What is Nationalism as it relates to Missions?

I have long been proudly anti-nationalistic. In my mind, nationalism is wholly inconsistent with international Christian missions. I have struggled, like many others to separate between nationalism and patriotism. Does51tdas57z5l being anti-nationalistic mean that I am unpatriotic? Good question.

Teddy Roosevelt on October 12, 1915 gave a speech on “hyphenated Americans” that seems to point towards a level of nationalistic thinking. One quote from the speech will here suffice:

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish- American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

I never really have known what to make of the speech. It doesn’t appear to be a racist speech, or against immigrants. But it does point towards a certain nationalistic perspective where identification to anything other than one’s nation is treacherous. To me it fails to pass the “Why” test. That is, “Why would recognition of being a member of two social institutions or groupings demonstrate lack of faithfulness to one? That only makes sense if one institution is clearly to take priority over others. I am a member of many groups and I feel that they are quite reconcilable. I actually agree that there should be a prioritization, but what prioritization is correct? For me, Human (creation of God in His image) takes first place. Identification as a Christian takes second place. Some would reverse the order here. For me, it gets reversed in terms of citizenship.

As a missionary I see myself as a citizen of God’s Kingdom first, a citizen of humanity second, and a citizen of my country of birth no higher than 3rd place. If one had a spectrum of political positions from Traitor to Jingoist, I am not sure where I fit in (though certainly not at the extremes). However, churches that appear to confuse Biblical truths, symbols, and allegiances with nationalistic “truths,” symbols, and allegiances is flawed theologically and deeply problematic when tied to missions.

A great article was shared with me that clarifies the confusion in many ways between different types of nationalism and patriotism.

The article is here:  https://fee.org/articles/what-nationalism-really-is-and-why-it-matters/

One quote that is rather strongly worded but but 41an2-1xq6l-_sx321_bo1204203200_points to the ultimate conclusion of the article is:

American conservatives and libertarians frequently, loudly, and rightly criticize Communists for their ideology’s legacy of slaughter. It’s time we all start criticizing nationalists for their ideology’s not-as-bad-but-still-evil legacy of brutality.

I feel like this article is a bit disorganized. I will have to make this a work in progress. I was given a book called “The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church” by Gregory Boyd will help get some clarification.

A book that I have already finished and describes, humorously and painfully, the problem of short-term missionaries coming over and bringing their political loyalties with them (among other things) is I Planted the Seed (and Woody Squashed It), by Barry Phillips

Advertisements

Willy Wonka and the Advent

Well I do love the 1971 movie, “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.” I did enjoy the book it was based on (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). but it has been over three decades since I read it and its sequel, so I would rather base the story on that movie not the book. The revisioning of the story by Tim Burton could have, should have perhaps, been better, but ultimately wasn’t.

In the 1971 movie, what was the reason for the “advent” of Willie Wonka, the breaking of years of mysterious absence? A few options could be suggested:

  • To give out several golden tickets.

    image-Bathroom-Pass-Meme-Willy-Wonka-willy-wonka-memes-and-meme-acrylic-painting-willywonka-wonkameme-wonkapaining-willy-Bathroom-Pass-Meme-Willy

    Let’s Not Be Meme

  • To give an amazing tour of the chocolate factory
  • To find a mentor to be trained to be his replacement as the head of the chocolate factory
  • To sell more chocolate
  • To deal with dangerous candy manufacturing competitors.

The fifth option was shown to be a red herring at the end of the movie, but the first four have more potential. At the end of the movie, the “real reason” given was to seek a mentor. However, the methodology of getting there was quite poor. The plot has two major sections that point towards the first two options— the search for the golden tickets and tour of the factory. However, the search for the tickets was more of a means, rather than an end of itself,  and the tour is joined by the participants all with very different motives.

Perhaps the only option that really makes sense is the fourth one. Willy Wonka opened the doors of his factory to sell more chocolate. It alone justifies the awkward method of seeking a mentor, and justifies putting tickets into the wrapping of chocolate bars that must be purchased.

