Interview with Patrick Fung

Interview with Patrick Fung from Urbana 09 on Vimeo.

Patrick Fung is currently the general director of OMF.

Thinking through ministry and parents

[This is a bit more of a personal post]

The past month has been difficult. I've felt really disheartened at various points. I've had a few...battles (the word doesn't seem quite right. Disagreements? Skirmishes?) with my parents once they realised that ministry wasn't just some passing fancy I'm into at the moment. While I didn't start my church apprenticeship 15 months ago by announcing to my parents: "I'm going to be a pastor/church planter/missionary for the rest of my life!", I think just doing the apprenticeship signalled that I was definitely exploring the call to full-time paid gospel ministry (thereafter I will simply use "ministry" or "full-time ministry" interchangeably to refer to this). When I sought counsel about the way in which I should engage my parents, the advice I receive was to keep them informed and to gradually open up to them some of my plans, so that it wouldn't be a bolt out of nowhere. I still think that was sound advice. And I believe that for the most part I have. I was up-front, for example, with the fact that I went to talk to a pastor in KL with a view to future options nearly a year ago now.

An apprenticeship is meant to be a testing ground to explore the call into full-time ministry, and simultaneously a stepping stone should it seem as if that call is to be pursued further. And to be honest, everything seems to be pointing that way. The work is very hard, make no mistake, but I love what I do. I appear to have teaching and preaching gifts, even if they still need to be worked hard at. Character, that most important of traits, is harder for me to judge, but I haven't been pulled aside and told that I have such serious transgressions as to be disqualified, if that counts for anything! :) Which is why I'm thinking about this seriously.

But it's hard to communicate with my parents about all this. My parents don't fit neatly into any box - on some fronts, they seem like very traditional Asian parents; on others, they have proved to be more open-minded. I'll say, for instance, that they were more positive about me embarking on my apprenticeship than I expected. Still, they've got a very different worldview from mine. And to be fair, the only models they have to go on are those in Malaysia. I noticed, for example, that they just don't seem to understand, despite me trying to explain it as clearly as I can multiple times (and believe me I've tried!), that people do get paid for this stuff, as yes, they do get paid enough to cover their basic needs at the least! Now, to be honest, I don't know much about pay structure and things like that in Malaysia for those in full-time ministry, but I am realistic enough to know that it's pretty low. (If you know more, please enlighten me in the comments!) In some harder situations, for example, a pastor will have to go bivocational. But that's not going to happen with me with the current options I have. I do think it will be hard. I come from a middle-class background, as is obvious from being able to go to university in the UK. So nice holidays abroad, for example, might no longer be easy to come by on a salary of your average full-timer. But it's not the end of the world.

There's also the "you can still work a full-time job and do ministry on the side" argument: this seems to be a favourite of Asian parents everywhere, as some of my other friends in ministry testify. Well, I had to explain the "full-time" in "full-time ministry", and the value of ministry of the word, but how do you do that when their worldviews are so different? It's made even more complex when I naturally advocate every-member ministry, i.e full-time ministry does not make you more inherently spiritual; there is a sense in which every Christian is full-time. But then to say that there is also a sense in which some people are set apart for full-time ministry. Regular readers of the blog will remember that I preached from Ephesians 4:7-16 over a month ago, which touches on this very issue. Frustratingly for me, it seems as if every church member apart from my parents understood what I was going on about!

And then there's the "you should gain experience in the real world first" argument. This one I've thought about long and hard, because this argument has validity. After all, I am very young. And I think every young person thinking about full-time ministry must wrestle hard with this. In the end, though, I think this one has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Why? There are quite a few reasons. Firstly, it isn't always the case that you must experience something to be able to minister effectively into that situation. After all, no one person will ever experience the full range of possible experiences. If you get married and have kids, then you have traded off the experience of being single into your old age, and vice versa. Would you say the married/single person has nothing to offer the person of different marital status simply because he or she has never had that experience? Now, that's not to say experience in the working world is not valuable, and it could definitely give you unique insights that are not available elsewhere. What is it like to work for a prickly non-Christian boss? When everyone is busy handing out duit kopi? But I'm trying to say that it's not the clinching argument. For some, they will benefit from time in the working world. For others, it's not necessary.

Also, I do sometimes bristle at the fact that Christian ministry isn't the "real world". I've met up with a non-Christian managing director of a publishing company at least 10 years, if not more, older than me to read the Bible together and to talk about life. I've sat with a homeless person and warmed up his sandwich. I laughed together with PhD students and discussed pressing academic matters. I work in a cross-cultural situation as the only non-Western staff member of my church. Granted, my experiences of the world look different, but is this less "real-world"? The other thing to consider is the difference in age and how that dynamic works in an Asian culture. I've thought about it. And I think this means that it's definitely true that I probably won't gain a hearing from them initially. But does that disqualify younger ones like me automatically from ministry? No, it means I have to work hard at every aspect of my godliness, to be a bit more tentative in some of the things I say, to be quick to listen and slow to speak to older heads.

You probably think from my above two paragraphs that I've already made up my mind to go full-time straight away. Believe it or not, I haven't. I spoke to our long-term mission partner, who is a British-born Chinese (Malaysian and HK parents), when I was on a mission to X Country in the summer. He has first-hand experience of parental opposition. And he offered really good advice. One reason in favour of working a "secular" job is simply to grow up a bit. Now I think sometimes I am in need of that! But he cautioned against taking a secular job simply to "earn credibility". That advice takes on renewed force now that I know some of my mum's friends have been whispering amongst themselves about the son who went to a highly esteemed university but is thinking about taking a job that doesn't command much respect! (These are professing Christians, btw, and I confess to dreaming up some rather unChristian retorts). But that has made me pause about completely rushing in. At the same time, since I've been back, one thing that has been hugely emphasised is the urgency of the task. Malaysia is really lacking in full-time Christian workers, and more than one person has independently expressed their concern to me about the next generation and whether we lose the ground that was so hard-won. So there is definitely a part of me that simply wants to press on and not dither.

Oh, and of course, there's the classic Ephesians 6:2 argument, a favourite of all Asian Christian parents. I always think, how about verse 4? But what has helped early on is recognising honouring your parents does not mean obeying them in everything. Of course, we have to be careful - that doesn't suddenly mean you can justify your every disobedient action! But v.4 does provide supporting context. It's not just that parents are not to exasperate their children, but that they are to do so by instructing their children in the ways of the Lord. And so to honour your parents is to walk in the way of the Lord, in line with the task God has set them, which can sometimes mean not going with their every whim! (The mission partner I mentioned earlier also had some interesting exegetical support from Exodus, but I'm not sure I can completely recall it now so don't want to put words in his mouth).

Wow, you're probably thinking I've been so calm and reasoned! Trust me, I'm not. I have been upset with myself that I have gotten argumentative and defensive with my parents so easily and quickly! And I don't want to paint my parents as the veritable bad guys. I have to understand how their worldview and life experiences has impacted them, and I am actually confident that in the long term, they will be supportive. But it's been very disappointing not to feel their support now, though it was expected. And it is quite hard when you're treated like a kid when others treat you like an adult! They seem to think I've been very gung-ho when really, my temperament (and more importantly, the fact that God surely doesn't like impetuous fools) militates against it. Instead, I've been torturing myself with "should I or shouldn't I?"

Well, I was going to write more on some of the more disheartening moments in the past month, but those are nothing to do with parents, so that will have to be for another post. Comments welcome.



† Expand post

Reaching the next generation

I was going to flag this up, but forgot. Better late than never. It's Kevin DeYoung's excellent series of posts on reaching the next generation. Worth reading in its entirety.

1. Grab them with passion.
2. Win them with love.
3. Hold them with holiness.
4. Challenge them with truth.
5. Amaze them with God.

As Kevin says in his introduction, the secret is that there is no secret. Love God, love people, as Jesus so succintly put it. Uncomplicated but uncompromising. To steal a line from Gregory the Great, such a strategy is shallow enough for a lamb to wade in but deep enough for an elephant to swim.

