The Bible being rhetorical, and our lives being 'rhetorical' God-speak

In an article in The Regent World (Winter 2010, Vol 22, Number 1), Professor Rikk Watts says the following

Ancient rhetoricians were designers, seeking to persuade people of a different vision for the polis. Since it did not exist, they could not prove it — how do you "prove" a dream? But if you've seen the movie Invictus you will understand what is involved. You need to know your audience, their history and their culture. You need to know what they value and you need to use metaphors, since metaphors are the essential bridge between the known and the unknown... [Then] it dawned on me that the Bible itself is fundamentally rhetorical.

Marketplace theology is about precisely this: incarnational "rhetorical" God-speak. His word to us is brimming with metaphors, history, ethics and vision. It is God's rhetoric, persuading us to join him in his new creational work for a new and glorious future. It is a divine summons to design in the light of his life-giving truth.

The more I study Paul, the more I realise the rhetorical character of his letters. They are letters - speeches! - that seek to persuade. The Bible is not about a set of otherworldly (so-called) 'spiritual principles'. It is not a set of systematic theological propositions. The biblical authors did not write the Scriptures to prove the existence of God per se. Instead, the Bible is God's revelation to humankind about who he is and his saving acts. And we are called to embody the gospel in our daily life. That is, we are to be incarnational "rhetorical" God-speak', as Watts says. In doing so we bear witness to Christ.

It's happy for 'deep people'

Here is a quote from the Doctor Who episide Blink. I think it's 'deep'!

Kathy Nightingale: What did you come here [a dilapidated house] for anyway?
Sally Sparrow: I love old things. They make me feel sad.
Kathy Nightingale: What's good about sad?
Sally Sparrow: It's happy for deep people.

It's not about a bigger mission organisation

I attended an event recenlty where the National Director of a well-known mission organisation spoke. He started with a statement that as an organisation their goal is not about "getting bigger". It's not about the organisation itself either. It is about the gospel.

I think this is the kind of attittude we should have, and it wouldn't hurt for us pastors, leaders and churches to keep reminding ourselves and our congregations.

The fact is that this mission organisation has grown immensely over the past few years. It is sending out many new missionaries, with most of them serving full-time and long-term! They are there for the long haul - learn the language, live with the people, and share the gospel. (It is true that some of the workers do come home after some years and cannot serve long term. But they do so only because circumstances do not allow them to.)

In many places they focus on serving the poor, because the economic and social needs are huge. When they serve the poor, they do so with no strings attached. They treat the poor as God's image-bearers. But at the same time their deepest desire is introduce people to the Triune God, so that they may have eternal life through faith in Christ. And people do come to know Jesus through their dedication and sacrifice.

I am very encouraged.

A book about classical theism, open theism, etc

(Sorry that this post may be too 'theological' for some. It's because of the nature of the book.)

From Michael Bird's blog I found someone's interview with Kevin Vanhoozer about his book Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

The book sounds interesting. Here are some quotes from Vanhoozer in the interview.

At this point in our time and culture, modern science has pretty much co-opted the language of causality. Consequently, even theologians who should know better sometimes speak of God’s causality as if it were on the same level as other creaturely causes. This is not how Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, or others in the tradition would have understood it. Nevertheless, open theists and panentheists have used this confusion to their advantage to attack classical theism. How, they wonder, can God be in a genuine loving relationship with creatures if he causes all things, including the motions of people’s hearts? Further, if God causes all things, must he not be responsible for evil as well as good? (emphasis added)

I use the term “communicate” in a very broad sense, not merely in the sense “to transmit information,” but “to make common” or “share.” The most important thing that God communicates is himself: his light (truth), life (energy), and love (relationship). Whereas the end of causation is coercion, the end of communication is communion. The category of communicative action opens up new possibilities for theism and adheres more closely to the categories of Scripture itself.

The question of God’s suffering – that is, his ability to be affected by human creatures – is a red thread that runs throughout the book. If Nicholas Wolterstorff is right in comparing classical theism to a seamless garment where one loose thread spells the unraveling of the whole, then divine impassibility makes for an excellent case study.

Remytholgizing Theology is a minority opposition report on the “new orthodoxy” of divine suffering. While I want to take the biblical depictions of God’s dialogical interaction with human beings seriously, I don’t want to pull God down to the creaturely level. The challenge, then, is to specify to what the biblical descriptions of God’s emotions actually refer. There is not much on the meaning of divine emotions in the history of theology. Classical theists tend to take this language as anthropomorphic; open theists tend to take it literally. I had to resist the temptation simply to choose one side rather than the other. (emphasis added)

Click here for the interview.

Looking beyond the labels

My friend Nils Von Kalm has written a new article. I highly recommend it. Here is a quote in his article.

"In our noble attempts to be Christ-like, we have tried to civilise the poor. Gardiner believes that the Spirit would say to the church today, ‘stop civilising and start discipling’. Or, as a pastor at a church I was at many years ago said, we are just one beggar telling another beggar where to find food."

Click here for the article.

Reflection: An inclusive multicultural church experience

Church this morning was great.

(1) My primary-school-age child celebrated his birthday this week. When we walked in church, someone said to him, "Happy birthday!" Then we saw in the church bulletin a special note for the birthday boy this week! As my child always says, "Our church is a good church because the children are important and the adults talk to them!"

(2) We welcomed a lady and a family to be members today. They are amazing people. The lady understands mental health issues and will be running a seminar for us. The husband of the family is an indigenous Australian. (He played the didgeridoo for us this morning!) The wife is a Samoan, and a talented lady. Their kids sang a song for the congregation. There was such a community feel!

(3) A man will be baptised this Easter. He is from another faith, and he came to Australia recently. What a testimony of God's goodness and love!

