Ojama-shimasu! (”I’m going to disturb you”)
I found myself a little amused during the last Easter season (March 2008) when I found an entry I posted for the Holy Week cited in a blogsite titled, Ojama-shimasu. The entry I posted (17 March 2008) was titled, “‘Would we also send Jesus to the cross?’ – A Holy Week Reflection.’” The reference to my entry at Ojama-shimasu was also made at an entry titled, “Reflections for the Holy Week” (19 March, 2008). The site’s “About” page explains the meaning of Ojama-shimasu. It’s a Japanese term which literally translates as, “I’m going to disturb you.” The writer, Erik Ray, learned the term while based for a season as a student in Okinawa, Japan. According to Ray, Japanese use the phrase “when visiting a Japanese home or when asked to come into a room.” Ojama-shimasu is a common Japanese polite greeting. For again, in the normal context of entering someone’s house or room, it simply means, “Excuse my interrupting.” Or when leaving it simply means, “Excuse my leaving.”
The root meaning however is not so polite, especially when taken out of the normal context of a household greeting. For the original term, when transliterated into English, lacks the beginning letter, “o.” So when spelled as Jamasuru, the term means “to obstruct” or “to interrupt,” with a more rough nuance. It is therefore the beginning letter “o” which transforms the word into a more polite greeting.
But when the term is taken out of its normal household greeting context, the term retains it literal meaning as, “I’m going to get in your way” or as,” I am going to disturb you.” Now back to the Ojama-shimasu blogsite. Ray explains that his premise for naming his blog, Ojama-shimasu, stems from his hope that readers will not find themselves too “disturbed” by his entries! He says this however in jest with a good deal of levity!
What really caused my attraction to this more indirect and underlying meaning of the term ojama-shimasu, is that it was this kind of provocative probing which I sought to convey through my own Easter Week entry, cited in Ray’s own respective Easter week entry. But I think Ray’s light-hearted approach to the term’s underlying sobriety, parallels the manner in which the prophetic consciousness is often conveyed through the Scriptures. That’s the pastoral spirit of an authentic prophetic witness and consciousness. This is why Jesus usually spoke through parables. And why when confronted with the adulteress woman, he said nothing and wrote in the sand. He probed men’s conscience through the indirectness of parabolic speech. He did not speak in “naked words,” but in words “clothed” through humour, stories, riddles, parables, and digressions.
By the phrase “naked words,” I recall an African Mossi proverb that goes like this: “Words are spoken with their peelings/shells. Let the wise person come to shuck them.” In the Mossi context, the verb “shuck” refers to the peeling of an onion, or the shell of a nut. The proverb is an instruction on communication; an injunction against direct attack or confrontation, but to rather choose “words” with “peelings.” In Mossi culture, these “peelings” exist through the use of a narrative style of speaking. Direct straightforward confrontations however, which lack some kind of relational pause- are what Mossi call, “naked words.”[1]
So in the incident regarding the adulteress woman, Jesus respond through the use of a “word” with “peelings,” rather than through a “naked word.” Jesus’ goal was not to shame, especially in public. His goal was to rather prompt an internal stirring towards what is right and just. The only ones whom Jesus did attempt to shame were those who most known for pointing out the sins of everyone else but themselves- the Pharisees, specifically of those of his own time. At the end of the day, God does possess a sense of humour. He does not take even Himself, too seriously: “He who sits in the heavens laughs” (Psalm 2:4).
I just finished reading G.K. Chesterton’s classic, Orthodoxy.[2] Chesterton (1874-1936) spoke from a deeply ingrained consciousness and preoccupation with the doctrine of original sin. He often described the world as a “cosmic shipwreck.” The London Times once ran a series of essays, written by a number of writers, each titled “What’s Wrong with the World?” It was Chesterton of course who wrote the shortest essay, and answer to the question:
“Dear Sirs:
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G.K. Chesterton
But Chesterton is also remembered as someone possessing a quick wit and hilarious laughter. Philip Yancey thus titled his forward to Chesterton’s text as, “G.K. Chesterton: Prophet of Mirth.” Chesterton possessed an uncanny ability to juxtapose humour and prophetic exhortation, which he often delivered with the intent of raising the social consciousness of his listeners. This he did particularly with regards to issues such as economic disparity, the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the masses; he also regularly hurled stern admonishments to anyone possessing substantial political or monetary power.