The Lausanne Global Conversation

New questions are emerging which are different from the older, familiar ones. And the older ones are also taking on new forms. Think, for example, of the issues surrounding the massive rise in people movements over the past 50 years, and of the trends in urbanisation, and of the penetration of other faiths. Christians need to talk, and global issues need global conversations.

The Lausanne Movement is working in partnership with publications around the world in providing the 12 key articles by leading theologians on issues facing the global church. Each article will be published in the same month by everyone, to spark the conversation globally. These articles each have four commissioned respondents from different parts of the world and will be accompanied online by video and photo essays, and responses from people like you.

The Lord gave gifts to his church to share and, through Lausanne, the Africans can share their joy and perseverance, the Indians their wisdom on living in a pluralistic context, the Persecuted Church their precious trust of what it means to share in Christ’s suffering, the converts from other faiths their insights into ways of reaching those whose faith they once shared, the West its scholarship (which we should remember was once found in North Africa), and so on around the world. In ways unimagined, we can share these gifts even across different languages, through automatic translation tools. Those translation tools are not perfect, but, with a commitment of all to the authority of Scripture and a willingness to listen and learn, we will manage to understand one another. The work you put into the global conversation will be richly rewarded.

The Lausanne Global Conversation will include:

a series of 12 articles appearing in Christianity Today (and in dozens of publications around the world), plus parallel articles in the Canadian media and elsewhere

thought-provoking blogs, podcasts, radio programs and video discussion forums

interaction on Twitter and Facebook

advance written and multimedia presentations from CT2010 speakers

connections to related discussions on the web already underway

in-person interaction at Bible colleges, mission agencies, churches and theological institutions through the Cape Town GlobaLink

Here is the very first article to kick off the whole conversation:
Whole Gospel, Whole Church, Whole World
by Christopher Wright

The Lausanne Covenant - substantially crafted by John Stott, includes the phrase: ‘evangelization requires the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world’.(1)

One might argue that the three wholes embodied in this ringing phrase are hardly new, and go back to the Apostle Paul, if not to the patriarch Abraham himself. Let us look at what each means.

The whole Church means all believers. The whole world means every man and woman. The whole gospel means all the blessings of the gospel. That is surely better than some missionaries taking some blessings of the gospel to some people in some parts of the world. But the three wholes also have more substantial, qualitative implications worthy of a Global Conversation.

‘The whole gospel’

The phrase suggests there may be some versions of the gospel that are less than whole - that are partial, deficient, less than fully biblical.

First, we must give full weight to the spiritual realities of sin and evil, and we must evangelistically proclaim the glories of God’s redemptive achievement in the death and resurrection of Jesus. There would be no gospel without the cross. Indeed all blessings of the gospel derive from it, from personal salvation through Christ’s death in our place to the reconciling of all creation. The cross is at the heart of The Lausanne Movement, and the theme around which the Cape Town Congress revolves is ‘God in Christ, reconciling the world to himself’.

The whole gospel must be drawn from the whole Bible. So we also have to ask how the social, economic, and political dimensions of the Old Testament relate to Christian mission. For centuries God revealed his passion against political tyranny, economic exploitation, judicial corruption, the suffering of the poor and oppressed, brutality and bloodshed. The laws God gave and the prophets God sent addressed these very matters more than any other issue except idolatry (they regarded such things as idolatry’s manifestations). Meanwhile the psalmists regularly cried out in songs of social protest and lament that we tend to screen out of our Christian worship.

Unfortunately one can still detect a subtle sense that somewhere between Malachi and Matthew, all that changed. As if such things no longer spark God’s anger. This makes the alleged God of the New Testament unrecognisable as the LORD God, the Holy One of Israel. He has shed the priorities of the Mosaic Law, and the burden for justice that he laid on his prophets, at such cost to them.

I find such a view of God and of mission to be unbiblical and unbelievable, if thewhole Bible is the trustworthy revelation of the identity, character and mission of the living God.

The great Christ-centred, cross-centred redemptive truths do not nullify - rather, they complete - all that the Old Testament revealed about God’s commitment to the wholeness of human life, and redeeming his whole creation, for God’s own glory in Christ.

As gospel people we must believe, live and communicate all that makes the gospel the staggeringly comprehensive good news that it is. I hope The Global Conversation will show multiple examples of this in action.

The whole church

In a quantitative sense, the expression ‘the whole church’ insists that mission is the task of all Christians, not just of the clergy or missionaries. The Lausanne Covenant talks of our being ‘called out’ to be ‘sent out’. The whole gospel is fully expressed only when the Church, Christ’s body on earth, faithfully fulfils the three roles Christ himself fulfilled on earth and for which he empowers us through his Spirit. We are called to a priestly role in worship and in prayer; to a prophetic role in declaring God’s message and priorities to his world; and to a servant role. When these are practised together we truly reflect God’s redeeming love for the world. Let’s look at dimensions of wholeness that will need to be included in the conversation.

Missional church.
What other kind of church is there, than the one that God created for mission? As someone said, ‘It’s not that God has a mission for his church in world; but that God has a church for his mission in the world.’

Scandalous lack of wholeness. The church is not just the delivery mechanism of the gospel. It is itself the product of the gospel, and is to be the living, visible, proof of the ethically transforming power of the gospel. The failures and abuses in the worldwide evangelical community are, in the literal New Testament sense of the word, a massive scandal—a stumbling block to the gospel being seen, heard and accepted. For that the only answer is repentance and reformation.

The global Christian community. We need the whole world church to work with much greater levels of mutual cooperation and partnership.. There is a lot of listening to do, a lot of learning and un-learning. Our task across borders and boundaries is to do better, in Paul’s words, at accepting one another, counting others better than ourselves, and looking to their interests more than our own. A Global Conversation is a good place to start, though not to end.

The whole world

We can take the phrase ‘the whole world’ in a purely geographical sense. Nowhere is not the mission field, including our own country. There are still many unreached peoples, many languages that have no Scripture, many places where the name of Christ has never been heard. All these are urgent priorities for evangelistic mission. The ends of the earth are still waiting. And today the ends of the earth may also be our next-door neighbour, or the migrant in our midst. But we need to go deeper and consider other dimensions of our whole world:

The world story. If our Bibles begin at Genesis 3 and end at Revelation 20, we are in danger of missing the whole point of God’s great story of the redemption of all creation. We will think only of saving sinners from the final judgment, not about living in the present creation as those who already bring the transforming values and prophetic truth of the new creation into the here and now.

The world of worldviews, philosophies and faiths. What are the gods that surround us, and what is the Christlike and neighbour-loving response to those who worship them? We must not confine this to thinking only about world faiths. There are whole ideologies of secularism and atheism that need to be engaged, along with the idols of patriotism and hedonism, that are happily thriving on the worship of those who claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ.

The world of creation, and our responsibility to the world which God has reconciled to himself through the cross (Colossians 1:20). If the planet was created by Christ, sustained by Christ and belongs to Christ as his inheritance, the least we can do is to look after it. Biblical stewardship of the earth should have been an evangelical theme long before the threat of climate change turned it into a matter of self-preservation.

The world of globalization, and the public square. What kind of missional engagement should take place in relation to globalized economic trends and forces, massive migration, the cyber-world of the Internet and new technologies, and all that goes on in the marketplace and public square, in business, politics, education, media, journalism, medicine, and the whole world of human work?

The world of violence, war, and terrorism. Apart from addressing the appalling scale of death and destruction that these idols produce, do we not have a responsibility also to challenge and expose their falsehood and to ask what gospel reality is implied by Jesus when he said, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’?

The world of human need and suffering. If the gospel is good news in relation to all that sin has turned into bad news, then it must be big enough, and our mission wide enough, to include the transforming power of God in relation to disease, hunger, brutality, human trafficking, and all forms of ethnic hatreds and oppression.