(4) When I looked around there were people from many countries in Africa, Europe and Asia. This is precisely the type of community we will find when Christ returns! Also, there are people living with disability, people struggling with mental health issues, migrants, overseas students, and asylum seekers. We welcome people of all walks of life. This is such a wonderful place!

My new publications: What part does social justice play in the mission of the church?

In September last year there was a Theological Forum in Melbourne on the following topic. (Don't be put off by the word 'theological'. The forum was very user-friendly and the presentations very easy to understand.)

What part does social justice play in the mission of the church?

Three speakers spoke

• Deborah Storie, Deputy Chair of TEAR Australia Board
• Mike Raiter, Principal of Bible College of Victoria
• Steve Bradbury, Director of Micah 6:8 Centre, Tabor College and former National Director of TEAR Australia

Their articles are now published in

Zadok Papers (2,000-word articles)
Centre for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) at Ridley College (1,000-word articles)

I have written a response to the three speakers in each of these publications.

If you are interested, please contact CACE by emailing cace@ridley.edu.au for a free email copy.

Or you can contact Zadok Institute at PO Box 175, Box Hill, VIC 3128; (03) 9890 0633, and ask for Zadok Papers Autumn 2010.

Reflection: Value judgment, justice and love

Unfortunately I have seen serious conflicts in the body of Christ. It always saddens me. Here is a recent reflection I have.

Let us not make value judgment on people without sufficient evidence. And even if we have the evidence, let us love them, forgive them, and accept them, because they are people made in God's image, and God loves them. And may God help us to look to his final just judgment and his unfailing love, if we happen to find ourselves being treated unjustly. We cannot love without knowing God's love for us.

Can Scriptures be 'deleted'?

Some friends of mine have suggested that certain parts of the Old Testament are wrong (and hence should be 'deleted'), because they are not in line with Jesus' teaching. I guess likewise they can extend this argument to Paul's letters, and 'delete' the passages that they think are not in line with Jesus' teaching.

My friends are especially referring to the Scriptures that talk about God' vengeance and judgment. They think that Jesus teaches God's love, not God's vengeance.

A good example is Jesus' citation of Isaiah 61:1, 2a; 58:6 in Luke 4:18-19. A friend of mine would say that Jesus stops at the middle of Isaiah 61:2, and does not cite "and the day of vengeance of our God". My friend would say that it is because Jesus does not believe in God's vengeance and God's judgment. My friend would even say that he would read the Old Testament according to 'this' teaching of Jesus, and treat similar Old Testament passages accordingly. (I think my friend might be thinking of the info from, for example, David J Bosch, Transforming Mission [Orbit: Maryknoll], 110.)

But we must note that later in Luke 21:5-38 Jesus pronounced judgment on Jerusalem, which is the type of judgment commonly found in the Prophets. Also, the Old Testament citation in Luke 4:18-19 is a mixture of Isaiah 61 and Isaiah 58. Furthermore, if we use my friend's argument, one must note that the rest of Isaiah 61:2 says "to comfort all who mourn", which is straight after "and the day of vengeance of our God". My friend must ask why Jesus also leaves out "to comfort all who mourn", because blessing to those who mourn is clearly Jesus' teaching on the Sermon on the Mount (or Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6). The fact is, we cannot be certain what exactly did Jesus read on that day. Instead, all that we have is Luke's record, which may well be quite selective material. (Not that Luke had changed Jesus' words, but that he was recording materials that would be relevant to a particular context.)

I wonder whether my friends' approach to Scripture has something to do with our human nature, in that we think 'we' has the right to decide which Bible passages are in line with Jesus' teaching or not. My friends are godly people and they are amazingly generous people. But isn't it true that our fallen human nature is that we want to live a life that is independent of God? Perhaps even the best humans can choose to 'delete' the Bible passages that they don't like (even with good intentions).

But Jesus himself says that he has come to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17; 26:54, 56; John 17:12; 13:18; 15:25), and that Israel's Scripture (our Old Testament) itself bears witness to him (John 5:39). Both Jesus and the ancient Jews (and people in many parts of the non-Western world today) held their deepest respect for their sacred texts, especially for the texts that they believed to be revelation of God. I guess somehow in our Western world we no longer treat the Scripture in that way (even among those whose doctrine upholds the authority of Scripture). Somehow 'our interpretation' of Scripture has more authority than the Scripture itself. In doing so we undermine the authority of the God who gave us the Scripture.

Here is a Scripture that says heaps about Christ, his humility and the role of the Scripture in the earliest church. I hope we all follow the ways of Christ, his humility, and learn to use the Scripture from the earliest Christ-followers.

For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written, "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:3-4)

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.)"

An article on the Anabaptists

I found an article on about Anabaptism Scot McKnight's blog (accessed on 5th March 2010). Click here for the article.

I find this particular quote of Roland H. Bainton particularly interesting:

“The ideal of restitution or restoration was common in the age of Reformation, and all parties desired to restore something. The difference was only as to what, and how far back to go. Luther wished to restore the church of the early Middle Ages; for him the great corruption was the rise of the temporal power of the papacy in the eighth century. The Anabaptists went back further than any of the other groups, and turned exclusively to the New Testament. Even within the New Testament they tended to neglect Paul and to push back to Jesus. That is why (their) ideal of Restoration tends to coincide with the ideal of the imitation of Christ."

I really like the idea of imitation of Christ. But personally speaking I have problems with the tendency to neglect Paul and push back to the Gospels. Of course, Christ has to be the centre, and indeed the Triuine God has to be the centre of our belief and of our life. (And the centre of Paul's theology is Christ, I believe - and Paul reads the Scripture in light of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.) But as far as the Scripture goes, I believe that all Scripture is the God's revelation. I'll talk more about this in another post. (Click here for that post.)

Having said that, I am very inspired by the Anabaptists, mostly by their lives, ecclesiology and their social justice focus.

