Category: theology of missions.

Intheologization?

On By missionmusingsIn Mission Theology, theology of missions.Leave a comment

I was reading an article by Christina Zaker entitled “Parable as a Lens for Theological Reflection.” It is a good article and notes that despite the importance many people place on Theological Reflection, many people (especially students in the context of the article) often are disappointed in the process. She suggests the use of parables in a reflective group setting. This is, of course, not a unique idea— others have talked of such things, including myself (“Theological Reflection through Storying in the Orality and Clinical Pastoral Training Movements“) The key point is that personal stories are amazing opportunities for theological reflection, and the group process, if done well, can lead to very beneficial growth.

Of course, Group Theological Reflection (GTR) should also be balanced with Individual Theological Reflection (ITR). Both are skills. Zaker speaks of moving towards such reflection becoming intuitive. It doesn’t become intuitive, however, if it is not in some way taught.

Some churches talk about “indoctrination.” This involves learning the doctrines of the church. Perhaps more generously it could be said that it teaches the doctrines of the Bible as filtered through the faith tradition of a specific church. Ultimately, the most successfully “indoctrinated” is one whose beliefs are completely conformed to the program used to indoctrinate. That may sound a bit cultic, but the perfect outcome of indoctrination is uniformity.

To me, the ideal church is not one of uniformity, but diversity with unity. That suggests a solid understanding of doctrine, but with a healthy range of doctrinal beliefs. This suggests in addition to (or in some way in place of) indoctrination, the church should train members in being competent in developing theologically.

===Repeating the church’s catechism is certainly not being healthfully theological.

===Neither is “I heard this guy on Youtube who said…”

The process is not necessarily easy. A friend of mine who heads a major Clinical Pastoral Education certification program says that when trainees get to the theological reflection in pastoral case studies, the tendency of many, many of them is “This reminds me of the 23rd Psalm” or perhaps the Good Samaritan. Verse dropping is not theological reflection.

The question I have is actually, “Is there a good term for this process of learning to theologize.” Do we need to create a term for this process? Is “INTHEOLOGIZATION” a good description of this process?

There are lots of different methods that could be used in the process (my wife and I talk of a few in Dynamics in Pastoral Care). However, I do agree that stories are important. Obviously, linking our stories to our “faith tradition” is part of the process, and this means we need to be doctrinally informed. Otherwise, it is just a process of pooling opinions. Based on this, INDOCTRINATION and INTHEOLOGIZATION do go hand in hand.

What I am less certain about is whether they should best be done concurrently or not. I think the two choices are concurrent or indoctrination occurring first. I think generally that indoctrination should precede intheologization. However, if the process of indoctrination ossifies the thinking of the learner, it can stifle theological growth. I think, however, good doctrine should apply the framework in which theological understanding can grow from.

Missions and chaplaincy very much need good theology. Missions has often been too focused on marketing and theory at one end, or too much on preaching points and bumper sticker rallying points on the other. A good, non-ossified, theology is needed for good missions. As such good “intheologization” should be formally established and promoted in any missions training program.

Is There More Than One Type of Contextual Theologian

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

Maybe I am a bit slow on things… but in the past I thought of Contextual Theology in very simple terms. Since I agree with Bevans and Vaughn and others that “All Theology is Contextual” I would argue that there are two types of Contextual Theology — Good Contextual Theology and Bad Contextual Theology. This would imply that there are only two types of theologians: Good Contextual Theologians and Bad Contextual Theologians.

And then I would probably add another duality, and this has to do with the relationship between the theologian and the context in which he or she is doing theology. This would then create two categories— Insider Theologians (doing theology within one’s own enculterated setting) and Outsider Theologians (doing theology within someone else’s enculturated setting).

These groupings are not well-defined sets. They are both spectra.

