Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #5
I got my moneys worth on Monday. I believe that, for my future vocation and ministry calling, I will need to have an enriched understanding of all of the ecclesiological traditions and contemporary manifestations of said traditions. Althougth the book for week three was very insightful to such content, I was not able to fully comprehend each tradition because (a) it is hard to read an extensive book in depth during such a short time and (b) it is helpful to collaborate with other minds (some of which who are possibly from the faith in discussion) to gain a more tested understanding. I like the concept of group discussion, merging with other groups, and than presenting the material so that the entire class can benefit from the segregated discussions. Good class!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Book Review #4
Sider, Ronald J, Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works, Barker Books, 2002.
The book in question is, largely, about defining what holistic ministry is, showing how it becomes somewhat of a hybrid between the two major extremes in Christian faith, and providing utensils to help churches and individuals become holistic (that is, whole-p.59) in nature. I will discuss how the authors use the contrasting beliefs of the fundamentalist and social gospel ideologies to define the holistic church and I will then discuss how the authors have challenged some of my belief structures.
In trying to define a balanced church that contains evangelism and social initiative, the book makes some very bold claims. First, the book clearly supports that evangelism is a necessary element to any God-willed mission. The following quote gets at this issue quite well.
“A prevalent myth in many churches is that if you give non-Christians a chance to rub shoulders with Christians, they will catch a dose of the gospel…it allows churches to feel that they are obeying the Great Commission just by doing good deeds for Christ’s sake…Everything we do is evangelism” (p.63).
I understand and agree with the above concept; however, the quote seems to de-emphasize how Christ-like actions are evangelism in themselves. The authors point to the opposite extreme to find fault as well.
“An exclusively spiritual focus costs evangelists opportunities to demonstrate the sincerity of their care and to communicate God’s love in concrete ways” (p.63).
The above quote is a nice transition into the other important factor that should be present in EVERY ministry that the church pursues, social concern. The book talks about how churches that look only at the heart neglect how God’s love can be shown through the care of tangible needs within the church and community.
The book has revolutionized my way of thinking about the need for social action within ministry. First, I learned that social action is not just a means to get to someone’s heart, but it is showing God’s love in a tangible way. This will undoubtedly affect the way I act within my case study. Social action, albeit outside the immediate community, will be at work in our short-term mission’s trip. I will now look at our work as showing God’s love and bringing healing as opposed to merely finding a way to get to the heart. I still wonder, though, whether or not the book’s analysis of social action is entirely correct. Although God wants us to be good stewards and at peace on earth, it is clear to me that the spirit is what ultimately matters. I do not neglect social change, because I love others and am supportive of an equalized community; however, I see the spirit as the variable containing a preponderance of the importance in the Great Commission.
The book also enlightened me to the fact that incorrect social policy is sin! As a Christian who is, admittedly, skeptical of politics, I can say that this fact has opened my eyes to the importance (and God-willed aspects) of the political system.
“Evangelists have often defined sin narrowly in terms of individual, moral choices. We have not understood that sin also has a systematic dimension. Wrongful choices become embedded in twisted, unfair policies and social systems…But we cannot enjoy the wholeness the creator intended if we must live in oppressive structures that deny our humanity” (p.93-94).
The rest of the book is dedicated to understanding the community and structural variables inherent in holistic ministry. I truly enjoyed this book. I would suggest it to any Christian, especially those who claim partisan affiliation to a single (one-sided) form of church.
The book in question is, largely, about defining what holistic ministry is, showing how it becomes somewhat of a hybrid between the two major extremes in Christian faith, and providing utensils to help churches and individuals become holistic (that is, whole-p.59) in nature. I will discuss how the authors use the contrasting beliefs of the fundamentalist and social gospel ideologies to define the holistic church and I will then discuss how the authors have challenged some of my belief structures.
In trying to define a balanced church that contains evangelism and social initiative, the book makes some very bold claims. First, the book clearly supports that evangelism is a necessary element to any God-willed mission. The following quote gets at this issue quite well.
“A prevalent myth in many churches is that if you give non-Christians a chance to rub shoulders with Christians, they will catch a dose of the gospel…it allows churches to feel that they are obeying the Great Commission just by doing good deeds for Christ’s sake…Everything we do is evangelism” (p.63).