God speaks through his Spirit, who dwells in us

One of the most precious things I learned in ministry under an experienced senior minister in the 1990's was his desire to listen to God.

God speaks to his people. This is found frequently from Genesis to the prophetic writings in the Old Testament. People in the earliest church continued to hear God's voice, as the book of Acts illustrates. People like John Wesley and Hudson Taylor also seem to have heard God speak to them.

In my own experience I have never heard the audible voice of God. (But I know people who have.) But often I hear him speak to me. Mostly he speaks to me on matters relating to my own life and my loved ones. But not infrequently God speaks to others, with me being the deliverer of the message.

To me, the Bible remains the only reliable source of God's revelation, and it's the primary means by which God speaks to me. But in my own prayer life my experience is that God speaks to his people.

God speaks to us, and it's comforting and empowering. He gives us understanding of the Scripture, and guides us in our daily life.

As Gordon Fee says, the Holy Spirit is God's empowering Presence in those who are in Christ.

Heaven is important, BUT...

Here is a quote from N T (Tom) Wright.

"Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world."

Tom Wright's books Surprised by Hope and Resurrection of the Son of God explain this concept.

My two articles on Easter also explain this a little bit. (Just click on the title to go to the article.)

A matter of life and death
Rethinking resurrection

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.

Click here for the article.

Alarming trend regarding our desire to read and study the Bible

I have spent the past 15 years attending, studying and teaching at a number of Bible colleges in Australia, especially the ones that have been growing in enrolment. One alarming trend is the declining interest in studying the Bible itself. There are many students enrolled in leadership and ministry subjects. But often there are only a handful of students doing subjects that focus on studying the Bible. And I am not referring to subjects that involve highly technical Bible analysis. Nor am I referring to subjects taught by boring lecturers. These subjects are, for example, book studies on selected books in the Bible, and are taught by lecturers who try their best to make the Scripture relevant to daily life and ministry.

This is, to me, an alarming trend. How can our future leaders and pastors (and indeed Christians who are sincere enough about their faith to study at Bible colleges) not be interested studying the Bible itself? What future is there for the church? What's the point of being a good 'leader' without some basic skills to study the Bible?

As I speak with the lecturers in the Bible colleges, I am told that the students they get in recent years do not have the basic Bible knowledge they used to have. College lecturers find themselves having to do the job that normally local churches do - ie. to help Christians to pray and learn how to read the Bible.

(In my previous post, I referred to Cheryl Catford's observation on the decline of biblical literacy. Click here to see the reasons Cheryl outlines.)

How can we be authentic followers of Jesus if we do not diligently study the Scripture that Jesus himself loved and upheld when he walked on earth?

DVD review: Lord, Save Us From Your Followers

I have written a DVD review on Lord, Save Us From Your Followers.

Click here to see the review.

Book review: The God I Don't Understand

Book Review: The God I Don’t Understand by Christopher J H Wright (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2008)

I wholeheartedly recommend Dr Christopher Wright’s The God I Don’t Understand to everyone. Christopher Wright is a respected scholar in the Old Testament, and was formerly the principal of All Nations Christian College, a leading mission training college in England. Currently he is the Director of Langham Partnership International, and the chair of the Theological Resource Panel of TEAR Fund, UK.

The God I Don’t Understand is easy-to-read, honest, and full of insights. It seeks to answer four questions:

• What about evil and suffering?
• What about the Canaanites? (That is, how come such violence can be found in the bible?)
• What about the cross?
• What about the end of the world?

Christopher Wright deals with the problem of evil and suffering skilfully. He is gentle, biblical and not dogmatic. He insightfully says that while we often ask ‘why?,’ the people in the bible more often ask ‘how long’. This is so true!

The theology of the cross is both simple and complicated. On the one hand it is simply about the death and resurrection of Christ, which is, in turn, the foundation of the gospel. On the other hand the mechanics of how it works can be hard to understand. But Wright manages to explain it in three user-friendly chapters, covering some rather controversial questions. Is the cross an expression of God’s love or anger, or both? Should sin be understood in terms of ‘personal and objective guilt’? Or is it concerning ‘subjective and social shame’ in a given cultural context? Interesting and important questions for 21st-century Christians in a pluralistic world, and Wright provides us with good answers.

He honestly says that there are a lot of things in the scripture that he doesn’t understand – hence the title of the book. But what he does understand he explains clearly, helpfully and in a simple language. He does this exceptionally well in the three chapters about the end of the world under the titles ‘Cranks and Controversies’, ‘The Great Climax’, and ‘The New Beginning’.

Often I find that authors on these topics tend to write from their own doctrinal and ideological perspectives. But for Wright, it’s primarily scriptural. I particularly like his humility. He does not shy from affirming biblical truths, but at the same time he does not claim to have all the answers.

The book has clarified plenty of questions for me. But it is not a book of deep theology. Instead, it contains lucid bible teaching that has huge implications to how we live today. We are indebted to this fine book for its contribution to the church.

Reflection: Trusting God for his provision and fulfilling God's call

When I was 29 I had a good career. I had a BSc (Hons), an MSc, and years of experience in my profession. But then God called me to ministry. After heaps of prayer I left my career at the age of 30 to go to Bible college. The following years were very difficult financially and emotionally, and eventually I stopped working as a pastor, largely because of health reasons and because I wanted to finish my Masters in theology. But I remember that at the end of those years I could say that God never disappointed us financially. Yes, it was very difficult to "walk by faith", so to speak, and trust God for his provision - without any fund raising and without asking people for money. But it's worth it.

We experienced miracle after miracle of financial provision, even though we needed to live on a very tight budget (and continue to do so for many years afterwards). It's an amazing experience.
What I have learned from the experience is that if God has asked us to do something he will provide all our needs. I have to admit that I am a man of little faith - yes, I still am, and very much so. But once you have experienced God's miraculous supplies you have learned something about God's faithfulness.

