Temba Nkomozepi, a Global Ministries missionary from Zimbabwe serving at Mujila Falls in Zambia, recently wrote a reflection on Earth Day for the Michigan Annual Conference. The reflection, titled "Leave it for our offspring," shares some of Nkomozepi's family associations with Earth Day. It also includes an environmental interpretation of the parable of the "Prodigal Son." Nkomozepi opens up the parable in new and insightful ways, and his reflection is well worth reading.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label the Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Bible. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
Thursday, September 21, 2023
Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana: A Journey of Solidarity: Ruth and Naomi’s Story, Part II
Today’s post is by Deaconess Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana. Marquez-Caramanzana is an Area Liaison for Asia and the Pacific with Global Ministries. It is the second of two parts. This post was originally developed for the World Methodist Council Consultation on Migration.
In my previous post, I introduced the story of Ruth and Naomi’s relationship and named the resonances that it has for our ministry with migrants in our time and locations. I raised the question of Ruth and solidarity.
Ruth’s story is instructive of the who, the why, and the how of solidarity. Despite her own vulnerability, Ruth embarked on the unknown because of her deep love for Naomi. She did not look on her personal struggle as a vulnerable woman solely, but she grabbed the opportunity to show to Naomi, who was then desperate and surrendered to her lot, to see that it is better if they are together in the journey. It was radical love professed in this mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationship.
Ruth’s story is instructive of our missiological task of ministering to those who need God the most, those whose only hope is God.
When we talk about mission these days, and when we talk about the plight of migrant men and women and gender minorities, are we not supposed to be talking of how deep our solidarity is with them?
With Ruth and Naomi embracing a journey together, I see two individual women charting their own future and deciding for themselves the outcome of that future rather than just waiting for others to dictate their course. It was a journey of mutual support that challenged how people and society looked at and treated them. It was a risky journey but a worthy one to undertake.
I don’t have any intention to romanticize the story of Ruth – it was truly, definitely a difficult journey.
But her story speaks to every one of us – as individuals resisting cultural impositions and anything that denies us of our full humanity. It speaks to struggling migrants and immigrants actively looking for ways out of poverty, dehumanization, and insecurity. It speaks to us as churches seeking to be in solidarity with those who are vulnerable.
And I would like us to focus on the last: Ruth’s story speaking to us as churches seeking to be in solidarity with those who are vulnerable.
Part of Global Ministries Theology of Mission Statement says:
The Church experiences and engages in God’s mission as it pours itself out for others, ready to cross every boundary to call for true human dignity among all peoples, especially among those regarded as the least of God’s children, all the while making disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world.
In solidarity we have to empty ourselves. It is in emptying ourselves that we are able to identify with our struggling and distressed brothers and sisters. We cannot claim to journey in solidarity with them when we ourselves are limited by our own impositions and claims to correct knowledge and expertise.
Our readiness to cross boundaries defines the way in which we incarnate our faith. Emptying ourselves is a pre-requisite in crossing boundaries. More than geographical boundaries, we focus ourselves on crossing the boundaries of race, class, gender, age, and others. We cross our own personal boundaries of individualism, egoism, privilege and comfort. We break down the walls that keep us apart from the suffering of others. We break down the walls that render us numb to the pulsating pain brought about by oppression, dehumanization, and marginalization.
To be in solidarity is to recognize that people are decisive in charting their course. To be in solidarity with them is to provide them support as they affirm their agencies and build their capacities. We share our resources with them – yes. But it is not the determining factor in regaining their humanity. Our roles should be to render our presence in their journey in such a way that obstructions are eliminated and they are able to regain their power. To be in solidarity is to embody the hope that they themselves are capable of rising up.
We will need to take into full account that our understanding of the plight of migrants and immigrants should be our primordial concern. Their context defines the response that we as churches or mission agencies can learn from. Their journey, their struggles, their hopes and aspirations should inform our perspectives, practice, and theology of mission.
Ruth may have undergone a lot of self-emptying so that the essence of solidarity was incarnated in her accompaniment of Naomi. Solidarity was not just a word or concept for Ruth. It was in flesh, lived out in her decision to be with Naomi until death. Her solidarity resulted in hope. A hope that assured Naomi that her battles were not just hers. A hope that enabled their community to see Ruth and Naomi on a different light.
As churches we participate in the emancipatory struggles so that we, too, become ambassadors of hope. For those who are not able to see light clearly. For those struggling to get up on their feet. Ruth became a beacon of hope for Naomi. And so must we. For the sake of the least, the last and the lost.
Our theme for the consultation is “On the move.” As the spirit, as Ruah, is with us, we must we be on our feet, on the move. We can’t just tarry in the garden. We need to move. We need to do something. Our faith compels us to serve. Our God is calling us to move. But let me also affirm that as we move, God is also in the movement or movements of people, in movements where we participate meaningfully so that life abundant becomes a lived reality for the world’s most vulnerable people. Amen.
Thursday, September 14, 2023
Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana: A Journey of Solidarity: Ruth and Naomi’s Story, Part I
Today’s post is by Deaconess Darlene Marquez-Caramanzana. Marquez-Caramanzana is an Area Liaison for Asia and the Pacific with Global Ministries. It is the first of two parts. This post was originally developed for the World Methodist Council Consultation on Migration.
In 2013, Joanna Demafellis’ home in Leyte was among those torn and decimated by Typhoon Yolanda (Hayan). The raging flood stripped down the family home to its frame. In 2014, through the help of an aunt, Joanna was able to fly to Kuwait to work as a domestic helper. As a domestic helper, she was promised a monthly salary of $400. Under the kafala system, foreigners entering Kuwait need sponsorship to act as a bridge to the country. The employer got to keep her passport and confiscated her mobile phone, and she was only allowed to use it every 3 months. In 2016, her family sensed a problem when they couldn’t find two of her Facebook profiles and her roaming number became out of reach. In 2018, Kuwaiti authorities found Joanna’s body by chance, kept in a freezer of her second employer.
Jullebee Ranara was a domestic worker. She could not send her 4 children to school because she was poor. In her desire to offer better lives for her children, she decided to work abroad. Perhaps also a victim of illegal recruiters or human trafficking, she ended up working for a family in Kuwait. On January 21, 2023, she was reportedly raped, murdered, burned, and thrown in the desert. News reports would point to her employer’s 17-year-old son as her tormentor and killer.
We remember their stories as we engage in Bible study on the Book of Ruth. I would center our thoughts on the part of the Book of Ruth that is focused on Naomi and Ruth’s relationship.
Ruth’s story resonates with me as a deaconess engaged in mission work through Global Ministries of The United Methodist Church. How does her story deepen my commitment to be in solidarity with those who need our significant presence, and what is the role of mission agencies as people journey in risky situations in foreign lands?
Ruth’s story also resonates with the many women, like Joanna and Jullebee, who leave our country everyday by the thousands to find a greener pasture in foreign lands so that their families here in the Philippines may live.
Naomi’s family, along with daughters in law Ruth and Orpah, left Judah to go to Moab because of famine. In Biblical narratives, the most common consequence of famines is involuntary migration. This was evident in the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Rachel and their sons. They would usually migrate to Egypt to seek food, even if it meant being subjected to exploitation by Egyptian masters and rulers. Most of these people’s lives were turned upside down by the realities of famine during their time. Their stories speak of the vulnerability that migrants face as they rely on the mercy of people to help them and yet are in turn subjected to abuse and exploitation of those in power.
Mijal Bitton, a teacher, writer, and leading thinker on questions relating to Jewish American identity, pluralism, gender equity and sociological diversity asserts that “starvation is not a function of scarcity, but rather a function of how societies distribute food.”[1] This is confirmed by economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen whose “work demandsthat instead of examining food availability, we should be investigating whether individuals can gain access to food and control food resources. This shift is borne out by the Genesis stories. The Mesopotamian region and neighboring Egypt could potentially feed everyone. But Abram, Sarai and their children must fight to get access to food, and must confront the dangerous vulnerability embodied by economic migrants.”[2] This is also the same context that prompted Naomi’s family to move from Judah to Moab.
As I reflect on the stories I earlier shared about Joanna and Jullebee – I can’t help but also point out that if we talk of resources, my country, the Philippines, has enough resources to feed and provide for all of its people. But the question remains: why do people need to migrate, and why are people poor?
Let’s go to Ruth . . .
In the story, Ruth showed a deep faithfulness to Naomi. In losing her husband and two sons, Naomi is resigned to the kind of life awaiting her. She knows that nothing is left for her but to wallow in poverty and shame. She blessed her two daughters-in-law and sent them home. Orpah obliged. Ruth did not. And to this Ruth pledged to never leave Naomi and spoke of a beautiful, poetic commitment:
Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried (v.16 NIV).
As for Mijal-Bitton, “Ruth’s persona is intersectional: she embodies the vulnerabilities of women, of widows, of economic migrants, of foreigners, of stigmatized strangers (she is a Moabite).”[3]
In their time it was not easy for Naomi, Ruth and Orpah to lose their husbands. They have to bear the brunt of a difficult life in a patriarchal world – without property, without status, without economic power, non-existent.
When Ruth decided to leave her all and be with Naomi, she put to risk her own life. Her decision meant that whatever happens to Naomi would also happen to her.
This story raises questions for me: How did Ruth embody solidarity with Naomi? How does this solidarity challenge us as churches to do our ministry with struggling migrants and immigrants? How do we see the image of God in Ruth’s decision to accompany Naomi? What image of God do we want to profess or give witness to as we engage in ministry with migrants?
Thursday, August 17, 2023
William P. Payne - How the Missional Hermeneutic Reveals the Missio Dei, Part II
Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. William P. Payne. Payne is the Professor of Evangelism and World Mission at Ashland Theological Seminary. The following exerts are from a soon-to-be-published book on missional theology.
Joseph and Moses
Having previously described what the missional hermeneutic is, I will demonstrate the missional hermeneutic by means of the Joseph and Moses narratives.
As I look at the missional direction of the story, I must ask myself a question.[1]Why did God call Joseph and then cause him so much hardship? Answer, even though Jacob and his family were situated in the Promise Land, they could not survive in it as a distinct nation because they were a small people. If they had remained in that land, they would have sustained intense social contact with the Canaanite peoples including bride exchanges, joint business endeavors, and participation in cultural events. In time, they would have been assimilated into the existing social lattice. When that happened, they would have ceased to be God’s special people (Lev. 18:24-30).[2] The story of Esau demonstrates this. He became compromised when he married a Canaanite woman and interacted with the local peoples. Afterward, he and his progeny were assimilated into the Canaanite world.
This concern is illustrated when the Jews began to return from Babylonian captivity. While in Babylon, the people intermingled with the nations and married their daughters. This diluted their Jewish identity and threatened to lead them into idolatry. That is why Ezra made them put away their foreign wives and rededicate themselves to their Jewish culture. As he read the Torah to them, they wept because they had all but forgotten it (Ezra 10:1-3).
Also, cultural assimilation threatened to destroy the Jewish witness when the Jews began to adopt the Greek culture in the time of the Maccabees. In particular, Jason the high priest tried to accelerate the process (2 Macc. 4:7-22). The miracle-filled Jewish uprising that freed the nation also purged the nation of Greek influences and restored biblical Judaism.
During the time of Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, the Bible says that the Canaanites were a wicked people who had defiled the land. They were so bad that the land wanted to vomit them out (Lev. 18:24-26). They practiced the worst forms of idolatry. Also, the Jewish spies said that giants lived in Canaan (Josh. 14:6-15). The giants point to genetic contamination from the Nephilim (Gen. 6:1-4). So, in order for the Jews to fulfill God’s purposes and fully occupy the Promised Land that God claimed for them (his portion), they had to leave Canaan and return to it once they were able to displace the peoples that did not follow God. This was their “manifest destiny.”
When God sent Joseph to Egypt by means of filial betrayal to prepare the way for his family and facilitate the move to Egypt, Joseph could not have imagined that God was working out God’s plan. After all, he was abandoned by his brothers, sold into slavery, and wrongly thrown into jail. However, after God put Joseph in a position of power, God drove his family to the land of Goshen by means of a great famine. When Joseph realized what God was doing, he told his brothers that they meant it for evil, but God intended it for good (Gen. 50:20). Furthermore, he knows that God will return them to the Promise Land at a later time. For that reason, he tells them to take his bones with them when they leave (Gen. 50:24-25).
The Jews were not assimilated in Egypt because they did not have routine social interactions with the Egyptians when they lived in the Land of Goshen. For this reason, the land of Goshen became the womb of Israel. While in Goshen, the people grew into a large nation. Hundreds of years later, God was ready to birth the nation. In order to do that, God needed a deliverer to lead the people through the birth canal (i.e., a narrow opening in the Red Sea) and into the Promise Land. God picked Moses.
Previously, when Pharaoh was killing the baby boys, God saved baby Moses from the reeds and placed him in Pharaoh’s home to prepare Moses for his mission. After Moses fled for his life, God caused him to learn pastoral skills while tending sheep in the wilderness because Moses would need to shepherd God’s people. At the right time, God revealed God’s plan to Moses and worked through him to defeat the gods of Egypt, free the Hebrew people from slavery, and displace the Canaanites from the Land of Promise.[3]
When viewed as individual stories, the narratives about Joseph and Moses do not fit together. However, when they are seen in light of the missional direction of the grand narrative, it is obvious that they participate in the same movement of God. The same process can be applied to the entire Bible.
