kohandau

Will there be gospel preaching in heaven?

2005-11-04T09:02:00.000+11:00

Introduction - Preliminary thoughts

At first thought there doesn't seem to be a need to preach the gospel in heaven (for the purpose of salvation or of edification for believers). In the new heavens and new earth, there will be no sin, nor suffering, nor pain (Rev 21:1-4), so gospel preaching of warning, repentence and comfort would be obsolete in that sense. So if we will be glorified in the ultimate sense and given new resurrection bodies, what place would the gospel have for all eternity?

Furthermore, if the word of God is the gospel, and in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God (John 1:1), perhaps the parousia (the revealing) of Jesus will render that "obsolete". Not that God's word (i.e. The Word of God incarnate) is ever obsolete, but if we are to be in the very presence of God, where the city of heaven will be God's tabernacle (temple), then God will herald himself.

On the idea of bringing glory to God, if we see that salvation is from God, for God's glory, then the end is God's pleasure and glory, while the means is God himself through the gospel (revelation of Jesus). So since God's glory will be fully consumated and we will share in that by his grace, there will also be no need to herald the gospel for God's glory, because we will be praising God directly before his throne.

Theological themes

Since there are many theological themes and functions we could bring into this, let's focus on a few of them for now.

1. A brief survey of the heraldic gospel:

The gospel was preached in the Old Testament in a way that was anticipatory, the full blessings of God's gospel hadn't yet come during the time of the prophets, priests and Kings. So when the preaching of the Kingdom finally came with John the Baptist, the message was of repentance for the Kingdom was at hand. Jesus is the culmination of those great promises as he was the one the prophets pointed towards and where the gospel finds its centre, with his death, resurrection and ascension meaning victory of death and the power of sin, now is the age where the gospel is preached to the world. When Jesus comes again, the preaching of the Kingdom won't be in the same way as before, but I think the continual praise and glory will still be focussed on God climatically.

2. The City of God

The city of God theme is significant, as the city is described in the same terms as the Holy of Holies (Rev 21:16). This means that there is ultimate intimacy between God and the elect, and in that sense there will be no more heralding of the gospel (if we assume that the function of heralding the gospel is to mediate God to people or to bring people to repentance). But the heralding can take a different form can't it? It could be a praising adoration for all eternity, which is in fact what eternity will be! There's no reason for us to think it can't be an eternity where we learn for all time God's immeasurable grace and power.

But the eternal plea will always be that Jesus lived and died for us - that is the gospel. We can't praise God for all eternity without constantly remembering the grounds by which we are there in the first place; and that brings us to the gospel again and again. So we herald it in that sense, not in a way to bring people into the Kingdom, but to recognise in our praise that we are with God on the basis of what Christ has done for us at the Cross. The image of the slain lamb and the lion being praised (Rev 5:5-6), and other images of Jesus bring praised by the multitudes perhaps bring this into sharper focus.

3. Kerygma and Doxology

It's also important to note that in the new heavens and the new earth, kerygma and doxology will be intertwined. What stands between the two now is sin and anticipation till the end. Most Christians tend to think that biblical lines of continuity stops at the Cross; but there's biblical theology exercised in the New Testament isn't there - both backwards and forwards. Backwards in the sense the the gospel has secured salvation and nothing saves us apart from the grace of God shown at the Cross. And forward in the sense that we are awaiting the adoption of Sons, Romans 8, and you can't read Romans 8 without reading Romans 1,2 and so on.

Further reflection on the Resurrection

It's important also to recognise that while we are given Resurrection bodies (Phil 4, 1 Cor 15), we are not given divine bodies as our being; that is, we are not absorbed or transformed into some divine being other than human. The human is glorified as the perfect resurrected human and is transformed in that sense. We are not given deity in that we become absorbed into the Godhead (which some Christians believe, based on a misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1). What this means is that there's no way we'll then come into an omniscient knowledge of God. The incommunicable attributes of God (like all the "omni" attributes) will be incommunicable still in the new heavens and the new earth. We will know and see God perfectly as perfect human beings, but human beings we still remain. Just as how Christ is still the God-man today, or else he couldn't be that high priest that Hebrews 2 describes. One mistake I made in my systematic theology in the past was that I argued that Jesus released some attributes of God when he took on human attributes (the position called the 'kenosis' of Jesus, his emptying), that was just plain fundamentally wrong. Jesus on top of his perfect divine being, took on humanity.

Conclusion

What this means for us is that we will be resurrected with the same kind of resurrection body Jesus had in all its glory, never to be corrupted by death again, but our knowledge of God will only be on the outskirts (even as it is now) as we know Him truly for who He is. In other words, we have an eternity to know an infinite God. And the way we'll get to know this God is not in the functional worldly sense of preaching today with a preacher behind a pulpit, but in the functional heavenly sense of preaching in that God will reveal himself utterly, completely to us insofar as we resurrected people will be able to understand and for all eternity, without it being esoteric, and in unshielded presence and intimacy for ever and ever. It is then that the barrier of sin in our current lives will be no more. We will at last, be completely conformed to the living God, in whose image we have been made (2 Cor 3:18).

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
- 1 Peter 1:3-5

The Essentiality of Repentance

2005-10-14T09:54:00.000+10:00

a guest post by Brother Fung...

The Apostle Paul writes:

“They tell us how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”

1 Thess 1:9-10 (NIV)

Imagine this. In 2005, a gospel worker sends someone to enquire about the state of a church in China. The response is so remarkable that he writes a letter back. And in this letter he thanks God profusely for their church, describing it as it is above. What makes it incredible is that it is a description of repentance, one that the church is in danger of losing in this present day and age.

