Reflection: The message of 2 Chronicles

Recently my son (who is in upper primary) was reading 2 Chronicles. As it happened, I finished reading 2 Chronicles not long ago. I said to him that I thought a message of the book is that we should rely on God rather than ourselves or other resources. (The successive kings of Judah - as recorded in 2 Chronicles - had to learn to rely on Yahweh. It's a point clearly made by the chronicler.)

Then my son said to me, "I think the message of 2 Chronicles is that people do sin against God, but God still forgives them." Then he said that the kings in the book kept sinning, but God is merciful.

I think he has a point, and in fact spot-on.

Forgiveness is powerful, beautiful, messy, and risky - Tim Gombis

Tim Gombis has written a really good blog post about forgiveness.

Everything in the post is good. Here are some excerpts.

"Forgiveness is so profoundly powerful and beautiful... Forgiveness doesn’t ask for guarantees... Forgiveness takes the risk... Forgiveness doesn’t fix everything... Forgiveness doesn’t guarantee a Disney ending... Forgiveness doesn’t clean up the whole mess... Forgiveness remains difficult, complicated, risky, and profoundly beautiful."

Click here for the entire post.

Some quotable quotes and reflections

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)

Forgiveness and an ever-deepening friendship with God

There is an article in Christianity Today (October 2010) entitled How Far Should Forgiveness Go?

The author talks about her own experience in her own life and in a mega-church, without a sense of condemnation but with honesty and sincerity. The article interacts with various good authors on the topic and is worth reading. Towards the end of the article it cites from a book called Embodying Forgiveness by Gregory Jones, which is worth quoting here.

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. As such, a Christian account of forgiveness ought not to simply or even primarily be focused on an absolution of guilt; rather, it ought to be focused on the reconciliation of brokenness, the restoration of communion—with God, with one another, and with the whole Creation. Indeed, because of the pervasiveness of sin and evil, Christian forgiveness must be at once an expression of commitment to a way of life, the cruciform life of holiness in which we seek to "unlearn" sin and learn the ways of God, and a means of seeking reconciliation in the midst of particular sins, specific instances of brokenness.

Click here for the full article.

Were people in Paul's churches poor?

Last week I listened to a talk given by a respected scholar, who outlined some of the good work done by Dr E A Judge about the social setting of Paul's churches. He said a lot of good things, but I was a bit disappointed that he did not interact with other writers in the debate, especially the works written in the past 15 years or so. I think this is an important issue to discuss here.

Respected scholars like E A Judge, Wayne Meeks and Gerd Thiessen helpfully challenged the older notion that the earliest Christians were all destitute. They correctly suggested that some Christians in the earliest church were from a relatively more well-to-do economic background. But unfortunately today's church and even some scholars today have mistakenly taken the view that most of the Christians in the earliest church were "middle-class" (which, I believe, Judge, Meeks and Theissen did not say). In the following I want to clarify a few things.

(1) Tradespeople were hardly like today's middle-class professionals. It is true that people with a trade like carpenters, tent-makers and fishermen were relatively well-to-do, but it does not make them "middle-class". People like Peter, John and Paul might be literate. But it does not necessarily mean that they had a high social status. Indeed Peter and John had to "give up" a lot in order to follow Jesus, for they, being fishermen, would have had some material possessions. But we must remember that artisans (e.g. tent-makers and fishermen) did not belong to the upper classes. They were not destitute, but they were not wealthy either. They needed to work long hours, and often in tough conditions. They might be running a so-called "small business". But it's nothing like a small business in Australia. People like Peter, John, and indeed Jesus, were second-class citizens in the Roman Empire and had to pay taxes to the Romans. There was an underlying political, social and economic oppression that they had to live with everyday. A part-time tent-maker like Paul would hardly be able to survive financially. Although being a Roman citizen he did enjoy some privileges, it did not stop him from being jailed on various occasions. There were no laws or insurance to protect them from the risks of running a business. If there was a fire, it would be hard to recover the loss. If the main "bread-winner" (usually the father) was sick for a few weeks, the well-being of the whole family would be at risk. If there was a prolonged sickness or a bad injury in the family, their whole livelihood would be at risk. In fact, in many Roman cities, artisans (including doctors) were slaves. They were looked down upon because of their social status.

