We must be content with being nobodies for Christ; to be forgotten. Many missionaries will have passed through the twentieth century only remembered by relatives and a few people that they were able to minister to. Their lives were never considered great, but they did their part faithfully, and most importantly, God does not forget them. (Patrick Fung, OMF General Director)
Sometimes it is when all our dreams are shattered that we realise God's dream' for us - that is, to know him and love him, and to know his love for us and for humankind. (myself)
A former refugee at our church finally reunited with his wife recently. His conversion was an amazing one and his baptism a few years ago moved me greatly. It's a great joy to see his wife in our church today. (myself in October)
I think "sorry" (when it is said sincerely) is a powerful word that can change our lives. (myself)
Forgiveness is not so much a word spoken, an action performed, or a feeling felt as it is an embodied way of life in an ever-deepening friendship with the Triune God and with others. (Gregory Jones)
God subverts human triumphalism in that he wins by losing. He unleashes resurrection life on his world through the dying and rising again of Jesus Christ. Because of God's surprising ways, God's people will play subversive roles in the gospel drama as we resist the corruption of the present evil age. (Timothy G Gombis)
When we read the Bible as stories - God's stories - we stop treating it as a set of rules or treating God as a genie for our benefits. As we enter the stories of the Bible, we feel the pain and suffering of the characters, feel the wonders of God's deliverance, identify with God's people as they struggle and falter, and experience the amazing grace of God in all our failures and shortcomings. (myself)
Faith is a complex human experience, and [the apostle] Paul preserves this complexity while giving it a unique twist. While affirming its character as trust and conviction, Paul connects faith to the experience of Jesus as God's faithful Son. Faith is more than trust; it is also fidelity, or loyalty. (Michael Gorman)
When I read the Gospels, I see a bunch of people whose lives were in a mess. They followed Jesus because he proclaimed a topsy-turvy kingdom. And he did not become King through his power. He became King because he suffered and died, and was vindicated by God at his resurrection. All this was of course the embodiment of his topsy-turvy kingdom. (myself)
If we understand sin in terms of breaking a set of moral codes, we end up with a self-centred religion. If we understand sin in terms of our failure to love our neighbour and to love God wholeheartedly, then we come close to the heart of the gospel. (myself)
From Homer to Hollywood, people are fascinated with heroes. They are people of power and wisdom. But the apostle Paul, borrowing from Jeremiah, says that he would only boast of his weakness, and 'the Christ crucified' is the true wisdom of God. (myself)
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
N T Wright on Genesis 1-3 and Adam
Friday, March 5, 2010
Orthodoxy, Inerrancy, Protestantism, etc
Today I saw some interesting comments from a blog on the web. (See here for the link - accessed on 5th March 2010.) I think they are very interesting. Here they are.
"Let me say this clearly, if bluntly: theologians know what Orthodoxy is. They know "what" defines it: the Creeds. They know Creeds don't define everything; they know Creeds are parameters and boundaries but not definitions of everything. When you say classical orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, theologians know what you mean."
"Protestantism is more or less defined by the solas. Protestant theologians know this."
"Anabaptists largely define themselves by their connection to the Bible and by their own creeds/confessions or statements of faith. Anabaptist theologians know how they define things."
"PSA is not about classical orthodoxy (all we've got there is forgiveness of sins). It is, however, central to the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin saw the atonement happening that way. No one argues, though, that it is the 'sole' metaphor. Some overemphasize it and squelch the others."
"Inerrancy is an odd one; the term and its meaning in many circles are connected to post Enlightenment apologetics. That the Bible is true, though, and fully true: Yes, historic Judaism and the Fathers (read vol. 1 on the opening "We believe" part of the 5 volume set on the Creed from IVP); clearly the Reformers were big on the truthfulness of Scripture and Calvin probably believed in what is now called inerrancy. (I had a colleague who wrote his dissertation on this.)"
"Let me say this clearly, if bluntly: theologians know what Orthodoxy is. They know "what" defines it: the Creeds. They know Creeds don't define everything; they know Creeds are parameters and boundaries but not definitions of everything. When you say classical orthodoxy or Orthodoxy, theologians know what you mean."
"Protestantism is more or less defined by the solas. Protestant theologians know this."
"Anabaptists largely define themselves by their connection to the Bible and by their own creeds/confessions or statements of faith. Anabaptist theologians know how they define things."
"PSA is not about classical orthodoxy (all we've got there is forgiveness of sins). It is, however, central to the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin saw the atonement happening that way. No one argues, though, that it is the 'sole' metaphor. Some overemphasize it and squelch the others."