The passage in context

Paul begins his first letter to the Thessalonians by giving thanks to God for the Christians in the Thessalonian church beginning with a thanksgiving for the presence of the prominent Pauline triad of faith, love and hope in the Thessalonians. It is a flood of prayer by Paul motivated by a deep profundity of the gospel that comes within him.

And so the Apostle Paul thanks God for how they patterned his lifestyle and service (and there hence Christ) as he served and preached among them even in the midst of severe suffering (v6), they received the gospel with joy and with deep conviction of the Holy Spirit (v5, 6) for which the Thessalonians became a model of faith to believers in surrounding cities.

It is through them that the gospel was proclaimed as it rang out such that they were renown for their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (v8). It is incredible – imagine a church in the Western suburbs of Sydney being so bound up in the gospel that they were to bear a reputation in the suburbs around of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as they proclaimed it in their life and action, and in so being, became a model to all believers around them. And so for this the Apostle Paul thanks God with a deep gratitude, and how rightly so! For this is a man who has seen the fruits of his ministry to the Thessalonians so vividly blossom under the grace of God in a way unimaginable without a profound acknowledgement of God’s blessing and grace for his sovereign hand in their transformation.

And so we reach the pinnacle of this first passage where Paul declares that he doesn’t need to say anything about the faith of the Thessalonians for it is known everywhere! And what is known and been conveyed to the Apostle Paul is a description of remarkable repentance by the church of Thessalonica (v9-10).

Repentance in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

In these verses, the Apostle Paul describes with pristine clarity the act of repentance itself. Notice the verbs Paul uses to describe this repentance: the Thessalonians “turned to God from idols to serve the true and living God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath…”

Notice the verbs – the ‘doing’ words. That the Thessalonians turned to God. That is, they changed direction, and turned towards God. And then what did they turn from? They turned from idols – the very objects or intangibles that stand between God and the praise and glory he deserves (Rev 4:11). And not only that, they now wait for Christ’s return. We may notice three things in this:

They turned from idols. Thus, repentance necessarily involves turning away from idols as Paul dictates. We cannot be Christian and not turn from idols. Repentance must involve turning away from idols. Yet what is this idolatry? At first thought, images of golden Buddhist statutes may arise, but it is far more subtle than that. The idolatry of Australian in this present day and age is the materialism and hedonism of this world – the chasing after fleeting things and the purposive lives lived for the passions of the here and now. It is from these idols that repentance dictates that we turn away from.
Notice now the direction that the Thessalonians turned to – that they turned to serve the true and living God. That is, the God we turn to is not an inanimate feeble creation of human minds, but the true and living God who was and is supreme over everything – the sovereign creator of all who has through our Lord Jesus Christ rescued us and delivered us into his kingdom by his might hand. It is not a fake or dead god by which we have no idea of its disposition and relationship towards its worshippers, but instead it’s the true and living God who sent his Son to die for us as a propitiation of sins that we serve.
Notice lastly that they now WAIT for his Son from heaven. What is emphasised here is the imminent judgment to come – “the coming wrath”. For repentance is bound up with judgment. Repentance is necessary for judgment is coming (Acts 17:30) and we shall be held accountable for our actions. Thus the Thessalonians having repented, now WAIT for Christ’s return, but not only that, they also await their salvation from God’s wrath/judgment.

The fallacy of today’s secular world is that there is no coming judgment. Satan, the father of lies has deceived the world into believing that there is no God, nor is there judgment to come. And so when people believe that there is no judgment and therefore no accountability for actions that is to come, there is no need for repentance and a turning around of life to live and serve the true and living God.

But it is precisely that judgment is coming that we repent – we turn TO God from idols to SERVE the true and living God. And so it is a must. We must repent for judgment is coming in the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. But we as Christians also rejoice with immense gratitude for we know that with His return, salvation shall also come because of “Jesus – who rescues us from the coming wrath”. And here hence is a glimpse of the faith that is bound up with repentance – the faith in the work of Christ that rescues us from the coming wrath.

Thus the act of repentance is the precise act of turning around from idols and whatever so that stood in place of God, to turn towards God and serve Him (for he is the true and living God) and wait for his Son from heaven who will bring judgment and salvation upon his return.

Repentance and Faith

Yet repentance in scripture must always necessarily be linked with faith. In fact, they can be described as two sides of the same coin. It’s not that we first trust Christ and then turn from our rebellion or vice versa, rather it’s a simultaneous act. When we turn to Christ for forgiveness of our sins, we are simultaneously turning away from sins that we are asking forgiveness for. Thus the person who genuinely turns to Christ for salvation must simultaneously release grasp of the sin and former life in order to turn away from that and instead turn towards Christ. Therefore, repentance AND faith must necessarily come together (Acts 20:21, Heb 6:1).

It is true that in some places in scripture, it has been mentioned that faith alone is necessary for salvation (Eph 2:8-9, Rom 10:9, Acts 16:31) and conversely, repentance alone is mentioned, as it rests upon the assumption that repentance necessarily dictates that faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ is involved (Acts 2:37-38, 3:19, 5:31, 17:30, 2 Cor 7:10). Consequently we see that faith and repentance are bound up in each other such that neither can exist without the other. And so our as we preach the Word, we must therefore preach both faith and repentance as necessities for salvation – nothing more, and nothing less.

Implications of 1 Thess 1:9-10

This passage is remarkable in that it outlines with such pristine clarity a description of repentance in the lives of the Thessalonians. There are two implications to draw from this.