I have wondered whether one should also divide contextual theology into more theoretical and more practical. After all, we separate theology into Practical Theology and “Non-Practical” (?) Theologies (such as Biblical, Historical, Philosophical, and Systematic). Further, I have two colleagues (at one time their were students of mine, but has since “grown up”). One of them does great Filipino Theology in terms of big concepts— especially Theological Anthropology. The other is more in Pastoral Theology— more practical/ministerial. However, when focusing on the contextual aspect of theology, I am not sure separating between theoretical and practical is particularly useful.

However, I have another student who presently serves in a churchplanting work in Sierra Leone. I would argue that he is a gifted contextual theologian as well… but in a very different way. He doesn’t emphasize cultural characteristics in terms of theology. Rather, he is doing theological work in response to the unique questions and concerns of his setting.

This suggests two categories of contextual theology. One might be seen as “Cultural Contextual Theology.” There is probably a better term for this, but suggests theology that connects to the cultural beliefs, values, and categories of a setting. The other could be “Correlative Contextual Theology.” With this, the theology correlates to the setting— asking questions of and answering questions for the context.

What Does Your Church’s Front Door Look Like

On By missionmusingsIn church growth, Missional Churches, theology of missions.Leave a comment

<Decided to place a post that I put on our family website here. https://bobandceliamunson.wordpress.com/>

US at least, most houses have more than one entrance. The side door or garage door is commonly used by family members— the family door. Often the front door, seeming the main door of the house, is used less and is more to welcome guests. Churches are often the opposite. The front door to the church is welcoming/inviting to the church family (family door) but not a door that guests want to pass through. Let me explain.

Who feels welcomed? Who doesn’t? What about the main door to your church?

Earlier today I was at church where a missionary to Japan was speaking. He was talking about the outreach church where they serve. He said that their front door for visitors was not really the double-wide glass door in the front of many/most churches. Rather it is the side-door that goes to a coffee shop. The church has a coffee shop that it uses to— in addition to serving coffee and treats to the community— provide a way for the Japanese people to interact in a non-intimidating way with Christians. He noted, quite correctly, that the doors of a church can be quite unwelcoming. Consider a reversal of roles. Suppose your Muslim neighbor invited you to visit his mosque. What is the likelihood you would go? I have attended mosque before… but my training required it. I, like most Christians, would feel that the doors to the mosque wall off a somewhat strange and unwelcoming place. And truthfully, Muslims don’t typically do a good job of eradicating that unwelcoming aura.

Christians, however, don’t do much better. While Christian churches often try to figure out how to get visitors to come through their main doors… most are nervous about this. Will the visitor find…

  • A welcoming and loving family?
  • An exclusivizing group that builds it’s self-perception around some dubious point of doctrine?
  • A fear and anger-fueled political echo chamber?
  • A dying gathering of insiders who repeat empty weekly rituals?

The front door in this church in Japan is not the main door— a door that is only really welcoming to members of the church family. For them the “front door” is the entrance to their coffee shop. In the Philippines, I live upstairs of a coffee shop that holds two church services there a week.

The doors to a cafe are more welcoming to the curious… but other doors also work. The Philippines has a large Christian population. Many (most?) are nominal, but that still means that there is a great interest in understanding the Bible. As such, for many churches in the Philippines their front door is actually the many front doors of members’ homes. Where I live, people won’t respond to invites to church, but will often respond to invites to home bible studies. Frankly, it does seem as if both the Mormons and JWs in the Philippines also have given up on trying to get people to visit their houses of worship. Instead they try to arrange home Bible studies.

Another church front door is one’s website. People who are uncomfortable with a cold call visit to a church will happily check out their website. Is the website inviting and informative? If so, that opens up the church to the curious. This is in fact how we found our membership church back in 2000. Internet church shopping wasn’t big back then, but I found it very useful.

