changefish

Like a Mother Weeping for Her Children: a Guide on Christian Weeping

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 15 Nov 2015 18:53:00 +0000

It is part of my Christmas tradition each year to go through the birth account in detail with the family and try to give the alternate perspective on the birth narrative that our culture buries with an avalanche of equal parts marketing, materialism, and outrage on the war on Christmas. Frankly though, those nostalgic christmas feelings are rooted deep inside my mind and many parts of the biblical story feel like they just need a little more christmas spirit. The slaughter of the innocents is one of those scenes. Mary and Joseph get a dream after the unwise wise men announce to a despotic king that they are seeking the "new" king. This king sends his army to go and kill the babies in an otherwise insignificant town after the religious elite, who were no doubt flattered to be consulted on such important matters of state, gave him the likely target of Bethlehem. Why didn't the other parents get a dream? Why weren't the soldiers more surgical in only finding and killing Jesus? Why does death and international migration have to mess up our Kinkade ambianced nativity story which stops just shy of having to end the story of the Messiah running for his life while babies are killed behind him. It is typical to gloss over the occurrence--if we mention it at all--and shove it under the rug of "well it was to fulfill prophecy." But imagine if that happened today.... would that in any way answer our moral outrage as to why it happened? The problem is not with the story but with our lack of understanding of Matthew's explanation.

“A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Matthew is reminding his readers of two very tragic memories in their collective story. He is directly quoting from Jeremiah 31:15-17, but this story goes back even further to Rachel's dramatic death in childbirth (Gen 35:16-20). Rachel was near to the town of Ramah when she gave birth. At the point when she was in anguish over here imminent death, she was comforted to know that she was bringing another son into the world. Women in this time were expectant that the Messiah would come (through the seed of a woman) soon, and would possibly be one of their children. There was anguish in her death, but there was hope in the future Messiah. Fast forward to Jeremiah's day. Ramah was being used as a the staging ground for the departing exiles. God was leading his people into captivity. This hearkened back to the days their slavery in Egypt (which also had its share of mother's weeping over their children) and it imprinted a similar anguish in Israel's story. Jeremiah compared this event to Rachel weeping over leaving her sons. She is the exiles' symbolic mother. But this passage is full of messianic references. In this chapter God promised to turn their weeping to joy when he led them back by a straight path (31:9) and went as far as to reference the coming of a new covenant (31:31-34). Again, there is weeping over the present loss, but that anguish will be quenched by the coming messiah. Now to the chapter at hand. There is, once again, deep anguish just a few miles from Ramah. This time, the messiah is here. His peace is not immediate; in fact, his advent brings turmoil. Nevertheless, he will ultimately quench this anguish.

What do these anguish stories teach us about Jesus? Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic hope of every age of despair in Israel's story (and our's). This is a relevant story to set the stage for viewing the grief caused by this week's attacks. But as we grieve, we need to also be aware of the solution. It is not an easy solution that will immediately eradicate all pain and suffering, but it is simply the wedding ceremony in a long marriage.

I have written and deleted a dozen or so facebook posts. These are some thoughts and "reality checks" that are important for Christians to ponder. I am struggling with pneumonia, so if they lack cohesion I apologize in advance.