Genuine Christianity must involve repentance

Perhaps we have lost this repentance in Christian circles today. It would be astonishing to hear a church described in the same way as Paul described the Thessalonians. The secularisation of society has created a world of idolatry, yet it should be noted that the Thessalonian church thrived from its very beginnings in the midst of much suffering and adversity (see Acts 17:1-15). For that reason it is more so astounding to read of the amazing turnaround of the Christians in Thessalonica.

Genuine Christianity must come with both faith and repentance. There is no middle ground. There cannot be Jesus as ‘Saviour’ and no Jesus as ‘Lord’ – He must be both. For many Christians today the ‘Jesus as Saviour’ portion is lapped up with much enthusiasm but when it comes to ‘Jesus as Lord’, the idolatry and the materialistic ways of this world give precedence to obedience and repentance before our Lord Jesus Christ. There hence we see the problem of genuine Christianity being supplanted by pure idolatry. But perhaps the problem of this has to do with what shall be discussed in point 2.
The loss of the preaching of repentance

Repentance is a taboo word in mainstream society. I dare you to stand on the steps of Town Hall and repeatedly cry out “repent for judgment is coming!” Indeed the response by the public would be largely one of shunned disbelief at your mental derangement until a council worker or policeman dragged you off the steps. It is a disturbing trend that many churches nowadays have shirked from the preaching of repentance. The church must preach both faith and repentance.

For many years now there has been a tendency to emphasise faith and hide repentance. And so there is little to no mention of repentance. Thus the gospel message becomes merely “Have faith in Jesus Christ and receive salvation”. Yet this message is a pathetic, watered down gospel message. It is a message that does not ask for genuine commitment to Christ and a commitment to turn from sin and rebelliousness and thus it is only half the gospel message.

Perhaps this is the reason why many high schoolers often ‘pray the prayer’ numerous times for they suppose: “I’ve accepted Jesus as my Saviour many times but I don’t think it’s really worked. I reckon I should try again”. Indeed the problem may be that they never understood repentance and faith as scripture dictates because the gospel message has been watered down to merely a ‘faith but no repentance’ message.

Secondly, for many churches, Christianity has been degraded to a series of principles that Christians are to follow. Preach only Christian principles without any mention of the gospel, faith or repentance and you have preached a short-term ‘moral’ way of living by which there is no basis or foundation for the hearer to follow and obey these principles as espoused from scripture. Instead we must preach faith and repentance as the correct Christian response to the gospel of which the out-workings of is a changed life whereby the old sinful self is put off – its passions and desires, and the new self is put on – its self-controlled, holy life, for that is the right response to the gospel itself.

For both faith and repentance stems from the gospel and a life-long change of the heart by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. The church must turn back from preaching merely guiding biblical principles, and once again boldly preach the gospel that results in faith and repentance for it is through this gospel that lives are saved and transformed. Preaching biblical principles without preaching the gospel, faith or repentance is a fruitless endeavour of human ignorance to the saving and transforming power of the gospel in people’s lives.

Conclusion

So thus this is the call: that we preach faith and repentance boldly. That the entire gospel must be preached for the sake of the salvation of all. And that the Lord Christ, our Lord in all majesty, glory and power who has rescued us from rebellion and grants salvation to us who turn to him, demands and deserves to be absolute Lord our lives.

The Apostle Paul rejoices from a heart of gratitude that the Thessalonians have: “turned to God from idols to serve the true and living God, and to wait for his Son from heaven”. They have repented and Jesus Christ is their Lord. And so may we likewise be known as a church for our repentance and faithful obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, as we boldly preach this also.

Have we a story to tell?

2005-09-13T16:55:00.000+10:00

The Interpreter entered the library as Christian eagerly followed. The library was lit by the rays of sunshine flowing through the windows. There were many texts, both codecs and scrolls, neatly ordered on shelves around the room. An individual book rested upon a pedestal near a window, while three men sat silently at a round table.

Christian inquisitively glanced at Bard, Scholar and Storyteller, then turned to The Interpreter.

He muttered,
"Ahh, the three...
One could say
there is one way,
but the three
all say "It's me!" "

Storyteller stood up waving his arms and began what was the most adventurous of tales. After some time, his story came to an end, "And so you see, that's why it's me."

Christian was very convinced. He would never forget the adventure told.

As Storyteller took to his seat, Scholar stamped his boots and began to reason, "Do you see? Do you see? The tale as such as had occured, did so to the fulfillment of a certain prophecy. Do you see?"

Scholar continued to engage in an intellectual monologue. He gave three reasons why such a tale took place, and why it displayed God's glory and was indeed a manisfestation of his sovereignty. As Scholar summarised his delivery, Christian saw the adventure and its significance as never before. Indeed he was enlightened.

Scholar paused before he too took his place.

Bard looked around thoughtfully and slowly rose to his feet. Bard as he was known to do spoke with such eloquence and tender tones that his words seem to create a rhythmic rhyme which painted images of God so brilliant and wonderful. He loved to wallow in the colours of imagery and bring to surface the depth of emotion that was felt amidst the adventure. He ventured the dark clouds of sorrow to the warm breeze of victory, comfort and joy.

Christian was exhausted from his experience.

"How can one choose which art to learn?"

The Interpreter walked towards the lonely book which sat upon the pedestal.

"You see Christian, though the three may have chosen a particular discipline, God's word is diverse. He tells his message through many means, even more than these three can explore."

"So what do I make of this?"

Interpreter continued,
"Emergent abundance of diversity, spills from page to page
In many forms, the word of God still speaks from age to age
Story, prose and poetry, kinsman bearing truth in speech
The wonders of God and Christ our Lord, brought within man's reach."

Pauline Triad and the Christian ministry

2005-09-08T23:09:00.000+10:00

dedicated to Brother Fung...