Conclusion
This paper has made a case for the missional hermeneutic. It flows from the missio Dei and is employed by the New Testament writers. It posits that God has a plan and that God is pursuing that plan. Both Scripture and salvation history reveal that plan.
[1] See George Hunsberger’s the missional direction of the story in “What Is a Missional Hermeneutic?
[2] “For we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou didst command by thy servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever” (Ezra 9:10-12).
[3] For a fuller understanding of this, see Henry Blackaby, Experiencing God, 51.
Thursday, August 10, 2023
William P. Payne - How the Missional Hermeneutic Reveals the Missio Dei, Part I
Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. William P. Payne. Payne is the Professor of Evangelism and World Mission at Ashland Theological Seminary. The following exerts are from a soon-to-be-published book on missional theology.
Imagine that you are touring a large mansion. Upon entering, a labyrinth of opulent corridors greets you. As the tour guide leads you through the halls, you notice that each room is painted a different color, has its own design, and is furnished in a particular way. To get a better feel for the mansion’s floor plan, you walk around the perimeter. As you stroll, you notice large walls, decorations, a solid foundation, and gorgeous landscaping. You note that the building is not rectangular because the walls do not connect at 90-degree angles. Because of all the turns, you cannot visualize the full layout of the mansion. Finally, you go up in a hot air balloon and look down upon the mansion. From this vantage point, you can see the external design.
In this metaphor, the mansion is the Bible. The rooms are the books of the Bible. The outside walls are the main groupings of scripture. The foundation is the eternal truth that the Bible reveals. The landscaping is the socio-cultural context that influenced the Bible writers. The corridors are varying themes that connect the books together. The tour guide is the history of interpretation. The roof is the grand design that overshadows the Bible.
What Is the Missio Dei?
The missio Dei[1] (God’s mission) is the grand design of the Bible and the missional hermeneutic allows one to see it. In this sense, the missio Dei is the hermeneutical key that holds the Bible together – the all-inclusive story that the Bible tells.[2] Michael Goheen calls it the “One unfolding story of redemption against the backdrop of creation and humanity’s fall into sin.”[3] In its simplest form, the missio Dei says that God is a missionary God; the Bible from Genesis to Revelation tells God’s missional story; and the church is God’s missional agent in this age. The missio Dei begins with God, runs through the church, and ends with the fulfillment of God’s purposes on earth and in the heavenly realms (Eph. 1:19-20).[4] When the end comes, every knee in heaven, on the earth, and below the earth will bow before the glorious name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10-11). Until that time, God continues to pursue God’s mission.
Mission is the mother of theology because it is the theological hub around which all other biblical themes revolve.[5] God’s self-revelation serves God’s mission. God’s action in history shows God’s mission. Prophecy declares the direction of God’s mission. Jesus embodies God’s mission. The Holy Spirit enables God’s mission.[6] The church serves God’s mission. All of scripture explicates God’s mission. God’s mission is God’s purpose and God’s will. God’s missional character and God’s missional work are fully intertwined. To know God is to be caught up in God’s mission.
David Bosch adds a necessary nuance. He says that the missio Dei is “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world.”[7] God’s love is not silent. It is demonstrated by God’s involvement with the world. For instance, God created humans because God loves them and wants to be in a relationship with them. When they inhaled God’s Spirit and became sapient beings (Gen. 2:7), God gave them rulership and invited them to serve with him (Gen. 2:16 and Psalm 8:5-6). They were to be God’s representatives on this earth. When they rebelled against God’s design, God did not abandon them to sin, death, and Satan. The sacrificial system pointed to God’s plan (Lev 16).
In the New Testament, the missio Dei announces the good news that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and brings people into a right relationship with the Father (John 1:29 and 36). In this age, Jesus is undoing the catastrophe of the fall. His ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation destroy the power of Satan and give people the hope of full restoration into the image of God. Those who receive Christ and live under God’s rule are called the children of God (1 John 3:2-3). They are restored to their rightful place as members of God’s family (John 1:12-13).
The church is apostolic because God sends it into the world to announce God’s mission and do God’s work (John 20:21). The church does not have its own mission. Rather, it manifests and extends God’s mission.[8] Leslie Newbigin captures this when he says, “Mission is God’s, not ours. But God chooses men and women for the service of God’s mission.”[9] Yes. As the living Body of Christ, the church is the face of God’s mission in the world.
Theologians who make an exaggerated distinction between the mission of God and the mission of the church fail to realize that the church is dynamically and intimately caught up into God’s mission. In the same way that God worked through Moses to defeat the gods of Egypt and set the Israelites free, God works through God’s church to accomplish God’s mission today. This does not mean that God cannot work through a donkey, a Persian king, the magi, angels, a traitor, or an earthquake. Rather, it means that the apostolic church is so tightly tied to God’s mission in this world that it is defined by it.[10]The church has no reason to exist if it is not accomplishing the missio Dei.[11]
The Missional Hermeneutic
The missional hermeneutic is a heuristic device that enables Christ followers to read the metanarrative of the Bible in light of God’s missional intentions; purposes that supremely swirl around Christ and his ongoing work. It affirms that the whole Bible points to the missio Dei and that God’s mission is the central theme of the Bible.
When speaking of the missional hermeneutic, Boubakar Sanou says that the entire Bible reveals the various means by which God is seeking to redeem lost humanity.[12] He drives this point when he writes, "Missional hermeneutics seeks to recover biblical interpretation from a mere creedal and academic reading of the Bible and refocus it on the missio Dei. As both the central interest and the unitive theme of the scriptural narrative. From this perspective, biblical interpreters will see Scripture, as a whole, a missional thrust rather than having to focus only on the theme of mission in select texts."[13]
Stephen utilized this approach when he recounted the history of the Jews (Acts 7). His interpretation of sacred history shows that he and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church read the Hebrew scriptures from the perspective of the Christ event. I say this because Stephen reiterated what he had learned while studying at the feet of the apostles (Acts 2:42). Paul did the same thing when he preached in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-41). His sermon retells the history of the Jewish people from the perspective of salvation history. God was working through the events of the Jews to bring them to a new reality in Christ. Paul concludes his sermon by saying, “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus” (Acts 13:32-33 RSV). From the perspective of the unfolding story, sacred history points to the crucifixion, resurrection, and the new reality that has come into existence through Jesus. In order to continue with God, the Jews must receive Christ and follow in the new way.
[1] L. Hoedemaker provides an excellent overview and critique of missio Dei in Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, 162-166. Also, see Darren Sarisky, “The Meaning of the Mission Dei,” 258-269, Eddie Arthur, “Missio Dei and the Mission of the Church,” 1-7, and Timothy Tennent World Missions, 487-489.
[2] Boubakar Sanou, “Missio Dei as the Hermeneutical Key for Scriptural Interpretation,” 301.
[3] Michael Goheen, “Continuing Steps,” 61.
[4] In Ephesians, the “heavenly realms” (epouranios) refers to the place where God is (Eph. 1:3, 1:20, 2:6) and the place where the powers and principalities reign (Eph. 3:10 and 6:20). As a general term, it means, the spiritual realm.
[5] Martin Kahler, Schriften zur Christologie und Mission, 190.
[6] Newbigin connects the mission of the Spirit to the mission of the church when he says, “It is the Spirit who will give them (the disciples who are sent out in Jesus’ name to do his work) power and the Spirit who will bear witness. It is not that they must speak and act, asking the help of the Spirit to do so. It is rather that in their faithfulness to Jesus they become the place where the Spirit speaks and acts” (The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, 117-118).
[7] Bosch, Transforming Mission, 10.
[8] Ibid., 391.
[9] Newbigin, The Open Secret, 19.
[10] Emile Brunner says that “The Church exists by mission just as fire exists by burning,” (The Word and the World, 108).
[11] Girma Bekele, “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei,” 154.
[12] Boubakar Sanou, “Missio Dei as Hermeneutical Key for Scriptural Interpretation, 308.
[13] Ibid., 306.
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
MLK vs. the Prophets, or, a Word on Hope in History
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
There is a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote that is much beloved by US American progressives: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” As employed by American progressives, this quote implies two elements of belief:
First, that the world as a whole system (and the United States as the part of the world with which the speakers are usually most familiar) is on a trend towards greater equality among and prosperity for all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other salient element of identity. This is the “bends towards justice” part of the quote.
Second, that this trend occurs inevitably. It may work through human organizing and efforts, but it is not dependent on human actions. Instead, it results from an intrinsic divine or social or natural law. This is the “arc of the moral universe” part of the quote.
From MLK’s vantage point when making this remark in the mid-20th century, or from the vantage point of his quoters at the end of the 20th century, looking back over the past couple hundred years of human history, there was good evidence for the two beliefs implied by this quote and its use.
Over that time span, there had been amazing and significant steps towards this understanding of justice, especially in the Western world: chattel slavery was abolished; modern medicine substantially reduced suffering and disease and extended lifespans; child labor was abolished in the West and working conditions were substantially improved for adults; women gained the right to vote, various other rights, and access to increased choices in life; the Civil Rights movement (including MLK) gained various rights for African Americans; Majority World countries became independent of Western colonialism; and queer folks gained increased recognition and rights in society.
Moreover, all these steps towards greater justice came about not as the result of one centralized movement but rather a plethora of movements that sprang up, as if from some central animating spirit that was beyond the individuals involved.
Yet as obvious as such a belief in inevitable human progress was in the mid- to late 20th century, there are abundant reasons to question such a belief by this point in the 21st century. Indeed, we might conclude that this belief in inevitable human progress reflects a particularly modern outlook on the world – modern both in its setting, its belief in progress, and its projection of an evolutionary grand narrative onto human history.
Postmodernism has, of course, raised questions about all such metanarratives, but one need not buy fully into postmodernism to question the narrative of inevitable progress towards greater justice as understood by modern Americans. The rise of autocracy and decline of democracy around the world, the revival of racism and anti-Semitism and rollback of women’s rights in the United States, and the existential threat to all human flourishing represented by climate collapse should raise serious questions about any overly sunny accountings of certain human progress.
At very least, the past couple decades should show us the significance of effective, strategic, and long-term organizing and movement building in influencing the direction of history. While liberal forces had that momentum at their back from the 1930s through the 1970s, it is conservative forces that have most recently been reaping the fruits of such organizing. Whatever direction history takes, it is unlikely to get there outside of well-organized and coordinated effort on the part of very dedicated people willing to be patient and make sacrifices.
Climate change further shows us that the past two hundred years may not be the ramp up to a premillennial paradise of justice and equality but rather a very particular historical moment that is not sustainable as it has played out thus far and therefore may well not last.
A longer historical frame suggests additional possibilities: If we look at the first ten thousand years of human history, leading up to the modern era, we see less of a pattern towards justice, or at least we see a very long incubation period before that pattern towards justice sets in. Instead, we might see waves of progress and regression set against a backdrop of (slowly) increasing societal complexity.
Fortunately, belief in the arc of the moral universe is not the only way to hold out hope for the future. I’d like to suggest another: that of the biblical prophets.
MLK was influenced by and drew upon the biblical prophets, as his rhetoric frequently showed. King and the prophets shared a deep concern for justice.
Where MLK (or at least his oft-repeated quote) and the prophets disagreed is on their understanding of history. While King’s quote suggests a generally upward trajectory to history, the prophets were often quite blunt about their conviction that history was headed in a downward direction.
When Amos declared that “the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste and [God] will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” or Hosea proclaimed that “Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins,” they were announcing anything but sunny optimism about the direction of the future.
The biblical prophets took seriously the possibility that the future would be worse, not just for the enemies of their people, but for their people themselves. Sometimes, like Jeremiah, they even lived through the fulfillment of their prophecies of destruction.
Yet even amid their clear-eyed facing of the possibility and even inevitability of disaster for their communities, the prophets maintained hope. This hope was built not on the assumption that things would keep getting better, but on the belief that they would not always get worse. It was a hope built on trust that God’s mercy would have the last word beyond whatever disaster was impending. “[God] will restore of the fortunes of [God’s] people Israel,” wrote Amos, “and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them.”
For me, in this historical moment, this understanding of hope in history feels more true than the hope implied by the use of the MLK quote. Our cities (or our churches, our institutions, our rights, our ways of life) may indeed become heaps of ruins, either because we tear them down as we tear each other apart or because climate disasters will make them so. But that will not be the end. God’s mercy will still prevail, and we will eventually “rebuild the ruined cities.” That is a bleaker expectation for the future, but more honest and more accurate in my eyes. And, if the prophets are our guides, it is just as faithful.
Wednesday, February 16, 2022
Sun-Ah Kang: Culture and Interpreting the Virtuous Woman in Proverbs 31:10-31
Today's post is by Rev. Sun-Ah Kang. Rev. Kang is a doctoral student at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, a GBHEM Angella P. Current-Felder Woman of Color Scholar, and an elder in the UMC.
“I am not a faithful Christian woman. I know I am called to be a good mom and wife, but I love my work. I can’t pick one. And this gives me guilt.” A friend of mine shared her struggle after participating in a woman’s bible study group, mainly learning from Proverbs 31:10-31.
Proverbs 31:10-31 is one of the most widely loved scriptures—it has been used to recognize mothers and wives during Mother’s Day sermons, to celebrate women in Jewish weddings, and in Jewish and Protestant funerals. Indeed, Proverbs 31:10-31 is a female lead scripture, a rare case compared to well-known biblical stories and heroes.