I will add a caution here, however. I have noticed a trend in recent years of making the website very focused on existing members— ministry opportunities, church news, and announcements. I have visited a number of church websites where it was hard to find something as critical as, “When is our Sunday morning service?” Even finding the church address took some doing. Church staff should look at their websites and ask, “Does our website presume insider knowledge?” If it does, your website is a family door (for members) not your front door.

It is not bad that a church has a family door… a door that welcomes church members. That is healthy. It is okay if it is the main door of the church. However, there should be a door that truly makes visitors feel welcomed. Such doors will rarely be part of the church building.

What does “So Send I You” Really Imply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt from my Chapter on Localization of Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on Localization of Theology

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

I have been working on a couple of articles. One of them I decided to remove a large section. I will include it here. Most of it comes from parts of my books on on Interreligious Dialoge and Theology of Mission (using some of the work of David Hesselgrave, Stephen Bevans, and Paul Hiebert).

Theology that is not well-grounded in God’s revelation is untrue and irrelevant. Theology that is well-grounded in God’s revelation but not contextualized to the people will be misunderstood. Misunderstood is essentially the same as untrue, and thus also irrelevant. Bevans has also gone further and argued that a couple of tests of a good (orthodox) and healthy local theology are (a) it develops from the people in their local context, and (b) it is open to both challenge other theologies from other contexts in the universal church and accept critique from the same.

Paul Hiebert described three types of contextualization— non-contextualization, uncritical contextualization, and critical contextualization. Critical contextualization is considered the ideal type of contextualization, with the other two types essentially being to forms of inappropriate contextualizing. For Hiebert, critical contextualization occurs when there is an integration of a careful reading and understanding of the Bible with a sympathetic This is where Bible doctrines are “translated” into a new cultural setting through a careful study of Scripture and a sympathetic understanding of the recipient culture. While this appears to establish two stakeholders in the activity— the Bible and the recipient culture— there are, in fact, three cultures interacting. These are the recipient culture, the missionary culture, and the Biblical culture(s). A proper interaction of interpreting Scripture in light of these three cultures should, hopefully, lead to a good contextualized theology.

The other forms of contextualization occur when the process is unbalanced. Uncritical Contextualization places too much emphasis on the recipient culture. Too much of the recipient culture is essentially “blessed” that key elements of God’s message are downplayed or eliminated. In such a setting, the resultant faith may take on more of a mythic rather than parabolic role in that culture. That is, the resultant faith justifies the culture more than it challenges it. This is syncretism— an unhealthy mix of God’s message and culture.

The other form of unbalanced contextualization, according to Hiebert is non-contextualization. This is where the local culture is given too little value. Perhaps the thought is that since the culture is not considered Christian, all elements in which it differs from the missionary culture, thought to be a Christian culture, is bad. Hiebert notes that this often leads to the Christian faith maintaining a “foreigness” to it, and a faith that is often shallow. Below a thin layer of Christian behavior and answers to questions, is the unchallenged values and worldview of the local culture. Both Charles Kraft and Jackson Wu would note that this also is a form of syncretism. It is the unhealthy mixing of God’s revelation and the missionary’s culture. Often people express concern about contextualization saying that it leads, inevitably, to syncretism. In fact, the opposite is probably more true. If the local culture is ignored and the missionary culture version of the Christian faith is indoctrinated into the people, syncretism on some level has already occurred.

Earlier I noted the Three Culture Model speaks of interaction between recipient culture, missionary culture, and Biblical culture. One could argue that there is a fourth type of contextualization where there is an overemphasis on, or theological blessing of, the culture(s) in the Bible. This is true, and actually quite common, but functionally, it is essentially the same as non-contextualization. If one goes to a new culture and tells them, “Christians are supposed to wear white shirts and ties if they are male, and dresses if they are female” (because that is what we wear back home), there is no functional difference from telling them, “Christians are supposed to wear tunics and cloaks” (because that is what both men and women wore in the Bible).

