Category: Uncategorized

Reflections on Sci-fi Aliens and the Incarnation (Part 3)

On By missionmusingsIn Uncategorized1 Comment

This is the final part of a three-part series. to start earlier, you can go to PART ONE or PART TWO.

Those of the Abrahamic Faiths have often struggled in their visualization of God. I will not pretend to have expertise of other faiths (including my own). With the Abrahamic Faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) God is not imagined with statue or representational symbol. There is value in this. In Greek paganism, Zeus was represented as an idealized man (physically). This not surprisingly led to assigning human pettiness and flaws. The inability to express God visually has value, as well as recognizing our inability to express God fully in word (ineffability). But there are problems with this as well.

The first problem, in my thinking, is that God can easily become too much of an abstraction. God becomes described by what he is not (apophatic or via negativa). In some circles, especially Muslim, but sometimes Christian, things get so far as to suggest that even describing God with attributes is wrong. For Christians, this is a problem. The Bible makes it pretty evident that God is seeking to have a relationship with mankind— creating paradise as a return to paradise— harmony between God, Man, and Creation. But can humans relate to an abstraction? Such a god so represented (or not represented) is too alien for us to relate to.

The second problem is related to the first. If we cannot have a relationship to God, the best we can have is an ideology and an ethics. That leaves, I believe, a hole in our souls— that ends up being filled by rules and horizontal relationships.

But, if God seeks to have a relationship with us, God must represent Godself to us in a way that we can relate to and understand.

To me this is the primary reason for the Incarnation (enfleshment or embodiment) of Christ. God as thunder on the mountain or the unseen sender of heralds, will not suffice. God as the outsider (from our perspective) chose to enter as alien in a manner that we could understand and relate to. This is essentially what the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews says,

Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So He became higher in rank than the angels, just as the name He inherited is superior to theirs. Hebrews 1:1-4 (HCSB)

Part way through this section it is clear that Jesus came for purification for sins, and some would say that is the one and only reason that God came to us as a man. Like saves like. While there may be some truth to this, I am not sure that we know enough to say that God could not have chose some other way. And frankly, this passage seems to point to something different.

God came as Jesus as the message of God and the radiance of His glory and exact expression of His nature. In other words, God chose to represent Godself in a manner that we can understand who God, relate to God, and understand what God has to say.

Much like a sci-fi alien we cannot heart and the mind of God through God’s representation only in the abstract. God represented Godself as Man for Man’s sake not God’s own. We cannot understand God otherwise.

And God coming as man did not do so as Mr. Manhattan or Kal el. Mr. Manhattan was a human who was transformed into a near god-like being and in so doing became more an more disconnected to humanity— becoming more alien. Kal el, was an alien who was raised up on earth looking so much like humans and enculturated so effectively as human that he became Superman, rather than Superalien. It is interesting that in more recent years, the comic writers of Superman have explored his alienness more and disconnection from humanity.

God did not display Godself as Mr. Manhattan (Adoptionism— losing humanity in the process) or as Kal el (alien living with us but not truly of us). Rather God came as God AND as Man.

Perhaps God could have come literally as a Sheep— a lamb without spot or blemish. That would line up well with the Jewish understanding of blood atonement. But if God did so, we would struggle, since we cannot relate to God through a sheep. God could have come in the form of Man… but primarily as a King or Conqueror. That might work. It may not even be wrong. However, God chose to (according to Philippians 2) represent Godself as a servant, as an example to us. Jesus came to serve, not be served, providing a model for us to practice with others.

Sci-fi writers understand that what is alien to us needs to be represented in a way to bridge the gap. We are pretty unable to bridge the gap. The form and the symbols of the alien in the encounter is critical. God understood this as well. and chose to represent/reveal Godself primarily in Jesus— loving God revealed in human form and expressed as a teacher/servant/sacrifice.

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. —Colossians 1:15-19 (NIV)

I REALLY Don’t Like the ESV

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, UncategorizedLeave a comment

When it comes to English translations of the Bible, I can be pretty broad-minded. I can appreciate the historical treasures that are the King James 1611 and the Geneva 1599… even though I would rarely use them (since I don’t speak that language). I can appreciate the likes of The Message,  The Amplified Bible, or The Living Bible. Of course I am bothered somewhat that they essentially combine commentary with Scripture in a way that really confuses which is which. At least they don’t pretend to be otherwise. I am okay with a certain amount of paraphrasing, dynamic equivalence, and more “literal” translations.

