Month: December 2023

But What If Jesus Is Coming Two Millennia From Now?

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, missions theologyLeave a comment

I have heard the question posed to the effect of, “What should we be doing if Christ returns today?” Or sometimes it is worded regarding tomorrow. There seem to be different things that come up. Usually suggestions come along like:

  • We should be REALLY HOLY for the next few hours.
  • We should be rather frantic in our evangelistic or missionary work.

I have never been very comfortable with either of these answers. It is not necessarily because they don’t make sense. I reckon that they do. However, I have several problems with these answers.

#1. The answers don’t appear to be Scriptural. The images that Jesus gives for the ideal person the day before His return is the faithful servant who is doing what he always was supposed to be doing (Matthew 24:45-51), prepared every day and not presuming to know a specific time (Matthew 24:36-44). 

#2. We simply don’t know the day and the hour of Christ’s return. Jesus really drills this home in the beginning of Matthew 24. Many will come claiming to be the return of Christ (but don’t be fooled). There are lots wars, rumors of wars , famines, earthquakes, and the like. Don’t be fooled by this either… These are not signs of the end either. There are good and bad things happening in the church (lawlessness, false prophets and such on one side, and those on the other side who remain faithful and successful spread of God’s message to the whole world) so the condition of the church cannot be used to identify the return of Christ. <There are some verses in the middle of the chapter that seem to imply some signs of Christ’s returning— Matthew 24:15-22— but then immediately he returns to the idea that we should be always vigilant but distrustful of those who point out specifics of Christ’s return.>

#3. We are NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW. Jesus is emphasizing certain virtues in this section of faithfulness, persistence, vigilance, preparedness. Knowing the exact time undermines the development of these virtues. I believe it is safe to say that if Jesus knew when His return would be (and Matthew 24:33 says that He doesn’t) that He absolutely did not hide that info in His words to be pulled out through exegesis. He wants us to embrace our ignorance in this matter.

#4. If knowledge of Christ’s return may hinder some virtues— faithfulness, persistence, vigilance, and preparedness— it also can develop some bad behaviors as well. The end of Matthew 24 describes the exact opposite of what Jesus values— very unlike the faithful, persistent, vigilant, and prepared servant mentioned previously. For this other servant, he gets tired of waiting and begins to mistreat other servants and misuse the goods of his boss. It is not clear what is on his mind. Perhaps he decided his boss was never going to return. Or perhaps he decided that he could figure out when the boss would return with enough warning to “clean everything up” first. It doesn’t really matter. In the first case, the master is not coming, the servant has failed in faithfulness. In the latter case, thinking he can “time” the return, the servant has failed in terms of persistence and consistent preparedness. I would argue that asking the question, “What should we do if Christ was returning today (or tomorrow)?” is already sliding into the messed up thinking of the unfaithful servant.

#5. It leads to bad ministerial practices. We just need to be reminded of the “quick” strategies and “saturation” programs from the 1960s and beyond where the Gospel was reduced to a spiritualistic formula, rather than a robust kingdom and community, to see what happens when people develop plans based on the dubious assumption of when they know Jesus is returning. And of course it doesn’t end there. Even up in the mountains of the Philippines I have seen odd things like missionaries showing the movie “2012” (a very Hollywood-ish movie based on the misunderstanding regarding the Mayan calendar) in 2011 to nominal Christians to get them to be… less nominal? I saw trucks driving around Baguio City paid for some (I guess well-meaning) Christians telling them that Harold Camping had figured out the Jesus was going to return on a certain date. None of this came true… and no one seemed to wonder whether spreading falsehoods in the name of Christ might actually be a bad thing… not good.

The problem of focusing on the near-term arrival of Jesus is not new. St. Paul dealt with Thessalonians who seemed to believe that because, in their belief, Jesus was returning any day, decided to do nothing. After all, why start doing something that might get cut short? History has Christians at different times dressing in white clothes, standing on houses, selling their property (what were they planning to do with the proceeds I wonder) because of beliefs in near term predictions.

Suppose we are uncertain then what we are supposed to do if Christ is coming tomorrow, we on the other hand have a very clear understanding of what we are supposed to do if Christ is coming in two millennia or more. After all, the New Testament must be seen as giving advice as to what Christians should do if Christ is at least two millennia away from coming. Some clear points are the following:

A. Consistently ethical living rather than suddenly ethical living.

B. Prepared and preparing for generations of ministry and kingdom growth. “Planting orchards” not just “sowing annuals.”

C. Vigilant but not looking for “prophecy in the news.”

When Is an Idol Really an Icon?