I close by returning to the Congress theme verse in its rich and profound context. The Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5 18-19 are a wonderful summary of the theme of this article. “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ...”

The reconciling, redemptive ministry of Jesus sends out those whom he has called out. And we are sent out to bring the whole gospel of God to the whole of God’s world. None of us can engage in every area. That is why God created the church with a multiplicity of gifts and callings, so that we can, as a whole church bear witness to the whole gospel in the whole world.

I invite you to join the global conversation now at www.lausanne.org. May it generate more intelligent understanding and more focused action, as we work with God in his global mission.

Chris Wright is International Director of the Langham Partnership International, and Chair of the Lausanne Theology Working Group.



(1) For the Lord we Love: Your study guide to The Lausanne Covenant by John Stott is available in The Didasko Files series from Christian bookshops or online retailers. (64pp ISBN 978 1 906890 00 1)

Here are responses from Samuel Escobar, Emily Choge, and Christopher Heuertz


† Expand post

Are we searching for a better god?

One of my friends has just started reading a fascinating book called Searching for a Better God by Wade Bradshaw, who used to be on staff at L'Abri England. He's been waxing lyrical over it, so I borrowed it to read on one of my lunch breaks.

Loads of thought-provoking stuff. Bradshaw starts off by showing that all of our lives are grounded in some form of hope. You could say we all fashion narratives out of our own lives, with a climax or ending we hope to reach, although he won't put it that way. In that sense, we live teleologically. He then argues that (Western) culture has shifted imperceptibly. Whereas previously the main question people ask would be: "Does God exist?", this has now shifted to "Is God good?". That isn't to say people no longer ask the first question, as New Atheism shows. But people reject the gospel not so much because they don't believe in God, but because they no longer believe that the God, as found in the Bible, is morally good. What sort of God would allow, even command, the atrocities found in the Old Testament? What sort of God is so intolerant, of homosexuality, of pluralism? In truth, we humans are morally superior to such a God. God "cannot be a source of hope, not because He isn’t real, but because He would not be good to know and to live with forever."

That's as far as I got. Bradshaw then presumably goes on to wrestle with such new challenges, as the chapter headings for the rest of the book suggest: Is God angry? Is God distant? Is God a bully?

I certainly have lots of time for Bradshaw's argument. This is a generalisation, of course, but those of us in our 20s, it seems, living in a world where any disaster can be communicated to us via twitter, where we are subjected to a 1001 worthy causes (reminding us of the dark side of the world we live in), are tired of living for ourselves. Consumerism has been tried and found wanting. We long for more. We want to find something beyond ourselves. We're looking for a better hope, in other words. And so there is a renewed activism, a passion for social justice. Even in Christian circles, this can be found in expressions as diverse as the resurgence of what is sometimes called "New Calvinism", where the glory of God is emphasised and "man-centered theology" abhorred, and those stressing the cosmic dimensions of God's salvation and downplaying penal substitution. I guess you could also claim this is also seen in the language of the "kingdom" being deployed more commonly if differently, though I wonder if some charismatics (John Wimber was not shy about such terminology!) and Reformed types (we've been reading Vos/Goldsworthy since you were in your nappies, don't lecture me about "kingdom"!) would object.

Interestingly, as a Christian, I think I share similar struggles. The fixed point of God's sovereignty has not, as far as I can tell, posed a huge struggled for me. But the fixed point of God's goodness, that he actually cares for me and the details of my life, is one I struggle with more. Granted, it's not quite the same issue being articulated as that of the non-Christian, but I wonder if they spring from the same DNA.

I think too of one of the (Asian) girls some of us know. She's been coming to Christian things for quite a while now, and she's willing to say Christianity is objectively true. She was even encouraged that one of her mutual friends - getting baptised this Sunday! - actually came to Christ. But for her, she isn't sure if Jesus is worth it. Is this God really that good?

Anyway, happy to hear comments.


† Expand post

A mission report

I’m back! Got in late last night, straight to bed, and straight to work this morning. And now combating jet-lag, especially since while I could take it easy today, tomorrow is a pretty full day. No falling asleep in Bible study tomorrow night!

My 2 weeks away definitely counts as one of my highlights of the year. Possibly the highlight of the year. I was pretty apprehensive beforehand, but I’m now so glad I went. Can’t give you complete details unfortunately, as we do have long-term mission partners out there and so I shouldn’t do anything that would compromise their position, however slight.

We usually started the day with training sessions. The first was more biblically-oriented, as we thought about one key aspect of the Bible’s story (eg. creation, cross, resurrection) and how we might share the gospel in a cross-cultural context. The second session concentrated more on the culture of this particular country and some the particular challenges. We usually ended the day, just before dinner, with a devotion from Philippians – I led one of them – and prayer.

We also got, over the course of the 2 weeks, to meet both with believers and non-believers. It was a great experience, and often surprising, too! (People are very open in this country). For instance, I ended up chatting about George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd with one believer, which was a topic of conversation I can safely say I wasn’t expecting. Or in another chat with an unbeliever, I was rather taken aback by one of her objections, which was basically premised on a feminist reading of the Bible (isn’t it just a partriarchal tool designed to suppress women etc. etc.?). Now I might expect such an objection from an Oxbridge student, but certainly not from someone in this country! It was also good to be able to actually do an impromptu study on the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17ff) with another seeker. And it was really interesting to experience church in another culture, which is not quite like the models we’re more used to.

I think one of the things I also appreciated was seeing how much we have in common with other believers in other contexts. Contextualization is a word we often bandy about, and that’s not a bad thing. I work with international students, and I often get frustrated in trying to work out, and in getting people to see, that you can’t do things the exact same way with them as you do with local British students! But we mustn’t push this too far. In many respects, wherever you are, the challenges and issues are the same.

I also really appreciated just watching our mission partners and what they do day-to-day. You get a much better sense of how to pray for them, what are the issues they face, and so on. It was great to have some good chats with them. I especially enjoyed having dinner with one of them (whom I already knew previously) and getting a bit of one-to-one time in which I was on the receiving end of "ministry", as it were! He had some really good advice as I try to think through what I might be doing for the next 3 years or so.

I loved my team too. I have to say, I suspect it’s unusual to have a team in which the dynamics work out so well. That was definitely an answer to prayer.

So I’ve painted a very rosy picture so far, but as always, that isn’t quite the full picture. I did have some difficult moments. I anticipated the language barrier to be a problem when I came, and there was one day in particular where I had to remind myself that "I’m justified by faith, not by linguistic ability". There were certainly times where I felt like I had been pretty rubbish at serving others and not myself. Nonetheless, it was worth it. At the end of the trip, we did a short questionnaire designed to help us reflect on our experience. And one of the things this trip reminded me was that God is the same God no matter where we are, and Christ is what we need no matter who we are. This trip also helped sharpen my focus. Now anyone who knows me knows that I am anti anti-intellectualism, and that I am convinced good theology is essential to our spiritual health. I’m still convinced. But there is a kind of danger, especially for those of us who often read the many Christian and biblioblogs out there, that we end up in some rather pointless academic debates or stuff that frankly, people don’t care about!

Thanks again for your prayers, and it’s definitely worth thinking about going on a short-terms mission trip if you have the chance!


† Expand post

Gone fishing

Not that anyone would notice, but just to say I'm away from next Monday for the next 2 weeks. I'm on a summer mission team to an undisclosed location. Am having mixed feelings: looking forward to it but am also nervous at the same time! I'll be meeting students, and will also lead at least one devotional. I won't have much internet access, and even if I do, will definitely not be blogging.

Do pray for me. Maybe when I get back, I'll actually attempt to get back to semi-regular blogging again!