I am not so happy when a translation pretends to be something it is not. When that happens, I get that feeling I got with Dan Brown’s ” The Davinci Code.” The book is a fun read— quite enjoyable. But the beginning of the book claims that ALMOST all of the history in the book is accurate. I knew people who embraced that most doubtful claim. I had a friend who told me that I should accept the history of Christianity described in Brown’s work (of FICTION!!) because, as he said, “That’s just the way it is.”

I get the same feeling about the English Standard Version (ESV). I remember when it was being marketed in the Philippines. It was marked as superior to the NIV because it was a more literal (allegedly) translation. That is not necessarily high praise. Meaning is more important than wording. On the other hand, translators may assume the meaning that is not actually in the text, so there can be problems with dynamic equivalence too. (Yes, this happens a lot.)

Marketing is, in truth, rather a squirrelly thing. NIV was marketed in the Philippines as superior to the NASB, since the former is “International” rather than “American” in the latter.

Bringing things to the ESV, the intro speaks (I am using the Intro to the ESV Study Bible, which draws from the ESV Intro) as follows:

“ESV Study Bible uses the “essentially literal” ESV (English Standard Version) Bible translation as the foundational text for creating the study Bible notes and other features. Emphasizing word-for-word accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning, the ESV Bible is especially suited to be the basic text for a study Bible.”

As I have at least implied before, I am not particularly impressed by ‘essentially literal’ and even less the claim of ‘word-for-word accuracy.’ But for many, people will interpret this as unbiased and reliably connecting the modern reader to ancient texts.

Of course I heard about charges that the ESV translated based on a Complementarian perspective. By this is meant that the translation is done based on the presumption that men are supposed to have leadership over women in, well, pretty much everything. Often the translations are surprisingly creative to achieve this. The short video at the bottom summarizes some of this.

What surprised me, however, was when I was working on a presentation on Apostles. If course Romans 16:7 is a common bugaboo for Complementarians as the passage certainly seems to say that a woman was recognized as an Apostle. But the ESV took a rather unique way to try to get out of that problem. Again one can look at the video below in that. But I found out that the ESV is problematic when it comes to Apostles in other ways. There has long been discussions on the difference between the function of apostle versus office of apostle, and who is an apostle. The ESV doesn’t really provide a good translation for this discussion because the translators simply decide which are apostles (and translate it accordingly) and decides others are not and use other terms instead. Doing this is worse than unhelpful, and makes me question the quote above that says it is especially suitable as a basic text for a study Bible.

Does this mean that ESV is worse than other translations? I am not sure. But I find it concerning that they imply far better than they actually achieve. Since the first time I used ESV was regarding Apostles, (and am already aware of how they translate creatively roles of women and the office if Deacon), I am worried about what other problems are waiting in the wings. And since the role of apostle is inextricably linked to the role of missionary, I can’t really use it when I teach courses on missions.

Top Posts of 2023

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

The Top Posts During 2023

Beautiful Garden in the Desert (Isaiah 58:11-12) Curiously, this is my top post this year but not on this website. It is a Sermon I wrote years ago.

Sodalities and Modalities in Missions January 4, 2021. Classic missions on sodality and modality structures. The name pretty much describes it.

Medical Mission Events in the Philippines, Part I November 8, 2011. One of my early posts. Part one of a series of posts I wrote that relate to my dissertation on doing medical evangelistic mission event.

The Missionary Journeys of Peter (Part 1) July 5, 2021 One one of a review of St. Peter as potentially providing a structure for primitive church history rather than St, Paul (based on what we know or surmise).

Three Stages of Prophecy and Word November 30, 2016 An article that compares the transition from a prophet (oral word) religion to a religion of the written word in Jewish faith, with the similar transition of the Christian movement from oral word to written word. Considers the implications of that for today.

Nonviolent Response and Self-purification June 20, 2016 Simple look at nonviolent response as described from Martin Luther King Jr.

Cultural Perspective and the Prodigal Son February 5, 2017 Reviewing cultural intelligence and a book on this topic by Osobo Otaigbe.

Growing Your Church in Four Dimensions December 19, 2015. Reviewing the church growth model of Delos Miles.

Cultural Landmines and “The Pineapple Story” October 2, 2020 A (perhaps overly judgment) look at the Missions Story, “The Pineapple Story.”

Five Dangers of Neglecting Exegesis in the Field January 19, 2017 A bit more theological… looking at the importance of good theology (and exegesis) for good ministry (among other things).

