Paul in Athens and Interreligious Communication


Among Them and Overwhelmed

Quote from PGJ Meiring’s article, “Max Warren and His Seven Rules for a Dialogue Between Christians and Non-Christians. “Actually, the article was originally written in Afrikaaner (Max Warren en sy sewe reëls vir ’n dialoog tussen Christene en nie-Christene” DEEL 47 # 3 & 4 SEPTEMBER & DECEMBER 2006, P. 588-599.)

The fourth rule/principle is “Identification.” Here is a rough translation of an excerpt of Meiring’s article regarding Identification:


Preparation of the Prophet Ezekiel

The fourth principle probably asks the most of the conversation partners: the willingness to identify as far as possible with the other person’s life and conditions he lives in. It asks you to understand “the language of his heart”. It does not come naturally of itself: it requires imagination, endurance, humility and much love. Warren loved to refer to the example of the prophet Ezekiel, the prophet to the exiles in Babylon, sent with an all-important message from the Lord. Even though Ezekiel cannot be in the modern sense a “missionary” – after all, he is a prophet sent to his own people – he provides a model for all to consider as the Lord prepared him for his preaching task. Before the prophet was sent to speak, he had to first experience and learn to listen – and this is a lesson that every missionary in our day needs to seriously consider.

In the Authorized Version, Ezekiel 3:15 is translated as: “I came to them of the captivity … and I sat where they sat, and remained astonished among them for seven days “. The Revised Standard Version translates this slightly differently: “I came to them of the captivity … and I sat there overwhelmed among them for seven days”. The emphasis is different, says Warren: the first-mentioned translation emphasizes Ezekiel’s “entering into the experience of the exiles” while the latter “the ‘Overwhelming’ character of what the prophet experienced by joining these exiles where they were ” is emphasized (Warren, 1960: 60vv).

Both emphases are important: first of all, we must meet people where they are, we must “Sit where they sit”. We must understand their situation – their joy and their pain and how these experiences influence their views and beliefs (Warren, 1960: 17). “You and I can not bring men to Christ by whistling to them at a distance. We have to go and meet them, as God does, and psychologically speaking, this means coming to them imaginatively where they imagine themselves to be “(Warren, 1955: 31). The second emphasis, however, is just as important: that we become “Stunned.” We find ourselves speechless because we find it so difficult to really understand the other because their need is so great, and we are struggling to make clear the salvation of Christ because our vocabulary is too inadequate. But also speechless because we experience God already there, that He has already made his voice heard in the situation (Warren,1960: 17).

Tertullian, Love Feast, and Social Ministry

Excerpt from Tertullian’s 39th Apology


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.


Buying Status

We think of status normally as Ascribed or worship_facilityEarned, but it can be bought as well. Of course in the broadest sense, buying status is Earned status, but it is not the type of earned status that most of us would find particularly praiseworthy. Consider the following story. It is completely fictitious, but describes what is happening over and over again in many countries.

Ben is a young missionary sent out by a small denomination. He is well-supported but has no real connections in this place. He is the first of his denomination to work in this new region of ministry. His denomination also doesn’t have the tradition of working cooperatively with most other denominations. Further, his mission agency presumes that a “real missionary” must have no familial, ethnic or cultural connections to the place. <Seriously, why did so many missiologists buy into this silly idea?> Because of this, Ben also has no relatives there either.

But Ben does have some money. Not far from where he lives is a small but growing church. The church building is pretty meager, in fact only a rental, but the people there are friendly, and the pastor, although young, seems to be doing a good job.

Ben sets up an appointment with Pastor Emil. At a coffee shop the two talk about ministry, and particularly how things are going at Ptr. Emil’s church. Even though Ben was new to the area, he had been there long enough to know that most churches there cannot afford a full-time pastor. Some pastors are bi-vocational, while others struggle to get by with help “in kind” from the church members. Ptr. Emil worked as a store clerk on weekdays.

Ben had a solution. He would help the church out financially. That way, they can have a real church building rather than a rental, and Ptr. Emil can quit his day job and commit himself to full-time ministry. What an exciting opportunity!

Of course there is a cost. Ptr. Emil and his church are part of a different denomination. They would have to switch to Ben’s denomination. Additionally, the church would have to change its name to show its change of status.

It’s a win-win. Ptr. Emil and his church are on good financial footing, and have a new building. Ben now has a church that he can take pictures of and send to his supporters as the fruits of his labor for the Lord.

But is it really win-win?

  • Ptr. Emil is being paid, but now the ministry is no longer his, but is someone else’s. Theologically speaking, the work is neither Ptr. Emil’s nor Ben’s. It is the Lord’s. However true that may be, it disguises the issue of power. Ben now controls the church since he controls the money. The church no longer owns itself.
  • The church is now dependent on an outsider. They were poor before, but God had provided. But that is over now. Sadly, dependency often leads to a form of “learned helplessness,’ where neediness becomes the goal rather than being self-governing, self-propogating, and self-sufficient.
  • The supporters of Ben are being hurt since they most likely were giving financial support to grow the kingdom of God, not “sheep stealing.” There are some people and some groups that are so prone to denominatio-centric thinking that anytime one pulls people to one’s own denomination, it is a success. I have met such people and such groups. But a missionary should help one’s supporters at home to think bigger– kingdom big– not in terms of simply denomination. In this case Ben perpetuates that attitude.
  • Ben is hurt since he learned a bad lesson. Money Is Not Missions.