Seminaries and graduate schools
around the world are asking for
PhD holders to come as missionaries and teach Bible and theology. I know
of one major seminary in Europe who posted their openings in a major
evangelical magazine, only to find no takers. Why is this and how can we
Why They Are Hard to Find
1. God has not called them.
This is simple enough. To go to another culture with your wife and
kids usually requires God to uproot you in some way that is so clear that you
believe God is leading you to the field.
2. Some think raising money
is below their degree. I only write this because I have heard it so
often. Raising support is for the M.Div. students, so I have been told.
It is for the staff of some campus ministry or for helping orphans and
those on the margins of society. I know of many that would rather work at
Starbucks or UPS than ask people for their support to go overseas.
3. It is a career killer,
or maybe better an inhibitor. You can't participate at ETS/SBL. Your library (if you have one) is more limited. The education level of the students (in some
cases) is at a much lower level then what you find in the US (though that seems
to be changing for the worse here). Their colleagues might not be as
educated and able to provide them helpful feedback or sharpening of ones own skills.
4. It may involve learning
ANOTHER language. Most PhD students have learned Greek, Hebrew, German
and French and now we are asking them to potentially teach it all in another
language. This is a real challenge. Who wants to spend 2-3 years trying to master
Japanese in order to teach Greek when your mother tongue in English after
having spent years toiling with participles?
5. You don't have very many friends who can support you. One reality that faces graduates is that in the last six years you have probably lived in three different locations, and in each locations you probably did not make a lot of friends. You have spent a lot of time in libraries or have probably only gotten to know your fellow classmates.
6. You can still teach
modular classes overseas without leaving your job in the US.
7. Debt. Plain and
simple, going to school costs a lot of money. Very few escape with a PhD
and less than $45K of school loans from the various institutions they have
attended (at least in my experience).
How The Church Can Help
1. Pray God calls them (or
me or you). There is such a great need for well-trained, godly, pastoral
2. Challenge the belief
that fundraising is not for them. Have them read Steve Shadrach's Viewpoints.
It could be that one of the reasons people have a hard time asking for
support is because they do not think the people around them are generous.
That is fair. That means we should be even more open in our generosity and encourage them to go by pledging our support.
3. Seminaries in the west must
talk to students about the global Church and do so often. It is not enough to
talk about it in the Missions 101 class. It should permeate all of our
classes. Maybe seminaries should offer some full rides to students interested in teaching in developing countries.
4. Churches should talk about being missional not just in their community, but
around the world. They should also disciple these students and get them into small groups with people in the church who are not theology students, but serving the Lord in different career paths.
5. Create a way to get rid
of the debt. I have prayed that some donor would come to TLI or set up on
their own a fund that would pay off the debt of PhD's if they committed to 5
years of service overseas. Medical doctors have a program
like this. I believe this incentive would unleash many into service. I am thankful for places like Eternity Bible College and Bethlehem College and Seminary that are focused on keeping the costs low.
I am sure there are many reasons people do not go and many more ways we can help them. This is just a starting point.
Two years ago I wrote this:
My wife is five months pregnant. Last month we went for an ultrasound to see the baby and have the doctors check to make sure everything was progressing nicely. We had done this three times before and were excited. As we met with the doctor and ultrasound technician they referred to what they saw as "your child." They must have said it 50x during the ultrasound as they referred to "your child's hand," "your child's heart," etc.
But then something changed.
Another doctor was brought into the room and for 5 minutes he stared at the baby's heart. The room was completely silent. He then began to tell us that there was a tumor on our child's heart and started to run down all the scenarios we were now faced with. Then the doctor said to us: "If the fetus is abnormal and that is management problem for you, you have the option to terminate your fetus." The slight change in wording tells the story. I was in too much shock to respond. But later it dawned on me what he had done. The child my wife was carrying was only a child if we wanted to keep it, as if it was our choice! However, if we did not want the baby, it was only a fetus.
Three weeks later we came back for another ultrasound. The growth on the heart was not a tumor, but a normal variant. In the doctor's eyes, our child was a baby again. In our eyes, nothing had changed.