Takeaways from the getaway: on thinking about other religions

There were various seminars on offer at the student getaway, and I was asked to co-lead one on other religions. Now I’m patently not an expert on world religions, and when you factor in that people can spend 3 years in university doing religious studies, and I had 75 minutes...the task seemed gargantuan! So when I sat down to think how I would do this seminar, I had to think about what I wanted to achieve with it. And one of the big things I came up with was to try to model (very much imperfectly) how to think about the topic of other religions from an explicitly Christian perspective. I thought I’ll offer here some bits and parts from that seminar and how I attempted to run it.

I ran the seminar 3 times over the week, and each time I started by asking why people were in my seminar. They fell primarily into 2 camps: one camp felt as if they had absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and so wanted more information. One or two of them were perhaps motivated by the increasingly multi-cultural nature of British society. The other camp were those who would inevitably say, "I have a friend who is..." and so they wanted to, essentially, know how to be a good Christian and friend.

I then tried to show that while we had all sorts of good questions and agendas in coming to the seminar, and indeed, to the Bible, it would be helpful to begin from another starting point. In essence, before asking our questions, I wanted us to take a step back and proceed to ask, what is the biblical story? After all, if we call ourselves Christians, we would inevitably want to take the Bible as our authority, our foundational story. But just as importantly, I wanted people to see that the Bible wasn’t just a 'Christian' book, but made even grander claims than that. It claims for itself that it is the narrative of everything, from the beginning to the end of history. It focuses in on particular individuals, families and nations, but it is actually telling the story of humanity. And so the Bible is for all peoples, of every religious background, of every age. To ram home the point, I included this great quote from a Hindu scholar to Leslie Newbigin, a missionary in India for many years and who’s written extensively on the topic of mission – some of my readers might be familiar with him. This Hindu scholar said:

"I can’t understand why you missionaries present the Bible to us in India as a book of religion. It is not a book of religion – and anyway we have plenty of books of religion in India. We don’t need any more! I find in your Bible a unique interpretation of universal history, the history of the whole creation and the history of the whole human race. And therefore a unique interpretation of the human person as a responsible actor in history. That is unique. There is nothing else in the whole religious literature of the world to put alongside it."

And so the Bible, while not necessarily answering every single specific question we have, nonetheless gives us fixed points in our reflections on this question. It gives us the shape of the story we’re in.

I then went through 4 questions:
1. Who is God?
2. Who are we?
3. What’s gone wrong?
4. What’s God plan for the world?

And tried to go through these questions in light of the issue of other religions. Let me highlight how I tried to do this with the first question. Firstly, I went to Psalm 97, and asked what we learnt about God from it. From Psalm 97, and from quite a few of the other psalms, especially those that stress God’s kingship, we can learn quite a bit! I then asked how what we learn about God here impacts how we think about other religions. What does the truth, for example, of God as God of all nations shape our thinking? Or the fact that there is only one God? I argued that (although I have to confess I’m not completely sure if this is that explicit in Psalm 97!) that we find both a challenge and an invitation to adherents of other religions. Another way of putting it, which I learnt from my seminar co-leader, is "subversive fulfilment" (which might also be borrowed from Newbigin!). The gospel comes as fulfillment of the religious longing in the heart of humankind. Yet the gospel also stands in contradiction to human wisdom twisted by sin.

I then went to Acts, and one example of how Paul allowed this fixed point to shape his engagement with people of other religions. In Acts 14:8-18, we find the story of Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, where they perform a healing. Immediately news spread and they are feted as gods. And so Paul uses this as a preaching opportunity. But he does so aware of his audience, who would have been pagans who followed traditional Greek popular religion. Earlier on in Acts 13, he had preached to a Jewish audience, but he can’t employ the same rhetorical methods here.

So he begins with common ground, with their shared humanity (v.15), correcting their mistaken notions in the process. He then proclaims the truth that there is one Creator God (v.15b), and indeed He is a God who is sovereign over all the nations (v.16). He then moves on to the truth that God has revealed himself (v.17), that He is the provider and sustainer of life. That would particularly resonate with his hearers, from an agrarian culture, but implicitly it posed a challenge too, since that meant Zeus, the god of vegetation and weather, whom they worshipped, wasn’t in control! Paul had mixed results (v.18-19).

And so I did the same with the rest of the questions (although I think my one on sin was quite superficial!). If we’re all made in the image of God, then surely we need to think of all human beings in that sense first before we think of them as Hindu/Muslim etc. If God left us with a cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-28, then surely it is right to celebrate aspects of culture which are not blasphemous, although the question of how to disentangle culture from religion is a much more complex one which I steered away from! And so on.

I suppose one thing I realised and would have liked to rectify in my seminar was that Jesus did get sidelined a little. One of the interesting things in Paul’s sermon in Acts 14 is that he doesn’t mention Jesus at all, but I’m pretty sure he would have eventually got there if he had time and opportunity. But he needed to lay the ground first with people whose worldviews must have been radically different from his.

Jesus is mentioned, of course, in question 4, but otherwise I didn’t really think through how he would have fitted in. In John Dickson’s book, A Spectator’s Guide to Other Religions, he has an interesting chapter near the end called “What’s Wrong with Jesus?” in which he shows how Jesus just doesn’t fit into any of the other religions various doctrines or ethics or philosophies, and that’s one way to do it. I recommended John’s book in the seminar, btw, and I was interested to notice that it sold out at the bookstore by the end of the week! I should be in marketing...

One other thing I’ve learnt, 75 minutes is pittance. Not once in the three times I ran my seminar did we get through all our material. Admittedly I was pretty interactive and so allowed people to come back at me rather than rigidly stick to what was in my outline. But still, it’s amazing how quickly time flies! The second time I ran it was probably the smoothest, probably because people seemed to have their expectations adjusted accordingly.

Well, it’s the first time I’ve done anything like this, and so it was a good learning experience. I’m not sure how much I helped students - I certainly hope so!


† Expand post

The Sunday School answer is still the best one

So I was making my way out after listening to the lunchtime talk from Joe Boot on whether Christianity is restrictive or promises true freedom with a non-Christian friend. I confess, I think he did ramble on a bit, and I wasn't sure if he really spoke to the heart as well as to the mind, as it were. But it was all in all a good presentation contending for the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith, and he marshalled the philosophical arguments well.

Anyway, I then noticed a girl whom I had chatted to briefly last night at another event, and so decided to go over and say hi. And got ambushed.

---

Me: Oh, hi... (interrupted)

Girl: (obviously still buzzing from the talk, speaking at 100mph) Yeah wasn't that a really good talk but I really disagreed with him as I think it was all based on an assumption that needn't be made that life had to find its meaning in God I mean we can obviously derive meaning from other things like family or friends and find fulfillment in that don't you think?

Me: (trying to pick myself up from the bullet train in front of me) Errr...yes...but isn't it, um, true, um, that his central point was how much life would simply be meaningless without a God? And um, what an empty life that would be?

Girl: Sure but do you really need a God for that I mean I don't see why you need God for life to be meaningful at all when you can be perfectly happy with what you've got at the moment...

Me: (screaming silently at brain to come back from lunch break and voicebox to stop stuttering) Yes, I can see where you're coming from... (obviously stalling for time while brain wakes up from siesta)...so um, what you're saying is that ultimately, there's no reason why it can't be up to us to find our own meaning in life...

Girl: Yes... (looks expectantly at me while I desperately attempt to look to be in deep contemplation)

Me: Errm...(here I started a sentence - twice - before hastily rephrasing it)That's interesting, as um, I think he (Joe Boot) chose a particular line looking at how ultimately only Christianity lends our lives deep meaning. But you're right, why shouldn't we be able to um, make our own meaning? But the question isn't simply pragmatic, it isn't just about where we find meaning or fulfillment or happiness, it's also about truth. If God is God, if he's real, he's there, then surely he's the one who has the final say as to where we find real meaning or happiness? I mean, if there's no God, then you're right, we can invest meaning in whatever we wish. But if God is there, then surely he's the one whom we derive meaning from, and so we want to live in conformity with what he says.

Girl: (finally slowing down a little) I see...so what you're saying is, there's actually another issue at stake here, whether God exists or not...

