pentechorus

Prologue to Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination

Part 4: The Prophetic Purpose of Pentecostal Spirit-baptism

To be published within several weeks’ time.

SPIRIT-BAPTISM & THE PROPHETIC IMAGINATION

Part 1: The Revolutionary Power of Pentecostal Spirituality

“Then the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand; and all the women went out after her with tambourines and with dancing. And Miriam sang to them:

“Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously;

the horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.

Exodus 15:20-21

Pentecostalism and the global indigenisation of Christianity

I have come to agree with a small yet concerned and critically informed group of observers that the spiritual and moral force of Pentecostalism, both within the universal Church and in the world, is now waning. This is not dismiss, ignore, nor devalue the continued influence of Pentecostalism as a globalising movement, which is still expanding throughout the Southern and Eastern Hemispheres.[1] The centre of gravity of World Christianity has of course shifted over the past 50 years towards the Southern Hemisphere. Yet it’s been much documented and acknowledged that much of this past and present growth, arises from both direct and indirect influence of Pentecostalism upon the universal Church. Even more so, Pentecostalism has and continues to facilitate the worldwide indigenisation of Christianity.

The orality of Pentecostalism

In this brief acknowledgement to the continuing force of Pentecostalism within Christianity and the world, several features and core distinctives to Classic Pentecostal ethos and spirituality warrant brief mention. First, is that Pentecostalism’s distinctive role towards Christian globalisation and indigenisation, much arises from its inherent power to nurture local expressions of church and theology.[2] An important variable accounting for the globalisation of Pentecostalism has been its distinctive “oral-aural” oriented epistemology (how we know, define, and describe reality).[3] This variable should also be held particularly accountable for the expanding plurality of indigenous and localised pentecostal forms and movements throughout the world. The research and literature demonstrating this observation is indeed substantial.

Any discussion however on the “orality” of Pentecostal spirituality, must acknowledge the work of Walter J. Hollenweger, whom I would acknowledge as perhaps the most perennially important and seminal Pentecostal theologian of the 20th century. Perhaps more than anyone else within Pentecostalism, Hollenweger has passionately called attention to the spiritual and social redemptive power of Pentecostal “orality.” Oral-aural” (or “spoke-heard”) epistemology essentially defines an ancient pre-literate yet basic human “mode of knowing,” which arises when people come together in a “storying event, filling the roles of storytellers and story-listeners. Such an event possesses a unique imaginative and generative power towards the construction of new and alternative “story-worlds.” These “story-worlds” provide participants in the “story event” a unique space wherein a “new quantum reality is born.” And in that space, both teller and listener thereby enter into a new future.[4]

During the past 500 year epoch of Western modernity- with its attendant shift to a more print based, epistemological compulsion towards technological preciseness, empirical certitude, and finality in meaning, orality has been characteristically indicative of non-Western cultures, particularly of agrarian based or pre-industrialised cultures.[5] The oral orientation Pentecostalism has thus significantly enabled Pentecostal ethos and spirituality to effectively resonate with the pre-modernised religious and “cultural subconscious” of Asian, African and Latin American cultures.[6]

Pentecostal narrative and story-driven ministry approach

An important aspect to Pentecostal orality is how Pentecostals have traditionally adhered to a narrative driven hermeneutic and “story” oriented approach to preaching, ministry and congregational liturgy.[7] Historically and ideally, it was through the ethos of an oral liturgy, that the Word of God was imparted through Pentecostal spirituality. Hollenweger famous description of Pentecostal spirituality here deserves mention: it is a spirituality imparted not through “books” but “parables,” not “theses” but “testimonies,” not “dissertations” but “dances,” not through a “system of thinking,” but through “stories and songs,” not through “definitions,” but through “descriptions,” not through “arguments” but through “transformed lives.”[8]

This “oral narrative” character of the Pentecostal Gospel, has perennially demonstrated throughout the 20th century, a seminally redemptive power towards spiritual and social-economic uplift throughout the world. In doing so, Pentecostalism has significantly contributed to the democratisation of ministry amongst the non-ordained and the ministerial participation of laity within churches. This factor alone has thus also empowered people who for often social-economic reasons, were traditionally marginalised within the more mainline churches.[9]

20th century Pentecostalism thus played a decisive, if not primary, role towards shifting Christian traditions throughout the world away from the Constantanian paradigm of church ministry. The term “Constantanianism” signifies the professional clergy-driven ministry model that emerged with the Christianisation of the Roman Empire after Constantine.[10] We sometimes use the idea of the Constantanian paradigm with reference to a premise assumedly rooted within the historical period demarked by Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. This is thus an age-old premise that has tended to emphasise a conviction that the Church primarily fulfils it’s “ministry” in the world through institutionalised church offices (eg, clergy / laity dichotomy).

Pentecostalism however had decisively helped to shift Christian traditions more towards a ‘laicization’ of the church, thus demarking the end of “Constantanianism.” Pentecostalism was therefore a significant and explicated development of the earlier Protestant Reformation renewal regarding the “priesthood of all believers.” In early years, Pentecostalism significantly facilitated the 20th century rediscovery of the Pauline organic conception of community.[11] This re-discovery of Paul’s organic church metaphor simultaneously reflected and resonated with the greater Post-Enlightenment shift from a hierarchal conception of cosmology, to a more systemic worldview and organic cosmology.[12]

Democratising nature of Pentecostal oral liturgy

It was Pentecostalism altogether, which decisively popularised within the greater Christian tradition, the now common assumption that Christians should affirm every local church as a “charismatic community” of the Spirit.[13] Highly illustrative towards this trajectory, is that it was Pentecostal “participatory” ecclesiology, which directly popularised the 20th century koinonia “fellowship-language.” Furthermore, it was this “fellowship” language, which the movement found most appropriate for expressing it’s understanding of the entire church community as charismatically endowed with gifts of the Holy Spirit.[14]

Yet, crucial still to the Pentecostal assumption of the Church as a charismatic community, is that for this to be properly expressed, each believer must seek a “personal Pentecost.”[15] This “oral-participatory” ecclesiology of Pentecostalism was in fact originally descriptive of the Pentecostal outpouring at Azusa Street. For at Azusa the African-American father of modern Pentecostalism, William J. Seymour, encouraged a circular seating arrangement, without elevated platform seating. As there was no platform, “all were on a [eg, same] level.”[16] Elevated platform seating however, which places not just the Word but the clergy above the laity, has always been an architectural design theologically motivated by the Constantanian clergy model.[17] Pentecostalism ushered in the decisive blow to this century-old, hierarchal skewering of Christians gathered for worship.

Ultimately, the “oral-participatory” ecclesiology, that at least theoretically fully affirms each believer as a privileged and empowered contributing minister to the Pentecostal liturgy, arises from the Pentecostal pneumatological envisioning of the gospel. This involves a greater pneumatological focus on what other Protestant traditions normally observe. This pneumatological envisioning of the Gospel is the conviction that Pentecost means a democratising of the Spirit’s prophetic anointing. For through virtue of Jesus’ resurrection, in these “latter days” as also in the former days, God has poured out and is still pouring out the Spirit “upon all flesh.”[18] Through a literal reading that the promise of Pentecost was given “upon all flesh,” early Pentecostalism was motivated to confront and shatter the “norms of middle class society.” It did so through envisioning an ecclesiological fellowship and leadership that was to be inclusive of both male and females, minorities, and the poor as well as the wealthy.[19]

Recognising that the term “liturgy” signifies the “service of the people- the laity, an authentic Pentecostal ethos is indeed liturgical in the truest sense of the term. This observation is notwithstanding the common practice of ascribing the term to what we sometimes wrongly call the “liturgical” ethos of more Eucharistic oriented church traditions, which are strongly reliant upon permanently fixed printed “liturgies.” Early Pentecostalism did utilise a liturgy. Yet this was therefore an oral liturgy, which by its very oral nature, conveyed and evoked a radical social transformation. This social transformation envisioned the eradication of social-economic demarcations wherever they may exist. Moreover, this had first begun within the gathered church, gathered together in worship before God.[20]

It is in light of the social ramifications of Pentecostal oral liturgy, that we must also therefore appreciate the reconciling nature and purpose of tongues within the gathered Pentecostal worshiping community. We must do so by recognising tongues as an experience and practice facilitating profound “social and revolutionary implications.” For from the perspective of the prophetic tradition, we can appreciate how the orality and experience of tongues empowers every believer into full immediate and vocalised participation within the gathered community. It does so regardless of education, race, or social strata.

Tongues therefore also functions as the perennial sign of God’s reconciling purpose, which is He significantly executes through granting us the experience of Spirit-baptism.[21] In the context of Pentecostal oral liturgy, tongues plays a “democratising” function amongst people of varied social, economical, and racial backgrounds; the democratising nature and practice of tongues. It thus also helped grant the movement a continued empowerment towards “people who live on the fringes of society.”[22] This “democratising function” also simultaneously signifies then above else, the reversal of Babel- meaning the reconciliation of all peoples into a common tongue through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

Resonance between Pentecostalism and Postmodernity

The “oral orientation” Pentecostalism has also facilitated the movement’s influence into and across other Christian traditions.[23] Given the current global postmodern transition, even within the industrialised and technologically enriched world towards again a more oral-aural based epistemology, there thus exists a deep and potentially engaging resonance between Classic Pentecostal spirituality and the evolving postmodern, “dialogical turn.”[24] This is a turning towards a narrative-inspired imagination. This turn, coupled with an appreciation towards cultivating an embodied gestalt and left-brain sense of intuition, can potentially lead to an even greater expansion of the Pentecostal spirituality into the Greater Christian tradition. This is possible given the emerging and an symbolically enriched audio-visual-relational context as a core modes for perceiving spiritual realities within the postmodern worldview.[25]

Given the biblical theism and story world of Pentecostalism as part of the Christian Tradition, we should not conclude that the general Pentecostal and postmodern worldviews are epistemologically parallel. Nonetheless, we can observe that, given the global indelible influence of Pentecostalism upon the 20th century, “Pentecostalism may indeed be a part of the stream that is ushering in the postmodern era.”[26] Having been well received within Pentecostalism, Sociologist Margaret Poloma provides a helpful analysis of the movement in relation to postmodernity. Poloma suggested that we should appreciate the movement as an “anthropological protest against modernity.”[27] What we need to foremost grasp here then, is that this resonance between Pentecostalism and postmodernity, demonstrates the potential Pentecostalism has towards sustaining a viable and leading contribution towards the witness and presence of the Christian faith in the 21st century world.[28] This is certainly therefore, a trajectory which will be periodically recalled and addressed throughout this project.

Relation between Pentecostal orality and charismatic ministry

Second to note is that historically within Pentecostalism, the Pentecostal oral-aural ethos and spirituality together synergise towards creating a heightened awareness of God’s presence. These features work directly in tandem of course, with the Classic Pentecostal experience of Spirit-baptism, This is particularly true within Pentecostal congregational and ministry settings that nurture the oral-aural ethos as a means of “meeting with God.”[29] The Pentecostal oral-aural ethos thus creates a “space” to meet with God. Moreover, there is a coinciding receptiveness within that space, to hear (not read!) from God, often through a spoken, and perceived prophetic “word of the Lord.”[30] The “‘orality’ of Pentecostalism,” thus “accents the intuitive” dimension of spiritual life, even more so of spiritual realities.[31] It creates “an ethos in communion with the Holy Spirit,” where the Pentecostal oral-aural ethos grants a heighten intuitiveness towards hearing the “word of the Lord.”[32]

Pertinent here are observations derived from social scientific studies on New Testament social-cultural settings. These observations demonstrate that the congregational ethos of early Christian community was characteristically more oral-aural than print driven.[33] The New Testament church ethos was thus far more oriented towards the immediate role and ministry of prophets rather than of scribes. This made the New Testament church ethos far more postured towards a oral-aural dialogical engagement with the spoken “word of the Lord,” charismatically delivered through the prophetic anointing of the Holy Spirit.[34] It was this openness towards the Holy Spirit, mediated through the oral-aural early church culture, that thus accounted for the “movement metaphors” descriptive of the archetypical Pentecost story and experience. This was is an archetypical experience described as “the feeling of being seized and possessed by something overwhelmingly powerful, namely, the “rushing of a mighty wind” (eg., Acts 2:1-4).[35]

Christianity long ago suffered a heavy loss in its charismatic power under the institutionalising forces that emerged through the post-patristic, Constantanian formalising of church polity and creedalisation. To say this is not to dismiss the Spirit’s providential work through the first five centuries of ancient Christianity. For it was largely from the very needful process of creedalisation, that Classic Christian Tradition- Christian Orthodoxy, had emerged.[36] Christian orthodoxy as narrated through the canonically preserved and fixed memory of the creeds, councils, and liturgies of Classic Christianity is by nature however a double-edge sword. It is a double-edged sword towards the challenge of maintaining not only Christian orthodoxy, but also Christian orthopathy and orthopraxis. For these three concerns should together characterise the charismatic ethos of Christian spirituality.[37]

As originally a Jewish renewal movement, the charismatic power of Christianity inevitably underwent the common institutionalising phase that is common to the history of religious revival movements. This is a process wherein oral stories, creeds, rituals and symbols tend to transition into fixed literary forms, and worse, fossilised dead forms. [38] This in turn leads to a transition from a primarily oral nuanced culture to a print nuanced culture.[39] Furthermore, all the way up through the ninth century, this concern towards insuring Orthodoxy involved so much preoccupation with the identity of Christ, needful though it was, that “what was said of the Holy Spirit was largely an appendage to theology.” And as an “appendage, it was even more “limited largely to matters of ontology,” rather than with regards to the Spirit’s role in the world.[40] Institutional efforts towards insuring the continuance of Christian Orthodoxy after the apostolic age had served the Church well in preparing for its historical emergence up through human history. Yet it also inevitably left harmful influence of Greek philosophical premises in the theologising of the patristic church. What is most important to this discussion is that result was that the patristic process of institutionalisation contributed to a historical “marginalization” and even “frequent domestication of the Spirit,” throughout the history of the Christian Church.[41]

So even through the Reformation and all through modernity, Western European Christianity suffered a further loss to its early oral ethos. For as it underwent a “textualization” of faith” within the emerging print driven culture, biblical literacy became highly shaped through the paradigms of Aristotelian logical discourse reasoning. This included the shaping of Christian faith according to the propositional theology of Medieval Scholasticism. [42] The common Evangelical assumption that the Holy Spirit primarily speaks to believers primarily through a correctly interpreted delivery of an assumed authorial intent of a Bible text- wholly discovered through to historical-grammatical exegesis, is in fact an outgrowth of this “textualization” process. This was also a direct outgrowth of the “Enlightenment’s strict separation between subject and object” and “value free” quest for factual data through modern scientific methodology.[43]

Even more so then, as a movement historically integrated to the mechanical industrialisation of Europe, Protestant spirituality, particularly in its Reformed Evangelical forms, has become indeed a highly printed-”word”-centred spirituality, that is far more accentuated towards rational cerebral right brain thinking modes rather than towards a more gestalt, affective and left brain thinking modes. To say this is not however to ignore the fact that beginning with the invention of modern printing, industrialisation led to European biblical literacy, directly resulting from both the widespread availability of printed Bibles and also the transformation of Europe into a highly literate culture.[44] High print dominated cultures however, given their attendant disposition towards scientific preciseness and disenchantment towards ambiguity, are less intuitively disposed towards perceiving trans-rational or “spiritual” phenomena arising within a given setting.[45]

The result of this trajectory was disastrous regarding towards any endeavour or felt desire for that matter, towards recovering the early New Testament church charismatic experience of seeking or anticipating a prophetic word within the gathered congregation.[46] Through its privileging of literacy and a construing of biblical exposition according to a rigid written, text-centred theory of homiletics and pedagogical instruction, Protestant Evangelicalism further “suppressed” the oral-aural ethos of early Christian community, and thereby also “killed and quenched the ongoing revelatory ministry of the Spirit by silencing the prophets.”[47] Indeed, as mainline and Evangelical Protestantism have both historically drank from the wells of scientific modernity, both have sought- however unintentionally, to “domesticate” the charismatic role of the Spirit within the Church. This was largely due to the influence of modern philosophical pragmatism, and this trend began long ago through the influences of Medieval European Scholasticism.[48]

Pentecostalism as a restorationist movement

This brief historical survey demonstrates that Pentecostalism emerged not only as a renewal movement, but also even more so, as a definitive restoration of the early church charismatic experience of the Holy Spirit. For what Pentecostalism restored was early Christian orality. The Pentecostal restoration of Christian orality has also included the role it should serve towards facilitating an open posture towards the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit. What believers within Pentecostalism experienced and recovered was not just the charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but a preliterate and pre-modern oral-aural ethos. This is important because it is a preliterate and pre-modern oral-aural ethos which nurtures and decisively facilitates congregational openness to the Pentecostal experience of Spirit-baptism, the more miraculous and extraordinary expressions of spiritual gifts, and the prophetic “word of the Lord.”

