Hidden Worldviews

Troubles viewing? Click here to download the free Adobe Reader software for your computer: 

Adobe PDF Reader

When I read N.T. Wright’s book, I was reminded of a book by Christopher Wright (The Mission of God). In the latter, C. Wright had suggested that in interpreting Scripture we must emphasize the question, “What is it all about?” as a clue. In How God Became King, N.T. Wright does a similar thing with the New Testament gospels. His Preface already raises that issue, indicating that we need to ask of any writing, “What story was the author telling, and how did he or she go about it?”

While the historic creeds of the Church skip over the life and ministry of Jesus (going right from His birth to His suffering and death), the gospels spend much of their time covering what Wright calls Jesus’ “kingdom-inaugurating work” (p. 11). He points out that “the canonical four are telling the story of the rescue of creation, not its abolition or abandonment—again, in other words, the essentially Jewish story” (p. 17). In other words, the story of how God becomes king of the world (in the person and work of Jesus the Christ) is often set aside by the historical creeds and confessions of the Church but is the central message of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

In demonstrating his thesis, Wright covers what he considers inadequate answers to the question of what it is the gospels are speaking about. In the process he discusses how the churches have unwittingly spread ideas that are not sufficient to relay the gospels’ story. One of these, the primary idea of “going to heaven” will strike some readers as hitting close to home. Wright claims that the gospels are not so much focused on the claim that Jesus is God (certainly Wright believes in Jesus’ divinity), but on the reality of what God is doing in and through Jesus.

Using the apt analogy of a stereo system, he then discusses how there is a need for balancing the volume on the four “speakers,” which he designates as 1) the story of Israel, 2) the story of Jesus as the story of Israel’s God, 3) the launching of God’s renewed people, and 4) the clash of the kingdoms. Under each of these headings, he displays a marvelous grasp of the gospels and a credible case for his main thesis.

Wright argues that the first speaker needs to be turned up, while the second speaker needs to be turned down. In saying this, he means that the story of Jesus as a recapitulation of Israel’s story has been minimized, while the idea of Jesus as God has been “drowning out” the sound from the other speakers. He argues that Jesus was not so much seeking to “prove” that He is God – but in acting and speaking as He does, He is demonstrating just what it is that God intends to do, coming in person to rescue His own.

The third “speaker” Wright adjusts by turning down the volume on Jesus’ intention to “found the church” and turning up the volume on the fulfillment of Israel’s purpose as a renewed community. His conclusion to this chapter is particularly poignant: “The gospels are, and were written to be, fresh tellings of the story of Jesus designed to be the charter of the community of Jesus’s first followers and those who, through their witness, then and subsequently, have joined in and have learned to hear, see, and know Jesus in word and sacrament” (p. 125).

With respect to the fourth speaker, Wright argues that we are to “reread the gospels as what we can only call political theology—not because they are not after all about God and spirituality and new birth and holiness and all the rest, but precisely because they are” (p. 140). One example is John’s vision of the glory of Jesus being manifested at Calvary. “Jesus’ embrace of the hideous vocation to die on a cross is seen as the overthrow of the world’s powers, the world’s way of power” (p. 142).

Perhaps one of the most challenging ideas (from the perspective of German Lutherans) is Wright’s insistence that the “two kingdoms” theory separated the kingdom of faith and the kingdom of the state. In his evaluation, this scheme kept the message of God becoming king “impenetrable” (p. 161). We might want to argue this point, but we will need to do so from a sound exegetical standpoint, not just from the vantage point of traditional theology.

In the third section of the book, Wright takes up the matter of kingdom and cross and their relationship. He says, “we should not be surprised to discover that the suffering of Israel and of Israel’s supreme representative is to be understood as part of the longer and larger purposes of Israel’s God. . . Conversely, we should not be surprised to discover that when this God finally claims the nations as his own possession, rescuing them from their evil ways, the means by which he does it is through the suffering of his people—or, as in the story the gospels themselves are telling, the suffering of his people’s official, divinely appointed representative” (p. 183).

From a missiological perspective, Wright wants his readers to know that “God is the creator and redeemer of the world, and Jesus’s launch of the kingdom—God’s worldwide sovereignty on earth as in heaven—is the central aim of his mission, the thing for which he lived and died and rose again” (p. 187). This reality involves the call of Israel that culminates in the person of Jesus. “God called Israel to be the means of rescuing the world, so that he might himself alone rescue the world by becoming Israel in the person of its representative Messiah” (pp. 187-88).

In addition, Wright’s analysis brings to a crystalline focus the place of suffering and death in the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, not only in His life, but in the ongoing experience of the Church. “Here the suffering and death of Jesus’s people is not simply the dark path they must tread because of the world’s continuing hostility toward Jesus and his message. It somehow has the more positive effect of carrying forward the redemptive effect of Jesus’s own death, not by adding to it, but by sharing in it” (p. 201.)

And in fact, Wright contends, the gospels have much to say about the problem of evil. God’s way of acting is practical and persuasive: “. . . the story of Israel was to be the story of how God was going to deal with evil. He would draw it onto one place, allowing it to do its worst at that point. And he himself. . . would go to that place, would become Israel-in-person, in order that evil might do its worst to him and so spend its force once and for all” (p. 207). This approach to theodicy is quite helpful. In fact, the linkage between kingdom and cross is made even more explicit. In Wright’s words, “As we should have realized all along, the ‘lifting up’ of Jesus on the cross is his exaltation as the kingdom-bringing ‘king of the Jews,’ because the kingdom that is thus put into effect is the victory of God’s love. Kingdom and cross fully joined” (p. 231).

Perhaps Wright’s primary accomplishment in this book is putting together missiology and ecclesiology in a way that compels our respect, if not our full agreement. He says, “. . . the four gospels leave us with the primary application of the cross not in abstract preaching about ‘how to have your sins forgiven’ or ‘how to go to heaven,’ but in an agenda in which the forgiven people are put to work, addressing the evils of the world in the light of the victory of Calvary, Those who are put right with God through the cross are to be putting-right people for the world” (p. 244).

I find Wright’s analysis of the history of theology quite engaging: “Part of the tragedy of the modern church, I have been arguing, is that the ‘orthodox’ have preferred creed to kingdom, and the ‘unorthodox’ have tried to get a kingdom without a creed. It’s time to put back together what should never have been separated. In Jesus, the living God has become king of the whole world” (p. 276). Putting together kingdom and creed seems to be a project well worth attempting.

From the vantage point of Lutheran missiology, Wright’s book is a welcome affirmation of the full-orbed witness of Old Testament and New Testament. His accusation that modern Christianity has often missed out on the reality of Israel’s place in salvation history is all too familiar. And his putting together of kingdom and cross call us back (from a Lutheran perspective) to the theology of the cross, for in that terrible miscarriage of justice and compassion, God works to establish His purposes for a kingdom that thrives on service and mercy. Much more could be said, but perhaps this review is sufficient to whet your appetite for a well-written volume that will certainly expand your grasp of the four gospels.