"Inerrancy is an odd one; the term and its meaning in many circles are connected to post Enlightenment apologetics. That the Bible is true, though, and fully true: Yes, historic Judaism and the Fathers (read vol. 1 on the opening "We believe" part of the 5 volume set on the Creed from IVP); clearly the Reformers were big on the truthfulness of Scripture and Calvin probably believed in what is now called inerrancy. (I had a colleague who wrote his dissertation on this.)"
Friday, February 26, 2010
Rethinking resurrection - An article
I have recently written an article entitled Rethinking Resurrection. A quick summary here:
- To prepare for Easter some have decided to fast from iPods and social networking.
- Future bodily resurrection (not disemboided bliss in heaven) is the true Christian hope.
- The proclamation of Christ's resurrection is counter-cultural, both in Paul's days and in our world today.
- The hope of future resurrection has everything to do with how we live here and now.
- Standing in solidarity with the poor is an outworking of our Christian hope.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Christmas reflection: What is it like to be 'truly human'?
Sight Magazine has published an article I wrote recently. It can be found here.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Doctrinal superiority?
Recently I visited a church of a particular denomination. It's a lovely church, with very sound teaching in the sermon. After the service one of the ministers chatted with me. In our conversation we discovered that we both liked the teaching of certain well-known Bible teachers. It was a good conversation... so far...
As the conversation continued, this minister started to tell me the differences between the belief of his denomination and that of others. In one case he said that one particular pastor of a church in another denomination was "liberal" (meaning "dangerous", I assume). In another case he said that his doctrine was very similar to a particular group of people in another denomination (which is known to be very conservative, and hence "safe" for this minister, I assume).
But this minister was eager to point out that there were still differences between the doctrine of this group and his denomination. And then he went on to say that people in this group would prefer to go to a church in his denomination when they were away on holidays.
At the end of the conversation I felt that what he was really saying was that the doctrine of his church/denomination was superior to that of everyone else.
I hope I am not misrepresenting his view here. (To be fair to him I won't name his church or his denomination, just in case I misrepresent him somehow.)
After the conversation I was glad that I had not told him which church I normally attended. And now, when I think about it, I am not sure whether I want to see him again, in case he asks me what church I belong to and despise me - and my church - as a result. Of course I am not ashamed of my belief, but I am not sure whether we can have a pleasant conversation if there is a sense of perceived superiority in the mind of one party.
As I read the New Testament I find that church division is something that God doesn't desire at all. It is true that Bible-based "healthy teaching" is absolutely important (as it is emphasised in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus). But equally Paul teaches us to receive one another with love, allowing diversity in the church. We are to be united as one people in the body of Christ. One has to accept that, as church history tells us, respected Christians do hold somewhat different doctrines. I respect both Calvin and Wesley, for instance, although there are differences between their doctrines. I believe that we need to study the Scriptures carefully and diligently. But at the same time I believe that we need to remain humble and learn to hear each other's voice and opinions. We need to be more gracious.
As the conversation continued, this minister started to tell me the differences between the belief of his denomination and that of others. In one case he said that one particular pastor of a church in another denomination was "liberal" (meaning "dangerous", I assume). In another case he said that his doctrine was very similar to a particular group of people in another denomination (which is known to be very conservative, and hence "safe" for this minister, I assume).
But this minister was eager to point out that there were still differences between the doctrine of this group and his denomination. And then he went on to say that people in this group would prefer to go to a church in his denomination when they were away on holidays.
At the end of the conversation I felt that what he was really saying was that the doctrine of his church/denomination was superior to that of everyone else.
I hope I am not misrepresenting his view here. (To be fair to him I won't name his church or his denomination, just in case I misrepresent him somehow.)
After the conversation I was glad that I had not told him which church I normally attended. And now, when I think about it, I am not sure whether I want to see him again, in case he asks me what church I belong to and despise me - and my church - as a result. Of course I am not ashamed of my belief, but I am not sure whether we can have a pleasant conversation if there is a sense of perceived superiority in the mind of one party.
As I read the New Testament I find that church division is something that God doesn't desire at all. It is true that Bible-based "healthy teaching" is absolutely important (as it is emphasised in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus). But equally Paul teaches us to receive one another with love, allowing diversity in the church. We are to be united as one people in the body of Christ. One has to accept that, as church history tells us, respected Christians do hold somewhat different doctrines. I respect both Calvin and Wesley, for instance, although there are differences between their doctrines. I believe that we need to study the Scriptures carefully and diligently. But at the same time I believe that we need to remain humble and learn to hear each other's voice and opinions. We need to be more gracious.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Multi-faith world: East and West
One challenge for Christians today is that we live in a multi-faith world. But I see differences between the East and the West. I have lived in the West (English-speaking) for over 20 years, and I grew up in an Asian city. In the following I want to share some of my observations. I admit that my observations are somewhat subjective, but I hope it can be helpful to those interested in this topic.