All lives matter. The media and the "socialverse" keep insisting on the importance of their particular groups. Christians need to get back to the biblical understanding of the image of God in humanity and all that it means. The response of the media and socialverse regarding Paris would affirm that all lives matter, but some lives matter more than others. There was little to no outrage expressed over the suicide bombings in Lebanon, nor was there national and personal solidarity expressed for the Lebanese. The attacks in Paris and Lebanon are tragic. But what about the thousands who die right on the other side of our own border, the Russian plane which was blown up in Egypt, or the thousands who die in Syria, Iraq, etc? Christians need to be the ones who show concern for all of humanity regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or creed. Christianity is the only religion that truly has the theological and philosophical basis for making such claims--though we often forget this.
What does ISIS want? A Caliphate. What does every "strong man" ruler in the Middle East want? A Caliphate (so long as they are Caliph!).
Is ISIS bad? Yes, but no worse than most of the standing governments in the Middle East. The difference is that most of those governments torture and kill their people, their enemies, dissidents, malevolents, and minorities in secret while trying to maintain a modern, democratic face for the cameras (and guess what, your government supports them and turns a blind eye to their human rights violations). ISIS, in stride with their generation, youtubes their atrocities. They are the first despots with selfie sticks, but they are hardly original as despots.
It is easier to express outrage than it is to love our neighbor, particularly when we think our neighbor is our enemy. Regardless of our neighbor's status, the biblical command is the same: love.
It is easier to express outrage or solidarity than it is to get involved and do something. There are dozens of ministries to Muslims around the world that are in constant need of funds and people. With the way that people are spreading throughout the world, it is likely that you know a Muslim. Our solution must be the gospel. Unless you really think that the next billion dollars worth of munitions will accomplish something that the last billion dollars worth did not, or unless you really think that Trump, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, etc really are the key to solving the problems in the middle east then you need to take your light out from under your bushel and get involved.

Why we need more female missionaries in the Middle East

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:26:00 +0000

"the facts, instead of discouraging woman from engaging in the work, encourage her to go forward; for, while out of five men only one survives, only two women died out of three."

This statistical "optimism" probably strikes the normal reader as bordering on the bizarre. Written in an era of missions when missionaries often took their coffins to the field with them, this quote cuts against the comfort-driven Christianity of today. But then it faced us again. ISIS killed a group of Egyptian Christians. What is our response? Why does the gospel seem to be irrelevant in a region that was once the center of Christianity? What can we do about this? Maybe the answer is in the past. Perhaps we have to be willing to fill up every prison and sacrifice all of our lives before they will listen. Terrorism is only terrorizing if we are clinging to this life as if this is all that there is. Our reality is different. This life is short. To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ. That is the reality.

ISIS aside, and terrorism aside, and fear of jihad aside, to go to another country, and like Christ, empty yourself and pour yourself into a new vessel of servitude is to fully embrace dying to self. Perhaps they are unreached simply because we love our lives too much.

And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? (Luke 9:23-25 ESV)

What Every Christian Should Know about the Palestine-Israel Conflict

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:56:00 +0000

As things are heating up in Gaza again, a number of people have asked me about my thoughts on the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict (If you are just tuning in to this latest round, go here for a day-by-day recap). I realize that many people only stories from one side or the other. Many of the videos floating around on youtube and facebook make it look like a simple,one-sided problem. Thus a simple one-sided response would fix everything. Right?

It is important to challenge some of the presuppositions and myths that lie behind the debates and share some (hopefully) new information that will help you understand the complexity of the issue.

Myth 1: Palestinians are Muslims
Many Christians are pro-Israel based on the assumption that Palestinians are Muslim, Muslims want to take over the world and kill the Jews and the Christians, and thus they must be stopped (with extreme prejudice if necessary). It is true that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are in fact Muslim. It is also true that one of the oldest standing body of Christians are Palestinian. The fact that they are such a small percent only adds to the persecution that they receive. The reality is that many of the policies that Christians in the West support directly harm this persecuted and isolated minority. Many Muslims encourage this Christian community to join their ranks so that they would be stronger united rather than be shot at from both sides.

Myth 2: Jews are "Believers"
This myth is aligned with the understanding that the Jews are the people of God. In popular understanding, many Christians assume that they are faithful followers of God either in the messianic sense, or in the sense that they are anxiously awaiting the return of the Messiah. The reality is that a significant portion of the Jews are agnostic or atheists. This does not put their human rights in question (in the same way that being a Muslim shouldn't), but this fact should inform our decision making process.

Judaism without God

Atheism on the Rise, Jews are the Least

How Religious are Jews: Details on their Beliefs

Myth 3: Arabs Hate Jews
This myth is built upon several passages from the Qu'ran (pulled out from their historical context) mashed up

with an overlay of Middle East headlines from the last 50 or so years. What this narrative overlooks is the centuries of relative peaceful existence the Jews experienced in "Muslim lands." The establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 changed this and persecution increased as thousands of Jews fled the Middle East and immigrated to Israel. In spite of the increase in persecution, arguably the Jews fared better in Muslim lands during the early part of the 20th century than they did in Europe. Modern Arabs do not hate Jews as people, per se, but they are angry about the loss of the Palestinian homes when Israelis took control of the land.