The following essay is from Missional Transformation: God’s Spirit at Work: Essays Celebrating the Outreach Ministry of Dr. Eugene Bunkowske, edited by Mark G. Press and Eugene W. Bunkowske. See below the essay for more information about this book. NOTE: Some minor editorial changes have been made from the published article in Missional Transformation.

By Rev. Dr. Robert Holst
Retired President, Concordia University St. Paul, MN

Robert Holst graduated from Concordia, St. Paul and Concordia Seminary, St. Louis before serving as a missionary in Papua New Guinea. Returning to the USA, he served the Lord at Concordia Senior College, Fort Wayne, Indiana; Concordia University Irvine and for twenty years as president of Concordia University, St. Paul, Minnesota. His lifelong mission partner is Lynne Holst and they have three children and six grandchildren.

John 4:1-42: A Paradigm for Mission?

Witness at a well? Testify while tired? Converse across a cultural divide? The purpose of this essay is to examine Jesus’ conversation with a Samaritan woman at a well (John 4:1-42) to lift up possible methodological insights for evangelism including cross-cultural witness. Searching the Scripture for truths of God’s gift of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a treasured practice, but how to identify and apply Biblical methodology in our time and for our culture requires prayer and care. Decades ago, missionary Roland Allen studied the methodology of the Apostle Paul and challenged contemporary missionaries with his book, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Can Jesus’ actions at a well offer similar insights?

Before examining the story and thinking about Jesus’ methodology, it is well to remember the primary goal of the inspired Johannine Gospel. The Gospel is written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life in His name (John 20:30-31). In terms of the goal of this essay, our thesis is that John records the story of Jesus’ mission and missionary method at the well to inform readers of how a stranger learned that life came by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

John 4:1-6

The story begins giving significant, precise information. Jesus left Judea for Galilee. He has to go through Samaria. He stops at a town named Sychar not far from the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jesus sits tired by the well at about noon. With regard to thinking about methodology of mission three things strike me as thought worthy – first, the many details; second, that Jesus “had to” go through Samaria; and finally, that Jesus was tired.

Observe how many details are given. We know from where Jesus is coming, where he is going, and where he is. We know what Jesus is doing, why he is doing it, and even the time he does it. Why so many details? Is it merely to satisfy the curiosity of readers? More likely, in a Gospel written full of symbolism, the details illustrate the Christological reality, “And the Word became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14, New RSV). God’s Logos, God’s Word of grace and truth is anchored in human time and space. The words remind us that mission work involves real people in real places such as, in terms of Dr. Bunkowske’s mission vocation, at a home, in a classroom, in a restaurant, at a family reunion, in a hospital room, or in a translation committee in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Fort Wayne, Indiana, St. Paul, Minnesota and other places.

One challenging (and sometimes troubling) lesson of domestic, international and cross-cultural mission is that we may be tempted to idealize, glamorize or even romanticize mission and missionaries who are out of sight and not part of our experiential reality. Because I served in international mission work in Papua New Guinea, when I spoke about my experiences, I was often introduced as a “real missionary.” I gratefully accepted that designation but also immediately noted, “We are all real missionaries – just in different places.” John’s details remind us that evangelism does not take place in a vacuum.

The second suggestive part of the story lies in the words “he had to” go through Samaria. Humanly speaking, Jesus did not have to go through Samaria to get to Galilee. It was the shortest road from Judea to Galilee but we know that Jesus used the Jordan valley paths other times, cf. Mark 10:1. So why write, “Jesus ‘had to’ pass through Samaria” (English Standard Version, hereafter ESV).¹ The English words “had to” translate a single Greek word “Ἔδει” which can mean “God wills.” Cf. John 3:14, 9:4, 12:34 and Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22. As the Johannine scholar Raymond Brown wrote, “. . . the expression of necessity means that God’s will or plan is involved.² In other words, “Jesus had to pass through Samaria” means that “God wills” the journey even though other roads exist. Jesus’ mission in Samaria at a well at noon is not caused by chance, accident or human necessity. God willed that meeting. God wanted Jew to meet Samaritan. God wanted the glory of the Logos to appear to a woman drawing water at noon at Jacob’s well.

What can that mean for us today? Humanly speaking, we as Christian individuals and Christian congregations do not “have to” share the Good News of salvation with strangers. We can keep busy witnessing, worshipping and doing godly things with Christian people we know and like. Indeed, it is important for Christians to witness and share God’s love with others in the household of faith. However, Jesus’ action in Samaria demonstrates and reminds us of God’s divine intent for outreach to people who are strangers to our land, our culture and our faith.

Next note how the divine imperative combines at the Samaritan well with a most human motive. Jesus was tired (v. 6) and thirsty (v. 7). The will of God (“he had to”) and human need (“he was tired”) combine to provide an occasion for mission to Samaritans. The divine Christ anointed to do God’s will and the mundane limitations of Jesus’ humanity illustrate, in one person and one event, the complex divine-human dynamic often at work in mission and evangelism.

Dare we interpret and apply Jesus’ literal thirst and human fatigue as metaphors for broader human need in our times? In evangelism, are we tired of our human limitations and thirsty for supernatural relief? Are we are tired of watching people walk past the welcoming door of our church and thirsty for them to enter and learn of God’s love? Are we weary of the disgraceful conduct condoned by many in our culture and are we thirsty for public decency and Christian morality? Can the tired and thirsty Savior suggest that mission methodology includes times to witness when we are weary and thirsting for help? St. Paul recognized that human weakness need not prevent a strong witness. His prayers for relief were answered by God with the words, “My grace is all you need. For my power is greatest when you are weak” (2 Corinthians 12:9, Good News Translation, hereafter GNT). Thus Paul could confess, “I am content with weaknesses . . . for Christ’s sake; . . . when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10, GNT). Real or metaphorical weariness and thirst may be a prelude to evangelism.

John 4:7-8

Weary and thirsty, Jesus asks a stranger for help. The abrupt and surprising request reminds us that evangelism requires initiative. Jesus takes the initiative. He invades another’s time and space. His action reminds us that in mission and evangelism we often speak to people who neither demand nor request our attention. Like Jesus at the well, in evangelism, we may speak without being asked. We interrupt time, life style and traditions. As noted above, Jesus’ interruption may serve as a model for us in that he approaches by exposing his own vulnerability. He interrupts by recognizing not only his own need but also the strength or ability of someone to help.³

How radically different Jesus’ approach is from the international mission methods sometimes used during the colonial era in western civilization! Even today we may be insensitive or in a hurry. Some evangelism methods begin by putting a “prospect” in a defensive position. The first word attempts to prove a theological error, create a human fear or expose a moral weakness. “If you are smart, listen to me – because you are wrong – or ignorant – or sinful!” Such techniques may cook up a good theological argument but seldom boil down to an acceptable agreement in the mind of Christ. Putting a person on the defensive may thwart Christian witness before it begins. What if our mission odyssey began with the humble candor of Jesus? “Can you help me? I thirst for a blessing from your gifts.”

