Category Archives: cross-cultural

Orange is more than just a shirt: It’s a call to live the life Jesus wants us to live!

Posted on by

I’m wearing an orange shirt today. This is because September 30 in Canada is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation aka Orange Shirt Day. One of the ways that this truth and reconciliation is remembered is through the wearing of an orange shirt. Even though I am far removed from Canada and haven’t lived there for any length of time for 26 years, the shirt that I put on today reminds me of two key aspects to what it means to be a follower of Jesus: Truth & Reconciliation.

I should point out before we continue that I do have skin in the game. One branch of my family has a long heritage of both First Nations and Metis peoples and I am a citizen of the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan. My Great-great-great grandfather, the Maškēkowak Rev. James Settee, spent his life ministering through Manitoba and Saskatchewan, introducing people to the good news of Jesus Christ and how that good news can help transform their lives.

If you’re a longtime reader of this blog, you’ll realize that these two words are a key aspect to how I think that we need to frame our lives and our engagement as Jesus followers. The whole framework — that we call the functional church — includes the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Values of God’s Kingdom, Loving God and Neighbour, and Truthtelling.

Orange Reminds Me of Truthtelling at Both the Political and Theological Levels

The first is through truthtelling. Jesus came not only to represent the truth, but to be the Truth. And part of this truth means we need to reflect on ourselves, on the way we think, and on the foundations we’ve built, and to find ways that God wants us to change these for the better. Unfortunately, in the history of Canada, Jesus’ followers have not always exhibited the kind of truth that Jesus would have us exhibit. (This is by no means limited to issues in Canada). One of the truths we need to face is that it’s difficult for us to tie up our political beliefs with our biblical beliefs. Sometimes we connect following Jesus to our adherence with a specific political party or political ideology. One of the truths that some of our founding fathers believed was that First Nations identity was bad and this needed to be changed into something good. Thus we have residential schools that were explicitly designed to “remove the Indian from the child.” This is all clearly documented in the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and also in quotes like this:

When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages; he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write his habits, and training and mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly pressed on myself, as the head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.

John A. MacDonald, 1883

This was not merely a political failure; it was a theological one. These political ideas, in turn, fostered and were justified by a flawed theology. What do I mean by that? There are several theological flaws at play here.

Flawed Understanding of Politics and Theology

The first, of course, is that it represents a marriage between politics and theology where political theory is prioritised over theology rather than the other way around. All of life needs to be informed by scripture.

Where do we see this today? It happens when we assume a political party’s platform is synonymous with God’s will, or when we dismiss a fellow believer’s faith because they vote differently.

Humans Were Created Originally Righteous

The Bible clearly teaches us that humans were originally created good. It was only after a specific choice to rebel that sin entered into the world. I’ve written a little bit about that here. That means we cannot look at people from another part of the world who may have different cultures or different languages or different political structures or different technological levels, and say that somehow because they’re not as developed as we are, they’re not worthy of receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ on their own terms. The message of Jesus must be communicated in a way that is understandable to them. There is no command in scripture for us to transform other peoples’ cultures for them. In fact, each person in each culture is called to do their own internal transformation as their own minds are renewed.

Recognizing that truth is the foundation for repentance, healing, and reconciliation.

Imago Dei

The very first words after the creation story in Genesis 1:27 declare that all peoples on the earth are in the image of God.

“So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.”

The very truths of the Bible condemn the attempts of others to erase languages, traditions, and identities as not only cruel, but also as a denial of Scripture itself. The Good News of Jesus Christ is not an attempt to replace a lost image, but rather a call for all peoples to be reconciled to God and, in that process, to restore and renew their own cultures in Christ, purifying and elevating what aligns with God’s truth and rejecting what does not (Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24).

The truth of the Bible is far from this idea and clearly teaches that the image of God was not erased by the Fall. Genesis 9:6 plainly states human life is sacred because people still bear God’s image. James 3:9 warns against cursing others because they still reflect God’s likeness. Paul describes men and women as God’s image-bearers in the present tense (1 Corinthians 11:7). The truth runs through the whole Bible: every person, every people, every culture carries this dignity.

One tragedy of the residential schools was deeply theological because of the idea that First Nations peoples were somehow less than fully human, or less than fully made in the image of God. This has been framed as “robbing communities and individuals of their cultural and spiritual identity.”

Heaven Will be Explicitly Multicultural

The truth of the matter is that God accepts people from every tribe, language, nation, and people in the world and each of these groups will be represented in heaven. There’s this great image from Revelation 7:9-10 that sees John open his eyes to the reality of the kingdom of God that contains all of these People.

“After this I saw a great crowd of people, too many to count, from every nation, tribe, clan, and language. They were standing before the seat of honor and before the Lamb, dressed in pure white regalia, holding palm tree branches in their hands. They lifted their voices and shouted, ‘The power to set us free and make us whole belongs to the Great Spirit who sits upon the seat of honor, and to the Lamb!’” Book of the Great Revealing 7:9-10

The truth is that we need to work towards a more intentional welcoming of people from all nations into God’s Kingdom, not as peoples whose cultures have been stripped away in favour of our own, but as peoples whose cultures express God’s goodness and love. Maybe these new perspectives will reveal to us that our own culture is flawed and in need of transformation. Unfortunately, for many, this is a very scary prospect because it means that we all need to admit our flaws and work towards repentance and restoration. The culture that we may want to protect; the way of life that we may want to preserve may in fact not be worth protecting or preserving because of their built-in flaws. Maybe instead of preservation we need to work towards growth.

This isn’t just a historical error. We see it when we dismiss other cultures as “unreached” because they lack Western infrastructure, or when we implicitly value some lives over others based on nationality, wealth, or social status.

Wearing Orange not only reminds me of my commitment to truth, it also reminds me of something else.

Orange Reminds Me Of Reconciliation

The second word that this orange shirt I’m wearing reminds me of is reconciliation. There is good news, even in light of the fact that we have made mistakes in the past there is good news because God is working to reconcile us to himself. He has even indicated that Jesus followers are to be agents of this reconciliation. We are to find ways to connect to God with people and people with God. We are to find ways to bring Hope to a world that is hopeless. We must find ways to help others be lifted up as they journey towards God.

But as I was reminded today, in conversation with my Spiritual Director Len Thompson, we may not always see the fruit that we are looking forward to. Len reminded me of Hebrews 11 and 12 where all of these great heroes of our faith worked very hard to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth, but they did not yet experience that kingdom during their own lifetimes. Each had a contribution to make to establishing the Kingdom but the establishment of that Kingdom supersedes any one lifetime or era. What’s especially significant for us today — as pointed out by Andrew Walls — is that we too are waiting to see that Kingdom established! This not only means that you and I each have our own contribution to make, it also means that our contributions are essential!

The legacy of this theological failure isn’t confined to history books. It echoes in the ongoing trauma of survivors, the systemic inequalities Indigenous people still face, and in our own complacency. So, what’s the next step for us, right now?

What’s the next step?

So, today, feel free to wear an orange shirt. But it’s not merely enough to just wear an orange shirt. We are called to be truth-tellers and reconcilers today, and this historical example shows us what happens when we fail that call. Here’s how we can live it out now.

  • How can I apply the truth of God to my life? To my society’s life? To my use of the land?
  • How can I be an agent of reconciliation today? Encourage individuals to return to a right relationship with God? Reshape my society so that it has a proper relationship with God? Improve my relationship with the land in a way that God desires?

Will you join me in being a truth teller? Will you join me in being an agent of reconciliation?

If Orange Shirt Day is painful for you, help is available. Call the 24-hour national Indian Residential Schools Crisis Line: 1 (800) 721-0066.

Babylon is Fallen: Is it Destruction… or Transformation?

Posted on by

We often focus on punishment and destruction when we think of evil. But the Bible reveals a more profound truth: God’s primary strategy is infiltration and transformation. From Manasseh to Babylon itself, God sends His people into broken systems and lives not to escape or destroy, but to redeem. Our calling isn’t to await the fall of our modern “Babylons,” but to actively participate in their restoration through faithful, everyday work—to plant crops in the cursed ground and pray for the peace of the city, believing that enemies can be turned into friends.

When I was younger, I was an aficionado of Resurrection Band. I even saw them in concert once at the Centennial Auditorium in Saskatoon and wore a signed T-shirt of theirs for many years. One of my favourite songs of theirs was entitled Babylon, which includes the bridge:

“I saw Babylon slowly start to burn
I heard the voices crying
Refusing ever to learn, Babylon”

The final line — that sticks in my mind until today — is “Babylon. Babylon is fallen!” This imagery hearkens back to the Revelation of John, where the great harlot, Babylon, the city that is opposed to God and works at spilling the blood of the Saints, is finally punished and destroyed. In the Bible, Babylon = evil.

I was mistaken for years in thinking that the only legitimate end for things that are evil like Babylon is punishment, as the song says. And part of me probably anticipated seeing this punishment enacted in my lifetime.

It’s part of our nature to want evil to be punished; especially evil committed against us by others. We’re not entirely excited when our own evils are called out and punished are we? But we like it when the bad guys lose and the good guys win — even if that means turning bad guys into Robin Hoods so that even worse guys can be punished.

But more recently I have come to realise that there are actually two destinations for things that are evil like Babylon. On the one hand, Babylon awaits destruction. Because after all, what does one do with their enemies? One fights against their enemies and seeks to defeat them. But is that what God does with his enemies? It seems that God instead enacts a plan so that his enemies strongholds are infiltrated by his people so that it becomes transformed and turned into something that is good.

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Languages

Babylon’s origin story is the tower of Babel, where God confused human languages so that people would spread around the world.

A commentary I recently read said the tower was an attempt by people on the Earth to fulfill God‘s promise of “all the nations being blessed.” Rather than relying upon God for that blessing, they decided to enact that blessing themselves. Perhaps that’s at the core of Babylon‘s label of being opposed to God.

Manasseh

Manasseh was one of the kings of Judah. He was a bad guy. 2 Chronicles 33 outlines the extent of the evils he intentionally implemented to the point that he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that they did more evil things than the nations that the Lord had destroyed when the Israelites arrived in the land” (2 Chronicles‬ ‭33‬:‭9‬‭).‬‬

As a result of this, God calls the army of Assyria to come and carry Manasseh off to his kingdom, where he experienced difficulty.

Then we read this amazing story in 2 Chronicles 33:

“When he experienced this distress, he begged the Lord his God to be kind and humbled himself in front of the God of his ancestors. He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord accepted his prayer and listened to his request. The Lord brought him back to his kingdom in Jerusalem. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God.”‬‬

Wow!