In my doctoral work, I study the dynamic hermeneutical relationship of culture and scripture through a cross-cultural reading of scripture, specifically how certain cultures and traditions influence reading the Bible. I raise the case of Proverbs 31:10-31 to examine how Korean Confucianism and Christian churches impact the reading of Proverbs 31 and how this reading affects women’s identity. Because of the centrality of gender in this passage and in the process of cultural reproduction, it can provide us with key insights into the relationship between culture and the Bible.
The main character is translated into English variously, such as a “virtuous woman” (KJV) or a “capable wife” (NRSV). The Korean Bible (Korean Revised Bible, revised in 1998) translates the Proverbs 31 woman as a virtuous woman, an equivalent to the virtuous woman of Confucianism. Due to the cultural value of virtue, this translation fits well in the Korean Confucian context. In Korean Confucianism, a virtuous woman is a woman of the feminine virtues who sacrifices and devotes herself as a housewife and a mother.
Accordingly, based on the translation, which supports the Confucian ideal of virtuous wife and mother, predominant preaching and bible studies reproduce a Christian ideal of virtuous wife and mother. By complimenting sacrificial women and using them as a pedagogical tool, male leaders often create a norm to judge and criticize women. The norm naturally became internalized in Christian women’s lives deeply, and women are cultivated to fit their behaviors to be Proverbs 31 wannabes.
Indeed, Proverbs 31:10-31 becomes the standard to evaluate faithful and praiseworthy women. The primary knowledge of the Bible comes from preaching, bible studies, or devotional reading that predominantly transmits the patriarchal ideal of women from Confucian culture that is read into the text.
In my doctoral work, I problematize the reproduction of the patriarchal ideal of woman in Christianity, deeply influenced by Confucianism and conservative Protestant theology, which affects women’s identity formation in a harmful and toxic way.
Even today, Korean churches legitimate women’s sacrificial service for granted limiting women’s leadership within churches as teacher and babysitter at Sunday school, server, cook of the meal, or greeter. This hierarchical and patriarchal church culture phenomenon is easily found in churches of Korea and Korean churches in the United States. Accordingly, such culture forms the reading of scripture and identity. I problematize the church cultures/customs to legitimize women’s service, using scripture as a reference that eventually benefits men.
A thorough examination of Confucian understanding of human beings provides a different picture of womanhood. Specifically, one of the Confucian textbooks for women in the Joseon dynasty, Naehun—Instructions for the Inner Quarter (1475), proposes that a virtuous Confucian ideal is a woman of wisdom and intelligence who can advise and guide and even rebuke her husband for pursuing the sagehood.
Stereotypical assumptions of Confucian women are rooted in the practices and publications of late Joseon and the byproduct of the western missionary movement in the late nineteenth century—Joseon women are passive, oppressed victims of patriarchal Confucian cultures. These assumptions must be counteracted by bringing other Confucian voices to the reading of the text.
The conventional understanding of a woman as a housewife and a mother hinders Christians from revealing the true identity of the Prov 31 woman. However, the rediscovery of the Confucian virtuous woman provides an alternative way to encounter Prov 31 woman: “She is a professional who finds success in her field of work. She is an artisan of textiles (vv. 13, 19, 22), an international merchant (vv. 14, 17, 24), an entrepreneur (vv. 15, 18, 21, 24–25, 27), an adventurous investor (v. 16), euergetes and philanthropist (vv. 20–21), a human resource administrator for her husband (vv. 23, 27–29), a professor or guru (v. 26), an educator (v. 28), a deaconess (v. 30), and a celebrity (vv. 28–31).”[1]
A Prov 31 woman is a professional woman, exerting full abilities and wisdom, better than her husband and any person. A Prov 31 woman does not limit her domain to the household but expands herself internationally.
What Michel Foucault said about power represents the dynamic relationship between culture, scriptural reading, and the formation of one’s identity. Foucault said, “In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”[2]
Patriarchal culture in Korean society continually affects the way of reading scripture. Prov 31:10-31 is an obvious example of how this dynamic relationship is utilized and benefits patriarchal interests that deprive nurturing women to develop potential and establish positive woman’s selfhood in Christianity.
However, there is redemption. When women read the scripture differently, as I propose, it can produce power to impact reversely. To do so, readers need to stay out of their comfort zone and listen to the Bible, other cultures, and traditions.
We, Wesleyans, are privileged to have a tremendous hermeneutical tool of the quadrilateral. Reason must be considered when we read the scripture to ask, for instance, will my reading empower and promote other people’s image of God, especially their self-image and dignity?
May God bless us to discern God’s voice in scripture and use us to promote other people’s well-being!
“I am not a faithful Christian woman. I know I am called to be a good mom and wife, but I love my work. I can’t pick one. And this gives me guilt.” A friend of mine shared her struggle after participating in a woman’s bible study group, mainly learning from Proverbs 31:10-31.
Proverbs 31:10-31 is one of the most widely loved scriptures—it has been used to recognize mothers and wives during Mother’s Day sermons, to celebrate women in Jewish weddings, and in Jewish and Protestant funerals. Indeed, Proverbs 31:10-31 is a female lead scripture, a rare case compared to well-known biblical stories and heroes.
In my doctoral work, I study the dynamic hermeneutical relationship of culture and scripture through a cross-cultural reading of scripture, specifically how certain cultures and traditions influence reading the Bible. I raise the case of Proverbs 31:10-31 to examine how Korean Confucianism and Christian churches impact the reading of Proverbs 31 and how this reading affects women’s identity. Because of the centrality of gender in this passage and in the process of cultural reproduction, it can provide us with key insights into the relationship between culture and the Bible.
The main character is translated into English variously, such as a “virtuous woman” (KJV) or a “capable wife” (NRSV). The Korean Bible (Korean Revised Bible, revised in 1998) translates the Proverbs 31 woman as a virtuous woman, an equivalent to the virtuous woman of Confucianism. Due to the cultural value of virtue, this translation fits well in the Korean Confucian context. In Korean Confucianism, a virtuous woman is a woman of the feminine virtues who sacrifices and devotes herself as a housewife and a mother.
Accordingly, based on the translation, which supports the Confucian ideal of virtuous wife and mother, predominant preaching and bible studies reproduce a Christian ideal of virtuous wife and mother. By complimenting sacrificial women and using them as a pedagogical tool, male leaders often create a norm to judge and criticize women. The norm naturally became internalized in Christian women’s lives deeply, and women are cultivated to fit their behaviors to be Proverbs 31 wannabes.
Indeed, Proverbs 31:10-31 becomes the standard to evaluate faithful and praiseworthy women. The primary knowledge of the Bible comes from preaching, bible studies, or devotional reading that predominantly transmits the patriarchal ideal of women from Confucian culture that is read into the text.
In my doctoral work, I problematize the reproduction of the patriarchal ideal of woman in Christianity, deeply influenced by Confucianism and conservative Protestant theology, which affects women’s identity formation in a harmful and toxic way.
Even today, Korean churches legitimate women’s sacrificial service for granted limiting women’s leadership within churches as teacher and babysitter at Sunday school, server, cook of the meal, or greeter. This hierarchical and patriarchal church culture phenomenon is easily found in churches of Korea and Korean churches in the United States. Accordingly, such culture forms the reading of scripture and identity. I problematize the church cultures/customs to legitimize women’s service, using scripture as a reference that eventually benefits men.
A thorough examination of Confucian understanding of human beings provides a different picture of womanhood. Specifically, one of the Confucian textbooks for women in the Joseon dynasty, Naehun—Instructions for the Inner Quarter (1475), proposes that a virtuous Confucian ideal is a woman of wisdom and intelligence who can advise and guide and even rebuke her husband for pursuing the sagehood.
Stereotypical assumptions of Confucian women are rooted in the practices and publications of late Joseon and the byproduct of the western missionary movement in the late nineteenth century—Joseon women are passive, oppressed victims of patriarchal Confucian cultures. These assumptions must be counteracted by bringing other Confucian voices to the reading of the text.
The conventional understanding of a woman as a housewife and a mother hinders Christians from revealing the true identity of the Prov 31 woman. However, the rediscovery of the Confucian virtuous woman provides an alternative way to encounter Prov 31 woman: “She is a professional who finds success in her field of work. She is an artisan of textiles (vv. 13, 19, 22), an international merchant (vv. 14, 17, 24), an entrepreneur (vv. 15, 18, 21, 24–25, 27), an adventurous investor (v. 16), euergetes and philanthropist (vv. 20–21), a human resource administrator for her husband (vv. 23, 27–29), a professor or guru (v. 26), an educator (v. 28), a deaconess (v. 30), and a celebrity (vv. 28–31).”[1]
A Prov 31 woman is a professional woman, exerting full abilities and wisdom, better than her husband and any person. A Prov 31 woman does not limit her domain to the household but expands herself internationally.
What Michel Foucault said about power represents the dynamic relationship between culture, scriptural reading, and the formation of one’s identity. Foucault said, “In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”[2]
Patriarchal culture in Korean society continually affects the way of reading scripture. Prov 31:10-31 is an obvious example of how this dynamic relationship is utilized and benefits patriarchal interests that deprive nurturing women to develop potential and establish positive woman’s selfhood in Christianity.
However, there is redemption. When women read the scripture differently, as I propose, it can produce power to impact reversely. To do so, readers need to stay out of their comfort zone and listen to the Bible, other cultures, and traditions.
We, Wesleyans, are privileged to have a tremendous hermeneutical tool of the quadrilateral. Reason must be considered when we read the scripture to ask, for instance, will my reading empower and promote other people’s image of God, especially their self-image and dignity?
May God bless us to discern God’s voice in scripture and use us to promote other people’s well-being!
Monday, February 14, 2022
Jay Choi: Reimagining Christian Mission with Jubilee
Today’s post is by Rev. Jae Hyoung Choi. Rev. Choi is Missionary in Residence with the General Board of Global Ministries. It is part of what will be an occasional series on mission and jubilee.
Today, one of the most common understandings of Christian mission is mission as “helping.” Helping is an integral part of mission, but it is not the entirety of mission. The Church also faces a challenge that the world tends to show apathy and antipathy towards churches’ attempts at helping.
One reason for this could be that people are looking for a fundamentally different approach from the Church. With the increase of technology and efficiency, goods and services overflow, and yet poverty still overburdens a majority of the population. This is a constant human condition that calls for a particular Christian response.
What we learn from Moses, the prophets, and Jesus is that their responses were radical, penetrating the core of the problem. Starting backward from the apostles, to Jesus, to the prophets, and to the Law of Moses, we reach to the Law of Jubilee. What I am going to talk about in this piece is the biblical Jubilee, specifically its land ownership principle and its relationship to Christian mission.
Jubilee Spirit
The Law of Jubilee is the culmination of the Sabbatical regulation, which is central to the Torah. It was promulgated for sustainable justice and equality through periodic restoration of land ownership. In Leviticus 25, Jubilee is defined to include the laws on land, labor, housing, and lending and the foundation is the law concerning land. Verse 23 shows the great principle of Jubilee, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”
Without doubt, the overarching spirit in this ancient law is “fairness and justice.” The kind of society Jubilee envisions and embodies is (1) that clothing, food, and shelter for all people are secured, (2) that there should be no human bondage, and (3) that out of this social security, all the members of society flourish socioeconomically, ethically, and spiritually.
The Law of Jubilee was akin to a “Silver Bullet” God provided for the liberated Israel so that they could eradicate poverty and oppression and pursue a peaceful life. The Bible depicts God’s Jubilee people as a holy salvific people since it radiates God to the world through their life that stands in contrast to that of the world.
Jubilee Ownership
The Jubilee ownership principle is an organic mixture of private and communal ownership. That is, what a person produces out of his/her labor becomes his/her possession. Likewise, what God creates belongs to divine possession. Ecclesiastes 5:9 clarifies the meaning of divine possession, “The increase from the land is taken by all.” In short, according to the Law of Jubilee, ownership, usership, and tradership of land ought to be ruled by the principles of “fairness, equality, and justice.”
About 2,000 years after Moses, Basil the Great, who was from Cappadocia of modern-day Turkey and became the bishop of Caesarea, revisited the Jubilee ownership and stated it thus: “There are [Ownership] between ta idia (one’s own) – what is one’s private property in virtue of one’s having brought it into being, as the product of one’s labor, and ta koina (common goods) which are just ‘there’, which have been created by God for the use of all. Natural productive elements are not ‘there’ due to anyone’s merit or labor.”[1] When the bishop saw the land monopoly pervasive in the empire drove commoners out of their lands into poverty and slavery, he denounced it by saying that whether you are a first settler or a conqueror, if you privatize the land God created for all people, it is “robbery.”[2]
Henry George and Jubilee
In late 19th century, about 1,500 years after Bishop Basil, a poor young man from San Francisco visited New York City. While witnessing the coexistence of skyscrapers going up high and pauperism below, this bewildered young man was determined to understand “the law which associates poverty with progress, and increases want with advancing wealth.”[3] This man was Henry George. After arduous days of labor, he would visit the public library in the evening for self-study and finally came to the conclusion that the root cause of poverty amid progress was derived from land monopoly. Then he proposed a remedy based on the Law of Jubilee.
George knew that it was utterly impossible to redistribute the land in modern societies. So, he proposed to tax the value of land and return the revenues for all the members of society. He got this idea from the tithe, shared by the landed to help the landless, like the Levites, orphans, and widows. Because Henry George advocated levying a tax on land value increase while removing all other taxes upon human exertion, people called his Land Value Taxation the “Single Tax Movement.” From today’s perspective, this Single Tax Movement was tantamount to socioeconomic structural reform to eradicate poverty and polarization of wealth. The important takeaway is that George’s thought was based on the principles of biblical Jubilee.