It is perilous to try to apply every part of the story, but I cannot resist saying that I am happy that the disciples are gone. For them it is business as usual in the marketplace. Not all disciples are active in outreach to strangers. Some have other gifts and responsibilities. Every calling, like shopping for food or humanitarian aid, is a good and necessary call. Cf. Acts 7:2; Mt 25:34-36. On the other hand, I think that Jesus begins his witness to the Samaritan aware that the disciples might hinder his efforts. As we will read later (John 4:27), they do not immediately or enthusiastically approve his witness with a Samaritan. They will question what is going on. In reality and faith, should we expect less?

John 4:9-12

The woman’s responsive question is direct and prejudicial. “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. Why are you asking me for a drink?” (John 4:9b, New Living Translation, 2nd edition, hereafter NLT). Is she surprised, angry, sarcastic, cynical, curious, or serious as Jesus speaks to her? I think it well that we don’t know so that we can imagine and be prepared for a variety of emotions in response to our Christian witness. Some responses may carry curiosity, hate, love, cynicism, eagerness, anger, hurt or hope. As the cultural prejudice of Jesus’ time lay behind the woman’s response, so the prejudice of the past lurking in our cultural and ecclesiastical closets may give rise to a variety of responses and emotions when we seek to witness. Evangelism may begin with receiving a reminder of sin lurking in historical and cultural barriers. Jesus must hurdle a historic barrier of segregation before enriching a stranger with the gift of reconciliation. Often we must do likewise.

Despite the woman’s response, Jesus continues. No longer does human thirst dominate Jesus’ concern because he knows that he faces a human being parched by prejudice. Jesus offer of “living water” (ὕδωρ ζῶν) confronts us with a tantalizing double entendre that offers two radically differing interpretations. The words “living water” can refer to the flowing water of a spring or, like Jacob’s well, fresh water “percolating from the subsoil” rather than stagnant cistern water. Or “living water” can allude to God’s revelation, deeds and gifts. The ambiguity of Jesus’ words enables him to perceive in the listener’s response whether the initial reaction (“gut reaction”?) is materialistic or spiritual.⁴ Before Jesus will witness effectively, he learns where the listener is “coming from.” That is a good practice for us as well. Not only theological acumen but also knowledge drawn from anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, literature, communication and other academic disciplines may foster a more effective witness. Not only does evangelism seek to communicate the truth, but it must be done in a way that creates interest, establishes contact, and invites response. What ambiguous phrases might we use today to create meaningful dialogue? “What are your goals?” “What makes you happy?” “What gives you energy?” Such questions can invite deeper thought or help one better to understand a stranger’s way of thinking.

Jesus’ allusive statement not only draws a response but also demonstrates that the respondent hears Jesus’ words as a mundane promise. She does not sense any spiritual intent. From her human “natural flowing water” perspective, the woman states three reasons why Jesus’ words seem boastful. The well is deep! He has no bucket! Tradition since Jacob! Her conclusions rest on human experience. We know that opinions based on human experience – both inside our congregations and outside our churches – can also thwart Spirit-guided evangelism today.

We today can expect a response similar to what Jesus got. In evangelism – especially multi-cultural mission – the well is deep! The linguistic and cross-cultural challenge is fathomless! We have no bucket! We carry no tried and true program. There is no other source of water! We know of no other options; we have no valid experience in this area! In the face of such replies, we expect a retreat. Instead Jesus advances his cause. Put off or put down, sensible people may retreat but Christ and his witnesses seek involvement. Our loving Savior does not back away from rational rejection. He has what he wanted – a person engaged in meaningful discourse.

John 4:13-18

The water from a well or a spring serves as a temporary solution for the problem of thirst. Now Jesus raises expectations; he offers a gift of lasting value. In return, the woman admits the reality of thirst and weariness of drawing water. (4:15) What emotions surge as the woman responds, asking for Jesus’ gift? Sincerity? Mockery? Greed? Hope? Evangelism today must accept the reality that an initial response may reflect human need, selfish wish or pensive hope. We cannot expect non-Christians to respond immediately to our witness with Christ-like understanding and godly motives. They are not yet disciples! Praise God if the conversation – the witness – can begin for whatever reason! Jesus is already working to make her a missionary. Using words similar to those that the resurrected Lord will share with Mary Magdalene (John 20:17), Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, “Go, tell, come back.”⁵

I wonder if Jesus’ directive to get her husband is culturally conditioned – culturally sensitive. In many “traditional patriarchal” cultures it is improper for a strange man to give a gift to a woman. In Papua New Guinea, if I wanted to give a gift – even translation of Biblical materials – to a woman, I would give her gift to her husband or her father and ask him to present it to her. Could it be that in the cultures at the well, the Jewish Jesus’ gift to the Samaritan woman for human reasons must be given to her through her husband? I do not know. But, if so, Jesus’ culturally sensitive directive can serve as a reminder that there are human customs that, if observed, can properly promote a relationship but, if ignored, prevent dialogue.

The woman’s reply and Jesus’ response intrigue us! Jesus is direct and yet subtle. He exposes trauma and yet affirms that, whatever her intent, she tells the truth. Oh, that God would give us the courage of Jesus to speak so clearly and the character of Jesus to speak so gently! His intent is to heal, not hurt. Jesus will not let her simple words camouflage personal trauma. Jesus wants the trauma of the past to serve as a basis for a future resting on God’s love. Is there a message here? May we cautiously and with great sensitivity consider how past trauma can open the door for effective communication and witness? My parents were killed in an auto accident. I still feel the hurt. However, that tragedy gave people opportunity to reach out to my family and me and to show Christian love in amazing ways. I also know former drug addicts who testify that Christian love and joy drew them to face the reality of a traumatic past and to change. I know people in so-called minority communities who experienced terrible injustice but human hate and trauma made the bonds of Christian love more powerful and precious.

I find it intriguing and helpful to think about how to interpret Jesus’ statement and the woman’s reply historically. To indicate already the heart of my inquiry, was she villain or victim? In fact, we don’t know. Jesus does not give reasons for details of the woman’s past. Yet, speculation on the woman’s situation in life may stimulate thinking about mission methodology today.