I myself grew up in an Asian city in the 1960's and 70's. It was quite a thriving city, with many migrants from the rural areas. It was similar to, for example, ancient Rome. My dad had a trade and was a small business owner. He had about three workers in his factory. But I can assure you that life was tough - very tough - for the family! We were a little bit better off than the workers in the factory. But we worked day and night, most days of the week, and we could only just make ends meet. My father is now retired, and his living standard is worse than most people in Melbourne today (although he's considered to be quite "successful" in life). Well-being should be measured in "real terms" - that is, the fact that Peter and John enjoyed a relatively stable lifestyle economically in their own social setting does not mean that their lives were easy or free from anxiety. And we must remember that they did give up their security to follow Jesus.

(2) Paul's request for a collection from the Corinthians does not mean that they had plenty of money. I have heard on several occasions that the fact that Paul asked the Corinthian Christians for a collection in 2 Cor 8-9 means that they were not poor. To me, this sounds like someone speaking out of a lack of experience in poverty. When I was a pastor I struggled financially. I found that those who had little money were often very generous. In fact, Paul just said in 2 Cor 8:2 that the Macedonians had given in the midst of their extreme poverty. It seems to me that Paul was expecting the Corinthians to be generous despite their poverty. It doesn't mean that the entire Corinthian community was destitute. In fact, if they were all destitute I am not sure whether Paul would say that they should give their very last penny to others. My point is that it is likely that many of the Corinthians were relatively poor (and some of them might be destitute) and belonged to the lower classes - just like many people in the urban cities in the pre-industrialised world. And Paul was saying that those who had some money and could do better than surviving should try to help another church that was poorer.

(3) Think about this statement: "The earliest church was run by people of high social standing, and they needed people like that to lead because otherwise nobody would listen to them." This is a statement made by some people (but not necessarily by the scholars mentioned above, as far as I know). But is this statement true? Yes and no. The first-century society in the Roman Empire was highly hierarchical. No doubt high social standing would be helpful. But it doesn't make it necessary for the church to grow through the help of people of high social standing. It is true that the literacy rate was low and hence by necessity it needed literate people like Paul to write the New Testament. But it doesn't mean that they deliberately adopted a "strategy" of using people of high standing to lead the church, even though that was probably what happened in practice. The church in China, for example, grew without many educated people during the 1970's and 80's. They needed no "people of high standing" to have people listen to them (in order to grow the church). The leaders had some education, for sure. But they did not have a high social status. They were poor and without any Western influence. But the church thrived nonetheless.

I am not suggesting that we don't need teachers in the church. I myself think that academic training in Biblical Studies - when done properly - is very important. But my concern is that we think that people with little or no education cannot contribute to the theology and ministry of the church. In aid and development it is well-known that the poor often knows what is good development. The West does not have all the answers. The rich and the poor are equal partners in poverty alleviation and in tackling the causes of injustice.

My concern is that the concern of Paul, I think. We see this in 2 Corinthians, for example. Power is a dangerous thing. Knowledge puffs up. We should let God's power work through our weakness. My humble personal opinion is that when we fail to focus on this (ie. God's power working in our weakness), we fail to understand the true meaning of the cross.

(4) Ancient non-biblical documents were often biased because they were written by people from higher classes. Their view of the poor was biased, for often they did not have a first-hand understanding of what it meant to be poor. My concern is that scholars can have an over-reliance on documents that had a biased view of the poor. My concern is also that if today's scholars do their theology from a safe and comfortable office or library without any first-hand knowledge of poverty and injustice, then they need to be aware that their research can be somewhat biased too. Paul, on the other hand, learned to live in want. As a former Pharisee and learned person, he would have been a respected member among his people. But he chose to to live differently. If we think that the earliest church was led by people of higher social standing such as people like Paul, we need to remember that the apostle himself had chosen to give up that social standing - see 2 Corinthians.