The Apostle writes:

"We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."
- 1 Thessalonians 1:3 (NIV)

Introduction

It is a remarkable fact that what the apostle Paul thought were important things to think about and pray for in Christian ministry, isn't always what we today think are important. We don't deny their importance, we merely usually glance over them, or assume them or keep them from collecting dust on the shelf of "doctrines". But if we are to understand and "imitate" Paul and pattern his lifestyle and priorities into our ministries, then we ought to closely examine what he thought were important things in his service to the churches. The verse above belongs as part of an extended thanksgiving, which was a common Pauline way of beginning most of his epistles (with one or two remarkable exceptions, see Galatians 1). It is an expansion on why Paul gives thanks to the Christians in the Thessalonian church, and the reason why they are linked prayerfully to the ministry of Paul (v2). And the reason is the faith, love and hope of the Christians there: actionable, observable Christian growth even in the midst of suffering.

Other-person centered prayer

What do we usually give thanks to God for, in prayer? When the prayer points are passed around each Sunday or each prayer meeting, what are we giving thanks to God for? So often our prayers and our thanksgiving can be cast in self-centered terms, in the things that God is doing in our lives, and the ways in which our felt needs are being met, even spiritual ones. There can be a way of giving thanks which is entirely the product of an attitude which seeks to have God serve us. Not for a moment am I suggesting that such prayers of thanksgiving are morally wrong, but if the focus of our gratitude is because we come out on top (in whatever rank, sense or spiritual advancement), then we will largely miss the profound other-person centeredness of apostolic thankfulness; which in this case, is the ministry of the Thessalonians. Paul thanks God for their growth, for their work, for their perseverance, it is nothing less than other-person centeredness in the form of prayerful thanksgiving. It is important to recognise God working in every part of our lives, not just within ourselves, but in others whom God has called and loved. If Christian love is about the other person, then we must attune not only our spiritual gifts to building them up, but also integrate their lives into our gratitude to God. Now we are better able to grasp what Paul has in mind when giving thanks to God for the Thessalonians.

The God and Father

It is significant that God is described as 'Father'. Not only do we have gracious access to pray to this creator God through Jesus, but He is also Father. This is picked up in Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3 that He is the Father from whom all fatherhood derives its name. God is the archetype of all Fatherhood in this world. The kind of God we come to in prayer is in relationship with us as Father and from which Paul reflects in his relationship to the Thessalonians. So in chapter 2, Paul dealt with each of them, "as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worth of God" (1 Thess 2:11-12). It must be remembered that whatever capacity of ministries we are in, our relationships with those whom we care for is a reflection of God's fatherhood for us. We model something of our heavenly Father's care and love for us in our leadership of others - we must tune and shape our ministry attitudes and values to that of God's - He is the one who holds us account, and it is he to which we come in prayer.

The Pauline Triad visible

What's remarkable about Paul's rememberance (which produces thanksgiving), is the actionable, observable manifestations of faith, love and hope, commonly called the Pauline Triad. We are referred to the three in 1 Corinthians 13:13, where Paul makes his case for love to be the greatest in the context of aspiring for spiritual gifts. But here he draws no distinction of importance between any of the three, only that he sees the real grounding of their good works and Christian transformation to be because of the three. If there were any explanation of such transformed lives in the Thessalonian believers, the fleeing away of idols (v9), the warm reception Paul received (v9) it would be because of their faith, love and hope.

This immediately calls to our minds the grounding of our transformed character in the church. What is it that makes us change and mature in the Christian walk and our service to others? What spurs us towards taking up roles of service to others? We speak often about meeting the needs in the church, or filling up rosters, and the harrowing ordeal of administration that no wonder many of us exhaust ourselves from time to time. And may it be said with shame, that often the routine of week-to-week ministries end up taking priority in our thinking. That is, not many of us, I presume, see our work in the church first and foremost as a product of faith, as Paul sees it. He sees their "work produced by faith", that is, works following faith. The trust in God and all that He has done, is displayed in our works, both works that change us, and works for others. It is never the work done that precedes our trust - our works never paves the way for us to trust God, but the reverse. We depend on God and we do our good works subsequently.

This is not to say that a right mentality of ministry means that we will not get exhausted. Paul quite capably lists out all the weaknesses and sufferings he endured in 2 Corinthians 12. But it is important to note that what will make the Christian strain and exert himself/herself is love. The sheer other-person centeredness will make the Christian go to extraordinary lengths. Love prompts the labour, even ahead of ourselves. The kind of Christian leaders we ought to be looking for are the ones who will put others first, and who are quite capable and willing, because of love, to go to such lengths to serve others. It is not the kind of labour that is practiced provided that my comforts are met first. For where is love in that? Indeed that is the constant temptation is it not? Nor is it the labour that is prompted by personal preference. Sometimes we may not have our personal preferences met because it doesn't suit the context of our service, and the things that will best build up the people given to you by the Lord at a given moment may not be towards our liking. But love would tell us that for other people's sake, we labour because we do so unto God. Love prompts labour.

If the sum of all Christian ministry has its worth only in this life, then we have no grounds for perseverance; it will all pass away in the end. The writer of Ecclesiastes laments over the life-long but short-term vanities of the person lives apart from God. But when Paul remembers "your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ", he's thinking of what will keep the Christians serving and having their lives tranformed by the gospel till the very end - and it's hope. Unlike modern notions of hope, which always contains elements of doubt, the hope language used in the bible is of a "certain" hope. So in 1 Peter, God has "given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet 1:3). Throughout the New Testament, we see a constant exhortation to keep pressing on, running the race, hold firm, stand firm till the very end; and it's not without reason. It's not because life is better that way, or even so much because we'll be more productive. But it's because our hope is secured in Christ, and we are sustained unto eternal life where glory awaits. There is, ultimately, an accounting that will take place on the last day, where rewards will be dealt because of the work we have sown on earth that endures to eternity. We do not so much draw stamina in our ministries from our resolve to endure, or because we have rely on our human energy. We draw stamina to endure because the certain hope we have in Christ, who is both saviour and Lord. The resurrection declares Jesus to be the true Lord of all creation, who pioneers and champions the way of salvation and holiness in love and service (Hebrews 2).