Is she a villain – a highly immoral woman? We have such examples in our culture; we probably all know of some famous and even some familiar people who have co-habited without or before marriage, been unfaithful in marriage, divorced for frivolous reasons or had multiple marriages . Did she divorce five husbands? Did five husbands divorce her for her infidelity? Noteworthy scholars explicitly espouse such an interpretation.⁶ Such an understanding offers a great application in that it can show how Jesus loves a great sinner and loves us as sinners also. Reading between the lines or as an ellipsis, Jesus’ statement might mean, “You are right [although you tried to deceive me], you have no husband. You have had five husbands [because you have been unfaithful to them] and now are co-habiting [because you don’t want to be tied down with marriage].” Under this understanding, Jesus exposes evil. Jesus shows how he came to seek and to save the lost. If we interpret the Samaritan woman as an exceedingly immoral villain, Jesus stands for us as a missionary role model seeking to introduce a sinner to God’s amazing grace and truth.

But there is possibly another understanding of the woman’s situation in life. Is she a victim?⁷ In Jesus’ time, women did not divorce their husbands. Husbands divorced wives. Even Jesus did not repeal the OT law of male engineered divorce (Dt. 24:1) but exposed “hard hearts” and, in my opinion, ameliorated a potential hardship for divorced women by reminding people (especially men?) that the women need to be “protected” with a certificate of divorce (Matthew 19:7). Dare we understand Jesus words to the Samaritan woman to mean, “You are right [although in shame you tried to disguise the truth], you have no husband. You have had five husbands [but sadly, some died and others sent you away without good cause. With others you were barren and because they wanted children they divorced you. Another thought you did ‘unseemly things’ such as talking too much with strange men and, in his shame of you, got rid of you.] And now you are co-habiting [because you have no family to protect you and in this culture with limited rights and protection for women you must live like a slave. Ostracized from society, you draw water alone for a man who doesn’t respect God’s covenant or you enough to marry you]”?

Is such an understanding of the woman’s past possible? A situation somewhat comparable tells of a “victim” in the book of Tobit. Tobit, written before Christ’s time, describes how a demon has created a seven-time widow. Seven dead husbands created a female victim! Even her father’s servant maids bullied her with insults (Tobit 3:7) saying, “Yes, you kill the bridegrooms yourself” (3:8). She feels so cursed that she considers suicide. She decides not to kill herself, not from a sense of God’s love but in order to avoid giving her father grief. Widow of seven and yet a victim. As another example, in the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel a woman named Susanna is condemned to death by the assembly on the (false) charges of solicitation by the perjury of lecherous elders. (LXX Daniel 13:41) She was a victim of false accusations and, except for the wisdom of Daniel, she would have been a victim of capital punishment.

Although the story of a woman caught in the very act of adultery was later added to some Greek manuscripts, some see it as an authentic, historical event in the life of Jesus. The anonymous woman is villain (“caught in the very act”) but also intended to be a victim by male malfeasance (John 7:53-8:11).⁸ The woman caught in the very act of adultery faces the possibility of capital punishment, but where is the man? Recall also that Abraham, in order to have a son, took his wife’s servant as a surrogate mother. Later, cast out in the desert, is Hagar victim or villain (Genesis 21:9-21)? On a more contemporary level, we know of the mistreatment or victimization of women in our own and other cultures. I recall discussing this story with people in Latin America. An elderly man quietly observed something like the following, “There are many women like this within a few kilometers of where we sit. Her family was poor and she was married at age 14 to an unfaithful man. After a year or two, he threw her out. In poverty, she was forced into another abusive marriage. And so it goes. Finally no one will marry her; she must become a prostitute or live with a man without marriage.”

Is the Samaritan woman a victim? To be truthful we don’t know. Although ancient and contemporary analogies cannot create or certify historicity, they can stimulate thought for application in our time and our mission methodology. We know victims. Our world is full of hurting women and men. Statistics reveal stunning numbers of victims of rape, sexual abuse and various types of exploitation in our culture. Male and female refugees from many lands enter our communities deeply scarred by wars, rumors of wars and the abuses of such. They are victims – not villains. We have good news for victims. Jesus loves victims and wills that His grace and truth come to them also. In summary, we do not know if the woman was villain or victim. Nevertheless exploring both explanations offers an occasion for us to think of Jesus’ will to witness to both victims and villains.⁹

John 4:19-24

The woman abruptly shifts the theological spotlight off her personal past to a theological debate long separating Jews and Samaritans. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, Joshua is directed to make Mt. Gerizim the holy place. Samaritans could point to nearby Shechem as a holy site sanctified by that decisive choice of the “gods of your ancestors or of the Amorites or God” (Joshua 24:15). Jews could counter by claims that David, anointed by God, led the covenant people to worship God in a Holy City on a Holy Mountain in a Holy Temple. The Jews strengthened their theological case by pointing to Assyrian destruction in the north and the subsequent intermarriage with non-covenant people. Samaritans could strengthen their case by noting that Solomon’s temple was destroyed. In its place stood a shrine half renovated by the hated Herodians. The Holy Temple in Jerusalem was so compromised by the “traditions of men” that the Essenes and John the Baptist called people to the wilderness, not to the temple, to join in preparing the way of the Lord. Already in the Johannine narrative, Jesus showed his displeasure with misuse of the Jerusalem holy site charging “Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!” (John 2:16, NRSV).

The woman lays hold of a theological argument that may be an honest question or may seek to trap Jesus in cross-cultural, theological tension. To point to Mt. Gerizim, Jesus might seem to abdicate Jewish faith in prophetic truths. To point to Mt. Zion could be interpreted as ignoring the Patriarchal roots of the Davidic covenant as well as alienating a troubled woman. Jesus’ reply avoids any elusive trap and reminds us that sites, buildings and times change. True worshippers accept the adiaphora of manmade temples or human traditions and, by God’s grace, worship in spirit and in truth. Jesus is calling a human being to look beyond the divisions of human opinion and to envision spiritual unity. More important, Jesus’ reply elevates awareness of the boundless scope of faith and worship.¹⁰

John 4:25-26

Once more, the woman changes the subject, demonstrating not only a human tendency but also a reflection of her theological tradition. Her human penchant, and often ours as well, is to change the subject in order to duck an issue. According to her Samaritan theological tradition, the Messiah would be primarily a teacher, i.e. “a Prophet-like-Moses.” Called the “Taheb,” he would be more teacher and law-giver than the type of Messiah the Jews awaited.¹¹ Thus she has not only changed the subject but has forced Jesus to address Messianic hopes in terms of her faith and hope. Her response rings a bell! How many times have our evangelism efforts been stymied by our own or others’ attempts to avoid an issue, duck a question or change the focus? Sometimes a discussion of evangelism closes with the observation, “We need to study this some more. We need clarification.” Like Jesus at the well, we may be drawn into ancillary theological issues that postpone or stymie witness.