Chesterton thus expressed an acute distrust towards human nature, and its capacity to handle power and wealth. This arose from his conviction that because of the fall, “man is a monstrosity.”[3] Consequently, he propagated a sharp critique towards existing status quos; this involved a questioning towards any presumed moral neutrality in the possession of wealth. Chesterton writes:
“If . . . we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this- that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. [But] Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rages. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption . . . that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependant upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck.”[4]
Given the inherent corruptness of human nature, Chesterton believed that authentic Christian faith ought to often demonstrate something of a revolutionary posture towards existing status quos. Identifying himself as a “revolutionary,” Chesterton argued that Christian “orthodoxy,” as simply defined in the Apostle’s Creed, “is the natural found of revolution and reform.”[5] Chesterton wrote therefore that an authentic Christian voice in society, “must always be on the look out for every privilege being abused, for every working right becoming a wrong. In this matter I am entirely on the side of the revolutionists. They really are right to be always suspecting human institutions.”[6] Again, Chesterton identity with social revolutionaries arose from his deep seated conviction that “men were [are] naturally backsliders . . . especially proud and prosperous human beings.”[7] Consequently, with regards to the Christian voice towards issues of politics and governmental rule, Chesterton argued, “If our faith comments on government at all, its comment must be this- that the man who should rule who does not think that he can rule.”[8] Therefore, Chesterton said that: “If the great paradox of Christianity means anything, it means this- that we must take the crown in our hands, and go hunting . . . the corners of the earth until we find the one man who feels himself unfit to wear it.”[9] This approach reasoned Chesterton, is the application of true Christian leadership: “It is encouraging the humble; it is saying to the modest man, ‘Friend, go up higher.’”[10]
Given his skilled use of wit, Chesterton however, was able to speak truth not through “naked words,” but through the more indirect and pastoral mediums such as parable, story and digression. Following is another pertinent quote from Orthodoxy, where Chesterton describes the “power of levity:”
” . . . characteristic of the great saints is their power of levity. Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. . . . Remember how the most earnest medieval art was full of light and fluttering draperies, of quick and capering feet. . . Every figure seems ready to fly up and float about in the heavens. . . But the kings in their heavy gold and the proud in their robes of purple will all of their nature sink downwards, for pride cannot rise to levity or levitation. Pride is the downward drag of all things into an easy solemnity. One ’settles down’ into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay of self-forgetfulness. . . For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity.”[11] Chesterton thus ends his book Orthodoxy, by saying, “Joy . . . is the gigantic secret of the Christian.”[12]
I want to now link these reflections to several entries posted several weeks ago (September – October 2008) in the blogsite Blogpastor ( http://www.blogpastor.net ), as well as to a few extended comments I entered in response to those postings.[13] The postings arose in response to news reports in The Straits Times regarding the raising and using of wealth by several local churches with annual incomes over $10 million ( http://www.blogpastor.net/category/church/megachurches ). Those postings generated a substantial number of comments. I also was twice prompted to respond. On one hand, reference to these postings may seem a bit dated. But given the deepening and worsening trend of the world economy, I now think these discussions will retain some sense of relevance regarding a proper Christian understanding of wealth for some time to come. I will thus reproduce the two postings and my comments to them in the following space.
The first posting I entered a comment to was titled, “New Creation Church: Is it Good Stewardship?” (16 September, 2008).
Church pumps in $220m more” screamed the back page Money section of the Straits Time. I looked at that and said, Huh? The report says, “Rock Productions, the business arm of the new Creation Church, said in a statement yesterday that it will double its investment in the project to a staggering $500million, from the $280 million it had announced last year.” Part of the increase, about 25%, is obviously due to construction costs that have risen. The rest is for the extra 8,ooo sq m added to the original 30,000sq m under NCC. With attendance of 16,000 currently, the additional funds needed to be raised works out to about $13,700 per church member. I think the whole amount is within the ability of the church goers to fund over a ten year period. Furthermore, after it is built, the civic and cultural zone they manage may churn out profits. The land however is only leased out to Rock Productions, the business arm of NCC, for 60 years by Jurong Town Corporation.