Will I do it again? Only to the degree that God enables me, and only if I am very sure that God has asked me to do so. Now I am older - I know what my limitations are and how much I can endure. I'll be very careful in making any decision of that kind. But at the same time God's calling is still fresh and real. I consider that I am still in the process of fulfilling that call.

To everyone who wants to do God's will, I encourage you to trust in God's faithfulness. He who has called you to follow him is faithful.

Attitude for the teacher and the students

In his preface to his book, An Introduction to the New Testament, David A deSilva says something that, I think, both the teachers of the Bible and their students can learn from.

"The reader [of deSilva's book] is therefore invited not to learn from a master but to wrestle alongside a fellow learner with these magnificent texts [ie. the Scriptures] that have opened up hearts to God, nourished faith and shaped lives for two millennia."

Too often we think we are the master and that we know all the truth. But in fact we only know a little bit, and we are fellow learners with others.

Below is something deSilva says about what his father taught him.

"He taught me that there are two sides to every argument, and he perhaps contributed more than anyone else to my awareness of ideology and rhetorical strategy in people, no less than in texts."

We all come to the Bible with our own biases, and even ideologies. Let's learn from God the Holy Spirit and from each other when we come to studying the Bible.

"Rapture" and "left behind" according to Capes, Reeves and Richards

In their book Rediscovering Paul, David B Capes, Rodney Reeves and E Randolph Richards talks about the misunderstanding among some Christians today about the end times. Here is what they say (in relation to the teaching in 1 Thessalonians):

"The term rapture (from the Latin word raptus) is used [by some people] for the teaching that God will snatch up the living and dead to meet the Lord in the air. Unfortunately, some have distorted Paul's teaching by suggesting that 'the rapture' refers to some secret snatching of believers prior to the parousia [commonly known as the 'second coming of Jesus'] ... but it is not the stuff of biblical teaching on the end times. There is no evidence Paul believed in a secret rapture; there is no biblical basis to suggest the church will avoid the great tribulation. In fact, tribulation and suffering with Christ is the atmosphere in which the church lives out its entire existence — a very unpopular (and perhaps inconceivable) view among American Christians. Yet many Asian and African Christians would argue they are already experiencing great tribulation... Indeed, the parousia, according to Paul, will be the unexpected (like a thief in the night') but very public arrival of the crucified and risen Jesus to the earth he died to redeem. The 'second coming' of Christ will be an event of such cosmic proportions that no one, not even the dead, could miss it. The language Paul uses to describe this event is wonderfully poetic, powerful and political." (page 133)

"Jesus talked about 'two men in the field'; one was taken away and the other left behind. But which one was saved'? ... Yet Jesus' story (Mt 24:37-41) compares the end times to the days of Noah when Noah entered the ark. The biblical echo is deliberate: the outsiders were 'taken away' by the flood, but Noah and his family were 'left behind.'" (page 134)

What the ministry of reconciliation requires - living like Jesus

Recently I read the following about 2 Corinthians from Rediscovering Paul (by David B Capes, Rodney Reeves and E Randolph Richards). I think it really captures some key moments of this great letter of Paul. This is one of those letters that we hear less and less these days. But we are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't read this letter, because there is so much in this letter about how we can be authentic followers of Jesus.

"According to Paul, his converts had failed to recognize what the ministry of reconciliation required. It meant "carrying in the body the death of Jesus" (2 Cor 4:10), and "walk[ing] by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor 5:7), "regard[ing] no one from a human point of view" (2 Cor 5:16) and living as "having nothing, and yet possessing everything" (2 Cor 6:10). In other words, it meant living like Jesus ("though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich," 2 Cor 8:9), and emulating Paul ("as servants of God we have commended ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments," 2 Cor 6:4-5). The Corinthians needed to learn what it meant to become living sacrifices for the welfare of others. This is why the paradox of Christian existence is the leading motif of 2 Corinthians: "for whenever I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor 12:10). The strength-in-weakness theme pervades the entire letter in a variety of apparent contradictions, including joy in suffering, generosity in poverty and life in death. For Paul the theological basis for this paradox is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In weakness and suffering Jesus descended into death; in power and joy God raised him from the dead. Therefore, weakness is strength, death is life, and humiliation is glory." (pages 160-1)

Trusting in God for financial provision in an old-fashioned way

The global financial crisis last year was a major challenge for most of us. The organisation I work in, for example, took very strong measures to cut back on expenses in order to keep as many staff as possible.

But I know of one well-known mission agency that recorded a 100% financial support for their missionaries. And they managed to do that without fund-raising effort and without believing in any form of prosperity doctrine. They have always been trusting God for his supply in the old-fashioned way. That is, they don't deliberately ask people for money. They use sound financial management. They pray. It still works even in the 21st century, because God hasn't changed.

I am not opposed to fund raising or similar measures. But sometimes I wonder whether we trust ourselves more than trusting in God. Well, indeed it is a good question for myself. Do I trust God enough for everything in my life?

"The Limits of Incarnational Models" by Tim Chester

Here are three posts I found in Tim Chester's blog on "The Limits of Incarnational Models".

I really like the idea of following Christ by being with the poor and marginalised, and I appreciate those who try to do so in some of the poorest areas in Melbourne and the world. But Chester's posts are interesting and worth reading.

Click here for the 1st post: "The Triumph of the Many over the One".
Click here for the 2nd post: "Embodiment and Incarnation".
Click here for the 3rd post: "The Need for a Whole Gospel Approach".

Reflection: Beyond 'right and wrong'

I wrote this recently:

"Teach our children how to distinguish between right and wrong, and discern what is good and what is evil. But better still, teach them to overcome evil with good. (See Rom 12:21.) The Christian faith is much more than 'getting it right'. It is first and foremost about a Saviour who gave up his own life for sinners, and hence, in a real sense, overcoming evil with good."