Mesmerized by George’s philosophy, Leo Tolstoy included the spirit of Jubilee in his novels to enlighten his fellow Russians, especially peasants. Influenced by Tolstoy, Sun Yat Sen, the first president of China, included Henry George’s idea in his book Three Principles and wanted to implement Jubilee principle as the economic foundation of China. When Mao Zedong’s the Red Army succeeded, Sun’s successor Chiang Kai Shek retreated to Formosa, today’s Taiwan, and implemented Sun Yat Sen’s economic plan. Although Taiwan is a Buddhist country, at its economic base there is the biblical principle of Jubilee. We know that Taiwan was the only country in Asia that could withstand the Asia financial crisis in 1997.
Jubilee and Mission
In Hwang Gee, Gang-won-do, South Korea, there is a place called “Jesus Abbey.” It was established by an American Anglican missionary, Reuben Archer Torrey III. Father Torrey served in Korea for 50 years. He read Henry George’s book Progress and Poverty. Later, he translated the book into Korean with the title How to Escape from Poverty? For his entire life, he prayed for Korea and preached Jubilee.
Many Korean young people followed him. When they gather, they pray earnestly for Jubilee Korea, Reunified Korea, and Mission Korea. And when they scatter, they become the evangelists of Jesus and Jubilee. I have been fortunate enough to meet several among them who have been actively working to apply the Jubilee principles to Korea’s national land policy.
Christian mission needs helping the poor, and it also needs solving the root causes of poverty. As we are going through this crucial transition period in history, the Church should be able to reimagine its mission with Jubilee because God’s suffering people and groaning creation thirst for justice.
On his deathbed, Father Torrey left this final word, “Go up to the rooftop and proclaim Jubilee.” We need to remember that the boldest mission John Wesley did was to denounce the English Enclosure, which expelled farmers from the land and made them into a lumpenproletariat during the Industrial Revolution.[4] At the same time, we need to remember that such courageous social action was from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that empowered Jesus to proclaim the Year of Lord’s favor, Jubilee.
Today, one of the most common understandings of Christian mission is mission as “helping.” Helping is an integral part of mission, but it is not the entirety of mission. The Church also faces a challenge that the world tends to show apathy and antipathy towards churches’ attempts at helping.
One reason for this could be that people are looking for a fundamentally different approach from the Church. With the increase of technology and efficiency, goods and services overflow, and yet poverty still overburdens a majority of the population. This is a constant human condition that calls for a particular Christian response.
What we learn from Moses, the prophets, and Jesus is that their responses were radical, penetrating the core of the problem. Starting backward from the apostles, to Jesus, to the prophets, and to the Law of Moses, we reach to the Law of Jubilee. What I am going to talk about in this piece is the biblical Jubilee, specifically its land ownership principle and its relationship to Christian mission.
Jubilee Spirit
The Law of Jubilee is the culmination of the Sabbatical regulation, which is central to the Torah. It was promulgated for sustainable justice and equality through periodic restoration of land ownership. In Leviticus 25, Jubilee is defined to include the laws on land, labor, housing, and lending and the foundation is the law concerning land. Verse 23 shows the great principle of Jubilee, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”
Without doubt, the overarching spirit in this ancient law is “fairness and justice.” The kind of society Jubilee envisions and embodies is (1) that clothing, food, and shelter for all people are secured, (2) that there should be no human bondage, and (3) that out of this social security, all the members of society flourish socioeconomically, ethically, and spiritually.
The Law of Jubilee was akin to a “Silver Bullet” God provided for the liberated Israel so that they could eradicate poverty and oppression and pursue a peaceful life. The Bible depicts God’s Jubilee people as a holy salvific people since it radiates God to the world through their life that stands in contrast to that of the world.
Jubilee Ownership
The Jubilee ownership principle is an organic mixture of private and communal ownership. That is, what a person produces out of his/her labor becomes his/her possession. Likewise, what God creates belongs to divine possession. Ecclesiastes 5:9 clarifies the meaning of divine possession, “The increase from the land is taken by all.” In short, according to the Law of Jubilee, ownership, usership, and tradership of land ought to be ruled by the principles of “fairness, equality, and justice.”
About 2,000 years after Moses, Basil the Great, who was from Cappadocia of modern-day Turkey and became the bishop of Caesarea, revisited the Jubilee ownership and stated it thus: “There are [Ownership] between ta idia (one’s own) – what is one’s private property in virtue of one’s having brought it into being, as the product of one’s labor, and ta koina (common goods) which are just ‘there’, which have been created by God for the use of all. Natural productive elements are not ‘there’ due to anyone’s merit or labor.”[1] When the bishop saw the land monopoly pervasive in the empire drove commoners out of their lands into poverty and slavery, he denounced it by saying that whether you are a first settler or a conqueror, if you privatize the land God created for all people, it is “robbery.”[2]
Henry George and Jubilee
In late 19th century, about 1,500 years after Bishop Basil, a poor young man from San Francisco visited New York City. While witnessing the coexistence of skyscrapers going up high and pauperism below, this bewildered young man was determined to understand “the law which associates poverty with progress, and increases want with advancing wealth.”[3] This man was Henry George. After arduous days of labor, he would visit the public library in the evening for self-study and finally came to the conclusion that the root cause of poverty amid progress was derived from land monopoly. Then he proposed a remedy based on the Law of Jubilee.
George knew that it was utterly impossible to redistribute the land in modern societies. So, he proposed to tax the value of land and return the revenues for all the members of society. He got this idea from the tithe, shared by the landed to help the landless, like the Levites, orphans, and widows. Because Henry George advocated levying a tax on land value increase while removing all other taxes upon human exertion, people called his Land Value Taxation the “Single Tax Movement.” From today’s perspective, this Single Tax Movement was tantamount to socioeconomic structural reform to eradicate poverty and polarization of wealth. The important takeaway is that George’s thought was based on the principles of biblical Jubilee.
Mesmerized by George’s philosophy, Leo Tolstoy included the spirit of Jubilee in his novels to enlighten his fellow Russians, especially peasants. Influenced by Tolstoy, Sun Yat Sen, the first president of China, included Henry George’s idea in his book Three Principles and wanted to implement Jubilee principle as the economic foundation of China. When Mao Zedong’s the Red Army succeeded, Sun’s successor Chiang Kai Shek retreated to Formosa, today’s Taiwan, and implemented Sun Yat Sen’s economic plan. Although Taiwan is a Buddhist country, at its economic base there is the biblical principle of Jubilee. We know that Taiwan was the only country in Asia that could withstand the Asia financial crisis in 1997.
Jubilee and Mission
In Hwang Gee, Gang-won-do, South Korea, there is a place called “Jesus Abbey.” It was established by an American Anglican missionary, Reuben Archer Torrey III. Father Torrey served in Korea for 50 years. He read Henry George’s book Progress and Poverty. Later, he translated the book into Korean with the title How to Escape from Poverty? For his entire life, he prayed for Korea and preached Jubilee.
Many Korean young people followed him. When they gather, they pray earnestly for Jubilee Korea, Reunified Korea, and Mission Korea. And when they scatter, they become the evangelists of Jesus and Jubilee. I have been fortunate enough to meet several among them who have been actively working to apply the Jubilee principles to Korea’s national land policy.
Christian mission needs helping the poor, and it also needs solving the root causes of poverty. As we are going through this crucial transition period in history, the Church should be able to reimagine its mission with Jubilee because God’s suffering people and groaning creation thirst for justice.
On his deathbed, Father Torrey left this final word, “Go up to the rooftop and proclaim Jubilee.” We need to remember that the boldest mission John Wesley did was to denounce the English Enclosure, which expelled farmers from the land and made them into a lumpenproletariat during the Industrial Revolution.[4] At the same time, we need to remember that such courageous social action was from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit that empowered Jesus to proclaim the Year of Lord’s favor, Jubilee.
Monday, February 22, 2021
William Payne: Biblical Interpretation, Gender Equality, and the Evangelistic Mandate
Today's blog post is written by Dr. William Payne. Dr. Payne is the Harlan & Wilma Hollewell Professor of Evangelism and World Missions and Director of Chaplaincy Studies at Ashland Theological Seminary.
John Wesley famously stated that he was homo unius libri (a man of one book). Following that lead, United Methodism affirms that Holy Writ is the primary authority for issues related to right faith and right practice. Considering this, how should Bible-affirming people make sense of the New Testament’s mixed messages about female Christ-followers?
In Titus 2:2-4, Paul says that the old women should behave themselves with reverence and not gossip or drink too much. They should give a good example, teach the young women to love their husbands and their children, remain judiciously pure, be keepers of the home, remain full of kindness and be subject to their husbands.
On the surface, this sounds very sexist and out of step with our modern world. After all, American society values gender equality. I also value gender equality because the spirit and teaching of the New Testament establishes this ideal.
In the church, the cultural categories that diminish women should be reconsidered in the light of the gospel message that emphasizes equality in Christ (Gal 3:28). As such, I do not believe that American women need to follow Paul's exhortation as if it were a universal law to be mimicked.
Why do I say this? Verse 5 makes the point. Do all of this so that "no one will be able to speak badly against the gospel message."
In other words, the culture of the people to which Paul was writing had normative expectations regarding the proper way for a woman to behave in public and in the home. If Christian women acted contrary to the cultural norm, they would bring discredit on the Gospel and would cause the unbelieving public to think that Christianity was a bad religion that should be shunned.
First Peter 2-3 makes a similar point when writing to slaves, to women who are married to harsh unbelievers, and to Christians who live under an evil government. In this light, one should not read 1 Peter 2:18ff as if it were establishing slavery.
The larger teaching of the New Testament points to an in-breaking kingdom of God that transforms human societies that are under the tutelage of the gospel. Ultimately, God will abolish all forms of injustice and sin to include slavery.
As such, 1 Peter does not endorse slavery. Rather, it assumes the unjust reality of slavery in the Roman Empire. It was a social fact for the people of its time. In the context of slavery and other forms of unjust systems, 1 Peter tells Christian slaves how they should live so they can influence others for Christ. In other words, Peter tells his audience that those who abuse you will be drawn to you and the Christ in you because of your exemplary behavior. As such, “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15b).
First-century slaves did not have the freedom to preach or to protest against social injustice. However, they could lay a foundation for witnessing by living a life that was beyond reproach. When we approach 1 Peter and other similar verses from the perspective of social justice, we miss this point.
For Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate was more important than personal liberty. That is why Paul affirms that he compromises his personal liberty by becoming all things to all people in order to win some to Christ (1 Cor 9:19-23). Paul did not ask others to do something he was not willing to model in his own life.
In both Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate requires that Christian act in ways that do not bring discredit to the gospel to the extent they can without compromising the gospel message. This is a critical point. To do this, we must identify what is essential and what is cultural. On points related to the essential, we cannot water down the faith or change the clear teaching of scripture.
In the context of today’s debates, I place sexual purity in this category because it is a moral imperative. However, I do not place social gender roles in this category. Different societies have different social structures. The Bible does not establish a normative social structure for every culture. An old professor used to say, “The gospel will offend. However, it should offend for the right reasons.”
Let me offer a simple example that shows why scripture must be interpreted in terms of meaning rather than form. Proverbs 23:13 opines, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Many people who fail to make a distinction between meaning and culture have used this proverb as a mandate for corporal punishment. However, this proverb is not mandating corporal punishment. Rather, it is mandating that parents correct and discipline their children in order for them to grow up well. Corporal punishment was the culturally appropriate way that people did that in the time of the proverb.
United Methodists have to affirm that scripture is sacred and that it is the word of God. We must place ourselves under the authority of God as it has been mediated to us through the divine witness of scripture and tradition. However, we must make cultural adjustments as we interpret it and apply it to any given social context. Scripture has to be interpreted before it is rightly applied!
John Wesley famously stated that he was homo unius libri (a man of one book). Following that lead, United Methodism affirms that Holy Writ is the primary authority for issues related to right faith and right practice. Considering this, how should Bible-affirming people make sense of the New Testament’s mixed messages about female Christ-followers?
In Titus 2:2-4, Paul says that the old women should behave themselves with reverence and not gossip or drink too much. They should give a good example, teach the young women to love their husbands and their children, remain judiciously pure, be keepers of the home, remain full of kindness and be subject to their husbands.
On the surface, this sounds very sexist and out of step with our modern world. After all, American society values gender equality. I also value gender equality because the spirit and teaching of the New Testament establishes this ideal.
In the church, the cultural categories that diminish women should be reconsidered in the light of the gospel message that emphasizes equality in Christ (Gal 3:28). As such, I do not believe that American women need to follow Paul's exhortation as if it were a universal law to be mimicked.
Why do I say this? Verse 5 makes the point. Do all of this so that "no one will be able to speak badly against the gospel message."
In other words, the culture of the people to which Paul was writing had normative expectations regarding the proper way for a woman to behave in public and in the home. If Christian women acted contrary to the cultural norm, they would bring discredit on the Gospel and would cause the unbelieving public to think that Christianity was a bad religion that should be shunned.
First Peter 2-3 makes a similar point when writing to slaves, to women who are married to harsh unbelievers, and to Christians who live under an evil government. In this light, one should not read 1 Peter 2:18ff as if it were establishing slavery.
The larger teaching of the New Testament points to an in-breaking kingdom of God that transforms human societies that are under the tutelage of the gospel. Ultimately, God will abolish all forms of injustice and sin to include slavery.
