.

The reason is that the goal of holistic training is to bring these up the steps together. The following is the presentation we did. Hopefully when I use it in my class I will find reasons to improve it.

https://www.slideserve.com/RMunson286/integrative-steps-of-learning-in-christian-ministry

https://www.slideserve.com/RMunson286/integrative-steps-of-learning-in-christian-ministry

Planting Mangos— A Parable

On By missionmusingsIn Parables/Allegories, storiesLeave a comment

Paolo and Tomas, cousins, lived on a small island in a big river. They were born there as were their parents before them. In the fields, they found a spot of shade as they ate their merienda before returning to work the land.

As they were eating mangos, Paolo put his mango seed in a small sack. Tomas was confused. Dropping his seed on the ground, he said to Paolo, “What’s with that? Are you so hungry you are hoping to eat the stone later?”

As if to double down on his action, Paolo picked up the seed left by Tomas and placed in the same sack.

Paolo responded, “I am saving them to plant them. Who knows, maybe they will grow into great trees where we can get all of the mangos we want.”

Tomas looked at Paolo with scorn. “Paulo,” said Tomas, “You have lived here since you were born, but you still don’t know how things work? We work land that we don’t own. We live in homes that we don’t own. The Santos family own everything. We give 70% of all we grow to them. They don’t even give us the seedlings for the next season’s plantings. As if that is not enough, every year, the whole family comes in their pugpug (river boat) and they start collecting all the fruit that grows on the trees that are on their land. Even the children do that. And they don’t take 70%— they take everything that is ripe and commonly end up destroying much of what is not ready for harvest.”

Paolo just nodded. No need to respond to the obvious.

Tomas continued. “Those seeds may never grow and if they do will not fruit for many years. And what if they do someday bear fruit? You plant trees and the fruit just goes into the bellies of those who don’t deserve it… much less need it. It is like investing in your making your house nicer. THEY own the house, not you. They can kick you out anytime. Knowing our landlord, if you make the house too nice, he may tell you that should pay 75% of what you grow… or tell you to move out.”

“You are right Tomas.” said Paolo. “It might be a waste of time, But not much of a waste. 5 minutes of work may come to nothing…. who knows. Maybe someday I will enjoy these mangos. Maybe I won’t but my children will. Or maybe new people tending the land will. Or perhaps the Santos family children and grandchildren will. That is all okay. 5 minutes of work is worth the risk.”

Years later, the work proved worth the risk. Paolo got a job overseas sending money home to his wife and family so that they eventually were able to buy the land on which they lived. The families of Paolo and Tomas were both able to enjoy the mango trees— their shade in the heat of day and their strong and expansive branches to be explored by the children. Every year they enjoyed the sweet wonderful fruits and sold extras in the market.

<This story is strongly based on my father-in-law. The story reminds me that investing on possibilities is a risk… but there may be a greater risk in doing nothing.>

New Book Coming… Soon?

On By missionmusingsIn BooksLeave a comment

The book that our team at PBTS has completed the first draft of our new book— Dalamhati at Luwalhati: Theological Reflections on the Filipino Experience. It is now being reviewed by our publisher. We shall see what happens during that process, but we are expectant of having good news soon. If things go as planned, the book will be available in the Philippines by the end of the year.

It is a bilingual book with some chapters written in English and others in Pilipino. Quoting the (first draft of the) back cover:

This book is the fruit of a presentation by Federico Villanueva that explored a Biblical response to grief, suffering and loss. Reflections on this presentation led to several essays that are compiled here. These reflections can be loosely categorized into three types— Biblical, Theological, and Contextual. After the first two chapters present the paper of Dr. Villanueva along with the symposium responses, the next two explore the topic as observed in the Old Testament.

The next two chapters explore the topic from a more strictly theological viewpoint. These two, along with the other essays, explore grief, suffering, and loss in the Filipino context. As such, they are activities of contextualized theological reflection. However, the final two chapters address the process of contextualizing or localizing theology. They consider what it means to say that a theology is contextual or local.

It is the hope of all contributors that this work would help each reader to gain insight on one of the most challenging topics— understanding and responding to grief, suffering, and loss in the Christian life. Further, it is hoped that this book will inspire others to take up the mantle to study, reflect on, and produce theological insights drawn from God’s revelation through the lens of the Filipino experience.