(5) We need to stop thinking that Paul's churches are like ours in the West today. Nor was his world like ours. In our Western society (e.g. Australia), we have the Bill Gates of the world (the very rich), the homeless people and the very poor, and those in the middle (me, my friends and colleagues). Those in the middle are doing not to badly, often with some kind of social welfare system as a backup, as well as emergency public health care. But in the ancient Roman cities it wasn't like this. The elite groups consisted about 1-3% of the population. About 20%-35% of the population of Rome, for example, were slaves or their descendants. These slaves might have food on the table, but their lives were not their own. Often they were used for sexual pleasures (applicable to women and young boys). At least some residents in Rome were destitute. There were several slums in Rome. The elite groups not only had a lot of wealth, they had political and social power as well. Those in the middle had no social welfare if some mishap happened to them. Many in the middle were not Roman citizens and by default had a lower social status (or "rank", some want to make that distinction). Basically if you do not belong to the elite or the upper-middle social groups, you are subject to injustice in a world where the rich and power well and truly called the shots. It is in this context that Paul's churches lived and in which Paul talked about financial giving and God's justice for the world.

(6) Finally, I want to say that the above doesn't tell us whether Christians are supposed to be poor or not. I think there is no simple answer to this question. A simple "yes" or "no" answer will not be satisfactory. I believe that we are all supposed to follow Christ's way of life, and Paul seems to endeavour to do that himself.

Coming back to the scholar I heard last week, I think he was right in many ways. My concern is more about how the audience would have understood him, and I hope the above can clarify a few things.

For those who are interested in the more recent scholarly debate, here is a list of interesting reading. I think few would disagree with what I said above.

J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998).
Dale Martin, "Review Essay: Justin J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival," JSNT 84 (2001).
Gerd Theissen, "The Social Structure of Pauline Communities: Some Critical Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival," JSNT 84 (2001).
Gerd Theissen, "Social Conflicts in the Corinthian Community: Further Remarks on J. J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival," JSNT 25.3 (2003).
J. J. Meggitt, "Responses to Martin and Theissen," JSNT 84 (2001).
Steven Friesen, "Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus," JSNT 26, no. 3 (2004).
John Barclay, "Poverty in Pauline Studies: A Response to Steven Friesen," JSNT 26, no. 3 (2004).
Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1987).
Peter Oakes, "Constructing Poverty Scales for Graeco-Roman Society: A Response to Steven Friesen's 'Poverty in Pauline Studies'," JSNT 26, no. 3 (2004).
Peter Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul's Letter at Ground Level (London: SPCK, 2009).

(JSNT stands for Journal for the Study of the New Testament)

Peace VS violence - Some thoughts

I have been thinking about the "just war" and pacifist (and non-violent resistence) positions on resolving international conflicts. In my previous posts I touched on this topic but did not clearly express my own view on the matter (see the label "peace VS violence"). In the following I will try to do so, but before that let me first give three comments.

(1) The conquest in the book of Joshua is not to be treated as the norm. My reading of the Old Testament suggests that, apart from the stories surrounding the Amalekites, the conquest in Joshua is the only noticeable occasion in which God asks his people to use violence to attack a people group. We may call this war a "just war", in the sense that God himself used it for his own reasons. It seems, however, that the stories that clearly shape the life and theology of Israel in the Old Testament are not the accounts of violence but the creation narrative in Genesis, the exodus story, God's covenant with Abraham, and the expectation of restoration from exile. The conquest in Joshua seems to be a one-off event in which Yahweh fulfilled a particular purpose for a particular time and occasion.