As such, 1 Peter does not endorse slavery. Rather, it assumes the unjust reality of slavery in the Roman Empire. It was a social fact for the people of its time. In the context of slavery and other forms of unjust systems, 1 Peter tells Christian slaves how they should live so they can influence others for Christ. In other words, Peter tells his audience that those who abuse you will be drawn to you and the Christ in you because of your exemplary behavior. As such, “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15b).
First-century slaves did not have the freedom to preach or to protest against social injustice. However, they could lay a foundation for witnessing by living a life that was beyond reproach. When we approach 1 Peter and other similar verses from the perspective of social justice, we miss this point.
For Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate was more important than personal liberty. That is why Paul affirms that he compromises his personal liberty by becoming all things to all people in order to win some to Christ (1 Cor 9:19-23). Paul did not ask others to do something he was not willing to model in his own life.
In both Paul and 1 Peter, the evangelistic mandate requires that Christian act in ways that do not bring discredit to the gospel to the extent they can without compromising the gospel message. This is a critical point. To do this, we must identify what is essential and what is cultural. On points related to the essential, we cannot water down the faith or change the clear teaching of scripture.
In the context of today’s debates, I place sexual purity in this category because it is a moral imperative. However, I do not place social gender roles in this category. Different societies have different social structures. The Bible does not establish a normative social structure for every culture. An old professor used to say, “The gospel will offend. However, it should offend for the right reasons.”
Let me offer a simple example that shows why scripture must be interpreted in terms of meaning rather than form. Proverbs 23:13 opines, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” Many people who fail to make a distinction between meaning and culture have used this proverb as a mandate for corporal punishment. However, this proverb is not mandating corporal punishment. Rather, it is mandating that parents correct and discipline their children in order for them to grow up well. Corporal punishment was the culturally appropriate way that people did that in the time of the proverb.
United Methodists have to affirm that scripture is sacred and that it is the word of God. We must place ourselves under the authority of God as it has been mediated to us through the divine witness of scripture and tradition. However, we must make cultural adjustments as we interpret it and apply it to any given social context. Scripture has to be interpreted before it is rightly applied!
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Robert Haynes: Toward a Wesleyan Biblical Theology for Short Term Mission
Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. Robert Ellis Haynes, Director of Education & Leadership at World Methodist Evangelism. It is adapted from excerpts from his book Consuming Mission: Towards a Theology of Short-Term Mission and Pilgrimage (Wipf and Stock, 2018). It is part of an on-going UM & Global series on UMVIM and short-term mission.
As I have pointed out previously, there is a lack of direct engagement with scriptural teaching on mission used by United Methodist STM teams. When this occurs, that vacuum is filled by cultural influences. In a cultural that highly prizes touristic experiences, we should not be surprised that STM has been shaped, then, to resemble the American tourist culture in which it was founded.
There has been, largely, a void of theological work in STM. Training in STM is largely absent in seminary and theological education. As a result, that void has been filled with many well-meaning, faithful Christians who have acted without proper theological direction from their leadership.
Rather than simply treat some of the symptoms of STM, it is necessary to treat the root cause of the problem. Theologies shape motivations, and motivations shape actions. If we want to change the actions on a STM, a sound Wesleyan theology of mission must be taught at every level. Only then can lasting change occur.
Such a work begins with a careful examination of the Scripture’s teaching on mission. It must move beyond a simple proof-texting of the “Great Commission” in Matthew (though the command to make disciples is important) as an excuse to leave the country. Rather, the whole narrative of Scripture, that points to Jesus’ example and command for self-abasing, cruciform love and service must be embodied.
Two accounts of Jesus’ teaching on mission, and the disciple’s role in mission, provide a starting place for this missional discussion. The first is in Luke 4:16-30. This passage is the central teaching on mission in Luke’s Gospel. This declaration of the centrality of Jesus' ministry to the poor, the setting aside of vengeance, and the mission to the Gentiles is primary.
In this announcement of Good News to the poor, he has in mind not just the financially disadvantaged, but also those deemed as pariahs by many in First-Century society, namely women, tax-collectors, and Samaritans. In a radical departure from the religious and societal barriers of the time, Jesus includes positive treatment for these otherwise shunned groups. Such is the declaration of Jesus' mission. For Luke, the category of "poor" is not limited to financial position, but it is a social category that can be used to describe the disadvantaged, spiritual blind, oppressed and captives as illustrated in the discourse in the synagogue in Nazareth.
A second passage helpful for our discussion is found in the fourth Gospel. John's Gospel illustrates not only what the disciples are to do when demonstrating Jesus' teaching, but also how to do so. John records Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to the disciples and his announcement to them about this new reality of life: "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.'" (John 20:21) To understand the church’s role in mission, it is important to realize the “as” of Jesus’ message as a command to emulate his example as the disciples are sent forth.
Missiologists often see three key points in this commissioning: 1) Jesus showed them the scars from his crucifixion wounds. As such, missioners, like all other Christian disciples, should not draw back from human suffering. Such suffering could not be as profound as the suffering Jesus endured.
2) It is significant that the disciples are sent "as" Jesus was sent by the Father. They are to go in the same way God sent Jesus. The disciples are now sent by Jesus. That means that his followers are to do the things he did, teach the way he taught, and to the people he sought.
3) Jesus breathed on the disciples as they received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who will empower them to teach, to suffer, and to serve as he has just commanded. From fulfilling the Old Testament admonishments in Micah to love mercy, do justly, and love God to the commission of Jesus to "go" and serve "as" the Father sent him, Christians must respond to the needs of others. This must be done not only in transnational contexts, but in local contexts as well.
Wesleyan theology embraces the all-encompassing focus of the Gospel of Matthew: that believers have a responsibility to share in the work of Christ in bringing a message of hope in this world, not just waiting for the next. The assertion that Luke's evangelism to the rich and poor alike should be a part of the missionary message is another area of intersection. John’s proclamation of the work of the kingdom and Paul’s notion of the urgency of the timeliness of mission are both important premises for a Wesleyan mission theology. Such biblical motivations are foundational to Wesleyan mission. Leaders of STM should actively, consistently, and robustly engage a biblical theology of mission to shape all of their practices. Only then will the current practice of a personal and communal pilgrimage, framed as a STM trip, be replaced with a lifestyle of mission that reflects Scripture’s teaching.
I am not suggesting that people stop traveling, stop serving, or stop learning. Quite the opposite. However, STM is failing to realize its potential due to a lack of robust theological reflection by its leaders and participants. When the practice moves away from pilgrimage towards a more biblical practice of mission, it can begin to embrace such possibilities. Mission, including STM, properly understood and practiced, takes place when every self-abasing desire of the individual Christian, every program of the church, and the orientation of her leaders is consumed by the Mission of God.
As I have pointed out previously, there is a lack of direct engagement with scriptural teaching on mission used by United Methodist STM teams. When this occurs, that vacuum is filled by cultural influences. In a cultural that highly prizes touristic experiences, we should not be surprised that STM has been shaped, then, to resemble the American tourist culture in which it was founded.
There has been, largely, a void of theological work in STM. Training in STM is largely absent in seminary and theological education. As a result, that void has been filled with many well-meaning, faithful Christians who have acted without proper theological direction from their leadership.
Rather than simply treat some of the symptoms of STM, it is necessary to treat the root cause of the problem. Theologies shape motivations, and motivations shape actions. If we want to change the actions on a STM, a sound Wesleyan theology of mission must be taught at every level. Only then can lasting change occur.
Such a work begins with a careful examination of the Scripture’s teaching on mission. It must move beyond a simple proof-texting of the “Great Commission” in Matthew (though the command to make disciples is important) as an excuse to leave the country. Rather, the whole narrative of Scripture, that points to Jesus’ example and command for self-abasing, cruciform love and service must be embodied.
Two accounts of Jesus’ teaching on mission, and the disciple’s role in mission, provide a starting place for this missional discussion. The first is in Luke 4:16-30. This passage is the central teaching on mission in Luke’s Gospel. This declaration of the centrality of Jesus' ministry to the poor, the setting aside of vengeance, and the mission to the Gentiles is primary.
In this announcement of Good News to the poor, he has in mind not just the financially disadvantaged, but also those deemed as pariahs by many in First-Century society, namely women, tax-collectors, and Samaritans. In a radical departure from the religious and societal barriers of the time, Jesus includes positive treatment for these otherwise shunned groups. Such is the declaration of Jesus' mission. For Luke, the category of "poor" is not limited to financial position, but it is a social category that can be used to describe the disadvantaged, spiritual blind, oppressed and captives as illustrated in the discourse in the synagogue in Nazareth.
A second passage helpful for our discussion is found in the fourth Gospel. John's Gospel illustrates not only what the disciples are to do when demonstrating Jesus' teaching, but also how to do so. John records Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to the disciples and his announcement to them about this new reality of life: "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.'" (John 20:21) To understand the church’s role in mission, it is important to realize the “as” of Jesus’ message as a command to emulate his example as the disciples are sent forth.
Missiologists often see three key points in this commissioning: 1) Jesus showed them the scars from his crucifixion wounds. As such, missioners, like all other Christian disciples, should not draw back from human suffering. Such suffering could not be as profound as the suffering Jesus endured.
2) It is significant that the disciples are sent "as" Jesus was sent by the Father. They are to go in the same way God sent Jesus. The disciples are now sent by Jesus. That means that his followers are to do the things he did, teach the way he taught, and to the people he sought.
3) Jesus breathed on the disciples as they received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who will empower them to teach, to suffer, and to serve as he has just commanded. From fulfilling the Old Testament admonishments in Micah to love mercy, do justly, and love God to the commission of Jesus to "go" and serve "as" the Father sent him, Christians must respond to the needs of others. This must be done not only in transnational contexts, but in local contexts as well.
Wesleyan theology embraces the all-encompassing focus of the Gospel of Matthew: that believers have a responsibility to share in the work of Christ in bringing a message of hope in this world, not just waiting for the next. The assertion that Luke's evangelism to the rich and poor alike should be a part of the missionary message is another area of intersection. John’s proclamation of the work of the kingdom and Paul’s notion of the urgency of the timeliness of mission are both important premises for a Wesleyan mission theology. Such biblical motivations are foundational to Wesleyan mission. Leaders of STM should actively, consistently, and robustly engage a biblical theology of mission to shape all of their practices. Only then will the current practice of a personal and communal pilgrimage, framed as a STM trip, be replaced with a lifestyle of mission that reflects Scripture’s teaching.
I am not suggesting that people stop traveling, stop serving, or stop learning. Quite the opposite. However, STM is failing to realize its potential due to a lack of robust theological reflection by its leaders and participants. When the practice moves away from pilgrimage towards a more biblical practice of mission, it can begin to embrace such possibilities. Mission, including STM, properly understood and practiced, takes place when every self-abasing desire of the individual Christian, every program of the church, and the orientation of her leaders is consumed by the Mission of God.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Robert Haynes: Why Aren’t Short-Term Mission Teams Using the Bible?
Today’s post is by Rev. Dr. Robert Ellis Haynes, Director of Education & Leadership at World Methodist Evangelism. It is adapted from excerpts from his book Consuming Mission: Towards a Theology of Short-Term Mission and Pilgrimage (Wipf and Stock, 2018). It is part of an on-going UM & Global series on UMVIM and short-term mission.
As a part of my in-depth research in the United Methodist short-term mission (hereafter STM), I interviewed teams to learn more of their motivations for mission service. One question I asked was about the biblical passages and/or verses that informed their mission service. When I posed the question, I expected it to be one of the easiest for team leaders and team members to answer. However, the question brought a level of discomfort for many.
None of the teams in my field research, all of whom were sponsored by United Methodist Churches, reported using an intentional Bible study or mission curriculum before, during, or after their trip. Even some seasoned veterans had trouble providing common passages associated with mission. This trickled down to their team members in terms of the lack of intentional Bible study for their mission teams.
This lack of Scripture in explaining mission is very telling and reflects problems with denominational resources. Consider that the UMVIM Team Leader Handbook does not offer a section on biblical or theological reflection of mission, only a suggestion to download a twenty-five-page devotional guide from their website. In the list of "best practices," the recommendation of "Spiritual Formation" is listed last behind logistical considerations.[1]
A comparable resource offered for volunteers is similarly problematic. A Mission Journey: A Handbook for Volunteers is the resource offered from The United Methodist Church's chief mission agency: the General Board of Global Ministries. This work should be commended for utilizing Scripture more so than the Team Leader Handbook. The material does attempt to articulate a theology of mission aimed at the level of the STM practitioner.
Yet, problems remain. The biblical material seemed to point to the enticement for "Volunteer Mission Experiences and Spiritual Transformation."[2] For example,
"United Methodist Volunteers in Mission (UMVIM) Experiences offer a unique context for spiritual transformation.... [W]e often become so immersed in our busy schedules and the noisy demands of our daily lives that we neglect to care for our souls. The act of going to a different place and leaving our ordinary lives behind may open us to hear God speaking to us."[3]
Such sentiments are firmly couched in the idealization of STM as personal edification. Service billed as mission but aimed at self-fulfilling spiritual growth does not conform to a biblical Wesleyan theology of mission. However, it is interesting that no teams in my research reported using these materials but echoed these sentiments.
A Mission Journey should be affirmed for seeking to articulate a theology for all of mission, including STM, with the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries' Mission Theology statement. Though this statement does include language that alludes to biblical messages, there is no explicit instruction to use Scripture as a directive for mission. Additionally, the "Best Practices for UMVIM/VIM (Sending and Hosting Teams)" only lists logistical and cultural concerns, not a directive for scriptural engagement.[4] Even in The United Methodist Church's key mission agencies' statements of mission, biblical engagement was not primary.