Jeremiah 29

In the book of Jeremiah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are confronted with a horrible reality. It seems that King Nebuchadnezzar, the Emperor of Babylon, will be successful in conquering their city and carrying them off into captivity. The book outlines Jeremiah’s prophetic words from God to help the people of Jerusalem face this horrible possibility.

Apart from the fact that being a prisoner of war is a horrible thing in and of itself, for the people of Israel this reality was especially difficult to accept because as far as they were concerned they were the people of God who had been blessed by being the owners of Jerusalem and the land of Israel around them. Their understanding was that this was a promise that God gave to them in perpetuity. And so for them to be carried away was almost an impossibility — their theology didn’t support that. In fact, Jeremiah was the sole prophet who prophesied that they would actually be carried off into captivity (verse?). All the other prophets of his time had convinced the people that they would not be carried off into captivity but that they would only be gone for a few weeks or months (verse?). One of Jeremiah’s tasks was to prepare the people for a lengthy captivity in Babylon. In fact, many of them would die in Babylon because the captivity would last for 70 years.

So, what were they supposed to be doing while they were in Babylon? They were supposed to infiltrate Babylon become a part of the fabric of Babylonian community; make their lives in Babylon the lives that God had called them to; they were to build houses, and they were to plant crops, and they were to get married and have children, and have their children get married. All of these things are things that new immigrants do when they come to a new place. Furthermore, they were also to pray for the blessing of the City.

What does Jeremiah 29 teach us about how God deals with evil places like Babylon? God sends people to infiltrate it so that Babylon too can be transformed from a place of evil to a place of goodness.

The Emperor who became a cow

Nebuchadnezzar the Great was the Emperor of Babylon but at a certain point in his life, God turned him into a cow! The point I want to emphasise here is that God chose to interact in an immersive way with the most powerful human king the world has ever seen. As the emperor of Babylon, he personified opposition to God — they called him the King of the Universe. Which is perhaps why God chose to allow his context to change from the most powerful human on th earth to a mere domesticated animal. Nebuchadnezzar’s worldview was deconstructed in a dramatic way but was then reconstructed into something better — he moved from being the so-called “King of the Universe” to submitting himself to the Universe’s True King!

Jesus

Jesus was all about freeing people from sin and the effects of sin in their lives. Jesus’ death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead ensured that we too would be saved from our sins and have eternal life. But Jesus is about more than merely saving us from death. He wants our lives on Earth to also be reflective of his life on Earth. He wants us to be his disciples. He wants us to be like him. He wants us to be holy. If he was merely interested in saving us after we died, what’s the point in talking about holiness?

One of the clues to Jesus’ purpose on earth can be found in Luke 4. In Luke 4, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth and is invited to speak in the synagogue. He stands up and asks them to read from Isaiah 61. According to the account, this is what was read:

“The Spirit of the Lord is with me. He has anointed me to tell the Good News to the poor. He has sent me  to announce forgiveness to the prisoners of sin and the restoring of sight to the blind, to forgive those who have been shattered by sin, to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus concludes his sermon with the words “today this scripture is fulfilled in your presence.”

Surprisingly, the congregation is enraged and wants to kill him. Why do they want to kill him? What’s so significant about these words that he’s saying? When Jesus said these words and when he referred to Isaiah 61 as being fulfilled in him, he was equating himself with God. The inhabitants of Nazareth who regularly attended synagogue knew the work of God was encapsulated in this passage from Isaiah 61.

This is something that we have often neglected is the evangelical church today. We’ve focused on the sweet by and by without thinking too much about the here and now. I realise that’s a generalisation and I generally try to avoid generalisation but if I look at my own journey I can see how at one time in my life I was very fascinated and fixated upon having the right theology and not so much about living a life that’s filled with good works. In fact, good works were identified as a bad thing in my early theology — something to be avoided — because they didn’t serve any purpose. At that stage in my theological development, any good thing that I tried to do was only self righteousness and was not of any benefit in salvation. What I avoided was understanding that we are created to do good works. We’re supposed to be good people. We’re supposed to do good things. We’re supposed to imitate the life Christ lived. This has nothing to do with our salvation, but is a result of our salvation. So my generalisation is based upon my own personal experience. I realise that your experience may be different than that, and if so then that’s wonderful.

What of the Flood or Sodom and Gomorrah?

There, sometimes a perception of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament of two different people. This perception typically identifies the God of the Old Testament as God of wrath and destruction, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love and peace and restoration. Of course we know this isn’t true. But then people point a certain events that happened in the Old Testament and say how can these be the actions of a loving God? Let’s look at a couple of things, including the story of the flood with Noah and the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

God went to extraordinary extremes to save Noah — the man who found grace in his eyes. Noah testified for 100 years. He lived his righteous life faithfully obeying God’s command to build a ship to save the people of earth from the flood he was going to send. Noah is an agent of salvation for the people of the earth. The flood is not necessarily an event that will destroy them — all they have to do is get on the ship. If they don’t then that’s on them. Isn’t it? This was Noah’s message to the world every day for 100 years.

Abram’s nephew Lot was given a choice of where he wanted to live. He chose to live in the lowlands because the land was richer. Note that this choice didn’t make Lot a bad man but it does lead us to ask the question of how successful Lot would become in the lowlands. We already know he was a successful farmer and business man — would this success follow him? We end up discovering that Lot was not as successful as he might have been because he wasn’t able to have a positive influence on the place he chose to live. We don’t know why this is but it’s clear that his presence in that city wasn’t enough to even influence 10 people to join the path of righteousness. Is that because Lot neglected his role? Is that because the people of the area were unwilling to listen to his message? We are explicitly told the answer but the fact that in the end God saves Lot and his family while fire rains down from the sky implies that those consumed had also made their own choices.

The Psalms provide us with a rationale for why there is war between God and humans in the Old Testament. Psalm 2:1 asks the question, “Why do the nations plot?” And it seems to me that the fact that there is a plot implies an explicit and intended opposition to God. This is a planned event. “We will be in rebellion against who God is.” We’ve talked about the tower of Babel. We’ve talked about Manasseh. We’ve talked about Babylon. We’ve talked about Nebuchadnezzar.

The best argument against claims that the God of the Old Testament is an evil God is that the very passage that describes how God’s people should engage society comes from this same Old Testament. And it’s interesting that in the midst of the distress that Israel is about to experience, there is a glimpse of the hope that God is bringing to the entire world. At this time it’s appropriate to bring out the verse that we most commonly associate with Jeremiah 29, namely verse 11, that says God has plans for us. What’s important for us to realize is that the good plans that God has for us are contingent upon our agreeing to those plans, aren’t they? Don’t the people Jeremiah is talking to within Jerusalem need to say, “OK God, I’m willing to accept the fact that we need to be exiled for 70 years, but that you have good plans for us”? Don’t the people of Babylon and also have to be willing to listen to the testimony of those who are in captivity so they too, can experience the good things that God has a store for them?

God’s love and call to repentance always come first, yet when that love is rejected, judgment surely follows. The fall of Babylon shows us both: an offer of transformation through grace, and, if spurned, the certainty of destruction. To keep both together — love before wrath, repentance before ruin — helps us see the fullness of God’s justice and mercy.

You and Me

Even though we’re talking about structural evil at the level of nations opposing God, we can’t ignore the fact that personal evil is also a major part of what goes on. We notice the engagement strategy that Jeremiah presents to the people of Israel is that they are supposed to live out their lives in a personal way, which includes homes for them to live in, families for their children, crops, etc. So, in order to be a good person in a society like Babylon I need to live out my life in a way as if I have a future there and there is a future for that city.

But this is not merely limited to making sure I live a good life in the midst of an evil city. Rather, it’s an understanding that through my living a good life in the city, setting down roots, and contributing to the economy of the city, I am also interested in the future of that city and praying for the city. Praying means calling upon God to help with the transformation of the city. Praying means calling upon God to make the city a place of justice, a place of goodness, a place of kindness, a place with love, with joy, with peace, with patience, with kindness, with goodness, with faithfulness, with self-control. And being a part of the fabric of the city means that we position ourselves for future leadership and guidance within that city as well.

Jeremiah 29 invites us to “Plant crops.” Even though the process of planting crops seems like a bit of a gamble. One of my friends referred to farmers as the people with the most faith in the world because they do everything they possibly can to invest in a product that is not guaranteed to emerge at the end of the process. Planting is hard but planting actually starts in the middle of the process. Before that we have to prepare the ground. I have to chop down trees and pull out stumps. We have to pick rocks. We have to break the ground. And then the broken ground needs to be broken up again. And only then can the crops be planted.

Growing crops is hard. Harvesting crops is hard. It’s a long and tedious process that takes a lifetime to perfect. And once you harvest him then you gotta try to sell it. Selling those crops at the end is hard, and some of the hardness of that process is directly because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The ground is cursed and it’s by the sweat of our brows that we can get something to emerge from the ground. In our farming processes, we need to go beyond adding to the curse of the land and try to find ways that help remove that curse. And of course, beyond planting there are other aspects to it.

An example with a Brazilian connection

I recently attended a seminar in Brazil, where we talked in part about the integration of faith and agriculture. A couple of the things emerged that help inform our discussion today.

I was introduced to a paper that spoke of Palissy’s idea that even an unlearned potter can question accepted wisdom and put forth his own ideas. He derives this from Jesus’ parable of the talents implying that each of us is given a task and responsibility and we need to use that appropriately. These talents for Palissy include the land and the forests that have been neglected and are in need of what he calls a true formula in order to be restored to their original intent. 

Palissy’s very direct statements about not wanting to engage in clear-cut logging with no restoration can be directly tied to the concept of eliminating the sin that’s in the world. If the world’s natural state itself is destroyed then what of the task that’s been given to humans to overcome the sin that’s in the world? 

These aren’t just better farming techniques; they are acts of spiritual warfare against the curse, a practical way to “pray for the peace of the city” by healing the very ground it stands on.

If these are the examples that the Bible gives us about how to confront evil, that means that you and I have to be intentional as well about confronting evil. Not with the goal that evil will be punished but with the goal that evil people escape punishment because they are transformed into good people. The Bible calls this transformation repentance or changing the way we think and act.

How can I start working on this today? I need to start with my own life and find areas in my life that I need to repent of — I need to start being good. I need to then look at society I’m a part of — whether that’s my community, my church, my city, my province, or my nation — and find areas that we as a group need to repent of. And then we need to start doing better. And then I need to look at the physical world around me and begin the hard, faithful work of planting crops.