There is indeed I would argue, some viable element of truth to the restorationist “fall” paradigm. This is notwithstanding the rightful role of seeking and maintaining continuity with classic Christian Tradition within the Church. For notwithstanding that there remains a vast negligence to the Holy Spirit in Christian theology, 20th century Christian theology had still altogether experienced a turning not only towards trinitarian motifs, but towards pneumatology as well, which much arose through the global emergence and spread of Pentecostalism.[49]

Amongst other factors, it was also through restoring the oral-aural ethos to the Christian congregational setting, that Pentecostalism directly facilitated the global indigenisation of Christianity. This is particularly so throughout the oral-aural oriented cultures of the Southern hemisphere. For throughout the 20th century it is was largely within the Southern hemisphere that people were more culturally disposed towards discerning trans-rational information, than people living in more print-driven, and low context cultures.[50] Pentecostal orality has thus been deeply congruent to not only its own sacralistic worldview, but also to the sacralistic worldview that predominately characterised 20th century Asian, African, and Latin American societies.[51]

Pentecostal ethos and spirituality has also thus resonated with common assumptions held throughout the two-thirds world that life is often plagued by spiritual malaises whose power must be confronted and broken. This directly contributed to a dynamic, narrative and dialogical congregational reading of the Scriptures. Within this dialogical, congregational reading of the Scripture, worshippers come anticipating a supernatural “word from the Lord.” So a major critical factor has simply been that people who are raised in an oral-aural oriented culture, are naturally able to posture themselves towards a more relational engagement with Scripture, even in its spoken rather than written form.[52]

Christians who are more culturally disposed towards an oral-aural driven culture, naturally approach the Scriptures more so from the affective-oriented, left-brain hemisphere, which comprises the gestalt aspect of human knowing. Because the pre-literature oral-aural paradigm teaches one to discern information from the context of the situation at hand, people in oral-aural cultures found far greater resonance with Pentecostal liturgy than the print-driven congregational ethos that is descriptive of other Christian traditions.[53] In addition, their tolerance for ambiguity therefore facilitates their intuitive perception towards the supernatural. This thus also means that their tolerance for ambiguity also facilitates in their midst, the charismatic presence and ministry of the Holy Spirit (eg., Luke 12:11-12).[54]

The radical crisis experience of Spirit-baptism

Another major variable responsible for the fruit of 20th century Pentecostalism is most certainly, the Pentecostal experience of Spirit-baptism. For within Pentecostal spirituality, Spirit-baptism decisively provides an initiation into a heightened awareness of God’s presence and anointing, which has thus also simultaneously often granted believers a decisive certainty of divine commission to be a witness of the Christian gospel. Classic Pentecostals had generally not experienced this initiation as a quiet or gradual awareness of the Holy Spirit. It is rather usually experienced as a definitive crisis experience; a “shattering effect of the Holy Spirit,” which leads to “an apocalyptic revaluation of everything that till then had been taken for granted.”[55]

Finally, another core feature that has enabled the globalisation of Pentecostalism, is that within Pentecostal spirituality, Pentecostals have often experienced Spirit-baptism as really, a literal and existential baptism into biblical story-world.[56] Spirit-baptism has often granted a indelible transformation of one’s personal identity; for through the experience of Spirit-baptism one often begins interpreting his or her identity as one of the characters in the “story world,” particularly in the book of Acts.[57] Pentecostal spirituality has therefore significantly facilitated within its diverse streams, the actual intent of Scripture according to the promise of “narrative theology.” This provides believers a means whereby they can existentially “enter into the world” of the biblical story. Moreover, by existentially entering into the biblical story, believers are thereby granted the capacity to “reinterpret” their “personal and social existence,” their personal and Christian “identity,” as a member of the biblical story of God’s people journeying towards the biblical vision of God’s eschatological shalom.[58]

Spirit-baptism as gateway into the biblical story-world

The power of the Pentecostal nuance upon the biblical narrative framework, with its hermeneutical priority given to Acts and the Gospels, is that this nuance grants the individual believer personal ownership towards comprehending the biblical narrative- meaning, the biblical story world. Believers largely influenced by the modernity, too often forfeit this personal ownership through the “concordance model” of Bible reading. I refer here to the practice whereby believers are intentionally or unintentionally led to believe that “biblical truth- correct doctrine, is more readily at hand in the latest systematic compilation offered by the skilled theologian.”[59] Therefore, rather than approaching Scripture as a medium through which the Holy Spirit may directly speak to the believer, such believers primarily approach Scripture as a medium through which propositional truths or doctrinal statements may be observed. What this has ultimately led to even more however, is the “silencing of the text in the church.”[60]

We must thus know that “the central purpose of the Bible is not to provide raw materials for constructing a systematic theological edifice. Rather, the central purpose of the Bible is “to discern the Spirit’s voice through the appropriate text.”[61] What makes the Bible “authoritative” for us is that it is the one story through which the Sprit speaks to us.[62] We harm the community’s engagement with Scripture, when we thus indoctrinate them with the belief that the purpose of doctrine is “codify the meaning of the text in a series of systematically arranged assertions.” What we must thus acknowledge is that all theological constructions are only tools- not the truth itself. They are only tools to help lead us back towards and into the primacy of the Biblical story.[63] Sometimes however, we may do better without these tools.

In a stimulating paper titled, “Divine Relationality: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Doctrine of God,” Clark Pinnock discusses Pentecostalism’s observed and distinctive narrative-centred Bible hermeneutic, through which they believe they can “inhabit the story-world of the Bible.” Pinnock draws attention to how through this kind of hermeneutic, Pentecostals thus “engage with the narrative . . . existentially.”[64] Pinnock argues that this existential, narrative-centred hermeneutic specifically causes Pentecostals to gravitate towards a theology of God that is highly “relational.” It is a relational theology and understanding of God that stands in radical contrast to more deterministic theisms.

Pinnock furthermore believes that further promoting the “relational theism” of Pentecostalism is the movement’s doctrine of Spirit-baptism as a second work of grace, subsequent to the conversion-initiation experience.” [65] Pinnock reasons that within Pentecostalism, “Grace makes Spirit baptism possible, but people must seek the experience or it will not happen.” This supports of course Pinnock’s project towards open theism. For Pentecostals do naturally perceive a certain degree of “openess” about God and His posture towards us. Pinnock notes for instance that in Pentecostalism, “God does not fill people with the Spirit automatically- they need to seek the fullness.”[66]

For purposes of my discussion however, what is most important to note from Pinnock’s thesis, is how he perceives the Pentecostal tendency to build theology from narrative and read the narrative in order to existentially “inhabit” its story-world. This is a distinctive Christian spirituality; it is a “Pentecostal” spirituality. In fact, Pinnock also suggests that it has been this narrative-centred hermeneutic has directly also aided the movements historical growth amongst lower classes and the poor.[67] I say this to emphasis therefore, that the classic Pentecostal approach to narrative and thus to Luke-Acts, has been integral to the facilitating core features of Pentecostal spirituality, as its narrative and story orientation, orality, and past effectiveness towards “redemption and lift.”

The fact is as, discussed by John McKay, people who have experienced the Pentecostal baptism in the Sprit commonly look back on that experience as a “disclosure experience.” It is a “disclosure experience” wherein the Bible is read differently than prior to their experience with Spirit-baptism.”[68] In Classic Pentecostalism, the doctrine of Spirit-baptism therefore “plays a hermeneutical role in which major Christian beliefs are ‘interpreted and explored.’”[69] The classic Pentecostal experience of Spirit-baptism as entered into subsequent to conversion-initiation, has indeed tended to produce within Spirit-filled believers, a paradigm-shifting hermeneutic towards the Bible.

This specifically relates to the believer’s existential posture towards the biblical story-world, particularly within the purely narrative parts of Scripture. Spirit-baptism not only results from a theological reading of narrative; it also produces a narrative-centered hermeneutic that prioritises Luke-Acts as a foundational source for understanding the experience of Spirit-baptism. Pentecostal scholarship has at times been bold enough to suggest therefore that Spirit-baptism grants believers a new existential advantage towards understanding the Scriptures, in a way not shared by believers whom have never entered into the Pentecostal experience of Spirit-baptism.[70]

Pentecostal and charismatic believers, church leaders, and even many who are academically trained leaders, often unreservedly believe that their Spirit-baptism granted them a distinct spiritual illumination into the meaning of the Bible. Well, I do agree with this to some extent. Yet as we all know, Spirit-baptised believers are often certainly no more morally or spiritually perfected than nonPentecostals or Charismatics! Perhaps if on this matter we consciously hold in check our tendency to dichotomise the spiritual from the natural, we may articulate a more realistic, and conversely more diplomatic, rationale for appreciating Spirit-baptism as a definitive hermeneutical help towards aiding the believer’s connection with the Bible.

My suggestion here is that Spirit-baptism simply orientates believers towards a more narrative-driven and centred understanding of the Bible; in other words, a more “storying” orientation towards the Bible. Consequently, it is not that the Spirit-baptised believer is “more spiritual” than the non Spirit-baptised believer, but simply that he simply now has a more “storying” Bible-reading paradigm, that is naturally more congruent with the oracular and storying nature of the Bible itself. Mckay helps sharpen this thesis by likening the hermeneutical contrast a believer experiences through Spirit-baptism through the analogy of a theatrical drama. Through the experience of Spirit-baptism, our existential identity as participants within the biblical story-world is heightened, as we find ourselves seemingly transported from the audience to the stage itself.[71]

McKay’s reflection is autobiographical. And being himself formally trained in theological studies, he draws special attention to the antagonism experienced between Charismatics who tend to become very “anti-intellectual” and generally disheartened or ambivalent towards biblical or theological scholarship, and non Charismatic or Pentecostals altogether.[72] McKay goes on to argue that it is this very existential reading of the biblical narratives- made possible through the “baptism in the Spirit,” that “often give less literate people a much better appreciation of the message of the Bible” than often times what can be derived through formal theological training.[73]

McKay empathises with the ambivalence of many Spirit-baptised believers towards formal theological scholarship, because he believes that like his non-formally trained Charismatic brethren, he has also experienced through Spirit-baptism, a “lifting of the veil: “I found myself reading my Bible with completely new understanding. The veil Paul spoke about had been lifted and for the first time in my life, I discovered that it all made very good sense.”[74] As earlier mentioned, in something of an autobiographical reflection, McKay likens the experience of Spirit-baptism to an experience of finding one’s self called out from the audience to join the actors on the stage.

“It bids us [to] align ourselves with Jesus and the apostles, to share their experience, to come out of the audience, and join the players in the final acts, to wait in our own Jerusalems until we too are endued with the same power from on high. Once we do that, we find the curtain (or the veil) removed altogether and ourselves on stage holding hands with the apostles and seeing everything from their Pentecostal perspective.”[75]

Monte Lee Rice (© Copyright September 2008)

Links to the Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination series

NOTES

[1] Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Mass, “Global Statistics,” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Mass, rev ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2002), 286-289; Note Amos Yong’s survey of Burgess and Mass’ research, and analysis of Global Pentecostalism , particularly of Latin American, African, and Asian Pentecostal movements: “‘Poured Out upon All Flesh:’ Salvation, the Spirit, and World Pentecostalism,” in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005). 19, 31-80.

[2] Two helpful essays acknowledging the role of Pentecostalism towards 20th century Christian indigenisation throughout the Southern hemisphere are: Dana L. Robert, “Shifting Southward: Global Christianity Since 1945,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 24, no 2 (April 2000) 50-58 (53-54, 55-56); Philip Jenkins, “After the Next Christendom,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 28, vol 1 (January 2004): 20-22 (21); Yong, The Spirit Poured Out, 24.

[3] Walter J. Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 2, 19-39, 112, 161, 177, 195-196, 269-278, 291-295, 322, 397-398. Also significant is Allan H. Anderson, who further expanded Hollenweger’s project on Pentecostal orality; “The Pentecostal Gospel and Third World Cultures.” http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/anderson/Publications/pentecostal_gospel_.htm (12/23/2004); Anderson, “Global Pentecostalism in the New Millennium,” in Pentecostals after a Century: Global Perspectives on a Movement in Transition, eds. Allan H. Anderson, and Walter J. Hollenweger (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 223. Other helpful sources concerning the role Pentecostal orality in global indigenisation include: Russell P. Spittler, “Implicit Values in Pentecostal Missions,” Missiology: An International Review 16, no. 4 (October 1988): 409-424 (413-414); Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 21 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 20f, 24.

[4] Kevin M. Bradt, Story as a Way of Knowing (Kansas City, KA: Sheed & Ward, 1997), 3-11, 14, 17.

[5] Del Tarr, Double Image: Biblical Insights from African Parables (New York, NY; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994), 6-7; “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Interpersonal Relations,” in Theology & Theory, vol 1 of The Holy Spirit & Counselling, eds Marvin G. Gilbert and Raymond T. Brock (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1985), 7, 19; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 273.

[6] Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-first Century (London, UK: Cassell, 1996), 219, 228; quoted in Allan H. Anderson, “Pentecostalism in East Asia: Indigenous Oriental Christianity?” PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 22, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 115-132 (130-131).

[7] Early Pentecostal narrative driven preaching and communication methods deeply resonated with the two-thirds world, thus contributing to the success of Pentecostal missions; Tarr, “Preaching the Word in the Power of the Spirit,” in Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, eds. Murray A. Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Petersen (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 123; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 195-196. Note also Simon Chan’s reflections on the epistemological effectiveness of narrative preaching within Asian contexts in, “Problem and Possibility of an Asian Theological Hermeneutic,” Trinity Theological Journal, vol 9 (2000): 47-59 (55-56).

[8] Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 196.

[9] Vinson Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971, 1997), 179; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 23-24, 35, 273; Anderson, “Global Pentecostalism in the New Millennium,” in Pentecostals after a Century, 210-211, 213; Chan, Pentecostal Theology, 20; Yong, The Spirit Poured Out, 34, 42; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Church as Charismatic Fellowship: Ecclesiological Reflections from the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001): 100-121 (101, 114-115, 119).

[10] David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 467, 469-470; Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans. by Margaret Kohl (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1975), 10, 314-315f.

[11] Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Cultural Setting, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 192; Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 300-336, esp 314-315f.

[12] Bosch, Transforming Mission, 262-263, 351; Jackie David Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995): 73-96 (79-82)

[13] Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2006), 34.

[14] Kärkkäinen, “Church as Charismatic Fellowship,” 101, 111-112, 116, 119, 121).

[15] L. Grant McClung, Jr., “Truth on Fire: Pentecostals and an Urgent Missiology,” in Azusa Street and Beyond: Pentecostal Missions and Church Growth in the Twentieth Century, ed. L. Grant McClung, Jr. (South Plainfield, NJ: Bridge Publishing, Inc; Logos, 1986), 49.

[16] Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 23-24; Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-day Pentecost (South Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1980; unabridged reprint of, How “Pentecost” Came to Los Angeles- How It Was in the Beginning, np,1925), 57.

[17] Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 23-24.