Joseph— The Boy Who Could Not Read a Room

On By missionmusingsIn Parables/Allegories, storiesLeave a comment

Joseph one day walked into the tent where all of the male members of Jacob’s family were together. Joseph’s brothers pretended not to notice him.

Jacob said, “Joseph. You are late. Was their anything wrong?”

“Oh no Father,” replied Joseph. “It just took me longer than I expected. With my brothers, who were supposed to be helping me, off gambling and drinking and I don’t know what else, there was an awful lot for me to do.”

“Snitch,” mumbled Napthali to no one in particular.

Jacob beamed at his son. “Well done Joseph. You boys,” apparently referring to all of the rest of his mostly adult sons, “should follow the fine example of your brother. Come near the fire, it is a cold night.”

“Thank you father,” replied Joseph, “but this coat that you gave me keeps me comfortable in the heat and the cold alike. It is simply amazing!”

Jacob beamed at his son, while the others stared at Joseph with barely disguised anger.

One morning as the family gathered to eat before the day got underway, Joseph came over last, put on an exaggerated yawn and stretch and said, “Oh wow, but did I have trouble with sleeping. I had such a crazy dream. I couldn’t help but think about it all night.”

“Well please then Joseph, share this amazing dream with us,” said Simeon with a sardonic smile.

Reuben gave Simeon an elbow in the side and a look as if to say, “You know our brother can’t recognize sarcasm. Now he will be compelled to tell us.”

Reuben was correct. Joseph continued. “Well, my brothers and I were gathering wheat. But suddenly the sheave I made went straight and upright and your sheaves all came around and bowed in the direction of my sheave. Crazy dream right? I have been thinking about it all night but can’t make any sense of it. Can you?”

Judah could not hold his tongue. “What are you telling us, runt. Are you saying that you are going to rule over us?”

“Judah, what an interesting interpretation. I never thought of that. Ohohohoh… and I had this other dream. In it the sun and the moon and the stars were all bowing down to me. I wonder what that means?”

Their father, no longer amused, jumped in and told his sons to stop the idle chatter and get on with their day. As Joseph’s brothers went off together to take care of the sheep they mumbled to each other.

“Do you think Joseph really had those dreams?” asked Zebulun.

“Of course not!” said Levi, with a chorus of nods from the others. “He is acting like a spoiled firstborn son rather than a worthless 11th born.”

Reuben laughed humorlessly. “Well in our line, being firstborn seems to mean next to nothing. Neither our father nor our grandfather were truly firstborn. Perhaps Joseph thinks he can continue that family tradition.”

A few days later Joseph’s brothers were tending the sheep while Joseph had remained with his father. Jacob said to his son, “Joseph, I would like you to find your brothers and check on our flock and then let me know how things are going.”

So Joseph went out to find his brothers. It took him awhile since they had traveled far to find the best pastures for their sheep.

Finding them, Joseph called out, “Brothers, I finally found you. Our father asked me to check on you and find out what is going on.”

Napthali whispered to his brothers, “The snitch has come to spy on us.”

Judah spoke louder, “So father’s little spy. What report do you intend to give him.”

“I don’t know,” joked Joseph. “What will you give me to improve my report?”

That was it. They were tired of their little brother with the fancy coat. They took away his coat and dropped him in one of the old cisterns. They sat around and laughed about Joseph and began to banter about what they were going to do with him. They came up with more and more elaborate and unlikely revenge fantasies.

Gradually, the laughing lessened as each of them realized the same thought— they had tossed their father’s favorite son into a hole imprisoning him— a son that cannot keep his mouth shut.

This realization hit Reuben first. As the oldest son, he realized that any blame would first fall on him. He went over to the top of the cistern. He called down to his younger brother.

“Joseph. Well, we have had a little fun. I hope it was fun for you as well. How about I pull you up out of there. You can have a good meal and you can go back to Father and let him know that everything is fine. How does that sound to you?”

“Oh no.” replied Joseph, “When I get back. I am going to tell Father EXACTLY what you did! He is going to be so mad. He will probably put me in charge of all of you.”

Pondering what to do next, a Bedouin caravan entered the oasis where the brothers were staying. It was a tough decision… but clearly their brother must never talk to their father. At the same time, they (with the possible exception of Levi and Simeon) did not want to have blood on their hands. So they sold Joseph to the caravan.