Because there is hope, even though the presence of evil in the world makes it next to impossible for us to believe. The hope that the Bible gives us is that Jesus is the key to this hope. Only Jesus can offer a better leadership than the leaders that we have continued electing time and time again — and we can testify to the effectiveness of serving Him over others, proclaiming the gospel of grace that makes it possible. Only Jesus can give us the values we’ve been trying to establish — these can only be found in His kingdom and we can be witnesses to it. Only Jesus can give the hope that I can actually love my neighbour just as much as I love myself — and our love serves as testimony to this truth. Only Jesus can supply hope, through his interaction with us daily, that God is faithful — and we can also testify to that truth.

Getting back to Babylon

The final lines of Babylon show us the way forward:

“Time to build again
Babylon, Babylon is fallen”

Is Babylon fallen because it has experienced God’s punishment or is it fallen because it has been rebuilt into God’s kingdom? Revelation 11:15 gives the answer:

“When the seventh angel blew his trumpet, there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’”

The fall of Babylon is prefaced by the rebuilding started in Jeremiah 29 where God sent his agents into the enemy camp in order for the enemy to become a friend.

God wants the same things to happen today as well. He wants enemies transformed into friends. And that transformation begins with us.

Image by Boban Simonovski on Unsplash.

Following up on BGCC Celebration 2024: How Jose de Mesa’s Hermeneutics of Appreciation provides a practical way for Canadian churches to engage society

Posted on by

In May 2024, I had the privilege of speaking at the BGC Canada Celebration in Calgary. Because the theme of the conference centred on Mordecai’s words to Esther “for such a time as this,” one of the sessions I gave was basically laying out the framework that SEATS has been developing for the past 20 years on how the church can engage society “in such a time as this.” The session covered two aspects. The first aspect was the theology of evils, which I’ve written about many times on this blog. The other aspect looked at the functional church, which we see as essential to our identity in the church and society. 

The session was more of a download, laying everything out in a long, complex, complicated system. I apologise if it was a little bit inaccessible because of that. I also wasn’t as clear in stating it during my talk, but I think that Canada is now a mission field and as Jesus’ followers we need to approach it as such.

This reality was made clear by many other presentations at the conference that talked about ways Canadians perceive the world. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Rick Hiemstra was very clear in providing statistics and surveys to help us understand the way Canadians think. And all of these reinforce the idea that Canada is a Mission field.

What does it mean to say that Canada is a Mission field?

Before we go further, I want to highlight that current missions theory sees all parts of the world as the “mission field.” Yet, we often still think of missions as someone leaving their own home to go to another place.

I understand that there are two ways we could define “Canada is a mission field.” One way is “the world is coming to Canada so they’re at our doorstep so we can present the gospel to them.” And this certainly may be true.

BGC Canada addressed this about 30 years ago when we formed GLOBAL Ministries. The tagline at the time was “across the street, around the world.” This was a recognition that people are coming to Canada, which presents an opportunity for us to reach out to them wherever they might be. Eva and I were privileged to be selected for that team at the very beginning and are grateful to continue serving in Southeast Asia. We also know that many of you also are finding ways to reach “across the street” as well as “around the world.” We’re happy to be together on the same team in doing this!

The problem is this is only half the story. It is true that Canadian missionaries have had a tremendous impact on the world as they followed God‘s call to bring the message of his good news around the world. But there’s more to the story.

The other way of defining “Canada is a mission field” is by recognising that new immigrants to Canada are bringing their Christian faith to a place that is no longer Christian. I particularly enjoy the fact this includes Filipinos. For many years now the Philippines has been the number one source of new Canadians. One way this impacts Canada is by Filipino Christians coming to work in Canada, moving to small towns with dying churches, and injecting new life into those churches. Alison Marshall from Brandon University has written a lot on this specific subject.

So what are the implications of “Canada is a mission field”?

Given the fact that Canada is now a Mission field I thought it important to discuss some ways we can think about this. What can I do as I live in my Canadian community, pastor my Canadian Church, and dream about reaching Canada for Christ? How can I tweak the perceptions I have about the world and about Canada and about the gospel so that they can become more understandable to one another? What are some practical ways that the Canadian church can engage society?

It may also mean that the way we’ve traditionally done things may not work anymore. We may need to think about what the church will look like in the next generations.

If Canada is a mission field, we need to approach Canada as if it’s a place we do not understand or we’re not familiar with. We’re unaware of the culture. We’re unaware of the language. We’re unaware of the practices. This means we must come in with a fresh mind asking, “How can we help the people of this place connect with God on an understandable level?“ And “How will my journey with these people help me draw closer to God, myself?”

(I should mention as an aside that while the immediate context of my talk was Canada, since I was invited to a Canadian conference, these principles apply to any culture around the world. So those who are thinking about doing missions in it any other country can figure out ways to make these relevant to their new context as well.)

Jose de Mesa’s Hermeneutics of Appreciation is a usable framework for Canadian churches wanting to go “across the street.”

What comes to mind immediately is Jose de Mesa’s hermeneutics of appreciation as a framework for how the church can engage society. (I have already written a bit on de Mesa’s ideas, here.) de Mesa developed this framework in the 1970s. He was a contemporary of other Filipino academics who collectively realised that the Western-based systems of history, psychology, and anthropology were inadequate in describing the Philippine situation. They worked at reconstructing these ideas using the Philippine context as a base. Jose de Mesa approached the area of theology in the same way.

De Mesa’s insights into how Christianity entered the Philippines is helpful for us as we think about how the church of Jesus Christ can re-enter Canadian society. He developed a hermeneutic of appreciation for use when Jesus’ followers from one culture approach people from another. I thought it might be useful to see how his four hermeneutical steps may apply to the church in Canada today with the hope that this may serve as a model for us to use in the church today.

It’s important for us to remember at this point that de Mesa was largely reacting to issues he observed as a cultural insider to how the gospel was and is understood in the Philippines — his approach is in direct opposition to a hermeneutic of suspicion. It’s also important to realize that de Mesa writes as a deeply devoted Christian who sees Jesus as his Saviour and the Saviour of his nation. But having said that, it’s important to realize that there is a critique in this hermeneutic – a critique that’s useful in helping us understand our own ways of approaching others with the gospel.

Attitude #1 Presume the cultural element or aspect under consideration to be positive (at least in intent) until proven otherwise.

A lot of the stuff we do in churches is cultural, even though we assume it’s biblical. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is sometimes a blending of how we interpret the Bible with how we view the world. What sometimes happens as we go somewhere else and see how other people live is that we immediately assume that they are doing things for all the wrong reasons. We understand that sin enslaves the entire world and we assume that those who have not yet heard about Jesus Christ are also slaves themselves. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything that everyone does is done for bad reasons.

Sometimes these things are just different cultural preferences. I remember reading Peace Child by Don Richardson. You may have read the book or seen the movie. It’s a powerful example of how a missionary to New Guinea found a redemptive analogy within his mountain tribe. Richardson’s thesis is that every culture contains what he calls redemptive analogies. Richardson even goes through and illustrates other examples of redemptive analogies that he has found in other times and in other parts of the world. More on this below.

Richardson‘s theology incorporates the ideas that “all have sinned fall short of the glory of God” with the idea that “God has placed eternity in the hearts of humans.” He ties the two together by saying that God has hidden clues in each society and culture that help people move from sinners towards eternity.

We won’t find Redemptive analogies if we approach a culture from the idea that we are right and they are wrong — if we approach another culture with the idea that these are all pagan people with no connection with God and that we are the first voice of God that people have heard. This is actually against what scripture teaches. Typically theology refers to two types of revelation: One of them is general revelation where God makes himself known to all people through means not limited by language — including emotion, conscience, and will (Ps 19:1-2; Job 12:7-10; De 8:18; Pr 16:9; Pr 20:27; Ge 3:7-8). The other is special revelation where God makes himself known specifically through his word — both Living and written (Is 53:5-6; Mic 5:2; De 6:6-7; Ps 119:105).

Popular advice states that we should avoid two topics of discussion in life: religion and politics. Why is that? Because we tend to argue and fight over them don’t we? To apply de Mesa’s framework here we would need to seek understanding of the Other rather than to push the rightness of our own belief. This is scary, isn’t it? Because we must relinquish  power in order to do that. But yet it’s only through vulnerability that we can connect with others in the world around us, isn’t it? 

Presuming that the culture element is positive rather than negative also acknowledges the fact that God is already at work in an among that culture, and some of the things that God has revealed to them may come out through the culture.

Attitude #2 Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view. 

Sometimes when it comes to presenting the gospel we take an exclusivistic approach. An exclusivistic approach means that we know what’s right and nobody else does. We need to present the gospel to Them. This leads us to approach people as if They are wrong and We are right. That’s because the exclusivistic approach is the approach of the Outsider.

I had a conversation the other day with a close friend and colleague is also a pastor. We were discussing preaching and the role of the preacher in the message. We reminded ourselves that the first audience of any sermon is the preacher themself. But there’s also an aspect in the Bible where through the prophets God tells people that they are wrong. The key to remember is that the prophets also recognize themselves as being wrong too. For example, Isaiah says “every word that passes through my lips is sinful,” indicating his desire to be disqualified from this ministry. In the same way, we too as preachers need to recognize our own complicity in sin. Other people are not the only sinners in the world. We, too, are included in that. So when we approach the subject of sin and repentance, we need to approach it in an inclusivistic way. Meaning rather than saying, “You are all a bunch of sinners and need to repent,” we say, “We are all sinners and we all need to repent.” There’s an inclusive aspect to the Gospel.

This is what de Mesa is talking about in his “Be aware of your own cultural presuppositions and adopt the insider’s point of view”

So we use inclusivistic language — words like us and we — and find ways how we too need to hear God’s gospel in the situation. We also assume that God has been at work in the world before we arrive with his message. Back to Richardson’s redemptive analogies. He describes examples such as the peace child of his tribe in New Guinea, and the banana tree/book among other tribes. He even mentions Paul’s recognition of the Athenian “altar to the unknown God” as an example. Bruce Olsen, in his autobiographical Bruchko, describes waiting five years before finding the culturally-appropriate way to present Jesus to his tribe in Colombia. These redemptive analogies provide bridges into a culture to help them understand the goodness of who God is and help introduce them to his special revelation for all humans.

What redemptive analogies do we find around us? What ways has God prepared Canadians to understand and accept the good news? What artifacts in Canadian cultures bridge us to God?

For example, Canadians have a deep connection to the land. This includes First Nations, Inuit, Metis, and Settler cultures (I should point out here that I have family connections with each of these four groups). It’s important to realize that there’s a word that’s sometimes translated land in the Bible and other times translated as earth. But connection to the earth is often among disputed among Christians, isn’t it? I remember a younger me pushing against the idea of creation care because it seemed like it was worshiping nature rather than worshiping God. I thought that as humans we were supposed to “subdue” creation. However, connection to land is one of the key aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only is that a main part of ancient Israel‘s connection with him, but it also emerges when others are trying to understand God. It’s especially significant in God‘s conversations with Job where God clarifies and reveals himself to Job through the land. Perhaps understanding this connection with the land or earth is a redemptive analogy for Canadians.