On By missionmusingsIn cultural anthropology, missions theologyLeave a comment

Being raised in a conservative evangelical baptist tradition, the issue of idols has been pretty simple for me. Images or statuary that one shows a worshipful attitude before is an idol. And idols are absolutely forbidden in the Bible. The logic for people in my faith tradition for being “iconoclasts” (destroyer of icons… or items that might be treated as idols) is primarily rooted in the Second of the Ten Commandments.

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Exodus 20:4-6, New International Version

This seems pretty clear. One should not have even images of anything “in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” This is pretty lacking of nuance, at least in verse 4. Some take this to extremes where even photographs are wrong, and art can only be of abstract forms. Of course, it gets more muddy when you get to the next verse, verse 5, where, it seems as if the issue is not their existence, but rather their worshiping them. The early Jews did, for example, decorate their tabernacle and temple with forms of things on the earth (such as pomegranates and almond blossoms). This suggests that there was a formula here— replication of created forms AND worship. We see this with Moses who created a bronze serpent (Numbers 21) which seemed to be a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but in II Kings 18 it was destroyed because people were offering incense to it— apparently as part of an act of worship. An idol, as a representative created object that is used as an object of worship, is wrong…

This leads us to a question of what then is an idol? In modern Christian parlance we might say that money is my idol, or fame, or some other abstract thing. These would not be idols in terms of the 2nd commandment. We might also say that a living person is an idol, but again that is not so in terms of the 2nd commandment. Things get a bit more uncertain when it comes to things that are less representational but still are items of high veneration, if not worship. This might include the cross (Christianity), kaaba (Islam), or Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism). One might argue that these are not representing God-created things. However, the line between representational art and abstract is not clearly defined. This brings us then to the question of what is worship.

Orthodox Christians, for example, like to speak in terms of Icons being decidedly different than Idols because with them one WORSHIPS THROUGH rather than WORSHIPS TO. With this idea the object becomes a focus point for worship, but not the object of worship. Among Evangelicals, prayer is (traditionally at least) done with eyes closed. However, some will focus on something, such as a cross. Some will worship trying to block out what is going on around them… while others may choose to “soak” in “worship music” or imagery that is seen as worship-conducive. Orthodox Christianity tends to use semi-representational images of Christ and the saints as a window to the divine. Roman Catholics do things in a somewhat similar way but often using statuary.

But that begs the question: IS ANYTHING THEN TRULY AN IDOL IN A 2ND COMMANDMENT WAY? Most religions seem to be well aware that stone or wood figures are not truly gods and that their prayers are not literally to those objects. Reading Celsus’ charge against Christians from the 2nd (or 3rd?) century makes it clear that Celsus as a pagan fully understood that the idols were not actually gods… but simply representations for the purpose of rituals directed to their gods.

One might argue that idols in the classic sense of representative art used with worship directed to it doesn’t actually exist. But does that mean that it is impossible to violate the 2nd Commandment? I feel that is taking things too far.

First, a lot of people, I believe, struggle with the nuance between “worship to” and “worship through.” I have seen activities in the Philippines with Catholic statues where I feel the general populace does not understand this difference.

While this is a good point, I don’t think it goes far enough. A key point in the Bible is that God wants it abundantly clear that there is a strong line of demarcation between God the Creator, and the Creation. As such, God chooses not to be put into a representational form. That leads to a second point.

Second, God wants to reveal something about Himself— and that is that He is transcendent… beyond creation. The “God Who Is” is far different in many ways from the “God We Worship” and that difference is  muddied when we use stone, wood, or other substance to represent God.

Third, even if an idol (or icon) is understood as being used to “Worship Through” it is still problematic if the ultimate object of worship is other than the one true God.

Bringing these three points together makes a strong justification for the 2nd Commandment… but it does leave wiggle room in terms of Christian icons. In Christian theology, Jesus is God revealed to us in a physical manner, so does this provide an exception in terms of representational art? If the art points to God as He has chosen to be revealed, does that make images of Jesus an acceptable form to worship through? I don’t know. Maybe.