Me: (Whew!) Yes, exactly, that's what we need to think about first...

Girl: But...I don't see how that question can ever be answered. I don't think there's any way we can ever find out if God does exist or not.

Me: (depending on reflex at this point, and probably the Holy Spirit) That's interesting, because that's exactly what the Christian claim is. You know, in John's Gospel, it says that we can actually find out whether God exists, what he's like because, because, and this is what Christians believe, Jesus has made God known. Look at Jesus, Christians say, and you'll know God.

Girl: ...never really thought about that before...

Me: And so Christians will say, look at Jesus' claims. What's he like? Is he whom he says he is? I mean, if he isn't, then Christianity falls completely. But if he is, can you see how that completely changes everything? (Girl nods) It just turns your world upside down! So we need to find out more about Jesus. He's the pivotal figure.

Girl: So you're saying I need to go find out more about Jesus because he's basically the pivot, the one on which everything stands? Yeah I can see that.

Me: Do you think you'll be exploring more on this then?

Girl: Yeah, I think I will! Got to go!

Me: (still slightly dazed) What just happened??

The conversation lasted, I think, only 7 minutes or so, but I don't think I've quite wrapped my head around it just yet. But I guess, the Sunday School answer is really, still the best one. I certainly hope she'll realise that.

*Conversation not verbatim obviously, but I think I've reproduced the phrasing fairly accurately


† Expand post

The week: looking back, looking fwd

Uni Mission week is coming up. Some of my friends in Malaysia look quizically at me when I mention this - and I don't blame them, it's quite a British Christian jargony word! Basically, while providing a witness to the Lord Jesus, verbally and holistically, should be part and parcel of the everyday life of a Christian, mission week provides an especially good opportunity to step evangelism up a gear, with plenty of formal events, be it apologetics or gospel preaching, to providing safe places for informal conversations. But far better to just see what it's like! Krish Kandiah, who works for the Evangelical Alliance UK, has just blogged through the mission week at Warwick University:

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 3 continued
Day 4
Day 5

All universities are different of course, but it does capture the flavour well! I still remember my last mission week; I was terrified at knocking door-to-door and offering gospels (as in Mark Luke etc.), but that turned out to be a great learning experience. And of course, I got to see one person give her life to Jesus.

I'm not as directly involved, seeing as I'm no longer a university student, but will definitely be on hand to support some of the stuff being done. Am especially pleased to see them attempt some stuff specifically directed at international students for the first time, as they're the ones who tend to fall through the cracks at weeks like these, at least here.

It's been a big week, and I'm pretty tired, exhausted-tired rather than lack-of-sleep tired (although that has to be a contributing factor). I listened to John Lennox for the 4th time on Tuesday, and then we had a big church prayer meeting for our mission partners on Wednesday. That was good, was encouraged by just the huge number of mission partners we sent out and challenged when I realise what our mission partners have chosen to sacrifice. Then it was a leaving party for one of the Japanese in my group last night - the sushi was excellent! I'm also trying to finish off prepping for Sunday School, always more work than you think! I am a little grumpy that my off-day tomorrow isn't quite an off day therefore, as along with Sunday School there's training in the morning, but hopefully I'll find something completely relaxing to do in the afternoon! I've got to think through some decisions as well, but it's best if at least for one day tomorrow, I leave them to the side.

Book Recommendation: Faith that Endures

This is my most inspiring read of the year. And I had not even heard of it just over a week ago! I was on a weekend away last week, and upon perusing the little book table, this one leapt out at me as it was the only title I didn't recognise. I picked it up, read a couple of pages, then read a few more pages, and before I knew it I had forked out my chequebook! But it was worth it. I finished it in 3 sittings - utterly compelling and challenging.

Ronald Boyd-Macmillan is a long-time journalist and researcher with Open Doors International, having also worked for a couple of other news organisations and seeing the persecuted church up-close. Faith that Endures bills itself as "The Essential Guide to the Persecuted Church", and Boyd-Macmillan seeks to answer 5 questions:

What does contemporary persecution look like?

What is a persecuted Christian?

Where is the persecuted church?

How can we best assist the persecuted church?

What does the persecuted church have to teach us?

So it sets itself pretty lofty standards! But Boyd-Macmillan rises to the challenge admirably. It is a remarkable blend of even-handed reportage, incisive analysis, and passionate exhortation. He takes us on a tour of places like Kurdistan, India and China to give us a flavour of persecution today. He then deftly navigates his way through the current literature on the subject, as he thinks through both legal and biblical definitions of what "persecution" means. This is one thing I especially appreciated about his work. His style was readable and clear, but I had no doubt that the author had done his homework; I could feel the weight of learning.

The persecuted church is bigger than we think, and Boyd-Macmillan takes us through the different regions of the world. How, then, can we help the persecuted? This section is a good example of the nuanced approach with which Boyd-Macmillan approaches the issues. He shows how often well-intentioned Christians can do more harm than good, as well as the politicised nature of the NGO world. He helps us see two sides to each tactic ("Bible-bombing", for eg.).

Also, he helped me see the importance of keeping informed. I discovered, to cite one instance, that my assumption that state churches in China were banned from preaching the 2nd coming of Jesus was at least a decade out of date. There was also a very moving account of how, upon meeting some of the Chinese church leaders, they broke down in tears when the author gave thanks to God for the revival in that nation. Astonished, he asked them why. Their reply was instructive: "we often ask God, why he has given us more converts than we are able to disciple!" I thought that was a very insightful and mature perspective on the biggest revival in modern history, given that in Matthew 28, Jesus asks us to go and make disciples, not converts. Finally, there is a section on learning from the persecuted church, and he rounds up by providing an informative annotated bibliography.

Another thing I really appreciated about his work is how often he tries to set things in wider context. So he is keen to emphasise that for every dazzling story of martrydom we hear, there are so many more ordinary stories of endurance that we might not know about this side of heaven. For some of the persecuted, deliverance from their suffering might never come in this life. Indeed, to focus only on the more sensational stories is to distort the true picture. Nor is it always true, he contends, that the "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church". There are times where it has had adversely negative effects. But it wakes us up to the reality of what it means to take up our cross to follow Jesus and reminds us that in all things, we can trust that God will be with his church.

Sure, I wish there was more explicit engagement with biblical texts at times, but that's a minor point. This has got to be currently the best one-volume work on the persecuted church. But sadly, it's not well-known at all. I hope blogging about it would go a tiny way to rectifying that situation.


† Expand post

Padilla, Christians and justice

In case you're wondering, reason for lack of updates: busyness + tiredness. Thank you for all those who prayed for me. I am still feeling the effects of tiredness and my schedule isn't going to ease anytime soon.

I had the chance to listen to Rene Padilla, the well-known missiologist, tonight. I had been expecting a talk on the relationship between mission and social action/responsibility, but it turned out to be more specifically on globalization, particularly its economic dimensions and a call to be involved in structural change. The first half of his talk focused more on the phenomenon of globalization, particularly its negative implications, drawing especially from Joseph Stiglitz, (I suppose you could call it an attack on capitalism, but more on that in a moment) and the second half of his talk was on the need for justice.

The response from the floor (the talk was given to postgraduate students) was quite spirited and at times, even tense, with a fair number disagreeing with some of the solutions Padilla offered. I should say that Padilla was fairly general - I don't get the sense he offered any concrete ways forward.

I have to say I could see the points of view from both sides. Padilla repeated often that Christians had to work "for justice", but I think he didn't really pinpoint the real issue at hand, which to me was: how best to work for justice? Everyone in the room agreed that Christians must stand for justice, but Padilla seemed to assume that his way = justice, whereas I don't think it was that straightforward. A few people in the room, especially those who were trained economists, was quite keen to point out that they thought capitalism was actually the best way in which to lift people out of poverty. Which leads me to what I think was the other question being debated: what is capitalism? Padilla was describing the way in which current global structures serve only the interests of the powerful, what he called "socialism for the rich". So the ensuing question becomes: is what we see practised in the world today a truly capitalistic model?