Another example for Canadians may be our internationally-acknowledged kindness. Kindness appears to be under attack today. I’ve seen pushback against the concept of empathy and also against being a “nice man.” In fact, I engaged in a short dialogue on X with someone the other day who was advocating that men should no longer be “nice.” However, kindness is a key part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, the reason that we are saved is because God showed his kindness to us. And the evidence of the fact we are saved includes, among other things, kindness towards others. Perhaps kindness is another redemptive analogy for Canadians. 

Can you think of any more redemptive analogies for Canadians or even for your own culture?

Attitude #3 Go beyond cultural stereotypes.

When I was in Grade 5 at Lorne Haselton School in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the Gideons came and presented each of us with a New Testament, including the Psalms and Proverbs. I remember mine was red. Afterwards, at recess, we were discussing these New Testaments, and one of my classmates came up to me to talk about it, and I blurted out to him, “What are you gonna do, rip it up?” And he had this look of confusion on his face. I think about that interaction a lot and wonder, “What was it that caused me to assume that my classmates who didn’t go to church would just be interested in ripping up the Bible?” Well, I think it’s because there was a cultural presupposition when I was growing up that the world was divided into Believers and Unbelievers. Believers did everything God wanted them to do, and Unbelievers did nothing that God wanted them to do. And so, I assumed that a Unbeliever receiving a New Testament would just be interested in getting rid of it because it was something good. Of course, looking back on this and on my Grade 5 self, I realize that I was deeply mistaken and that my cultural presuppositions towards those who were not-yet-Christians were wrong.

One of the key influences in my life was Les Goertz’ book, The Not-Yet-Christian. Goertz approaches the issue with the understanding that people are on a journey towards God. People who come from a point of being originally righteous in Genesis 1, but subsequently slaves to sin, are on a journey back towards that original identity. The idea of looking at someone as a not-yet-Christian reminds us of the hope that at some point someone’s relationship with God will become better — even as my own relationship with God hopefully becomes better over time.

Attitude #4 Use the vernacular as a key to understanding the culture in its own terms. 

I took my first ancient Greek class in university. It was actually Attic Greek. I did this in anticipation of attending Canadian Baptist Seminary after I graduated. (I had heard horror stories of crash Greek and wanted to avoid that experience.) When I got to seminary I was able to skip crash Greek and go straight into Greek exegesis. One of the things I remember learning in studying Greek was that there was a lot of belief that we could find the specific meaning of each of these words. And so we used various grammatical forms, we looked at various words, and determined various definitions for them. But a couple of cracks appeared in the picture as I was studying Greek. One of them was that we weren’t actually defining the words we were translating. Rather, we were giving them glosses. A gloss is a something shiny that looks good and helps us think that we understand something but hides something deeper and non-understandable beneath it. A number of years later in my career, I moved to the Philippines and learned Tagalog — a language I now use to conduct most of my daily affairs. And what I learned was that there is no such thing as a simple transition from one language to another. All translation is betrayal simply because there is no one-to-one relationship between languages! Some languages don’t have the words used in other languages, which often makes it difficult to transmit ideas from one language to another.

Further complicating things is that we often think of text as relating to words and thus the term vernacular as relating to the spoken language specific to a certain context. However, Hanks tells is that text goes beyond merely written word and looks at the systems and structures of a society. “… text can be taken … to designate any configuration of signs that is coherently interpretable by some community of users.”

There’s a current program for Missionary Kids or Third-culture kids when they end up coming to Canada at the end of their schooling and whatever country they grew up in. One of the aspects of this Reboot program is introducing these young people to Canadian culture. This includes introduction to the vernacular, where they learn such things as the true meaning of the phrase, “Netflix and chill” — a term that when interpreted at face value is NOT correct.

In some ways it appears that the church in Canada has lost its grasp of the vernacular. Why do I say this? A year or two ago there was an Angus Reid poll that came out where one of the surprising findings was that — at least among a certain segment of Canadian society — the church is viewed as “damaging to society.” Which is odd, isn’t it? After all, the message the church isn’t one of danger, but love and salvation and a God who wants a relationship and wants the oppressed to be freed and wants the blind to see and wants to lame to walk and wants the prisoners to be set free. So then how come, all of a sudden, there is this idea that the church is something that’s damaging to society? It may be because we’ve lost a grasp of the vernacular.

Now some people are going to complain and say, “My church isn’t like that.” I realize that and I agree with you. However, in the mind of people outside the church, they label us ALL as Christians — in the same way that we label people outside the church as Pagans. There is a little understanding of the nuanced denominationalism that we understand as Insiders. We are all guilty of generalising when it comes to identifying others. Lila Abu-Lughod says some good stuff about generalization and advocates for focussing on particularities instead. But that’s a conversation for another day.

What I’m saying is here is that if our basic core message is misunderstood, it’s probably for one of two reasons: Either we’re not getting it right, or we’re not making it understandable in the vernacular of the day.

What’s the next Step?

What’s your take on this? Does the Canadian church have some work to do in the future? Are there redemptive analogies that would be beneficial for helping the church engage society?

Whether you agree, disagree, or have a fresh perspective, drop a comment and let’s discuss!

If you enjoyed this post, why not share it with your network? Remember, sharing is what friends do!

Photo by Matheus Viana on Pexels.

Tiktok: Bakit ako sumali sa isang social media phenomena na puno ng mga tao mula sa ibang henerasyon?

Posted on by

Read this post in English.

Oh. Nasa Tiktok na ako. Baka isipin mo na nagsimula na akong sumayaw o gusto kong bumagsak ang aking karera sa musika, huwag mag-alala. May paliwanag ako. Ang Tiktok ay nasa likod ng aking isipan mula pa noong isang klase na itinuro namin sa SEATS noong 2021 na nagrekomenda ng paggamit ng plataporma para sa ministeryo sa simbahan ngunit dahil wala akong ganap na karanasan sa Tiktok ay hindi ko naisip kung paano eksaktong gamitin ito. So anong nangyari para makumbinsi ako?

Ilang taon na ang nakararaan pinangasiwaan ko ang pagtatayo ng isang paanakan malapit sa aming bahay. Hindi ko makuha ang kredito para sa paanakan — naroroon ako para sa mga kapanganakan nina Emily at Daniel ngunit wala akong pagnanais na dumalo para sa mga kapanganakan ng sinumang bata — ngunit nakapagbigay ng ilang input pagdating sa pagsasama-sama ng pasilidad kung saan ipinanganak ang mga sanggol.

Ang isang pangunahing aspeto sa anumang uri ng konstruksiyon ay ang mga manggagawa na gumagawa ng aktwal na trabaho. Mayroon silang iba’t ibang mga kasanayan. Ang ilan ay kasangkot sa proseso ng disenyo. Ang iba ay likas na matalino sa pangangasiwa sa gawain. Ang mga skilled ay may mga espesyal na kasanayan tulad ng pagkakarpintero o pagmamason. Ang mga labor ay gumagawa ng mabigat na pag-aangat ng pangkalahatang paggawa. Masaya at marami akong nakilalang lalaki. Bilang bahagi ng aking kontribusyon sa pagsisikap, nagsagawa ako ng lingguhang pag-aaral sa Bibliya tuwing Sabado bago matapos ang araw (kung kailan sila matatanggap ng kanilang suweldo para sa linggo).

Isang araw sinabi ko sa isang kaibigang pastor ang tungkol sa aming proyekto, alam kong kamakailan lang ay nasangkot siya sa isang katulad na proyekto nang itayo nila ang kanilang bahay sambahan. Ipinagmamalaki kong sinabi sa kanya na nagsasagawa ako ng pag-aaral ng Bibliya sa aming mga manggagawa bawat linggo. Bumalik siya na may pahayag na nagsagawa siya ng pag-aaral ng bibliya araw-araw bago magsimula ang trabaho! Nagulat ako pero napaisip ako. Ang resulta ay nagkaroon ako ng maikling debosyonal bago kami magsimulang magtrabaho tuwing umaga. Ang mga lalaki sa pangkalahatan ay hindi nahihiyang makipag-usap tungkol sa Bibliya sa normal na buhay at pinahahalagahan nila ang mga panalangin para sa kanilang kaligtasan araw-araw, kaya naging maayos ang lahat.

Noong isang araw, habang naglalakad ako sa clinic at iniisip ang huling yugto ng proyekto (na inaasahan nating magsisimula sa bagong taon), naalala ko na kapag nagsimula muli ang konstruksiyon ay kailangan kong pag-isipang muli ang mga pang-araw-araw na debosyonal. Noon natamaan ako. Maaari na akong magsimulang gumawa ng maikling araw-araw na debosyonal ngayon sa Tiktok! Nagpo-post ako ng pang-araw-araw na talata sa bibliya sa nakalipas na ilang taon sa mga social media account ng aming mga ministeryo kaya hindi ganoon kahirap gawin iyon para maging pang-araw-araw na debosyonal. Kaya gumawa agad ako ng Tiktok account at nagsimulang mag-record ng mga video.

Sa puntong ito wala akong ideya kung hanggang kailan ito magpapatuloy o kung anong mga partikular na benepisyo ang maaari nitong ibigay sa mga tao. Gayunpaman, ang mga tao sa loob ng aking ministry circle ay nagpahayag na mahalaga sa kanila ang araw-araw na mga talata sa bibliya na aking ipinadala. Mayroon ding mga tao sa aming komunidad na hindi makalabas ng kanilang mga bahay dahil sa malalaking isyu sa kalusugan at maganda ang video patungkol sa Bibliya para sa kanila .

Anong mga kakaibang bagong bagay ang ipinapagawa sa yo ng ng Diyos? Ano sa tingin mo ang kakailanganin para makumbinsi ka na gawin ito? Paki iwan ang iyong sagot sa comment box sa ibaba?

Tandaan na ang pagbabahagi ay ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Kung nasiyahan ka sa pagbabasa na ito, mangyaring huwag kalimutang i-like at i-follow ang aking blog.

Para sa mga kawili-wiling malaman ang higit pa tungkol sa aming proyekto sa paanakan narito ang isang maikling video na naglalarawan sa aming ginagawa.

Larawan ng SCREEN POST sa Unsplash.

Tiktok: Why I joined a social media phenomena full of people from a different generation

Posted on by

Basahin mo sa wikang Tagalog.