I understand and agree with the above concept; however, the quote seems to de-emphasize how Christ-like actions are evangelism in themselves. The authors point to the opposite extreme to find fault as well.
“An exclusively spiritual focus costs evangelists opportunities to demonstrate the sincerity of their care and to communicate God’s love in concrete ways” (p.63).
The above quote is a nice transition into the other important factor that should be present in EVERY ministry that the church pursues, social concern. The book talks about how churches that look only at the heart neglect how God’s love can be shown through the care of tangible needs within the church and community.
The book has revolutionized my way of thinking about the need for social action within ministry. First, I learned that social action is not just a means to get to someone’s heart, but it is showing God’s love in a tangible way. This will undoubtedly affect the way I act within my case study. Social action, albeit outside the immediate community, will be at work in our short-term mission’s trip. I will now look at our work as showing God’s love and bringing healing as opposed to merely finding a way to get to the heart. I still wonder, though, whether or not the book’s analysis of social action is entirely correct. Although God wants us to be good stewards and at peace on earth, it is clear to me that the spirit is what ultimately matters. I do not neglect social change, because I love others and am supportive of an equalized community; however, I see the spirit as the variable containing a preponderance of the importance in the Great Commission.
The book also enlightened me to the fact that incorrect social policy is sin! As a Christian who is, admittedly, skeptical of politics, I can say that this fact has opened my eyes to the importance (and God-willed aspects) of the political system.
“Evangelists have often defined sin narrowly in terms of individual, moral choices. We have not understood that sin also has a systematic dimension. Wrongful choices become embedded in twisted, unfair policies and social systems…But we cannot enjoy the wholeness the creator intended if we must live in oppressive structures that deny our humanity” (p.93-94).
The rest of the book is dedicated to understanding the community and structural variables inherent in holistic ministry. I truly enjoyed this book. I would suggest it to any Christian, especially those who claim partisan affiliation to a single (one-sided) form of church.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #4
Wednesday's class was very productive and intriguing. I learned more about the the notion of kingdom of God as is relates to my project, we were given the prompt for the case study, and the class collaboration over general concepts was a great added benefit. Good overall class day.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #4
Although we had a slow start to the lesson today, the overall experience was very educational. I gained progress on my case study from the narrative assignment of finding how Jesus could exist in our ministry. I will use this prompt to further brainstorm for my project and said question will serve as a big part of my paper. I also benefited from the parental example Dr. Bulger gave. This vision he had for his kids is very unique and biblically inspired.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Book Review #3
Karkkainen, Veli-Matti, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical Historical and Global Perspectives, 2002, InterVarsity Press.
All Christians are influenced by the cultural and traditional factors of their particular church. In the interest of unity within the body of believers, it is important for individuals to understand the differing traditions and contemporary Ecclesiologies. Although deviating theologies create diversity and liberation within the church, such differences can lead to counter-productive division if we do not find a common ground. Karkkainen’s introduction to Ecclesiology seeks to solve the above dilemma. The thesis, or motive, of the book is to give a basic Ecclesiological background of the leading Christian theologies, as well as leading contemporary Ecclesiologies, in an attempt to create true Christian unity where division has birthed.
The first section of the book is dedicated to outlining the traditions and foundations of the following movements: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Free Church, Pentecostal/Charismatic, and Ecumenical movements. His sections for each faith are quite exhaustive in terms of the history and religious convictions of the people in question. Of the above churches, I am only personally learned (through life experiences) in the free and Charismatic churches. I consider myself a non-denominational Christian; this is, in part, because I am in a church that holds this title. The study of other church movements has (a) allowed me to see where many of the characteristics of my faith have come from and (b) afforded me a better understanding of different believers whom, in the recent past, I felt slightly disconnected to.
Although Karkkainen’s presentation had a positive effect on me in terms of empathy, it did not by its very nature bridge the gap between the faiths. Furthermore, the book showed me how certain aspects of my faith have come from different traditions; however, it did not sufficiently show commonality amongst these belief systems beyond the fundamentals of the faith. Another contrary force to Karkkainen’s goal of unity is his belief that the emphasis of salvation through Jesus Christ is a more individualistic concept as opposed to a socialistic idea. Since the focus is on the individual experience, the notion of true Christian community is not the ultimate end, inter-growth is. Such concept is expressed in the following passage:
“The former (Protestantism) makes the relation of individuals to the church dependent on their relation to Christ, whereas the latter (Catholicism), conversely, makes the relation of individuals to Christ dependant on their relation to the church” (p.12).