And yet, that is unsatisfying. The movie is not just a business strategy, it is a story. That story depended on the entire plot, not just reduction to a single purpose or plot device. The story would not exist without the golden tickets or the tour. As part of the plot, they have more value than seeking a mentor or selling more chocolate, regardless of their centrality to the “purpose” of the story.

And then, you really can’t overlook Charlie either. His role as poor child, who cares for others, (the ultimate underdog) must be considered if one seeks an overall moral to the story.

So what does this have to do with the “Advent” of Christ?

A bit of a “Twitterstorm” started some days ago when Tim Keller put up the following Tweet:

“Jesus didn’t come primarily to solve the economic, political, and social problems of the world. He came to forgive our sins.”

I was quite surprised at the ruckus this fairly straightforward statement made. I do remember being a bit uncomfortable with it. I don’t like reductionism, and I wish Evangelicals weren’t so fascinated by “bumper sticker theology.”  Of course, some of the concern hinges on what one means by “primarily.” After all, if primarily means the one main central reason, presumably God could have come up with a method of forgiveness that was a bit more… direct. Other reasons could also be given:

  • Demonstration of God’s love. This comes, in part, from John 3:16. One might make the argument that it demonstrates God’s love because the incarnation provides the means for forgiving sins. But that is quite reductionistic. The method itself says much about God’s love, as God chose to humble Himself, and identify Himself with His creation.
  • To bless all peoples. The Abrahamic Covenant sees itself fulfilled, in part, by the Advent of Christ. This blessing has a universal quality to it that transcends issues of salvation, election, free will, and atonement.
  • To be the anointed one. Our Bibles are not just the Epistles. They are also the Gospels and the Old Testament. One could probably just as accurately say that Jesus came, primarily, to fulfil God’s promise for the anointed liberator of God’s people.
  • To provide a way. While we often focus on forgiveness coming from faith, faith is generally described in terms of a path. In Jesus we have not just the life and the truth, but also the way. Jesus came as a prophetic teacher, to provide revolutionary ethics in how we are to live. It is hard to see how that can be seen as secondary.
  • To give ultimate victory in spiritual battle. While many like to reify the spiritual war metaphor,this seems much less than a primary purpose for the advent. God is not in some uncertain struggle with the devil. Much like with Willy Wonka, the struggle with competition is more of a red herring.
  • To inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The reign of God has implications with regards economic, political, and social problems. I guess that is the reason that I struggle with Keller’s quote. Can one say that the inauguration of the Kingdom of God is secondary to the establishing a means for forgiveness? I’m not sure.
  • To reveal Himself. Much like in the above movie where Charlie is character is part of the purpose of the story, so is Jesus in the advent. Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. He is the revelation of God “in these last days.” Presumably, God could have come up with a way to forgive that maintained His own personal splendor and transcendence. Islam, for example, prefers a merciful God that lacks the messy self-involvement of identification and incarnation. But in the Christian faith, how could one place this below the strategy of the atonement?

In the end, the Advent of Christ is a story. I believe it is ill-advised to suggest that elements of the story are subordinate to others.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was not primarily about a business strategy, it was not primarily about selling chocolate, it was not primarily about finding a golden ticket. and it wasn’t primarily about a tour of the factory. They were all critical elements. Willy Wonka could find a successor in a more efficient manner, and sell chocolate with thousands of different strategies. In a story, the method is still part of the story. And so are the primary characters.

Is Jesus primary reason for coming to provide a method to forgive sins (the “golden ticket” purpose)? Maybe, but if it is primary, that doesn’t make the other reasons secondary, nor is the method secondary, nor Himself secondary.

I like a lot of what Tim Keller says even though our theology is different in some ways (Frankly, I feel good that I would fail the TGC litmus test),  His tweet isn’t bad, even if I would struggle to agree wholeheartedly. Maybe his biggest error is to try to speak broadly on the Advent of Christ in 280 characters.