[18] In his magisterial work, Transforming Mission, Bosch unfortunately failed to mention the role of Pentecostalism towards the democratisation of the Church as well as a globalising force towards Christian indigenisation. He does refer to Rolland Allen, who as an Anglican priest, was perhaps the first Western clergy to publicly call for an end to Western colonial and paternalistic missionary practices; Bosch, Transforming Mission, 379; Roland Allen. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Co., 1962). But it was initially Pentecostals who more than any other 20th century Christian tradition, who first resolutely implemented Allen’s missiology and vision towards local Christian indigenisation. This was foremost achieved through the influence of American AG missiologist Melvin Hodges, who effectively “Pentecostalized Allen’s principles and rephrased them” in a manner highly resonant to Pentecostal doctrine and spirituality; Samuel Escobar, A Time for Mission: The Challenge for Global Christianity (Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003), 117; Melvin A. Hodges, The Indigenous Church, rev. ed. (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, Gospel Publishing House, 1976). In a similar vein, Kärkkäinen laments Bosch’s virtual disinterest in his Paradigm Shifts text, towards discussing the missiological role of the Holy Spirit, as illustrative of the continued disinterest within current missiological studies towards articulating a “pneumatological outlook in modern missiology;” “‘Truth on Fire:’ Pentecostal Theology of Mission and the Challenges of a New Millennium,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3, no. 1(200): 33-60 (38). See also Gary B. McGee, “Strategies for Global Mission,” in Called and Empowered, 212; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 20, 23, 298.

[19] Kärkkäinen, “‘Culture, Contextualization, and Conversion’: Missiological Reflections from the Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1990-1997),” Journal of Asian Mission 2, vol. 2 (September 2000): 261-275 (273).

[20] Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1969), 457; Pentecostalism, 273.

[21] Anderson, “The Pentecostal Gospel and Third World Cultures,” 1; Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 269-275.

[22] Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 272.

[23] Bonjour Bay, “The Current Tendencies of the Wesleyan-Holiness Movement and the Growth of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 7, no. 2 (2004): 255-264 (255-256).

[24] Carl Raschke, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Baker Publishing Group, 2004), 212; Terry Cross, “A Proposal to Break the Ice: What Can Pentecostal Theology Offer Evangelical Theology.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, No. 2 (April 2002): 44-73 (55).

[25] Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; Baker Book House Co, 2002), 50-51, 66, 68, 90-92; Craig Van Gelder, “Postmodernism and Evangelicals: A Unique Missiological Challenge at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century,” Missiology: An International Review, 30, no. 4 (October 2002): 491-504 (498-499); Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 99-103.

[26] Jackie David Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 73-96 (96); see also, Harvey Cox, “Forward,” in Pentecostals after a Century, 10.

[27] Margaret M. Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 19; quoted in Yee Tham Wan, “Defining Pentecostalism,” Journal of Asian Evangelical Theology 12 (2004): 95-124 (114).

[28] Bosch cites the emergence of Pentecostalism as a major example signifying the collapsing power of the modern worldview within much of the Christian tradition. Bosch then posits that Pentecostalism illustrates a growing transition from theologising through the methods of modern scientific epistemology, to methods rather illustrative of pre-modern epistemology. He thus mentions as example, the growing appreciation towards “narrative theology,” and of spiritual experience as a valid component to a rational comprehension of reality; Transforming Mission, 352-354.

[29] Daniel E. Albrecht, “Pentecostal Spirituality: Looking Through the Lens of Ritual,” PNUEMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 14, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 107-125 (110-111, 114, 118-119).

[30] Tarr, “The Prophetic Ministry of the People of God,” ,” Lecture 4 of “The Role of the Charismata in the Pentecostal World.” The 9th William Menzies Annual Lectureship (Baguio, Philippines: Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, January 15-19, 2001), 91-93; 41; “The Role of the Holy spirit in Interpersonal Relations,” Lecture 2 of “The Role of the Charismata in the Pentecostal World,” 43-46; “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Interpersonal Relations,” in Theology & Theory, 9-14, 23.

[31] Hollenweger, “Pentecostalism’s Global Language,” An Interview with Walter J. Hollenweger, Christian History Magazine (Christianity Today), 17, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 42.

[32] Marcela A. Chaván de Matviuk, “Latin American Pentecostal Growth: Culture, Orality and the Power of Testimonies,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 5, no. 2 (July 2002): 205-222 (217).

[33] Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta, GA: John Know Press, 1981); Richard L. Rohrbaugh, The Biblical Interpreter: An Agrarian Bible in an Industrial Age (Philadelphia, PN: Fortress Press, 1978).

[34] James K. A. Smith, “The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelical, and the Sacred Writings,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997): 49, 53f; cited in Tarr, “The Prophetic Ministry of the People of God,” Lecture 4 of “The Role of the Charismata in the Pentecostal World.” The 9th William Menzies Annual Lectureship (Baguio, Philippines: Asia Pacific Theological Seminary, January 15-19, 2001), 92-93.

[35] Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. by Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 278.

[36] I am referring to the crystallisation of the classic, Christian Tradition through the canonisation of the Christian Bible, and the Orthodox creedal confessions (the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian and Chalcedon creeds) forged through the ecumenical councils of the early Fathers; Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (New York, NY: HarperSanFransicso; HarperCollins Publishers, 1994), 481.

[37] Jackie David Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 92-93.

[38] David O. Moberg, The Church as a Social Institution (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962), 119-123; cited in William B. Menzies, Anointed to Serve: The Story of the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 381.

[39] Past Pentecostal and Roman Catholic dialogues have most illustrated this tension. Roman Catholicism represents one of the enduring representations of institutional Christianity, while Pentecostalism represents a modern expression of other past renewal movements within Christianity. Consequently: “One of the perennial problems of ecclesiology has been the relationship between the Spirit/charism and institution;” with each tradition thus illustrating it peculiar nuance- Pentecostalism as a revival movement “seeking for balance between charisma and structure whereas Catholics look of balance between structure and charisma;” Kärkkäinen, “Church as Charismatic Fellowship,” 104-10.

[40] William W. Menzies, “The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, n.d), 67.

[41] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 899.

[42] Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 64; quoted in Tarr, “The Prophetic Ministry of the People of God,” 93-94.

[43] Bosch, Transforming Mission, 266, 270-271.

[44] Escobar, A Time for Mission, 129-130.

[45] Tarr, Double Image, 6-8, 97-98.

[46] Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 64; quoted in Tarr, “The Prophetic Ministry of the People of God,” 93-94.

[47] Mark J. Cartledge, “Charismatic Prophesy: A Definition and Description,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 79-120 (62); cited in Tarr, “The Prophetic Ministry of the People of God,” 95-96.

[48] Richard E. Wentz, “The Domestication of the Divine,” Theology Today 57, no. 1 (April 2000): 24-34 (24-25).

[49] Escobar, A Time for Mission, 113, 118; Moltmann, The Spirit of Life, 1-4; Clark Pinnock, “The Recovery of the Holy Spirit in Evangelical Theology,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13, no. 1 (2004): 3-18 (5); the most well known testimony to this development was of course Leslie Newbigin’s description of Pentecostalism as an ecclesiology that is as now comparably equal to Catholic and Protestant ecclesiological paradigms; Newbigin, The Household of Faith (Friendship, 1954), 9.

[50] Tarr, Double Image, 8;

[51] Russell Spittler, “Implicit Values in Pentecostal Missions,” Missiology: An International Review, 16, no. 4 (October 1988): 409-424 (414-415).

[52] People in many oral-aural cultural setting often assume in general, that spoken words contain inherent power. This is essential to the oral-aural culture worldview. Therefore, how much more then, it is easy to believe that divine words, like God’s words- and especially the Word of God, have a present, dynamic, divine power; Tarr, Double Image, 163; Jenkins, “After the Next Christendom,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 21.

[53] Tarr, Double Image, 8, 102.

[54] Tarr, Double Image, 100.

[55] Matthew Clark, “Questioning Every Consensus: A Plea for a Return to the Radical Roots of Pentecostalism,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 5, No. 1 (2002): 73-86 (75).

[56] John McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away: The Impact of Prophetic Experience on Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 17-40 (35, 37).

[57] Clark H. Pinnock, “Divine Relationality: A Pentecostal Contribution to the Doctrine of God,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16 (2000): 3-26 (8-9).

[58] George Stroup, The Promise of Narrative Theology (London, UK: SCM Press, 1981), 81, 96-97.

[59] Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 63.

[60] Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 63.

[61] Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 84; Grenz and Franke thus quote from Stanley Hauerwas: “doctrines . . . are not the upshot of the stories; they are not the meaning or heart of the stories. Rather they are tools . . . meant to help us tell the story better;” Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, ID: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 26; quoted in Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 84.

[62] Grenz, “The Sprit and the Word: The World-Creating Function of the Text,” Theology Today 57. no. 3 (October 2000): 357-374 (358).

[63] Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 84.

[64] Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 9.

[65] Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 4-8, 15-17.

[66] Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 12; Pinnock is here referring to early classic Pentecostal teaching, as illustrated by Myer Pearlman, Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible (Springfield MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1937), 306, 316-318; also Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 47.

[67] Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 9.

[68] John McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away: The Impact of Prophetic Experience on Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994): 17-40 (21).

[69] San-Whan Lee, “Pentecostal Prophecy,” Spirit and Church 3 (May 2001): 148-49; quoted in Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 21.

[70] Roger Stronstad, “Pentecostal Experience and Hermeneutics,” Paraclete (Winter 1992): 14-30.

[71] McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 32.

[72] McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 24-25, 37-40.

[73] McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 37.

[74] McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 36.

[75] McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 35.

Part 1: The Revolutionary Power of Pentecostal Spirituality

Part 2: The Decline of Pentecostalism As A Revival Movement

Click here for a pdf file of this article.

Part 4: The Prophetic Purpose of Pentecostal Spirit-baptism

To be published within several weeks’ time.

Posted in Archives, Christian life / Spirituality, Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Perichorus keynote entries Tagged: Pentecostal spirituality, Pentecostalism, Progressive Pentecostals

Audio recording of “Adullam Cave Revival” message

perichorus — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:42:23 +0000

I have recently uploaded an audio recording of a message I preaching on 16 November 2008 at World Revival Prayer Fellowship. The message, based on Psalm 34, was titled,”The Adullam Cave Revival.” To download the recording, click here.

Posted in Christian life / Spirituality, New postings, Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Prayer, Sermons

Audio recording of “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”

perichorus — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:35:27 +0000

I have recently uploaded an audio recording of my 2008 Pentecost Sunday message on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (11 May 2008) at World Revival Prayer Fellowship. The message, based on Mark 1:8, was titled,”The Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” To download the recording, click here.

Posted in Archives

Audio recording of 2008 Christmas Day message

perichorus — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:31:52 +0000

I have recently uploaded an audio recording of my 2008 Christmas Day (25 December 2008) message at World Revival Prayer Fellowship. The message, based on Luke 2.21, was titled,”The Glory of Christmas.” To download the recording, click here.

Posted in Christian life / Spirituality, Evangelism, Jesus, New postings, Sermons

When Tithing Becomes a Dead Work

perichorus — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:45:42 +0000

Contents:

1. Introduction: When tithing leads us away from God’s grace in Christ

2. Mistaking of liturgy for stewardship in consumer oriented societies

3. Common arguments towards tithing as an obligatory New Testament practice

Arguments on basis of historical precedence
Arguments on basis of Malachi 3:7-10

4. Why tithing is not an obligatory practice for Christian life

5. How tithing can express worshipful acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty

The Melchizedek Narrative (Gen 15) as a helpful paradigm for Christian tithing
Exegetical analysis of the Melchizedek Narrative
Possible grounds for using the Melchizedek Narrative as a correct Old Testament paradigm for tithing
The tithe as homage to the king’s sovereignty

6. Stewardship is ultimately anchored in the kingship of God

7. Closing reflections

As an Voluntary Act of Worship, Tithing can Remind Us We are Stewards of All that God Gives Us
What God blesses is not tithing, but our giving to Him
God blesses giving that insures the fulfilling of church-based ministry

Introduction: When tithing leads us away from God’s grace in Christ

This article is a follow-up to my earlier one titled, “Lose that You May Find”. In that writing, I explored the “dark side” of wealth, and how people, including Christians, become easily seduced into allowing wealth to become a god over our life, which Jesus called, Mammon, meaning a god (Matthew 6:24). Now within Protestantism, there has been a long held assumption propagated that the biblical prescription that decisively keeps us free from the idolatrous power of wealth, and facilitates the discipline of biblical stewardship, is the practice of tithing. This assumption is usually propagated as a Christian doctrine, which consists of the following teaching: that the Bible enjoins Christians to continue on with the Old Testament tithe, and that if they do not, they are under a curse, as presumably described in Malachi 3:10. They are under a curse because according to Malachi 3:10, the tithe belongs to God. If believers practice the tithe however, God’s blessings towards them are thus- insured. Let it here be said however, that this is a false teaching.

I will later in this essay outline a proper approach to tithing, which is nonetheless wholly antithetical to this common assumption. It is an approach which defines the practice of tithing as a practical and liturgical expression of submission to God’s lordship, within a context of voluntary acts of worship. But for now, I need to again reiterate that to define tithing as a conduit to God’s blessing and the failure to do so as a theft of God which places a believer under a curse- is a false doctrine. It is a false doctrine because this kind of reasoning itself does the opposite of what is proponents argue, for it is a reasoning that places both believers and churches under the curse of the Old Testament law. It is a reasoning which makes the practice of tithing, which can to some extent serve as a viable act of worship, a dead work- a work which leads to death (Heb 6:1; 9:14). Rather than freeing people from the “dark side” of wealth, we have in other words too often failed to acknowledge that the tithe does not free people from materialism, but instead enslaves them to a law-based spirituality. We have simply driven people to give by threatening upon them a curse from God if they don’t give, in order to expediently and pragmatically finance salaries and other congregational expenditures. But again, such a paradigm will not lead to revival. Such paradigms rather quench the Spirit and kill any hope for genuine revival.

What prompted me to enter this posting was recently listening to a evangelist argue to a congregation that their failure to tithe hinders revival. The episode also calls to mind another incident several months ago when my wife and I had visited, a very large Pentecostal church, with a setting incidentally which was quite decked out in the complete entertainment-driven ethos that is often passing for the biblical idea of praise and worship. Then came collection of tithes and offerings, wherein the speaker warned the audience that if they don’t give, God’s judgement will fall on them, just as the government’s “judgement falls on people who don’t pay their taxes (eg., Rom 13:1-2). The senior pastor never corrected this exhortation; if anything, he endorsed it. The basic root of this problem however is the same. Protestant Christians has developed a theory whereby the Old Testament tithe, along with its existence within the Old Testament covenantal framework of blessing and curse, transcends the law and is enjoined upon Christian believers. But this is precisely the problem addressed when the Scripture say, “Having started in the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (Gal 3:3) Or, “Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing works of the law or by your believing what you heard?” (Gal 3:5)

The truth is that it is precisely that kind of guilt-driven preaching and exhorting from the pulpit, which is hindering these kinds of churches from entering into revival. Vast segments of Christian believers are indeed bound into a “dead work” form of Christian faith, and experiencing a falling from grace! (Gal 5:4). We must also realise that other major Christian traditions have never held such a doctrine of the tithe, such as what we find in Roman Catholicism and in the Orthodox traditions. The practice developed early within the Protestant movement as a means of establishing a practical method for funding the newly founded Protestant churches, and it has thus continued with us ever since. Historical precedence alone, should thus alert us to the hermeneutical weaknesses which under gird the Protestant practice of tithing. I have earlier examined this issue in my article titled, “The Decline of Pentecostalism as a Revival Movement” (Part 2 of “Spirit-Baptism & the Prophetic Imagination” ). That article demonstrated how this practice has become today one example of how revival and renewal movements within Evangelicalism, particularly as evidenced through the Pentecostal movement, are now in a state of declension which are evidenced a several institutionalising trends. These are trends whereby a revival movement seeks to recapture the original spirit of a revival through the principle of “law” and thus processes of institutionalisation.