Since the Bible is not a significant part of mission training for team leaders or their team members, it may be expected that STMers had difficulties discussing their work with biblical motivations. When teaching a biblical theology for mission is not the primary task for mission leaders and their team members, cultural influences will take over the space theology should occupy. As a result, the wide-spread practice of crafting a meaningful experience for the participant, so predominant in American touristic culture, becomes the driving force for service activities done in the name of mission. Such is the danger of allowing cultural influences to shape ecclesial practice when something other than Scripture becomes the driving force in these activities. Yet, a proper understanding of the role of church, mission, the Kingdom of God, and the missio Dei cannot be found outside of Scripture.
Perhaps the ongoing Wesleyan/Methodist movement can embrace the lessons of its origin to catch a glimpse of its participation in the missio Dei and to do so in the mutual accountability of clergy and laity. Key components of the work of the missio Dei in the current context will include a biblical understanding of a radical solidarity between the missionary and those served, an embracing of the world as the parish, and a recognition that all are poor in some way. This is particularly true for the growing movement of United Methodist STM. Its leaders must assess their priorities in formation of the laity to admonish John Wesley’s call to "labour to do good...as of the ability which God giveth."
In my final post in this series, I will suggest a Wesleyan biblical theology of mission that STM leaders can use in shaping their congregations’ engagement in STM.
As a part of my in-depth research in the United Methodist short-term mission (hereafter STM), I interviewed teams to learn more of their motivations for mission service. One question I asked was about the biblical passages and/or verses that informed their mission service. When I posed the question, I expected it to be one of the easiest for team leaders and team members to answer. However, the question brought a level of discomfort for many.
None of the teams in my field research, all of whom were sponsored by United Methodist Churches, reported using an intentional Bible study or mission curriculum before, during, or after their trip. Even some seasoned veterans had trouble providing common passages associated with mission. This trickled down to their team members in terms of the lack of intentional Bible study for their mission teams.
This lack of Scripture in explaining mission is very telling and reflects problems with denominational resources. Consider that the UMVIM Team Leader Handbook does not offer a section on biblical or theological reflection of mission, only a suggestion to download a twenty-five-page devotional guide from their website. In the list of "best practices," the recommendation of "Spiritual Formation" is listed last behind logistical considerations.[1]
A comparable resource offered for volunteers is similarly problematic. A Mission Journey: A Handbook for Volunteers is the resource offered from The United Methodist Church's chief mission agency: the General Board of Global Ministries. This work should be commended for utilizing Scripture more so than the Team Leader Handbook. The material does attempt to articulate a theology of mission aimed at the level of the STM practitioner.
Yet, problems remain. The biblical material seemed to point to the enticement for "Volunteer Mission Experiences and Spiritual Transformation."[2] For example,
"United Methodist Volunteers in Mission (UMVIM) Experiences offer a unique context for spiritual transformation.... [W]e often become so immersed in our busy schedules and the noisy demands of our daily lives that we neglect to care for our souls. The act of going to a different place and leaving our ordinary lives behind may open us to hear God speaking to us."[3]
Such sentiments are firmly couched in the idealization of STM as personal edification. Service billed as mission but aimed at self-fulfilling spiritual growth does not conform to a biblical Wesleyan theology of mission. However, it is interesting that no teams in my research reported using these materials but echoed these sentiments.
A Mission Journey should be affirmed for seeking to articulate a theology for all of mission, including STM, with the United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries' Mission Theology statement. Though this statement does include language that alludes to biblical messages, there is no explicit instruction to use Scripture as a directive for mission. Additionally, the "Best Practices for UMVIM/VIM (Sending and Hosting Teams)" only lists logistical and cultural concerns, not a directive for scriptural engagement.[4] Even in The United Methodist Church's key mission agencies' statements of mission, biblical engagement was not primary.
Since the Bible is not a significant part of mission training for team leaders or their team members, it may be expected that STMers had difficulties discussing their work with biblical motivations. When teaching a biblical theology for mission is not the primary task for mission leaders and their team members, cultural influences will take over the space theology should occupy. As a result, the wide-spread practice of crafting a meaningful experience for the participant, so predominant in American touristic culture, becomes the driving force for service activities done in the name of mission. Such is the danger of allowing cultural influences to shape ecclesial practice when something other than Scripture becomes the driving force in these activities. Yet, a proper understanding of the role of church, mission, the Kingdom of God, and the missio Dei cannot be found outside of Scripture.
Perhaps the ongoing Wesleyan/Methodist movement can embrace the lessons of its origin to catch a glimpse of its participation in the missio Dei and to do so in the mutual accountability of clergy and laity. Key components of the work of the missio Dei in the current context will include a biblical understanding of a radical solidarity between the missionary and those served, an embracing of the world as the parish, and a recognition that all are poor in some way. This is particularly true for the growing movement of United Methodist STM. Its leaders must assess their priorities in formation of the laity to admonish John Wesley’s call to "labour to do good...as of the ability which God giveth."
In my final post in this series, I will suggest a Wesleyan biblical theology of mission that STM leaders can use in shaping their congregations’ engagement in STM.
[1] Team Leader Handbook (Birmingham, AL: United Methodist Volunteers in Mission, 2015), 6-7; Lyons, R. G. Preparing for the Journey: A Devotional Guide for Teams, 2015. Accessed September 15, 2016. http://umvim.org/send_a_team/usa/spiritual_formation.html.
[2] Jones, U. and J. Blankenbake. A Mission Journey: A Handbook for Volunteers (Nashville, TN: Upper Room, 2014), 17.
[3] A Mission Journey, 19.
[4] A Mission Journey, 145-49.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Mariama Seray B. Bockari – African Women and Mission, Part I
Today’s post contains the first of two parts of remarks prepared by Rev. Mariama Seray B. Bockari for the panel “African Women and Mission” at the Methodist Mission Bicentennial Conference. Rev. Bockari is a District Superintendent in the Sierra Leone Annual Conference.
The Almighty God and creator of humankind has engaged men and women in the past for the execution of His great programme of redemption. As He did in the past, so He is working through men and women today to show His great love to the lost. At creation, He made them male and female to compliment the effort of each other in the task He gave to them.
Having a purpose to accomplish on earth and having more work to do, God called men and women to be co-labourers with Him in the building of His church here on earth.
What is mission?
Mission means sending or to be sent. Christ came to seek and to save the lost, and He called His church to join Him in this. This is mission.
To be called to mission work is one of the highest callings one can receive. It is a sacred responsibility and should be considered a privilege to become partners with God.
The call to mission is not a preference among alternatives. It is a militant command that requires immediate action. It is usually clear and distinct. And those who are called have some knowledge about or are captured by something beyond human comprehension, e.g., Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3: 4-6), Elijah in the cave (1 Kings 19: 9-15), or Saul’s encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9: 1-8).
Friends, the God who called in biblical times is still calling people today. From nothing, God made those called to be something, and those who were called were empowered for mission work. Their focus and emphasis in ministry remain unchangeable.
The role of women in the plan of redemption
Although the first sin came through a woman, yet to fulfill God’s plan for redemption, the Saviour came through a woman.
In the Old Testament, women were not relegated to the background of the home and domestic work. They held prominent positions in the church and society.
Deborah was a judge and prophetess in Israel (Judges 4:4). Hulda was a prophetess and spiritual leader (2 Kings 22:14). Esther was queen in Susa (Esther 4: 15-17). Abigail was a woman with brain and beauty (1 Sam. 25:3). All these and Anna (Luke 2: 36-38) are examples of women who influenced their generation positively.
In the New Testament, women also influenced prominent places and situations. In the gospel, we read of several women messengers who proclaimed the Good News (Matt. 2: 1-10; Luke 24: 9-12; John 4:28-30 and 20: 16-18).
In Romans 16, we have records of a number of women who served the Lord in various churches: Phoebe (Romans 16: 1-2), Priscilla (v3-5), Mary and Tryphena. Priscilla was specifically used of God to touch lives of people in Rome, Greece and Asia Minor. She housed Paul, led a home cell group and was assigned by Paul to disciple Apollos (Acts 18:21). Priscilla’s role in cross-cultural service was perceived by Paul as unique.
In contemporary times, women like Martin Luther King’s wife Coretta Scott King, Florence Booth and Mary Slessor have made remarkable positive influences on their husbands, their children and the entire world.
What is the role of United Methodist Church women in relation to this?
Since the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968, which led to the development of The United Methodist Church, women have been active in mission work. Many people agree that the more difficult and dangerous the work, the more women volunteer to do it, and The United Methodist Church and United Methodist Church women are no exception to this. They have demonstrated a holistic approach with emphasis on both evangelism and meeting human needs.
They have shown a deep commitment and concern to other women and children. Medical work and economic structures were commonly the focus of their work.
Today, some of the ministries of the women in The United Methodist Church include:
For the purpose of reaching others for Christ, today’s women can emulate the women in both the Old and New Testament by using their:
The role of women in mission and the evangelization of Africa specifically is becoming more and more important as we approach the end of the age. These include:
The Almighty God and creator of humankind has engaged men and women in the past for the execution of His great programme of redemption. As He did in the past, so He is working through men and women today to show His great love to the lost. At creation, He made them male and female to compliment the effort of each other in the task He gave to them.
Having a purpose to accomplish on earth and having more work to do, God called men and women to be co-labourers with Him in the building of His church here on earth.
What is mission?
Mission means sending or to be sent. Christ came to seek and to save the lost, and He called His church to join Him in this. This is mission.
To be called to mission work is one of the highest callings one can receive. It is a sacred responsibility and should be considered a privilege to become partners with God.
The call to mission is not a preference among alternatives. It is a militant command that requires immediate action. It is usually clear and distinct. And those who are called have some knowledge about or are captured by something beyond human comprehension, e.g., Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3: 4-6), Elijah in the cave (1 Kings 19: 9-15), or Saul’s encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9: 1-8).
Friends, the God who called in biblical times is still calling people today. From nothing, God made those called to be something, and those who were called were empowered for mission work. Their focus and emphasis in ministry remain unchangeable.
The role of women in the plan of redemption
Although the first sin came through a woman, yet to fulfill God’s plan for redemption, the Saviour came through a woman.
In the Old Testament, women were not relegated to the background of the home and domestic work. They held prominent positions in the church and society.
Deborah was a judge and prophetess in Israel (Judges 4:4). Hulda was a prophetess and spiritual leader (2 Kings 22:14). Esther was queen in Susa (Esther 4: 15-17). Abigail was a woman with brain and beauty (1 Sam. 25:3). All these and Anna (Luke 2: 36-38) are examples of women who influenced their generation positively.
In the New Testament, women also influenced prominent places and situations. In the gospel, we read of several women messengers who proclaimed the Good News (Matt. 2: 1-10; Luke 24: 9-12; John 4:28-30 and 20: 16-18).
In Romans 16, we have records of a number of women who served the Lord in various churches: Phoebe (Romans 16: 1-2), Priscilla (v3-5), Mary and Tryphena. Priscilla was specifically used of God to touch lives of people in Rome, Greece and Asia Minor. She housed Paul, led a home cell group and was assigned by Paul to disciple Apollos (Acts 18:21). Priscilla’s role in cross-cultural service was perceived by Paul as unique.
In contemporary times, women like Martin Luther King’s wife Coretta Scott King, Florence Booth and Mary Slessor have made remarkable positive influences on their husbands, their children and the entire world.
What is the role of United Methodist Church women in relation to this?
Since the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church in 1968, which led to the development of The United Methodist Church, women have been active in mission work. Many people agree that the more difficult and dangerous the work, the more women volunteer to do it, and The United Methodist Church and United Methodist Church women are no exception to this. They have demonstrated a holistic approach with emphasis on both evangelism and meeting human needs.
They have shown a deep commitment and concern to other women and children. Medical work and economic structures were commonly the focus of their work.
Today, some of the ministries of the women in The United Methodist Church include:
- Teaching, counseling and leading of other women (Titus 2:25)
- Women’s prayer meeting (Acts 16: 12-15)
- Ministry of visitation (Matt. 25:36; James 1:27)
- Ministry of hospitality (2 Kings 4: 8-10; Hebrews 13:2; Timothy 5:10)
- Ministry of singing (Ex. 15: 20-21)
- Ministry of soul winning (Matt. 28: 18-20; Mark 16:15; Joshua 4: 28-30)
For the purpose of reaching others for Christ, today’s women can emulate the women in both the Old and New Testament by using their:
- Meals: Friends and neighbours could be invited to our homes, during which we share our testimonies (Acts 2: 46-47).
- Homes: Women can offer their homes for meeting places.
- Talents: We can use our talents to help the poor and needy in the church by teaching them to do petty trading and craft to learn their living. Women can organize lessons for school children and illiterates as a minimal cost with the hope of winning them to the Lord.
- Substances: Women can use their money and materials to help pastors, believers and unbelievers.
The role of women in mission and the evangelization of Africa specifically is becoming more and more important as we approach the end of the age. These include:
- Ministry to children and youths. Many of the children and youths are wayward, drug addicts and prostitutes. Women of the church can volunteer to care for and teach others the way of salvation that will qualify them for leadership roles in the future.
- Ministry of hospitality, comfort and visitation. Women should provide care and comfort to the bereaved, orphans, widows, aged, poor and needy, sick and handicapped.
- Prison ministry. The women who are confined to the prison need our love and the gospel to set them free.