Of course, most of us know the rest of the story. Joseph becomes a servant in the house of Potiphar, an official in Egypt. We learn about Potiphar’s wife becoming infatuated with Joseph as she had with a number of her servants. She would give him looks that Joseph completely misinterpreted. Then she made some rather seductive remarks to him that he thought were jokes and responded back in like manner to continue the joke. This mutual misunderstanding rapidly ended up with Joseph running at full speed out of the house naked.

As soon as Joseph could find some clothes he sought out Potiphar at the city gate. Joseph came up to Potiphar and the other local leaders. In a loud voice he said, “Sir I need to talk to you about your wife.”

Potiphar knew what was coming. Potiphar knew well his wife. Early on, he would have servants killed who had fooled around with her. Eventually, he realized that it was expensive to keep having to replace servants. Besides, it is not as if his behavior was always above reproach with the servants.

Potiphar broke in. “Shhhh, Joseph. Let’s go somewhere else and we can talk quietly.”

“Oh no, my lord. I must tell you. Your wife tried to seduce me, and when I rejected her advances, well she said that she would tell you that I tried to… well, you know… force myself on her. But I would never do that! She looks fine for an… older woman I suppose. But that is not the point. I would never ever ever…” He continued on as Potiphar tried to shut him up.

Finally, Potiphar gave up. His friends now knew what happened. He could not just cover things up. Potiphar was not happy to lose more money on another servant, but he had no choice.

“I can’t keep him,” he mused. “I would look weak. But I don’t need his blood on my hands— having him killed because he lacks common sense on when and where to talk.”

After some thought he knew the right answer. He can put him with the political prisoners. Know one will know what happened to him. And that is what happened. Joseph was secretly placed in the Pharoah’s prison.

And there he sat. But God looked on him with pity. “Our poor, flawed Joseph. He cannot help but talk when others know to keep silent. I will turn his weakness into a strength. I will give him the ability to read people’s dreams. He will invariably tell people what their dreams mean, even if the meaning is bad.”

With God’s gift to interpret dreams, and his own lack of caution and common sense, Joseph rose from an imprisoned slave to the second-in-command in Egypt.

If God can do that with someone as messed up as Joseph, imagine what he can do with messed up you?

Member Care Support System

On By missionmusingsIn member careLeave a comment

There are different ways of showing the levels of support in Missionary Member Care. Harry Hoffmann has a nice way of showing it— The Pyramid of Care.

I like this way of showing care. I did suggest a slight modification from a pyramid to an octohedron. The only reason for doing it is to show “Self-Care.” One’s resiliency can be thought of as relating to the volume of the figure. If one is looking at it that way, adding self-care as a dimension makes sense. I show that below. That being said, I am not sure that my figure adds much to what Hoffmann has done.

Another model is the one by Kelly O’Donnell. It is a classic one of concentric circles with one’s toward the center being “more important” in some sense while moving outward, the circles are less critical (less “central.”)

I think it is a good model… but I do think that it may be better for some missionaries than for others. For me, I don’t find it as useful. Some concerns:

  1. I will start with the most controversial. I don’t think Master Care should be in the middle. I think Self-Care should be in the middle. It always sounds the most spiritual to put God in the middle of every figure we do…. but there are costs to this. My biggest issue is that Master Care (God’s Care) is very often done through others. As such, God’s care encloses the other’s care. It is better shown by putting God’s care as the outermost all-encompassing circle. Secondly, and this is very much personal taste I admit, even the most spiritually centered missionary (and missionaries as a group I have not found to be especially spiritual) we tend to relate to the world with him/herself at the center. We have an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric perspective. I feel it is more honest to show that in the figure— and that anthropocentric perspective is even more true when we are under stress. Putting God as the outermost ring shows this reality, while still challenging by showing God’s care surrounds (and includes) all of the other forms of care.
  2. For me, I don’t see much use in separating between Network Care and Specialist Care. My view on that could easily change… but personally, it seems adequate to put both in the same circle.
  3. I was always a bit uncertain about the Mutual Care (half) Circle. It includes expartriates and nationals. In other words, I suppose that includes people I would call Welcomers. These are people who live in the field where a missionary serves. I fully agree that they are potentially a great source of help. However, it was never clear to me where Friends, Family, and Sending Church fit into this diagram. Perhaps Friends who are supporters and the sending church could be loosely put under Sender Care, but that does not make sense to me— the attachments one has with friends family, and church members far exceed the connections one (normally or initially) has with one’s mission sending organization, or mission partners, or mobilizing structures, etc. <This connects a bit with the Pyramid of Care shown above.>

So I would suggest the following figure. If you don’t find it an improvement— well, you are probably right. But I hope it at least gives something to think about.