Conclusion

How do we work these themes into our prayer lives and ministries? That is the challenge we have here today. For as many troubles and joy we will face, we are not only seeking to serve others with the gospel, but to transform our minds, in accordance to the Word of God and apostolic mentality. What will keep our passion firmly grounded in imitation to the apostle Paul is a surer understanding of his prayers and what he thought were important things. Such grand themes like faith, love and hope, ought never to be put on the shelf amongst other "irrelevant" doctrines while we plunge into ministry with both hands. Here Paul sees faith, love and hope as actionable and observable, and the very things which stand behind the believer's good works. May it be so of us.

Michael Jackson and the Christian Ministry

2005-09-07T09:29:00.000+10:00

This week has been weird. Well, I think a bit of last week as well. The last seven days have been a "Michael Jackson Week". Everywhere I go it's Michael Jackson. Well, not everywhere, but a few places, namely the walk between my office and the station.

There was some shop which had Michael Jackson playing "Don't stop till you get enough" (two mornings in a row!). Then one evening, the music store was playing Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5's "Got to be there". Plus, yesterday the same shop had the video of Michael Jackson's Dangerous tour running in the morning, and it was still playing on the way home. It could have been playing all day?! And then one of my colleagues was saying how Michael Jackson is in the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (it was actually Johnny Depp...). All Michael Jackson everywhere.

Something I was thinking about was his popularity. Although its not clear whether he was guilty of child molestation, there are definitely questions. Its not clear whether he was innocent either. He claims innocence, but there are the allegations hovering over. Which makes me think about how people these days tend to separate the character of someone with their profession.

However, for Christians, its the one and the same. The character of a minister is part of his role. If a Christian leader was accused of child molestation, his name would be tarnished whether or not it was true, because of the questions that linger. Interestingly, Michael Jackson never denied spending time alone (in bed!) with young boys, but he denies molesting them. For a Christian leader, these actions in themselves would not be above reproach, and hence immediately inappropriate.

Inspiration and Biblical Ambiguities

2005-08-30T16:55:00.000+10:00

"If the bible is God inspired, then the ambiguities in the bible are also God-inspired". Discuss...

Defining the issue

I think what was meant by ambiguities was that "whatever God wanted to make plain, he will make it plain, so if the text appears to mean two different things, then God intended that to happen as well".

There are different levels of ambiguity, and the interpreter determines which are more ambiguous than others. The fact that there are disputed ambiguities show that some things God reveals plainly, and some don't, so because the bible is God-inspired, the ambiguities are also God inspired (so the argument goes).

An initial response

There's a level in which I'm not too comfortable with that. Without for a moment being as arrogant to say that everything in the bible is completely understandable if only you listened to my views, I think you could get too carried away such that the text doesn't mean anything anymore. I don't think we'll be very good "handlers" of the Word of God if every time we immediately resort to throwing up our hands in the air and say it's an ambiguity.

"Ambiguity! Ambiguity! I don't understand. It's an ambiguity!"

Furthermore do you really think the apostle was saying something more when he said all of Scripture was God-breathed? Do you think the apostle Paul would've thought that ambiguities were God-inspired as well? When the apostle Peter referred to some of Paul's writings, he referred to them as Scripture, in fact, Scripture which "were hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction..." (2 Peter 3:16). I think even the apostles themselves realised that Scripture was hard to understand, but regarded them from God nonetheless. I don't think they reduced themselves to be comfortable with saying the ambiguities themselves were God-inspiried, definitely not mis-interpretations (or false interpretations) to be God-inspired. But the exhortation again and again it seems, is to work hard at handling the Word of God faithfully, and be diligent in knowing the scriptures.

Intrinsically, the bible, being God's word is a revelation to us. So I suppose what God would want to reveal to us, He does.

Understanding the misunderstanding

If the bible is infallible and inerrant in it's orignal form and is perspicuous, I think the only thing that mars God's word in being true and understandable is not of God, perhaps ourselves and our sin. That is, we can know all that God wants us to know through his word. In a sense, if God has chosen us, even we cannot stop ourselves from knowing God and his grace.

However, this doesn't mean that there are not many passages in the bible which are difficult and which the meaning is not clear. I think difficult passages are to be grappled with, but some are beyond clear understanding. I think some of this is due to our sin, some due to a lack of the original manuscript, both of which is due to God's will.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God maybe thoroughly equipped for every good work.

- 2 Timothy 3:14-17 (NIV)

God can use his word to effect salvation and make us holy. Indeed, he did in Christ Jesus.

A generalisation saying that ambiguities in the bible are inspired by God seems to be cutting close to denying the perspicuity of God's word, and hence God's ability to communicate.

This reminds me of a very good book I read by Kevin J Vanhoozer called Is there meaning in this text? - The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. It's basically his thesis, but part of the argument is that our theology affects our understanding of communication. If we believe in a good God, then communication sits under that sphere of thinking. The direct implication is that truth, is also true in communication. So, the writer and the reader contribute to truth. The bible is truth from God, and we as readers can either read it faithfully (and correctly) or we can misinterpret it and then alter the truth. There are other more complex matters, but his final exhortation to Christians is to work hard at hermeneutics.