Many of the oldest synagogues and other Jewish sites are in the Middle East (Most notably, Iran--such as Queen Esther and Daniel's tombs which are preserved and venerated by Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the region).

Myth 4: The Jews received their land out of some kind of "Christian" charity from Europe.
The reality is somewhat darker. Most Europeans were antisemitic. Much of this antisemitism continues to this day as Europeans continue to rank shamefully high in anti-antisemitism. Although the Nazi's final solution was too strong of a measure for most Europeans, they also viewed the Jews as a problem. Jews who returned from camps were often persecuted in their home countries and this became the tipping point for the necessity of their own home land. The creation of Israel, though positive for Jews in Europe, was simply a European "final solution" of a different order, and little concern was given to the needs and opinions of the then current inhabitants of Palestine.

Myth 5: The Jews have a theological right to the land.
Up to this point my counter to the myths has been largely based on data rather than opinion. One this

particular myth it is important to note that we are delving into the area of opinion and theological camps. How one concludes their opinion on this myth will be determined by how they answer questions regarding the end times, the covenants, if the church has supplanted Israel as the people of God, etc. Without turning this section into a lengthy theological debate let me just state some nuances that are often left out.

It seems clear from scripture, that the theological right to the land granted to the Jews was contingent on their faithfulness to God and to his covenant. When they worshiped other gods, God removed them from the land and scattered them. He did promise to bring them back again. Is this promise being fulfilled through the current nation of Israel? Possibly. Is it possible that God will judge them yet again--and re-scatter them--based on their current unfaithfulness? Possibly. In the even that this re-scattering happened, there would--I believe--be a future re-regathering (again, this depends on your end times theology and how you think Israel factors in).

What Should Christians Affirm Regarding Israel?

We should stand against all injustice. We should not be silent or partial in examining what is happening and what has happened and weighing it against the scripture. As in any conflict of any scale, there are always two sides. We should never blindly support either side since all men are sinners and sinners do sinful things.
We should stand against all suffering. The danger of choosing sides is the tendency to dehumanize the other side. The death toll is woefully lopsided. Should those who have chosen the Palestinian side hope that the score levels out? That is awful! Should those who have sided with Israel feel that the deaths of more than a hundred children is permissible or that they had it coming? That is equally deplorable. Christians need to affirm that all human suffering is tragic.
We should stand with our persecuted Christian brothers and sisters. We should be careful not to let our end times theology and political ideology lead us to support policies and activities that harm our fellow Christians, especially ones who are so vulnerable already.
We should stand with the Gospel. As Christians, we must act in ways which will not put barriers in front of the Gospel for Muslims or Jews in the region. In the modern era, western Christians have placed a priority on security. We may have to sacrifice our sense of security so that the gospel can be clearly heard.

partnership

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:24:00 +0000

I am looking for churches that are interested in engaging and impacting North Africa and the Middle East. Know of any? Please connect us if you do.

new paradigm, new direction, new blog

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:58:00 +0000

My blogging life over the years has taken many turns over the past several years. There was the blog which bore my name, and it was indeed my namesake. It was raw and uncut. I went after heresies. Take Irenaeus and give him the convenience of the internet. I shot my mouth off on all sorts of issues about which I only knew just enough to be dangerous. Islam was one of these topics. So when I left for the Middle East, it was better to take the whole thing down rather than meticulously redact everything I ever said.

The next blog was “offtheshire.” The name had a slight double meaning. On the one hand, I like the hobbit, had long ago left the shire and wandered off (“Not all who wander are lost…”). This wandering led to the second meaning which had to do with being outside the camp. Many of my wanderings have placed me outside of social life of the strict denomination in which I grew up. The tone of this blog tended to be deconstructionist. I was tired of the system of the past and much of what the present church still borrowed from it (not the historical traditions so much as the cultural taboos which constrained me from loving others). Martin Luther said “The Church is a whore, but she is my mother.” I was in good company. Enough said.