Now compare this with what Trinity Christian Centre and what it got from its $60m or more at Trinity @ Paya Lebar. When all is built, there will be a 3,000 seater auditorium, two 500 seaters, two 300 seaters, and one multi-purpose hall in a campus with a church, hostel, bible school, social arm and two or more businesses renting space from it. Best of all: they own the land and it is freehold!
This is the sticky point for me: which is wiser stewardship? Obviously there could be different opinions about it. Missionaries and champions of the poor are too polite to shout but they are all imagining what could be done for missions and the poor with that kind of money, and wishing there are churches that would raise that kind of money for their causes. When these two ‘church splurges’ on their respective buildings are compared side by side, it makes me think about wise stewardship. Its not as easy as it looks, for it seems to be obvious that TCC has the better deal. But you have to look at impact and accessibility and other factors too. Any comments?
P.S. Blogpastor, is not a NCC basher. It may seem to be so but it is not so. I write to provoke discussions and cross frontiers of thought on issues that Christian leaders would be concerned about.”
My comment was dated 19 September 2008 ( http://www.blogpastor.net/2008/09/16/new-creation-church-is-it-good-stewardship/#comments ). Following is a revised edition of the published comment.
“Dear Blogpastor
I have taken time to read through your 14 and 16 September entries regarding the topic on church building programmes, as well as through all the reader comments on both of these postings. I have found the reflections most stimulating. They have thus sufficiently stirred me to also offer some responsive thoughts. I will address these thoughts however to both you and the preceding readers who have commented thus far.
First, I wholly commend, endorse, and affirm Pastor Kenny’s decision to publish these two blog entries, as well as the critique and implications he has raised regarding the measure of fidelity these examples of church spending, demonstrate towards authentic biblical paradigms on how we should manifest ourselves to the world as the Church and disciples of Christ.
Prophetic questioning of the prevailing consensus
As a fellow Pentecostal, let me also say that I find Pastor Kenny’s critique as one of the best but few expressions over past years, of a true Pentecostal response to this issue of church expenditures. More specifically, towards these more notable examples of current Protestant Evangelical church approaches to using the wealth which God has providently graced a particular Christian community with. Pastor Kenny is also indirectly responding to the underlying premises that are shaping current understandings of Christian life, discipleship, witness, mission, and our appropriate interface with the prevailing culture we live within. The critique is indirectly addressing certain premises arising from the culture of affluence we live within, which are inherently driving these examples of wealth creation and expenditure. To better appreciate both Pastor Kenny’s motives, as well as my own endorsement to implications he is raising through his entries, I would encourage us to download the following article:
Matthew Clark, “Questioning Every Consensus: A Plea for a Return to the Radical Roots of Pentecostalism, Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 5, no. 1 (Jan 2002): 73-86. You can download this at the following website: http://www.apts.edu.
I dare say that Pastor Kenny’s reflection is an example of true prophesy. It is this kind of critique towards the prevailing consensus of our cultural setting, that illustrates the true character of the biblical prophetic tradition. This is something we as contemporary Evangelical Christians have strayed so far from, that it’s difficult for us to recognise the authentic prophetic spirit when it is truly manifest. I would also strongly encourage readers to visit a recent essay I recently published titled, “The Decline of Pentecostalism as a Revival Movement.” You can find it at: ( http://perichorus.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/the-decline-of-pentecostalism-as-a-revival-movement/ )
Second, I want to agree without reservation, that something horribly wrong is being manifest through these few but notable examples on how vast numbers of our Christian congregations and leaders, particularly in affluent settings such as here in Singapore, are gaining, creating, handling, and expending the wealth coming into their possession. I will further push the argument: There is something wrong in the church today! But what is wrong is not something restricted to these mega-churches. It is something deeply wrong with the modern Protestant Evangelical church; indeed with the modern Evangelical movement. Now some of you may think of these thoughts as the ranting of some lone voice; of one person’s opinion.