Mistaking of liturgy for stewardship in consumer oriented societies

Another problem with the Protestant approach to tithing arises from present 21st century settings indicative of high levels of affluence within consumer-driven cultures. Tithing as a privatized expression of Christian stewardship within consumer-driven cultures, presents to the believer the risk of mistaking the practice of tithing in itself, to be the full extent of biblical stewardship.[1] For many believers, tithing thus serves as a sedative rationalisation that through such a liturgical practice, one thus practices the biblical discipline of stewardship. Pertinent here are observations drawn some years ago by Thomas Alan Harvey, who argued that there is today a “paradigm shift” presently occurring regarding Christian ethics. This shift involves “a movement away from what is known as ethics of obligation to emphasis on ethics of virtue.”[2] By the ethic of obligation or duty, Harvey refers to belief in “universal rules, principles and rights which all humans are enjoined to uphold,” whereas the ethic of virtue calls for the “development of certain dispositions, character, and virtues that enable groups or individuals to achieve their true end.”[3]

Harvey warns us regarding the dangers of focusing on the cultivation of virtue apart from a corresponding concern for what he calls, the “obligation ethic.” The danger arises within highly developed economies, when a self absorbed spirituality emerges, which “bends our souls inward as we order our human existence through the satiation of our material appetites and passions.”[4] The result of this paradigm shift has been the privatizing of virtue as a privatized matter, dichotomized from the defining of virtue according to community responsibility.[5] Harvey’s observation into the continual privatization of virtue resulting from the increasing focus upon acquisition of material goods within consumer-oriented societies, also illustrates the dangers of dichotomizing the spiritual from the material in Christian faith. More specifically, the danger Harvey alludes to involves a dichotomizing of the cultic or liturgical expressions of Christian faith, from expressions of faith that touch more precisely on the material dimensions of human life. Nowhere is this often more evident than in matters regarding the managing of one’s material wealth and possessions in 21st century consumer driven societies.

Within congregational life, the holistic implications of the metaphor steward is too often subject to a “truncation of the concept,” which has limited its meaning to the ever present need of acquiring and managing “ecclesiastical monies and properties,” that “the mission of the church might be fulfilled.” Stewardship is therefore defined as “the material means by which the spiritual end (i.e., mission of the church) is achieved.”[6] This however is only a half truth if one’s understanding of stewardship fails to touch every aspect of his or her life. The truncating of biblical stewardship from its true holistic meaning is indeed another symptom of Paul’s diagnosis in Romans, concerning the human tendency to find religious satisfaction in religious ceremonies.[7] Vern Poythress, professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, vividly clarifies this subtle trap of mistaking the practice of tithing as the full extent of biblical stewardship, by drawing attention to the demonic roots of counterfeit forms of genuine spirituality: “We thought that we surrendered the lust for riches when we committed ourselves to tithing. But we only later become aware that we greedily claim the remaining nine-tenths as fully ours.”[8] To reiterate what I have thus declared at the onset of this article, we have in other words too often failed to acknowledge that the tithe does not free people from materialism, but instead enslaves them to a law-based spirituality. We have simply driven people to give threatening a curse from God over them if they don’t give, in order to expediently and pragmatically finance salaries and other congregational expenditures. Again, such paradigm will not lead to revival. Such paradigms rather quench the Spirit and kill any hope for genuine revival.

Common arguments towards tithing as an obligatory New Testament practice

1. Arguments on basis of historical precedence

Before I outline what I believe can help transform the practice of tithing into an authentic demonstration of worship to the Lord, I need to first further examine weaknesses to several arguments commonly used to set forth the conviction that the Bible enjoins tithing as a obligatory New Testament practice.[9] One modern argument for tithing argues for its injunction upon believers by virtue of its universal practice throughout the ancient Near East, and its longevity throughout church history. Written from within and for the Anglican setting, Henry Lansdell’s The Sacred Tenth was presumably one of most modern comprehensive studies undertaken prior to the 1960s, involving an exhaustive study of pagan, Jewish, and Christian literature, in an attempt to prove that the tithe is obligatory for Christian life.[10] By reference to numerous ancient Near Eastern sources, Lansdell sought to argue that apart from and before the existence of the Bible, ancient humanity recognized it “as a duty to offer a portion of his substance to his God; and that the portion so dedicated, throughout the ancient pagan and patriarchal world, was almost invariably a tenth.”[11] In a review of the book, James Rand concluded that Landsdell’s work failed however, to demonstrate how tithing could be reconciled with the dynamic of God’s grace as the key denominator in Christian life..[12]

2. Arguments on basis of Malachi 3:7-10

One source that well conceptualizes much of the common 20th century rationales for tithing is Stephen Olford’s The Grace of Giving: Messages on Stewardship.[13] Olford centers his arguments for tithing on the broad biblical themes of grace, stewardship, and worship. Olford begins his treatise on giving by saying that “giving is a grace:”[14] He then develops the theme of “giving as a grace” in chapter three of his book, through reference to the Macedonian churches’ example of giving. Olford draws attention to 2 Corinthians 8:1-2, wherein Paul wrote “we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia . . . their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality.” From this text Olford develops the idea that Christian giving is a ministry of the Holy Spirit inwrought in personal experience and outworked in practical expression.”[15]

Olford defines the idea of giving as “a grace,” to be the essence of Paul’s “doctrine of Christian stewardship.”[16] I must say that Olford’s attempt to anchor the believer’s capacity to give as a work of God’s Spirit, or as a manifestation of God’s grace present in the believer’s life, is commendable. The “operation of God’s grace” as the enablement of Christian life is certainly a key theological theme throughout the Corinthian epistles.[17] Regarding Paul’s emphasis on grace in the Corinthian epistles, Donald Guthrie observes that “In 2 Cor. 9:14, Paul significantly linked the super abundant grace of God with its production of a liberal spirit of giving in believers. . . . In no clearer way could Paul express the practical outcome of the effective operation of divine grace.”[18] T. A. Kantonen’s Theology of Christian Stewardship outlined a thorough discussion regarding the believer’s motive for giving as an expression of recognizing one’s self as God’s steward over whatever He has given to the believer.[19] Kantonen also observed that since the “keynote” of “Christ-centered theology is grace,” the capacity for effective stewardship of one’s possessions lies in “the riches of God’s grace freely bestowed upon us in Christ.”[20]

While Olford’s treatise on giving is permeated by this emphasis on the role of grace in Christian giving, his argument ironically breaks when he begins to use the principle of giving as a grace, to substantiate the practice of Christian tithing. Here his argument breaks down for essentially two reasons. First is the book’s sequence of argumentation, wherein his discussion on the role of grace of giving is undermined by a greater emphasis given to the presumed normative injunction of Malachi 3:7-10 upon Christian life. The second reason why Olford’s argument breaks down is his failure to offer any kind of discussion regarding the hermeneutical concerns of the biblical text, with reference to the nature of giving between the Old and New Testaments.[21]

Olford anchors his exposition on tithing on the classic tithing text of Malachi 3:7-15, and argues that the Malachi text has authority over how giving is to be carried out in the New Testament church.[22] Olford however, offers no exegetical examination of the text, to substantiate its presumed injunction upon New Testament Christian life. What Olford has essentially done, is to impose the Malachi text upon nearly every New Testament text concerning giving in the local church. Given the practice of New Testament writers to synthesize Old Testament texts into a midrash for use as “proof texts” in substantiating New Testament theology, I find it important to observe that neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer, makes no attempt to utilize the Malachi text when referring to matters of financial giving.

The irony of Olford’s continued reference to the “grace of giving,” is that he nonetheless tries to present tithing as an obligatory practice that the Bible enjoins upon New Testament believers.[23] In contrast to Olford’s failure to address the silence by New Testament writers on tithing when addressing the subject of giving, Kantonen has presented an excellent discussion regarding the incompatibility of approaching tithing as an obligatory practice enjoined upon believers, with the emphasis given by Paul to the New Testament concept of grace. In theory, the experience of grace challenges believers to give according to their personal growth in moral reasoning, recognizing one’s role before God as a steward of God’s resources, rather than from a motive of maintaining or gaining God’s favor, which one should already be certain of, by sheer virtue of knowing in experience the grace of God through Christ.[24] Kantonen writes: “our stewardship does not originate with what we do for God but in a response to what God does for us.”[25] “A stewardship that does not originate in the response of faith to the grace of God is not Christian stewardship.”[26]

Concerning Olford’s exposition on Malachi 3:7-15, it should be noted that his concern is not to develop a biblical theology of giving. Olford rather developed his book more as a homiletical exhortation, regarding the believer’s responsibility as a steward. Furthermore, Olford largely evaluated one’s faithfulness to God as a steward, according to one’s consistency in the practice of tithing. The greater problem which Olford’s book raises however, is that the more homiletically brilliant a preacher is, the more influence he or she can have regarding Christian faith and practice, especially if his or her life possess the credibility to substantiate one’s teaching. Olford certainly has the credibility in character and experience. However, brilliance in the pulpit or by writing is certainly not evidence of correct theology.

Why tithing is not an obligatory practice for Christian life

If we truly ascribe validity to the confirmations of biblical scholarship, we must acknowledge that there is virtually no supporting evidence from the New Testament that confirms the practice of tithing as an obligatory discipline for Christian life.[27] Regarding this observation, there are three conclusions possessing nearly universal consensus between both Bible exegetes and early church historians. First, there is in the New Testament virtually no evidence that tithing was carried over from Judaism.[28] In his study on Tithing in the Early Church, Vischer suggests that one crucial reason why Jesus and the early church leadership did not set forth tithing as a normative Christian practice, is because of Jesus’ concern regarding the believer’s trust in either God or one’s material possessions (Matt. 6:24). On this account, tithing as a mandatory institution “often leads to the false conclusion that “the problem of Mammon has been met and conquered,” which is simply “not the case.”[29] Second, early church literature seems to indicate that the conviction within the early church, was that the Gospel encourages a willingness to give far beyond that suggested by the tithe.[30]

Finally, both Jesus and Paul extended the Old Testament themes of stewardship, God’s kingship, and covenant relationship with God into a very comprehensive theology of stewardship, which far transcended the tithe concept, touching not just upon the believer’s finances and possessions, but every aspect of one’s life in Christ.[31] It was the conviction of early church fathers (eg., Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom) that Christian giving and stewardship virtually transcends any need or attempt to anchor giving upon the Old Testament practice of the ceremonial practice of tithing. Irenaeus for instance, preached that the Jews “had indeed the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him, but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely” (haer. 4:18 in ANF 1:485). These early church fathers thus consistently preached through their homilies, that the principle of New Testament giving transcends and cannot be built upon the Old Testament practice of tithing.[32]

The Melchizedek Narrative (Gen 15) as a helpful paradigm for Christian tithing

While we must conclude that there is virtually no support from Scripture to support tithing as an obligatory New Testament practice, I believe that there are existing paradigms, which can transform tithing into an authentic act of Christian worship and a helpful start towards nurturing a spirituality that reflects biblical ideas of stewardship. We can find a true validity for tithing when we approach its practice not as an obligatory aspect of Christian spirituality, nor as a primary fulfillment of Christian stewardship, but as a voluntary act of worship within the context of a biblical theology of worship. Such an approach to tithing will then also transform tithing into a practical that more realistically and authentically reflects a biblical theology of stewardship.

Furthermore, I believe that the Melchizedek narrative (Gen. 15:18-20), which introduces the first reference in the Bible to the concept of the tithe, can provide a most helpful orientation towards approaching tithing as an act of worship. I will therefore present this paradigm for tithing with the assumption that such a model can effectively anchor the practice of tithing within the broader scope and nature of biblical stewardship theology. Such a paradigm for tithing may thus place the motive for tithing within a framework that minimizes the false notion that the practice of tithing is the fulfilling of one’s role as a steward in the economy of God. Such a paradigm also removes tithing from the false law-based assumption that tithing must be observed in order to avoid incurring a curse.

To reiterate, while we must acknowledge that although the New Testament does not affirm tithing as an obligatory practice, tithing can nonetheless have a viable role in Christian stewardship if approached not as primary fulfillment of Christian stewardship, but as a voluntary act of worship within the context of a biblical and historical theology of worship. Helpful here are some observations drawn from Old Testament scholar, Claus Westermann, with reference to the Melchizedek narrative (Gen. 15:18-20), which provides us the first mention of tithing in the Old Testament. [33]

Westermann’s suggestion that the Melchizedek narrative (Gen. 15:18-20) was presented in Genesis as a paradigm for approaching the practice of tithing from the motive of worshipful acknowledgement of God’s sovereign reign over the worshiper’s life, provides a most helpful framework for anchoring the practice of tithing within the broader scope and nature of biblical stewardship theology. While the Mechizedek narrative can be a helpful text for deriving some helpful paradigms for transforming tithing from a law-based paradigm to a more grace-based paradigm, much of the material presented here will appear highly technical. This factor alone should further reinforce how dubious it actually is however, to construe from Scripture that tithing is an obligatory New Testament practice.

It seems helpful to first precipitate discussion on the Melchizedek narrative with a brief survey concerning the meaning of the tithe within its ancient Near Eastern setting. The Hebrew term for “tithe (masêr) means “ten” or a “tenth;” the verbal form means, “to give or take the tenth of.”[34] There seems to be widespread observance that the concept of tithing was not an indigenous Hebraic practice; rather, it was an ancient and widespread practice throughout the ancient Near Eastern world, among both Semitic and non-Semitic peoples; there is more than sufficient evidence of the practice in ancient Phoenicia, Tyre, Babylon, southern Arabia, and in ancient Greece and Rome.[35] There is also reference in ancient Chinese literature (such as in the Confucian Analects,) to tithe on the harvest that is collected annually.[36]

Many Bible dictionaries survey the ancient origins of tithing as strictly a religious practice.[37] The ancient prevalence of tithing in the ancient Near East however, indicates a more secularized origin, utilized as a means of taxation or tribute collection, wherein a king levied a tithe upon a vassal king or people.[38] The purpose for tithing was therefore anchored in acknowledging a king’s sovereignty over a people or land. Such a practice is demonstrated not only in ancient Near Eastern sources such as the Ugarit, but in the biblical account of kingship practices in I Samuel 8:15, 17, which was not in any way a reflection of the annual tithing system for religious purposes in Israel.[39]

Westermann proposed that with the centralizing of the Yahweh cultus in Jerusalem during the emergence of the Davidic monarchy, the Melchizedek narrative (Gen. 15:18-20) is presented in Genesis as a paradigm for presenting the seminal purpose of tithing as a means of acknowledging God’s sovereignty as king over his vassals, being the people of God. From this thesis, Westermann’s identification of the three-fold blessing, vow, and tithe motif linking the narratives of the Abrahamic-Melchizedek story and Jacob’s vow at Bethel, provide a helpful paradigm for retrieving credible motivations congruent with a sound of theology of biblical stewardship, for the practice of tithing.