Identifying the importance of balance in contextualization in no way makes clear how this is done. But each form of contextualization suggests a different strategy. These different strategies are described by David Hesselgrave. He applied these terms to a somewhat different problem, but they work here. Non-contextualization follows the Didactic Method. Didactic here implies one-way communication. The missionary enters a culture and takes on the role of teacher, and the people in the recipient culture embrace the role of student or learner. Good discipleship happens when people change a lot and missionary changes little. Uncritical Contextualization follows the Dialogic Method. I don’t actually care for Hesselgrave’s term here. He is using the term rather negatively, while I will be using the term Dialogue in a more neutral way later in this paper. However, I do understand the reason for his choice here. In the Dialogic method, little importance is placed on change. Dialogue is often seen as focused on two-way communication with the desired outcome to be mutual understanding rather than change of heart or behavior. Great importance is on interaction— Presence and Participation over Proclamation. <In the 1960s a divide formed in Protestant missions where conservatives focused on Proclamation of the Gospel with the goal of leading to radical conversion to Christ. On the other side, many liberals focused on missional Presence where Proselytization was seen as the “antithesis” of missions. The extreme of the conservative view would line up with non-contextualization, where the job of the missionary is to talk, and the job of the people is simply to listen and change. The extreme of the liberal view would line up with uncritical contextualization. The result of presence is generally to bless the best in the culture rather than inviting a call to change of allegiance.

Between these extremes would be a the Dialectic method. In this view there is dialogue (two-way communication) but the goal is a process where both sides challenge each other other with the goal of finding truth. Thus it is more focused on truth than what is described as Dialogic method. It is more focused on two-way conversation than the Didactic method. It also assumes the possibility that both sides may need to learn something. The Dialectic method also differs from debate or apologetics. The latter is interested in winning rather than finding truth.

Recognizing that syncretism is an anticipated risk for either extreme (excessive and inadequate contextualization of the faith), this suggests that the spectrum of contextualization may be viewed as a circle where critical (or balanced) contextualization is on one side (such as at “3 o’clock”) and movement away from that side, occurs either clockwise or counterclockwise towards its opposite (“9 o’clock”). Referring to Figure 1, Clockwise movement could be used to indicate movement towards more non-contextualization. This direction would involve giving more respect to the missionary culture in terms of contextualization, and less to the recipient culture. Counter-clockwise movement could be used to indicate movement towards uncritical contextualization. This direction wou involve giving more respect to the recipient culture in terms of contextualization, and less to the missionary culture. The two movements are shown as joining together at 9 o’clock because both lead to the opposite of critical contextualization— syncretism.

Figure 1

Looking at Communication

Instead of looking at the movement of the Gospel message into a culture in terms of contextualization, one can look at it as an act of communication. In most cases the presentation of the gospel to a new culture comes through a process of cross-cultural dialogue. There are different models of dialogue, but I prefer one that breaks things down into three general models. Different authors use different terms, but I will use “Apologetic,” “Clarification” and “Common Ground” models. The Apologetic model focuses on the differences. The missionary goal is to win the argument. The goal is to show the superiority of one’s beliefs, and the inferiority of the others. The ideal result of such an encounter is a full surrender to the perspective of the missionary. The other extreme in terms of dialogue is the “Common Ground” model. In this model, the missionary seeks to promote dialogue by emphasizing similarities and minimizing differences. In this situation, the missionary is not so focused on changing the others’ beliefs, but that “we all are pretty much the same.” Between these extremes is Clarification. Clarification seeks a certain amount of balance. Both the similarities and differences are valued.

Figure 2

Figure 2 shows a way of showing this. Figure 1 shows the movement converges on the left side since both directions end up with syncretism. Figure 2 can also be shown this way. As one moves from the right side (“3 o’clock”) towards the left-side one is moving towards less focus on truth. This is obvious from the standpoint emphasizing similarities in Common Ground Models. Common Ground Models can be described as relativistic. The goal is to make connection, breaking down barriers, ignoring issues such as what one believes. Emphasizing differences moving toward Apologetic models also lessens the importance of truth. In apologetics, the primary interest is on winning, not determining what is true. On reflection, this just makes sense since focusing on agreement versus disagreement with beliefs would mean less focus on the truth of beliefs.

