What Does “Open-Minded” Mean to Me as a Missionary?

As a missiological researcher, do I look primarily to practitioners or theoreticians as my primary sources, related to my areas of interest? Missiology involves sociological, qualitative research, which focuses on people with boots on the ground implementing the ideas that others only articulate and analyze. As a missionary completing 30 years of service – most of those oversees – I have done several research projects focused on practice and practitioners. Currently I’m pursuing a PhD in Intercultural Studies, which I believe is the best fit for research that is continuous with my career so far. However, in recent years most of the scholarly work I’ve been exposed to has been theological rather than sociological. I now realize that, even as a missionary, I have become out of touch with the development of missiology over the past 10 years. I have drifted away from practical theology, which some use as a definition of missiology, towards theory. I don’t feel that the time I’ve dedicated to theory regarding my area of missionary service has been unfruitful. However, at 47 years old, I want to build from what hopefully I can contribute as someone who has been a practitioner and who deeply believes in the work of those on the field. I don’t mean to falsely dichotomize practice and theory, but these are the best terms I have to convey my experience and perception. 

Baehr on Open Mindedness and Moreland on Transformation of the Christian Mind

I will refer to open-mindedness as “OM” from here on. In Jason Baehr’s The Structure of Open-Mindedness, he critiques the conflict (OM) model is since (OM) can be demonstrated by persons who are impartial or unresolved about the matter in question (2011, p. 199). He also rejects the adjudication (OM) model because the evaluation of a debate in relation to which persons are impartial or unresolved may treat cases that do not involve disputes as well as cases that do not involve logical estimations or appraisals (2011, p. 199). Baer’s posits that (OM) plays an enabling and expediting role in relation to other intellectual virtues because (OM) permits the person who has it to use these virtues and use them well (2011, p. 206). In three propositions Baehr explores possible articulations of the value of (OM). First, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is helpful for a person in a determined situation to ascertain the truth (Baehr 2011, p. 208). Second, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous in case it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation to believe that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr 2011, p. 209). And third, emphasizing (OM) as intellectually virtuous only if it is reasonable for a person in a determined situation that it may be helpful for ascertaining truth (Baehr, 2011, 210). Baehr concludes by proposing that if a person has compelling evidence in support of a proposition, is trustworthy in his/her judgements (and of this he/she is aware) and possesses compelling motives to reject contrary evidence to said proposition, then in such circumstances it may not be wise to be (OM) to ascertain truth (Baehr, 2011, p. 211-212). 

In Love Your God with All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland (1997) argues that Scripture declares a vision of discipleship that requires the development of the Christian mind (p. 43). Moreland (1997) describes reason as the powers by which knowledge is attained and beliefs accounted for (p. 43). Moreland (1997) establishes that the doctrine of revelation does not negate reason, because it includes statements that are comprehensible and impartially true (p. 45). The work of the Spirit, it is argued, is not to do the work of comprehending Scripture, but to convict of sin, to comfort the soul, and to lead to real application (Moreland, 1997, p. 46). It is up to the believer to apply his cognitive abilities to discern the intention of a passage of Scripture (Moreland, 1997, p. 47). Moreland (1997) states that Christians’ apathy and timidity in evangelism is due in large part to lack of authoritative knowledge of the Scriptures (p. 52). And it is because the church preaches rather than teaches logically in the public square that it has lost influence (Moreland, 1997, p. 56). Even Christians going to college in the West have succumbed to the idea that an education primarily serves an economic rather than a character and intellect building one (Moreland, 1997, p. 59). And a concept of faith as detached from evidence or trustworthiness of propositions and the readiness to act upon it has resulted in a distortion of faith as consisting in emotion or imagination (Moreland, 1997, p. 61). 