Missions Course “Teaching in Oral Cultures”: A Review

On By missionmusingsIn missions education, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Recently I took an online course, led by Missiologist Tom Steffen called “Teaching in Oral Cultures.” It is part of a collection of online courses under “Ephesiology Master Classes.” that is overseen by Missions Professor Michael Cooper of Kairos University.

Under Ephesiology Master Classes, I took one regular course, “Teaching in Oral Cultures” (as noted led by Tom Steffen) and one Seminar (an “Areopagus Symposium” on Contextualization) led by Michael Cooper. The following reviews Steffen’s course, with a bit on the Contextualization seminar as well.

Course Review

I found “Teaching in Oral Cultures” to be a valuable course especially for one like myself who teaches Christian Missions but has limited experience and training in what is needed to teach in Oral Cultures. The course is Asynchronous Online utilizing a web-based module system. My online training experience is Moodle and Populi. This is noticeably different from either of those, but others with more experience with online training may find the format quite familiar. There were no live forums Zoom gatherings for this course. However, it sounds like some of the Ephesiology Master Classes do have those. Major types of modules include:

-Reading assignments. Three books of Tom Steffens served as textbooks for the course. At least two of those books had to be fully read through. I honestly can’t remember if the third one needed to be fully read or not (I had already been reading the third book on my own at the time I started the course, so I can’r remember if I finished it on my own or was required to). One of those three books is no longer in print, but Tom was kind enough to give me an electronic copy, even though I decided to purchase a used copy online). There were some additional articles that were required readings as well.

The three primary texts are:

Tom Steffen, Business as Usual in the Missions Enterprise? La Habra, CA: Center for Organizational & Ministry Development, 1999. (Written in story format).

Tom Steffen, Reconnecting God’s Story to Ministry: Crosscultural Storytelling at Home and Abroad. IVP, 2005.

Tom Steffen, Worldview-based Storying: The Integration of Symbol, Story, and Ritual in the Orality Movement. Richmond, VA: The Rainmaker, 2018.

-Videos. Each module (I think the term used is “lesson” not module) had one or two videos that one would watch of a video lecture by Tom.

-Assignments. Each lesson had at least one written assignment that must be submitted.

-Asynchronous Forum. To compensate for the lack of synchronous gatherings, a forum system was set up with required discussion inputs and discussion responses.

-Final Project. Research topic related to the course needed to be submitted. It is supposed to be (potentially at least) a publishable article on one of the many topics covered in the course.

I found the course to be a big help for me to become familiar with the movement and major issues in teaching in oral cultures. The course does not just focus on primary oral cultures (“illiterate” although this term is sadly often pejorative), but also secondary oral cultures (learn primarily through non-written channels).

I do highly recommend the course, especially for missions professors, and practitioners of teaching in primary or secondary oral cultures. I do however need to add a few notes to clarify this:

#1. I believe that I was the first person to take this course, as it is brand new. There were a couple of minor glitches the online format, but I was able to communicate with the instructor and move forward without problem. A bigger issue for me was that since I was the first, I did not have the interaction that comes from an asynchronous forum with other students. I truly believe that this would greatly enhance the course (depending on the students and their passion for the topic of course).

#2. Additionally, because I was taking it as an asynchronous course, and was taking it by myself… I took it VERY MUCH at my own pace. I moved, generally, at a decent clip, but got bogged down a couple of times. I started in early May and finished in early October. I took over a month for the final project, but even ignoring that, it took me around twice as long as the course was, I believe, would ideally take. If there were other students, I would have to stay more in line with the others because of the discussions. I am sure I could have taken the course faster if I needed to, but I am not sure how important it is to keep pace with a cohort.

#3. I found the course to be very valuable and interesting. However, I think the class would benefit from a follow-up “practicum” where there is both practice and discussion of more practical issues.

———–

Michael Cooper led a symposium on Contextualization. One would register for it on Ephesiology Master Classes. One could join the online seminar live. However, I live in the Philippines and so I would have to be up at 3am for it. So I did not join. I viewed it later, and then read a chapter on the topic later. I found it interesting and valuable. In truth, I have always had a different understanding of what “Under-contextualization” and “Over-contextualization” mean from how Michael defined and used it. Regardless… it gave me fuel for further thought and study.

For those interested, here are a couple of websites that relate to my reviews.