- Ministry to rural people. The primitive and illiterate who live in villages are more open to women than men. The woman can learn their languages and reach out to them.
- Ministry to social misfits. Singles, mothers and prostitutes get discouraged and frustrated because of the hardship and harshness they are exposed to. Church women are more suited for ministering to this category of persons.
- The population of women is about half or more of the population of the world. Multitudes of these women have peculiar needs that attract special attention, which can best be handled by women.
- Women by nature have caring, compassionate qualities and experience, which better provide them the opportunities to counsel on sensitive areas in the lives of women.
- The outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh shows that God will not waste His gift on women if it is not needed (Joel 2: 28-29).
- Women are better equipped with love, gentleness, tenderness and knowledge needed to reach millions of children in the world and lead them in the right direction of Christ.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Heinrich Bolleter: Experiences in Multicultural Community
Today's post is by Heinrich Bolleter, retired bishop of the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference. The article first appeared in German on Rev. Bolleter's personal blog. Translation is by UM & Global's David Scott.
A "multicultural community": for many, that rather sounds like an exotic concept.
I have experienced the reality of churches that are multicultural already for 25 years in my service as bishop of Central and Southern Europe. For instance, in Voivodina, Serbia, there are churches in which Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Ukranians, and so-called Danube Swabians lived with one another. In North Africa, there are churches in which Kabyle people, French, and black Africans, who had immigrated from the south beyond the Sahara, lived together.
With the new wave of migration in Europe, we also speak of a growing number of multicultural communities. With us in Aarau, we have many colors and cultures in our church services: Asians, Africans, and Swiss. Alongside this, an Arabic-speaking congregation has formed. I would exaggerate if I said that this community ran along under one church roof without tensions. We learn the right approach to one another. Experiences of respect and acceptance arise in lively and sustained exchange with one another.
In the United Methodist Church (EmK) in Switzerland, we have two classical models:
1. The integration model - the joint congregation
The first model strives to integrate speakers of other languages into the local congregation, that is to say, to be and form church together with in-migrating people and groups. That is a large challenge, not only in common worship, which requires translation capacities and the desire to operate on a larger bandwith, but also a broadly supported openness to interpersonal contacts and intercultural experiences. Thus can a "we-feeling" develop in a multicultural congregation. Despite linguistic barriers, the multicultural community can avoid social isolation of immigrants by taking great joy in interacting with them. Stephen Moll writes about an experience in Baden: "Relationships and friendships are central. Cooking and eating together is a wonderful way to meet at eye-level. We also involve the asylum-seekers in the responsibilities for the life of the congregation." (Column in «mein TDS» 2018/30, page 14).
2. The migrant congregation
Language is not the only reason for forming a separate migrant congregation. It is a deep desire for "home" in a foreign land and in a foreign culture. The question arises whether a migrant congregation is a congregation for a limited time or one of lasting institutional size? It is said that the children of immigrants rather tend to be Swiss and join the group of Swiss congregations. The third generation of immigrants will likely think again of their roots in their family's country of origin. Migrant congregations are therefore being visited by members of the third generation of immigrants, although they could easily integrate into the multicultural "Swiss congregations." The migrant congregation remains a place of "safety," a refuge, where one can absorb the culture shock. The migrant congregation remains a great help against the emotional and social isolation of the immigrants. The characteristic quality of a migrant congregation is "here we are like a family." Here I point to the book of an Arabic friend of Jörg Niederer's, Usama Al-Shamani. It received the sponsorship prize of the city of Frauenfeld. His book bears the title, In the Foreign Place, the Trees Speak Arabic ("In der Fremde sprechen die Bäume arabisch").
Multicultural Experiences - Biblical Models
The question of biblical models leads us to the conclusion that multiculturalism in the church is not a modern phenomenon. The Bible is full of multicultural experiences.
Migration is present in the reports of the Old Testament and the New Testament. That helps us see today's churches with new eyes.
What I have seen in church and society has sensitized me to read anew these texts in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. I have discovered that God has frequently led the people into intercultural experiences to allow them to grow and mature in life and to strengthen and distinguish themselves in their service.
God's call made the people in biblical times into boundary-crossers and bridge-builders between cultures.
I now point out here examples of how God led people across their own boundaries of ethnicity and culture to prepare them for and summon them to service.
Moses, who was commissioned by God as the "savior of the people of Israel from Egypt," is a dramatic example of how God works across the boundaries of culture. Moses was born as a Hebrew and raised in the court of the Pharoah in Egypt. On his flight into the land of Midian, he married a foreigner, Zippora, the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian.
Moses spoke with an accent. He was an outsider to the Egyptians and also to the Hebrews. His "yes" to God's commission made him into the leader on the flight from Egypt.
Naomi and Ruth: Naomi and Elimelech emigrate from their home into the land of the Moabites. The reason was a famine. Her husband and both sons die. So she leaves with her daughter-in-law Ruth, a Midianite, to return to the Promised Land. Through marriage with Boaz, Ruth became a mother and a limb in the family tree of the Messiah.
In the New Testament, it is Jesus who, in a multicultural world divided by religion, crosses the boundaries of religion and culture in the name of God. He went physically across the boundaries into gentile territory and thereby broke a taboo of the Jewish community. He spoke to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well and thereby broke through the social, cultural, and religious rules of his time. This behavior as "boundary-crosser" was a hallmark of his way and service. Many more examples could be compiled.
The Acts of the Apostles reports how the growing number of Christian congregations must wrestle with whether they can - or should - reflect multicultural society (especially in urban areas). Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women, rich and poor, joined the Christian communities. Through the Passover event and the mission command, the communities in Jerusalem and Antioch became multi-ethnic and multilingual. The Apostle Peter confessed: "Now I am learning in reality that God does not regard the person. Instead, persons from every people group are pleasing to him, if they fear him" (Acts 10). So what is the distinctive mark of a Christian community? Not nationality, not uniform culture or equal social standing, but faith in Jesus Christ alone is the definitive bond of the community.
In the net of relationships among natives and foreigners, among the various ethnicities and cultural expressions, we seek our identity today as a multicultural congregation following Jesus.
Open Doors for Multicultural Encounters
Multiculturalism was already in biblical ages the normal case. Here are two more reminisces:
In the booklet of daily watchwords of the [Moravian] Brethren, a prayer from Africa reads, "Lord Jesus Christ, you were born of a Hebrew mother. Babylonian wisemen paid homage to you. You were full of joy at the belief of a Syrian woman and a Roman captain. An African carried your cross. We thank you, that we may belong to you. Help us to bring people of all races and nations into your reign as co-heirs." A living fellowship, which follows this Jesus, must have open doors for all. Article 4 of the constitution of our church also holds fast this point: "All, without regard to race, color, national origin, status and social position should participate in the life of the church and receive the sacraments."
By the way, the United Methodist Church has always grown the fastest among migrants and people on the edges of society. Our mission therefore does not allow national, political, and other loyalties to limit unity in Christ. If God loves life, then Others are not excluded. We need a "church-with-one-another" which makes a contribution to reconciliation among people. Experiences of respect and acceptance are rooted in lively and sustained exchange.
A "multicultural community": for many, that rather sounds like an exotic concept.
I have experienced the reality of churches that are multicultural already for 25 years in my service as bishop of Central and Southern Europe. For instance, in Voivodina, Serbia, there are churches in which Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Ukranians, and so-called Danube Swabians lived with one another. In North Africa, there are churches in which Kabyle people, French, and black Africans, who had immigrated from the south beyond the Sahara, lived together.
With the new wave of migration in Europe, we also speak of a growing number of multicultural communities. With us in Aarau, we have many colors and cultures in our church services: Asians, Africans, and Swiss. Alongside this, an Arabic-speaking congregation has formed. I would exaggerate if I said that this community ran along under one church roof without tensions. We learn the right approach to one another. Experiences of respect and acceptance arise in lively and sustained exchange with one another.
In the United Methodist Church (EmK) in Switzerland, we have two classical models:
1. The integration model - the joint congregation
The first model strives to integrate speakers of other languages into the local congregation, that is to say, to be and form church together with in-migrating people and groups. That is a large challenge, not only in common worship, which requires translation capacities and the desire to operate on a larger bandwith, but also a broadly supported openness to interpersonal contacts and intercultural experiences. Thus can a "we-feeling" develop in a multicultural congregation. Despite linguistic barriers, the multicultural community can avoid social isolation of immigrants by taking great joy in interacting with them. Stephen Moll writes about an experience in Baden: "Relationships and friendships are central. Cooking and eating together is a wonderful way to meet at eye-level. We also involve the asylum-seekers in the responsibilities for the life of the congregation." (Column in «mein TDS» 2018/30, page 14).
2. The migrant congregation
Language is not the only reason for forming a separate migrant congregation. It is a deep desire for "home" in a foreign land and in a foreign culture. The question arises whether a migrant congregation is a congregation for a limited time or one of lasting institutional size? It is said that the children of immigrants rather tend to be Swiss and join the group of Swiss congregations. The third generation of immigrants will likely think again of their roots in their family's country of origin. Migrant congregations are therefore being visited by members of the third generation of immigrants, although they could easily integrate into the multicultural "Swiss congregations." The migrant congregation remains a place of "safety," a refuge, where one can absorb the culture shock. The migrant congregation remains a great help against the emotional and social isolation of the immigrants. The characteristic quality of a migrant congregation is "here we are like a family." Here I point to the book of an Arabic friend of Jörg Niederer's, Usama Al-Shamani. It received the sponsorship prize of the city of Frauenfeld. His book bears the title, In the Foreign Place, the Trees Speak Arabic ("In der Fremde sprechen die Bäume arabisch").
Multicultural Experiences - Biblical Models
The question of biblical models leads us to the conclusion that multiculturalism in the church is not a modern phenomenon. The Bible is full of multicultural experiences.
Migration is present in the reports of the Old Testament and the New Testament. That helps us see today's churches with new eyes.
What I have seen in church and society has sensitized me to read anew these texts in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. I have discovered that God has frequently led the people into intercultural experiences to allow them to grow and mature in life and to strengthen and distinguish themselves in their service.
God's call made the people in biblical times into boundary-crossers and bridge-builders between cultures.
I now point out here examples of how God led people across their own boundaries of ethnicity and culture to prepare them for and summon them to service.
Moses, who was commissioned by God as the "savior of the people of Israel from Egypt," is a dramatic example of how God works across the boundaries of culture. Moses was born as a Hebrew and raised in the court of the Pharoah in Egypt. On his flight into the land of Midian, he married a foreigner, Zippora, the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian.
Moses spoke with an accent. He was an outsider to the Egyptians and also to the Hebrews. His "yes" to God's commission made him into the leader on the flight from Egypt.
Naomi and Ruth: Naomi and Elimelech emigrate from their home into the land of the Moabites. The reason was a famine. Her husband and both sons die. So she leaves with her daughter-in-law Ruth, a Midianite, to return to the Promised Land. Through marriage with Boaz, Ruth became a mother and a limb in the family tree of the Messiah.
In the New Testament, it is Jesus who, in a multicultural world divided by religion, crosses the boundaries of religion and culture in the name of God. He went physically across the boundaries into gentile territory and thereby broke a taboo of the Jewish community. He spoke to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well and thereby broke through the social, cultural, and religious rules of his time. This behavior as "boundary-crosser" was a hallmark of his way and service. Many more examples could be compiled.
The Acts of the Apostles reports how the growing number of Christian congregations must wrestle with whether they can - or should - reflect multicultural society (especially in urban areas). Jew and Greek, slave and free, men and women, rich and poor, joined the Christian communities. Through the Passover event and the mission command, the communities in Jerusalem and Antioch became multi-ethnic and multilingual. The Apostle Peter confessed: "Now I am learning in reality that God does not regard the person. Instead, persons from every people group are pleasing to him, if they fear him" (Acts 10). So what is the distinctive mark of a Christian community? Not nationality, not uniform culture or equal social standing, but faith in Jesus Christ alone is the definitive bond of the community.
In the net of relationships among natives and foreigners, among the various ethnicities and cultural expressions, we seek our identity today as a multicultural congregation following Jesus.
Open Doors for Multicultural Encounters
Multiculturalism was already in biblical ages the normal case. Here are two more reminisces:
In the booklet of daily watchwords of the [Moravian] Brethren, a prayer from Africa reads, "Lord Jesus Christ, you were born of a Hebrew mother. Babylonian wisemen paid homage to you. You were full of joy at the belief of a Syrian woman and a Roman captain. An African carried your cross. We thank you, that we may belong to you. Help us to bring people of all races and nations into your reign as co-heirs." A living fellowship, which follows this Jesus, must have open doors for all. Article 4 of the constitution of our church also holds fast this point: "All, without regard to race, color, national origin, status and social position should participate in the life of the church and receive the sacraments."
By the way, the United Methodist Church has always grown the fastest among migrants and people on the edges of society. Our mission therefore does not allow national, political, and other loyalties to limit unity in Christ. If God loves life, then Others are not excluded. We need a "church-with-one-another" which makes a contribution to reconciliation among people. Experiences of respect and acceptance are rooted in lively and sustained exchange.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Recommended Reading: Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies Papers
This past August was the 14th meeting of the Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies. The theme for the 2018 meeting was "“THY GRACE RESTORE, THY WORK REVIVE”: Revival, Reform, and Revolution in Global Methodism." The meeting brought together scholars of Methodism from around the world, though especially from the British Isles and North America.
Papers from that Institute meeting are now available online.