On the other hand, I was uncomfortable in particular with the way one person was so keen to defend the capitalistic model. Using the ascent of China as an eg., he then utilised a common line of argument: in the light of other alternatives, working in a sweatshop (he didn't use this term) was the best option, at least they're earning a little vs. starving to death on the streets. Padilla responded with the riposte of these people being the equivalent of modern slaves, and this guy said: "Yes, but they're voluntary slaves." I have some sympathy for his argument, but I was appalled by his flippant response. Surely the point is that while the capitalistic model has succeeded in this respect by offering the best option at this very moment, we need to try our best to keep improving their conditions and challenging those who cynically exploit them? And as another girl pointed out, those who were formerly in poverty are now using their newfound "freedom" to exploit others.

Another related issue was where change really should be effected, at the individual or structural level. Padilla was adamant that structural change was needed. I'm rather ambivalent on this issue. It seems to me that ultimately, everything boils down to individual actions - thousands or millions of individual actions to be sure, but it's still at that micro-level and so it seems best to work change on that level. On the other hand, there is a sense in which institutions do appear to have lives of their own that can't be easily undone. I wonder too, for eg., whether Padilla emphasises victimhood too much. And as someone pointed out, we had to be careful not to confuse material gain with spiritual gain, although they are inter-related. I think Padilla was right to point out that surely when Jesus speaks of abundant life, there must be some aspect of that which refers to life here now - how much better life would be if basic needs are met! But there's the other side of me that recognises that I am in a privileged position, relatively speaking, and that it is right to talk of sin not only as rebellion but as pollution, victimization etc., i.e as something external as well as internal. We (i.e humanity) are sinners, perpetrators, but also sinned against, casualties. There was part of me too that wondered how much of the debate was due to the cultural spectacles we wear: Padilla is South American, which will naturally be more community-minded, whereas many in the crowd were Westerners, where they would be more inclined to think more individualistically.

Actually, I can't help but feel that we're looking at the problem too much via "left-wing/right-wing" spectacles: one seems to put too much trust in the invisible hand of the free market, the other too much in the provision of the State. Both seem to me to come close to idolatry. In that sense, I've become a bit of a pragmatist. I don't think there's a model that would solve all our problems in the here and now, but that all we can do is to "make the best of it", to borrow the title of John Stackhouse's recent book. I was also pondering how this works out in the context of Christian unity. I think Christians will disagree, sometimes profoundly, on what the best strategy, and possibly even priority, of how to work for justice. Like I said, I think Padilla, a self-confessed non-economist, seemed to me to occasionally over-simplify. I recognise that I am less of an "activist", in that I don't immediately want to be absolutely dogmatic on issues that are not so clearcut and press on full-steam ahead. So I know in some sense, I must also be careful not to let a lack of expertise in the subject stop me from being committed to wanting to live as salt and light.

And I just don't think we can demonise those with whom we disagree. I don't think I would have voted for Obama, but I am not going to break fellowship with a thoughtful (or even not so thoughtful) Christian who has.

It was good to hear from Padilla. These are just off-the-cuff musings really. I needed to let them out somewhere, and this happened my chosen forum.


† Expand post

One-Anothering: A Communal Gospel

I just finished listening to this talk from the Total Church Conference, having picked it at random since the title looked helpful. I'm blown away - it's outstanding and challenging, and also scary on one level actually! Dave Fairchild, the speaker, shows how the gospel and community relates to one another in fresh and convicting ways. I was struck by how much "one anothering" is there in the NT: love one another, care for one another, forgive one another, don't pass judgment on one another, spur one another to good deeds etc., and how that's intricately related to the indicatives of the gospel. So often the construction in the NT goes along these lines: "As I have loved you, so love one another".

If you have an hour or two, this is worth listening to. Don't worry about the first 5 minutes, where there's some audience interaction, as the talk only really gets going after that. The Q&A is pretty long and I think starts around the 55 minute mark.

One Anothering: A Communal Gospel

Free (UCCF Gospel Project)

400,000 Gospels handed from student to student at over 150 universities and colleges in the UK. Imagine that! As someone who is and will be reading Mark's Gospel with internationals (at the moment, particularly Japanese) this term, I think it's great to imagine it finding its way into the hands of many students who perhaps would otherwise never open a Bible.



(Some of my readers might spot a familiar face)

The wrap

Looking back, I think I had a pretty good week. A tiring one for sure, as I've had something going on every single night, and in some cases, had no break between the afternoon and the evening, but God was good in granting me enough energy and helping me to pace myself. Tuesday morning, for instance, I was simply peopled out and so I made sure I got some time to myself during lunchbreak, chomping on a wrap while walking along small, lonely alleyways, which really helped for that evening, where I would have been engaging lots of new faces.

So that's the personal update. Here's an internet roundup update of sorts! Here's some good stuff on the web:

Greg Gilbert at 9Marks has done some reflecting on what the gospel is. It's stimulating. Kingdom language gets thrown around a lot nowadays when it comes to defining the gospel, often over and against a "repentance of sin" gospel. And yet I think the two must hold together, and we must be clear on what we mean by "kingdom". But I accept it's quite hard to be able to articulate it clearly, simply because I guess the gospel is both simple and yet so comprehensive in scope it's hard to say everything in a short soundbite!

The Cruciform Life. I am grateful to those who first exposed me to worldviewish thinking, and how a Christian worldview has helped me in seeing the world with new glasses, as it were. But there is also a danger that the language of worldview devolves into an intellectual game with no corresponding desire to grow to be more like Jesus. But as Jimmy Davis points out in this article, ""my worldview was not biblical until it was also cruciform". (Cruciform simply means cross-shaped). One book that does a great job of showing us the entire shape of the Christian worldview is J. Mark Bertrand's (Re)Thinking Worldview.

I was really fascinated by English professor's Mark Edmundson's observations about my generation (though in an American context) in Dwelling in Possibilities. A snippet:

"They want to study, travel, make friends, make more friends, read everything (superfast), take in all the movies, listen to every hot band, keep up with everyone they've ever known. And there's something else, too, that distinguishes them: They live to multiply possibilities. They're enemies of closure. For as much as they want to do and actually manage to do, they always strive to keep their options open, never to shut possibilities down before they have to."

There are some other startling observations too, like the one about people going to parties only to whip their mobiles out, or the advent of the age of the iPod, which allows us all to have our own personal soundtracks. Well worth reading. I suspect that even non-American readers will be able to recognise hints of similar things in their own contexts.

Mission in the 21st Century. The title is indicative of its content! A survey of what the current mission situation looks like globally, and some brief reflections on how to adapt and engage new realities and challenges.

After Lehman Brothers: Desperate City wives. ("The City" in London refers to the central financial district like Wall Street does in New York). I know it's fashionable at the moment to treat all investment bankers with disdain and to rejoice at their comeuppance. And I don't doubt the fact that in many, many cases, they've been a showcase for greed. But they've also been a convenient mirror for many to project their moral superiority on. I thought this was a very well-done feature, simply getting us into the shoes of the spouses of the (formerly?) wealthy, and also perhaps giving us occasion to reflect on our own habits without being preachy.

Novelist Margaret Atwood looks at the cultural history of debt. A very interesting exploration and a model of how the tools of literary analysis could be applied!

A Conversation with Tan Twan Eng in the Far Eastern Economic Review on the state of Malaysian writing and other things. Tan Twan Eng's novel The Gift of Rain was longlisted for the Booker last year. Haven't read it, and not quite sure if I will. There's another novel by a Malaysian writer which has gotten good press this year - Preeta Samarasan's Evening is the Whole Day. I'm wondering too if I should tackle that one, looks like it would not be light reading though.