 

The Patriotically Incorrect Missionary

When I was in college (30+ years ago) many of us were struck at the excesses of a movement that showed itself in the term “Political Correctness” or PC for short. It sought to avoid language that appeared to demean or sound judgmental. At its best, it reminded us to be careful with our language… reminding us words matter, and that they can both hurt or heal. I remember my time in the Navy where horrible, horrible language was often used for THEM… whoever “them” may be– at the time often women, homesexuals, or Iraqis. I remember suffering through a class at Surface Warfare Officer’s School (SWOS) where the instructor started the class with jokes– almost all of them starting with the “There is nobody who is ___________ here, is there?” One time, when the joke section went “open mike,” the guy who sat next to me raised his hand saying that he had a joke. When he got to the front of the classroom, he went into a five minute sermon on the destructiveness of jokes… and seemingly suggesting that all jokes are hurtful. He was “Booed” back to his seat. I can’t remember if I joined in the catcalls or not. But, I did find the joke time annoying, so I am not sure.

But at its worst, political correctness can force a sterile groupthink where free exchange of ideas is squashed in the name of tolerance. And as the term “political” implies in the name, there was often a political agenda where certain groups were protected while others were fair game. Sometimes it appears to actually do the opposite of its aim. I recall in college hearing of a college women’s volleyball team where they would describe some members as being “vertically challenged” rather than say “short.” To me, that is counterproductive since “short” may or may not be disparaging, but “vertically challenged” can only be viewed as derogatory. The SWOS story showed both sides of things where the politically correct appeared to reject any sort of group cohesion through irreverence, while the politically incorrect could be quite hurtful, and be annoyed that others get hurt, “not getting it.”

Right now in my home country (or perhaps ONE of my home countries) there is a balkanization, or new tribalism, that could be described in terms of being “patriotically correct.” When I was in the Navy, a friend of mine, also an officer, told me, “A weird thing happened to me yesterday. I was driving around and stopped for lunch, and this old guy began talking to me. When he learned that I was in the Navy, he said, ‘Thanks for your service to our country.’ I wanted to tell him, ‘I’m not seeking to serve my country out of some deep well of patriotic fervor. I am just doing my job.’ Of course I didn’t say that.” I found that story funny myself. Who would thank a person for just doing their job, and tie it to some sort of nationalism?

At least I found that funny until about 20 years later, more than a decade after leaving the Navy, when I started having people come up to me and say, “Thanks for your service to our country.” It seemed so strange. I did figure-eights in the Red Sea during the Gulf War while doing embargo operations. I can assure you that I have done much more to serve my country well (and other countries) as a missionary in the Philippines than I ever did in the Navy. But I can hardly say that. That seems to be Patriotically Incorrect. I am not anti-military. My son is considering joining the military and I am fine with that. I would be a proud parent. But I would be a proud parent if he went into something entirely different— neither greater nor lesser. That seems to be a politically incorrect view as well.

Recently, they have started putting NFL (American) football on TV here in the Philippines, and so after many years of not seeing it, I watch it on occasion. It is interesting that some of my friends in the US are boycotting NFL games. Boycotting in this case apparently means turning to a different channel. I have no problem with that. CFL can be fun to watch, and Rugby and Australian Rules Football are wonderful, arguably preferable, alternatives to American football. Apparently, this so-called boycotting is done because some athletes go down on one knee rather than stand at attention during the National Anthem. I can see the concern to some extent. Here in the Philippines, I always stand during the singing of “Lupang Hinirang,” the Philippine National Anthem, and join in the singing. It just seems like the respectful thing to do for a country that has welcomed me as a guest for over 14 years. But the irony with regards to the reaction to the NFL still strikes me… the use of an empty symbolic gesture to express anger about an empty symbolic gesture (making in fact that second gesture much less empty).

There seems to be a new tribalism, or at least an increase in it. It is understood by the old adage, referenced and castigated in the Bible, “Love your friends, and hate your enemies.” Clearly that is not what we are called to do… but it is hard especially when “tribal” battlelines are drawn. It is hard for us to do and hard for others to respond.