Unification of the church is a topic that I am very passionate about and I envision dedicating a part of my vocation to its happening. I have recently been convicted of Christ’s desire for a unified bride on earth (for we will be truly unified for eternity in heaven) and I have a desire to start an inter-denominational/international conference with such end in mind. I am truly thankful for the information in this text as well as Karkkainen’s comments about the benefits of unity; however, I feel that further meditation and vision is necessary to put said ideals into practice.
All Christians are influenced by the cultural and traditional factors of their particular church. In the interest of unity within the body of believers, it is important for individuals to understand the differing traditions and contemporary Ecclesiologies. Although deviating theologies create diversity and liberation within the church, such differences can lead to counter-productive division if we do not find a common ground. Karkkainen’s introduction to Ecclesiology seeks to solve the above dilemma. The thesis, or motive, of the book is to give a basic Ecclesiological background of the leading Christian theologies, as well as leading contemporary Ecclesiologies, in an attempt to create true Christian unity where division has birthed.
The first section of the book is dedicated to outlining the traditions and foundations of the following movements: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Free Church, Pentecostal/Charismatic, and Ecumenical movements. His sections for each faith are quite exhaustive in terms of the history and religious convictions of the people in question. Of the above churches, I am only personally learned (through life experiences) in the free and Charismatic churches. I consider myself a non-denominational Christian; this is, in part, because I am in a church that holds this title. The study of other church movements has (a) allowed me to see where many of the characteristics of my faith have come from and (b) afforded me a better understanding of different believers whom, in the recent past, I felt slightly disconnected to.
Although Karkkainen’s presentation had a positive effect on me in terms of empathy, it did not by its very nature bridge the gap between the faiths. Furthermore, the book showed me how certain aspects of my faith have come from different traditions; however, it did not sufficiently show commonality amongst these belief systems beyond the fundamentals of the faith. Another contrary force to Karkkainen’s goal of unity is his belief that the emphasis of salvation through Jesus Christ is a more individualistic concept as opposed to a socialistic idea. Since the focus is on the individual experience, the notion of true Christian community is not the ultimate end, inter-growth is. Such concept is expressed in the following passage:
“The former (Protestantism) makes the relation of individuals to the church dependent on their relation to Christ, whereas the latter (Catholicism), conversely, makes the relation of individuals to Christ dependant on their relation to the church” (p.12).
Unification of the church is a topic that I am very passionate about and I envision dedicating a part of my vocation to its happening. I have recently been convicted of Christ’s desire for a unified bride on earth (for we will be truly unified for eternity in heaven) and I have a desire to start an inter-denominational/international conference with such end in mind. I am truly thankful for the information in this text as well as Karkkainen’s comments about the benefits of unity; however, I feel that further meditation and vision is necessary to put said ideals into practice.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Wednesday reflection for wk #3
During class today I isolated the case study I am interested in doing for my course paper. Upon collaboration with small group members as well as professors, I realized that my case study, which I was initially skeptical about, is perfect for the the topic of our paper. I also feel that the conversation in today's class was enlightening and relevant to the course material. I still love the way in which the course is delivered.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #3
Although it is not yet Monday, I am writing this post because I do not know whether or not we are supposed to write about a day of which we are not in class. I have been working on the Fuellenbach book as well as doing work for my other course. I am beginning the planning for the Ensenada service project that I spoke about in my preliminary write-up for the term paper. Hopefully, I will be able to incorporate information from the class into the planning and execution of the event. I am excited to have the added practical element to go along side the interactive nature of this course.
Book Review #2
Fuelenbach, John, Church: Community for the Kingdom, 2002, Orbis Books.
Last week, we were introduced to Gerhard Lohfink’s opinion that the community of God on earth is exclusively referring to the true Israel. In John Fuellenbach’s Church: Community for the Kingdom, we find a blunt contrasting opinion which holds that the kingdom of God is not exclusive, it is, rather, universally inclusive. Fuellenbach’s main argument, by way of referenced critiques and Ecclesiological analysis, is that the kingdom of God is not identified with a particular group of people (i.e. the contemporary church) on earth; furthermore, none are excluded from such kingdom.
