Background. I serve in a missionary (cross-cultural minister) capacity in the Philippines. I got my Master of Divinity degree taking all the mission courses that were in the schedule… and a couple that were not. In my early years, my wife and I were active in doing medical missions events, children’s group outreach, and some community development. We have also partnered in a couple of church planting opportunities. I teach missions regularly at two seminaries, and have taught missions courses at a couple of others as well. I have also written some books on missions topics (mostly for my seminary students), and have written a few articles on missions or missions theology. Also, my ThD is in Practical Ministries with emphasis on Missions.

As you can see, my training and work has been mostly in missions. DESPITE THIS… my legacy is tending towards a very different area of ministry. Here is what happened. My wife, who focused on pastoral care and counseling in seminary, took a unit of CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education). After that, there was a couple of major storms that came through our area (Tropical Storm Ondoy and Typhoon Pepeng). Each wreaked great devastation and misery. We decided that what was needed from us was to fill gaps that other groups were missing. Most noticeably— there was a need for disaster response counseling. We got training in this area— disaster response chaplaincy— to help fill the gap. Many groups were coming in and dumping off supplies. This is great. But we were one of only a few groups that focused on listening to the survivors— honoring their stories, allowing for emotional ventilation, and sharing the love of God in a way more akin to the quiet whisper in the cave on Mount Horeb, rather than the thunder and whirlwind.

Out of this we formed Bukal Life Care and Counseling Center. This slowly grew and then we set up an accreditation and certification organization (CPSP-Philippines) for pastoral counseling and clinical chaplaincy in the Philippines. This too has slowly grown. Now as I look at things in 2024— it is pretty clear that ministerial success (if it was possible to score such a thing) has been in my work in pastoral counseling and chaplaincy NOT in missiology. A few examples: (A) Looking at the last 10 books I have sold online— 9 out of those 10 were for books I have written on pastoral counseling NOT missiology. (B) The top powerpoints I have shared online have all been related to pastoral counseling. (C) My wife and/or I are regularly asked to speak in seminars or webinars on pastoral care and counseling. Rarely am I asked to speak on missions… outside of the seminary classroom. (D) Both locally and internationally, I am known more for my work in pastoral counseling than I am in missions. This is DESPITE THE FACT THAT I AM NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD PASTORAL COUNSELOR. Certainly, my wife is far better than I.

But is this a problem? I don’t think so. I do think that Missiology does bring tools into Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy that are beneficial. I think it is actually a two-way street. Pastoral Counseling and Chaplaincy also bring tools to Missions. But I would like to focus on the first one here. I would like to focus on some tools that I think Missiology brings.

#1. Cultural Anthropology. Missiology is tied to the understanding of people groups and cultures. As such, it is very much tied to Cultural (or Social) Anthropology. The Pastoral Care movement has 2000 years of history but it’s development occurred primarily in the cathedrals, chapels, churches, and hospitals of Western Christianity. While things are changing, a few years ago I was looking up books and articles on cross-cultural pastoral counseling and chaplaincy, and most (though thankfully not all) were written from the perspective of “How can an American white Christian do counseling work with American black Christians?” Is that a question worthy of answering? Sure… but it is a very limited and doesn’t speak much to the myriad of other cross-cultural cross-ethnic cross-religious settings. Cultural Anthropology asks the questions that counselors often assume don’t need asking.

#2. Contextualization. Contextualization is a part of cultural anthropology of course, but it deserves its own focus. Contextualization assumes that something clear in one setting can be very unclear in another. In working with people from a different religion or culture there needs to be four steps: (a) Internationalization— removing the language or symbology that only makes sense in my own cultural perspective, (b) Translation— bringing meaning over in a way that is clear in a new context, (c) Localization— attempting to make ones guidance and listening feel natural, not merely comprehensible, in the new setting, and (d) Feedback— clarification to remove misunderstanding.