Conclusion - Testing it.

If we believe that ambiguities are inspired (as in, God meant to deliver a mixed truth), then that reflects our understanding of God. Do we believe in a God who would send mixed messages? I think uncertainty is different to ambiguity. There is a certain and definite message (which is ultimately Jesus), but just because we have have different views on a passage doesn't meant that the ambiguity is intentional from the author's point of view, nor does it mean that both are right. It really is a subtle textual pluralism, which is really just pluralism.

If we give up on truth, then we've not held up our end of the communication bargain. We haven't communicated faithfully in our reception.

Liberalists wouldn't even give up truth as such, but just point to a different source: natural theology. Textual pluralism is akin to relativists in general. It's interesting to note that post-modernism does have some useful criticisms to which we must pay attention, but the ultimate end of decontruction (along the lines of Jacques Derrida) ends in meaninglessness.

We do need to think about these subtle issues as Christians. Gotta keep it gospel. It's the little things that we don't notice and like someone has said, we move one small "step away from the gospel".

Perhaps one of the most frustrating things is when other Christians snub off theology, it's relevance (especially to the general Christian community) and claim other more important things - like love and evangelism. If Jesus Christ is no longer the rock we stand on as our foundation, then any fruit is not of the spirit and the false evangelism is not of the true gospel.

In the first album of The Cross Movement - Heaven's Mentality, there's a song called Test It. This is the chorus:

If it's blessed then come manifest it
Bring it down let's test it
If it's blessed then come manifest it
Bring it down let's test it
'Cause this is only a test it's only a test
So if you're gonna bring it then you better bring your best
'Cause anything less might burn in the fire
Come-come let's test it

Most of the song is talking about false things that we need to test, as to whether it's truth, but it's still relevant.

Come-come, let's test it!

"Relax...it's not a 'gospel' issue!"

2005-08-27T20:15:00.000+10:00

What are gospel issues?

When we say "Oh, this isn't really a gospel issue", what do we really mean by it? Do we simply mean that it's not connected to the atoning death of Christ? Or the person and work of Christ? Or how about branching out in concentric circles of importance - is the virgin birth a gospel issue, for example?

I'm not sure the bible is so clear cut. We see central truths here are there, like how Paul said that he passed what was received to him as of "first importance: that Christ died for our sins once for all, buried, raised and raised on the third day according to scriptures and appeared to..." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4); or in Galatians 1, the person (or angel) who brings a different gospel is to be anathema (damned).

Does that mean that gospel issues should be nothing more than Christ's propitiating sacrifice, resurrection, fulfilment of scripture and apostolic witness? Paul never said anything about homosexuality as being of "first importance". Then why do we fight against homosexual practice with such vigour in church? The "gospel" in "gospel issue" preaches Jesus as not only saviour but also Jesus as LORD. So, bending the knee to this Lord would have to involve repentance and obedience to every part of God's Word. Wouldn't this too come under the umbrella of the good news - euangelion?

When we use the phrase "gospel issue", even though we generally know what we mean by it, I think we also unwittingly fall into a "minimum requirements" reductionism of the gospel - that as long as we have these minimum requirements, then our salvation is secured and we're all okay. I'm not so sure the bible paints that picture, nor do I think that any writer in the bible was interested to see how much of the peripherals we can reduce away. I don't think that was Paul's intent in writing 1 Corinthians 15 at any rate. I am persuaded by the context of 1 Corinthians 15, that Paul was setting up what was central amongst all the concerns of the Corinthian church of which Paul had to exercise pastoral judgement like singleness, freedom, food offered to idols, spiritual gifts, and the Lord's table.

So even though we may speak of "gospel issues", we must be wary not to lock ourselves into comfortable minimalist doctrines. We should work hard at bringing everything under Christ, or else risk domesticating the gospel which we hold to be so important in the first place.

Spiritual highs and lows?

2005-08-16T11:03:00.000+10:00

In the Christian life, there is a rightful sense of despair when sin mucks up our lives in whatever way. More often than not, we refer to such short-term fluctuations as spiritual "highs" or spiritual "lows". However there does exist long term "highs" and "lows", or "spiritual droughts"? Are these fluctuations emotional? Or matters of the soul? Or both? Do highs and lows matter? Sometimes, it is considered that those who teach the word of God should always be "high", what then?

The question about highs and lows is very interesting, but why do we think about these terms? Does the bible use them? Are they Pauline expressions? Petrine expressions?

I suspect this sort of thinking is the kind of mentality in the West that ties notions of "spirituality" to emotional-wellbeing absolutely, and the gospel then gets fitted around. When I feel exhausted, depressed, angered or guilty then it's necessarily a "spiritual" low. When I feel exuberant, hands-on, gung-ho about life, then it's a "spiritual high". When we translate this into the ministry arena, the same thing applies. It really is an extension of works-based salvation.

Usually "burnout" is synonomous with low morale, unhappiness, frustration, but it's NEVER EVER synonomous with joy and rejoicing in suffering (cf. Paul in Philippians 4:6 in prison, or Peter in 1 Peter 4:13 when his death was near). Now why is that?

Now there's nothing wrong with using these terms, and they're helpful to understand what we're all going through, but it's important, I think, to recognise that they're not biblical notions of spirituality. In Paul's usage for example in 1 Corinthians 2, the spiritual person is a person who has the Spirit (ie. a genuine Christian) and the unspiritual person is the one who has not (ie. non-Christian). Simple as that. And yet in the very next chapter, Paul could speak of carnal (worldly) Christians who weren't ready yet to move past milk and have solid food (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Feeling down, then, doesn't mean that you have had some spirit taken away from you, or that you're lacking in some more enduement of the Spirit. The bible, as far as I can see, doesn't see the genuine believer as a power crystal that needs to be recharged every now and then with the "Spirit" or else we won't function properly! Rather I think we've already received God's spirit, the down-payment, by His grace, and by commission from Christ whom we identify in through faith. So that's why Paul could say that we are controlled by the Spirit (Romans 8:9) and not by the "sinful nature".