Many icons make no pretense to represent God in any sense. Rather they are images of various saintly figures. While I do have issues with the idea that we need a mediator other than Christ between us and the Father (that is for a different discussion) it is hard to see how such icons are wrong of themselves. If one takes an all-encompassing view of the 2nd Commandment (any image is wrong) I suppose that might work, but as I noted earlier, that doesn’t appear to be the point of that command. Praying to a saint seems highly unnecessary to me… but at least doing such makes it quite clear one is using the icon for a “Through” activity rather than a “To.” In addition, however, veneration of icons has sometimes drifted to a point where I don’t think it is separable from worship. That being said, God is the one that sees the heart, not us.

In terms of icons, I do tend to think that the images used by the Eastern church are less prone to misuse than the statuary of the Western church. I personally feel that we are better at seeing 2-D as “less real” than 3-D. I am not in a position to support this with documentary evidence.

I have been jumping all over the place on this post. I am not trying to come up with complete answers. In fact, my goal is to expand ambiguity. When we meet Christians of other denominations, or people of other religions… we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about what is going on when it comes to statues and images.

— Is a statue of Buddha always an object of pietistic worship? Is Buddha “their god”?

— Is a household “shrine” to family members who have died a place of worship to ancestors, or a place of honor and veneration?

–When is an object an icon, or an idol, or a fetish, or an amulet, or a talisman? When is it simply decorative artwork?

Images, and particularly images of religious significance, are laden with complex meanings. We need to study and ask questions before making judgments. Even if we are correct that something is wrong… it is worth the time to figure out WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG ABOUT IT. Additionally, we need to ask ourselves whether we do the same wrong things but in ways that we are more comfortable with.

“Head of the Home” Poll

On By missionmusingsIn CommentaryLeave a comment

One of my favorite Youtube channels is “Ready to Harvest.” It is about Christian denominations. Although it comes from a Baptist college, it tries quite valiantly, and I feel successfully, to focus on what is true about different denominations (and Christian-adjacent religions) rather throwing shade and quick judgment.

Curiously, they also like to put polls on their channel to see what subscribers hold to. Today they had one:

“It is God’s plan for man to be the head of the home, just as Christ is the head of the Church.” What do you think of this statement.?

Then one can choose between SIX (6) answers: ”AGREE STRONGLY”, “AGREE MORE THAN DISAGREE”, “DISAGREE MORE THAN AGREE”, “DISAGREE STRONGLY”, “NOT SURE” AND “JUST SHOW RESULTS.” The last two are combined resulting in five discrete options.

Ignoring the last choice, the four options of agreement and disagreement are actually rather difficult to choose between.

AGREE STRONGLY. A majority chose this one. It is understandable that they did. The statement is drawn from a passage of Scripture— Ephesians 5:22-23. To say that one does not agree strongly with the statement might be seen as saying that one doesn’t agree with God’s Word.

However, there is a problem with verse-grabbing. When one takes the verse out of its passage and then suggests that it is a propositional or theological statement, it becomes something different. And that leads to other options.

DISAGREE STRONGLY. The relationship between Jesus and the church differs from the ideal relationship between a man (father-role) and the (presumably nuclear) family. Jesus is physically not present. His direct leadership is through statements from the distant past, much like the Rechabites in the book of Jeremiah are ‘led’ by the guidance of their predecessor. The headship of Christ is more in terms of ‘spiritual’ while the church on a practical, day-to-day setting makes its own way except as guided by what is in Scripture. Jesus relationship with the church is God and humans… with no suggestion in Scripture whatsoever that the father is to have a godlike status in the family. While Jesus’ role with the church is ultimately to become that of benevolent monarch, there seems little suggestion as far as I can see that the ideal leadership in the family is monarchical.

The word “as” is a rather powerful word in the above statement. To me, as means, “in a parallel or corresponding way” when it is taken and put into a theological proposition. As a simple statement— Jesus heads the church and the father/husband heads the family— I believe it expresses a pretty simple truth, or at least ideal. But that word “as” really begins to imply something different.

Given the two extremes above, I would have to say that the truth comes closer to DISAGREE STRONGLY than to AGREE STRONGLY. Still I feel both extremes take things too far (as is commonly the case in such polls). That is why I chose DISAGREE MORE THAN AGREE.

My answer sounds unbiblical, but I think this poll actually points to the danger of propositional theology where a lot of nuance is lost by getting people to agree that a Bible verse is “true” and then take that “truth” far away from what it was trying to say.