I have pondered this event many times now as I have held my son over the last 20 months. I am still in shock over it. Not a suprised kind of shocked. More of sadness and digust. As my wife and I have considered that conversation multiple times over the years, we have felt a large pull to help the Right to Life movement. We however are handcuffed (in a wonderful way) right now with four children and my job and are not able to do very much. So now, here are a few things for busy people to fight for the life of children not yet born:
1. Pray. Pray for the moms who are considering the abortion, the families who want to adopt the children and the doctors who want to murder them.
2. Engage. Engage your pro-choice friends in sane and calm arguments. Scott Klusendorf's book The Case for Life might really help you in this regard. The best argument to start is a simple one: Ask what the person you are debating what they think the mother is carrying. How they answer that question will guide your conversation. You never know how winning one person over to the pro-life side may impact the life of a child.
3. Make some money. Figure out a way to make more in order to buy an ultrasound machine for a pregnancy center or help a couple with the costs of an adoption. Continue to debunk the myth that Christians stop caring for babies after they are born.
4. Think about adoption. Connect yourself to real needs. You might not be able to adopt (like us) yet. But it may come soon.
5. Love your own kids. They are sweet little image bearers in need of a great and merciful Savior. I don't want to be known as an advocate for an unborn child and not an advocate and provider for my own!
Is there more that could be done? Yes! Do we have the emotionial and practical time to do anything else? No. But it is a start.
Some of the best advice I have
ever received came from my advisor Scott Manetch in seminary. He warned me not to use a "bag
of tricks" when I got into ministry. He explained how most
pastors stay at a church for 3-4 years and then move on. One reason, he
suggested, was because many pastors only had three years worth of sermons,
ideas and programs in their bag of tricks. When the pastor ran out he would
move on to another church and recycle everything again.
The root of this (I think) is
being a second-hander. We may push children to make their faith their
own, but pastors seemingly must do the same. Here are seven signs that you
are setting yourself up to be or already are a second-hander.
1. In school, when you are
assigned an exegesis paper, you run to the commentaries and your conclusion
first. You short-circuit your own work and effort by not staring at the
text over and over again. Time is of the essence so you hurry through the
process. The result - you have just written a paper on Romans 8 that is
almost identical to Doug Moo's commentary. You get a good grade, you
learned something about the text, but you skipped the process of learning.
2. Speaking of languages,
you rely on your computer software to parse everything for you. Even when
called upon in class, you look hard into your computer screen and then say what
the program tells you. Teachers would be smart to not allow computers in
3. You get assigned a text
to preach and you immediately go to The Gospel Coalition and Desiring God
websites for help. You listen to a few sermons, make an outline, add a personal
story and boom, you are done! Funny thing - it sounds just like John
Piper's sermon last week. I remember being in preaching lab while in seminary
and three people had the same sermon. To say pastors continue to use
other people's sermons in an unhelpful way is an understatement. Just read here. By the time you preach on Sundays, your sermons really are just insights from your three favorite preachers.
4. You would rather read
book reviews than books, books about the Bible instead of the Bible,and books on
prayer instead of praying. Books reviews are helpful. So are commentaries
and books on prayer. But these are secondary sources, not primary.
5. You rely on what you learned 10 years ago instead of what you learned over the last 10 years. The Bible is not fresh. All of your insights are from mentors and teachers before they unleashed you on the Church. You may have bought books at a conference or from a great online deal, but you only read a few, if you are lucky!
6. When you awake in the morning, you run to the blogs and news to hear what people say about Scripture instead of reading it for yourself.
7. All of your ideas are someone elses. This includes ideas for what your church is involved in. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is bad if you find that you are reduplicating the same plan in different contexts with different people.
I believe what happens in the process of using secondary sources first, is that you become a caricature of what you had hoped to become. You imagine yourself to know far more than you do. But honestly, the roots of Scripture are only an inch deep. You can not be a firmly planted tree by streams of water without delight and meditation. One thinks of the end of C.S.
Lewis's Four Loves as he reflects on his own experience of God:
God knows, not I, whether I have ever tasted this love. Perhaps I have only imagined the tasting. Those like myself whose imagination far exceeds their obedience are subject to a just penalty; we easily imagine conditions far higher than any we have reached. If we describe what we have imagined we may make others, and make ourselves, believe that we have really been there.