So I think we shouldn't view Christian suffering as spiritual droughts, as if we're going through an extended period without God's spirit. To say we do would come dangerously close to denying the sufficiency of Christ's work in sending His Spirit in the first place. Our bias is toward selfishness and self-pity rather than appreciate the grandeur of Grace. Rather we ought to see that distinctively Christian suffering is one of God's common means to make us holier. One look at the suffering servant would immediately identify us with that.

Feeling remorse for sin is a kind of suffering, but it's also a mark of holiness - the closer we get to the light, the more dirt we're going to see. In fact I'd be very worried if we did not despair over our sins! It means we haven't understood the Cross or reminded ourselves afresh of its victory.

So it's important to persevere through our sufferings, not to deny them or push them aside and attribute it as spiritual lows. Many Christians I think, falsely identify a bit of suffering/set-back/low-morale as an indication that you should drop everything and live like a "normal" person (which often translates to living like a worldly person, because we never drift towards godliness). Ever notice that when times are going tough, ministry is the first to go? Whereas when I look at someone like the apostle Paul, he worked hard in his sufferings, otherwise what on earth does he mean when he said he was "hard pressed on every side; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted but not abandoned"... this was the same Paul who also said he was the worst sinner of all (1 Timothy 1:15)!

If we feel low, we can be encouraged that in Christ, we are always filled with the Spirit. Our fellowship with Christ is certain. We are also to persevere through sufferings and difficult times, because one day... "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

the gospel to the sinner

2005-08-10T12:32:00.000+10:00

are there any non-Christians here?

One thing I notice in large evangelistic highschool events are the number of Christians compared to non-Christians. As if it's primarily becoming a hangout for Christians from other churches to meet up and catch up at a once-off thing and not evangelism. I do believe there's something frustrating to know about each of the Christian faces I saw walking in, and then asking them:
"did u bring anyone with you?"
"no.. [insert excuse here] "
"oh, okay..."

going out vs gathering

Part of the nature of evangelism is the preaching of the gospel, the "going out" with the gospel. The "gathering together" is really terms usually related to doing church. Which perhaps explains why people were eager to meet other Christians, and not so much telling the gospel, because of the nature of the two different activities we are involved in. But is evangelism and mission a "going out" or a "gathering"?

stay gospel

The church is meant to be the outposts of heaven, so to speak. The gospel is to be preached inside the church and the gospel is to be preached outside the church. It's not as if "going out" is reserved exclusively for outside evangelism. Evangelism and the church are deeply linked and both can be described as "gathering" and "going out" at the same time.

In Revelation 7, when the mulititude from every tongue and tribe are "gathered" around the throne, the content of their worship is "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb", a heavenly proclamation of the Salvation and Lordship of Jesus. In other words, the good news (euangelion).

It's not surprising really, because what holds the people of God together is precisely the gospel. And non-believers ought to see the preaching of the gospel evident both outside and inside the church.

What we need is to recover the theology of evangelism in our churches; that our churches look outside as well as inside, gathering as well as dispersing; and thus make the Cross central once more.

What I'm loathed to see is the kind of attitude where the gospel is something that is for "mission" and "outside" evangelism - that it's the thing that gets people into churches, and then once they're in churches, then all the life-transforming stuff begins: small group bible studies, community-centeredness, adoration and sentiment - all without the preaching of the gospel. As someone has said,

'once you assume the gospel, you're one generation away from denying it'.

As for proclaiming the gospel, in Romans 10, we are told "And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" This is in the context of those who bring the gospel upon "beautiful feet" - which assumes a "carrying forth" kind of activity of the apostolic message.

At the end of the day, the gospel, in apostolic thought isn't grown by sharing, by speculating, or by facilitating discussion, but by proclamation. Jesus went from place to place in order to "preach the good news" or"preach the Kingdom" (Mk 1:14, 6:12 etc). Hardly does it ever say he went to "heal the sick" or to "raise the dead". It's not that he disregarded healing for when the crowds came, he had compassion on them, and healed them. But his main pupose in the "going out" was to preach the kingdom - that was the core activity.

Likewise for the apostles, in Acts 6; the paradigm for their gospel mission was the ministry of the Word and Prayer (vs 4); in contrast with the waiting on tables, that they later appointed faithful deacons to oversee. So the paradigm for gospel mission (both in and out the church) is in proclaming.

This means whatever means through which we use to approach non-believers - we must keep that heraldic element fundamental. This can be done in the context of small group evangelistic bible studies, or up front behind a pulpit to many, or on a train to Central, or in a village in Cambodia, or in Townhall to Chinese highschoolers.

However, in heralding the gospel, would it also not be safe to assume that Jesus and the apostles were sent out to do so? To put it in the converse, they weren't told to bring in non-believers, but to go out to them. The gospel itself then brings people of all nations together, under the banner of Christ, but like how God's word goes out, and draws people to God, should not our part in mission be likewise?

Evangelism is the preaching of the gospel (a priori), but shouldn't the paradigm for mission be outward-looking?

going to the sinner

Yes, Jesus didn't have any "Evangelistic rallies" in the modern sense. As far as we know, he didn't have a decent Follow-up program either! No "Just for Starters", no Altar call, no Response cards etc etc... so we must be careful in drawing inferences which deems all of these things as bad simply because Jesus never did them.