“God’s love, when it comes to us, obliges us to ‘love the neighbor.’ How is the person before us responding to this obligation? Responses can run the gamut from amoral anarchy to rigid perfectionism, when people are experiencing a broken relationship with God. On the other hand, in persons who have a sound relationship with God, there must be at least hints of a healthy sense of filial and agapic responsibility.” -Howard Stone “The Word of God and Pastoral Care,” page 47

Consider how that attitude of partiality might show it self in the table below in terms of our response to a person from the “One of Us” tribe doing something good, or somethin bad, versus our response to a member of the “One of Them” tribe.

Does something good or says something good

Does something bad or says something bad

“One of Us”

We congratulate and recognize the actions as tied to virtue

We attack or question motives of the accuser, and/or give benefit of the doubt to ‘our guy’

“One of Them”

We minimize or question motives

We judge and attack; and feel awfully good about it, and ourselves.

The problem is that this is really hugely immoral. Right and Wrong is no respecter of persons. Giving “benefit of the doubt” sounds godly, but it is not. Benefit of the doubt is only moral if it is given to all parties. That is, if a member of the “One of Them” tribe is charged with misbehavior, we should equally be open to giving benefit of the doubt. Additionally, if giving benefit of the doubt to the accused means disbelieving the accuser, that is dishonest. An honest response would be to take the matter seriously but bracket one’s person opinions as one seeks to determine the truth. Benefit of the doubt is a last resort, at best.

Drawing back to Missions, I believe missionaries should be to some extent Patriotically Incorrect. Missionaries should be first of all servants of God’s Kingdom, not some earthly kingdom— regardless of whether such a kingdom is nation-state, denomination, or organization. Missionaries shouldn’t be quick to bring along their political agendas into the mission field with them. I have heard TV preachers from the US that, for some reason, get broadcast in the Philippines. They end up sharing their wacky politics. But it is forgivable. I don’t suppose it is their fault that some group in the Philippines has the bad taste to rebroadcast. But some missionaries come over here and bring there politics with them. I have heard both American and Korean missionaries give their, “Why can’t you Filipinos be more like us” speech. Don’t understand that. No matter how passionate a missionary is for or against the 2nd Amendment, or “Obamacare” those issues are irrelevant in the Philippines. The Philippines is not under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution nor of the Affordable Care Act. Frankly, it does not matter to the Philippines whether the US is a “Christian Nation” or “The First Secular Nation.” Arguments could be made for both perspectives, but neither are relevant ourside of its borders.

Of course, how political a missionary should be with regards to their ministry country is harder to determine. I have heard some odd stories of missionary behavior. I heard of a missionary here in the Philippines who poured some (holy? blessed?) oil on a government leader’s chair as some sort of Christian magic to keep anyone that is religiously divergent from sitting in that seat as leader. That seems like an odd role for a missionary certainly, yet a missionary should stand up for the plight of the dispossessed and oppressed… and oppose abuses, both legal and illegal. Where a good line is, I don’t know. My own denomination is fairly apolitical most of the time in the Philippines, but I also work with a couple of denominations that are intensely political. I feel the ideal is between those extremes.

The Lord’s Prayer says that we are to pray that God’s Kingdom would come– His will be done, on earth as it (presently) is in heaven. The focus is on God’s will and the Kingdom of heaven, not on someone else’s ideology and political will. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that living out the Lord’s Prayer is Patriotically Incorrect.

Tertullian, Love Feast, and Social Ministry

Excerpt from Tertullian’s 39th Apology

tertullian-4

Tertullian (160-220 AD)

The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.

Much of the context of this quote is on the Love Feast. At the time, the Love Feast (think perhaps “Sacramental Potluck”) was a normal part of Christian worship and some were charging Christians with being wild drunken folk. Tertullian is making the point that the love feast was shared, charitable, chaste, self-controlled and started as well as ended with a prayer. But further, moneys gathered within the church were done to help those in need. The love feast was an act of worship, but it was also an act of charity since the sharing was equal, not based on what one had to give.