It is held that “the church is a community of all persons…however, the grace of God is dependant on Jesus Christ” (p.71). This statement has large implications that conflict with the contemporary church in many ways.
“The symbol kingdom of God, being broader than the church, provides a solution for the problems of …the church and her relationship to the world…and …narrow dialogue and ministry between religions” (p.82).
This is a crucial point I must fully embrace since my future will most likely contain a large amount of cross-cultural and cross-religion dialogue. I must learn to speak without ethnocentric and “superior faith” type language because I am speaking to someone else within the kingdom of God, not outside of it.
The author uses his background analysis to put forth a model of the church today, model for where the church is going, and a model of where the church ought to be going. Since I am not Catholic, I was very intrigued to learn the contemporary direction of said church as well as seeing how the Lord is at work in their culture. His noting of the current world church’s transition from the western church society was very enlightening and relevant to the cross-cultural missionary.
Fuellenbach’s analysis of the “contrast society” concept is at odds with Lohfink’s contribution. Fullenbach believes that, as culture has moved away from the global values of virtue and purity, the notion of “contrast society” is lost. He also asserts that at the very essence of a contrast society is a division (supporting a particular group) between people as to the kingdom of God. I agree with Fuellenbach’s belief that, as Christians, we are not to be seen as separated from others; however, I do feel that the grace of God calls us to live our lives in a contrary way. Thus, there are groups of persons acting differently within the same society, that is, kingdom of God.
Fuellenbach’s work has implications that extend to all denominations of the Christian faith. The notion of universal community not only helps Christians empathize and relate to the rest of the world, but it also diminishes the hierarchical mentality within the church where certain individuals are purported as God’s select and others, who may serve as less socially attractive parts of the body of Christ, are counted as less important.
Last week, we were introduced to Gerhard Lohfink’s opinion that the community of God on earth is exclusively referring to the true Israel. In John Fuellenbach’s Church: Community for the Kingdom, we find a blunt contrasting opinion which holds that the kingdom of God is not exclusive, it is, rather, universally inclusive. Fuellenbach’s main argument, by way of referenced critiques and Ecclesiological analysis, is that the kingdom of God is not identified with a particular group of people (i.e. the contemporary church) on earth; furthermore, none are excluded from such kingdom.
It is held that “the church is a community of all persons…however, the grace of God is dependant on Jesus Christ” (p.71). This statement has large implications that conflict with the contemporary church in many ways.
“The symbol kingdom of God, being broader than the church, provides a solution for the problems of …the church and her relationship to the world…and …narrow dialogue and ministry between religions” (p.82).
This is a crucial point I must fully embrace since my future will most likely contain a large amount of cross-cultural and cross-religion dialogue. I must learn to speak without ethnocentric and “superior faith” type language because I am speaking to someone else within the kingdom of God, not outside of it.
The author uses his background analysis to put forth a model of the church today, model for where the church is going, and a model of where the church ought to be going. Since I am not Catholic, I was very intrigued to learn the contemporary direction of said church as well as seeing how the Lord is at work in their culture. His noting of the current world church’s transition from the western church society was very enlightening and relevant to the cross-cultural missionary.
Fuellenbach’s analysis of the “contrast society” concept is at odds with Lohfink’s contribution. Fullenbach believes that, as culture has moved away from the global values of virtue and purity, the notion of “contrast society” is lost. He also asserts that at the very essence of a contrast society is a division (supporting a particular group) between people as to the kingdom of God. I agree with Fuellenbach’s belief that, as Christians, we are not to be seen as separated from others; however, I do feel that the grace of God calls us to live our lives in a contrary way. Thus, there are groups of persons acting differently within the same society, that is, kingdom of God.