Christian Theology, Missions and a “Healthy Agnosticism”

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, Mission TheologyLeave a comment

The following is a quote from C. S. Song

There is what I call “healthy agnostism” in some Eastern religions and philosophies. … There is also “healthy agnosticism” in the Apostle Paul. After agonizing over the convoluted relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the divine dispensation in the eleventh chapter of his Letter to the Romans, he finally has to say, not in exasperation, but in relief:

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways. (Rom 11:33)

This is Paul at his best— Paul not as a pretentious theologian. He knows how to keep silent in the presence of the inscrutable God. Most theologians try to say too much about God, but at the end of the day God is not any less real to the men and women who cannot make heads or tails of theological abracadabra.

C. S. Song “In the beginning Were Stories, Not Texts (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co,, 2011), 6-7.

While we often use the term agnosticism to refer to an uncertainty about the existence of God, the term in a broader sense means “without knowledge.”

In our counseling center, we have a phrase we use: “ASC before you ASK.” ASC is an acronym standing for:

-Agnostic— Don’t assume you already know the answers, and the “whole truth.”

-Suspicious— Don’t assume that what you are told or see is the whole story. It might not even be true.

-Curious— Don’t be satisfied with what you know or presume to know. Seek to clarify and know more.

This is a healthy agnosticism. It is not a denial of good and reliable knowledge. Rather it is the understanding that what is true is going to be in some ways different from what I think I know, and broader than I have the capacity to know.

Theologians should not presume to ‘know it all.’ Some, thankfully far from all, theologians give off the vibe that they got it all figured out. Good theology has a good dose of mystery in it. Theologians are explorers in the dark. Their reflective flashlight may help them see what is off the well-worn paths of others, but their understanding of what is beyond will always be limited.

Of course, if there is “healthy agnosticism” their is, presumably, “unhealthy agnosticism.” Some theologians drift so far from having a certain groundedness to their understanding that, perhaps, they are best described as students of “religious studies.” Theologians study the Christian faith and doctrines through the lens of faith. However, that “faith” has to have a certain substance to it. One cannot have faith without having faith in something or someone.

In missions we seek to localize or contextual the Christian faith in a new context. In so doing we are often exploring new theological territory. What does a healthy community of Christ worshipers look like that consist only of male Filipino workers building an airport in Doha, Qatar (to pick something at random that I have modest knowledge of)? It imay be easy to come up with “Al Yagoda” answers (All ya godda do is this, or All ya godda do is that). This probably involves labeling a bunch of guesses and presumptions as true. On the other hand, one can throw up one’s hands and say, how can I know anything about this situation. It is unknowable. That seems an error as well. Truth can be teased out, at least tentatively, only with a healthy understanding both what we do know and what we do not.

Jesus, Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith— Part 2

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, History in MissionsLeave a comment

Continuing from Part One, if Jesus can be thought of as an (or “the”) Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith, then he was not trying to destroy the Jewish Faith, or replace the Jewish Faith, but transform it. As noted in the last post, the Jewish faith was what is sometimes called an “Ethnic Religion.” This is in contrast to a “Universal Religion” that sees its teachings, ethics, and practices as appropriate for all peoples, not one group alone.

What are some things that would have to happen for the Jewish Faith to be Internationalized? Here are a few:

—It cannot have a geographic center. The Jewish Faith was centered on the Temple in Jerusalem. We know there were other temples that were constructed to worship the God of Israel, such as Gerizim, and Elephantine, Egypt, but their validity was always questioned by the Jews who saw Jerusalem as the only place for proper ritual worship of Yahweh.

—It cannot be bound to ethnicity or an ethnic system.

—It cannot be tied to a national system. A state religion is not a universal religion.

—It must accept people of other ethniciies and cultures as equals.

When we look at the ministry of Jesus we see his focus on the Jews, and respect for the institutions of the Jewish faith, including the temple, synagogue, and annual festivals. He also clearly reverenced the Tanakh. Still in some ways, he undermined the more narrow aspects of the faith.