I have been thinking that I spend a lot of time teaching students what is right and wrong. We see evil in this world and we want to ensure that we live our lives right. But surely the message of the gospel goes beyond 'right and wrong'. The gospel is about Christ - a sinless man and innocent sufferer - who died on the cross for sinners like us. He gave up his rights to defend and protest, but willingly gave up his life to die on the cross. What a Saviour!

I believe in seeking justice, and there are times when we have to stand up for our rights in our democratic society. We should not shy away from doing that. But the imperative in the Bible is surely to overcome evil with good, and to love our neighbours (including our enemies) as God loves us. Romans 12 says it all. A big challenge. We can't do it by our own human strength. Only through the Spirit can we do it.

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!

A blessing for the New Year

Here is something from a post in Michael Gorman's blog for the New Year. Happy New Year!

May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart.

May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace.

May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy.

And may God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done.

Christmas reflection: What is it like to be 'truly human'?

Sight Magazine has published an article I wrote recently. It can be found here.

Gorman: Faith, church...

More from Michael Gorman's Reading Paul.

"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."

"The church, therefore, is a visible, even a 'political' reality, rather than just a group with invisible 'spiritual' bonds, whose mission it is to be a living commentary on the gospel it professes, the story of the Lord (Jesus) in whom the church exists..."

Hope: The trust-filled conviction...

"Hope, as the future tense of faith, is the trust-filled conviction that God will soon fulfill all promises and vindicate the faithful; this conviction enables a life of dedication to God (faith) and to others (love) in spite of having to share in the cross of Christ now." (From Michael Gorman's Reading Paul, page 166)

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.

Gorman on Ethics, the Church's Mission, Cruciformity

More quotes from Michael Gorman's Reading Paul. Personally, I like Gorman's idea of story. That is, our life is shaped by Christ's story, and our life is to be a living story for the world to see. These stories all centre on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Christian ethics is the resurrection power of the justifying, cruciform, three-in-one God expressing itself as the sign of the cross in daily life. (p. 130)

[The church's] mission... is to be a living commentary on the gospel it professes, the story of the Lord (Jesus) in whom the church exists and who lives within the assembly. (See especially Phil 2:1-15.)... This countercultural community is not produced by human effort, nor does it occur to perfection overnight; it is a process of divine activity and communal and personal transformation (e.g. Rom 12:1-2; 1 Thess 3:11-13; 5:23-28). To be holy is to be different, different from those outside the church and different from the way we used to be, changed from what was "then" to what is "now" (Gal 4:8-9;1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 2:1-6; Col 3:1-7). (p. 134)

Cruciformity is cross-shaped existence in Christ. It is letting the cross be the shape, as well as the source, of life in Christ. It is participating in and embodying the cross. It may also be described, more technically, as non-identical repetition, by the power of the Spirit, of the narrative of Christ's self-giving faith and love that was quintessentially expressed in his incarnation and death on the cross. It is, therefore, a narrative spirituality, a spirituality that tells a story, the story of Christ crucified. (pp. 146-7)

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.

Amazing grace: Roman justice VS the saving restorative justice of God

Here is another quote from Michael Gorman's Reading Paul.

"Roman justice was a way of bringing order out of chaos, but it resulted in a system of more justice for some (the elite) and less for others. Furthermore, it required a system of punishment and deterrence that included the shame of public crucifixion for those who threatened the order that Roman justice created. In other words,... Roman justice required the exclusion and even the destruction of anyone perceived to be a threat to the peace/the social order/justice. The descendants of Roman justice, including certain contemporary versions of domestic as well as international justice, inevitably follow a similar pattern, culminating in the destruction of the enemy...

The saving, restorative justice of God revealed in the gospel is an alternative way of setting people right with God and with one another. It takes place not by inflicting violence to the enemy, but by absorbing violence on behalf of the enemy. Its extreme modus operandi is not to crucify but to be crucified. It does not require the destruction of the enemy but the embrace of the enemy. The justice of God, therefore, is not the opposite of compassion but the very expression of com­passion. It is at once the manifestation of God's faithfulness, because this is the way God is, and of God's grace, because it is not what humans deserve. Romans 3:21-26 and especially 5:6—8 demonstrate that Christ crucified displays this kind of divine justice, simultaneously revealing that "normal" forms of justice are in fact alien to the gospel:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)"

If Gorman is right, there is much for us to reflect on.

Discipleship re-visited, as the church faces the temptation of cultural captivity

Here is another quote from Michael Gorman's Reading Paul.

"Today, once again, many Christians and churches face the temptations of cultural captivity, 'spirituality' without discipleship or ethics, and knee-jerk nationalism. These are all forms of cheap grace, or cheap justification—a relationship with God in which God is believed to be a kind of cosmic agent of 'salvation' (happiness, blessing, security, prosperity, etc.) who requires little or nothing of the allegedly 'saved' or 'blessed.' Cheap justification is justification without trans­formation, without conversion, without justice. Once again, someone needs to speak, not merely of grace, but of costly grace; not merely of justification by faith, but of costly justification by faith. That someone is Paul."

Of course the language of "cheap grace" and "cheap justification" is not found in Paul's letters (not literally). But Gorman's critique must be heard. Any reading of Paul's letters will find that as Christ-followers we are challenged to follow the way of the Cross. At the heart of his letter to the Romans, we find a very important verse.

Now if we are children, then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17)

In the Greek the words for "co-heirs", "share in his sufferings", and "share in his glory" start with the same prefix, which means "with-" in English. This means that, for Paul, the three are all very important and are indeed interlocking ideas and cannot be separated (especially with the connecting words "if indeed" and "in order that").