In Australia I see roughly two responses to our increasingly multi-faith society. (Of course these two do not represent everyone's response, but I hope these rough categorisation can help to facilitate the discussion.)
(1) On the one hand, there are Christians who don't feel comfortable with it. They are concerned that it will dilute our "Christian heritage". (Whether we can still speak of a "Christian heritage" today is, of course, debatable, because our society is very secular nowadays.) Some of them (hopefully the minority) are not keen for Australia to accept too many migrants and/or asylum seekers because most likely they come from non-Christian faith backgrounds. (From the perspective of the gospel, I think that it is in fact a good thing to have people of other faiths come to Australia, for this creates the opportunities for us to share the love of Christ with them.)
(2) On the other hand, increasingly I meet Christians who think that other religions can lead people to God (ie. the Creator God in the Bible). These Christians are sick and tired of the aggressive type of evangelism done by certain churches. They are aware that ours is a multi-faith society, and people of other faiths are good people. They think that Christians should not judge these non-Christians and there is a good chance that they are saved (ie. will have eternal life) anyway - because other religions can lead people to the Creator God.
As someone who used to have a non-Christian faith background (a mix of Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and ancestral worship), I wonder whether the above are "Western" responses. I wonder whether the above two responses are very much conditioned by our historical background of a society shaped by a Christian culture - ie. whether people go to church or not, most believe that there is a God and that God is the God of the Bible.
Many feel that Christianity in Australia has been historically a majority religion. As our society gradually changes to a multi-faith one, we either resist the change (as in (1) above), or we change our previous concept of Christianity to find a new meaning to our way of life (as in (2) above).
In the East, however, historically and in reality today, Christians are often the minority. I suggest that this is very similar to the situation of the earliest church in the Bible. In Acts and in Paul's letters, we find Christians living in a multi-faith society, where the majority of people in the society worshipped other gods.
When I became a Christian, most of the people around me worshipped other gods and/or belonged to a particular Asian tradition. Many of my Christian friends experienced some form of rejection - sometimes persecution - because they had chosen to follow Jesus.
In my case I do not reject people of other faiths - because I was one of them before, and my heart is to let them know the love of Christ rather than reject them.
At the same time, personally, I find it hard to think that other religions can lead people to Christ. I was there before. My former religious background was a mix of polytheism, pantheism and a cultural tradition that went back thousands of years. If there is anything from other religions that can lead me to the amazing grace and love of God as revealed in Christ, it would have been something my previous faith background. (I admit that this is quite subjective.) True, there are many elements of that faith that are noble and indeed similar to Christianity. But there are unique aspects of Christ's life, death and resurrection that I cannot find in my previous religion. I tend to think that it might be possible that very good people from non-Christian backgrounds may be saved by God's grace. But the reality is that all of us are sinners and it is hard to break free from our sins. I did try to be a good person for many years in my previous religion and tradition, yet I found myself a sinner and yearned for a freedom that I could not find anywhere except in Christ. I would think that many of us from a similar religious background and tradition would share a similar experience.
So, I hope this post will be helpful to my friends in Australia who are trying to understand our worldview (ie. one that is shaped by a historically dominant Christian presence), how that worldview influences the way we think (as in (1) or (2) above, or in other ways), and how that understanding can help us find our place in a multi-faith world.
In Australia I see roughly two responses to our increasingly multi-faith society. (Of course these two do not represent everyone's response, but I hope these rough categorisation can help to facilitate the discussion.)
(1) On the one hand, there are Christians who don't feel comfortable with it. They are concerned that it will dilute our "Christian heritage". (Whether we can still speak of a "Christian heritage" today is, of course, debatable, because our society is very secular nowadays.) Some of them (hopefully the minority) are not keen for Australia to accept too many migrants and/or asylum seekers because most likely they come from non-Christian faith backgrounds. (From the perspective of the gospel, I think that it is in fact a good thing to have people of other faiths come to Australia, for this creates the opportunities for us to share the love of Christ with them.)
(2) On the other hand, increasingly I meet Christians who think that other religions can lead people to God (ie. the Creator God in the Bible). These Christians are sick and tired of the aggressive type of evangelism done by certain churches. They are aware that ours is a multi-faith society, and people of other faiths are good people. They think that Christians should not judge these non-Christians and there is a good chance that they are saved (ie. will have eternal life) anyway - because other religions can lead people to the Creator God.