Jesus shows us how to avoid such traps. Jesus uses the woman’s comment as a springboard for divine self-revelation. She who could anchor life in realities since Jacob and a future extending to an era of Messianic revelation now comes face to face with the Incarnate Word of God. Jesus’ answer “I am he” echoes the call of God to Moses and the revelation of God’s will to Isaiah. She hears the divine, “I Am Who I Am.” Jesus not only identifies himself but asks for faith in the great “I Am” of both Jewish and Samaritan Biblical revelation. That is now our message. The past may sting. The future remains uncertain. But, through our witness, “I Am” affirms His presence now for us and for all people.

John 4:27

At this point in the story, a strange thing happens. Before we learn the woman’s response to Jesus’ claim, the return of the disciples interrupts the narrative. There is good reason for the disciples to be surprised that Jesus talks with a woman. Ancient rabbinic sages suggested that burning the Torah might be better than teaching it to a woman. Others urged that a Samaritan woman be treated as a person perpetually unclean. Philo, writing at the time of our Lord’s witness, argued on the basis of Scripture that a woman could not bear witness. Sarah’s perjury in Genesis 18:15 demonstrated the folly of thinking a woman might tell the truth. There was an ancient rabbinic prayer, “Thank God I was not born a gentile, a slave or a woman.” Without a great stretch of the disciples’ imagination, the disciples could envision Jesus talking to a woman who fits all three categories.¹²

The disciples’ surprise and curiosity are not unique. Any evangelism effort that breaks with tradition will surprise some. Questions will either be raised openly or pondered privately. The two questions that the disciples consider but do not ask are often openly asked today. The person to whom the first question is directed is unstated. Some translations leave it ambiguous, others explicitly point it at Jesus and some direct it to the Samaritan woman.¹³ To question what Jesus is doing is understandable; I can identify with the disciples. In the mystery of life, I confess, that I have questioned Jesus about my vocation at times. “Lord, what do you want? Are you sure you want me to do this?”

Yet, I find it more meaningful to have the disciples’ wonder directed at the woman. Sadly, sometimes in evangelism, especially in cross-cultural ministry, the question arises, “What do they want?” For example, faithful disciples today may question the sincerity of new members wondering if “they” joined “our” church for membership benefits, such as reduced tuition in the church school. Instead of being grateful for the blessings of Christian outreach, disciples may react with suspicion or even resentment.

The disciples’ concerns may remind us again that evangelism can begin with mixed motives. We should not demand unbelievers to enter conversation with us with pure evangelical innocence or unblemished spiritual curiosity. I remember as a missionary in Papua New Guinea that I heard various reasons for listening to my witness. Some people said, “I want to become a Lutheran because your mission has lots of Jeeps.” Others stated, “We will become Lutheran because we want schools.” Their refreshing honesty taught me to expect pagan people initially to listen to my witness for pagan reasons. What do they want? We don’t always know and it isn’t important, if their wants give an opportunity for Jesus to meet their spiritual needs. Did the disciples sense that their questions were improper and thus did not openly ask them? May their reticence remind us that not all questions need public debate!

The second question is equally familiar. “Why are you talking with her?” Some people ask, “Why are you talking with people who don’t ‘fit the profile’ of our congregation?” “Why have a worship service in a different language?” Modern disciples may still ponder ancient questions. I think that the Johannine narrative tells us, “To think such questions is human. To ask them dishonors Christ.”

John 4:28-30

Jesus gives no spoken answer to the unasked questions, but the Johannine narrative shows what God wants. God wants the woman to believe and to share that faith with others. That is why Jesus is talking with her. The woman goes to witness so eagerly that she leaves her precious water jar in order to return to the city. There she invites people to think about Jesus. Again, she seems to be culturally sensitive and intellectually wise. She piques interest by stating, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done!” To hear such words from a woman married five times and now co-habiting would catch the interest of many.¹⁴ Having gained their attention, she follows with a question rather than an expression of her faith. “Could this be the Messiah?” In her culture, men may not take the testimony of a woman seriously – especially a woman so shunned that she must draw water alone. Better simply to ask a question. “A statement of assurance would merely have stimulated controversy, rather than serious inquiry.”¹⁵ In our culture too, there are times to share a question rather than a confession. May the woman’s sensible and sensitive response inspire us and our congregations! May we go and, knowing our limitations and the limitations of strangers, wisely and carefully invite people to come to know the love of Jesus! Leaving precious things behind, may we also go to share His grace and truth by telling the truth and by asking questions!

John 4:31-38

The narrative abruptly returns to the disciples who are prepared to do business as usual. “Teacher, have lunch.” But Jesus’ business is never as usual. He now works to stretch the faith of his disciples. In his quest for new disciples, he must enable the old disciples to see the power, the glory and scope of his mission. Is there a lesson here? One barrier to developing new evangelism programs can be in a church’s old programs! Individuals and congregations may prefer contentment over challenges, security over searching and receiving over giving. To his wondering disciples, Jesus must explain again his own active ministry. His ministry is to do God’s will. He must finish the work of God.

The Lord of the harvest now informs and motivates the workers. We can find two levels of meaning when Jesus talks about planter and reaper. First, Jesus warns the disciples about being jealous of the new Samaritan missionary. Evangelism knows no envy. Early workers respect new workers and new workers respect previous laborers. A second level of interpretation applies to the first readers of the Johannine Gospel. It seems possible or even probable that the Gospel is written after most of the first-generation disciples have died. The new guard is taking over. Perhaps some Johannine readers fear a generation gap in responsible leadership and service. Jesus’ words remind them and the church today that old hands need not fear new hearts. Jesus’ words, “One plants and another reaps,” remind us of another church facing change. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “I planted and Apollos watered but God gave the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6). Change is a part of life, even the life of the church. We bear witness to an unchanging Word of Truth to an ever-changing world with ever-changing servants of Christ. “Planters” praise God for workers who “reap” or “water” with new insights, ideas, energy and methods.

John 4:39-42

The disciples again disappear from the story and the Samaritans again take the stage. They come to Jesus and beg him to stay. As a result of His stay, people believe him. Then they express the proper role of a human missionary. By bringing people to see Jesus, the woman fulfilled the job description John the Baptist gave himself when he said, “He [Jesus] must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30). For the Samaritan believers, Jesus has increased; the missionary has decreased. What is our primary goal in mission and evangelism? Do we want people thanking us? Are they to honor us? No, we want people to know the Savior of the world. We are laborers; the vineyard is the Lord’s. We are the messengers; God gives the Message. Jesus must increase, while we who witness must decrease.

Conclusion

What have we learned in Jesus’ witness while weary and thirsty at a well in Samaria? Is it a paradigmatic moment? You must decide, but I hope that Jesus’ words and actions remind us that divine will and human weariness can still motivate meaningful mission, accepting godly methods for facing both opportunities and obstacles. In the end, it is Jesus’ will that we join with people of all nations confessing, “We know he [Jesus] indeed is the Savior of the world” John 4:42b.