Papers are grouped into eleven working groups, as follows:
1. Biblical Studies (Hebrew Bible / Old Testament)
2. Biblical Studies (New Testament)
3. Ecumenical Studies
4. Interreligious Studies
5. Methodist History
6. Mission and Evangelism
7. Practical Theology
8. Theological Education
9. Theology and Ethics
10. Wesley Studies
11. Worship and Spirituality
Just over 125 papers are included in the collection. This collection is sure to be a rich resource for those interested in learning more of the current state of academic conversations about various facets of Methodism.
Papers from that Institute meeting are now available online.
Papers are grouped into eleven working groups, as follows:
1. Biblical Studies (Hebrew Bible / Old Testament)
2. Biblical Studies (New Testament)
3. Ecumenical Studies
4. Interreligious Studies
5. Methodist History
6. Mission and Evangelism
7. Practical Theology
8. Theological Education
9. Theology and Ethics
10. Wesley Studies
11. Worship and Spirituality
Just over 125 papers are included in the collection. This collection is sure to be a rich resource for those interested in learning more of the current state of academic conversations about various facets of Methodism.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Robert Hunt: The Connection Between Text and Context, Part 3
Today's post is written by Dr. Robert Hunt, Director of Global Theological Education, Professor of Christian Mission and Interreligious Relations, and Director of the Center for Evangelism at Perkins School of Theology. It is the third of a three-part series on contextualization. Here are the first and the second parts of that series.
As the Church carries on its mission in a multi-cultural world, it is critical to understand what it has learned from its engagement with the Word about that world.
In the Bible human history begins with a generic human, Adam. This human is first separated into male and female, and then over endless generations into families, clans, tribes, and ethnic nations. Thousands of new peoples and cultures come into being, and notably God is with each, guiding its history. (Amos 9:7)
Part of the story of the generic human is the introduction of sin into human life. As a result, the story isn’t just about a happily growing diversity of cultures spreading away from Eden. It is also about how humans move further and further from what God intends for them.
What the story doesn’t tell us is how the sin which entered Adam’s life (Genesis 3) is perpetuated in the lives of Adam’s descendants. All we know is that is it ubiquitous, reappearing in every people and culture and manifesting itself in behavior characterized as “unrighteous.” So one thing we know about the world we inhabit is that it is a realm in which sin is present.
The Bible also tells a story about differentiation and diversity. God’s fundamental command to Adam, reiterated to Noah, is “be fruitful and multiply and cover the face of the earth.” As humans are fruitful they quickly diversify, stopping only once (at Babel) to try consolidate themselves before God blows that plan apart and essentially forces them to spread and thus diversify.
After the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 the Old Testament increasingly focuses on the life of Israel as a community knowing God, beginning with Abraham and moving forward in narrowing circles to the original tribes from which the ethnic nation of Israel traced its descent. This focus on Israel is hardly surprising since the Israelites wrote the Old Testament. Naturally it is all about them and their special covenant with God.
But the story offers plenty of evidence that it isn’t the only story about God accompanying humanity, with Amos 9 being notable as well as Isaiah 19:19-23. Psalm 87:5 and many passages in Isaiah create a fascinating narrative arch, in which Zion becomes not only the final destination of all human nations but also somehow retrospectively their birthplace as well, the urquelle of their peoplehood. There are many human communities that know God, because despite sin (which in any case is found in both Israel and the Church) God is involved in every human society.
This story of finding God’s self-revelation among the nations, and indeed righteousness among the nations is continued in the story of Jesus, whom the gospels depict as continually coming into contact with God’s work outside of Israel. And this is ratified by Peter’s vision in Acts and the subsequent conversion of the gentiles to Christ. Those visions in Isaiah and the Psalms suddenly become much less eschatological dreams and far more a historical movement of discovery of God among the nations embodied in the Church.
Unfortunately, and I’ve documented much of this in my The Gospel Among the Nations: A Documentary History of Inculturation, the Church, imbued with the Roman exceptionalism that was part of its earliest cultural context, struggled to see God at work among the “barbarians” and “heathen” encountered on the edges of the empire. It was a struggle that continues to this day, now articulated in terms of the newly invented word “culture.” The concept of culture gives us the ability to talk about “inculturation” as a way of doing mission (a term which I and other missiologists have tended to use anachronistically.) It also gives us the ability to dismiss non-Christian cultures as lazy, ignorant, sinful, totalitarian, and so on. And unfortunately it can mislead us into believing that there is some divine “text” that can be separated from its cultural context, and that this cultural context can somehow be differentiated from its human community; a true distinction without a difference.
The concept of culture can become particularly problematic when we speak of “the gospel and culture." We mistakenly assume, as I suggest in Part 1, that these are two distinct things; the first needing to be expressed in terms comprehensible to the second. It is far more accurate to understand that the Church in its ongoing life in mission with God’s Word continually enters into dialogue with other bodies of human beings who have likewise been engaged in a life with God. The Church engaged with the Word enters into dialogue with others whose societies are also engaged with God in different ways. And this means that each has the possibility of learning things about God that it did not know. And of course each has the responsibility of questioning and rejecting so-called knowledge of God contradictory to its own ongoing encounter with the Divine.
Put in other words, “inculturation” isn’t planting the gospel in another culture, nor is it clothing the gospel in another culture. Inculturation is the emergence of new expressions of the Church's engagement with the Word arising out of the ongoing life of the church in mission.
One should not imagine that these new expressions are limited to matters of music, dress, language, and so on found in worship. They may be, as we find in Anselm’s doctrine of the atonement, a new way of speaking about Christ’s work on the Cross that couldn’t be conceptualized within the limitations of Greek and Roman culture.
Or they may be, as found in modern political theologies and the understanding of the equality of men and women, new ways of knowing what it means to be a human in society that couldn’t be conceptualized in the pre-modern culture of European Christendom. The United Methodist Social Principles Creed, for example, arises of the Methodist church engaged with God’s word in ongoing dialogue within modern societies, and it reaches conclusions impossible in European and American Christianity only a few hundred years earlier.
What makes this process of dialogue between the Church and the societies (and thus cultures) it encounters in mission both challenging and troubling is that our inner life of encounter with God’s Word can never give us complete confidence in our grasp of who God is and what God wants of us. At the same time God’s life with societies outside the church means we can never dismiss out of hand their insights into God’s righteousness. We may not always be right, and they may know things we don’t know. Thus, our only confidence, given the limits of our humanity and the ubiquity of sin, is confidence in God’s grace and forgiveness in Christ.
That is why we begin our worship with confession, placing ourselves in the context of our limited grasp of God’s righteousness and our ability to enact it. It is only after confession and absolution that we can meaningfully speak the words, “And now with the confidence of children of God. . .”
For many Christians, faced with the assaults of a contemporary society that denies God and worships its own self-sufficiency, engaging in dialogue within this sometimes-hostile culture is psychologically impossible. Being the Church engaged with the knowing of God outside the church is too difficult, too threatening, too complex. They are not prepared to open themselves to the possibilities that even an apparently hostile culture is a realm in which God’s Word is at work.
And that is okay. CS Lewis in his letters to Malcom on prayer noted that we are not all called to the front lines. There is a place for the keepers of the flame just as there is a place for those who bear it into the tempest to seek out the lost. There is a place for those who keep a warm hearth and welcome the refugees from modernity, as there is a place for those looking for new outcroppings of solid rock on which to build new houses of God. And for all there is the Word of God, abiding outside our doors even when we cannot recognize it.
Which means, and this is good news, that it is also abides within the Church even when we cannot see it within ourselves.
As the Church carries on its mission in a multi-cultural world, it is critical to understand what it has learned from its engagement with the Word about that world.
In the Bible human history begins with a generic human, Adam. This human is first separated into male and female, and then over endless generations into families, clans, tribes, and ethnic nations. Thousands of new peoples and cultures come into being, and notably God is with each, guiding its history. (Amos 9:7)
Part of the story of the generic human is the introduction of sin into human life. As a result, the story isn’t just about a happily growing diversity of cultures spreading away from Eden. It is also about how humans move further and further from what God intends for them.
What the story doesn’t tell us is how the sin which entered Adam’s life (Genesis 3) is perpetuated in the lives of Adam’s descendants. All we know is that is it ubiquitous, reappearing in every people and culture and manifesting itself in behavior characterized as “unrighteous.” So one thing we know about the world we inhabit is that it is a realm in which sin is present.
The Bible also tells a story about differentiation and diversity. God’s fundamental command to Adam, reiterated to Noah, is “be fruitful and multiply and cover the face of the earth.” As humans are fruitful they quickly diversify, stopping only once (at Babel) to try consolidate themselves before God blows that plan apart and essentially forces them to spread and thus diversify.
After the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11 the Old Testament increasingly focuses on the life of Israel as a community knowing God, beginning with Abraham and moving forward in narrowing circles to the original tribes from which the ethnic nation of Israel traced its descent. This focus on Israel is hardly surprising since the Israelites wrote the Old Testament. Naturally it is all about them and their special covenant with God.
But the story offers plenty of evidence that it isn’t the only story about God accompanying humanity, with Amos 9 being notable as well as Isaiah 19:19-23. Psalm 87:5 and many passages in Isaiah create a fascinating narrative arch, in which Zion becomes not only the final destination of all human nations but also somehow retrospectively their birthplace as well, the urquelle of their peoplehood. There are many human communities that know God, because despite sin (which in any case is found in both Israel and the Church) God is involved in every human society.
This story of finding God’s self-revelation among the nations, and indeed righteousness among the nations is continued in the story of Jesus, whom the gospels depict as continually coming into contact with God’s work outside of Israel. And this is ratified by Peter’s vision in Acts and the subsequent conversion of the gentiles to Christ. Those visions in Isaiah and the Psalms suddenly become much less eschatological dreams and far more a historical movement of discovery of God among the nations embodied in the Church.
Unfortunately, and I’ve documented much of this in my The Gospel Among the Nations: A Documentary History of Inculturation, the Church, imbued with the Roman exceptionalism that was part of its earliest cultural context, struggled to see God at work among the “barbarians” and “heathen” encountered on the edges of the empire. It was a struggle that continues to this day, now articulated in terms of the newly invented word “culture.” The concept of culture gives us the ability to talk about “inculturation” as a way of doing mission (a term which I and other missiologists have tended to use anachronistically.) It also gives us the ability to dismiss non-Christian cultures as lazy, ignorant, sinful, totalitarian, and so on. And unfortunately it can mislead us into believing that there is some divine “text” that can be separated from its cultural context, and that this cultural context can somehow be differentiated from its human community; a true distinction without a difference.
The concept of culture can become particularly problematic when we speak of “the gospel and culture." We mistakenly assume, as I suggest in Part 1, that these are two distinct things; the first needing to be expressed in terms comprehensible to the second. It is far more accurate to understand that the Church in its ongoing life in mission with God’s Word continually enters into dialogue with other bodies of human beings who have likewise been engaged in a life with God. The Church engaged with the Word enters into dialogue with others whose societies are also engaged with God in different ways. And this means that each has the possibility of learning things about God that it did not know. And of course each has the responsibility of questioning and rejecting so-called knowledge of God contradictory to its own ongoing encounter with the Divine.
Put in other words, “inculturation” isn’t planting the gospel in another culture, nor is it clothing the gospel in another culture. Inculturation is the emergence of new expressions of the Church's engagement with the Word arising out of the ongoing life of the church in mission.
One should not imagine that these new expressions are limited to matters of music, dress, language, and so on found in worship. They may be, as we find in Anselm’s doctrine of the atonement, a new way of speaking about Christ’s work on the Cross that couldn’t be conceptualized within the limitations of Greek and Roman culture.
Or they may be, as found in modern political theologies and the understanding of the equality of men and women, new ways of knowing what it means to be a human in society that couldn’t be conceptualized in the pre-modern culture of European Christendom. The United Methodist Social Principles Creed, for example, arises of the Methodist church engaged with God’s word in ongoing dialogue within modern societies, and it reaches conclusions impossible in European and American Christianity only a few hundred years earlier.
What makes this process of dialogue between the Church and the societies (and thus cultures) it encounters in mission both challenging and troubling is that our inner life of encounter with God’s Word can never give us complete confidence in our grasp of who God is and what God wants of us. At the same time God’s life with societies outside the church means we can never dismiss out of hand their insights into God’s righteousness. We may not always be right, and they may know things we don’t know. Thus, our only confidence, given the limits of our humanity and the ubiquity of sin, is confidence in God’s grace and forgiveness in Christ.
That is why we begin our worship with confession, placing ourselves in the context of our limited grasp of God’s righteousness and our ability to enact it. It is only after confession and absolution that we can meaningfully speak the words, “And now with the confidence of children of God. . .”
For many Christians, faced with the assaults of a contemporary society that denies God and worships its own self-sufficiency, engaging in dialogue within this sometimes-hostile culture is psychologically impossible. Being the Church engaged with the knowing of God outside the church is too difficult, too threatening, too complex. They are not prepared to open themselves to the possibilities that even an apparently hostile culture is a realm in which God’s Word is at work.
And that is okay. CS Lewis in his letters to Malcom on prayer noted that we are not all called to the front lines. There is a place for the keepers of the flame just as there is a place for those who bear it into the tempest to seek out the lost. There is a place for those who keep a warm hearth and welcome the refugees from modernity, as there is a place for those looking for new outcroppings of solid rock on which to build new houses of God. And for all there is the Word of God, abiding outside our doors even when we cannot recognize it.
Which means, and this is good news, that it is also abides within the Church even when we cannot see it within ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)