Comparing The Two Figures

While there are clear similarities, it is worthwhile to address the marked differences. The biggest difference is that the two are dealing with two different spectra. The first is about the spectrum of strategies for contextualization. The second is about the spectrum of strategies for interreligious dialogue. And yet, the two are very much related. Both involve the interactions between people of different beliefs from two different cultures. The spectrum regarding contextualization is more implicitly missiological, but both involve conversations in a similar setting.

A more important difference is a comparison of what is going on at the left side (“9 o’clock”). In Figure 1, the left side shows a greater tendency to syncretism. In Figure 2, even though not explicitly marked, the left side expresses a lesser interest in truth. This in itself is not problem since each figure could emphasize a different thing. However, if the two figures are expresses a similar experience, presumably the two tendencies should be compatible. At first brush, they do not. Syncretism is not necessarily linked to a lesser emphasis on truth. That being said, syncretism is a result, not a motive. So if one looks at Figure1, the argument could be made that an unbalanced contextualization, either uncritical contextualization or non-contextualization, involves a lesser interest in truth. Critical Contextualization involves determining how Biblical truth can be established faithfully in a new context. Non-Contextualization and Uncritical Contextualization rejects critical faculties in determining truth. This does not mean that syncretism is a rejection of truth, but rather that setting something else as a priority over truth establishes a a setting where syncretism can develop.

The similarities of the figures outweigh the differences. Most importantly, the two establish three categories that line up fairly well. Clarification Models for Interreligious Dialogue (IRD) would involve a search of the truth through identifying similarities and differences with regards to two cultures (and potentially three cultures if including Bible culture). Such a search would ideally be dialectical rather than dialogic (in this case focusing those forms of dialogue that focus on common ground rather than on truth) or didactic (being primarily unidirectional). Critical Contextualizaiton should be harmonious with the Clarification Models of IRD. In a similar way, Apologetic Models for IRD line up with didactic methods relating to non-contextualization. Although Apologetic Models would utilize two-way communication, the similarity lies in the premise that the recipient culture has little to offer the sending (or missionary) culture. Common Ground Models for IRD line fairly well with dialogic methods related to uncritical contextualization. In these, the focus is on covering over differences and minimizing change in the recipient culture.

My Ambivalence Regarding “Faith Missions.” Part Two

On By missionmusingsIn theology of missions.Leave a comment

This post really won’t make too much sense until you read PART ONE

Here are a few things regarding Faith Missions that I see as Good and Bad.

The Good.

1. Missionaries have long been charged with being in it for the money, so Faith Missions avoids that issue. We see it in many ways. In the Didache, warnings were given about apostles who visited churches for financial gain. The deputation process puts missionary candidates in an awkward position. Unfortunately, often the best fundraisers are not the best missionaries, and (arguably) the most valuable missions are not the ones that draw financial support. I remember a missionary’s website that looked like a fundraising machine… like what some televangelists have. Faith Missions is a good corrective for this.

2. Historically, all too often, the people who handle the checkbooks control the who, what, and where of missions. Faith Missions disempowers these people and institutions just a bit. My denomination’s primary mission arm, despite it’s many great qualities, has kept out good people due to questionable theology of the leadership, and has pulled people from the field due to equally questionable policy changes. Now that may be personal bias. But even if one agrees with the leaders, I still think it safe to say that we learn and grow more when there are innovators who exist outside of the system.

The Bad.