¹ For variety and clarity, but also to recognize and celebrate Dr. Bunkowske’s ministry in Bible translation, several different translations are cited throughout this essay. If none is cited, it is my own translation or paraphrase.

² The Gospel of John (i-xii); Anchor Bible, 29. Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City, NY, 1966, p. 169.

³ Dr. Kenneth Bailey notes that when Jesus asks for a drink he does four things. First, he “breaks the social taboo of talking to a woman.” Second, he “ignores the five-hundred-year-old hostility . . . between Jews and Samaritans.” Third, he “totally humbles himself” and, last, he “elevates the woman’s self worth.” Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Intervarsity Press, 2008, p. 202-205.

⁴ Many commentaries examine the concept of “living water” thoroughly. Especially interesting is that of William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Revised Ed. Vol. 1, pages 152 – 156.

⁵ Career Latin American Missionary Rudolf Blank notes “Ahora, Jesus toma la ofensiva y le dice a la mujer . . . ‘Ve’, ‘llama’, ‘ven.’” Esta manera de diriger la conversacion, revela la passion misionera de Jesus.” Juan: Un comentario teologico y pastoral al quarto evangelio, Editorial Concordia, St. Louis, MO USA, 1999, p. 114.

⁶ A veritable “Who’s Who” of scholars from a broad spectrum of theological positions consider the woman a great sinner. Raymond Brown observed that if Samaritan standards regarding marriage were the same as the Jews, “then the woman’s life had been markedly immoral.” Op. cit., p 171. Schnackenburg thinks that Jesus’ statement makes her “aware of her guilt” in “her wayward life.” Rudolfo Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, Vol I. 1 (Trans. Kevin Smyth), Seabury Press, NY, 1980, p. 433: “She was suddenly compelled to face herself and the looseness and immorality and total inadequacy of her life.” according to William Barclay, Op cit, p. 156: “Her initial reaction is to try to hide behind a prevarication . . . When caught in sin, try withholding information! She is not the last to choose this option.” “The woman is responsible for continuing to hide her sin.” Bailey, Op. cit., p.208 and 209. “It is . . . [Jesus’] way to bring the woman’s sin into the open.” writes Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1971, p. 264. Tenney notes that “her evil deeds were being exposed.” Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Expositor’s Bible vol. 9. (Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein), Zondervan, 1981, p. 55.

⁷ Few scholars accept or even examine the possibility that the woman is a victim. Although he offers no convincing argument, Callahan explicitly calls her a victim. Allen Dwight Callahan. A Love Supreme, a History of the Johannine Tradition. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2005, p. 65. Perhaps Haenchen implies such an understanding when he writes, “. . . she has had five husbands (from whom she was separated by death or a bill of divorce.)” Ernst Haenchen, John I (translated by Robert Funk), Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983, p. 221. Kysar is open to the possibility. “The purpose of Jesus’ comments is not to embarrass or accuse the woman; her sin (if it is such and that is not perfectly clear) is not the central factor of the communication.” Robert Kysar, John, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN 1986, p. 65.

⁸ Various Greek manuscripts have the story after John 7:36 or 7:53 or 21:25 or Luke 21:38. Despite the late and varied textual tradition, the incident may be historical. As one translation notes, “Not clear that John wrote this passage. . . Even if he did not, it may preserve a genuine event in Jesus’ ministry.” The Lutheran Study Bible, English Standard Version, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 2009, P. 1796.

⁹ Thoughts about the woman’s situation in life and mission methodology should not lead to overlooking the clear Christological implications of Jesus’ pronouncement: The Light shines in the darkness. The Good Shepherd knows his sheep – even sheep of a different fold.

¹⁰ Blank underscores the evangelistic impact of verse 24 with an excursus, “La importancia de Juan 4.24 para la mision universal de la iglesia,” op. cit., p. 119f.

¹¹ Brown, op. cit., p. 172f. Cf. also Terry Giles and Robert T. Anderson, The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans or J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans.

¹² If the encounter had taken place in the classical Rabbinic Judaism period, the disciples might have wondered if the woman was a prostitute or a witch. Cf. Judith Romney Wegner, “The Image and Status of Women in classical Rabbinic Judaism” in Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, Ed. Judith R. Baskin, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1991, p. 85

¹³ NRSV, NIV, ESV and Dios Habla Hoy do not identify the object of the first question. E.g. “No one said, ‘What do you want?’” NRSV. The Holy Bible; New Living Translation and Jerusalem Bible direct it at Jesus. E.g. “What do you want with her?” or ‘Why are you talking to her?’” Luther seems to do likewise. “Was fragest du? Oder: was redest du mit ihr?” GNB and the contemporary German translation Die Nachricht: Das Neue Testament in heutigen Deutsch respectively direct the question at the woman. “But none of them said to her, ‘What do you want?’ or asked him, ‘Why are you talking to her?’” “Was willst du von ihm? “Warum redest du mit ihr?” (Emphasis added)

¹⁴ Bailey, for example, notes that her “statement is calculated to catch their attention, given her reputation in the village (a sensational but effective ad!)” Op cit., p.212. The Achilles’ heel in thinking of the woman as a victim lies in her initial words inviting people to see Jesus. “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done!” (NRSV). Is it a public confession of guilt? Yet note exactly, according to John, what she said about Jesus’ proclamation. She did not say, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done wrong!” The co-habitation is sinful but her words do not explicitly eliminate the possibility that one or more of her husbands died or unjustly divorced her. The words do not preclude the possibility that she was, at least in part, also a victim. As Bailey also wrote, Jesus elevates her self-worth – self-worth for a villain and maybe also for a victim. (cf. footnote 3).

¹⁵ Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, United Bible Societies, NY, 1980, p.126.

Copyright © Oswald Hoffmann Institute for Christian Outreach 2012

Missional Transformation: God’s Spirit at Work: Essays Celebrating the Outreach Ministry of Dr. Eugene Bunkowske, edited by Mark G. Press and Eugene W. Bunkowske: Missiologists and mission-oriented folks have been invited to reflect on topics that touch on the transforming power of God’s Spirit. This series of essays has been produced as one way of celebrating the fascinating, missional career of Dr. Eugene Bunkowske, long-time missionary to Africa, long-time linguist and Bible translator, long-time seminary professor, life-long sharer of the Good News of Jesus the Christ. This volume offers plenty of “meat” to engage the serious student of missions – but also a number of “gems” that will enlighten any Christian with a commitment to outreach or an interest in the church’s mission. Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod readers will be especially interested in some of the pieces, though any student of Sacred Scripture will benefit from many of the essays.

You can order Missional Transformation: God’s Spirit at Work: Essays Celebrating the Outreach Ministry of Dr. Eugene Bunkowske from AuthorHouse, Amazon, or Barnes & Noble.