My latest blog is this one, “changefish.” The focus of this blog was to provide answers and to rewrite what I thought the narrative should have been all along. In one sense, it could have been called “all things contextual.” From the negative side, I put a little too much faith in the function of missiology without recognizing and prioritizing the relationship of missiology. I will probably keep this blog and post from time to time about the broader missiological and people movement topics which still concern me.
This blog you are now reading marks the beginning of me summarizing and exploring where I have been the last year or so and where I believe missions must go in the future. Words like flat earth, glocal, and diaspora are all coming into vogue, if only a nascent vogue. The world has changed drastically but most people are still acting as if everything is the same. I intend to grapple realistically and, at times, dramatically with the issues I see that are changing the world and how missions should adapt to accommodate these changes. What is God doing? Why? What should we do in response? are all questions that I will be asking and, hopefully, answering.

You can find the latest blog at http://flatearthmissions.blogspot.com/

Egyptian Alabaster

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:55:00 +0000

If you are looking for a unique Christmas gift then check out our new ebay store http://myworld.ebay.com/luxorco

If you could help us promote this site, that would be helpful (copy and paste it in your status or on twitter, etc). We are trying to help out an Egyptian friend.

bloggers wanted

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 00:22:00 +0000

I am starting a new missiology blog which addresses diaspora missions (reaching internationals in western cities or places that are otherwise not their homes). I will continue to blog here in general, but I would like to see a collaborative work by people who are working among diaspora peoples. I think this is definitely missing in the current blogosphere.

If you are interested in joining me, leave me a comment.

Letter to Diognetus

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:58:00 +0000

My article is finally out in this month's edition of St. Francis magazine. I originally blogged about this in another site and made the case that there is a difference in the tone of apologetics when the apologist is part of the minority group or the majority group. I originally applied this to generic western cultures but st. Francis picked it up and asked me to apply it to the Islamic context. Check it out.

http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/

How to fake a language

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:41:00 +0000

If you have ever tried to learn another language, then you might identify with this video.

mq: we are special, oh so special

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:44:00 +0000

“Introductory books and teaching materials on missiology, or anthropology, or the history of some non-Western area of the world, never fail to make me laugh. There will be a few introductory paragraphs, describing the general features of the country or people-group to be discussed—and then there will be an earnest, solemn-faced explanation to the student or initiate that “family is very important to the Mbongo people,” that “Chinese culture is highly collectivist,” or that the “swamp-dwelling Mudscratchers put the needs of their community above personal preferences.” Such facts are presented in a way that implies that this is somehow a noteworthy distinctive of the people about to be studied. Perhaps it is less painful to the audience to speak this way, and to allow the truly shocking realization—namely that only one culture has ever thought or acted in any other fashion—to remain, like the truth about Santa Claus, an undiscovered, dreadful secret. (It will be appreciated that I am assuming no readers of this book who are under the age of ten will have progressed this far!)”

Meic Pearse, Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage, (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2004), pg 127.

total confusion

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:46:00 +0000

Missionaries who return from the field often find themselves in a bipolar reality. On the one hand they just come back from having been one of a handful of Christians in an overwhelming population of non-Christians. Every day they look at the world's poorest poor. On the other hand, missionaries return to a context that is geographically removed from mass lostness and is flushed with benefits, cash, services, and other manifold comforts. Neither stateside Christians nor returning missionaries understand what the other sees, thinks, and feels.

This description used to be sufficient. Due to the influx of internationals into western cities, however, the issue of
churches being geographically distant or out of touch is no longer so easily brushed aside. Now missionaries return from the field and are able to live along side people from their former host country. Now when missionaries speak to churches about the unreached they are no longer speaking about "over there" but are taking about "right here." I suspect that missionary angst will increase. Years ago one could dismiss the church's complacency by pointing to the geographic distance. Now we can point to the unreached next door.