Ephesiology Master Classes: https://masterclasses.ephesiology.com/pages/innovating-theological-education

Kairos University: https://kairos.edu/

Cultural Anthropology and Christian Missions

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

In my previous post, I gave the link to the Amazon.com page for my updated book on Cultural Anthropology. However, that is for the paperback. Sorry, but if you want the paperback book, you need to pay for the paper, printing, and shipping. No choice.

But, if you want an electronic copy of the book. That is a different matter.

You can download an Electronic copy of the book but CLICKING HERE.

The Temptation to Manipulate as Christian Leaders

On By missionmusingsIn Christian Ethics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Many (most?) of you are aware of the report that came out on Ravi Zacharias and some of his sexual misconduct (and the associated misuse of funds, as well as deception, to maintain the misconduct). I have friends who are real fans of Ravi, but I must admit I don’t really know much of his work. I did read a book he wrote, but that was literally decades ago (I remember liking it, but I can’t recall the title). I appreciate the fact that the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) chose to have the allegations thoroughly investigated and then reported the findings publicly. While I know some Christian leaders balked at the “unbiblical” route for handling the problem, I feel they did exactly the correct thing. In pastoral counseling, a common dictum is that “A family is as sick as its secrets.” One can take it further and say that “An organization is as sick as its secrets.” While I don’t recommend airing all of one’s dirty laundry all the time, the bigger the problem the sicker the organization becomes in trying to hide it.

I do know that there is one or two passages in the Holy Bible that COULD be interpreted as keeping church secrets secret. Paul recommended that church members try to handle their problems in-house rather than rely on outside authorities. That passage has been abused by so many for so long in the church, I would almost ask people to skip that passage when reading the Bible. Now, don’t take me too seriously on this point. All Scripture is useful, but my concern is that there has become such a culture of dubious beliefs within the church over the centuries around that passage, that people almost automatically read it wrong. The passage doesn’t say,

  • Hide your secret sins and evil behaviors from unbelievers.
  • Establish a culture within the church where people can behave in a predatory manner without any real repercussions.

No one, of course words it that way exactly, but it is pretty clear the passage is used that way by many. It is much the same with Matthew 18, a pattern that Jesus gave for addressing confrontation within the assembly. Many have weaponized it to maintain patterns of abuse— from both sides. Some use it as a pipeline for trying to push people out (rather than seeking reconciliation). Others try to turn the tables on the confronter, essentially saying, “I am not at fault, you are, because you didn’t follow Matthew 18” regardless of whether the situation fit the context of that passage.

With Ravi, part of what I found most disheartening was that he used his training in apologetics and rhetoric to manipulate women. A term used a fair bit in recent years is “grooming,” as in a predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position of being compliant to abuse. The skills to groom and the skills to do apologetics often overlap. So when Ravi referenced Old Testament patriarchs who had more than one wife, or telling a woman to keep quiet about their actions or she will be responsible for potentially millions not coming to Christ, this is the rhetoric of manipulation. I really doubt Ravi really believed that (commonly pretty toxic) polygamous relationships in the age of the patriarchs is prescriptive for how men and women should ideally relate today. I also doubt that Ravi really believed that holding a religious leader accountable for his (or her) actions should be avoided to keep from dooming populations of people to hell. Most like, he did not believe either one, but used them because they suited his purposes in the moment.

And I get that on a certain level. Years ago (in my pre-Internet days) I was on Compuserve Religion forum. I was holding a religious thread with a person from a very different religious perspective. I recall no details of that conversation, except one. At a certain point, I shared a Bible verse to counter the other’s point. I felt guilty about it afterwards… and still do. Why? Because I misused the verse. I used the verse in a way that, I believe, confused the meaning of the Bible in context. The wording of the verse ripped from its context made it sound like I could use it as I did… but in context I was misusing it. And it is actually worse than that because the person I was talking to did not know the Bible well enough to know that I was speaking out of context. That is a pretty bad thing to do. If you don’t think it is bad, try to recall a time when someone grossly misuses your words to support something you do not believe. I really don’t think God likes that either.

I do recall a pastor who was speaking at a large gathering of other pastors. They were going to vote on something. He told the group, “You must vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ You cannot vote ‘Abstain,’ for the Bible says, ‘Let your Yeas be Yeas, and your Nays be Nays.” Of course, that is a huge misuse of the Bible, and the words of Jesus. However, to be a wee bit fair, perhaps the pastor was being funny, and he assumed (right or wrong) that these pastors knew their Scripture well enough so that there was really no deception or manipulation involved. I can’t be certain in this case.