Westermann suggests that the major purpose of the patriarchal stories in Genesis 12-50 is to set forth the patriarchs as paradigms that later Hebrew generations can imitate concerning the implications of Hebraic faith upon human life. The call to imitation was based on the premise that Abraham is “the father” of all succeeding generations of Hebrew ancestry.[40] This personal identification of paternal relationship with Abraham as one’s ancestral father thus prompted Jesus’ contemporaries to say, “Abraham is our father” (John 8:30); it was this same concept that prompted Paul to claim that by virtue of one’s faith in Christ, the Gentile believer also has Abraham as his or her father (Rom. 4:9).[41] This concept of ancestral relationship with the patriarchs, is further rooted in the Eastern paradigm that one’s personal existence exists only in relation to one’s community and ancestors. The purpose of the patriarchal stories then is that by recalling their life stories, their descendants may discover their identity in the story itself.[42]

2. Exegetical analysis of the Melchizedek Narrative

The entire chapter narrates an event concerning a coalition of four Canaanite kings who rebel again the ruler of Elam (Gen. 14:1-9). After invading the Canaanite towns, the Elam armies take Lot and his family as prisoners (Gen. 14:10-12). After receiving this news, Abraham and his household defeat the Elamite warriors, rescue the captives, and retrieve the Canaanite loot (Gen. 14:13-16). The narrative then recalls how because of Abraham’s victory, Melchizedek’s bestows a blessing upon him, for which Abraham responds by giving him a tithe. (Gen. 14:18-20).[43] As shown earlier, the Melchizedek story disrupts the chapter’s greater’ focus on the battle of the Canaanite kings (Gen. 14 1-17 and 21-24); indeed, verses 21-24 would better fit in after verse 17.[44]

The Melchizedek story (Gen. 14:18-20) actually interrupts the preceding narrative concerning Abraham’s battle with the Canaanite kings.[45] Together however, the two stories compose a single narrative unit within the larger Abrahamic narrative.[46] Such a critical approach need not deny the historicity of the actual event however; Jewish midrash allows for synthesizing of various traditions into a single narrative, in order to convey the theological intent of a given narrative.[47] If we approach the text from a critical perspective, one can discern three distinct units within Genesis 14: Part A- report of the Canaanite campaign (vv. 1-11/12); Part B- liberation narrative (vv. 12-17, 21-24), and Part C- the Melchizedek story (vv. 18-20). Distinctions can be shown in the text by how part C breaks the continuity of parts A and B.

George W. Coats suggests another structure to the chapter, which divides it into two parts. Part one is designated as a “report of a battle and its consequences” (vv. 1-17). The second part combines the Melchizedek story (vv. 18-20) with Westermann’s “part B ” (vv. 21-24) reference to the “liberation narrative (vv. 12-17, 21-24), as “an account of disposition for spoil taken in the battle.”[48] Coates concludes from this structure, that the second part (vv. 18-24) shifts the narrative’s focus completely away from the concern of Lot to solely on how the spoils of war should be divided between Abraham and his allies.

The concern of chapter 14 then, focuses on Abraham’s understanding regarding the source of his victory in battle, and more importantly, the source of his acquired wealth. This observation is shown by how the Sodomite king offered Abraham full claim to the spoil in exchange for all prisoners of war, of whom the king would have subject to slavery.[49] Had Abraham agreed to the exchange, the Sodomite king could have laid claim to be the source to Abraham’s newly acquired wealth- which Abraham would have acquired had he agreed to the Sodomite king’s generous offer.[50] Instead, Abraham offered his tithe from the spoil to Melchizedek as a means of acknowledging God as the source of his battle victory. J. Gerald Janzen suggests that Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was perhaps an expressed “vow of giving up all personal claim of possession over the people and spoils he just rescued, and rather acknowledging that the victory was by God’s intervention alone.[51]

It can further be observed that the event of Abraham’s vow in v. 22 relates to Jacob’s use of tithe as a means of making a vow to God in Genesis 28:22.[52] For the Hebrew, vows to God were understood as acts of worship whereby the one making the vow promised to give God something in response to answered prayer. An example would be Hannah’s offering up of Samuel to God (1 Sam. 10-28); here in Genesis 28:22, what Jacob vows to God is a tithe, as an act of worship and an expression of faith God’s future continued care and intervention in his life. More importantly, the vow to tithe all future income was an expression by Jacob to place his life under the sovereignty of God’s kingship.[53] When Jacob committed himself to tithing, he did so with the expressed “awareness of the source of his provisions-’of everything you give to me,’” referring to God’s promise to him concerning the land (Gen. 28:13) and the provisions of food and clothing Jacob acquired during his preceding journey (Gen. 28:20).[54]

3. Possible grounds for using the Melchizedek Narrative as a correct Old Testament paradigm for tithing

Concerning this article’s thesis, Westermann proposes that the author’s placement of the Melchizedek narrative after Abraham’s battle with the Canaanite kings (Gen. 15:12-16) had a deliberate cultic motive reflecting need to legitimizing the cultic tradition of tithing, beginning with the centralizing of the religious cultus in Jerusalem.[55] This thesis may explain the story’s link with the city of Jerusalem, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the patriarchal stories. The scene concerning Abraham and Melchizedek “consists of an exchange,” wherein Melchizedek performs a blessing upon Abraham (v. 18), and Abraham responds by acknowledging the “priestly dignity of Melchizedek” by giving him the tithe. The tradition behind the Melchizedek narrative is therefore the cultic exchange of “blessing by the priest and the giving of the tithe.”[56]

Reasons for the need to legitimize cultic traditions such as tithing, may have developed from the sociological and economic transitions that transpired with the emergence of the Hebrew people as a nation-state beginning with the Davidic era. The patriarchal form of society centered largely on the “family unit” as a self-contain political, economic, cultural, and religious community, living according to a nomadic lifestyle.[57] The need during the patriarchal era, for a centralized system of worship was therefore neither needful nor appropriate as a religious institution. The concept of a “sacred place” could be ascribed to any tree, rock, or hill could be temporarily deemed a “sacred” spot for Yahweh worship. The large-scale cultus was a necessary component for the Hebrew faith, given the sedentary lifestyle of the Hebrews beginning with the judges period, which climaxed with the emergence of the Davidic monarchy.[58]

4. The tithe as homage to the king’s sovereignty

There is one error I find to Westermann’s hypothesis. By construing that Abraham’s tithe was a response to the “priestly dignity of Melchizedek,” Westermann has failed to appreciate the earlier ancient Near Eastern covenantal purpose of tithing involving vassal homage to a king’s sovereignty. Nonetheless, Westermann’s treatment of the exchange of blessing and tithe between Melchizedek and Abraham, provides an intriguing examination within the Hebrew setting into how the tithe was intended not only as a means of acknowledging a king’s sovereignty, but to express worship and thanksgiving to God in response to receiving his blessing. Note that Melchizedek is first to acknowledge that Abraham’s victory was entirely the work of God.[59] Melchizedek’s blessing is set in a poetic rhythm (Gen. 14:19) emphasizing Abraham’s receiving of God’s blessing through Melchizedek’s action of both worship towards God and blessing upon Abraham, for which he gives a tithe as means of “acknowledging the blessing.” (Paralleling Jacob’s motive for vowing a tithe to God in Gen. 28:22)[60]

It would seem most probable though, that the political usage of tithing naturally carried over into religious purposes, since in ancient cultures kings were considered divinely authorized representatives of deities, and deities were considered to be divine monarchs.[61] Throughout the ancient Near East, tithes were collected for the maintenance and upkeep of religious institutions and buildings, even as they are today.[62] The Melchizedek narrative thus presents a common portrayal of God, which is a theology of divine kingship. As Walter Brueggemann correctly indicates, Israel’s “preferred mode of theological discourse [about Yahweh] is political.”[63]

Stewardship is ultimately anchored in the kingship of God

With regards to the political nature of God’s relation to both humanity and all creation, Vischer has herein overlooked an important emphasis in Old Testament biblical theology, with reference to his correct argument against tithing as a normative New Testament practice. In order to demonstrate why tithing is not a New Testament normative, Vischer stressed how the Old Testament tithe had more the “character of a tribute payment” rather than the character of a sacrifice given in worship.[64] From this observation, Vischer concluded that the Old Testament tithe lacked the dynamic of worship because of its eventual transformation “from a harvest sacrifice into a mere tax payable to the priests and Levites,” thus becoming a “form of cultic tax.”[65] But what Vischer failed to remember is that it is this political setting of the tithe, that in fact permeates the whole scope of biblical theology with reference to it’s portrayal of God. The spiritual significance of the tithe was therefore in no way diminished by virtue of its transformation into a cultic tax.

It is via the setting of political metaphor that the Bible sets forth a theology of stewardship altogether, with the human being set upon the earth as a steward of God’s royal authority over creation, while God is the one Sovereign over all creation (Gen. 1:26-27; Ps. 8:3-9).[66] It is the political kingship of God, though on a cosmic scale, that ultimately anchors the whole concept of biblical stewardship. The concept of stewardship begins with the placement of humanity upon the earth, entrusted with a “delegated authority,” to “have dominion over the earth, “and so humanity is entrusted with the responsibility “to fill, subdue, have dominion, till, and name.”[67] The creation which humanity is entrusted to manage belongs to God for He is the Sovereign owner of creation: “The world and all that is in it is mine.” (Ps. 50:10).[68] Kantonen therefore rightly concludes it is the “eternal sovereignty of God over all existence” that is the essential “keynote of the theology of stewardship.”[69] The New Testament concept of Christian stewardship is therefore founded upon the Old Testament portrayal of humanity bearing the likeness of God in the garden of Eden, as God’s steward over creation.[70]

Closing reflections

1. As an voluntary act of worship, tithing can remind us we are stewards of all that God gives us

The climax to this article is that the Melchizedek narrative provides a helpful orientation towards approaching tithing as an act of worship. Westermann’s suggestion that the Melchizedek narrative was inserted into the Genesis as a paradigm for approaching the practice of tithing from the motive of worshipful acknowledgement of God’s sovereign reign over the worshiper’s life validates this paper’s thesis. Perhaps the motives for utilizing the Melchizedek as a paradigm for approaching the tithe from as acknowledgement to the sovereignty of God, indicates that just as in our contemporary setting, the ancient Hebrew people also fell prone to the tendency to mistake the tithe for the broader essence of true stewardship.

Prior to the Davidic monarchy, the children of Israel were largely a loose collection of tribal peasants, with no centralized form of government. From an economic perspective, the pre-monarchal Hebrews were to obliged “to trust in God as their sovereign in the suzerain-vassal relationship of their covenant treaty” that was secured in the Sinai desert.[71] With the transition into an economically prosperous kingdom, and with resultant class distinctions, the Hebrews were prone to forget how all they possessed was entrusted to them by virtue of their suzerain/vassal relationship with Yahweh.[72] The Melchizedek narrative as a paradigm for tithing may therefore help to effectively anchor the practice of tithing within the broader scope and nature of biblical stewardship theology. Such a paradigm for tithing can thus place the motive for tithing within a framework that minimizes the false notion that the practice of tithing is the fulfilling of one’s role as a steward in the economy of God.

The Old Testament tithe ultimately signified how a human being is God’s vassal upon the earth, just as a the tithe of a vassal to a king in the ancient Near East, signified such a king’s sovereignty over the land. The implication concerning tithing today, is that the tithe can serve the believer as a reminder of God’s sovereignty over every aspect of our lives. If we assume that the law of the first fruits more or less derived from the concept of tithing, we can then consider how tithing can facilitate a correct approach to stewardship, if one does not fall into the trap of mistaking the practice of tithing for the entire scope of Christian stewardship. Or even worse, assumes that tithing must be practiced in order to avoid a curse from God, and thus blessing through tithing. When tithing is approached as an obligatory practice in order to ensure blessing and safeguard one from God’s judgment, one is giving not in the spirit of grace, but rather in the spirit of works. And in this manner, tithing is in fact nothing but a dead work; a work which does not produce life but only death (Heb 6:1; 9:14).

2. What God blesses is not tithing, but our giving to Him

When tithing however is voluntary practiced as an act of worship, signifying one’s submission to God’s Lordship, only then can one draw upon such educative texts, which call us to reflect upon God’s care over our lives. According to the Old Testament texts, the setting aside of the first fruits or first born served an educative function for the Hebrew people: “When a member of the younger generation asked about the meaning of this ordinance, the father could provide a clear answer . . . to God’s total dominion” over every aspect of their lives (Ex. 13:11f; Deut. 6:20f.; 26:5f.).[73] From this perspective, “Tithing gives us perspective,” in that it “reminds us that all we are and all we have is from . . . the Lord.”[74] Moreover, only in this voluntary spirit can one actually believe that God will bless and will pour out blessings upon one’s life, because God does indeed bless acts of worship and sacrificial giving. This is of course exactly the point that Paul argues in 2 Corinthians 9:6-12, particularly in verse eight: “And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.”

3. God blesses giving that insures the fulfilling of church-based ministry

The apparent and very real problem of acknowledging the truth that the Old Testament tithe cannot be substantiated as an obligatory aspect of New Testament Christian spirituality, is that such a reality thus seems to jeopardise the financial base of church-based ministry. The truth is that yes, such a realisation- from the standpoint of human responsibility, response, and involvement, can potentially jeopardise the financial base of church-based ministry, which includes not only the material costs of ministry, but the livelihood of all paid staff or clergy employed through a church ministry. It is for this reason therefore, that Christian leaders commonly propagate a presumed obligatory tithe in Christian life, particularly through strong warnings of incurring a curse of God’s judgment or limitation of His protective favour, should Christians fail to tithe. I have already at the onset of this discussion highlighted how this kind of reasoning actually degenerates Christian spirituality into a law-based spirituality that borders on a shifting of faith in Christ to a faith in works of law.

What we now need to understand, is that the New Testament documents, particularly as demonstrated in Paul’s letters do address this potential problem, but in a manner radically different from the common attempt to persuade believers to tithe or give through warning them that failure to do so would incur a curse as allegedly forewarned in Malachi 3:10. To understand the New Testament motive for adequately supporting church-based ministry, several observations need to be made. First is to recognise that the explicit practical purpose of the Old Testament tithe was on one hand to adequately finance the Levitical priesthood (eg., Deut 14:27), and on the other to materially provide for landless sojourners, orphans, and widows (Deut 14:28-29; 26:12). On a very practical level, it is thus for these reasons that the Law of Moses enjoins the worshipper to tithe only that which is wholesome and not defected (Lev 27:30-33).

The tithe was therefore actually a means of affirming and assuring the dignity, worth, and proper material well-being of all those for whom the tithes are designated for, meaning all those who comprise the priest-hood and the poor and landless in the land. It is thus in this context that the prophetic rebuke provided in Malachi 3:10 must be properly interpreted and understood. Within the covenantal framework of life lived under the Law of Moses, the curse incurred from the failure to tithe, results from a failure to provide for those people who depend on the tithe for their very existence. The curse described in Malachi 3:10 thus arises from God’s preferential concern towards the poor and landless, which is earlier expresses in Exodus 22:21-29; Deuteronomy 14:27-29. What these text demonstrate is that within the covenantal framework of Old Testament Israel, God’s blessing upon His people is contingent to how the landless priests and the landless in the land, are adequately provided for, which was to be ensured through the practice of tithing. Failure to do so, is to “rob” God (Malachi 3:8). It “robs” God, because He listens to the “cry” of the “poor” when the people fail to adequately provide for their well-being. On the other hand, the prophet exhorts throughout Malachi 3:8-15, that God will amply bless His people as they continue to provide for the landless, even in times of crop failure, natural disaster and economic downturn.

What is important to note here is that fulfilling the social purpose of the tithe, as part of the Mosaic law in its cultic, cultural and ceremonial entirety, was a mandatory obligation under the Mosaic law. It was mandatory because its practice was written into the very terms which Israel was bound to to keep within their covenantal relationship to God as their Sovereign Lord. And so it is precisely here that we come to terms with much of what it means to live under grace that is given to us in Christ and not under the Mosaic Law. Under the Mosaic Law- the Old Covenant, God inculcated a moral way of life through the principle of coercive legislation. Under the New Covenant however, which we enter into through Christ, God inculcates us towards a moral way of live through the principle moral persuasion, through the appealing to our conscience which is being sanctified through the writing of His law upon our hearts (Hebrews 9:10-13).

It is therefore through the principle not of coercion, but of moral persuasion, that Paul for instance, seeks to inculcate the Corinthians to give in a manner that would ensure varied church-based ministry expenditures are adequately met and financed (2 Corinthians 8:8-15). This is why Paul says quite plainly, “Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 8:7). When believers therefore develop disciplines that generously endow the financial needs of church-based ministry, Paul thus argues that God will indeed amply bless believers, even through means and signs of material wealth (2 Cor 9:10-15). This alone is the kind of giving that leads to a “harvest of righteousness,” or what Paul elsewhere calls, a “supply” of His Spirit (Galatians 3:5)!