I'll be honest, it wears on me. The distance between the church and the mission has to be the single greatest challenge to my faith in my adult life. I work with a team of dedicated believers (including a few gospel-centric churches) and then I go visit churchs on Sunday and it seems like we have read two different books. When I lived overseas, I dismissed these feelings with the notion that we can't all go. Now that I live stateside, I see people who work with, go to school with, and live next to internationals around the world and still see the same complacency. Before, I had the hope that the foreign feeling of church would dissipate with time and readjustment. Now, I fear these will be lingering sentiments.

mq: we will gather the facts and then we will speculate

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:00:00 +0000

On what basis, then, can we judge other cultures without being ethnocentric? We have a right as individuals to make judgments with regards to ourselves, and this includes judging other cultures, but these judgments should be well informed. We need to understand and appreciate other cultures before we judge them. Our tendency is to make premature judgments based on ignorance and ethnocentrism."

Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Baker Academic, 1985), pg 102.

on being radical

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:20:00 +0000

Right now I work as a mobilizer, trainer, and strategist. When I speak to people I call them to radical obedience to the great commission to reach internationals in our cities. This requires complete lifestyle change. Many people think this lifestyle change is too radical, too demanding, or that I am selfish to call people to such a work. There are times when I feel bad asking people to commit to this degree but then reality hits me. People are already committed to this degree to one thing or another. People dedicate themselves to sports, music, tv, hobbies and church every day. Think about the kinds of specialized ministries that people serve exclusively: Gideon's, back yard bible studies, choir, singles, etc. Is it too much to ask to ask people to commit to reaching the 150,000 Muslims in my city? Why is that viewed as radical while time and money spent on golf seems understandable? Folks, we need to clear out the idols and dedicate ourselves to bringing the kingdom to people who have never heard of our King.

community

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:06:00 +0000

city or the island?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:30:00 +0000

Today's missions quote got me thinking:

We have recently been hooked on the show "White Collar." 'It is about a con-man/art-thief who has become a ward of the FBI. While working at the FBI his eccentric but darkly talented friend managed to steal a stash of art the Nazis stole. Neil and Moz are faced with a dilemma. To use the treasure, they would have to leave their swanky midtown flat and go live like kings on an island they could probably own. The characters struggle for a couple of episodes whether to take the treasure or not (I won't ruin the surprise--Go watch it, its good).

My wife and I talked about if we were in the same position what would we do. Years ago I would have instantly taken the island. I loved solitude and space. Now? I love music, culture, people, and places where stuff is happening. Go live alone on an island? I don't think so.

What about you? The Island or the City?

mq: from the garden to the city

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:30:00 +0000

"God originally place Adam and Eve in a garden-temple, but when God gets things completely wrapped up, the garden disappears. Instead of a garden in Revelation 21-22 we find a city. The garden, in other words, is not the ideal condition. The ideal condition is a flourishing, vibrant, culture-creating, God-honoring, Jesus-centered city."

Scot McKnight, "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited" courtesy of a friend

mq: god has a wonderful philosophy for your life

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

When the plan [of salvation] gets separated from the story [of Jesus], the plan almost always becomes abstract, propositional, logical, rational, and philosophical and, most importantly, de-storified and unbiblical. When we separate the Plan of Salvation from the story, we cut ourselves off the story that identifies us and tells our past and tells our future. We separate ourselves from Jesus and turn the Christian faith into a System of Salvation.

There's more. We are tempted to turn the story of what God is doing in this world through Israel and Jesus Christ into a story about me and my own personal salvation. In other words, the plan has a way of cutting the story from a story about God and God's Messiah and God's people into a story about God and one person - me - and in this the story shifts from Christ and community to individualism. We need the latter without cutting off the former.

Scot McKnight, "The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited" courtesy of a friend

cultural breakthroughs

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:27:00 +0000

I had dinner the other day with a man who used to be the pastor at our church when I was a kid. He was there for a short time and then went to Africa as a missionary. During dinner he recounted the ups and downs of nearly twenty years on the field. After a few rocky terms on the field he came to a break through.