Discipleship can be costly. I personally find it very challenging. But I think ultimately it is the love of Christ that compels us to follow him wholeheartedly. For me, I am very much aware of my limitations and weaknesses, and I ask the Holy Spirit to help me on the journey.

The challenge of biblical literacy

I think the greatest challenge for the church today is that too often Christians (individually and corporately) allow others to read the Bible for us (rather than reading it ourselves).

Today I read an article entitled "The Challenge of Biblical Literacy" (written by Cheryl Catford in Faith and Life Issue 3 October 2009). Here is a quote from the introduction.

"Bible illiteracy among the general Christian population has reached alarming levels and evangelicals are not far behind. George Barna's research amongst American churches in 2000 revealed that among adult and teen believers the most widely known Bible verse was "God helps those who help themselves" (yes, you're right, it's not in there). For some Australian Christians the only encounter they have with the Bible is when a small portion appears on the screen during the weekly service - there is no need to actually touch a Bible at all."

Catford then suggests five reasons (the following sections of the article are not cited in full):

1. The demise of Sunday School

"Today, children's programs are much more entertaining but, unfortunately, the Bible does not always feature prominently."

2. The atomisation of the Bible

"But so few have been taught or grasped the whole story so the Bible becomes a confusing jumble of unrelated stories or bits of information."

3. The desire for instant individual gratification

"Often the Bible is treated as the source of instant answers to whatever problem or question the reader has. "

4. The fear of not being relevant

"However, this concern has resulted in the proliferation of sermons that have little Bible content and seem more like motivational messages."

5. The emphasis on experience

"The old fallacious dichotomy between 'Word' and 'Spirit' seemed to force a choice rather than a marriage of the two in the lives of mature believers."

I suspect that there are more reasons (not unrelated to the above). For example,

a. An over-reliance on the teaching of our 'faith-heroes' (or 'superstars in our tradition/movement/counter-movement') - we have to remember that they are not always right! We need to read the Bible ourselves!

b. A culture that embraces pragmatism (the simplistic notion of 'if it works then it must be from God') almost unconditionally

c. An increasingly popular underlying theology that downplays the importance and value of Scripture

In the conclusion, Catford says,

"And the solutions? That is for another article but suffice to say all Christian leaders need to take the situation seriously."

Something for us all to ponder.

Gormon on the gospel according to Paul

A few quotes from Michael Gorman's Reading Paul.

"Jesus was not crucified for preaching a search for God within, as the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas describes his message, but for preaching the coming of the reign of God, a political image that stirred up both hope among Jews and fear among Romans. Paul was no different; he preached the 'gospel' of God." (p. 42)

"According to Paul, the gospel of God is not a set of propositions; it is the account of the planned, executed, and soon-to-be-consummated benevolent intervention of God into the history of Israel, human history more generally, and the entire cosmos to set right a world gone awry. Both the intervention itself and the retelling of it effect transformation in those who receive the message for what it is - good news of God's action in Christ and the Spirit." (pp. 44-45)

"To be sure, Paul's gospel calls individuals to a right relationship with God, but it calls them into a community where right relationships with God and with others - both insiders and outsiders - are taught, learned, and practiced." (p. 45)

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.

Respect the Scripture and those who have suffered for it

Tonight I read a book with my son. It's about how the Bible was handed down to us. One person it mentions is John Wycliffe, who translated the Bible into English and was condemned by the religious and political institutions at the time as a heretic. I told my son that people like him suffered and/or died for the Bible, because they considered it as God's Word, and that it was to be respected and was important for our faith. Then my son said that those who persecuted people like Wycliffe were very mean.

It's true, isn't it? It comes from the mouth of an innocent child.

In my circle of friends I have increasingly come across sincere and lovely Christians who believe that certain Scriptures should be "deleted" because they cannot be from God. For example, they think that certain passages in Isaiah cannot be from God because those passages say that God is a God of vengeance. For them, these passages are incompatible with the message of love that Jesus teaches. They cannot come to terms with the tension between God's judgment and the grace of God found in Christ.

I do very much respect these Christian friends, for I know them personally and they are among the best Christians I have come across in my life. But I wonder whether their thinking stems from a Western modern worldview in which a belief system (as it is often assumed) should have as few internal tensions as possible, and that we (human beings) can get to choose which parts of the Scripture can be "deleted" when we want to resolve certain tensions. I think the earliest Christians did not have this problem. People like Luke and Paul did not seek to resolve those tensions. The biblical writers (e.g. the author of Job and Habakkuk) saw those tensions. They struggled with them. They even lamented and protested. But they learned to live with them and put themselves in the hands of a faithful and loving God.

Sometimes I think my friends are trying to deal with certain Christians/churches/doctrines that have turned the Bible into an idol and used the "authority of the Bible" as an instrument to abuse people. My friends are right in realising that there is a real problem there. The gospel message, as revealed in the Scripture, is about setting people free, not putting them in bondage. We submit to the Bible - not a particular interpretation of the Bible, a particular statement of faith or confession - as the rule of faith.

But one must respect people like Wycliffe, and many Christians in the world who have suffered and/or died for the Bible (for translating it into the common language or for keeping in their possession). They do so because they have experienced the transforming power of the Scripture as it is the revelation of the Creator God and the teaching of Christ through the Spirit.

Is social justice something that only some Christians should engage in?

Often pastors and leaders come to me and suggest that not everyone should engage in social justice. It is an important area of the church, they say. But they also think that people have different gifts and not everyone is interested in this area of ministry.

True and not true. It is true that everyone has different gifts and talents. But it is not true that individual Christians can opt out of defending the powerless. Despite our different gifts and talents, everyone of us should bear witness to Christ. Some of us use words. Some use actions. Some spend the majority of their time relating to Christians and little time on proclaiming the gospel, because their gift is not in proclaiming. But it doesn't mean that they don't pray for evangelistic activities. Similarly, not everyone is good at pastoral care. But everyone should in one way or another express their love for those in need.