Fuellenbach’s work has implications that extend to all denominations of the Christian faith. The notion of universal community not only helps Christians empathize and relate to the rest of the world, but it also diminishes the hierarchical mentality within the church where certain individuals are purported as God’s select and others, who may serve as less socially attractive parts of the body of Christ, are counted as less important.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Monday Reflection for wk #2
My first impression of this course (concerning delivery and content) was affirmed today. I am so excited to see how I will grow from the holistic course atmosphere, group collaboration, and practical content of the course. It was ironic (rather, a sign of calling) that we discussed the case study/project today. Just prior to class, I was speaking with my mentor at church who has put me in charge of administrating a missions trip to Ensenada, Mexico in mid-February. I am anxious to use this project for my paper since it is my first practical experience in the area I believe to be my calling, that is, administration of non-profit missions.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Book Review #1
Lohfink, Gerhard, Jesus and Community, 1984, Fortress Press Publishers.
Gerhard Lohfink is a Professor of the New Testament at the University of Tubingen. He has spent a great deal of his life offering his services to the Catholic Integrated Community. In post-WWII Germany, Lohfink has contributed to the faith base of the citizenry in a country that has been crippled from leadership in the past. Lohfink’s specific passion of reviving his nation’s spirit concerning religion is closely related to the meaning behind the book of discussion. Jesus and Community is a book that is focused on understanding Jesus’ ideas, and commands, for the church to form a contrast society founded on sacrifice and brotherhood. This idea of sacrificing one’s own importance for another is a hard concept for post-Nazi Germany to accept. Lohfink does a good job of showing how Jesus wants the church to be and how there is so much need for growth in this area throughout the globe.
The thesis of the book in question is to examine the body of people who are, ultimately, considered the community of God, exegetical dissection how they are called to interact, and discuss how their actions are used to begin the great pilgrimage of all. The book starts chronologically with how Jesus interacted with the original Israel, that is, the Jewish bloodline. It goes on to discuss Jesus’ formation of the true Israel through discipleship. In the later sections, the author focuses more on the action taken by both the New Testament community surrounding Jesus and the early church in carrying out this community mentality.
Although Jesus does not exclude anyone from salvation, he seems to always focus his attention on Israel (p.17). This statement shows that Jesus believed Israel to be the community in which Godly men and women existed and were called to lead the world to the Father. The author first exhibits this by showing Jesus’ intent to heal this people (healing has a symbolic correlation to salvation-p.14). The reason that Jesus focuses his attention on a single people is so that said people will be “a sign of salvation” (p.28) to the rest of the nations. The statement made in the first line of this paragraph is not impeded by the fact that Israel (the Jews) rejected Jesus’ community. In the next section, the author shows how Jesus’ initial focus on the physical Israel changed focus to the true Israel, the disciples and believers in the teachings of Jesus.
When we see Jesus command his disciples, we begin to see (vicariously through his commands to them) the attributes which Jesus expects from the community of God. Jesus tells his disciples to leave their families and comforts behind in order to pursue a new family that will not leave them in want. This is the true symbol of the forming of the new community of Israel. In this community, there is no hierarchical structure. People are referred to as brother and sister and the word “father” is reserved for one. This is contrary to the Jewish society which refers to their teachers as “abba” or “rabbi” (ironically, this “father” statement is also expressed in the Catholic faith, Lohfink’s affiliation). In this community, people put the interests of their brothers and sisters over themselves and what develops is a contrast society of universal submission which, ultimately, leads to the rest of the world joining into the community.
Jesus further defines his feelings about the community of God in the third section of the book. Jesus’ ideal society was very loving, socialistic, and non-violent in nature. He preached against classes (i.e. there are no longer masters and servants) and he speaks against retaliatory domination (i.e. …turn the other cheek). The author extends these biblical examples to the factual actions of the early church which support its validity.
I enjoyed reading this work and I was enlightened by its exegetical insight. The author’s argument that the church should be so against violence that it should oppose (or at least not participate in) war at all levels really challenges my socially structured thinking. This seems so contradictory to the church of today and I definitely do agree with the author on this level. I had a slight conflict, however, with the author’s opinion that the statement “love your neighbor as yourself” is only referring to persons within the true Israel community. He logically analyzes the word “neighbor” as referring to a particular entity removed from the entirety of humanity. I believe that the word “neighbor” is referring to all of those who are around you. The author justifies his statement later by stating that such love is to be a model and a spark of love for the rest of the world; nonetheless, I do feel a little distant from him on this issue. Please offer some feedback on this topic if you have any biblical insight.