Something is wrong with Modern Evangelicalism
However, know this: I am only speaking the concerns of many thoughtful and educated observers of the modern Evangelical movement. For several years now, we have been warned and are still being warned that something is deeply wrong with our Evangelical way of “doing church,” and with the kind theology, paradigms, and philosophical premises that are currently driving us further away from the biblical vision of the Church as a pilgrim community, whose witness to the Kingdom and story-world, is very much counter to the world’s story, narratives, values, culture and practices.
What we find in the Biblical story regarding wealth
I could write reams of paper on the problems besetting us. But I have neither time, nor you the time to digest those reams of paper. Allow me to lay down a few simple observations from the Bible’s narrative.
First, our acquisition of wealth should never lead us to an immediate, or natural conclusion that “we’re blessed by God.” No, what the biblical story shows us is that the righteous and unrighteous can achieve wealth, and that both the righteous and unrighteous can suffer poverty. Wealth is neither a positive nor negative gauge, in itself, that God’s favour is either upon us or absent from us. We Christians have only harmed ourselves by rationalising that whatever wealth we have is because “God’s favour is on us.” Usually, it’s rather because we simply possess the right synergy of financial competence and drive to create wealth; just as unbelievers often posses the financial competency and drive to create and sustain wealth.
Also, “apostles” cannot be identified by their numerical and monetary achievements. The “two thirds world” is blessed with true “apostles” who earn less than $100 a month; we’ll never know them until we get to glory.
Second, notwithstanding the Old Testament affirmation towards wealth- earned through honest work, the New Testament narrates to us however, an overwhelming sense that possessing wealth is spiritually hazardous. Jesus called money a “god” (”mammon”). He said it’s hard for a rich man to get through eye of a needle. Paul says “money is the source of many evils.” Material extravagance is something of a liability to our prophetic calling as salt and light!
Furthermore, the truth is, there were many affluent cities and populations Jesus could have easily travelled and conducted his ministry in; they were all within his vicinity. Yet he resolved to avoid them and instead go the more working class areas. Jesus did attract however many wealthy individuals to Himself. But they came out to Him with the resolve to share and partner with Him in His ministry to the poor. That’s the cost they encountered and willingly made to follow Jesus. Jesus was not out to make just disciples. He was out to make a specific kind of disciple, and one major measure of this discipleship involved how a disciple uses the wealth at his or her disposal.
Meanwhile, what the biblical story narrates to us is that God is indeed partial towards the poor. This is not an issue of some of us “being champions of the poor,” No; rather, God is foremost and primarily the champion of the poor, not the rich! He does not place the poor and the rich on the same platform. On the contrary, God has cast his providential concern and interest foremost towards the poor of the earth. The Gospel is “good new for the poor,” not the rich. The Gospel more often than not, is not good news, but bad news for the rich. When in our wealth, God calls us to Himself, our entire life within the material plane of existence, becomes suspect, questioned, and critiqued by the values of kingdom. But when in their poverty, God calls the poor to himself, God’s plan is that the Church will as a counter-community, find practical ways to empower them out of poverty. And when through their losing of wealth in response to the call of discipleship to Christ, the rich find joy their deliverance from their many possessions and new-found identity with the poor of the earth.
Third, our current problem with the use of wealth by churches and ministers is that we’ve been losing all sense of “prophetic calling.” This “prophetic calling, is God’s intended story for us believers. It is His intended script for the believer. That is why Jesus said to the poor, as well as to the rich who choose to follow Him, “you are now prophets, salt, and light in the world. . . . Let men now see your good works . . . “ Even as Jesus is our Teacher and we are His disciples, the Gospels exists as the story-line by which we are to now act out our parts in God’s story in the world today.
This whole discussion is now all the more becoming something of a satire, as we are each facing the potential reality of a global financial meltdown. Nonetheless, whether be it a meltdown or continued growth in material affluence, we are moving into a day and age, which has already upon us, in which we once again must recall that the Gospel is not a message strictly directed towards the individual and eternal destiny of our soul. No! For when the Gospel is preached in all its fullness, it possess the power and revolutionary purpose towards the entire social, economic and racial settings of our lives. The Gospel in its fullness will challenge the entire social order we live within, and it will confront us in all we have taken for granted in our previous stations within the existing social order.