But in the case of Ravi Zacharias, I do believe he used his position as a big name Christian leader (at least within one branch of Christianity) and his knowledge of rhetoric and apologetics for selfish purposes, not for truth. I believe the temptation for this is great. This is because the skills for apologetics (debate, rhetoric, logic) are neutral. That can be used for good or bad. But the temptation to “win” can overcome one’s desire for truth.

Bob Munson’s Random Areas of Interest June 2023

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

This website is not generally my conversation with the world. For the most part if I want to talk to people, I talk to them face-to-face or through direct emails or messaging. I put up my “musings” on topics of Christian missions, theology, and ministry and people can read them or not. At the same time, this website. http://www.munsonmissions.org does serve as a log (not a diary) of my personal/professional/intellectual/spiritual journey. As such, I occasionally put stuff that is a bit more about me. However, none of my posts here, including this one, will be about my personal pains, or dreams or aspirations. I am not convinced that blogs are the best place for that.

I have been working on quite a few things lately. The fact that the school year in the Philippines has shifted by a couple of months has given me a couple of months to move forward learning or projects for later this year. Here are a lot of them:

#1. I am co-editing a book on Grief and Loss in the theological milieu of the Philippines. This is a project of several members of our seminary (Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary). Editing a book comprised of different chapters by different writers is new for me. I am trying get comfortable with how gentle or vicious I should be with it. Evangelical Christianity in the Philippines very commonly mimics that of the United States (thankfully with a somewhat less toxic political theology). Ultimately, I am glad to see a more serious attempt in recent years for theologians here to find their voice. The book is bilingual (English and Tagalog). That is an interesting challenge in itself.

#2. I am working on cleaning up my old book on Cultural Anthropology. I have had a love/hate relationship with my book “Ministry in Diversity.” I pulled it down from being available online a year or two ago, but I still use it for the classes I teach. I have decided to fix a few problems I have with it… especially in adding a chapter on the History of Cultural Anthropology. This is an area in which my own education was weak, so I am studying up to finish the chapter. I am still not sure if I will put it up on online book stores or just make it an e-book freely available on this website. I also have the option of submitting it to a local publisher for schools in the Philippines. I am just not sure.

#3. I am working with my wife on a couple of projects. One of these is a webinar that she is doing with some church leaders on Leadership Principles. We are focusing on Servant Leadership (and related types such as Democratic Leadership and Transformational Leadership). Additionally, we are SLOWLY working on an online class that will hopefully start at Faith Bible College in the United States. The topic is on forms of Christian Counseling.

#4. I am taking a class on Ministry to Orality Cultures. This is an online Masterclass, led by Tom Steffen (a missiologist and former missionary to the Philippines). It has been good so far and forces me to think more on the role of storying and narrative theology.

#5. I am working on developing a Bachelor level course, “Foundations of Holistic Ministry.” This is one of my favorite topics and hope that it will be done in time to offer it at PBTS this coming semester. We shall see.

#6. I was working on editing a journal for our pastoral counseling center. I had even written an article for it. But with some reflection, I decided to that we put it out next year (2024) and so I put the article I already wrote (on the history of CPE in the Philippines) online, and so will have to come up with another topic in the next few months. CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) will celebrate its 100 year anniversary in 2025. It will also celebrate its 60 year anniversary in the Philippines that year.

#7. A couple of my students at ABGTS are almost finished with their papers (one a thesis and the other a dissertation). It is gratifying to be so close to the end of this journey.

I think this pretty much is it for now. If you are reading this, thank you for your time. If not… no worries. I just wanted to document this snapshot in where I am right now.

Good Theology Comes from Good Questions

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

I am reading the book “Who Needs Theology?” by Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson. I am almost half-way through and it is a good read so far. I have seen some mixed reviews so possibly their complaints will hold more weight in the second half. Smooth sailing so far.

Grenz and Olson note several reasons that Christians often push back against theology.

  • Killjoy Objection. Theology ruins everything in the Christian experience.
  • Divisiveness Charge. As they worded it, “Jesus Unites, Theology Divides.”
  • Speculation Accusation. Theology is too impractical and focuses on things that were were never meant to understand.
  • Stalemate Indictment. Theology is stuck, unable to progress because ultimately it is just a bunch of people saying to each other, “Well no… YOU are the ones who are WRONG!”

This is a good list, and the authors do a good job undermining these objections to theology. I can think of one more that it worth bringing up although it probably doesn’t belong on the list.