  1. We see in John 4 in Jesus’ talk with the Samaritan woman that he saw the salvation of God coming through the Jewish nation, and that the Temple of Jerusalem as in some way more legitimate than the Temple in Gerizim. Despite this, he makes it clear that through himself times are changing. It will no longer matter where one goes to worship, and apparently ethnicity is not important since what is important is ‘spirit and truth.’ And as he reveals himself as Messiah, it is clear that he sees himself as much Messiah to the Samaritans as he does to the Jews.
  2. Despite actively focusing on reaching out to the Jewish people, on numerous occasions went out of his way to reach out to non-Jews. This traveling through Samaria and ministering there rather than avoiding it, teaching and doing miracles in predominantly Gentile, and ministering specifically to Gentiles such as the “Canaanite woman” and the Roman Centurian, support this. They were not looked down as 2nd class, but were used as examples of faith that few Jews could match. (Note that one really should read the whole story of the Canaanite woman… don’t just read the first couple of lines to understand what Jesus was really saying. One of the biggest miracles and teaching event happened in Decapolis, a Gentile region, ministering to Gentiles. This is known as the “Feeding of the Four Thousand.”
  3. His teachings focused on universal ethics (Great Commandment, Golden Rule) rather than festivals, sacrifices, and rituals.
  4. Perhaps most importantly, his ministry was centered on the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven)— a “spiritual” kingdom that is not tied to ethnic or national institutions. The Kingdom of God is open to all, and the Messiah is for all people

It is interesting to note that the Jewish faith after the time of Christ became more in line with the Internationalizing message of Jesus. With the destruction of the 2nd Temple in the 70s AD, the Jewish faith lost is central location. Rabbinical Judaism dominated with focus on the assembly of the people (in synagogues) and focus on ethical teaching and doctrines. With the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s AD, the last vestige of a link between Rabbinical Judaism to a nation or government disappeared.

It is in many ways too bad that the Internationalizing foundation of Jesus was often not embraced by the Christian church in the opposite direction. The early church became more distinctly, Greek, or Roman, or Coptic, or Syraic, or Celtic or whatever. It ceased, however, rather fast to be Jewish. Many seemed to believe that Christian liberty from Jewish requirements actually meant being obligated to avoid them.

Jesus told his disciples to be his witness to the ends of the world and to the end of the age. While Jesus did carry out much cross-cultural work, his internationalization of the Jewish faith, made the path fairly clear for his disciples (with occasional little nudges along the way).

Jesus, Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith– Part 1

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, Mission Theology1 Comment

In recent decades there has been the rediscovery of a truth so self-obvious that it is strange that it was ignored.

Jesus was a Jew in lineage, culture, and faith

If you say, “Well of course he was,” that is good. But the implications are a bit more profound than what it first appears. Embracing the tendency to put Christianity in stark relief with all other belief systems, there has been a tendency to see Jesus Christ as clearly, and only, on the side of Christianity, and in opposition to all else.

James Dunn speaks of this,

“As Susannah Heschel observes, liberal theologians painted ‘as negative a picture as possible of first-century Judaism’ in order ‘to elevate Jesus as a unique religious figure who stood in sharp opposition to his Jewish surroundings.’ A classic example is Ernest Renan, who wrote: ‘Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus’; after visiting Jerusalem, Jesus ‘appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. …Jesus was no longer a Jew.’ And Albrecht Ritschl drew a line in the sand, which was not decisively questioned for most of the twentieth century, when he pronounced that Jesus’ ‘renunciation of Judaism and its law … became a sharp dividing line between his teachings and those of the Jews..”

James D. G. Dunn in “The Historical Jesus: Five Views,” eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 217.

I am not sure why Heschel focused on liberal theologians. The same was true, with subtle differences of course with Conservative, Moderate, and other theologians as well. I was raised in a very conservative church. We did not deny that Jesus was a Jew, but Jesus was always portrayed artistically looking very different from the Jewish people around him. He looked different in physical appearance and bearing, in hair style, and in dress. Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, and Sanhedrin members, were almost always presumed to be bad people with evil aims. If one was seen as good— like the priest Zaccharias, or the Pharisee Nicodemus, they would be identified as being good DESPITE their role. We tended to look at the way of Christ and the way of Judaism in dualistic terms— the way of grace that leads to life, and the way of law that leads to death.