I think all the above have substance, so do go have a look! :)


† Expand post

Call for Malaysian Christian leaders / thinkers

A plug on behalf of Dave / The Agora:

The Church in Malaysia urgently needs to develop a thoughtful and comprehensive answer to contemporary challenges to its life and mission. In response to this task Kairos Research Centre was set up in 1993 by a group of evangelical leaders...

We are in the process of setting up a committee of people who are keen

to form study/research groups,

organize events/forums that encourage and facilitate Christian reflection on issues relevant to Malaysian Christianity,

do research/write

make available the rich library resources at Kairos to contribute towards the development of Christian leaders and thinkers.

So if you know anyone who would be keen to join and participate on a voluntary or salaried basis. Do let us know at hedonese at yahoo dot com or enquiries at kairos-malaysia dot org

Incarnational mission?

Tim Chester has good thoughts on incarnational mission. He isn't critiquing so much the laudable impulse behind such practitioners - meeting people where there are / all-of-life discipleship - as seeking to clarify our use of terminology. I know some might ask, what's the big deal? but I am a believer in the need to be careful with our words, because language can play a big part in shaping our assumptions.

{HT: Stephen Murray)

The Bible and Other Faiths 11

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Facing Samaritan Religion

There’s not much about the Samaritans in the Bible, but what we hear about matters, because they touch on something key to our relationships with people of other faiths: prejudice and hostility. That is IG’s basis for including this short chapter. To put it mildly, Jews and Samaritans did not get along with each other! The origins of Samaritan religion appear to be syncretistic, where worship of Yahweh is mixed with worship of other gods. During post-exilic times, they had wanted to help in the rebuilding of the temple but were not allowed to, although they could join in the Passover should they renounce foreign gods.

We’re not sure if the Samaritans found in the NT should be identified with the former group. In some ways, the Samaritans in the NT were very similar to other Jewish groups, worshipping Yahweh and exalting the Torah. It’s certainly possible that the enmity between the Jews and Samaritans owed as much to socio-political factors as to ethnic or religious differences. The Samaritans had their own temple, their own priesthood, and their own version of the Pentateuch. Since these are key to the religion of the Jews, the divide is therefore pretty stark.

We now go to the well-known passage in John 4, where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. This story is often used to illustrate the way Jesus transcends barriers, but more than that, in its context, it is also an apt illustration of how Samaritans fit into God’s plans. The Samaritan woman, in John’s Gospel, is the first person to hear Jesus declare that He is the Messiah. She is also contrasted with Nicodemus, in John 3, as one who is willing to witness publicly to Jesus. In his conversation, Jesus also shows that the temple no longer matters, but "worship in Spirit and truth". The questions about religious practice is a wrong one; what is needed is new birth.

IG takes us now to Luke-Acts and the history of the early church. The disciples are to witness in Samaria (Acts 1:8) among other places! What a joy it must have been to go there and find receptive ears and hearts! Luke has already understood God’s mission to the whole world, however, since he has recorded some of Jesus’ significant encounters with the Samaritans in his Gospel. In Luke 9:51-56, he goes through Samaria but finds himself rejected, and so his disciples react: let’s call down fire upon them! But Jesus rebukes them, he seeks not to meet prejudice with prejudice. “This incident comes at a very significant point in Luke’s Gospel: it is the first thing that happens after Jesus sets out for Jerusalem and the cross. It is immediately followed by the teaching on the cost of following Jesus.” Opposition from the Samaritans, in a sense, is part of his journey towards the cross.

The next story is the famous parable on the good Samaritan, but we should also be reminded that Jesus includes Samaritans in his healing ministry, as in Luke 17:11-19. The Samaritan healed here actually responds better than many of the Jews, and we can also find instances of this in the other gospels.

A short survey that almost functions as an appendice to the previous chapter. It’s interesting to note that mentions of Samaritans in the Bible tend to be favourable! I'm trying to think of who we can regard as analogous to the Samaritans as Christians today, but couldn't come up with anything beyond maybe Christians of a different denomination that perhaps historically we might have disagreements with, maybe over an issue that in retrospect, is trivial. What do you think?

Reflection questions:
Are there any people that Christians in your area think of as the Jews did of the Samaritans? What are the reasons for hostility and suspicion? How can John 4 speak into your situation?

Jesus dealt with prejudice among his own people and against his own people. How did this prepare disciples for their future mission? How can the church in your area be prepared for mission across barriers of prejudice and hostility?

Next:
Facing the Gentile religions



† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 10

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

A New People

The gospel challenges religion. It makes us face up to the truth of universal sin and the impotency of our self-righteousness. As we reflect on how the gospel shapes our engagement with people of other faiths, we ought to let it examine ourselves as well. The gospel as found in the New Testament offers a unique diagnosis of human problems which in turn need to be brought to bear in all discussions about other faiths.

Having made that clear, IG wants to tackle a different question: how the NT shatters ties between people, power and land, the triad that characterises so much of religion. For the cross offers radical answers to old questions: blessing is now available to all peoples, true power lies in weakness, and this new community does not derive their identity from state or land. Yet this is not a case of being so other-worldly that the world right now doesn’t matter. Here’s a great quote from IG: “We might picture Caesar’s kingdom as filling a two-dimensional plane. The kingdom of God is not, then, a separate kingdom within that plane, but a third dimension that intersects with every point on it.”

IG now briefly walks us through the NT with an eye on tracing the theme that God’s blessing to the nations has come in the person of Jesus Christ. Matthew introduces us to the son of David and Abraham, and yet it was the Magi, foreigners of a different faith, who first recognise him as king of the Jews, and the end of Matthew climaxes with Jesus’ declaration to make disciples of all nations, as He is Lord of all. Mark’s gospel appears to be written for a Gentile audience, and while they don’t stand out, there are plenty of accounts of Jesus’ encounter with Gentiles, and it is the Roman centurion, standing at the cross, who cries out, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” Luke-Acts should be taken together, where Jesus interacts with various non-Jews, and the gospel goes from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth. John is different. There are not many references to non-Jews, yet the prologue immediately establishes Jesus as the universal life-giver, and in John 12, a significant point in the gospel, Jesus cries out, “The hour has come!” referring to his imminent death on the cross, at precisely the point when some Greeks desired to see Jesus. Taking into account the teaching of the NT as a whole, we recognise that this was always God’s plan, to include non-Jews into his kingdom.

“Working this out was not easy, because including the Gentiles disrupted the ties between religion and a particular people and culture”. Galatians deals with the big question of circumcision and ritual purity, which leads to Paul’s great explanation of the function of the law and the importance of faith, all the while insisting this is not actually new by pointing back to Abraham’s relationship with God. Loving our neighbours as ourselves, through the Holy Spirit, is now the basis of our actions. Galatians refuses to link faith in Christ with a particular culture or set of rules.

The “true Jews” are people without nation or land, and IG turns to 1 Peter to illuminate this. Those who believe and trust in Jesus are the new temple where God dwells. Land is no longer a key issue, for Christians are “aliens and strangers in this world”. The Christian’s allegiance is now first and foremost to God, but this does not require a Christian state. Instead, they should strive to be obedient citizens of the state, again, a radical suggestion considering that the early Christians were suffering persecution! But why? Part of the reason has to lie in the fact that the Messiah is for all peoples, and he has come to rescue people not from their enemies, but from their sins. His ‘sword’ is of a different category. Furthermore, their calling as God’s people is for the purpose of mission – like Israel, they are to glorify God amongst the nations.

God’s kingship is a big theme throughout the NT. In Revelation we will see the Lamb of God upon the throne, judging all the nations. Jesus would have surprised his hearers, though, when he preached the Sermon on the Mount. No mention of an ethnic, political or national kingdom is to be found there. The meek will inherit the earth, not the conquerors. It is purity of heart and the recognition of the need for mercy that is important, not religious laws. The new way of doing politics is peacemaking. Jesus consistently refused political power, and he is called “King of the Jews” only when he is on the cross. Jesus kingdom was not of this world, but it did challenge the kingdoms of this world, as Herod and Caiaphas both perceived. Going back to Revelation, the final vision is of a new land, where all the kings of all the nations will come, there will be no more temples, and the people will be under the direct rule of God (Rev. 21-22).