1. I noted before that Faith Missions opens up for innovation since it works around the primary power structures. On the other hand, often it does the opposite. That is because Faith Missions often can be linked to Primitivism (as it did for Groves). Primitivism suggests that what was done in the first century provides the boundaries for what is done today. Often, as Roland Allen has noted, some innovations and traditions that have developed over the centuries are not that good and need a return to the early church as a healthy corrective. But that should not be used to hinder adaptations to contemporary situations. We are not trying to recapture the 1st century church and 1st century missions. We are trying to discover and create the 21st century church and 21st century missions.

2. Although there are problems with mission institutions, there are value to them. I have seen people who really should not go into missions. If they followed the normal channels, they would have been stopped. Faith missions can be an unhealthy backdoor to allow unhealthy people to create problems without proper training and without proper oversight.

3. I really don’t like the terminology. I am not so sure that the “Faith Mission” model actually involves a greater amount of faith. Perhaps it can be, but I am not so sure that my wife and I had more faith than others. Working around the process can be laziness or fear (fear of the process or fear of being found an imposter) rather than faith.

4. Missionary Member Care is important, and Faith Missions does tend to involve jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. But Missions is a “Team Sport.” God created it that way from the beginning. Faith Missions is at its best when it finds ways to to build up a support system for missionaries.

All in all, as I am with most things, I am a Both/And person. “Faith Missions” may be poorly named, but it does have value as an alternative route to mission work. It is, however, not a superior way, just a different way— and a risky one.

My Ambivalence Regarding “Faith Missions.” Part One

On By missionmusingsIn theology of missions.Leave a comment

I have always had mixed feelings regarding what has been called “Faith Missions.” In fact probably my general feeling about it is actually more negative than positive. It is, however, hard to explain this even to myself since my family and I are involved in Faith Missions.

But first, I should explain what “Faith Missions” is, and then to what extent I am involved in Faith Missions.

History

While Faith Missions, arguably goes back to the first century church, as a modern movement it can be seen as coming from the words and activities of Anthony Norris Groves (1795-1853). Born in England, he felt a call to missions in 1820s and trained to be a missionary with CMS and the Church of England. However, he became disenchanted with them and became associated with the Plymouth Brethren until some sectarian controversies developed. He went off and served as a missionary in Baghdad and later in India.

He wrote a booklet in 1825 called “Christian Devotedness.” It recommended place one’s dependence on God to supply one’s need in ministry. This suggests that one serves God without waiting for support. Additionally, one should not go around asking for support from others.

George Muller was inspired by this booklet to practice this in his work with orphans. Hudson Taylor also used the work as a guide for China Inland Missions, which became known as the largest and most successful of the Faith Mission organizations.

Groves could be described as a Primitivist in that he believed that the New Testament provides guidance for ministry in greater detail than most would embrace. In other words, if Paul or Peter did things a certain way, we should do it, and do it the same way. And if Paul or Peter did not do something, we shouldn’t do it either. As Groves stated, “My earnest desire is to re-model the whole plan of missionary operations so as to bring them to the simple standard of God’s word.” Roland Allen, a couple of generations later, would argue a somewhat similar point in terms of missions methodology.

Years later, Corrie ten Boom embraced a similar stance when she stopped asking for support.

<It should be noted that not asking for support is not the same as keep needs secret or refusing support. More on this later.>

My Story

As I noted before, I look at Faith Missions rather negatively even though it is something we (my family and I) have, generally, practiced.

Back in 2003, my wife and I decided to go on missions. Although we did tell our church about this, we did not ask for support and we did not wait for them, or anyone else, to support us. They did help us out financially, and after around 3 years in the field, they actually increased their support to the level that we were fully supported by them (for about 8 or 9 years). Some time later we took a big drop in support and have been greatly undersupported since then. Despite this, we have been able to survive, and in some ways thrive. We have on a few occasions put out very half-hearted attempts to raise support that have been (again generally) unsuccessful. For the most part we have placed our trust in God that He would take care of us— and He has.