We’ve lost this sense of prophetic identity! The crisis that is now upon us, of which these churches are but extreme examples, is that we have essentially turned our hearts more towards the world’s narrative for understanding how we’re to live our life in the present world order.
In doing so, we have “demonised” the term “theology,” and have turned to the world’s narratives for understanding how to “script” our identities, roles, mission, and practices within and through the Church. Let me say unreservedly, that the very use of the term “executive pastor” was a turn away from the biblical dream of Christian leadership and community; it was a turn wholly away from Jesus’ pattern of servant-leadership. But someone will quickly reply, “We need to be practical.” Yet that kind of response is precisely the problem: we’ve been brought so far into the unbiblical philosophy of modern pragmatism.
Again, the posture which wealthy churches take towards their own wealth, as critiqued by Pastor Kenny, are but extreme manifestations of the greater malaise that plagues the contemporary Evangelical church world. At the heart of this crisis is its resolve to wed and define Christian spirituality through the varied expressions of this world’s cultural stories, namely, its narcissistic aspirations towards self-actualisation, modern consumerism, sensate entertainment, philosophical pragmatism, and managerial and business science.
And we are often doing this all in the interest of relevance. So the language of our Evangelical churches are becoming increasingly assimilated into the language of this prevailing world’s culture. It is for this reason that we are defining spiritual health by the world’s benchmarks of numerical success and ever increasing benchmarks of quantified objectives. We do this while abhorring any critical reflection upon the philosophical premises that are feeding our insatiable thirst for power, wealth, and cutting edge relevance.
This brief analysis is only touching a minute space on the tip of the ice-berg. There is sufficient literature on the market, offering solid and thorough analysis on where we’re going, what’s wrong with how we’re going, and where we now need to go for our spiritual restoration. The voices are there; it’s just a matter of whether we are willing to listen and admit we’re turning further and further away from orthodox Christian belief and practice. I will draw attention to one local voice, who wrote an article which every Christian in this town needs to read: Mark L.Y. Chan, “The Cross Between the Golden Arches and Mickey Mouse: Discipleship in an Age of McDonaldization and Disneyization,” in Truth to Proclaim: The Gospel in Church and Society, ed. Simon Chan, A Trinity Theological Journal Supplement (Singapore: Trinity Theological College, 2002).
I’m not well familiar with the story of Martin Luther, but here’s some thoughts that have come to mind the past few days. As I understand it, the primary protest Luther made towards the Roman Catholic Church was the practice of indulgences. This was the practice and belief that people could buy “grace” from the church through their giving. What led to this practice of indulgences however, was that the church began amassing wealth far beyond its need. It was this wrong “praxis” (”practice”) which then led to wrong “doxy” (”belief”). The point is, it is right practice that leads us and assures us of a right belief. Ortho-praxis insures ortho-doxy. Wrong praxis however leads us to wrong belief.
But we have now come to a stage in the Evangelical Church, where orthodoxy has become wholly a matter of “right belief.” Just confess and fully believe the right doctrine, specifically about what Christ has done on the cross, and God will bless your lifestyle as long as you don’t commit any personal moral sins like cheating, lying, pre-marital sex, adultery, watch horror movies, and faithfully pay your tithes. Rubbish. If we’re honest with the biblical story, orthodoxy is something deeply connected and effected by our social connectedness and existence within the entire social order of the world we live in. The Gospel does indeed confront us with profound prophetic challenges regarding our possession and expending of wealth in a material-driven world order.
More appropriate ways of spending wealth
Last week my wife and I happened to take our dinner near Arab street, at a shop just opposite the mosque. Because it’s Ramadan, the Muslim community has set up an extended eating area outside on the roadside, for people to break their fast. We also noticed several large pots of food there. We realised that all that food was free. Anyone, should they choose so, could eat for free if they feel they can’t afford to spend the money at the other stalls.
We sat there and agreed: something is terribly wrong with the Church today. And yes, the Lord has been speaking to us through the Muslim practice of Ramadan.