Nevertheless, things have been changing. Eddy and Bielby (pages 48 and 49 of the book referenced above) note that theologians have really gone away from centuries of this thought. Theologians revolted against the “Aryanizing” if Jesus by the German Nazis (and the theologians that supported their regime). Learning more about late Second Temple Judaism showed that much of what Jesus taught was harmonious with the teachings of others in Palestine. Further, the growing interest in learning more about “the Historical Jesus” meant that one had to study him in his context (in 1st century Judea, born into Jewish culture or Jewish lineage, and instructed in the Jewish faith).

This growing concensus does not solve all problems however. The old argument of whether Jesus was the most influential (Jewish) rabbi in history (as Reformed Jewish Rabbi describes him… see This Article) or first Christian” does not go away with this.

I would rather leave some of this to others— but I would like to address a somewhat related question:

If Jesus saw himself as a rabbi, a prophet, and as Messiah, did he see himself those roles with an implied “Jewish” in front of each role. Did Jesus see himself as a Jewish rabbi only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish prophet only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish Messiah only for the Jews?

There are those who would affirm this noting some statements such as in Matthew 15:22-24, “And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and were pleading with Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting [a]at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””

Now I would note argue the setting (Jesus chose to go to a predominantly Gentile region), that he used the woman as an example of faith for Jew and Gentile alike, and then followed up with his biggest Gentile ministry (the feeding of the four thousand) immediately after. These certainly undermine taking Jesus’ statement too literally. It seems to be more rhetorical for the sake of his disciples, rather than a self-identification of his personal calling. Still, most of his work was within the Jewish context. Because of this, some argue that the Great Commission (Acts 1:8 version especially) is an odd add-on that lacks a certain continuity with the rest of his ministry.

My argument was that in addition to (Jewish) rabbi and prophet (and I must add Messiah as well), he was the First and Great Internationalizer of the Jewish faith.

Of course, non-Jews joined the Jewish faith prior to Jesus. When Moses left Egypt with the mixed multitudes (Exodus 12:38). There is some question of who these are, but generally they were non-Israelites (by lineage) who joined the exodus and most likely became incorporated into the Israelite identity. Over the centuries, others did as well. Rahab and Ruth are well-known. The Gibeonites gradually became part of the Jewish identity. A similar thing could be said of the Idumeans. There were also formal procedures for non-Jews to be proselytes to the Jewish faith, including ritual bathing and circumcision.

In all of these cases, joining the Jewish faith (whether during the time of the Tabernacle, First Temple, or Second Temple eras) meant a loss of outside identity. Being Jewish (Israelite) in faith means becoming, gradually at least, Jewish in culture.

The examples before the time of Jesus of non-Jews embracing the Jewish faith without necessarily becoming Jewish in cultural identity is a bit more uncertain. The story of General Naaman, of the Arameans, seems to describe one who changed his faith to the God of Israel, and even took dirt from Israel (presumably to scatter around his courtyard) to identify with Yahweh. He probably did not visit Jerusalem for sacrifices and festivals. However, in the end we don’t really know. The Phoenician sailors in the story of Jonah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel are others who changed their worship to the God of Israel. It is uncertain of what happens next. There did not appear to be any real way for one to be Jewish in faith while Gentile in culture. With the Exile, this changed a bit, as Jews spread to Mesopotamia and Egypt (and then beyond) ad found ways to practice their faith in a region where their faith identity was different from that of the broader populace. The growth the the synagogue helped this— a gathering place for the faithful that was not only in Jerusalem. Still, even here, being a Jew in terms of faith, meant being part of the Jewish sub-culture.

An example of becoming Jewish in faith without becoming Jewish in culture, is the Samaritans. Presumably of “mixed race” background, they embraced the God of Israel, without identifying themselves as Jewish in self-identity or in culture. Broader Judaism, however, rejected this (although in more recent centuries, attitudes have changed and most see Samaritanism as a sect of Judaism).

In other words, before Jesus, to follow the God of Israel generally meant becoming a Jew in terms of culture… with rare and uncertain exceptions.

Jesus did not target Gentiles (non-Jews) in his ministry (with a few exceptions), but he did internationalize the faith so that the God of Israel could be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” and not limited by ethnic/national identity, or location (John 4).

Part 2 will explore this more.