So I’m on Tiktok. Lest you think that I have taken up dancing or want my music career to take off, don’t worry. I have an explanation. Tiktok has been in the back of my mind ever since a class we taught at SEATS in 2021 recommended using the platform for church ministry but since I have absolutely no experience with Tiktok I wasn’t able to conceptualise exactly how to use it. So what happened to convince me?

A couple of years ago I supervised construction of a birthing clinic near our house. I can’t take credit for the clinic — I was present for the births of Emily & Daniel but have no desire to be present for anyone else’s kid’s births — but was able to provide some input when it came to putting together a facility within which babies are delivered.

A key aspect to any kind of construction is the workers who do the actual work. They have various skills. Some are involved in the design process. Others are gifted at overseeing the work. Some have special skills like carpentry or masonry. Others do the heavy lifting of general labour. It was fun and I got to know a lot of men. As a part of my contribution to the effort, I conducted a weekly bible study every Saturday just prior to the day’s end (when they would receive their pay for the week).

One day I was telling a pastor-friend about our project, knowing that he had recently been involved in a similar project when they built their church building. I proudly told him that I was having a bible study with our workers every week. He came back with the statement that he had done a bible study every day before work! I was taken aback but it got me thinking. The result was that I had a short devotional before we began work each morning. The men in general don’t shy away from talking about the Bible in normal life and they appreciate prayers for safety during the day, so it all worked out well.

The other day, while walking past the clinic and thinking of the final phase of the project (that we hope to begin in the new year), I was reminded that when construction starts again I would need to think about daily devotionals again. That’s when it hit me. I could start now doing a short daily devotional on Tiktok! I have been posting a daily bible verse for the past couple of years on our ministries’ social media accounts so to turn that into a daily devotional wasn’t all that hard to do. So I bit the bullet and created a Tiktok account and started recording videos.

At this point I have no idea how long this will go on for or what specific benefits it might offer people. However, people within my ministry circle have expressed their appreciation for the daily bible verses that I have sent. There are also people in our community who are unable to leave their houses due to major health issues and for whom an option to watch a video about the Bible is a blessing.

What strange new things is God calling you to do? What do you think it will take to convince you to do it? Why not leave your answer in the comment box below?

Remember sharing is what friends do.

If you enjoyed this read, please don’t forget to like and follow my blog.

For those interesting in finding out more about our birthing clinic project here is a short video describing what we are doing.

Image by SCREEN POST on Unsplash.

Imagining what the world is like: The usefulness of windows & doors in our worldviews

Posted on by

Imagine living in a room with no windows or doors. You are not alone. After a while you would develop a worldview limited by those four walls. Anything else would be speculation. Of course your other senses would work fine. You may hear things outside your room. You may smell things. You may feel vibrations. You may speculate as to what your senses were telling you but you wouldn’t be certain. The group would come up with an idea of reality. 

Then imagine that all of a sudden someone else appeared and installed a window. All of a sudden your world view would expand. Not only because the window expanded your view but because you also realised that other people existed outside of your room. 

We can then imagine the changes that would happen as windows were installed in each wall and as more and more of the world became visible. 

Now imagine that a door was installed and the installer invited you outside. What would change? Then imagine what would happen if you actually went outside. How would the group decide who would go? Would everyone go? What factors would contribute to whether people went or not?

What would happen when those who went out returned? Would their stories be clearly told? Would those who stayed behind believe them or not? Would more be convinced to leave or would decisions be made to close the doors & windows? 

Some more questions arise. What if you didn’t enjoy the view? What if what you saw was unbelievable? What if you didn’t want to go out the door? What if you didn’t trust your senses or trust the one inviting you outside? 

The examples could continue on into absurdity. What if the view out the windows wasn’t in fact direct but was an elaborate system of mirrors bringing you reflections of the world outside. What if (ala Plato’s allegory of the cave) all you could see was shadows of activities outside? What if the decision of the group was to tear the walls down and live together with those other people in the world?

How would the worldview change process work? What senses would you prioritise? What senses would you distrust more than others? 

A lesson from Men in Black.

In the classic 1997 movie Men in Black, James Darrell Edwards III is taken into a room with “the best of the best of the best.” As part of their testing before becoming one of the Men in Black, they are all taken into a shooting room full of graphical alien potential targets. They are supposed to shoot the dangerous targets and save the innocent ones. All the candidates go in guns blazing except for James, who carefully looks at each scary monster before calmly shooting the “little Tiffany” in the head. Let’s take a look at the script:

ZED: “May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?”

JAMES: “She was the only one who actually seemed dangerous. At the time.”

ZED: “And how did you come to that conclusion?”

JAMES: “Hook-head guy. You explain to me how he can think with a hook for a head. Answer; it’s not his head. His head is that butt-ugly bean-bag thing over there. ‘Cause if you look at the snarling beast-guy, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing — he’s got tissues in his hand. No threat there, and anyhow, the girl’s books were way too advanced for an eight-year-old’s. And besides, from where I’m looking, she was the only one who appeared to have a motive. And I don’t appreciate your jumping down my throat about it. Or, uh — do I owe her an apology?”

James spent time carefully studying before going off guns blazing. He looked at the world around him to understand it so that understanding could better inform his actions.

The Windowless Room and Theologising.

It got me thinking about how much theology is done from the theologian’s office and how much from wandering about and observing? Which ends up being better? How important is listening to others’ analysis and evaluation as opposed to making your own? 

I love to read books. I particularly love escapist fiction because it draws me into a world that I can live in. I can dream while reading. I can imagine what life would be like if I were a character in the book. I enjoy people watching and trying to image their motivations for doing what they do. I also have a tendency to be shy. I prepare my sermons and lessons in isolation and them present them to people with real connections in the real world. But I realised after a while that my well was running dry. I had no more information to present and no way of finding a way forward into something new.

So I decided to study ways to better understand the world. That meant I had to study things like anthropology. I had to study about culture and society. Each of these fields has its own perspectives and theories that are useful in gaining understanding. Sometimes these theories offer criticisms of the current world. Sometimes they offer ways to better understand it. Sometimes they offer insights into how various and sundry parts of the world relate to each other. Sometimes they offer insights into how to interpret the world. It was great. It was like windows were being opened up for me to see out.

But more so than that, studying forced me to go out into the world and engage with it. I learned to observe people in the everyday environments and wonder why they did the things they did. I walked around my community trying to notice the things that I normally passed by. I learned to ask questions and listen for the answers. I talked to men on the street about their understandings of masculinity and religiosity. We talked about families. We talked about how to know the truth. We talked about their own ideas and perspectives. We developed deeper relationships with each other.

I certainly know that I gained more perspective once I got out into the real world. How do you maintain connections with the real world? How does that help develop your own perspectives and ideas? Please let me know in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please also consider subscribing to this blog either via email or WordPress itself.

Image by Arm Sarv on Unsplash.

Alam mo ba ang tagubilin ng Matthew 18 na “puntahan mo siya at kausapin nang sarilinan” ay hindi lamang ang tanging paraan upang harapin ang hindi pagkakasundo ng mga Kristiyano?

Posted on by

Read in English

Tanungin ang sinumang Kristiyano kung paano makitungo sa tunggalian at huhugot nila ang Mateo 18 sapagkat inilalabas nito kung ano ang nakikita ng marami bilang TANGING PARAAN para makitungo ang mga Kristiyano sa kasalanan ng interpersonal. Sa loob ng maraming taon ay inilatag ng simbahan ang proseso ng pakikipag-usap sa tao nang paisa-isa, kung kung walang resolusyon magdala ng isang tao bilang saksi. Kung wala pa ring resolusyon, dalhin ang tao sa harap ng simbahan at kung wala pa ring resolusyon ay paalisin ang tao mula sa simbahan. Ito ang pamantayan ngunit paano kung sinabi ko sa iyo na hindi lamang ito ang biblikal na paraan na harapin ng pamilya ng Diyos ang kasalanan? Mayroong talagang hindi mabilang na mga halimbawa ng iba pang mga paraan ng paggawa ng parehong bagay na maaaring mas may kaugnayan sa iba pang mga konteksto ng kultura.

Sapagkat ang magkakaibang kultura ay mayroong magkakaibang paraan ng pagharap sa hidwaan. Ang di-tuwirang komunikasyon, sa pamamagitan ng mga konsepto tulad ng pahiwatig at pakikiramdam, ay pangunahing batayan ng komunikasyon at hidwaan ng ilang mga mamamayang Pilipino at mga Sinaunang Tao [First Nations] sa Hilagang Amerika. Ang Lupon Tagapamayapa ay isang mahalagang bahagi ng lipunang Pilipino at isang mabisang paraan upang mapanatili ang kapayapaan sa ating mga pamayanan.

Ang aklat ni Duane Elmer noong 1993 na Cross-Cultural Conflict: Building Relationships for effective ministry ay isang mahusay na teolohiya ng bibliya ng paglutas ng kontrahan na hindi nililimitahan ang sarili sa Mateo 18:15-20.

Para kay Elmer, ang diskarte sa Mateo 18 ay lalong kapaki-pakinabang sa tinaguriang mga lipunan sa Kanluranin kung saan ang paghaharap at pagiging prangka ay mga pagpapahalagang pangkultura. Tulad ng sinabi ni Elmer, kahit na “ang pagiging diretso, komprontasyon, pagiging lantad at lantad na pagsasalita ay pinahahalagahan at inaasahan sa kultura ng Kanluranin, sa karamihan ng mundo ang kaparehong mga halagang ito, kahit na ipinakita nang may paggalang, ay itinuturing na masungit, walang pino, masamang asal, masungit at nakakainsulto” (p. 62). Ang diskarte na ito ay hindi gaanong kapaki-pakinabang sa iba pang mga setting ng kultura kung saan ang komprontasyon at pagiging prangka ay talagang lumilikha ng mas maraming hidwaan. Idadagdag ko na ang pagtuon lamang sa Mateo 18 ay nagbibigay ng mga dahilan para sa mga nahuhuli sa kasalanan kasi ginamit ito paminsan-minsan bilang isang dahilan upang tanggihan ang anumang proseso ng pagkakasundo.

Hinahati ni Elmer ang kanyang diskarte sa apat na kategorya. Magbibigay ako ng isang maikling balangkas ng argumento ni Elmer kasama ang kahulugan at mga halimbawa mula sa bibliya sa bawat kategorya. Ang aklat ni Elmer ay higit na lumalagpas dito sa pagbibigay ng mga halimbawa mula sa tunay na mundo kung paano naging epektibo ang paggana ng iba’t ibang mga pamamaraan sa mga setting na cross-cultural subalit dapat kong ipahiwatig na lumalapit si Elmer sa karamihan ng mga sitwasyong ito bilang isang taong nasa labas ng kultura. Gayunpaman, hindi ito nakakaapekto sa teolohiya sa Bibliya na binuo niya sa libro.