In response to the questions raised by Pastor Kenny, here are some quick responses I would put forth to the mega-churches, and every other church intent of constructing church sanctuaries:
First, there is really no justification for fully enclosed, air-conditioned sanctuaries in Singapore. We have many large religious sanctuaries, illustrated in many other religious traditions, as well as within the Roman Catholic tradition, where partially air-conditioned halls well serve both the affluent and the less affluent participants within their respective religious gatherings. There is also no justification for titanium facades and extravagant architectural designs that serve no theological purpose towards facilitating any biblical worship paradigms. I must say unreservedly that I find these building projects, utterly repugnant and a blight on the Christian community’s role in the world as a counter-culture prophetic witness to the Kingdom, and our inclusive posture towards every segment of society.
Second, here’s a prophetic call for NCC and every other mega-church: Build simple sanctuaries and with that vast wealth, build free medical clinics in every housing estate throughout Singapore. Let these clinics offer free medical treatment to all who enter them regardless of religion or financial need. Finance them indefinitely. Build several shelters in town with a single purpose: to house and feed all the homeless who even now sleep in Singapore on cardboard in the open streets. House them with no strings attached, nor with concern regarding how they ended up homeless. House them with the belief that in doing so, you are housing Jesus Himself. Finance these shelters indefinitely. Finance also indefinitely, the creation of simple hawking jobs for the elderly who have no other means of income.
Furthermore, become communities more known by our world as counter-cultural alternatives to the predominate consensus, social conventions, values and practices of this present evil age. Let the world recognise you more as counter-cultural communities, rather than as congregations which are relevant and contextualised to this world’s culture and values. Finally, become communities foremost and visibly identified by the world, as communities more sensitised to the socially marginalised, than to the socially affluent, powerful, privileged, elite, and secure.
Here is Jesus’ promise: “Sell all you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me.”
In Christ
Monte Lee Rice
http://perichorus.wordpress.com
The second posting I entered a comment to was titled, “Prayer for the Financial Global Crisis” (9 October, 16 2008). The posting is quite lengthy so I will only provide here an abbreviated version:
“Many economic and financial experts have been forecasting this financial meltdown and have often been unheeded or branded as irrational or doomsayers. Even preachers and prophets have declared the same. Here is something I received from a friend, some excerpts from an article by David Wilkerson from a decade back: “America’s Golden Calf is Going Down!”:
“. . .Beloved, America is facing God’s judgment-and we will never be the same! In the days to come, literally hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their homes. Why? They’ve leveraged them with equity loans, so they could play the stock market and try to strike it rich!
I tell you, the stock market has become America’s golden calf! People see it as a financial savior, and they worship it daily-trusting in it, depending on it, giving it all their energy and attention. But it’s going to fall suddenly-and none of the small, individual investors will be spared. They’ll suffer the most, losing their homes, their cars-everything!”
David Wilkerson is founder of Teen Challenge, Inc., the worldwide Christian drug and alcohol rehabilitation ministry. . . I have been meditating on the following passage in Mark for some time now. And I can see that this prayer is an appropriate prayer for people inside and outside the financial systems of the world, blind and in desperate need, to pray: ” . . . Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mark 10: 46-47) And let me add this Anglican prayer which is currently getting a lot of hits during this economic tsunami:
Lord God, we live in disturbing days,
across the world,
prices rise,
debts increase,
banks collapse,
jobs are taken away,
and fragile security is under threat.
Loving God, meet us in our fear and hear our prayer:
be a tower of strength amidst the shifting sands,
and a light in the darkness;
help us receive your gift of peace,
and fix our hearts where true joys are to be found,
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.”
My comment was dated 13 October 2008. What prompted my comment was not so much the posting, as the initial comments others had entered in response to the posting. Following is my comment.