The Love Feast was referred to by Paul, by the Didache (by implication), Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, and others.

Raised a Baptist, we have a lot of potluck dinners. And many other churches have similar things. Sadly though, we tend to do them with a bit of a chuckle— a bit of pride and embarrassment. But perhaps, we can see it (or make it):

  • An Act of Worship
  • An Act of Charity
  • An Act of Brotherhood

But I hope it would be all three. It has a sacramental role in terms of worship of God. It is an act of giving to and caring for the needy. It is an act to remind ourselves of our spiritual unity in Christ.

 

Blame it on Gregory

Greg O Lantern

Another Halloween has passed, with the requisite articles or blogposts explaining, sometimes calmly and sometimes stridently, that Christians should not be involved in this particular holiday. Some use the argument that the holiday is used by Satanists. This may be the  weakest of the arguments– I have never really understood that one. If Satanists like to get Blizzards at Dairy Queen, do we as Christians need to avoid that particular activity or place as a form of self-protection? Is that how we are to interact with the world… backing up and walling ourselves away from groups that we are afraid are bigger and badder than we are? A more subtle argument is that we can disempower a holiday by our lack of participation. With this spin, the issue is not so much spiritual or moral, but political or economic. Perhaps this has merit, but I wonder what statistics would say about the success of Christian boycotts. If it works, and is deemed to be worth the effort, then fine… why not?

<In an act of “full disclosure,” I don’t celebrate Halloween… at least not for many years. I live in the Philippines where Halloween is a very anemic holiday at best, especially as compared to Undas… the day of honoring one’s dead ancestors. But even in the US, I generally preferred to turn off the lights at home, trying to convince the neighbor kids that I am not at home, and then watch a scary movie in the dark.>

A more interesting argument is that Halloween has pagan roots. This same argument will be repeated for Christmas and for Easter. I am very surprised that I have not heard Americans make that argument for Thanksgiving, when Harvests festivals around the world have very strong pagan roots (and the first American Thanksgiving had strong participation by pagans).

But if a holiday has “pagan roots” or at least is on the same day as a pagan holiday, why would we as Christians think that is okay?

Well, I think one could probably blame it on Pope Gregory the Great. And in actuality, it seems like he was actually pretty great. He had great impact on Christian Missions in the Western Church (something that was mostly done by the Eastern Churches during the first millenium), as well as Pastoral Care.

In Pope Gregory’s guidance to a missions team heading to Britain, he said,

“The heathen temples of these people need not be destroyed, only the idols which are to be found in them… If the temples are well built, it s a good idea to detach them from the service of the devil, and to adapt them for the worship of the true God… And since the people are accustomed, when they assemble for sacrifice, to kill many oxen in sacrifice to the devils, it seems reasonable to appoint a festival for the people by way of exchange. The people must learn to slay their cattle not in honour of the devil, but in honour of God and for their own food; when they have eaten and are full, then they must render thanks to the giver of all good things. If we allow them these outward joys, they are more likely to find their way to the true inner joy… It is doubtless impossible to cut off all abuses at once from rough hearts, just as the man who sets out to climb a high mountain does not advance by leaps and bounds, but goes upward step by step and pace by pace.”

Letter by Pope Gregory (18 July 601) to Mellitus. (A History of Christian Missions by Stephen Neill, London: Penguin Books, 1990), pg 58

What is the argument here? Gregory was seeking accommodation. Buildings used to honor “devils” can be converted to honor God. Festivals that are for pagan practices can be converted to worship God and give joy to the people. It seems clear that Gregory believed one of two things (or perhaps both):

  1.  God is more powerful than Satan so days, events, or locations that were used for worship of Satan can be converted, taken over, by Christians for God.    <And/Or>
  2. Prior usage for pagan purposes does in no way corrupt a day, event, or location. In other words, there is no such thing as “contagious magic.”