Of course, some would disagree. The overall passage is about submission… and we as the human race struggle with that term since we all use the term differently. I would say that “total submission” is to be applied to God alone. Everywhere else it is nuanced. Propositional theology is not that good at nuance.

Now some of you may feel like I am trying to play games with Scripture. However, it is reasonable to ask the question of how the relationship between Jesus and the church informs the relationship between the “man” (husband/father) relates to wife and children. If one says that the relationship is to be understood in terms of divine being and mortal human, I hope most of us would absolutely reject this. (I have heard some the lean in this direction, however.) Or if someone suggests that the relationship is best idealized in terms of an absentee father (since Jesus is away from us, physically, at this time), I certainly hope people would be very skeptical that this is a sound reflection on this passage.

I value similes, metaphors, illustrations, and so forth. However, we take such a language structure and label is as “truth” we risk losing the nuance that made the form valuable in the first place.

Evangelistic Reflections on Christmas Sweat Socks

On By missionmusingsIn EvangelismLeave a comment

When I was young, on Christmas Eve we would have my Grandma and Grandpa come to our house to celebrate. In my family, we did gift exchange on Christmas Eve, NOT on Christmas Day. We did not believe in Santa and our chimney leads to a blazing wood stove anyway.

I knew what I was going to get from my grandparents. Strangely, on reflection, I always remember it as being a gift from my grandma, but it must have been the two of them. It would come wrapped up about the size of a box for a model car kit, but squishy. I knew what it was immediately, of course. It would be a large pack of sweat socks… or sometimes (to throw me off)… dress socks. I knew better than to be demonstrably disappointed. I have never been much of an actor, but I think I was dutifully appreciative.

I got thinking about this repeating story, when I began thinking about getting socks today— whether as a gift, or as a normal purchase. Today, a pack of good socks seems like rather a nice idea.

That led me to some reflections:

#1. Why was I disappointed about something so absolutely useful and even comforting?

I think there are a few things. First, I NEVER needed clothes as gifts. My parents always bought me clothes. They always bought me shoes. They always bought me mittens or gloves. In general, a gift of a pack of socks was really a gift to my parents since they would not have to buy me those types of socks for awhile. Second, As a lot of kids (though not all) I had little interest in clothes. I wore them and I wore them out. That was about it. I do remember have opinions about what defined a good leather belt or a nice pair of sneakers. I do vaguely recall having an appreciation for a denim jacket I owned. I don’t remember having any real appreciation one way or another about socks.

#2. Why might my grandparents think socks would be a good gift?

First, upon reflection it occurs to me that at their ages socks feel good. I like a comfortable pair of socks today. I don’t recall having any appreciation for them as a child. As an adult feeling the accumulation of decades of aches and pains, a good pair of socks can be a great help. They probably felt that since socks make their lives better, they must make my life better as well. Second, to be fair— buying gifts is tough. I have no sense of what a 9 year old boy wants as a gift. Frankly, I struggle with what a 58 year old man (myself) wants as a gift. The coolest, most awesome present I ever received was a chemistry set. But that was from my parents— people who knew what their introvert science nerd son would appreciate.

Evangelism Reflections

Consider this scenario to be a cross-cultural setting (since to some extent, it is) and the gift of a pack of sweat socks from my grandparents is the Christian Faith.

My 9 year old self is a non-Christian in my own cultural setting. The gift of the Christian faith (sweat socks) may be free— but it doesn’t seem like much of a gift. My parents (my own cultural setting and traditions) already give me socks (my own cultural/religious faith) to meet whatever needs I have. And frankly, although I appreciate that my parents take care of my needs… I spend little time valuing socks as a nine-year old, just as the majority of the population in a non-Christian setting value, in some abstract sense, their cultural and religious heritage, but most don’t truly cherish it.

My grandparents have reached an age in their life where socks are indeed cherished. They value them, and therefore think I would value them too. They are like the Christians giving the gift of the Christian faith in a non-Christian setting. The Christian faith is valuable and important, but not valued necessarily by those who need it. Wrapping the gift in festive Christmas paper does not suddenly make it more valued. My grandparents, if they really knew me, might realize that some nice test tubes would be a wonderful gift that I would absolutely cherish. They, like most missionaries perhaps, don’t always know what their recipient would really cherish.