In some conservative Christian circles there has been the growth of the use of the term Biblical Counseling. I don’t care for the term particularly. For one, some forms of Biblical Counseling are shockingly unibiblical. Additionally, I have often seen that people sometimes add the term “Biblical” to the front of a topic to shut-down dissent or questions. After all, if it is “biblical” how could one question it? However, I think there is a perhaps more subtle problem. The term “biblical” can often be interpreted as “supracultural.” We do see this with “Verse-dropping” approaches. If there are some verses that one is supposed to share with someone who is feeling depressed and panicky, for example, there is not likely much room for adjusting for how depressed and panicky may spring from very different causes depending on context. Missiology says we have to take context seriously, and not simply mouth agreement with it but then push the same formula over and over based on what makes sense to us.

#3. Multiple Ideals. Psychology and Pastoral Counseling have often assumed that there is one ideal. In the Western World, pastoral counseling may promote “feeling free from guilt”, joyful, strong, confident, and independent. However, in Missions we learn that people in countries that are more focused on Honor and Shame, greater focus may be on “feeling welcomed and honored” and having strong community/family connections. In a Fear/Power setting, feeling “free from spiritual oppression” may be the big goal. In a Harmony or a Reciprocity culture, other ideals may exist like peace and connection. A lot of counseling books assume that the ideal person is pretty similar to the writer of that book. That is not necessarily a good thing.

#4. Groups. Missiology struggles with addressing individual concerns WITH group concerns. Early psychology often focused on the individual. In more recent times, there has been a growth in Group Counseling, Family Counseling, Support Groups, Growth Groups, and more. Despite this, there still seems to be a bias toward focusing on the healing of the individual. While I do think that Missiology also can drift into an individuality bias as well, I do believe its strong link to sociology and culture does mean important questions are regularly asked— “Can a person be truly well if he/she is in a sick family or community?” is an example.

#5. Orality. Orality has been an area of growth in terms of study and use since the 1970s (particularly). It notes that many people prefer to learn through listening rather than reading— and in fact, many cannot read (primary orality) while others can read but choose not to unless they can’t avoid it (secondary orality). Pastoral counseling is a spoken ministry for the most part. Counseling is usually done through the spoken word. However, much of the training for it is very much driven by books and articles. With people moving toward “YouTube U” as their preferred form of learning over the written word, Missiology may provide answers to some of the questions that may move pastoral counseling to embrace more fully its spoken roots.

#6. Overlaps. There are areas where classic missions and classic pastoral counseling naturally overlap. A couple of them are Missionary Member Care (MMC) and Interreligious Dialogue (IRD). One could include social justice, peacemaking ministries, and transformational development in there as well, I suppose. People in recent decades have gained a clearer understanding of the need for MMC. However, due to human migrations, improved communication, and a general globalization of many fields, IRD has become more and more important. Both of these areas utilize skills and ideas from Pastoral Counseling and Missiology. There are potentially many other overlaps. Disaster Response, for example, often links missions with counseling. These areas, and many more, need people bridging the gap between the two fields.

#7. Transformation. Pastoral Counseling has in recent years been more prone to embracing Rogerian psychology— non-directive counseling. It often presumes that the person already has the answer inside and just needs the opportunity to have that truth drawn out. This has been so pervasive that Len Sperry, for example, does not see Christian counseling generally addressing issues of morals and ethics. Pastoral theologian Seward Hiltner, a good friend of Carl Rogers, supposedly could not fully embrace non-directive counseling, saying (again supposedly) something to the effect that, “If a shepherd does not guide the sheep, then the sheep will be eaten by the wolves.” Generally, however, pastoral counseling has avoided being very directive. In some ways that is good. However, it is problematic in the extremes. Missions is focused on change or transformation. Insights from missiology in terms of individual or group transformation is a valuable thing, I believe.

I think that is enough for now. If you have some other examples, I would, of course, welcome these.

For looking at the reverse, consider “How Might Pastoral Theology Speak to Missions.”