The first part of the breakthrough was his use of oral storying. Most of the world is non-literate and oral preference regarding how they receive information. Storying is a method many cultures use for conveying history, values, and traditions from one generation to the next.

The second part of the breakthrough was through walking. Sounds retarded, right? When missionaries show up in cars in cultures that use walking as transportation they convey unspoken messages: we have a lot of money, you don't; I need to get there fast and I don't have time to go at your pace; I need my space; I am only passing through; my comfort and time are more important that being part of your world. Riding in a car wasn't only a barrier for reaching the lost, it was a barrier for partnering with believers as the different modes of transportation set two very different agendas. Imagine the time in discussion a group of walkers might have on a two day journey. They would talk while they walked. They would help each other out and--literally--carry each other's burdens. They would enjoy each other's companionship around the fire at night. Someone who wants to push that group's schedule forward by bringing in modern transportation simply doesn't understand their time structure.

Do the contraptions of your world keep you from connecting with others?

mq: how long is too long?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:51:00 +0000

…Professor Ramsay calculates that St Paul did not stay in Thessalonica more than five months, and he did not visit the place again for over five years, yet he writes to ‘the church of the Thessalonians’ (1 Thess 1:1) and speaks of it as being on the same footing as ‘the churches of God in Judea’ (1 Thess 2:14). At Corinth St Paul spend a year and a half at his first visit and then did not go there again for thee or four years, but he wrote letters as to a fully equipped and well-established church.

Now these are typical examples of his work. The question before us is, how he could so train his converts as to be able to leave them after so short a time with any security that they would be able to stand and grow. It seems at first sight almost incredible.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 84-85.

radio interview

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:40:00 +0000

I will be appearing on a Dallas area radio show tomorrow night (Tuesday, 3/6). If you are in the DFW area you can tune in to 90.9 KCBI at 6:30pm or 10:30 pm. If you are one of my internet stalkers, the program will put up the interview in their archives. If you are one of my friends in the real world you then you have heard it all anyway....

mq: globalization: go or stay?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:44:00 +0000

“The whole gospel is for the whole world. One does not have the right to do an end run around the nearby socially displaced peoples to go to the ends of the earth in the name of Jesus.”

“For me, and for Luke, Barnabas and Paul, what we call foreign missions is nothing more or less than the urban mission of God’s church in a world where the nations have come to live in the cities and where the mission frontiers are no longer geographically distant but rather culturally distant, right within the shadows of the spires on our buildings.”

Ray Bakke, A Theology as Big as the City, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1997), pg 142, 147.

what happens in athens stays in athens_19

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:18:00 +0000

"Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them."

Many commentators and preachers note that Paul did not experience the harvest here that he and the other Apostles had elsewhere. Some attribute that to his more "philosophical" approach. It is probably more accurate to note the differences in contexts between Athens and other places. In other places, there was the presumption of theism (See chapter 14). Here in Athens, Paul was talking primarily to atheists, pantheists and superstitious polytheists. It is also important to note that not all evangelism is harvesting; one must plant and water as well. The notion that one should judge Paul's approach based on his results is simply a numbers driven way of understanding mission that bases our approaches on pragmatism and business models (amway anyone?) rather than on the incarnation.

Paul received three distinct responses. Some mocked. The resurrection, no matter how well it is presented is ludicrous. For others Paul simply cleared the stones and planted good seeds. Those people were interested in hearing more, but were not ready to make a decision at that moment--Paul didn't push them. When Paul left, many followed him. It is one thing to pledge your allegiance in people's ears it is entirely different to alter your life and follow. One should not judge Paul based on results, but on obedience. Obedience should be our standard of success today as well.