Based on this, you would think that I am whole-heartedly in support of Faith Missions— arguably I am living example of its validity. And yes, there are good things in Faith Missions that are exciting and important in Missions. But there are negative things as well, and these must be faced head on.

I will explore these in Part Two.

Flavors of Localized Theology. Part 1

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

The following is s from a chapter I am writing on Localizing Theology. I decided to talk about “Flavors” of Localized Theology versus “Theories” or “Models” of Localized Theology (I will use “LW” forward). The reason is that if one speaks of Models of something, there is the temptation of people to assume that one Model is correct and the others are wrong. This is actually a bit silly. A model, pretty much by definition IS NOT REALITY. Models attempt to provide insight about reality, but will clearly fail on some level.

We see this, for example, with Atonement Theory. There are several theories of the Atonement of Christ. If one studies this, almost invariably, a student (or instructor) will address “Which one is Biblical?” Generally speaking, most, if not all, are Biblical. They generally have a sound theological basis. And ALL OF THEM fail to be complete explanations. The same could be said of Models of Theological Contextualization. Some like to ask which is the “most Biblical” or which one is Evangelical. However, all 6 of (Bevan’s) models can be found to be useful tools for an Evangelical theologian, pastor, or missionary. And probably none of them should be given over to completely..

Flavor suggests that it is part of an overall recipe. Consider Filipino cuisine. It seems to me that there are 6 major flavors. Five of them are the flavors associated with taste, and one is the flavor associated with smell. Filipino cuisine leans in hard on SALTY and UMAMI (salty and savory). However, one could argue that SOUR, SWEET, and BITTER are just as important. I suggest that there is one other flavor that is critical to Filipino cuisine, and that is FISHY. Filipino cuisine is not big on herbs and spices… although SPICY is appreciated by some— and PUNGENT and FRUITY have their moments as well. All of these come together blending flavors to make a dish good.

In like manner, there are many different flavors that come together for Localized Theology. It is not about which is correct, They all are important and should be present in one way or another in contextualization/localization of theology.

In the next few posts, I will talk about a few of these. I will focus on the Filipino context generally.

#1. Flavor of Region. Filipino culture is in many ways unique from the rest of Asia, in many ways it should have the flavor of the surrounding Asian theologies.

#2. Flavor of Cultural Aspirations. What are the cultural hopes (and conversely, cultural fears).

#3. Flavor of Cultural Patterns. How does cultural patterns (honor, justice, power, reciprocity, harmony) provide a potential framework for theology?

#4. Flavor of Cultural Values. Each culture idealizes or mythologizes certain qualities. How does the theology support or combat these?

#5. Flavor of Cultural Artifacts. What surface level cultural behaviors or materials can be utilizes to make theology more local (either making it more relevant or more resonant)?

More to come in follow-on posts.

Theology— Faith Seeking Understanding

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

St. Anselm (1033-1109 AD) had a well-known motto— “fides quaerens intellectum.” This is Latin and translates as “Faith Seeking Understanding.” This can be seen as a good explanation of Theology. I believe that Theology must draw from a place of Faith. One can study Christian Theology without having Christian faith. However, that should be thought of as Religious Studies. To DO Christian Theology, one must have the Christian Faith and thus doing Christian Theology involves one seeking to relate reason and understanding to that Faith.

That works for Biblical Theology and for Systematic Theology. I suppose that works fairly well to Historical Theology and Philosophical/Natural Theology as well. However, in Practical Theology, the description needs to church. This includes Homiletics, Theology of Worship, Missiology, and more.

For these, I would say, it is the Practice of Faith Seeking Understanding. It deals with the Whats of Practice as well as the Whys.

I don’t know Latin, but I tried a translator program for “The Practice of Faith Seeking Understanding” and it said,

Praxis Fidei Quaerens Intellectus

If someone knows Latn, I would welcome corrections or improvements on this. In general, Mission Theology would be The Practice of Faith (relating to Missions) Seeking understanding.