As a Lutheran growing up in the Midwest, I learned how religious pluralism focused on understanding other Christian denominations.  I was challenged to witness among neighbors by knowing and responding to the teachings of various church bodies.  To do this, I developed a solid understanding of God’s Word.  Even in the midst of disagreements with friends or neighbors, I was confident that the Bible formed a shared, authoritative foundation that guided our discussions.  Even those who were outside the Christian church were familiar with the basic teachings found in God’s Word and respected them, even if they did not believe.

Today, religious pluralism in North America is different. Discussions of faith reach beyond shared parameters of God’s Word.  Questions are as likely to reflect major world religions as they are other Christian denominations.  Lutherans now must prepare “to give a reason for the hope that we have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).  We convey that hope to people who have not heard of Jesus or do not accept the authority of God’s Word.  How can we articulate the value of our “religious expressions” beyond surface actions?  We do so by connecting those actions to the new life we have through faith in Jesus Christ.

If we attempt to establish “who is right and who is wrong,” we may be ignored by a growing number of people with a distinctly different world view.  They look at the world skeptically.  They see a perpetual struggle between competing “realities.”  Their search for truth is replaced by the conviction that there is nothing to gain than a myriad of conflicting human interpretations of reality.

This world view is sometimes referred to as “postmodern.”  The only consistent factor among adherents is a common belief that there is no objective, identifiable truth. “Truth” is determined by each individual.  All truths are valid because all are equally unverifiable.  Attempts to assert Jesus as “objective truth” are met with assertions that such a stance is “true for you” but not for everyone.  The only truly universal principle is the knowledge that there are no universal principles!

When this is the case, is relevant Christian witness possible?  Let’s explore the answer by meeting four young college students who walk the path of Christian witness in a pluralistic, postmodern world.

Raymond is a senior who lives off campus in a five-bedroom house he shares with seven people who are about his age. Each of his tattoos tells a distinct story, while his heavy beard and sandaled feet strike a strange contrast in a frigid Midwest winter. He and the people he lives with are committed to one another and to living their lives centered on their dynamic, intentional, community setting. They want to make a difference through their active participation in the development of their local neighborhood and by nurturing connections with people.

Faiza is trim, neat, and fashionably dressed. Her ready smile and warm greeting show little evidence of the struggles she first faced since sixth grade as she adjusted to a new language and culture. That year her parents and their six children moved to the United States.  She speaks several languages fluently and loves her work with various urban organizations that serve new immigrants.  Her approach to service and faith was shaped by growing up in refugee camps.

Dao recently served in the U.S. Military and is using his college benefits in preparation to care for his young, growing family.  He is part of an extended family centered in the same urban neighborhood for three generations. His love for his country is as strong as his desire to live up to his parents’ expectations.  Still, he is confused by the faith of his parents and grandparents.  He seeks solid answers to his own questions regarding life and faith.

Kelly grew up in a rural Midwest town, but you would not guess that from looking at her. Colorful streaks in her hair along with multiple piercings seem to indicate an urban upbringing. While she has lots of friends on campus, many of her most significant relationships were formed through the competition and camaraderie of on-line gaming.  In this virtual world, she corresponds daily with friends and acquaintances around the world who are intellectually gifted and spiritually thirsty.  They, too, are highly skeptical of any interpretation of their objective truth.  They are deeply invested in the virtual realms of computer animation and avatars.

These college students represent a generation that has grown up in a world of instant information.  To them, there are endless choices—from the coffee they drink and clothes they wear to their spiritual searching and religious expression. Getting to know young people like Raymond, Faiza, Dao, and Kelly can be a good first step in answering the question of meaningful witness within the pluralistic, postmodern, and, in many ways, post-Christian culture.

Their generation is searching for answers to larger questions of life.  They are interested in belief systems that contribute to their search. They don’t believe that all approaches to religion are equal, but they are unwilling to oppose any religious expression so long as it is not harmful. The last thing they want to see is someone left without a voice, or without a story, or who is invalidated.

These young people usually are not interested in hearing what you believe.  However, they are interested in knowing your “faith story,” how your faith has brought meaning and purpose to your life. They don’t want to be told about Jesus—they want to see the difference Jesus makes in your life.  They want to experience the Christian story.

They are not anti-intellectual, but they seek to reconcile what they have been told about Jesus with the intuitive proof of personal “fit.”  They want to explore life without the traditional borders of established church expressions.  Having a wide range of choices doesn’t bother them, and their investigation goes beyond face value. They want to know what lies beneath rituals, beliefs, and practices.  They are interested in learning about the “what” of your faith—but even more interested in the “why.”

If you witness to them about Jesus as Lord and Savior, it may take you beyond a “show-but-don’t-tell” lifestyle.  Faithful witness will require you to connect your actions to the promises of God in Jesus Christ. Without this connection, your actions will only point others to your good works, but fail to produce “praise [to] your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16).

Equally invalid is the “tell-but-don’t-show” approach to witnessing that reveals the truth of the Christian Gospel separate from your lifestyle.  As a disciple of Jesus, you are not called to offer propositional truths in a vacuum. You are called to be “salt” and “light,” influencing others by living in such a way that your “salty living” produces a thirst for “living water” (John 4:10).  So it is indispensable that you speak and serve, living a life that is curious, caring, and connected.  These three adjectives form the basic principles of witnessing in a pluralistic, postmodern culture.

Curiosity requires that you ask questions and genuinely understand what your neighbor believes. You must really listen as others express deep values and beliefs. You must develop a sincere curiosity about individuals through meaningful questions.  As you adjust your “witness agenda” to listening, you will gain a better understanding of how God is working in the lives of those around you. Curiosity will help you to understand the context of your witness.

Listening to others with genuine curiosity can change what you know and how you think about others. Demonstrations of genuine caring for others will begin to change how you feel about them.  This caring lifestyle will require a commitment that extends beyond surface relationships. Connecting your faith to caring actions can establish trust and, over time, change not only how you think about others, but how you feel.  When you demonstrate care, you can no longer keep them at arm’s length.

As relationships with others are nurtured, they grow deeper.  Seek connection, inviting others into your experience of God’s goodness.  Help them to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8).  Your invitation to experience a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ is actually the cumulative result of your curious and caring lifestyle.

When others see your personal encounter with God through His living Word, it corroborates your witness. This is what many in our current cultural context are seeking!

Do you think this sounds good but isn’t practical?  Perhaps you feel that you have nothing in common with people who hold a postmodern world view.  Maybe being curious and caring alone will not produce the desired connections.  You will need to talk about the One who clearly identified Himself as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14:6) That seemingly narrow message creates a formidable barrier to postmodernists.