In the same way, I believe that everyone should defend the cause of the poor and vulnerable. Some do it by engaging in advocacy work (e.g. writing a letter to or visiting an MP about social justice issues). Some do it through prayer and financial giving. Preachers can include justice issue in every sermon. Everyone can play a part by buying fair trade products.

The Micah mandate is not for a selected group of Christians. It's for every follower of Jesus.

"He has shown all you people what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

We use different gifts and talents for the cause. Some spend more time on social justice. Some spend less. But the call is for everyone.

Book review: Another Way to Love

Here is another book review for Another Way to Love. I have written a chapter in the book, but unfortunately the review doesn't mention it. Having said that, the review is very positive and says that it's a great book to read!

Click here for the review.

The apostle Paul in one sentence

I am reading Michael Gorman's Reading Paul. Here is a quote from the book (p. 8). It's a one complex sentence to describe Paul. It takes a bit of concentration to read, but it's worth the effort.

"Paul preached, and then explained in various pastoral, community-forming letters, a narrative, apocalyptic, theopolitical gospel (1) in continuity with the story of Israel and (2) in distinction to the imperial gospel of Rome (and analogous powers) that was centered on God's crucified and exalted Messiah Jesus, whose incarnation, life, and death by crucifixion were validated and vindicated by God in his resurrection and exaltation as Lord, which inaugurated the new age or new creation in which all members of this diverse but consistently covenantally dysfunctional human race who respond in self-abandoning and self-committing faith thereby participate in Christ's death and resurrection and are (i) justified, or restored to right covenant rela­tions with God and with others; (2) incorporated into a particular manifestation of Christ the Lord's body on earth, the church, which is an alternative community to the status-quo human communities committed to and governed by Caesar (and analo­gous rulers) and by values contrary to the gospel; and (3) infused both individually and corporately by the Spirit of God's Son so that they may lead 'bifocal' lives, focused both back on Christ's first coming and ahead to his second, consisting of Christlike, cruciform (cross-shaped) (1) faith and (2) hope toward God and (3) love toward both neighbors and enemies (a love marked by peace-ableness and inclusion), in joyful anticipation of (1) the return of Christ, (2) the resurrection of the dead to eternal life, and (3) the renewal of the entire creation."

I think it's a good way to understand the apostle Paul and his letters.

Reflection: A number of reflections I have recently

Enter the stories in the Bible and allow them to enter our lives, so that our lives can be deeply enriched and profoundly transformed, and that others can see those stories in our lives.

Is Christianity simply a religion that helps us to avoid God's punishment? Or is it about a deep sense of love for the true King and Creator God - and hence allegiance to him - because of our gratefulness to the risen Christ who died for us for our sins?

The LORD is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble. Those who know your name will trust in you, for you, LORD, have never forsaken those who seek you. (Psalm 9:9-10)

Caring for the poor and engaging in social justice is not so much an outcome of an intellectual-theological analysis of the Bible. Instead, it is the outworking of a profound knowledge of our God, who loves us enough to come to our world, to identify... with the suffering of humankind, to die for our sins, and to rise from the dead, so that we may have new life and shalom by faith in Christ Jesus.

I am not a Baptist, although I go to a Baptist church. I was not a Pentecostal, although I was a pastor in a Pentecostal church. I am not an evangelical, although my whole life depends on the Bible and I submit to God's word as revealed in the Scripture. I am a follower of Christ, and with the help of the Spirit I seek to live for Christ and live out the values of his kingdom. (By the way, I don't mind being called an Evangelical, Baptist, or Pentecostal, for in many ways I am. I just think that these terms are understood in so many different ways these day, and they can be misleading. At any rate, I think the Scripture says most clearly that we are followers of Jesus, rather than members of a particular denomination.)

An article by the Liberal MP Petro Georgiou

Click here for this article concerning asylum seekers in Australia. I think his views are worth listening to.

Guess who this is

Guess who this is. Someone wanted to harm him, and so he fled to another country and sought asylum. In fact, he was only a child, under two. His parents took him to another country and became refugees. Fortunately the leaders of that country did not call them "illegal arrivals" and let them stay, for soon the leader in their home country killed everyone who were two or under in the city that the child was born.

Reflection: An asylum seeker's story

Some time ago I got to know a lovely Christian man who came to Australia for asylum because of political persecution in his home country. He told me how reading the Bible sustained him, and how he was separated from his young family as he fled his country - and that he hadn't seen them since. His story breaks my heart. More recently we heard that his application for refugee status was rejected. He was devastated and had problems sleeping. His faith was tested. Many Christian friends gathered to pray for him. We waited patiently for the hearing of his appeal to take place. But the hearing was indeed 'short' because they decided to delay the hearing just before the schedule date. But last week I heard that the hearing eventually took place and straight after that he was granted permanent residence status to live in Australia. We are thankful to God for his mercy, but continue to feel his pain of being separated from his family. We struggle to understand why such a lovely Christian man has to go through all that hardship, but rejoice with him for the grace God has shown him.

Reflection: The lament of a so-called academic

Since I like studying the Scripture and I am working on a major research degree on the Bible, I am often labelled as an academic. Unfortunately this labelling comes with all sorts of negative connotations, and it causes me grief at times. Here are my protests and lament.

(1) I have done most of my academic studies part-time. For all these years I either worked in a church, or as an IT professional, or in a relief development agency. I am not an academic who doesn't know what the real world is like. Again and again pastors say to me that what they have learned from theological colleges doesn't work in practice. That is often true (unfortunately), but I hate to be classified as an armchair-theologian as such. I hope my working experience can help me read the Scripture through the lens of the joys and pains of human experience.