Both of these above points appear to be in much doubt today. Perhaps the Christian fascination with the War metaphor for Christian interaction with the world, has left us with a tendency to think that we are in constant risk of being on the losing side. And there appears to be a lot of people that reject “magick” but still believe in “contagious magic”– where association with or history of a sinful item or day ruins it forever. So bad things cannot be redeemed, only quarantined.

So if you have read your Bibles and still come to the conclusion that Christians must avoid anything that has pagan association (stand by for a long list in that regard), and believe that such pagan associations are irredeemable, and wonder why some Christians just don’t understand your viewpoint…. just blame it on Gregory.

An interesting article on Halloween is below. I am not a big fan of Item #5, but the rest I think have merit. If you think that since the article is about Halloween has passed, it lacks relevance— you can fish it out again for Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and pretty much any other day of the year, since every day has some celebration going on.

http://www.alanrudnick.org/2010/10/28/7-reasons-why-christians-should-celebrate-halloween/

 

A Necessary Tragedy

This year (2017), and this month (October) marks the 500th anniversary, ‘officially’ of the Protestant Reformation. I was at a theological forum that commemorated this event, and looked at the original break event 1517 and subsequent years from a traditional Protestant viewpoint, a post-Vatican II Catholic viewpoint, and a Separatist viewpoint. A term that came up a few times was that the Reformation was a “Necessary Tragedy.” It was further noted, that Catholics have tended to look at it as a tragedy but not all that necessary, while Protestants tended to see it as necessary, but not all that tragic.

For me, I see it as necessary because the church lutherof the West sought not only spiritual unity, but ecclesiastical unity, and they did not simply seek unity, but sought uniformity. Such an undesirable state needed to change. To ignore regional cultures and language, and have a governance that is not empowered locally certainly needed to go away. In the East, that happened much earlier (with 1054 AD being thought of as the pivotal year, although they could mark back time as far as they want). In Northern Europe, it started in 1517 with the “magisterial reformers” with separatist reformers both before and after. For the Philippines, one has to go to the American Occupation, as well as the Aglipayan movement. With the rest of the Catholic Church, Vatican II seems to be the pivotal time frame. Yes it was necessary, sooner or later. And it still is.

As far as tragic, I don’t see tragedy in Ecclesiastical disunity. Centralization of power— perhaps even more so Ecclesiastical Power— creates deep problems. So one religious governance seems to me to be something of which to be horrified. And it wasn’t tragedy for lack of uniformity. It seems like diversity was identified as a good thing in the first century church… but its goodness became more deeply questioned over time. There is no tragedy in diversity.

Where there is tragedy was that people on all sides of the unity/disunity, uniformity/diversity divides saw that it was appropriate to fight and kill each other over it. It is hard to appreciate diversity. At an ecumenical gathering recently to which I was invited, it began to be clear to me that even those who theoretically should embrace unity with diversity, struggle with appreciating some forms of diversity. Some forms of diversity are embraced, while others are squelched or castigated. The tragedy is that we identify people within our own ecclesiastical neighborhood as US, and those from other ecclesiastical neighborhoods as THEM… and we tend to see diversity as a problem to overcome, rather than something to embrace.

Centuries of fighting with words, laws and guns was needless. While it is easy to blame the Catholic church for this, as one from a Separatist tradition, I know that the Protestants also had blood on their hands.  And, in fact, the Separatists have had their moments of shame as well. But it was not necessary. I am reminded of Paul and Barnabas having different visions for ministry. They could have supported each other and gone their separate ways in peace… but instead had to fight with each other, wound each other, and be an embarrassment to the church. And still they ended up going their separate ways anyway. I have come across people almost 2000 years later still arguing about who was right.  They truly miss the point. BOTH WERE RIGHT— AND NEITHER.

So I guess the answer is that it may be correct that the Protestant Reformation was a Necessary Tragedy. It was indeed necessary, but it was not necessary that it was a tragedy.