But do not give up. There will be opportunities to build bridges to this culture. Consider that the skepticism of the postmodern mindset is, in part, a rejection of absolute certainty.  It is based on human analytical capabilities.  This postmodern culture does not respect rationality as a foundation for truth.  Likewise, as Christians, we can agree with them that truth does not come from inside ourselves.

Yet, this agreement does not make truth relative. All of God’s truth is true—and you are not being asked to abandon your convictions but to bring them out in a different cultural setting.  How?  Share current movies, plays, concerts, and books with your friends.  Allow them to provide mutual exploration of spiritual themes.  Learn to mine nuggets of truth from these sources and use them to direct your friends to the Truth.  This is what Paul accomplished in Acts 17:16-34 as he stood before the Areopagus in Athens.  He gave evidence to the truth of the resurrection by using quotes from popular poetry to help listeners understand their relationship with the Creator of the universe.  Paul knew the importance of conserving truth wherever he found it and used that truth to attract people to the light of Jesus’ resurrection.

Another area of general agreement is that no one can remain in a culturally neutral position in their quest for knowledge.  We are all participants in our own culture.  Attempts to recognize and illustrate truth are unavoidably conditioned by that participation. In his devotional book “A Long Obedience in the Same Direction,” Eugene Peterson points to the old categories of world, flesh, and the devil. He refers to world as an “atmosphere, a mood. It is nearly as hard for a sinner to recognize the world’s temptations as it is for a fish to discover impurities in the water.” (p. 15)

Your postmodern friend probably will agree that our endeavors alone will never lead to absolute truth since they will be tainted by the cultural waters in which we swim. You, like Peterson, can affirm the suspicions that “things aren’t right, that the environment is not whole, but just what it is eludes analysis.” (p. 16)  It is a shared notion that on your own you cannot determine its source.  This provides the opportunity to share your thanks for the one who has promised a different perspective and a new mind (Romans 12:2).

A final agreement you might develop with your postmodern neighbor is an understanding of the role of future technology.  Have you noticed an increase in the number of books and movies that explore our future as one of conflict with—or abandonment of—technology?  There is a growing sense that the explosion of technology will not produce a better world. A younger generation might embrace technology, but they will no longer look to technology as a kind of savior. Technological advances carry possibilities of considerable good and, equally, possibilities of evil.

There will be times to conserve truth where it can be found and use that truth to direct your neighbors to the Truth. There are times when you, as a transformed child of God, must provide a lifestyle and a message that is salt and light, acting as a transforming agent in our world. And there will be times to draw a distinction between your lifestyle as a follower of Jesus and the lifestyles of postmodern neighbors.

How are you to know when to practice conservation, transformation, or separation?  Decide this as you engage your neighbors with a curious, caring, and connected lifestyle. Through this engagement, you can practice conservation, transformation, and separation in specific circumstances. This approach can be messy. It lacks packaged responses.  But it is an approach that is personal and individual in its focus, both qualities that are highly desirable today.

What about Raymond, Faizia, Dao, and Kelly?  If you were able to talk with them, you would discover that all four mirror our concern for people who are outside of a relationship with God through His Son Jesus.  All four are followers of Jesus Christ and experience the peace that comes from God through faith.  All four are part of God’s people by the Word and water of Baptism—and are devoted to living with a mission!

Working among college students, I am privileged to see these four young, dedicated followers of Jesus in action. Together we reach over barriers to communicate the Gospel on our campus and across our community.  Their dedicated, entrepreneurial spirit inspires me every day.

Like the church in Acts 2, these young people are devoted to corporate Bible study, to common prayer, to worship centered on the Sacraments, and to the support, encouragement, and accountability of Christian fellowship.  These practices are foundational in reaching people with the Gospel of Jesus across postmodern and pluralistic cultural boundaries.  The lives of these four young people reflect their commitment to living as curious and caring followers of Jesus who are connected to their Savior, to one another, and to “all the people.”  Like the early Christian church, their devotion is filled with hope and expectation that “the Lord [would] add daily to their number those who [are] being saved.”  This result reflects more than the efforts of a few dedicated witnesses: it reflects a cultural perspective of the early church.

Now it is your turn. The cultural context for your witness has changed, but the message has not. You might have neighbors who have never heard of Jesus, but He knows and loves them. Sharing the Good News is different today but just as important. Some people might consider the Bible to be just another holy book, but your caring lifestyle could help to communicate its unique message of hope and peace. Methods of sharing this message might require a shift in your approach, but the resulting connections could last into eternity.

You might discover that your new perspective will influence a change within others in your congregation, who can then influence more—leading to fresh attitudes and actions for the entire congregation.  Like me, you might have come to realize that we are no longer in the world of our youth.  But Christ is still the Lord of all, for the sake of His Church. That is the promise that gives us hope as we look for new ways to live as curious, caring, and connected witnesses!

(Professor Phillip Johnson specializes in outreach, missions, and Christian ministry as an instructor at Concordia University, St. Paul, Minn., where he serves as program coordinator for students studying to be Directors of Christian Outreach.  Johnson works with the Oswald Hoffmann Institute for Christian Outreach.)

Hoffmann Institute’s annual Partners’ Appreciation Dinner will be held on Saturday, April 20, 2013. Doors will open at 5:30, and dinner will be served at 6. Theme will be “Changes are Ahead,” and Rev. Dr. Dean Nadasdy, president of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and avid supporter of mission and outreach, will be the keynote speaker.

Director of the Hoffmann Institute, Rev. Mark Press, will give a brief report on recent events and upcoming transformation in the Hoffmann Institute’s service and mission. In addition, participants will be able to hear which Concordia University students will receive outreach-related scholarships for the 2013-14 school year.

As has been our common practice, there will be no charge for the dinner, though participants will have the opportunity to support the Institute through a free-will offering. We also ask that you make advance reservations, so that we can plan appropriately for food and other arrangements. This can be done either [by clicking here] or by phoning 651-641-8701 and leaving a voicemail message (including any dietary special needs).

Inside this Issue

• “Changes at the Hoffmann Institute: Www.hoffmann-institute.org”
• “Let’s Talk Urban”

• “CMS—Tutoring Tibetan High School Students”

• “Changing Times at the Hoffmann Institute”
• “Partner’s Appreciation Dinner”
• “Giving Possibilities” by Dr. Mark Press
• “Changing Times in the Local Community”
• “Changing Times for Immigrants”
• “Evangelism As Story” by Rev. Dr. Eugene Bunkowske
• “Urban Plunge—Mayer Lutheran High School”

The Oswald Hoffmann Institute for Outreach is now registered as a participating organization in the Thrivent Choice Program.  This means that you can designate your Thrivent Choice Dollars to our organization.

Click on the image to the left to discover how to designate your choice dollars.  This designation will not effect any of your investments, for more information see the Thrivent Website on the left.