(2) Judgment and vengeance on God's enemies are God's prerogative alone. Any intention to use violence to resolve conflicts must take this notion seriously. The term "holy war" is not found in the Bible. Rather, we have the concept of "Yahweh's wars". Here is what Paul says in Romans 12:19-21, citing Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22.

"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' No, 'if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Only God is the author of life, and only he has the right to judge the world. The New Testament states clearly that Christ is the Judge, and one day justice will be done. The Christ-community looks to Him to judge the world as they suffer from violence in this world. This future judgment is, however, also restorative. As the Christ-community seeks to overcome evil with good and wait on God for his just judgment, it has an amazing restorative purpose - because it calls people to stop their acts of violence and turn to God for his mercy and grace.

(3) I respect those who hold the view that in exceptional cases a measured expression of violence might be necessary as the last resort. For example, some argue that in the case of the genocide in Rwanda, it would have been a different outcome if there had been a United Nations peace-keeping force to prevent violence in the nation. I also want to say that in my personal life I have not experienced strong political oppression, and hence I am not in a position to judge others. If a Christian decides to defend her/his family and loved ones when their lives are under threat because of their faith, who am I to judge them for their defensive action, which is used as the very last resort?

Obviously much more needs to be said on this topic. But space does not allow me to systematically discuss this matter.

For me, Jesus' teaching on loving one's enemies and praying for them is the key. Christ died for sinners. His willing sacrifice for humanity is how his love works in practice. His teaching on forgiveness and loving one's enemies was given in the context of Roman occupation (by violent means) of Judea, including Jerusalem. The earliest Christians also lived in the Roman Empire, where there was much violent oppression. But from the birth of the church in Acts to the writing of Revelation we find no intention in the earliest church to repay violence with violence. Rather, the Christ-community sought to live in peace with their neighbours. learned to love them (including their enemies) and often that meant suffering and dying for their faith. For me, if one holds on to Christ's teaching here, it is hard to accept the use of violence in resolving conflicts. The passage in Romans 12 above says it all.

I am all for peace-making!

An African's view on war and violence

I picked up a book by Samuel Waje Kunhiyop called African Christian Ethics. There is a chapter on war and violence. Here is a quote from the conclusion.

"Violent means have frequently been employed to try to solve the incessant conflicts around the world. But the current situation in Africa shows that violence is not the answer. Violence produces more hatred and more violence, but never ultimately resolves the conflict.

The answer to the nagging conflicts in the church and in the continent is the non-violence that Jesus practised and instructed his followers to practise. This refusal to accept violence does not mean that we passively accept whatever is done to us, nor does it mean that we cannot use force to protect ourselves when attacked. What it does mean is that we must not accept the use of force as a means of settling conflicts. Instead, we must encourage non-violent but active resistance when dealing with African ethnic and religious conflicts.

The effectiveness of non-violent responses to oppression and injustices has been demonstrated worldwide. In South Africa, Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela stood for non-violent but active resistance to the oppressive apartheid regime. In the United States of America, Martin Luther King Jr. was the major spokesman for non-violent bin active resistance to racial segregation. Gandhi adopted a non-violent approach to solving the political crisis in India.

Only love for the enemy and the determination not to use force or violence will win conflicts and win the enemy. These attitudes provide a theologically based "framework within which to carry on the vital task of building structures that can eventually eliminate war and its causes". The only effective remedy against oppression and injustice is the replacement of evil structures that have been institutionalized with good and just structures:

'The only true answer to violence is to have the courage to face the injustice which constitutes violence ... The privileged and the authorities will come to understand that common sense obliges one to choose between bloody and armed violence, on the one hand, and on the other the violence of the peaceful: liberating moral pressure.'"

I find that this African author's approach to the issue is different from that of Western theology. Kunhiyop is aware of the Western approach (as discussed in the beginning of his chapter). But he does not go into a detailed debate regarding just war and pacifism. Rather, he looks at the wars and conflicts in Africa and then examines the Bible to find an answer. He discussed many Old Testament and New Testament passages in detail. I think it is a good approach.