Monte Lee Rice (© Copyright January 2009)

Notes

[1] Clarence L. Lee, “Introduction,” in Tithing in the Early Church, Lukas Vischer, trans. by Robert C. Schultz, Historical Series, ed. Clarence L. Lee (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966). Though quite outdated, Vischer’s brief coverage of the biblical data regarding the tithe provides a concise yet credible discussion regarding contemporary misunderstandings towards the tithe and regarding proper motives towards giving.

[2]Thomas Alan Harvey, “Carnality, Concupiscence and the Common Good: The Problem of Corruption in an Age of Concupiscence Consumption,” Trinity Theological Journal 7 (1998): 91-102.

[3] Harvey, “Carnality, Concupiscence and the Common Good,” 92.

[4] Harvey, “Carnality, Concupiscence and the Common Good,” 98.

[5] Harvey, “Carnality, Concupiscence and the Common Good,” 98-102.

[6] Douglas John Hall, The Steward: A Biblical Symbol Come of Age rev. ed. (New York, NY: Friendship Press; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 12.

[7] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans-Part VI: Rite Versus Righteousness,” Biblio Theca Sacra 130, no. 18 (April 1973): 162.

[8] Vern S. Poythress, “Counterfeiting in the Book of Revelation as a Perspective on Non-Christian Culture,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 3 (September 1997): 415.

[9] It is ironic however, that few contemporary theological works have been written on the subject of tithing; in fact, literature is hard to come by concerning the subject of stewardship theology altogether. Much of the available literature is quite outdated and seems to reflect quite an intense interest in the subject of stewardship during the 1950s, especially in Europe. Nonetheless, a few arguments can be discerned supporting the practice of tithing. Helge Brattgard, God’s Stewards: A Theological Study of the Principles and Practices of Stewardship, trans. by Gene J. Lund (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963). Brattgard provides an intriguing discussion into the historical interest in tithing during the 1950’s era, especially with reference to its discussion within the state sponsored European churches.

[10] James F. Rand, “Review of The Sacred Tenth by Henry Lansdell,” Biblio Theca Sacra 113, no. 451 (July-September 1956): 282-283.

[11] Rand, “Review of The Sacred Tenth by Henry Lansdell,” Biblio Theca Sacra, 283.

[12] Rand, “Review of The Sacred Tenth by Henry Lansdell,” Biblio Theca Sacra, 283.

[13] Stephen Olford, The Grace of Giving (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1972).

[14] Olford, The Grace of Giving, 15.

[15] Olford, The Grace of Giving, 41.

[16] Olford, The Grace of Giving, 42.

[17] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 621.

[18] Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 621.

[19] T. A. Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press, 1956), 81-97.

[20] Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship, 8-9.

[21] Another prime example of the tendency of the evangelical tendency to gloss over the New Testament’s silence on tithing is: Randy C. Alcorn, Money, Possessions, and Eternity (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1989), 206-224.

[22] Olford, The Grace of Giving, 15, 23-24.

[23] Olford, The Grace of Giving, 27-29.

[24] Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship, 22, 24-25, 55, 65, 91.

[25] Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship, 55.

[26] Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship, 91.

[27] Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 9-11; Kantonen, A Theology of Christian Stewardship, 20-22, 24.

[28] David C. Norrington, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church Compared with those Used in English Churches Today,” Evangelical Quarterly 70, No. 2 (1998): 124. Norrington point out the probability however, that tithing may have certainly been carried over within Jewish sectors of the early Church.

[29] Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 10.

[30] Norrignton, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church,” Evangelical Quarterly, 118-123; Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 113-16; Both Norrington (129) and Vischer observe however, that tithing was eventually laid down, once the church became more stabilized, thus creating opportunity for the construction of churches and the financing of a full-time professional clergy; 17-20, 25-30.

[31] Kantonen, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church,” Evangelical Quarterly, 43-49; Richard B. Cunningham, Creative Stewardship, Creative Leadership Series, ed. Lyle E. Schaller ((Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,1979), 17-27.

[32] Christian Wilson, “Tithe,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York, NY: Doubleday, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1992).

[33] I also believe that this thesis is confirmed by Claus Westermann’s suggestion that the Melchizedek narrative (Gen. 15:18-20) was presented in Genesis as a paradigm of approaching the practice of tithing from the motive of worshipful acknowledgement of God’s sovereign reign over the worshiper’s life. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, trans. by John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MI: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 24-27.

[34] H. H. Guthrie, Jr., “Tithe,” In Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible.

[35] A. S. Peake, “Tithe,” In Dictionary of the Bible; G. F. M., “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia Biblica; J. A. MacCulloch, “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. There is some historical extra-biblical evidence supporting the thesis that at times the offering of the first fruits is in fact referring to the practice of tithing. It was a common practice in the ancient Near East- in fact, around the world, to set apart a portion of the new harvest; whenever a settlement was built or new land acquired, it was concerned in order to leave a portion of the land to the old divinity. Since it could not be assumed that such a portion was always the same fraction of the whole, the idea of a tenth, which reflects the Arabic decimal numeration, was found to be a convenient means of setting apart a portion of land, goods, or harvest. W. H. D. Rouse, “Tithes (Greek),” In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[36] MacCulloch, “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[37] Guthrie, Jr., “Tithe,” In Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible; J. Christian Wilson, “Tithe,” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

[38] G. F. Moore, “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia Biblica; MacCulloch, “Tithes,” In Enclyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[39] Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (New York, NY: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 110.

[40] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 24-27.

[41] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 27.

[42] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 28.

[43] Sarna, Understanding Genesis, The World of the Bible in the light of History New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1995), 110-111.

[44] Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 116.

[45] Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 116.

[46] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 190.

[47] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 188, 190.

[48] George W. Coats, Genesis, With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, eds. Rolf Knierm and Gene M. Tucker, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), 118-119.

[49] Coats, Genesis, With an Introduction to Narrative Literature, 120.

[50] Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 116.

[51] J. Gerald Janzen, Genesis 12-50: Abraham and All the Families of the Earth. International Theological Commentary, eds. Carlson Holmgren and George A. F. Knight (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 33.

[52] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 206, 460.

[53] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, vol. 2, Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994), 224-226.

[54] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, eds. R. K. Harrison, Robert L. Hubbard (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 249.

[55] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 203-206.

[56] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 206.

[57] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 79-80.

[58] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 110-111.

[59] Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 116.

[60] Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, 205-206.

[61] MacCulloch, “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[62] MacCulloch, “Tithes,” In Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[63] Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, MI: Augsburg Fortress, 1997), 238.

[64] Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 2.

[65] Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 4.

[66] Cunningham, Creative Stewardship, 39-40; Kantonen, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church,” Evangelical Quarterly, 33, 35.

[67] Cunningham, Creative Stewardship, 39-40.

[68] Kantonen, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church,” Evangelical Quarterly, 33.

[69] Kantonen, “Fund-Raising: The Methods Used in the Early Church,” Evangelical Quarterly, 45.

[70] Brattgard, God’s Stewards, 69.

[71] Craig L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 69.

[72] Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches, 69.

[73] Brattgard, God’s Stewards, 85.

[74] Alcorn, Money, Possessions, and Eternity, 211.

Posted in Archives, Bible, Christian life / Spirituality, Church, Community, New postings, Theology Tagged: Christian life & ministry, Discipleship, Economy, Financial meltdown, Giving, Grace, Institutionalism, Possessions, Revival, Stewardship, Tithing, Wealth, Worship

When God fills a barren womb

perichorus — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:34:48 +0000

“‘You will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you . . . And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son . . . for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.’ Then Mary said, ‘Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.’” (Luke chapter 2)

Hear the angel’s word: “Mary . . . you have found favour with God. . . . you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” The virgin Mary conceived. The life of Jesus came incarnate within the darkness of her womb; into the “darkness of human impossibility!” Scripture is full of stories, where God opens closed wombs. Only God brings life to closed wombs. And a woman’s womb reminds us that in the darkness of human desolation, God gives life (Ps 139:13). It is the miracle of Genesis, of creation, of new beginnings in Jesus Christ. And so for us, a pattern was established. Mary became a model disciple of the Lord. And she anticipated this; spilling forth the Magnificant, “My soul magnifies the Lord . . . for . . . surely from now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has ‘magnified’ me!”

There are times in the human situation that a “womb” is closed. But down through the epochs of Scripture, God “opens wombs.” There are times when God shows up. . . a serendipity surprises us! And life is born in the “darkness of human impossibility!” Are you troubled with a “closed womb?” I can’t offer you a three step plan. Yet still, three observations do come to mind.

First, “in the fullness of time,” God opened Mary’s womb. That kairos moment was in the sixth month after God also opened Elisabeth’s womb, previously barren in her old age. God has His time.

But second, where are you in God’s timing? Mary was in a village, in the outback of the Judean desert. They used to say, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Mary had no network. There were surely days that she and Joseph could not even afford a net, a fishing net. They were flat broke! But God sent His angel to the village . . . and the angel said, “Greetings favoured one! The Lord is with you!” Mary did have a network after all, a friend in high places- the highest place! Mary knew God. Are you trapped by circumstances with no exit sign? In prison, Joseph had no network. But Joseph knew God. In the Judean hills David had no network. But he knew God. Moses had a network; then he lost it. But in the desert he found God. Job had a network; but it was taken from him. Yet Job found God. “Come,” he says, “and I will teach you about the hand of God.” Paul too lost his network. But in the desert, he too found God.

In the desert, Mary knew God. No doubt all these people wondered about God. No doubt they wondered if they knew God. But in the silence of the “womb” of human impossibility, they learned God. And all these people were “highly favoured” by the Lord. But the truth is, if you are in Christ, you also are “highly favoured.” You are “beloved of the Lord!” People may forget you, but God remembers you. He knows where you are. He knows how you are. God knows your name, and He knows your number. And God has His timing.

Finally, Mary opened herself to the fullness of God: Are you open to the timing of God? Are you open to the fullness of God? At first Mary tried to reason it all out. She asked the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” Mary knew she had no relations yet with Joseph. Mary is just like the rest of us, walking around the altar with this little “scientist” in us, trying to figure out God with our little mental “microscopes.” Now Mary was also just a little teenage kampong girl. She probably didn’t even know how to read or write. She learned the Scriptures by hearing and singing! But the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you . . . For nothing is impossible with God.” Somehow, perhaps because Mary was in the desert was learning God, she received the word of the Lord. And she opened herself up to the Spirit of God, and the word of the Lord. “I am the servant of the Lord,” she cried out, “let it be to me according to your word.”

Someone asked a historian if he could briefly summarise the lessons of history. He said he could, in four sentences. Here is his last sentence: “When it is dark enough, you can see the stars.” Time now for a worn cliché: “Let go and let God.” There you are. A barren womb. The despair of human impossibility. You have been there and done that. Yet God can speak a word to you, a word that brings seed and life to your “womb of human impossibility.” But can you make this one hard confession? “I let go. God, I let you . . . Be merciful to me, a sinner.” Good news! God favours underdogs. He came to one, as one Himself.

So Mary sang, “He has filled the hungry with good things, but has sent the rich away empty.” Some of you know about Evensong. Let me close on the MorningSong: “Be it unto me . . . according to your Word; and there shall be a performance . . . of that which was spoken; for nothing is impossible with God.”

” . . . when Babylon’s seventy years are completed I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise . . . For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. . . . When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29)

Monte Lee Rice (© Copyright December 2008)

Posted in Archives, Holy Spirit, New postings, Pentecostal ethos, Reflections Tagged: Adent, Barren wombs, Christmas, Desolation, Holy Spirit, Hope, Prayer

Lose That You May Find

perichorus — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:46:12 +0000

Click here for a pdf version of this essay.

A version of this article can also be found at The Christian Post – Singapore Edition.

Lose that You may Find

1. Reflections on money, sex and power

2. The light side of wealth

3. The dark side of wealth

4. The paradox of wealth

5. The snare of wealth

6. Embracing the “riches to rags” story of Jesus Christ

7. Finding through losing

8. Weaknesses of the success-themed gospel

9. Contrasts between cheap and costly grace

10. The river of God’s grace

“O come O come Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel, that mourns in lonely exile here, Until the Son of God appear. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.”

“You are a Christian only so long as you constantly pose critical questions to the society you live in . . . so long as you stay unsatisfied with the status quo and keep saying a new world is yet to come.” – Henry Nouwen

1. Reflections on money, sex and power

I recently purchased a second-hand copy of Richard Foster’s book, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex & Power.[1] First published in 1985, Foster’s work was originally titled as, Money, Sex & Power. The original title conveys a rather provocative, “in your face” tone. The revised title however, better links Foster’s text to the greater theme of his life’s work and message. Foster sought to help Evangelicals appreciate the enduring relevancy of historically enduring spiritual disciplines found within and across the greater Christian Tradition. The broader concern of Foster’s text is Christian ethics; how Christians should develop and make ethical or moral choices, regarding issues of money, sex and power. Foster is not suggesting that money, sex and power are inherently evil. On the contrary! Foster is rather warning us that this is a triad of social arenas that are polluted and enslaved by very real “principalities and powers” (e.g. Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 1:16); powers such as greed, lust, and pride.

Foster begins by describing the inseparable links between money, sex, and power. In their unredeemed state, “Money manifests itself as power. Sex is used to acquire both money and power. And power is often called ‘the best aphrodisiac.”[2] Each of these issues profoundly affects the social or institutional as well as the private realms of human life. Money primarily relates to the “business” sector, meaning the task of producing goods and services that may either bless or oppress humankind. But in the world, the predominant human posture towards money is dominated by greed and self-indulgence. Sex relates foremost to “marriage,” and thus has the power to either facilitate “the deepest possible intimacy or the greatest possible alienation” amongst humans. Again, the human posture towards sex is driven primarily by the passions of lust and exploitation. The issue of power foremost works through the arena of human government. By government, Foster means “the enterprise of human organization that can lead toward either liberty or tyranny.”[3] Throughout history, this triad of money, sex, and power has always occupied a central concern in Christian ethics. And as Foster notes, spiritual revivals have usually been accompanied by clear, bold responses to the social fallouts of wrong postures towards money, sex and power.[4]

What prompted me to enter this posting was how Foster begins his “Epilogue” with Henri Nouwen’s admonishment: “You are a Christian only so long as you constantly pose critical questions to the society you live in . . . so long as you stay unsatisfied with the status quo and keep saying a new world is yet come.” I’ve only given a quick scanning of Foster’s book thus far. But I’ve concluded that Foster’s message remains and has become even more relevant for our present day. This is a message that needs to be re-visited and re-read by 21st century Christians, particularly by 21st century first-world, Evangelical middle and upper class Christians.

Foster is exhorting us towards the believer’s role in society as salt and light. As Nouwen says, this is a role that enjoins us to “stay unsatisfied with the status quo,” evidenced by a social witness that poses critical questions to the immediate society we live in. For as Foster reminds us, Christians should “stand in contradiction to the dominant culture [around us], which has given its soul to the vows of greed, permissiveness, and selfishness.”[5] Foster therefore suggests that we approach the issues of money, sex, and power, through the spiritual disciplines of simplicity, fidelity, and service. I thus also appreciate and wholly agree with Foster’s conviction that, “Believers can and should be called into positions of power, wealth, and influence. . . . in government, education and business.” And as Foster says, “Some are called to make money- lots of money- for the glory of God and the larger public good.”[6]

I will now focus more specifically on the issue of wealth, particularly on the Christian’s posture towards and use of wealth. One context for this discussion lies in a series of discussions generated by Reverend Kenny Chee’s blogsite, Blogpastor.[7] For varied reasons, these discussions delved into relation between wealth and Christian churches, particularly mega-churches.[8] Another context is the growing influence of “success” themed paradigms of Christian life.[9]

A third context, which I believe casts a rather dark, satirical shadow on this entire discussion, is the global economic meltdown. What makes this context so satirical and ludicrous, is how consistently nonreligious sources are reminding us that at the root of this meltdown, is human greed and selfishness. Moreover, what our greed and selfishness is ultimately leading us to is unrestrained human consumption of limited resources. Furthermore, our unrestrained drive towards material consumption is not only destroying the earth, but is increasingly exploiting and robbing millions of the world’s “have-nots” of any viable opportunity towards a life of ample resources for attaining a viable livelihood. The first-world order is robbing the earth and the world’s “have-nots,” in order to keep satiated and satisfied, the first-world’s middle and upper middle class “haves.”