IG goes back to Acts to dwell a little more on the question of how this new heavenly kingdom interacts with the earthly powers. Right at the beginning, Jesus promises a different kind of power, people and land. The power is that of the Holy Spirit, the people they are to be are witnesses, and land is now redefined not just to mean Jerusalem but the entire earth. The coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 can be read as a reversal of Babel: people don’t build religion to gain power in the land, but people in every land should now hear of the good news of Jesus Christ. This is the pattern of Acts. The bold preaching of the apostles leads to persecution at the temple. Their prayers recognise God as ruler of all, including over the political powers of the day, and they ask for power in the Holy Spirit. The church is willing to sell land, and indeed, abuse of land leads to disastrous consequences (Acts 5). Stephen himself confronts the people-land-power triad in his impassioned speech, where he argues that the temple was no longer necessary.

Acts emphasises the gospel encounters over political encounters, it is the Holy Spirit’s work that Luke is interested in. But “Paul and the other disciples live within the two-dimensions of Caesar’s kingdom as well as in the third dimension of God’s kingdom.” Paul and John stand before the Sanhedrin as Jews and Paul stands before governors and kings as a Roman citizen. But Paul will continually preach the kingdom of God and not about earthly powers. Elsewhere in the NT, especially in Revelation, the link between religion and power can be a dangerous one. The mark of the beast is the abuse of power, wealth and self-sufficiency, and these are the traps religion can fall into. A religion becomes “beastly” when it becomes to closely associated with a powerful leader, or a totalitarian state. Revelation suggests that this sort of religion has its origin in Satan’s schemes. The good news is that we are assured of God’s victory over Satan!

Graeme Goldsworthy has succinctly defined the kingdom of God as “God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule”. IG has been using a similar triad of people-power-land throughout this book in her reflections on the biblical story, missions, and other faiths, but I think it is only in this chapter that I’ve begun to understand why she has taken this angle and how much insight such an approach could provide. I think she’s largely on the money about how much this triad actually informs our understanding of religion in this world. It’s a pity that in this chapter she could only offer a survey as she appears to have much more to offer! My only tiny quibble is that the last subsection of this chapter could have been organised better.

Reflection questions:
What is salvation? What do the Jews of Jesus’ time / people of other faiths / you want to be saved from?

According to 1 Peter, what are the marks of the new people of God?

Nationalist religion, political religion, legalistic religion…how could a God-given religion go so wrong? What might be the results in your context of living by the Beatitudes in relation to people of other faiths?

Where do you see religions linked with land and power in the world today? Where does the Holy Spirit kingdom meet the political powers in your country?

Next:
Facing Samaritan Religion


† Expand post

The Bible and Other Faiths 9

For previous entries, just click on The Bible and Other Faiths label at the end of this post.

Setting the scene: The World behind the text

In this chapter, IG simply wants to introduce us to the socio-cultural world of the New Testament. It’s a short chapter, and I’ll just list her observations here:

• Like the world of the Old Testament, this is still a world of many gods, peoples, places, political powers, laws, rituals and stories.
  
• The Middle East however had been under Greek and now Roman rule, and they obviously brought their own cultural and intellectual influences.
  
• The Jews had returned from Babylon, but would still consider themselves in exile as God’s promises of restoration had not been fulfilled. There was expectation that God would work to vindicate himself.
  
• In the meantime, the Jews had to work out what it meant to be holy in their context. How do they continue to relate to people of other faiths, especially their oppressors? These created all sorts of tensions, including
  
  
  
  1. Political tensions: Alexander the Great had conquered Israel; after he died, his empire became divided into two parts, the Seleucid and the Ptolemic, who would then proceed to fight over Israel. The Jews gained independence after 25 years of armed struggle (167-142 BC), but by 63BC, internal power struggles were so bad that the competing leaders turned to Rome for help, which led to them taking power. King Herod and his three sons ruled Israel before Pontius Pilate took over. There continued to be armed struggle, and Jerusalem was captured by the Romans in AD70 and the temple was destroyed.
     
  2. Cultural tensions: Alexander the Great sought to hellenize his vast empire, including things like introducing democratic government and mandating that Greek literature, arts and philosophy were taught in schools. This divided the Jews, some were strongly against this; others, feeling peer pressure, as it were, were ashamed of their identifying marks such as circumcision (which would have been made clear if they participated in athletic competitions, where people ran naked).
     
  3. Social tensions: The high priest happened to also lead the Sanhedrin, which governed the Jewish community, meaning religious and political power were joined. Not surprisingly factions developed to try to wrest for control, each with different ideologies – let’s co-operate with the Romans! Too much foreign influence – we need to exercise more independence from the Greeks! Etc. Also, it was a world of social inequality, with privileged Roman citizens and non-Roman citizens, masters and slaves etc.
  
  
• Various theological issues came to the fore and were debated, such as the afterlife, the meaning of righteousness, and angels and demons. For eg., what exactly is resurrection and is it physical? Do angels act as our mediators between humans and a God who is too far from us? (These ideas might have been syncretistic, influenced by Persian and Babylonian ideas).
  
• The Jews were looking for the “kingdom of God”. For them, this means blessing for righteous people and judgment for unrighteous people, together with transformation of the whole world. Linked to this was the coming of the Messiah, who would bring social, political and religious freedom.
  
• Who are the true Jews? How should they relate to other peoples? These questions gave rise to different answers:
  
  
  
  1. The Pharisees believed the exile was the result of disobedience to the law, and sought to keep every aspect of it. They tried to keep separate from unclean people, i.e those who did not keep the law. They tended to be ‘lay’ people, but also had influence amongst the ‘scribes’, the students of the law.
     
  2. The Sadducees were the priestly party and tended to come from the upper classes. Less strict than the Pharisees, with more emphasis on the written than the oral law, and rejected the notions of physical resurrection, final judgment, and angels and demons.
     
  3. The Essenes were stricter than even the Pharisees, the ascetics of their day. No pleasure, no wealth etc. They saw themselves as the true Israel. The Qumran community is perhaps the most famous of this group, who went to live in the wilderness in isolation. But some did live in cities, and they supported a different high priest from the Sadducees.
     
  4. The Zealots chose the way of armed resistance. They are the revolutionaries. Judas Iscariot and Simon the Zealot might have belonged to this group.
     
  5. The Herodians are another nationalistic group. Little is known about them, except that they supported the kingship of Herod and saw Jesus as a threat to the Jewish nation. (Mark 3:6, 12:13)
  
  
• Separating or fighting the Gentiles…the Jews didn’t look like wanting to bless the nations! Even the Sadducees disliked dealing with the Romans and would not include Gentiles into the nation of Israel. However, the Jews did believe that the restoration of Israel meant that God’s rule would be extended even among the Gentiles. We must also remember that there was a growing Jewish diaspora at this time.
  
• There were some Jewish “evangelists”. They invited others to follow the God of Israel and circumcised them, considering them part of God’s people. So there were Jews who desired that the other nations come to know their God, and people of other nations who were receptive to that call. Sadly, some conversions happened through military might, such as the Idumeans towards the end of 2nd century BC.

Those already familiar with the first century world would not find anything new here, but it’s a clear presentation and helpful to have in mind especially in relation to her subject matter.

Reflection questions:
Withdrawal, cooperation, cultural protest, armed resistance…where can you see Christians relating to political powers, and to people of other faiths, in these ways today?

In what ways is the world you live today like the New Testament world? (Bruce Milne suggest in Dynamic Diversity some interesting parallels, such as the local diversities of the worlds of the 1st and 21st century, and what he calls the “imperial skin” of the 1st century and today’s “globalization skin”. He also suggests that in both worlds, the need to belong to a community is strong indeed due to the fragmentation of society).

Next:
A New People


† Expand post