In the book Vernacular
David Tuesday Adamo has a chapter on “African Cultural Hermeneutics.” His aim
is to make a case for the practice of cultural hermeneutics in Africa. He goes
further to apply this method to the Psalms. Adamo’s chapter illustrates what I
call the danger of cultural hermeneutics and shows why this emphasis should be
rejected if we are to continue to maintain the truth of Scripture.
Adamo argues that,
In African indigenous culture, the means for dealing
successfully with traditional problems like disease, sorcerers, witches,
enemies and lack of success in life, have been developed. Western missionaries
taught African Christians to discard these indigenous ways of handling problems
without offering any concrete substitute, except the Bible. Charms, medicine,
incantations, divination, sacrifices and other cultural ways of protecting,
healing and liberating ourselves from the evil powers that fill African forests
were hurriedly discarded in the name of Christianity. Yet, we were not taught
how to use that Bible as a means of protecting, healing and solving the daily
problems of life. The Euro-American way of reading the Bible has not actually
helped us to understand the Bible in our own context (p. 66).
Three things stand out in this above statement. 1)
Christianity is a Western missionary thing. 2) Missionaries discarded African
traditional practices and only replaced them with the Bible which is not a
concrete substitute for dealing with their problems. 3) Africans should have
been taught by the missionaries on how to use the Bible for protection,
healing, and solving daily problems. Implied in Adamo’s argument, then, is that
African cultural hermeneutics will enable Africans to interpret the Bible in a
way that brings back such practices and makes use of the Bible to do what
charms, medicine, incantations, divination etc. did in the culture.
Adamo’s approach (in line with those who argue for African
cultural hermeneutics) is to begin with the African experience, then search the
Scriptures to see if there is anything in it that could solve problems faced in
that context. He states,
Faced with some peculiar problems as African
Christians, we searched the Bible consistently with our own eyes in order to
discover whether there could be anything in the Bible that could solve our
problems. In the process of reading the Bible with our own eyes, we discovered
in the scripture great affinities with our own worldview and culture. We
discovered in both the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament resemblances to
events similar to African experience, especially painful experience (p.
Applying his African cultural hermeneutics to the Psalms,
Adamo points out that the Psalms, interpreted from the African perspective, can
be used protection, healing, and success in life. Before the advent of
Christianity, the indigenous tradition of Africa used incantations and charms
to protect themselves against enemies and evil. Given this cultural context, he
comes to the Psalms and applies his cultural hermeneutics approach. He argues
that the Christianity brought by missionaries did not meet the need of Africans
for protection, healing and success. What the missionaries did not give,
African indigenous Christians found by searching the Bible. As he puts it,
“Using African cultural hermeneutics to interpret
the Bible, they [African indigenous Christians] found secret powers in the
Bible, especially in the book of Psalms. They used the Bible protectively,
therapeutically, and successfully to fill the missing gap left by Eurocentric
Christianity” (p. 74).
One wonders how Adamo sees the Bible, that he uses it as he
Applying his methodology of cultural hermeneutics, Adamo
identifies three groups of Psalms for the African indigenous churches. They
are: 1) Protective Psalms (Psalms 5, 6, 28, 35, 37, 54, 55, 83, and 109. He
argues that these are protective Psalms and thus should be used against enemies
and evil. They can be used in the African context to defeat the evil plans of
enemies. 2) Therapeutic Psalms (Psalms 20 and 40 [for swollen stomach]; 51 [to
heal barrenness]; 6 [to relieve from pains and worries]; 1 [to prevent
miscarriages] etc.). 3) Success Psalms include Psalms 4; 8; 9; 23; 24; 46; 51;
119:9-16; 134 (for success in examinations or studies).
In the end, Adamo has replaced the African traditional
practices with the Bible. Rather than hearing what the Bible says to the
African indigenous church, he wants the African indigenous belief system
brought into the Bible. Cultural hermeneutics, then, is finding in the Bible
those aspects that agree with the cultural practices and then using them, even
to the point of using the Bible as a charm to protect from evil.
Adamo’s work may sound trivial to Western ears, but is a
worry because what he says is reflected in so much of what is published in
African theologies these days. Such hermeneutics will keep people comfortable
in their belief systems, and they will never see the need to embrace Christ as
Lord and Savior.