2. The light side of wealth

I find it helpful that Foster provides an excellent and clear understanding into the paradoxical nature of wealth, as well as sex and power. As Foster reminds us, let us be clear: Wealth is not entirely wrong! The Bible clearly narrates two paradoxical, divergent, and thus often contradictory theological streams and themes regarding the topic of material wealth. Foster calls these two streams, the “dark side” and the “light side” of material wealth.[10]

On one hand, there is a tradition throughout Scripture, which affirms wealth as oftentimes, God’s blessing! The Bible in fact begins with an important declaration: Everything material, which God has created, is “good” (Gen 1-2)! Yes! With God’s blessing and favour, we can enjoy wealth! When wealth falls into our hands, we can, and it should in fact, prompt us towards doxology and worship (Deut 16:15)! The experience of material wealth can actually serve to enrich and deepen our relationship with God. However, this is an experience, which comes to us because the receiving of wealth has prompted us to thank God and praise Him for what He gives us.[11]

Furthermore, we should affirm that the Lord Jesus welcomed the contributions of wealthy patrons to his life and ministry (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus obviously also very much enjoyed attending lavish luncheons and dinners in the homes of the wealthy. He seemed in fact to find it difficult to turn down a good meal, where ever it came from (Luke 7:36f; 11:37f; 14:1f). So I agree and like what Gordon Wong says: “God is not a killjoy! He desires for us to experience the finest foods and sweetest honey (Ps 81:16). And there is in fact, a “positive ‘consumer’ language found throughout the Psalms (Ps 34:8).”[12] Interestingly however, the Gospel story narrates that in virtually every “dining” incident, Jesus did not fail to leave such homes without voicing some kind of “prophetic” and provocative word regarding his hosts’ posture and behaviour toward the “have-nots” in their local communities.

I happen to believe in fact, that the economic role of Christians in this world clearly involves finding ways to create wealth. Yet not for the purpose of further amassing and sustaining the present standards of first-world lifestyles or first-world levels of material consumption. Global capitalism in its past and present historical form of wholly unrestrained free market interplay- which while capable to a large degree of democratising the experience of wealth, is nonetheless driven not by the “love of the Father, but by the “world’s passions.” These are the passions which Scripture defines as “the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does” (1 John 2:16).

3. The dark side of wealth

Without in any way inferring the slightest endorsement of Marxist practice or ideology, I must acknowledge that Marxist theory had nonetheless quite accurately diagnosed the tendency within pure free-market capitalism to de-humanise and exploit people, particularly the poor masses- as things. [13] Through the current global market system, what is actually happening on a global scale is that the world’s most affluent populations are using the world’s poor in order to satiate their increasing drive towards greater consumption. Therefore, there must come a time, when believers will again help find a better way. That better way, will ultimately and must involve self-initiated restraints on personal consumption.

Globalisation is itself not the problem. We can actually apprehend globalisation as a primal cure towards a substantive eradication of human poverty across the globe. But human greed, increasingly manifest through a collective conglomerate of multi-national businesses, have up to this present financial crisis, demonstrated a willingness to increase wealth for themselves and their constituencies, at the expense of millions of disempowered people in the two-thirds world. These disempowered people are often fully cognisant of the wealth that can be theirs through a linking up with the global economy. Yet they wholly lack the infrastructure, tools and skills to participate in the global market.[14]

For this reason, a Christian response and approach to globalisation must reflect Keynesian ideology towards global and local financial systems. Given the reality of human greed, free markets cannot therefore operate independently and wholly apart from governmental intervention. For Christians, we ought to recognise that enforced restraint with reference to the creation and use of wealth, falls upon the divinely mandated role of human government within the fallen world order (Romans 13:1-4). Believers themselves are responsible to both embrace and model restraint in both acquisitions and consumption. More about this later.

Correspondingly, Christians must find themselves at the forefront of conceptualising and modeling within the affluent first-world, an eco-friendly existence and lifestyle. In our present day, a current reading of the Bible’s creation narrative, coupled with all Scripture has to say about stewardship, the role of humanity upon the earth, and recognising creation as a trust given to us by God, should enjoins us Christians to identify ourselves as “Green.” For too long, Christians have wrongly postured themselves towards the Genesis 1:28 creation-cultural mandate (e.g., “Subdue the earth and take dominion over it . . . “) through the wrong paradigms of unrestrained acquisition, accumulation, and environmental exploitation. We should rather appreciate our mandate as shepherds of the good earth, wherein we voluntarily subordinate our desires and freedom to the rhythms of creation (e.g., Ecclesiastes 3:1-11, 15; 6:10).[15] This is what the Bible calls, wisdom.

The Christian ethic towards wealth in our present day must also involve not only an affirmed “yes” towards redistributing material wealth, but also a redistribution of the power to create wealth. We must work towards redistributing the power to create wealth into the hands of the “have-nots,” thus empowering them also with the capacity to generate wealth. We today have one well-known Muslim who has modeled the way, particularly for us Christians. He is none other than the Nobel Peace Prize winner and one time modest economics professor, Muhammad Yunus. In Bangladesh Yunus founded the now famous Grameen Bank in 1976 and thus the micro-credit movement. The genus of Yunus’ paradigm began with the simple task of loaning $30 out of his own wallet to a group of poverty-stricken women, who were looking for a way to start a small business. Grameen Bank works today in more than 46,000 Bangladeshi villages through 1,267 branches involving more than 12,000 staff members. It has lent more than $4.5 billion in loans of $12 to $15![16]

As Steven Covey says, Yunus has profoundly modeled to all of us, what it means to help the “voiceless,” “find their voices!”[17] Even as a Muslim, Yunus’ life example is in fact wholly descriptive and indicative of true and authentic Christian ministry and service, which Jesus mandated through His inaugural sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-19):

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Jesus is preaching the messianic year of Jubilee! Let it be thus acknowledged that in the age to come, there will indeed a redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the poor, for that is what Jubilee is all about (Leviticus 25:23; Isaiah 61:1-2f; Luke 4:16-19). And moreover, there is indeed a biblical tradition, which well affirms the potential goodness of wealth, and its potential power to steer our hearts towards praise and thanksgiving to God for His bountiful and generous works towards us.

However, and this is what completes the paradox of wealth according to the biblical story: there is as Foster reminds us, the “dark side” of wealth. The awful reality is that paradoxically, the Old Testament wholly depicts the “rich man” as the definitive metaphor for the “wicked man.” The “rich man” is thus the definitive person (particularly in the Psalms), who oppresses the poor; and who in his wickedness robs the masses of justice (e.g., Ps 10:5-6; 37:7-11; 49:10-12; 73:2-9). The truth is that throughout the Bible, the Scriptures consistently dramatise the “rich man” as a metaphor for the “wicked man!”

Jesus also drew upon this tradition, when He preached about the “great reversal” (Luke 6:20-26). The book of James draws upon that same tradition wherein it describes the “rich” as those who oppress the “poor.” Moreover, it says that God is Himself partial towards not the “rich” but the “poor” (James 2:5-7; 5:1-6). We also know that at the heart of Paul’s vision of community, is that his primary injunctions for self-initiative in reconciliation are specifically directed towards one social-economic group, and that is the wealthy. For it was the wealthy in fact, who were the primary obstacles towards the creation of a heterogeneous Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 11). For sake of brevity, I am not even examining the tradition as exemplified through the prophetic writings, which is however, even more so self-evident.

All through Scripture, it is on the other hand, the “poor” who are presented as the definitive metaphor for the “righteous!” I will not here explore or highlight any biblical proof-texts, as the preceding verses should aptly serve to demonstrate how Psalms consistently coveys the “poor” as the definitive metaphor for the “righteous.” It is pertinent however to draw attention to the Song of Mary (Luke 1:46-52f). For her song directly draws upon the same imagery of the displacement of the “rich” by the “poor,” a theme which Mary drew from Hannah’s song (1 Samuel 2:4-8f).

I want to now return to Foster’s analysis on the “dark side” of wealth. Foster declares that its darkness is most evident today in our insane “lust for affluence,” which he describes as “psychotic.” Foster writes: “It is psychotic” because through affluence we have “completely lost touch with reality . . . [For] The mass media have convinced us that to be out of step with fashion is to be out of step with reality. It is time we awaken to the fact that conformity to a sick society is to be sick.”[18] Foster then draws attention to how this “psychosis permeates even our [cultural] mythology. The modern hero is the poor boy who purposefully becomes rich rather than the rich boy who voluntarily becomes poor.” Thus, “Covetousness we call ambition. Hoarding we call prudence. Greed we call industry.”[19]

Finally, Foster reminds us regarding Jesus’ personification of “money” as an idol; a “god” existing in opposition to God (Matt 6:24). Mammon is an Aramaic term for deity; it signifies a “god.” When Jesus used the Aramaic term mammon, he demonstrated that money is not a morally neutral medium of exchange. On the contrary: money in this present evil age exists as a “power;” an entity that seeks to enslave us, by steering our devotion from God to itself.[20] This is precisely why elsewhere Jesus also calls money, “unrighteous mammon” (Luke 16:9). Coupled with the term “mammon, the term “unrighteous” (adikos), strongly conveys the idea that mammon actively generates iniquity.[21] So again, if we are honest with the biblical story, money does not exist as a morally neutral medium of exchange. Money is rather an idolatrous entity and power, highly capable of provoking our love towards its existence, thus further qualifying its existence as a “root of all kinds of evil.”

I need to draw attention to one evil that Christian employers and bosses must give careful attention to during this time of financial turmoil. Now across the board, the records show that over the past few years in Singapore, the salaries of top-level employees and executives have risen considerably. Yet meanwhile, salaries of rank and file workers within the same firms have more or less remained the same. This is wrong. It is the kind of sin, which strongly preoccupies the preaching of the prophets.

“The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of His people; It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your house.” (Isaiah 3:14)

“Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. . . . Listen! The wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.” (James 5:1, 4)

Now we are entering a time where we must cut costs. The temptation of many employers is to find ways to cut costs while at the same time, seeking to preserve existing profit margins that directly feed into their own incomes. So rather than allow those profit margins to diminish, they rather choose to cut the salaries of their rank and file workers. It is encouraging to hear however, that while the Singapore investment company Temasek Holdings, is the first employer in Singapore to have publicly announced company-wide wage cuts at this time; 90% of those wage savings will be borne by its top senior management.[22] I think that their example should aptly serve notice to Christian employers and top decision-makers in any given firm.

4. The paradox of wealth

As Christians, we must therefore approach and interpret wealth from the basis of its paradoxical nature; acknowledging both the dark as well as the light side of wealth. Jesus exhorts us to do so, when he tells us to “make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails, they may receive you into the eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9). We are here encouraged to create and use wealth in “such a way that when it fails- and it will fail- we are still cared for,” all through eternity.[23] The Bible thus depicts wealth, as it does a host of other issues, through the principle of paradox.

By paradox, I mean that sometimes, we often find truth, reality, or “what works best,” in the middle of two opposing polarities, held in balanced tension to one another. There are different ways of saying this: The balancing of two almost contradictory statements or ideas, which seem to oppose each other. Alternatively, sometimes we find truth not by choosing one or the other of two opposing views, but only by finding value in the middle of both. This means acknowledging that the truth is found not fully, or primarily in either polarity, but in the middle on a continuum between those two polarities. It is therefore often the case in Christian life, doctrine, and theology, that when the challenge of holding both opposing polarities together in tension fails, therein often lies the emergence of heresy. Most illustrious is the confessing of our Lord Jesus Christ, as one person- fully human and fully God.

And so it is with wealth. Wealth exists in this present age, as a paradoxical phenomenon. So again, as Foster reminds us, the only right Christian posture towards wealth is one that wholly holds its two contradictory natures in tension: both its “dark side” and its “light side.” For the Scriptures narrate not one unified, but two divergent traditions regarding wealth: On one hand, the experience of material wealth can be ours, and God does give wealth. And so when wealth comes to us, it should lift our hearts in thanksgiving to God and service to the world. Yet on the other hand, the experience of material wealth is clearly detrimental to our spiritual health. Too often than not, material wealth warps our values. Wealth easily and deceptively takes the form as “unrighteous mammon,” and places us in opposition to the poor, and to what God is doing in the world.

Our only recourse is to find our way in the middle and there remain. Only here in the middle are we in the safe place. This is the place where we stand in the presence of God. Only there can we best live out our prophetic role as Christians in a fallen world order. This is the place where we gladly and joyfully stand in contradiction to the dominant culture of our world. In our vocational and prophetic role as witnesses to God’s kingdom, we thus “critique” the consensus that enslaves and oppresses us. Moreover, it here that we conversely speak forth a word that frees, delivers and empowers towards God’s dream and future. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer suggests, this is the place where on one hand we witness to Christ’s incarnation, and thus His blessing upon this “good earth.” Yet this is also the place where we witness to Christ’s crucifixion, and thus to God’s judgment against the present world order.[24]

Therefore, our prophetic witness in the society we live in must express a life style that is wholly counter-culture. On one hand, our witness will arise and reflect God’s judgment against the present world order, as perennially revealed through Christ’s crucifixion. This means we must allow the theology of the cross to inform and shape our witness of God’s kingdom. Yet on the other hand, our witness must simultaneously arise from and reflect God’s blessing upon creation and even more so- His present work towards the renewal of creation through the power of Christ’s resurrection. This means then we also must allow a theology of the resurrection- of Christ’s resurrection and His present life in us, to inform and shape our witness to God’s kingdom. So then, both theologies are not separate but one theology and one message: “Behold! I am making all things new! (Rev 21:5)[25]

5. The snare of wealth

I have thus far discussed at length the paradoxical “light” and “dark” sides of wealth, and have briefly argued that both sides represent two equally viable and true traditions. Yet inevitably, the principle of paradox ultimately breaks down with regards material wealth in the present age. For all its value in granting us some peace of mind and freedom to pursue and enjoy all we posses, the idea of paradox ultimately even still, fails to fully and accurately conceptualise the Bible’s deeper portrayal of material wealth. If we’re truly honest with ourselves and the archetypical plot that frames the biblical story-world- through its broad themes of creation, fall, and re-creation, we will have to acknowledge that the truth lies not in the middle but somewhere off centre to the left. The ultimately true yet off-centre nature of the truth regarding material wealth in this present age, confronts us not with the “light” side but rather more so, with the “dark” side of wealth.

6. Embracing the “riches to rags” story of Jesus Christ

Earlier I introduced the archetypical plot that scripts most of our human mythology, and aspirations towards personal redemption. More accurately stated, it is the plot that scripts our desired journey towards our desire for human actualisation. This plot is that of “rags to riches.” It is the plot of the poor boy who through sheer perseverance, determination and drive, yet also sometimes with the help of providential favour (or a little of both), overcomes all odds and adversities to make something of himself, or rise above his humble beginnings. Often then, as we come to the story’s climax, this protagonist becomes rich and successful. This is a common idea of “redemption.” However, this kind of plot, notwithstanding its noble and inspiring theme of perseverance against all odds, is wholly antithetical to the archetypical plot offered to us through the biblical story-world. For the archetypical plot scripted for our ideal human development through the Bible’s story-world, is a “riches to rags” story.

It goes like this: Against all odds, a rich king gives up all his wealth to become poor, so that through His poverty, the poor might become rich. This is the story of Christ Jesus the Lord:

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9)

Furthermore, the story of His life, is now presented as the script for those who want to be His disciples:

“But just as you excel in everything- in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us- see that you also excel in this grace of giving.” (2 Corinthians 8:7)

Actually however, to be more precise, the archetypical story which the Bible gives for the scripting of our Christian life, is a “riches to rags to riches” story. This is the true good news of Jesus Christ. Motivated from His immeasurable grace towards us, He lets go of His riches; He thus steps down, embraces and partakes of our own poverty, and then as a result- for this is the true nature of grace, He is declared Lord of all creation (Philippians 2:6-11). The key term is in verse 8: “He humbled Himself.” The term is kenosis, meaning, “self-emptying.” Jesus emptied Himself of His heavenly riches. This is the “self-emptying” of Christ. It is Christ Himself, who not only taught, but also first embraced, underwent and modeled to us the proverb’s truth, “He who loses his self, will find his self.”