Pamamagitan at ang Tagapamagitan [Mediation and the Mediator]. Ang isang hanay ng mga talata sa bibliya ay nagsasalita tungkol sa kung paano minsan nalulutas ang salungatan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng isang tagapamagitan. Ang pamamagitan ay sa katunayan isang malaking tema sa lahat ng banal na kasulatan, tulad ng nakikita natin sa ibaba.

Malinaw na sinabi ng 1 Timoteo 2:5-6 – “Sapagkat iisa lang ang Dios at iisa lang ang tagapamagitan sa Dios at sa mga tao. Itoʼy walang iba kundi ang taong si Cristo Jesus. Ibinigay niya ang buhay niya bilang pantubos sa lahat ng tao. Ito ang nagpapatunay na nais ng Dios na maligtas ang lahat ng tao , at inihayag niya ito sa takdang panahon.” Ang tungkulin ni Jesus bilang tagapamagitan ay pinalawak sa Juan 3:17, Roma 5:10-11, at Mga Hebreyo 7–8.

Si Moises ay tagapamagitan sa paghahatid ng batas, tulad ng pagbanggit ni Pablo sa Galacia 3:19-20, at tulad ng nakabalangkas sa Exodo 32:30-32 at Bilang 12:6-8.

Nais ni Job ang isang tagapamagitan upang tulungan siya sa kanyang kaso sa Job 9:33 – “Mayroon sanang mamagitan sa amin para pagkasunduin kaming dalawa ….”

Nagtayo si Joab ng isang tagapamagitan sa pagitan ni David at ng kanyang anak na si Absalom sa 2 Samuel 14:1-4 sa pagsisikap na makamit ang kapayapaan.

Ang mga Propeta (Deuteronomio 18:18-23) at mga Pari (Exodo 28:1; Levitico 9:7; 16:6; Hebreo 5:1-4) ay nagsilbi ring bilang tagapamagitan sa pagitan ng Diyos at ng mga tao.

Sinabi ni Elmer na ang isang tagapamagitan ay isang “iginagalang, walang kinikilingan, at layunin” at kumikilos bilang isang tulay sa pagitan ng dalawang partido na may salungatan na may layunin na makamit ang isang win-win solution. Ayon kay Elmer, ang paggamit ng isang tagapamagitan kapag naghahanap ng pagkakasundo ay normal sa maraming mga kultura. Tulad ng sinabi ni Elmer, “maraming mga kultura ng mundo ang mas gusto ang mga hindi direktang pamamaraan para sa paghawak ng salungatan at mga potensyal na salungatan. Ang isa sa mga pinaka-karaniwang hindi direktang pamamaraan ay ang paggamit ng isang tagapamagitan. Ni ang pagkakaroon ng isang tagapamagitan o ang mga pagpapaandar ng isang tagapamagitan ay dayuhan sa account sa banal na kasulatan. Habang ang lipunan ay maaaring nahawahan ang papel ng tagapamagitan o ginamit ito para sa makasarili, kahit sa mga masasamang hangarin, ito ay isang lehitimong papel na kailangang maunawaan at naaangkop na gamitin ng mga Kristiyano.”

Ang posisyon ng isang-baba at kahinaan [The one-down position and vulnerability]. Ang isa pang hanay ng mga sipi ng Bibliya ay nagsasalita tungkol sa kung paano nagaganap ang resolusyon kung kailan inilalagay ng isa o pareho ng mga partido ang kanilang mga sarili sa alinman sa mahina o mas mababang posisyon. Halimbawa, kapag ang mga pastol nina Abram at Lot ay nagkasalungatan sa mga karapatan sa pag-gamit ng pastulan sa Genesis 13:8, kinuha ni Abram ang isang-pababang posisyon sa paghingi ng resolusyon sa pamamagitan ng pag-aalok na ilipat sa ibang lugar.

Mamaya si Lot ay nasa posisyon na isang-pababa dahil siya ay nakuha ng ilang mga namamayagpag na hari sa Genesis 14:5-12. Si Abram ay dumating upang iligtas si Lot mula sa posisyon na ito sa Genesis 14:13-20.

Si David, sa kanyang pagkakasalungatan kay Absalom, ay nagpapalagay din sa posisyon na one-down. Sa 2 Samuel 14:1-4 sinenyasan ni Joab ang babae na sabihin, “Tulungan nʼyo po ako, Mahal na Hari!” sapagkat mailalagay nito ang babae sa isang pababang posisyon sa hari, na may obligasyong tulungan siya.

Sinabi ni Elmer, “Ang pagkuha ng one-down na posisyon ay nangangahulugang gawing mahina ang iyong sarili sa ibang tao o ipahiwatig na wala ang kanilang tulong ikaw ay nasa panganib na mapahiya o mawalan ng mukha.” “Mahalaga para sa iyo na huwag maging sanhi upang mawala ang mukha o mapahiya ng ibang tao, ngunit kung may panganib na mangyari sa iyo, maaari kang tumawag sa iba upang protektahan ka mula sa pagkawala ng mukha. Sa katunayan maaari ka ring tumawag sa sarili nitong nagbabanta sa iyong karangalan upang iligtas ka mula sa parehong kahihiyang maaaring dumating sa iyo. ”(p. 80) Binigyan ni Elmer ang pakikitungo ng Diyos kina Abram at David bilang mga halimbawa.

Pagkukuwento at salawikain [Story-telling and proverbs]. Ang pangatlong hanay ng mga sipi ng Bibliya ay nagbibigay diin sa mga kwento bilang mga tool sa paglutas ng hidwaan.

Marahil ang pinakamahusay na halimbawa nito sa Bibliya ay nang harapin ng propetang si Nathan si Haring David dahil sa kanyang kasalanan kay Batsheba (2 Samuel 12:1-9). Si Nathan ay nagsasabi ng isang detalyadong kuwento ng isang mayamang tao na nagnanakaw ng minamahal na tupa ng isang mahirap na tao. Kapag nagalit si David, pinapagal siya ni Nathan sa pagsasabing, “Ikaw ang taong iyon!” Ang resulta ay ang pagsisisi ni David.

Ginamit din ito ni Jesus nang maraming beses nang sinabi niya sa mga talinghaga na magturo ng mga pagpapahalagang nais niyang ituro. Kumbaga, maaari siyang direktang maglibot at hamunin ang mga tao tungkol sa kanilang kasalanan at masabing, “Magsisi kayo!” Sa halip ay pinili niya ang pagkukuwento bilang kanyang pangunahing anyo ng pakikipag-ugnayan.

Mayroong maraming mga halimbawa ng pagsasabi ni Jesus ng mga talinghaga, ngunit ang ilang mga makabuluhang halimbawa ay kasama ang Lucas 18:10-14, nang ikinuwento ni Jesus ang tungkol sa Fariseo at sa Maniningil ng Buwis sa isang pagsisikap na parehong maipakita ang pag-asa sa mga maniningil ng buwis at hikayatin ang pagsisisi ng mga Pariseo.

Ginagamit din ni Jesus ang pamamaraang ito nang harapin ng mga pinuno sa Mateo 21:23-27. Nang tanungin, “Ano ang awtoridad mong gumawa ng mga bagay na ginagawa mo? Sino ang nagbigay sa iyo ng awtoridad na iyan?” sumagot si Hesus sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay ng palaisipan na nagpapahintulot sa kanya na maiwasan ang isang direktang paghaharap.

Ang bisa ng pamamaraang ito ay ipinakita sa paglaon sa Mateo 21:33-46 nang ikuwento ni Jesus ang tungkol sa taong umarkila ng kanyang ubasan. Ang kanyang mga tagapaglingkod, na ipinadala upang kolektahin ang kanyang bahagi ng ani, ay pinapintasan at ang kanyang anak ay pinatay. Kapag natapos na ang kuwento nalaman natin na ang Punong mga Pari at Pariseo ay alam na pinag-uusapan sila ni Jesus – ibig sabihin ay hindi direktang naihatid ni Jesus ang kanyang mensahe.

Elmer muli: “Ang pagkukuwento sa ganitong pang-unawa ay hindi simpleng paggamit ng mga kwento ngunit… ang pagtuturo, pagwawasto at nuanced na paggamit ng mga salita …. upang makisalamuha ang mga mas batang kasapi ng isang lipunan sa mga pamantayan at halaga ng lipunang iyon. Gayunpaman ang parehong mga tool na ito ay madaling gawin sa mga tugon sa mga sitwasyon ng kontrahan.”

Tandaan din ang pag-unlad na kasama sa pagpipiliang ito: Ang isa ay pinapayagan na maging mas direkta kung ang mga inilaan na target ng kuwento ay hindi masyadong makakonekta sa kanilang sarili.

Hindi pagkilos, maling direksyon, katahimikan, at mga taong walang katiyakan [Inaction, misdirection, silence, and indefinite persons]. Ang huling hanay ng mga sipi ng Bibliya ay titingnan natin ang mga pag-uusap tungkol sa kung paano nalulutas kung minsan ang pagkakasalungatan gamit ang hindi direktang paraan. Ang ilang mga kultura ay binibigyang diin ang higit na hindi tuwirang mga paraan ng pakikipag-ugnayan at humantong ito sa isa pang uri ng pamamahala ng salungatan na binibigyang diin ang kawalang-derekta.

Dalawang Hebreong komadrona sina Shifrah at Pua na tinalakay sa Exodo 1:8-19. Matapos mag-utos ng Paraon “Kung magpapaanak kayo ng mga babaeng Hebreo, patayin ninyo kung lalaki ang anak, pero kung babae, huwag nʼyo nang patayin” tumugon ang mga kumadrona sa hiling ng Paraon sa maraming paraan: katahimikan dahil walang direktang sagot mula sa kanila sa utos ng Paraon; hindi pagkilos (v17) sa “hindi nila sinunod ang iniutos ng hari”; at maling direksyon (v19) sa kung saan sinisi nila ang kalusugan ng mga babaeng Hebrew bilang dahilan kung bakit hindi sila maaaring sumunod. Ang kwentong ito ay maaaring mukhang kakaiba, hindi bababa sa mula sa isang pananaw sa Kanluran na maaaring bigyang kahulugan ang mga komadrona bilang hindi matapat. Gayunpaman, ang katotohanang “kaya pinagpala ng Diyos ang mga komadrona” ay nagsasabi sa atin na inaprubahan niya ang kanilang mga pamamaraan.

Nakita rin natin ang mga prinsipyong ito sa mga kwento ni Haring Saul (1 Samuel 10:27) at sa Esther.