This is part of the series what happens in athens stays in athens. See the whole series here.

mq: did Paul "just get along" with his pagan neighbors?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:51:00 +0000

It may be justly argued from these speeches that St Paul did not, and that the Christian missionary today should not, make bitter and virulent attacks upon the objects of his hearers’ veneration. It is true that St Paul denounced idolatry in strong terms, speaking of ‘these vain things’ (Acts 14:15) and ‘this ignorance’ (Acts 17:30), but in doing this he was only taking a position sanctioned by the highest intellects of his day, and recognized by all as a common attitude amongst thoughtful men. Similarly today a missionary in

China

might denounce in strong terms the folly of Taoist superstitions, and in doing so he would receive the approval of all right-minded Chinese, because that is the proper attitude for an enlightened teacher to take up; it is the attitude of the Sacred Edict. But that is not the same thing as to rail upon the religion of those whom he addresses. St Paul did not do that either at Lystra or at Athens, and the Town Clerk at Ephesus is witness that he did not blaspheme the goddess of that city. This is quite in harmony with the characteristic attitude of St Paul to his hearers which I have before noted. Christians in later days, accustomed to more bitter methods of controversy, could not understand this. To St Chrysostom it seemed incredible that St Paul should have refrained from fierce denunciation of the false goddess. He explained the matter by saying that the Town Clerk was not stating a known fact, but simply using a form of speech which he thought calculated to quiet an exited crowd. In later ages this same habit of mind still lingered on, and it is only now dying out. Now, it is happily rare to hear a missionary revile the religion of other people, or hold up the objects of their veneration to scorn and ridicule, and it is to be hoped that it may soon cease altogether.

Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1962, 67-68.

hospitality and sodom and gomorah

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:32:00 +0000

My last post talked about how inhospitality ostracizes both Muslims and Hispanics resulting in an alliance between both groups. What you might not have picked up on was the odd choice of art. It is an old picture of Sodom and Gomorrah going up in flames as lot and his daughters flee (observe his wife straggling from the group). So what does S&G have to do with Muslims or Hospitality? The answer lies behind the real reason that S&G was destroyed. Homosexuality, right? Nope.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.
(Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV)

The early church fathers agreed with this assessment, and said that Lot was declared righteous (in 2 Pet) because he was hospitable and S&G was destroyed because of inhospitality. One of the requirements for elders is that they are hospitable. Do you make the cut or are you worse than Sodom and Gomorrah?

inhospitality drives urban diaspora peoples to Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:27:00 +0000

My recent studies have focused primarily on Islam, hospitality, and the urban diaspora. In the past decade, immigration has been one of the big political topics, especially in the south. We have stiff-armed Hispanics and when they protested (thousands in the street waving the Mexican flag in Dallas Tx), we have simply retrenched our positions (Tea Party). Since Catholicism in South America was only a thin veneer laid over animism, Hispanics are not well founded in their "faith." In fact, it is not "theirs" at all. Like the Hispanics, in the post 9-11 world, we have also stiff-armed Arabs and Muslims. We do not share a common culture, geography, or religion. We get all of our information about them from the media and Hollywood. Thus, there is little understanding and much fear. I have seen firsthand how these two factors are having, and will have, a huge impact on my city which is around 40% Hispanic. My first brush with this event was through a class mate who worked in customs at the port. He reported that the Saudis were sending in flats full of Islamic Dawa (evangelism) literature in Spanish! The second event happened last week when a woman called me about a new believer from a Muslim background. After running through a matrix of questions about what happened and who this lady was, it turned out that the woman was Hispanic.

Check out this quote I dug up:

"Just as many Latino Muslims believe that Christianity was once an elitist religion that failed to protect their indigenous ancestors, many Latinos today feel that the church does not adequately defend the Latino-American struggle for equality. Alienation from Christian American society, along with poor social and economic conditions, may divert Latinos from Christianity--the religion of the establishment that, they believe, ignores their needs. According to the Omar Foundation's Osman, as a minority, Latinos are not understood or supported by the U.S. church, which, he says, continues to side with the elite."
"In Islam many Latinos find a community more sympathetic to their plight. Muslims, who are also a minority in the U.S., identify more closely with the Latino struggle for justice and equality. Estranged from mainstream Christian America, Latinos can identify with and take pride in the Muslim community and in Islam's past."
Lisa Viscidi in Islam in America (Green Haven Press: Farmington Hills, 2006) pg 74.