As someone who used to have a non-Christian faith background (a mix of Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and ancestral worship), I wonder whether the above are "Western" responses. I wonder whether the above two responses are very much conditioned by our historical background of a society shaped by a Christian culture - ie. whether people go to church or not, most believe that there is a God and that God is the God of the Bible.
Many feel that Christianity in Australia has been historically a majority religion. As our society gradually changes to a multi-faith one, we either resist the change (as in (1) above), or we change our previous concept of Christianity to find a new meaning to our way of life (as in (2) above).
In the East, however, historically and in reality today, Christians are often the minority. I suggest that this is very similar to the situation of the earliest church in the Bible. In Acts and in Paul's letters, we find Christians living in a multi-faith society, where the majority of people in the society worshipped other gods.
When I became a Christian, most of the people around me worshipped other gods and/or belonged to a particular Asian tradition. Many of my Christian friends experienced some form of rejection - sometimes persecution - because they had chosen to follow Jesus.
In my case I do not reject people of other faiths - because I was one of them before, and my heart is to let them know the love of Christ rather than reject them.
At the same time, personally, I find it hard to think that other religions can lead people to Christ. I was there before. My former religious background was a mix of polytheism, pantheism and a cultural tradition that went back thousands of years. If there is anything from other religions that can lead me to the amazing grace and love of God as revealed in Christ, it would have been something my previous faith background. (I admit that this is quite subjective.) True, there are many elements of that faith that are noble and indeed similar to Christianity. But there are unique aspects of Christ's life, death and resurrection that I cannot find in my previous religion. I tend to think that it might be possible that very good people from non-Christian backgrounds may be saved by God's grace. But the reality is that all of us are sinners and it is hard to break free from our sins. I did try to be a good person for many years in my previous religion and tradition, yet I found myself a sinner and yearned for a freedom that I could not find anywhere except in Christ. I would think that many of us from a similar religious background and tradition would share a similar experience.
So, I hope this post will be helpful to my friends in Australia who are trying to understand our worldview (ie. one that is shaped by a historically dominant Christian presence), how that worldview influences the way we think (as in (1) or (2) above, or in other ways), and how that understanding can help us find our place in a multi-faith world.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Isaiah's vision
It seems to me that the Christian hope is not about a ticket to heaven. It is, instead, about the hope of a new world in which death not longer has its power. It is about life eternal, where one day those who are in Christ will rise with him and enjoy his presence with them. It is about a new creation where we can enjoy Shalom.
What Isaiah foreshadowed was quite amazing. Read these verses in Isaiah and let them touch your life and encourage you!
25:7-8 On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people's disgrace from all the earth. he LORD has spoken.
26:19 But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise — let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy — your dew is like the dew of the morning; you will make it fall on the spirits of the dead.
11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 Infants will play near the hole of the cobra; young children will put their hands into the viper's nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
What Isaiah foreshadowed was quite amazing. Read these verses in Isaiah and let them touch your life and encourage you!
25:7-8 On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people's disgrace from all the earth. he LORD has spoken.
26:19 But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise — let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy — your dew is like the dew of the morning; you will make it fall on the spirits of the dead.
11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 Infants will play near the hole of the cobra; young children will put their hands into the viper's nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A ticket to heaven? Or resurrection?
For years I thought that as Christians our destiny was heaven. In fact, when I was a pastor I used to say that to the people in the church. But then someone said that heaven was not our final destiny. Then I went back to the Scripture and I found that he's most probably right.
I have heard sermons that say that people will go to heaven if they give their lives to Jesus. But then in Acts - the book in the Bible that records the preaching of the earliest church - we don't really find the apostles preaching that kind of message. Instead, they preached the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah!
In 1 Cor 15 Paul says that what is of first importance is that Jesus died, was buried and was raised from the dead, and then he goes on to talk about the resurrection body. What is important about the gospel is not that Christians are going to heaven. Instead, the Christian hope is about the resurrection, which is based on the resurrection of Christ himself (after his death for those who have put their faith in him).
When Jesus was on the cross, he said to the person next to him, "today you will be with me in paradise." Paul says that after Christians die, they are asleep. This means that, for Christians, between death and resurrection there is a period of rest - in paradise. But that is not our final destiny. Indeed in Revelation it is clear that the new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven (Rev 21:10). It seems to me that our final destiny is a place in the new heaven and new earth, in which life is not about a disembodied existence in heavenly bliss. I see a real sense of human communal and bodily life with the presence of God himself in the future. The Christian hope is that those who are in Christ will be raised to life when Jesus returns, just like Christ himself was raised from the dead.