Cultural hermeneutics as a topic of discussion may be
appealing to scholars, and the push for cultural sensitivity might keep us from
challenging such arguments, especially when made by Africans. But that would be
disastrous for the future of the church in places like Africa. We must know
about these issues, as they serve to show the serious need for proper
 Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah, ed.
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
Hermeneutics to pastors on the mission field was a joy for me. Helping students
see that there is indeed meaning in the text that the author intended to
communicate, and that we can arrive at that meaning was a thing that students
found significant for their own preaching. One day in class, a student
remarked, “Now, I do not have to look for things to put into my sermon because
the text gives me so much to deal with.” Contrast this with a pastor who got up
to preach one Sunday and told the people, “I have had this sermon for a month
but was looking for a passage to go with it.” The question is, should we train
pastors on the mission field to go from text to sermon or from sermon to text?
The answer is obvious. The text, rightly interpreted, gives the message, which
should be preached, to the people.
practice of hermeneutics (going from the text to sermon, going from author’s
intended meaning to significance for our context , commonly known as
application) is being challenged, and this is dangerous for the health of the
church. This challenge comes in the form of what is called “cultural
hermeneutics.” The challenge is coming from scholars in various cultures, as
well as from the West.
the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Atlanta in 2010, there was a
discussion group on New Testament Studies in Africa. It was a very helpful
discussion, but I was shocked at one statement: that we need to make room for
and be open to African Hermeneutics. I raised an objection to this statement
and started thinking of the implications of such an approach. Recently I met with a seasoned missiologist
who, after finding out what TLI is about, asked me, “Will you practice cultural
hermeneutics or are you going to bring western hermeneutics and dump it on
them?” He argued that we need to have the cultures interpret scripture the way
they see it. We need to be comfortable with other cultures coming to the text
and seeing different things. Again, this way of speaking is dangerous and will
do damage to the church.
is being catered to in this challenge of cultural hermeneutics? I fear that
those in the West jumping on the band wagon of this subject, have not carefully
considered its origin and who is being served in advocating such a position.
Take Africa for example, who in the African context is making the case for
cultural hermeneutics? A casual reading shows that it is the liberal scholars,
western trained, with no concern for the purity of the gospel, who are making
the argument and rejecting the normal practice of hermeneutics as Euro-centric
and uncaring for the African context. Are scholars in the West, then, promoting
the demands of African Liberal Scholars? It seems so.
in Africa who advocate for cultural hermeneutics argue that Africans should be
allowed to read the Bible for themselves, and will see things differently. They
should be able to come to the Bible and see a different meaning in the text
than a westerner will see. There should not be a western imposition on one’s
right to see truth in the Bible from his or her own cultural perspective.
basic argument of cultural hermeneutics is captured by Professor Gosnell L Yorke, Faculty of Theology & Religious
Studies, University of Eastern Africa, Banaton, Kenya. Writing for UNISA
(University of South Africa) Online, he says,
Since it is now acknowledged that all
theology is practiced* from a certain perspective, a space is cleared for an
Afrocentric reading of biblical scriptures. Afrocentrism is an attempt to
re-read Scripture from a premeditatedly Africa-centred* perspective which
breaks the hermeneutical hegemony and ideological stranglehold of Western
biblical scholarship. It is shown, furthermore, that an Afrocentric reading of
the Old and New Testaments and an Afrocentric understanding of the figure of
Jesus Christ undercut all Eurocentric pretensions.
*[English rather than American spelling
of several words.]
challenge of cultural hermeneutics is serious. If left unchallenged, it will
affect the church and create problems in understanding the Word of God.
to this challenge, we must not engage in debating such scholars, but in
preparing future scholars who see the proper role of hemeneutics in their
context. These will be people who can go from text (properly interpreted) to
significance in their various contexts. It seems to me that the argument for
cultural hermeneutics is confusing “meaning” (what the author intended to
communicate) and application of the meaning in our own contemporary context.
practical outworking of the cultural hermeneutics argument is disastrous. See
the next post tomorrow on “Cultural Hermeneutics Applied.”
See his full article online at http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=7348