Gerhard Lohfink is a Professor of the New Testament at the University of Tubingen. He has spent a great deal of his life offering his services to the Catholic Integrated Community. In post-WWII Germany, Lohfink has contributed to the faith base of the citizenry in a country that has been crippled from leadership in the past. Lohfink’s specific passion of reviving his nation’s spirit concerning religion is closely related to the meaning behind the book of discussion. Jesus and Community is a book that is focused on understanding Jesus’ ideas, and commands, for the church to form a contrast society founded on sacrifice and brotherhood. This idea of sacrificing one’s own importance for another is a hard concept for post-Nazi Germany to accept. Lohfink does a good job of showing how Jesus wants the church to be and how there is so much need for growth in this area throughout the globe.
The thesis of the book in question is to examine the body of people who are, ultimately, considered the community of God, exegetical dissection how they are called to interact, and discuss how their actions are used to begin the great pilgrimage of all. The book starts chronologically with how Jesus interacted with the original Israel, that is, the Jewish bloodline. It goes on to discuss Jesus’ formation of the true Israel through discipleship. In the later sections, the author focuses more on the action taken by both the New Testament community surrounding Jesus and the early church in carrying out this community mentality.
Although Jesus does not exclude anyone from salvation, he seems to always focus his attention on Israel (p.17). This statement shows that Jesus believed Israel to be the community in which Godly men and women existed and were called to lead the world to the Father. The author first exhibits this by showing Jesus’ intent to heal this people (healing has a symbolic correlation to salvation-p.14). The reason that Jesus focuses his attention on a single people is so that said people will be “a sign of salvation” (p.28) to the rest of the nations. The statement made in the first line of this paragraph is not impeded by the fact that Israel (the Jews) rejected Jesus’ community. In the next section, the author shows how Jesus’ initial focus on the physical Israel changed focus to the true Israel, the disciples and believers in the teachings of Jesus.
When we see Jesus command his disciples, we begin to see (vicariously through his commands to them) the attributes which Jesus expects from the community of God. Jesus tells his disciples to leave their families and comforts behind in order to pursue a new family that will not leave them in want. This is the true symbol of the forming of the new community of Israel. In this community, there is no hierarchical structure. People are referred to as brother and sister and the word “father” is reserved for one. This is contrary to the Jewish society which refers to their teachers as “abba” or “rabbi” (ironically, this “father” statement is also expressed in the Catholic faith, Lohfink’s affiliation). In this community, people put the interests of their brothers and sisters over themselves and what develops is a contrast society of universal submission which, ultimately, leads to the rest of the world joining into the community.
Jesus further defines his feelings about the community of God in the third section of the book. Jesus’ ideal society was very loving, socialistic, and non-violent in nature. He preached against classes (i.e. there are no longer masters and servants) and he speaks against retaliatory domination (i.e. …turn the other cheek). The author extends these biblical examples to the factual actions of the early church which support its validity.
I enjoyed reading this work and I was enlightened by its exegetical insight. The author’s argument that the church should be so against violence that it should oppose (or at least not participate in) war at all levels really challenges my socially structured thinking. This seems so contradictory to the church of today and I definitely do agree with the author on this level. I had a slight conflict, however, with the author’s opinion that the statement “love your neighbor as yourself” is only referring to persons within the true Israel community. He logically analyzes the word “neighbor” as referring to a particular entity removed from the entirety of humanity. I believe that the word “neighbor” is referring to all of those who are around you. The author justifies his statement later by stating that such love is to be a model and a spark of love for the rest of the world; nonetheless, I do feel a little distant from him on this issue. Please offer some feedback on this topic if you have any biblical insight.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Wednesday reflection for Week 1
This was my first class session at Fuller Theological Seminary and, honestly, it has left me with high expectations for the rest of said degree. The content of the course is right up my alley insomuch as it is geared toward understanding other cultures, practicing empathy, and ADDING Jesus Christ to said culture. I completely agree that "westernization" in conjunction with spreading the gospel is un-biblical and judgemental in its very nature. I am eager to learn more about Professor Bolger's ideology concerning how non-western missions in westernized countries would look. I am glad that I am starting my missiology education with a course full of anthropological analysis and missions focused on empathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)