“The frog in the well looks up and thinks it is the sky.” O Men and Woman of little faith, short sightedness, and small-minded vision! When will you see what is not and yet can be? First of all, let’s begin again with reference to David Wilkerson. Really: Is David Wilkerson a “maverick?” I should say not! And, history will prove otherwise! Let’s indeed again read The Cross and the Switchblade, and reflect on what’s transpired over the past 40-50 years since that book’s publication: Wilkerson spearheaded and facilitated the international expansion of Teen Challenge, and pioneered and pastored the famous Times Square Church, which later spawned a number of branch churches around the world, and other ministries. Is Wilkerson a “maverick?” I think not. Wilkerson did not prophesy from any desert tower, or academic tower. He prophesied as a man who earned his stripes in the thick of the inner city poverty and despair. He like so many others, “gave his own blood” in identifying with the sufferings of so many lost at the bottom of America’s social strata. Wilkerson not only sacrificed and suffered, he achieved in creating ministries and structures that brought true social, economic and spiritual redemption to people not only in America but around the world. So, with regards to Wilkerson’s judgments against the American financial system and idolatrous attachments to mammon, he did not prophesy as an outsider but as a true insider! Wilkerson deserves a bit more credit!!!
Second, I’d advice us not to too quickly write off Wilkerson’s judgement, or even that of other “mavericks” and “maverick prophets!” Prophesy often comes through earthen vessels! Yes, many of the minute details might be off; but still: What is the Spirit saying- in principle, through the Spirit of Prophesy? Let me put it this way: At some point, either in the near or distant future, the America will fall as a global superpower. There will be other first world nations around the world which will also fall. Singapore will also fall; the end of this tiny island miracle nation is certain. Come on; even the government does not wince from admitting that the indefinite continuity of Singapore cannot be fully ascertained in the present moment! Why do I know these things will happen? First, because it is the nature of history! Nations rise, and they fall. Kingdoms emerge, and crumble with the blowing of the wind. Some cultures had endured for thousands of years. But the vast majority blazed for a short while; a century or two, and then died.
Third, the Bible says an enduring word for every generation; towards every kingdom and nation that prospers in this present evil age: “”Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived in luxury with her, will weep and wail over her when they see the smoke of her burning . . . For in one hour your judgment has come. . . And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore . . . ” (Rev 18).
Fourth, the Bible exhorts to “listen” to every national and global crisis, calamity, and adversity as a call towards spiritual prudence; this is called the “Day of the Lord.” Today I listened to a congregational prayer, which was indeed most accurate, befitting, and exemplified the right Christian posture towards the current financial crisis: “It is a wake-up cal that this world’s glory is passing away. . . . “
Fifth, Dear Christians, it amazes me how so often, unbelievers in positions of influence display far more educated concern, alarm, prudence, comprehension, and empathy towards the gravity of such crisis towards the world’s poor and disfranchised throughout the two-thirds world, than we within the church. I am reflecting especially on those working within the IMF, World Bank, other similar bodies. Even more, I continue to find it darkly facinating to note how unbelievers who have been given exposure to the gravity of our historical settings, are just so much deeply aware than Christians, of the present crises threateing the very continuation of both human and non human life on the this planet over the next century; largely because of man’s mismanagement of the earth over the past century and our inability to morally handle the knowledge we have attained. I have actually spoken with Christian ministers over the past several months, who snicker and scoff at the idea of seeing value or need for Christians or Christians ministers to embrace much concern towards matters such as ecological stewardship! I find this mindset most disturbing, alarming, and frightening!
I’ll bring this to a closure. I just reading today, Walter Rauschenbusch’s Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21st Century. As some of you may know, this book was originally published in 1907 as Christianity and the Social Crisis. Many of you are also aware that Rauschenbusch was the Father of the 20th century Social Gospel movement. Like Wilkerson, many both then and now, have considered Rauschenbusch as a “maverick;” and even as a “false prophet.” Rauschenbusch was theologically liberal; some of his doctrines were weak. Yet somehow, through God’s providential calling, he was raised up as a prophet to the nations. For the truth is that Rauschenbusch was a seasoned senior pastor in the inner city (then called “Hell’s Kitchen,” in New York City), who pastored for years amongst people oppressed by economic exploitation- long before he published his watershed work, Christianity and the Social Crisis. Like Wilkerson, Rauschenbusch physically gave himself to his people; and his health suffered directly as a result of his own ministry to his own congregation. And, as recalled by his great grandson, Paul Rauschenbusch, Rauschenbusch was a most forbearing and forgiving Christian towards his detractors, “a generosity not always returned.” The fact is that that for all its early and original flaws, shortcomings, failures, and doctrinal weaknesses, the Social Gospel Tradition had indeed, through the providential oversight of God’s Spirit, eventually proved highly fruitful towards facilitating numerous social and economic reforms over the past century, beginning in New York where the prophetic ministry of Rauschenbusch was first birthed (e.g., child labour laws, minimum wage, FDR’s New Deal, the civil rights movement, etc).