Sa Marcos 9:33-37 mababasa natin na ang mga alagad ni Jesus ay “hindi sumagot.” Ito ay dahil nais nilang iligtas ang kanilang mga sarili mula sa kahihiyang pagkakaroon ng pagtatapat sa kanilang tinatalakay sa kalsada. Hindi sila hinarap ni Jesus tungkol dito ngunit sa halip ay gumagamit sya ng isang hindi direktang object lesson upang matulungan silang mas maunawaan ang mismong tanong na pinagtatalunan nila.

Si Hesus mismo ay gumagamit ng katahimikan nang subukang pilitin siya ng mga Pariseo na kondenahin ang babaeng nahuli sa pangangalunya sa Juan 8:1-11. Gumamit siya ng maling direksyon upang ibalik ang tanong sa mga akusado nang sabihin niya na, “Kung sino sa inyo ang walang kasalanan ay siya ang maunang bumato sa kanya.”

At syempre si Jesus ay nanatiling tahimik din sa Mateo 27:14 nang tinanong sya ni Pilato.

Sa pakikipag-usap sa katahimikan sinabi ni Elmer, “ang katahimikan ay hindi nangangahulugang naayos na ang isyu o naabot na ang kasunduan. Karaniwan nang nangangahulugan ito ng pagkaantala hanggang sa maaaring magamit ang ibang naaangkop na diskarte …. Mayroong oras para sa katahimikan at oras para sa pagiging maingay. Tila ang grabidad ng isyu ay isang tagapagpahiwatig para sa pagpili, tulad ng pagiging maagap.”

Ang ilang mga huling pangungusap. Napagtatanto na wala sa mga pagpipiliang ito ang eksklusibo ay ang susi sa pag-unawa sa iba pang mga anyo ng paglutas ng salungatan sa Bibliya. Sa halip maaari nating paikutin ang iba’t ibang mga paraan ng mga pamamaraang ito na may layunin na makarating sa isang sitwasyon na win-win sa huli. Mahalagang tandaan din na kailangan nating gamitin ang mga porma ng paglutas ng tunggalian na angkop sa kultura , na may hangarin ng aktwal na resolusyon. Hindi lamang natin nais na pumili ng pamamaraan na pinakamahusay na susuporta sa aming panig ng isyu. Kailangan nating piliin ang diskarte na pinakamahusay na hahantong sa resolusyon.

Ito ay maaaring isang pagkakataon na pumunta sa palengke upang mamili lamang ng gusto natin pag dating sa conflict resolution at piliin ang pinakamahusay na magsisilbi sa aming panig ng hidwaan. Hindi iyon ang punto ng ehersisyo na ito. Ipinapakita sa atin na paminsan-minsan ang ating paggamit ng Mateo 18 ay nagpapatibay sa hidwaan kaysa sa paglutas nito sapagkat nilalayon itong magamit sa isang partikular na setting ng kultura. Ang pagpili ng isa sa iba pang mga pagpipilian ay maaaring humantong sa mas mahusay na mga resulta sa iba pang mga konteksto.

Ito rin ay isang magandang lugar upang banggitin na ang tinatawag na mga Western theology ay hegemonic. Nangangahulugan ito na mayroon sila, ayon sa dami ng isinulat ng mga taga-kanluranin, kinuha ang pamamayani at ginamit na kapangyarihan sa Iba. Kailangan itong magbago habang ang ibang mga kultura ay pumasok sa pag-uusap kasama ang kanilang sariling mga konteksto at system. Ang resulta ay magiging isang teolohiya na mas mayaman sa huli.

Ano ang palagay mo sa mga iginigiit ni Elmer? Sa palagay mo ba ay nagbibigay ito sa simbahan ng ilang mga mas mahusay na pagpipilian para sa pagharap at paglutas ng hidwaan? Mayroon bang mga hindi nalutas na isyu na mayroon ka sa isang tao na maaayos kung sumunod ka sa ibang proseso?

Gusto kong marinig ang boses mo. Kaya palaging malugod na tinatanggap ang feedback.

Pagbabahagi ang ginagawa ng mga kaibigan.

Larawan ni Charl Folscher sa Unsplash.

Ang mga sipi ng Banal na Kasulatan ay kinuha mula sa Ang Salita Ng Dios Biblia. Karapatang magpalathala © 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015 ng Biblica, Inc.® Ginamit nang may pahintulot.

Did you know that Matthew 18’s instruction to “go, confront him when you are alone” isn’t the only Christian way to deal with conflict?

Posted on by

Basahin sa wikang Tagalog

Ask any Christian how to deal with conflict and they will pull out Matthew 18 because it lays out what many see as THE way for Christians to deal with interpersonal sin. For years the church has laid out the process of talk to the person individually, then if things don’t work out bring someone as a witness. Then, if things still don’t work out, bring the matter before the church and if that doesn’t work out then expel the person from the church. It’s pretty standard but what if I told you that this wasn’t the only biblical way that God’s people deal with sin? There are actually countless examples of other ways of doing the same thing that may be more relevant in other cultural contexts.

Because different cultures do indeed have differing ways of dealing with conflict. Indirect communication, through concepts such as pahiwatig [hinting] and pakikiramdam [sensing non-verbal cues], are at the core of communication and conflict resolutions of some Filipino and First Nations peoples. The Lupon tagapamayapa, or peacemaker board, is a key part of Philippine society and is one effective way in keeping peace in our communities.

Duane Elmer’s 1993 book Cross-Cultural Conflict: Building Relationships for Effective Ministry is a great biblical theology of conflict resolution that doesn’t limit itself to Matthew 18:15-20.

For Elmer, the Matthew 18 approach is especially useful in so-called Western societies where confrontation and frankness are cultural values. As Elmer says, even though “directness, confrontation, forthrightness and candid outspokenness are valued and expected in Western culture, in most of the world these same values, even when demonstrated respectfully, are considered rude, unrefined, ill-mannered, discourteous and even contemptuous” (p. 62). This approach is less useful in other culture settings where confrontation and frankness actually create more conflict. I would add that focussing solely on Matthew 18 provides excuses for those who are caught in sin because it can be used as an excuse to reject any process of reconciliation.

Elmer divides his approach into four categories. I will give a brief outline of Elmer’s argument including a definition and biblical example or two of each category. Elmer’s book goes far beyond this by giving real-world examples of how these various methods have worked effectively in cross-cultural settings however I should point out that Elmer approaches most of these situations as a cultural outsider. However, this doesn’t impact the biblical theology that he also develops in the book.

Mediation and the Mediator. One set of bible passages talks about how conflict is sometimes resolved through the use of an intermediary. Mediation is in fact a big theme in all of scripture, as we can see below.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 explicitly states — “There is one God. There is also one mediator between God and humans—a human, Christ Jesus. He sacrificed himself for all people to free them from their sins. This message is valid for every era.” Jesus’ role as mediator is expanded in John 3:17, Romans 5:10-11, and Hebrews 7–8.

Moses was a mediator in delivering the law, as Paul mentions in Galatians 3:19-20, and as outlined in Exodus 32:30-32 and Numbers 12:6-8.

Job wants a mediator to help him with his case in Job 9:33 — “There is no mediator between us to put his hand on both of us.”

Joab sets up a mediator between David and his son Absalom in 2 Samuel 14:1-4 in an effort to achieve peace.

Prophets (Deuteronomy 18:18-23) and priests (Exodus 28:1; Leviticus 9:7; 16:6; Hebrews 5:1-4) also served as mediators between God and humans.

Elmer says a mediator is a third party who is “respected, neutral, and objective” and who acts as a bridge between the two parties in conflict with the goal of achieving a win-win solution. According to Elmer, the use of a mediator when seeking reconciliation is normal in many cultures. As Elmer says, “many cultures of the world prefer indirect methods for handling conflict and potential conflict. One of the more common indirect methods is the use of a mediator. Neither the existence of a mediator nor the functions of a mediator are foreign to the scriptural account. While society may have contaminated the role of the mediator or used it for selfish, even evil purposes, it is still a legitimate role that needs to be understood and appropriately employed by Christians.”

The one-down position and vulnerability. Another set of Bible passages talk about how resolution sometimes takes place when one or both of the parties place themselves in either a vulnerable or a lower position. For example, when Abram and Lot’s shepherds have a conflict over grazing rights in Genesis 13:8, Abram takes the one-down position in seeking resolution by offering to transfer to another area.

Later on, Lot was in the one-down position because he had been captured by some rampaging kings in Genesis 14:5-12. Abram comes to rescue Lot from this position in Genesis 14:13-20.

David, in his conflict with Absalom, also assumes the one-down position. In 2 Samuel 14:1-4 Joab prompts the woman to say, “Help ⌞me⌟, Your Majesty” because this would put the woman in a one-down position to the king, who would then be obligated to help her.

Elmer says, “Taking the one down position means you make yourself vulnerable to another person or indicate that without their help you are in danger of being shamed or losing face.” “It is important for you not to cause another person to lose face or be ashamed, but if there is danger of this happening to you, you may call on another to protect you from losing face. In fact you may call even on the very one endangering your honor to save you from the same shame that may befall you” (p. 80). Elmer gives God’s dealings with Abram and David as examples.

Story-telling and proverbs. A third set of Bible passages emphasise stories as tools for resolving conflict.

Perhaps the best example of this in the Bible is when the prophet Nathan confronts King David over his sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:1-9). Nathan tells an elaborate story of a rich man who steals a poor man’s beloved lamb. When David is enraged, Nathan stuns him by saying, “You are that man.” The result is David’s repentance.

Jesus also used this many times when he told parables in order to teach the values that he wanted taught. Conceivably, he could have directly gone around challenging people with their sin and saying, “Repent!” Rather he chose storytelling as his main form of interaction.

There are countless examples of Jesus telling parables, but some significant examples include Luke 18:10-14, when Jesus tells the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in an effort to both present hope to tax collectors and encourage repentance by the Pharisees.

Jesus also uses this method when confronted by the leaders in Matthew 21:23-27. When asked, “By whose authority do you do these things” Jesus replies by posing a puzzle that allows him to avoid a direct confrontation.

The effectiveness of this method is shown later on in Matthew 21:33-46 when Jesus tells the story of the man who rented his vineyard. His servants, sent to collect his portion of the produce, are mistreated and his son is killed. When the story is over we learn that the chief priests and Pharisees knew Jesus was talking about them — meaning that Jesus was able to indirectly get his message across.

Elmer again: “Storytelling in this sense is not simply the use of stories but … the instructional, corrective and nuanced use of words …. to socialize the younger members of a society into the norms and values of that society. Yet these same tools are easily crafted into responses in conflict situations.”