(2) Some people have suggested that a higher degree in theology is a sign of prestige and privileges. My experience is quite the contrary. If anything else, as I said above, I feel somewhat marginalised.

(3) Academic studies is not only hard work in itself, it is also costly. Not only that there is a financial cost, it also involves a lot of sacrifice in terms of time, security and stability. In Australia there are too few positions in theological colleges for the many trained academics. Often those who do hold a position have to work very long hours at a low wage.

(4) Lastly, my lament is that (at least in the Western world) there is a diminishing interest in the Bible. For a range of reasons, there is a tendency to rely on the teaching of well-known speakers and their books, rather than the Scripture itself. I think it is fair to say that Bible literacy is on the decline, generally speaking. The end result is that most people are not interested in studying the Bible with someone trained academically.

With these I am often discouraged. But at the same time I also feel the encouragement from the Holy Spirit to persevere. I hope in doing so many other fellow students of God's Word may be encouraged too.

Reflection: Sometimes I get into trouble when I insist on reading the Scriptures aright

One struggle I have in my teaching is that at times I get into trouble when I insist on using the Bible to understand God and his purposes for us.

Sometimes I am accused of being pedantic or too academic. But I believe that often what I say can be affirmed by a simple and commonsense reading of the biblical text - that is, if we do not have a presupposed interpretation in mind (through our church upbringing, for example).

Sometimes I am accused of being judgmental. I sincerely hope that I am not judgmental, for I simply cannot claim any moral superiority over others. But I do hope that my insistence on reading the Bible properly, and allowing it to speak to us and challenge us, can be taken seriously. I think it can be a positive experience - one that leads us closer to God and his restorative purposes for his world.

At times people react to my insistence on reading the Bible according to its original social and historical context. They say that the relevance of the Scripture's in today's world is more important. I totally agree that we need to allow the Scripture to speak to us today, and let the Spirit guide us in applying the biblical text in the contemporary world. But we simply cannot separate any literature and ancient stories from their original social and historical context. To neglect the original intent of the biblical writers (and the original understanding of the Bible's first audience) would lead us to a reading of Scripture that centres on what we think rather than the original meaning of the text. The danger is that we tend to hear what we want to hear rather than what God wants to say to us.

So I struggle along. I hope people hear my heart - a heart that desires the church to hear God's voice through the Scriptures.

Let's spend our money somewhere else

I am reading Christopher Wright's The God I Don't Understand, and have come across this quote about the enormous amount of money the world spends on weapons and armies.

"At over one trillion dollars in annual expenditure — an incomprehensible figure that continues to rise — global military spending and arms trade surpasses all other categories of global spending. The figures are astounding: In 2005 global military expenditure reached over $1,118 billion, fully 2.5 percent of world GDP or an average of $173 per human being. Accounting for 43 percent of global military expenditure, the United States is the principal determinant of world trends. American military spending, at $420 billion, dwarfs that of other high-spending countries, including China, Russia, the United Kingdom. Japan, and France - each ranging from 6 to 4 percent."

Wright is talking about the Bible's vision of the new heaven and new earth, where there will be healing to the nations (e.g. Rev 22:2). I hope that before the return of Christ God's people will advocate for better use of the nations' resources. Let's use our money in places where we can bring life rather than destroying it.

Source of the quote above: Jonathan Bonk, "Following Jesus in Contexts of Power and Violence", Evangelical Review of Theology 31 (2007): 342-57, as quoted by Christopher J H Wright, The God I Don't Understand (Zondervan: Grand Rapids: 2008), 204.

Socioeconomic hardship and persecution in the earliest church

Recently I had a chat with a theological college lecturer about whether Christians in the earliest church suffered from socioeconomic and political hardship when they were persecuted. For him, there is no evidence for that. But for me, it's quite obvious.

Think about why Joseph, Mary and Jesus had to escape to Egypt as refugees in Matthew 2. They left for Egypt because the magi just visited them and that they had told Herod that there was a King born to the Jews. Jesus was a political refugee! And that's because he was to be the King. Any refugee would know that socioeconomic hardship was part of their life. (The life as refugees would not be easy for Jesus' family despite the magi's gifts.) Imagine that you were a Christian living in the Roman Empire and that you declared that Jesus was the true Lord and King of the whole world (hence by implication Caesar was not Lord). You would not assume that your life would be easy, would you?

Another example. The imprisonment of Paul and Sila in Philippi (as in Acts) sounds like that they were in a carcer (a type of prison in the Roman Empire). According to Capes, Reeves & Richards, Discovering Paul, "The carcer entailed the harshest conditions for the worst criminals. Prisoners feared this form of custody since many died from malnutrition, exposure or disease. There were no food rations or state-issued clothing for criminals or laws governing due process. These prisons operated at the discretion of the magistrate; many prisoners were left to rot in jail." (p. 205)

Paul and Sila left the prison with relatively little hardship. But one can imagine that for many Christians in Philippi (a Roman colony), they would expect harsh socioeconomic hardship if they were persecuted. They might not be put into a carcer type of prison. But nonetheless its condition would not be like the prisons in Australia. They would have to rely on relatives and friends for food and clothing. If they were freed in the end, their health would have been deteriorated greatly. They and their loved ones would be suffering socioeconomically, which, in turn, was part of the unjust ancient Roman political system.

Ask Christians who suffered in the former Soviet Union, or ask a Christians who suffers in an oppressive regime today, they would tell us how they suffer socioeconomically and politically when they were/are persecuted.

I wonder how much our theology today is influenced by our own middle-class Western thinking? Let's read the Bible in its own social and historical context. Most Christians in the earliest church knew what it means to be poor and how it feels to live in an unjust social and political system. Let us enter their world and allow God to speak to us.

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.