The truth now, is that we Evangelicals had learned over the past quarter century how much we had dichotomised the Full Gospel, wrongly and falsely dichotomising our focus upon personal redemption from social and economic redemption. Yet we so often did so while at the same time, dismissing the prophetic exhortation the Gospel proclaims to us in our riches: “Be willing to give it up! Let it go! Take your place among the world’s poor and not the rich!” It’s interesting that Rauschenbusch provides such examples as D. L. Moody, the Salvation Army, and early YMCA and YWCA leaders, all of whom who rightly held together both the internal and social dynamics of spiritual redemption.
I’ve concluded that has indeed been much misunderstood, particularly by people like Rick Warren who quoted to have once said in his blog, that “Rauschenbusch was a liberal theologian and he basically said we don’t need this stuff about Jesus anymore.” Warren needs to read Rauschenbusch! On the contrary, Rauschenbusch called for a radical listening to Jesus, particularly in his ministry as a prophet, in fully keeping and continuation with the Jewish prophetic tradition.
Now I want to close with fitting quote from the last chapter of Rauschenbusch book, titled, “What to Do”: “The spiritual force of Christianity should be turned against the materialism and mammonism of our industrial and social order. [For] If a man sacrifices his human dignity and self-respect to increase his income, or stunts his intellectual growth and his human affections to swell his bank account, he is to that extent serving mammon and denying God. . . . Religious men have been cowed by the prevailing materialism and arrogant selfishness of our business world. They should have the courage of religious faith and assert that ‘man lieth not by bread alone,’ but by doing the will of God, and that the life of a nation ‘consisteth not in the abundance of things’ which it produces, but in the way men live justly with one another and humbly with their God.”
And finally brothers and sisters, I am compelled to draw attention to the article in today’s paper (The Sunday Times, 12 October 2008) titled, “I, who have nothing.” This is a short write-up about the British born and Buddhist month Ajahn Brahm, whose picture most of us have at some point seen occasionally in the paper or around town. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. But boy, what shame this man brings upon us! He “travels up to 10 times or more a year” all over the world, “people turn up by the thousands to listen to him,” and yet he “does not carry a single penny, has no mobile phone or MP3 player,” and “sleeps on the floor and has one meal a day from his alms bow.” The article mentions that Ajahn Brahm “doesn’t believe religious leaders should be paid a lot of money either.” I think we better listen to this: “How much money did Jesus have? He had nothing. . . . We’re at an economic downturn here and many people are afraid of what might happen if they lose their savings and house, and I can come along and say I’ve never had a house and savings and I can be happen and peaceful If I can do that with nothing, you don’t need to be afraid.” Well, let’s do give the Lord the last word here: “if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you- you of little faith? . . . . But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Monte Lee Rice
Perichorus
My reference to the Buddist monk, Ajahn Brahm, then helped prompt a further posting by Blogpastor, entitled, “Is the God of Jesus Speaking through a Buddhist Monk?” (13 October, 2008).
My answer to the question however, was unequivocally, yes.
Notes:
[1] Del Tarr, Double Image: Biblical Insights from African Parables (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1994), 11-13.
[2] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908; New York, NY: Doubleday; Image Books, 2001).
[3] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 80.
[4] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 122-123.
[5] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 145.
[6] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 120.
[7] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 120.
[8] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 123.
[9] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 123-124.
[10] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 124.
[11] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 125.
[12] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 170.
[13] Note the Introduction to Blogpastor: ( http://www.blogpastor.net/about ): “It is open and gracious but at times provocative and disquieting. Although orthodox, it dares to probe the frontiers of Christian convention and opinion.”
2 Responses to “Ojama-shimasu! (“I’m going to disturb you”)”