Note also the progression included in this option: One is allowed to become more direct if the intended targets of the story don’t quite make the connection with themselves.

Inaction, misdirection, silence, and indefinite persons. The final set of Bible passages we will look at talks about how conflict is sometimes resolved using indirect means. Some cultures emphasize more indirect forms of interaction and this leads to another type of conflict management that emphasizes indirectness.

Shiphrah and Puah are two Hebrew midwives discussed in Exodus 1:8-19. After being ordered by the Pharaoh “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth, look at the child when you deliver it. If it’s a boy, kill it, but if it’s a girl, let it live,” the midwives respond to the Pharaoh’s request in several ways: silence in that the passage doesn’t record any direct answer from them to the Pharaoh’s order; inaction (v17) in that “they didn’t obey the king of Egypt’s orders”; and misdirection (v19) in that they blamed the Hebrew women’s health as the reason why they couldn’t obey. This story may seem odd, at least from a Western perspective that might interpret the midwives as being dishonest. However, the fact that “God was good to the midwives” tells us that he approved of their methods.

We also see these principles in the stories of King Saul (1 Samuel 10:27) and in Esther.

In Mark 9:33-37 we read that Jesus’ disciples “were silent.” This is because they wanted to save themselves from the shame of having to confess what they were discussing on the road. Jesus doesn’t confront them about this but rather uses an indirect object lesson to help them better understand the very question they were arguing about.

Jesus himself uses silence when the Pharisees tried to force him to condemn the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. He then uses misdirection to turn the question back to the accusers when he says, “The person who is sinless should be the first to throw a stone at her.”

And of course Jesus also remained silent in Matthew 27:14 when being questioned by Pilate.

In talking about silence Elmer says, “silence does not mean the issue is settled or that some agreement has been reached. It usually means a delay until another appropriate strategy can be employed…. There is a time for silence and a time for forthrightness. It seems that the gravity of the issue is one indicator for choosing, as is timeliness.”

Some concluding remarks. One key to these alternative biblical forms of conflict management is to realise that none of them are exclusive. Rather one can cycle through various forms of these approaches with the goal of arriving at a win-win situation in the end. It is also important to note that we need to use culturally appropriate forms of conflict resolution, with the goal of actual resolution. We don’t just want to pick and choose the method that will best support our side of the issue. We need to choose the approach that will best lead to resolution.

This might seem like an opportunity to go “conflict resolution shopping” and choose the option that will best serve our side of the conflict. That isn’t the point of this exercise. What this is trying to show us is that sometimes using Matthew 18’s approach solidifies the conflict rather than resolving it because it is intended to be used in a particular cultural setting. Choosing one of the other options may lead to better results in other contexts.

It is also a good place to mention, at least in passing, that so-called Western theologies are hegemonic. This means that they have, by virtue of the volumes written by westerners taken predominance and exterted power over the Other. This needs to change as other cultures enter into the conversation with their own contexts and systems. The result will be a theology that is richer in the end.

What do you think of Elmer’s assertions? Do you think this provides the church with some better options for dealing with and resolving conflict? Are there unresolved issues that you have with someone that would be fixed if you had followed another process?

I want to hear your voice. That’s why feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by Charl Folscher on Unsplash.

Scripture is taken from GOD’S WORD®.
© 1995, 2003, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020 by God’s Word to the Nations Mission Society. 
Used by permission.

Essentials vs. Non Essentials Revisited

Posted on by

A number of years ago, I wrote a couple of posts (here & here) in response to a discussion we had at our SEATS School of Missions regarding the quote from Rupertus Meldenius, “in essential matters, unity; in non-essential matters, liberty; in all other matters, charity.” The post went on to basically dissect the various meanings of “non-essential” after merely brushing along the surface of “essential.” I stated, “Other than certain foundational theological truths that we can’t mess with, we are surrounded by a vast amount of stuff that can be classified as personal preferences.”

Of course, the kind of stuff that was in my mind for this section was stuff like who Jesus is, who God is, the importance of the Bible, etc. Stuff that is really non-negotiable; stuff that Christians must agree on. 

But what if those very theological foundations of my faith were not so much foundations as they were constructs of my culture and mind? 

Enter Andrew Walls. I had the privilege of attending a couple of seminars by this great church historian from Scotland. To be honest, I had never heard of him until two days before the event, when I received an invitation to attend two days of lectures on Christianity and culture hosted by the Institute for Studies in Asian Church and Culture and Asian Theological Seminary. What I heard and experienced during those two days shook some of my fundamental theological understandings to the core!

According to Walls, the early Jerusalem Christians[1] were in fact Jews through and through. They worshipped in the temple, they offered sacrifices, and they followed Moses’ law to the letter. They even didn’t engage in missions to Gentiles! It wasn’t until persecution scattered those early followers of the Way that the message jumped from being something Jewish to being something also understood and accepted by Gentiles. It is here where my mind was blown. In Acts 15 we read the account of the first Council of Jerusalem, which was convened to discuss this new situation that had arisen – how do Gentiles fit into the whole scheme of things? The answer is surprising. The Jewish church leaders in Jerusalem basically said to the Gentiles, “You don’t have to follow Jewish customs.”

What struck me was that the Jerusalem followers of the Way still followed these Jewish customs. Their whole faith was built around Jesus fulfilling a specific set of prophecies, completing a complex legal systems, and being a part of the chosen people. The council in Jerusalem didn’t throw that out, they merely said that there are other valid ways of expressing the centrality of Christ. It was the first “Essentials vs Non-Essentials” debate and what is surprising is that the entire Jewish system is declared to be a non-essential! Note that this isn’t just a discussion of what kind of music to use in worship or what language to use when preaching – this is a complete overturning of the basic fundamental theological and social system of God’s people.

The Jews who followed the Way discovered that their Way was not the only way and that the Others’ Ways were sometimes polar opposites to what they knew and believed to be true in their hearts!

Of course the exciting thing is that God allows such diversity among his followers without being threatened.[2] How can we do the same thing without being threatened ourselves?

The key for Walls is the role of the Holy Spirit in the process. We often focus on the power aspect of the Holy Spirit. Could it be that the “counsellor” role of the Holy Spirit is counselling us on how to do church in relevant and understandable ways?

[1] In fact, according to Acts, followers of Jesus were not called Christians until a group formed and became known in Antioch. “The Way” was the term used to describe those who followed Jesus. 

[2] A discussion of Walls assertion that the church has never ever been unified – and that’s ok – will have to wait for another time 🙂

Feedback is always welcome.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by engin akyurt on Unsplash.

Is it possible that my understanding of the Bible is wrong and if so how am I supposed to find out?

Posted on by

“When I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came to these people. This was the same thing that happened to us in the beginning. I remembered that the Lord had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized by the Holy Spirit.’ When they believed, God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. So who was I to interfere with God?” When the others heard this, they had no further objections. They praised God by saying, “Then God has also led people who are not Jewish to turn to him so that they can change the way they think and act and have eternal life.”‭‭ Acts‬ ‭11:15-18‬ ‭GW‬‬

In Acts 10–11 some incredibly significant changes happen in the early church. Here we read that the good news of Jesus Christ is expanded to include proselytes to Judaism and non-Jewish peoples. 

In Acts 11 some people complain about Peter’s encounter with Cornelius saying, “You went to visit men who were uncircumcised, and you even ate with them.” Peter then goes into a lengthy explanation of what had happened,  repeating every detail of the events of Acts 10. He says, “When I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came to these people. This was the same thing that happened to us in the beginning. I remembered that the Lord had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized by the Holy Spirit.’ When they believed, God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. So who was I to interfere with God?”

Once the complainers heard this “they had no further objections. They praised God by saying, ‘Then God has also led people who are not Jewish to turn to him so that they can change the way they think and act and have eternal life.'” 

The argument seems to be based on shared experiences. Jesus promised that they would be baptised with the Holy Spirit and so if anyone else shares in that baptism then that is a good thing. 

It got me thinking about issues that we face today. Issues where we know that we are right, not simply because of our opinions but because the Bible tells us that we are right. Is it like that for us today, too? Is this a model of how to make determinations in these issues? Are there things we are absolutely convinced about that the HS may have a different opinion on? How would the HS make that known to us?

In Acts 10-11 we see two ways that these kinds of changes happen: 

1. Sometimes God intervenes directly and tells people where they need to change. God directly tells both Cornelius and Peter that change is coming.

2. Sometimes people act on their own and God blesses their actions. One could argue that the people from Cyrene who first shared the good news with the Greeks of Antioch were simply following Peter’s example. But we also read that there was another discussion held in Jerusalem about the issue that resulted in the statement of Acts 15 regarding how non-Jewish followers of Christ needed to act. 

Andrew Walls, in The Gospel as the Prisoner and Liberator of Culture, says of theology, “It is therefore important, when thinking of African theology, to remember that it will act on an African agenda. It is useless for us to determine what we think an African theology ought to be doing: it will concern itself with questions that worry Africans, and will leave blandly alone all sorts of questions which we think absolutely vital. We all do the same. How many Christians belonging to churches which accept the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith could explain with any conviction to an intelligent non-Christian why it is important not to be a Nestorian or a Monophysite? Yet once men not only excommunicated each other, they shed their own and others’ blood to get the right answer on that question. The things which we think are vital points of principle will seem as far away and negligible to African theologians as those theological prize fights among the Egyptian monks now seem to us. Conversely the things that concern African theologians may seem to us at best peripheral.”

What Walls is saying is that theology is developed around questions that are important for people in societies and because there are a variety of societies in the world, sometimes the issues in one society are unintelligible to the people of another society. 

For example, clearly the NT people saw no problem with the prominent role that women played in the spread of the good news of Jesus Christ. From the women who supported Jesus and the 12 financially, to the women who first announced the resurrection, to Saphira who, with her husband Ananias, taught Apollos the ways of the gospel, to Junias who was numbered among the apostles, there were many women who were involved in ministry at the highest levels! If this is indeed the case, why do many have such big issues with it today? 

Justice is also a key biblical issue. When Ezekiel says, ”Put a mark on the foreheads of those who sigh and groan about all the disgusting things that are being done in the city” (9:4) he is telling us that it’s a sign of connection to God to complain about injustice. If justice is so important to God, why is social criticism that is a part of movements such as Critical Race Theory, Black Lives Matter, and #metoo often rejected by the church?

When writing this post I had a lot of issues in my mind that I think others get wrong. But the real question I need to ask myself is where am I getting it wrong? Where do I need to hear the voice of God and change my deeply held convictions and move into conformity with his will? 

Feedback is always welcome. 

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by Robert Ruggiero on Unsplash.