When we look at the first four or five centuries of the church, what was cherished in the Christian faith is not necessarily the “free gift of salvation.” It was commonly the care and concern for the needy that was identified, as well as the lengths they would go to demonstrate allegiance and piety to their Lord.

Titus 2:10 speaks of adorning the Gospel to make it more appealing to those outside the faith. However, what adorned the Gospel was not fancy wrapping paper, but behavior and virtues that others found commendable. Perhaps, if the socks came in a large pyrex beaker, they would have been more appreciated.

By the way, my last remaining grandparents passed on more than 30 years ago. If they were still alive… I would tell them, in full sincererity, “Thanks for the sweat socks!!”

Quote on “Three-Dimensional Great Commission”

On By missionmusingsIn Evangelism, QuotesLeave a comment

The Great Commision is not so great when it is one-dimensional instead of three-dimensional. Here, let me humbly reprimand us as evangelicals, among whom the very term “Great Commision” caught on like wildfire in the first place. We have essentially equated the Great Commission with the ministry of evangelism, with Matthew 28 earning the distinction of the premiere evangelistic missionary text. Inspired by it, we have gone about the task of world evangelization with abandon, creating strategies based on unreached people groups and territorial windows to help us fulfill the Great Commission.

I argue that a one-dimensional, evangelism-only theology and practice of the Great Commission is incomplete at best, dangerous at worst. It has in fact contributed to crimes against humanity under colonialism, as the church’s collusion with the colonial project is undeniable.

Al Tizon, “Reconciling All Things: Missional Competencies in a Broken World” in Ambassadors of Reconciliation: God’s Mission through Missions for All, edited by Geoff Hartt, Michael A. Ortiz, and Manuel Bohm (Littleton, CO: William Carey Publishing, 2023), 5.

In the page before this quote (page 4 of this book) Tizon explains what those three dimensions are:

Vertical DimensionBetween God and People“Evangelism”
Horizontal DimensionBetween People and PeoplePeacemaking
“Circular” DimensionBetween God, People, and CreationStewardship

The reason for this is that Tizon sees the Great Commission as a call for the Church to be involved in a ministry of reconciliation. And reconciliation requires these three dimensions.

I see value in this. I am also reminded of Clebsch and Jaekle’s book “Pastoral Care in Historical Perspective” that speaks of four primary forms/functions of pastoral care— guiding, sustaining, healing, and reconciling. They expressed the belief that each one of these had a period of time in church history where it dominated. So there was a time when healing was most important, a time when guiding was most important, and so on. They believed that we live in the age of Reconciliation.

I am not sure if that is true, but arguably the three dimensions above (relating to Evangelism, Peacemaking, and Stewardship) would be important to that discussion. The only difference I can see is that in Pastoral Care we would add a fourth dimension— Reconciliation of self. I am not sure, however, if we could see that as an aspect of the Great Commission. Even if we could, perhaps that would be best seen as a “Zeroth Dimension) anyway.

Books:

AMBASSADORS OF RECONCILIATION: GOD’S MISSION THROUGH MISSIONS FOR ALL

PASTORAL CARE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Christmas 2023 Greetings

On By missionmusingsIn CommentaryLeave a comment

I often write posts relating to Christmas. I have also done it for Easter and Hanukkah and Halloween. I have suggested some controversial ideas over the years:

#1. Christmas is NOT pagan… or at least should not be rejected due to its dubious connections with paganism. The same can be said of Easter. One should not fear celebrating Christmas or Easter due to “hot takes” of FB posts that express a very limited perspective.

#2. Halloween should not be feared by Christians. First, its pagan (to say nothing of demonic) connections are exaggerated at best. Second, all days are Gods… He has turned over no day to another.

#3. Hanukkah is certainly a Jewish holiday (or holy day). Christians share this heritage as well and can (and perhaps should?)

Perhaps more controversial is

#4. We should not see December 25th as a religious holiday that is being taken over by secular traditions. Rather, it should be understood that December 25th is TWO holidays— one is religious… for Christians. The other is secular… primarily for non-Christians.

Even more controversial is

#5. It is good… even missionally valuable that December 25th has those two simultaneous holidays.

These last two points are in my short (short for me at least) post, TWO CHRISTMASES IN ONE.

To all, have a blessed Christmas season (secular and sacred)!

Bob and Celia