My analysis is that Baehr’s hypothesis regarding (OM) is timely considering post-colonialism, post-mission, and post-evangelistic paradigms which are highly influential today. The skepticism with which all attempts to engage culture with a message such as the gospel surrounds the majority of Christian missionary and evangelistic efforts. When a Westerner travels to a foreign land to share in word and deed from his religious convictions, even if he attempts employ (OM) this can be construed as instrumental. The cultural sensitivity, anthropological study, and translation efforts can be criticized as being different means for the same ends as the abhorrent Christian colonizers of the majority world during the Era of Exploration. Moreland exhorts the church to, instead of developing ever more complex means to appease postmodern sensibilities towards cultural colonization, it should focus on seeking understanding. When the church sincerely and passionately seeks truth and bears witness in the world with the Holy Spirit’s condition of sin and prophetic witness, it will gain a new hearing. And this hearing will surpass anything conjured up by reworking of the gospel message to conform to pluralistic and relativistic values. Pluralism and the nuance of truth are not foreign to Scripture, but they are not the foundation from which we speak, we speak from the foundation of a transformed mind and a heart convicted and directed by the experience of the Holy Spirit. 

How I Anticipate the Need for Open-Mindedness in My Research

I believe that I will need to be open minded first in relation to the pioneer generation involved in the paradigm of reconciliation ministry that I will be researching (ONH: One New Humanity, see Eph. 2:14-18). Since the research topic I have chosen relates to Christian-Jewish relations, the topic of Zionism comes to bear. 

How can the ONH vision be promoted in groups where some hold to conservative and literal hermeneutics regarding biblical prophecy about Israel and the land, as well as others with differing views? One of the motives behind my study is the desire to discover what lessons can be learned from ONH practitioners in my European context. The need for this knowledge is primarily to be able to articulate it better for a new generation of practitioners and see them multiply it with the most reproduceable model possible. One way of promoting the ONH vision is through diplomacy that seeks to attract senior leaders of major Christian traditions. This model has been effective over the past 30 years and a new generation of ONH ambassadors is needed. What are the key insights from those who have pioneered such diplomacy, and what innovation is needed?

In my own efforts to promote the ONH vision, I recognize the challenge of articulating it to Christian leaders of my own generation and younger. Many of the leaders I interact with from this group are more liberal and averse to Zionism and any mixture of faith and politics in ways they deem Constantinian, colonialist, or imperialist. I feel this debate represents a major disconnect between many Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, and Charismatic (non-Pentecostal) young leaders. Some of them see repentance initiatives related to the Jewish people as problematic because of the political implications regarding Palestine. Some Christian leaders have endorsed a minimalist Zionism, such as Gavin D’Costa (D’Costa, 2019), which I won’t elaborate on here. The point is, one of the challenges related to the ONH vision is for Christians on either end of the Zionism debate to be open minded in their interactions. If the goal is to see unity in the body of Messiah as a motif for general human reconciliation, we should pay attention to lessons from (OM) research.  

Lastly, the people group I have most grown compassionate for and bewildered about are the Messianic Jews, also central to my research topic. They stand in the middle of a Judaism and a Christianity that either outright reject them or don’t know what to do with them. My father has been involved in ministry with Messianic Jews over 30 years and often shared his passion with me and my siblings. However, it has only been in the past ten years of my own missionary service that I have developed a passion for Christian-Jewish relations. The series of events that has led me into reconciliation work involving Messianic Jews has been a wonderful surprise. I hope that I can be open minded to the Messianic Jews who come from such a place of rejection and exclusion, and a deep distrust. None of these things are inherently familiar to me as a white, Protestant, North American. 

References

Baehr, Jason (2011). The Structure of Open-Mindedness. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY. Volume 41, Number 2, June 2011, pp. 191-214 

D’Costa, G. (2019). Catholic doctrines on the Jewish people after Vatican II. (Upper Level BM535 .D36 2019; First edition.). Oxford University Press; Biola Library Catalog. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat09700a&AN=blc.oai.edge.biola.folio.ebsco.com.fs00001149.0bae66ce.b7e6.5291.884e.dae355801f6c&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6133893

Moreland, J.P. (1997). Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. NavPress.