Just because some evangelism is done inside the church doesn't make it less paradigmatic than evangelism done outside. It's still the same gospel work, still the same mission. So we should be outward looking, but not reserve the term "outward" to be a geographical one. Rather it should be a hamartiological one (about sin) - that is, "outward" to sinners, to the lost, be they where they are. All of them in their trespasses, and all of them in need of the gospel and salvation. Hence 1 Cor 10:31-33.

non-Christians at evangelistic events

Evangelism and mission should be present in all Christians wherever they serve. Perhaps "going out" isn't even the right way to phrase what is going on, but rather, "going to the sinner". God's word goes to the sinner who needs to hear it, repent and believe, because the kingdom of God is at hand.

I suppose whether we invite people to hear the gospel or walk out to them in the street doesn't make the heralding of the gospel any less directed toward the sinner.

However, this comes full circle. Few non-Christians were brought by their friends to the evangelistic event. The way we do evangelism has to promote bringing the gospel to non-Christians, not just the gathering of Christians.

Perhaps we should invite more non-Christians to our evangelistic events?

Infallibility and Hermeneutics

2005-08-05T11:14:00.000+10:00

One night at a Chinese church committee meeting, someone gave the devotion from Philippians 1:9-11 (Paul's prayer for the Philippians) and it was said that in ministry we must pray for each other, and we need to know each other more and be wise. Well there's nothing wrong with that, but Paul's prayer is for love to abound and that love to be one which is rooted in knowledge and insight - so we may know how to be holy and blameless, not so we can be wise about decision making. If the Scriptures are said to be perspicuous, why don't people just read it plainly? Perhaps we just need to learn some language skills?

It's an interesting issue, whether hermeneutics (the science/art of interpretation) is as infallible as the text on which it is exercised. Is there an absolute hermeneutic such that the right truth must be deduced from the right text and in that textual location? After all, the locus of the Word cannot ever be bound in the words themselves (as if the Hebrew/Greek are magical), but in the propositions they set up - and even more than that - the literary structures in which the propositions are established, and the literary genre in which the structure occurs. All of Scripture needs to be interpreted in this light and is all part of good exposition isn't it? How the Bible fits together as a whole, shapes your hermeneutics.

So biblical exposition ('exegesis' is perhaps too narrow) looks to me like a core around a text, spreading out in concentric circles, with the text in the center, and all the literary and hermeneutical controls ringing around it until you better approach the truth and can apply it edifyingly to the hearer in today's world. The reason why I say it's more like a concentric core is because there are priorities in hermeneutics. It's the reason why the immediate context takes precedence over the remote contexts and why application never dictates the text.

No doubt we'll never know the truth exhaustively (for that requires the attitribute of omniscience), but we approach with better confidence, I think, if we do well to sharpen our hermeneutics and have more tools under our belt to work with. But that being said, our hermeneutics are not infallible. There are time-tested hermeneutical controls that are not likely to shift (like contextualisation), but in the end we ought to approach the doctrine of hermeneutics the way we approach any doctrine. That is, they ought to be corrected by the Word.

Because we believe that the bible is a unity, we are less likely to bite if the hermeneutics fail in one piece of text, but the truth is affirmed in another. That is, there are truths from God that are attested to over and over again in Scripture and in different places such that there is little perversion done if you hook the right truth in the wrong text. It is still God's word that we need to be wise and pray for each other. That may not be found in Philippians 1, true, but it is still found nonetheless; and the question is whether or not the teacher is articulating the truth.

It is the truth that saves and sanctifies (John 17:17), and not our hermeneutics, and certainly not our doctrines. The perspecuity of Scripture nevers says that everyone will interpret a text in exactly the same way. It does, however, say that Scripture alone are sufficient for the individual believer to read, study, apply, grow, hate sin, love righteousness and mature in Christ through the Spirit. Hermeneutics, in that sense, is simply a suite of tools to help us get there.

consecrated Lord to thee

2005-08-03T12:17:00.000+10:00

From the SMBC doctrinal statement...
"the necessity for consecration to God in order to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit"

http://www.smbc.com.au/about_doctrinal_statement.htm

I take it to mean that as Christians we must be set apart for service to God, bearing the fruit of the Spirit. A genuine Spirit-bestowed transformation cannot truly take place unless that person has been set apart by God, filled with the Spirit, by the pre-ordained grace of God.

What this statement prevents in the church of Christ are the kinds of spurious conversions that may have all the right outward displays of good works and charity etc, but in fact are false because they have not been truly regenerate. So consider Ananias and Sapphira who "lied to the Holy Spirit" and who were not truly consecrated to God, and thus their outward works of charity (although impressive, even fooling the people) could not fool God and thus was not true Spirit-bestowed fruit. Or consider the parable of the seeds and the sower where one kind of seed fell on rocky soil, and germinated the quickest - by all external appearance they appear to be the most promising; but they quickly fall away because of their lack of perseverance, the right kinds of temptations or trials comes along and away they go - they were not truly consecrated to God and thus it was impossible for them to bear fruit, spiritual fruit.

So both by way of God's sovereignty to predestine the believer, and the believer's themselves to persevere, the fruit of the Spirit may grow. I think it's quite a necessary doctrine to have - to remind us, in the words of Hebrews 3, that we "share in Christ if we hold firmly to the end the confidence we had at first".

...it seems to me.

kohandau?

2005-08-02T16:47:00.000+10:00

A coauthored hotchpotch of profound utterances from the vantage of Sydney Chinese evangelicalism in the areas of:

* Facilitating thoughtful/theological discussions
* Ministry challenges and ideas
* Christian books