I will call it “The Switcheroo.” In my faith tradition, theology is often not really taken very seriously. However, most commonly it is not because they do not speak unfavorably about theology. They will often talk about how important theology is, but when one delves into the issue, what one finds is that what is meant is “Dogma and Defense” or “Indoctrination and Transmission.”

Grenz and Olson see the fourth objection to be the strongest. If theology gets to a point where nothing changes— people form trenches on the battlefield of theology and the lines never move— the point can be made that it is essentially a dead exercise.

Grenz and Olson state that if one feels that progress is only evidenced if there is a unanimous change of opinion, then indeed, theology will NEVER progress. Unanimity is to high of a standard, however, for pretty much any field of study. They do give an example that they view as real progress.

It has to do with the issue of the Impassibility of God. God, in this view, does not feel pain or pleasure from others. God lacks emotions— at least in ways that we can relate to. Some have struggled with passages that clearly show God responding emotionally in the Bible, in apparent response to the behavior of His creation. Others have tried to come up with a way of saying, as St. John did, that “God is Love” while still seeing God as impassible. Still others have wrestled with the presentation of Jesus, “fully God, fully man,” as a fully emotional being.

But in the 20th century a strong movement came along that went against “Dogma and Defense” and said that maybe the reason we are having trouble defending the Impassibility of God is because God clearly revealed Himself to us as Passible— able to suffer and feel emotions. Perhaps the classical understanding of the God of Abraham was imagined (in this area at least) through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus— The One… The Unmoved Mover…. Perfect in Unchangingness, rather than through God’s one self-revelation.

While there are still defenders of the Impassibility of God, the change of the battle lines has been dramatic enough to say that there has been real progress.

I agree with this, but Theology also shows progress in its correlation to contemporary needs. Progress, then, is not always demonstrated by the moving of the trenches, but also in the finding of new battlefields.

The growth of human population and of industrialization, has forced us to explore theologically the issues of ecology and creation care. I have known many people who don’t see the relevance of these because the Bible doesn’t spend much time on these issues (at least at first glance). However, the Bible is not a theological work, primarily, but a revelatory work. Theology uses God’s revelation to explore new, and old, questions in the present context. The present context (over population and pollution) did not exist two to three thousand years ago, but that doesn’t mean we have no insight from God in this matter.

Another question has to do with inter-religious dialogue, and living in a pluralistic society. In this one, we do have insights of theologians in the past— particularly during the Roman Empire in the West, and n the Caliphates in the East. We even have wisdom to draw from in the Old Testament from writings during the Exile, and in the majority (arguably all) of the New Testament. However, an awful lot of theology has been developed over the centuries in the context of monocultural Christendom.

These questions (on ecology and multiculturalism) are in themselves evidence of progress as theologians (lay theologians, ministerial theologians, and professional theologians) wrestle with these.

The risk is that the loudest voices will be the least sound theologically. It may end up like in the 19th century when often the loudest so-called theologians addressed the important contemporary issue of slavery and abolition with the trite statement, “Well, some people had slaves in the Bible.” Theologians needed rather to explore “What does God say about slavery as it is expressed in our situation today, and in the structures of today?” The similar things must be done in terms of ecology, multiculturalism, nuclear threat, and so much more.

If we don’t ask these questions seriously about our present setting, then YES, theology is stalemated, and (effectively) dead.

New Book FINALLY Published

On By missionmusingsIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Back around 2014 or so I began writing a book on Theology of Missions. I took some of those for a class I was teaching n Mission Theology. After completion of the class, I got all excited about finishing the book. However, then I was asked to teach a class on Interreligious Dialogue. Being in the Philippines, it is hard to find book resources, so once again, my answer was to put together things into a book. But as I was doing that, I began to scavenge topics out of what I had done for my book on Theology of Missions.

In the end, I finished my book on Interreligious Dialogue, and pieces of my work on Theology of Missions. That might have been where things would end, but then COVID happened, and I thought that there was a chance to work on this book.

Anyway, eventually I finished and put an electronic copy on this site. But a couple of months ago, I decided to make a paperback version so I put it available online yesterday.

I feel good about it. It is not comprehensive. If you want something broader, consider “Encountering Theology of Mission” by Ott, Strauss, and Tennent is a better choice. But I hope my reflections have some value. Now that it is done, I wonder why I did not include a chapter on Spiritual versus Social versus Holistic missions. It is one of my favorite topics. I guess, it did not really fit into the 3-part structure I set up.