But why does it matter? What, in practice, is the implication of the difference between "going to heaven" and "being raised to life"? I will talk about that in another post. But for now I may mention two things.
First, for us who believe in the Bible as God's revelation it is always good to stick with what it actually says! There is surely benefit in doing so. Second, in the long chapter about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, Paul concludes with this statement:
"Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain." (1 Cor 15:58)
What is going to happen in the future has implication to what we do today, just as what happened in the past does. The most important event in the past is the death and resurrection of Christ himself, and that means that we are to live for him. But the climax of history will be that Jesus will return, those who believe in him will be raised to life, and the entire creation will be renewed. Paul says here that this future event means that our labour today is not in vain! It is because of this assured future that we are to give ourselves fully to the work of the Lord. The future has profound implication to what we do today!
I will say more in a future post.
I have heard sermons that say that people will go to heaven if they give their lives to Jesus. But then in Acts - the book in the Bible that records the preaching of the earliest church - we don't really find the apostles preaching that kind of message. Instead, they preached the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah!
In 1 Cor 15 Paul says that what is of first importance is that Jesus died, was buried and was raised from the dead, and then he goes on to talk about the resurrection body. What is important about the gospel is not that Christians are going to heaven. Instead, the Christian hope is about the resurrection, which is based on the resurrection of Christ himself (after his death for those who have put their faith in him).
When Jesus was on the cross, he said to the person next to him, "today you will be with me in paradise." Paul says that after Christians die, they are asleep. This means that, for Christians, between death and resurrection there is a period of rest - in paradise. But that is not our final destiny. Indeed in Revelation it is clear that the new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven (Rev 21:10). It seems to me that our final destiny is a place in the new heaven and new earth, in which life is not about a disembodied existence in heavenly bliss. I see a real sense of human communal and bodily life with the presence of God himself in the future. The Christian hope is that those who are in Christ will be raised to life when Jesus returns, just like Christ himself was raised from the dead.
But why does it matter? What, in practice, is the implication of the difference between "going to heaven" and "being raised to life"? I will talk about that in another post. But for now I may mention two things.
First, for us who believe in the Bible as God's revelation it is always good to stick with what it actually says! There is surely benefit in doing so. Second, in the long chapter about the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, Paul concludes with this statement:
"Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain." (1 Cor 15:58)
What is going to happen in the future has implication to what we do today, just as what happened in the past does. The most important event in the past is the death and resurrection of Christ himself, and that means that we are to live for him. But the climax of history will be that Jesus will return, those who believe in him will be raised to life, and the entire creation will be renewed. Paul says here that this future event means that our labour today is not in vain! It is because of this assured future that we are to give ourselves fully to the work of the Lord. The future has profound implication to what we do today!
I will say more in a future post.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"I am a follower of Christ"
Tonight at bedtime my son asked me what is the difference between Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican and Orthodox churches. So, starting from Jesus, I went through the 2,000 years of church history with him (all in 15 minutes) to explain how the different denominations came about. In my answer I also mentioned the Wesleyans, the Methodists, the Catholics, the Reformation (as an introduction to the Protestants), the Anabaptists, the Mennonites, the Uniting Church (in Australia), the Pentecostals, and even the different types of Orthodox churches - and my son added the Salvos! - and then I said that where I preached this morning was probably an independent evangelical church. I explained to him that there are different types of Anglican churches (high, low, evangelical, liberal, charismatic, etc), and indeed different types of churches within a given denomination.
Then I briefly explained to him the subtle differences between their doctrines, and how often each group thinks that their doctrine is better. Indeed many would argue that their doctrine is closest to what the Bible teaches.
My son actually finds it a bit amusing. I briefly mentioned to him that such divisions in the body of Christ is in fact not what the biblical ideal is.
In the end, I told my son that I see myself as a follower of Christ, rather than a Baptist or a Pentecostal (or whatever denomination). I love the Bible, and I belong to the body of Christ. I won't say that all doctrines (from the different denominations) are equally valid. But I am not sure whether we can say that any one doctrine can reflect the teaching in the Bible perfectly.
Then I briefly explained to him the subtle differences between their doctrines, and how often each group thinks that their doctrine is better. Indeed many would argue that their doctrine is closest to what the Bible teaches.
My son actually finds it a bit amusing. I briefly mentioned to him that such divisions in the body of Christ is in fact not what the biblical ideal is.
In the end, I told my son that I see myself as a follower of Christ, rather than a Baptist or a Pentecostal (or whatever denomination). I love the Bible, and I belong to the body of Christ. I won't say that all doctrines (from the different denominations) are equally valid. But I am not sure whether we can say that any one doctrine can reflect the teaching in the Bible perfectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