2017_03_mia_lutheran500_popeinlund_cna_121895w_1488975183

The Lutheran Church invited the Pope to join in the celebration of the 500th anniversary year of the Protestant reformation on October 31st, 2016. The Catholic church asked if the term could be changed from “celebration” to “commemoration.” The Lutheran Church actually agreed to it, and they joined together to mark this important year. Perhaps commemoration is the better term. Let us all remember this together. It is a necessary date. It is a date that did not have to be tragic… and yet in some ways did become tragic. It is an important day of embracing  Unity with Disunity and Diversity, and without Uniformity. Prayerfully, we will figure out how to actually do that.

Four Books I am Reading Now

p054q93q

I don’t buy a lot of books. The availability of Christian books that I am interested in here in the Philippines is limited. I also have limited resources. So I really feel fortunate when I ordered four books that were delivered a few weeks ago. All four I have found to be very useful. I don’t read cover to cover very often, I am not a reading ‘machine’ as some I know, but it looks like I am on a trajectory to reading all four completely.

  1.  “The Minister as Diagnostician: Personal Problems in Pastoral Perspective” by Paul W. Pruyser (1976). This was my least risky purchase. We have a Pastoral Counseling center here and we train in Clinical Pastoral Education. Pruyser’s book is written from the perspective of a psychologist at the Menninger Clinic, but for church ministers. He noted that pastors training in hospital chaplaincy tended to utilize the diagnostic language (and to a limited extent criteria) of psychologists. He suggested that there are diagnostic categories that are more appropriate, and more within the skill set of ministers. The language choices he uses I don’t find particularly intuitive. However, the seven basic categories for diagnosis I believe are quite useful. Some have noted the challenge of applying these categories in practice, but I believe Pruyser’s work is a good starting point. Looking forward to reading the entire, short, book.
  2. One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization” by Jackson Wu (2015). This was my second safest choice. I enjoy Wu’s posts, many of which are related to this book, so I was pretty sure it would something I would find valuable. It has proven to be so far. I suppose I am curious about the title which speaks of “Biblical Contextualization” while the body of the book speaks of two types of contextualization– “Exegetical Contextualization” and “Cultural Contextualization.” Perhaps the author is linking Biblical with Exegetical, or the two contextualizations are seen to constitute “Biblical Contextualization.” Or maybe, the publisher chose the title. This is far less than a complaint… simply a comment. Positively, it looks at contextualization from a more Asian perspective. Living here in the Philippines, that is important to me. Additionally, it seeks to move from theoretical models of contextualization to a practical path to contextualization.
  3. “SCM Studyguide: Theological Reflection” by Judith Thompson and Stephen Pattison (2008). This was more of a leap of faith. In clinical pastoral care, we seek theological reflection in our trainees. Many struggle. Far too often, what is thought of as theological reflection is little more than verse-dropping (“This case reminds me of Psalm 23”). Other times, there is a failure to be truly reflective– simply reiterating what one already believes. This book is well-structured and deals with a number of forms of theological reflection. These methods are thoroughly orthodox in that the book does not advocate a “create your own theology” view. It seeks to connect and relate one’s faith tradition with experience. Already I find it useful, and am incorporating some of the ideas in a chapter on this topic in our upcoming book, “The Dynamics of Pastoral Care”– a sequel to “The Art of Pastoral Care.”
  4. “SCM Studyguide: Pastoral Theology.” by Margaret Whipp (2015). This book is done by the same publishing house as the previous one, and is a part of the same book series. The series is Anglican, and while the examples used in both books tend to draw from this tradition, they are broadly applicable to other Christians. This book I have only gotten into the earliest chapters, but so far I find it very valuable.  The previous book, Theological Reflection, is more structured, and I like structure. However Pastoral Theology as a subject is far less structured than many other categories of theology (systematic, biblical, philosophical, etc.), so I can hardly complain. Again, this book I am already finding inspirational for our training programs here, as well as for our newest book. Looking forward to finishing it.