This basic story line permeates all the New Testament writings. And at the same time it is this story line that is consistently offered to us via the life story of Jesus. Primarily through the Gospel story, the New Testament paradigmatically scripts Jesus’ life as God’s intended pattern for the believer’s life. This is why the Philippians 2:6-11 kenosis text begins with the words, “Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus” (2:5). And this is also why the kenosis text then ends with the encouragement: “Therefore . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (2:12-13).

The story of grace calls us and leads us not into a “rags to riches” story, but rather into a “riches to rags” story. Yet even more, this story is more precisely still, a “riches to rags to riches” story! For the follower of Jesus, our own kenosis experience inevitably will at some point touch upon our material wealth- the things we possess, whether these be material possessions or societal roles and positions of influence and authority. The reason is that within the present age, all these things so easily exist to us as mammon; as idols demanding our total devotion. They are thus hindrances to our capacity to let go and enter into the true life, which Jesus has scripted for us. That is why Jesus says, “You cannot serve both God and mammon.”

7. Finding through losing

Let it us clearly affirm that the gospel of grace is indeed a gospel that proclaims grace. What makes it a gospel of grace is that through it, Jesus’ disciples have found the freedom to proclaim grace to the entire world. For through discovering this freedom to give, they are now able to extend grace to those who are poor and therefore lack grace. These disciples make this proclamation by “losing’” their life; by letting go of their life. They let go of their life by embracing and stepping into the footprints of Jesus.

Through stepping into the footprints of Jesus, they thus freely step into His “riches to rags” story by losing their own material wealth, so that the poor might become rich. This is what the gospel of grace really means. Shaped by the story of Jesus, the gospel of grace gives us the freedom to step into Jesus’ own life script. We thus allow His script to shape our own life story. We thus find ourselves liberated to experience in our own life, Jesus’ description of the grace-driven life:

“Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

(Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9 :24; 17:33; John 12:25).

It is not correct to say then that in Christianity, spiritual transformation is a wholly passive experience. Christian spiritual transformation is not something we receive and enjoy by directing our thoughts upon Christ, and thus “resting in His finished work on the cross. This premise does convey a truth, and an important and most needful truth that we need to grasp if we are to grow in the Lord. Yet it is not the whole truth, as it is very different from the full adventure that is loaded and unpacked when a person encounters the grace of God.

A true grace-touched life is loaded with experiences of risk and faith, in contrast to this putrid conception of Christian rest. G.K. Chesterton likens the difference to that we find between statues of Buddha and Buddhist saints, and those of the medieval statues Christian saints. “The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint’s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. . . The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards.”[26]

Chesterton goes to say that this contrast ultimately emerges from the thrilling and adventurous “story” which Christ calls us to enter into. For the “Christian existence is a story,” like that of “a thrilling novel . . . [where] the hero is not eaten by cannibals; but it is essential to the existence of the thrill that he might be eaten by cannibals.”[27] The ever witty Chesterton goes on to conclude then that there is therefore, real “fear” that the believer may sometimes encounter in a true walk of Christian faith. This is because the experience of fear is part of the Christian adventure: “Orthodoxy makes us jump by the sudden brink of hell; it is only afterwards that we realise that jumping was an athletic exercise highly beneficial to our health. [For] It is only afterwards that we realise that this danger is the root of all drama and romance.” Therefore, “The strongest argument for the divine grace is simply its ungraciousness.”[28]

This is the true story that Jesus calls us to enter into. When Jesus calls us into His grace, and we respond, we enter into the paradox of true Christian life. Again, Jesus describes the paradox through the proverb: “The one who keeps his life shall lose it, but the one who loses his life shall find it. Chesterton rightly described this as “a conflict; the collision of two passions apparently opposite . . . a contradiction in terms.”[29] Christianity is therefore “a superhuman paradox whereby two opposite passions may blaze beside each other.”[30] Jesus’ proverb illustrates the paradoxical nature of courage, and is therefore indeed a call to courage. It is a certain kind of courage, which the disciple must embrace in order to follow Christ. Thus, what Jesus says “is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. . . . This paradox is the whole principle of courage.” For mountaineers climbing the face of a mountain, can only escape death by “continually stepping within an inch of it [e.g., death]. A solider surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. . . . he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine.”[31]

8. Weaknesses of the success-themed gospel

The freedom we find in Christ is a true freedom that frees us to let go. Now there is at present, a school of thought within Evangelical Christianity, which is exclusively qualifying itself as the “message of grace,” or as the “gospel of grace.” Within this school of thought, Christians are encouraged to surmise that Christian freedom “in Christ,” is a “freedom” to achieve, acquire, and gain without guilt. But this mindset completely misses the point of what God’s grace is all about! The logic of this teaching exists on a plane that is not even at dialogue with the biblical narrative. Its storytellers are not quite even stepping into the story! What they are preaching is but a vague echo of the true rendition.

There is even more, a far deeper weakness with the “success” themed “gospel” that is being propagated today as the “gospel of grace,” and as a reformed return to authentic Christian spirituality. The basic message of this self-defined “gospel of grace” is more or less something like this: “In Christ, your sins are forgiven, rest in the finished work of Christ in the cross, and so- be free! Be free to pursue your dreams and enjoy the bounty of this good earth!” Yet for all this talk of calling believers to a life of grace “in Christ,” resting in the finished work of Christ’s atonement, reigning with Christ and receiving His riches, the proponents of this movement have ironically failed to grasp the greater fullness of Christ’s atonement!

The weakness of the “success” themed gospel, particularly with reference to the so-called “grace” movement, lies so ironically in its impoverished doctrine of Christ’s atonement. The weakness lies in how proponents of these movements teach Christ’s atonement as primarily directed towards the forgiveness of sins, thus granting us who believe in Christ, a “positional” righteousness. In itself, this is of course “a” (note the indefinite article here!) correct doctrine of the atonement. Christian theologians have historically defined this understanding, as the forensic view of the atonement, for its chief metaphor is the courtroom setting. We find this view foremost illustrated in Paul’s letter to the Romans. However, while Christ’s suffering for the forgiveness of our sins is a correct purpose of His atonement, it is only so within the indefinite article “a,” not the definite article “the.” The granting of a positional righteousness is “one” of the benefits of Christ’s atonement, not “the” primary benefit of Christ’s atonement.

There are therefore a few other purposes and/or benefits to Christ’s atonement, which the Scriptures clearly teach us. Unfortunately, the “paradigms” given to us in our churches and schools have for too longed blinded us in modern Protestant Evangelicalism, from observing their presence in the Scriptures. Therefore, within modern Protestant Evangelicalism, these other purposes of Christ’s atonement have been unfortunately sidelined and undermined. Besides the forensic purpose of Christ’s atonement, there are essentially three other equally viable and important purposes of the atonement, which are narrated throughout the New Testament. First, is that Christ died to set us free from the works of the devil (1 John 3:8; Heb 2:14-15). Second, is that He died to “restore” us to God’s likeness, by granting us the “right script” to live our life (Heb 2:10-13).

Since early Christian history, the teaching that Jesus died to “restore” us to God’s likeness through granting us the “right script” to live our life, has been perhaps the most enduring and comprehensive understanding of Christ’s atonement. Since around the second century, Christians have commonly called this the recapulatory purpose of Christ’s atonement. It means that Jesus “re-capped” the human life journey, as the perfect human being. In doing so, Jesus purposely paved the way for us to live as He lived, through each phase of His own human life. Christ’s life, as narrated in the Gospels, actually serves as the paradigm for our own human life, thus God’s intended “script” for living our own life, which results in us becoming conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ. This leads to the third purpose of the atonement, which is that Christ died to grant us a moral and life example for us to follow (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:21).

The truth is that down through history, varied church traditions and spiritual streams have tended to lean towards one of these different atonement purposes, yet to the exclusion or minimising of the other just as important doctrines of the atonement. Protestant Evangelicals tend to envision Christ’s atonement, almost exclusively in terms of the doctrine of justification, and thus upon the message of forgiveness through His substitutionary death on the cross. But it should be readily apparent that in contrast to the Protestant Evangelical nuance upon the “forgiveness of sins” through Christ’s atonement- the other and equally viable purposes of the atonement all together lean more towards the doctrine and experience of sanctification. This refers not to the experience of having our sins forgiven, but to the process of God delivering us from the power of sin and becoming restored into the likeness of God, revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Obviously, a truly robust preaching and teaching of Christ’s atonement, and thus the proclamation of the “full Gospel” of Christ, would ideally involve keeping each of these atonement ideas unified into a single and thus full Gospel message. And the truth is that when we hold together not just the forensic view of Christ’s atonement, but all the other more sanctification-nuanced understandings of the atonement, what we find ourselves affirming and proclaiming is not just Christ’s death, but His present life in us- His resurrection. We thus proclaim that we are now being “saved” (e.g., sanctified) through His resurrection life![32]

Modern Protestant Evangelicalism has tended however, to lean exclusively towards the forensic idea or purpose of the atonement. The upside of this has been the movement’s focus towards leading people into an experience of having their sins forgiven, and having a cognitive certainty that they are in a right standing with God- justified through faith in Christ. Yet too often, the downside has drifted into two divergent directions, which often work together. On one hand has been the creation of a highly guilt-driven, legalistic “do’s and don’t” conception of Christian spirituality. This has also led to the practice of measuring spiritual maturity by the confession of “right doctrine.”

On the other hand, the Modern Protestant Evangelical preoccupation with the forensic purpose of the atonement has tended to create a spirituality that strongly proclaims the finished work of Christ, while virtually excluding any attention to the sanctifying purpose of Christ’s atonement. This would include themes such as the dialogical interplay between God’s loving will and the believer’s development through a freely entered response to that will. It also includes understanding one’s life journey as a perpetual turning towards God. It includes the experience of sensing the freedom to enter into Christ’s own life journey as a disciple of Christ, and of discovering the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, who is at work in us to do so. Finally this naturally results in developing a conscious discontent toward the predominate culture of one’s historical setting. This conversely includes gaining a desire to seek more and more of the Spirit’s anointing upon one’s life as a witness to God’s kingdom.

The success themed “gospel,” with its sole nuance upon the forensic-directed finished work of Christ has primarily emerged as a self-presumed corrective to what it’s proponents perceive as the guilt-driven, legalistic “do’s and don’t” form of Protestant Evangelical spirituality. This is why its teachers, leaders, and proponents define their movement as the “Gospel of Grace.” As earlier mentioned however, the conception of the “grace life in Christ,” as is often now being taught in many success-themed churches and movements, actually emerges from quite a weak and impoverished understanding of grace, as well as from a very impoverished understanding of Christ’s atonement.

Ultimately, the success-themed “grace” movement only mirrors to a more vivid degree, the underlying weakness of Protestant Evangelicalism in its own failure to preach the full gospel of Christ. For the peculiarities of the success-themed “gospel,” as with so much of Protestant modern Evangelicalism, directly mirrors its captivity to the story-world of arrogant modernity. This is a story-world in which “money, power, and sex have become the norm, displacing relationship, stewardship and worship.”[33] This is a story-world where the quest and journey towards human actualisation has taken centre-stage in virtually every social arena, including the sphere of spirituality. This includes Christian spirituality, and thus the spirituality we express and practice within the Protestant Evangelical Church.

Furthermore, vast numbers of Evangelical church leaders, particularly evidenced by success-themed churches and movements, have wholly brought into the consumer-driven interest of parishioners, who simply do not know any better. The result is that authentic Christian spirituality is now “swallowed up by commercial interests,” according to the “marketing and management categories” of their lay leaders and board members.[34] Consequently, as so perceptibly observed by the Malaysian pastor Sivin Kit, we have now become “uncritically . . . syncretised with consumerism” and in our craving for “relevance.”[35] So what we now have, particularly evidenced through the “success-themed” church, is a conception of Christian life and ministry “perceived primarily through the lens of consumerism, a system, mentality and tendency with consumption at its centre.” This consumption driven conception of Christian spirituality arises from a mentality in which “relevance” has now become the all-encompassing “rallying cry” of believers. It has become the rallying cry of church members, leaders and even senior pastors, as we increasingly perceive target groups and church members as “customers” and church staff or leaders as “producers.”[36]

But because the “success-themed” church has so deeply brought into the modern story of human self-actualisation, it thus envisions the biblical experience of redemption according to a story-line that is radically counter to the Bible’s archetypical plot of Jesus’ self-emptying journey. As earlier seen, this is the story-line which the Bible offers us as the paradigmatic model for the Christian life journey towards sanctification, and thus complete redemption. But what the “success-themed” church movement has brought into is an idea of redemption that highly mirrors the world’s idea of redemption. The world’s idea of redemption is again, usually narrated through its archetypical plot of the “against all odds,” “rags to riches” success story.

Now the truth is that people, because they are created in God’s image, have an inherent need for a redemptive ending in the stories they hear. The idea or experience of redemption is thus the ultimate need, the deepest cry, of the human heart. That is why, “our every-day talk is filled with redemptive metaphors. People often speak of, “every dark cloud has a silver lining,” “it’s always darkest before dawn,” and “no pain, no gain,” [phrases which] suggest that suffering in life can often lead to growth or fulfilment.[37] We therefore like to watch movies, read stories, or listen to motivational speakers that in one way or another speak to our innate desire to experience redemption.

So recognising the human need for some kind of developmental experience of redemption, and yet wanting to avoid appropriating the Gospel teaching of “self-denial” into our “Christian education,” what we end up with is construing Christian development according to varied paradigms of pop psychology. We thus foremost turn not to the Gospel’s account of Jesus’ life for patterning our spiritual journey, but rather to, models of “developmental psychology” (e.g., Abraham Maslow, Erick Erikson, or Lawrence Kohlberg). I am not against some measure of integrating development theory into our understanding of human development. But the result of trying to conceptualise Christian development primarily according to human developmental theory, without the sometimes painful message of “self-denial,” leads to a nonChristian conception of spiritual growth. The result is that we envision spiritual maturity as having a healthy self image,” and a “freed-up” life-style. Then, given that we have identified these non-biblical self-actualisation endeavours as the objectives of Christian development, we gauge Christian spirituality according to evidences of a substantial income and a guilt-free comfort with being “in-sync” with the latest cultural trends, fashions, and common benchmarks of material success.[38]

The truth therefore is that so much of the premised teachings about “God’s grace,” in the newer success-themed churches, largely reflect premises derived from pop psychology about human self-esteem and self-actualisation. These are premises, which were earlier already propagated by the older “positive thinking” school of Norman Vincent Peale and the “possibility thinking” of Robert Schuller.” Present-day “Christian prosperity” proponents, such as John Osteen, are now propagating these same premises through the material-success driven “gospel, coupled with the basic consumer-driven ethos that clothes so much of modern Evangelicalism.[39] Consequently, Evangelicalism now possess little if any kind of “counter-culture” critique, since it has become so “thoroughly enmeshed in consumer-capitalist ideology and confuses success with the eschaton” (e.g., Christian life journey).[40]

Meanwhile, an amazing irony has emerged regarding the common “experience” of grace within the more success-themed “grace-centred” churches. The irony is that their members and proponents are so often by and large, smugly identifying themselves as a people who “have arrived,” to the exclusion of any one who begs to differ with them. Those who embrace the success-themed gospel message, more often than not, see no need to engage or reflect on the spiritualities existing within other Christian traditions, either in the present day or down through history. In essence, they are thus choosing to exist as communities of faith that have no viable need to learn from other Christian faith traditions.

Furthermore, Bible texts often serve no higher purpose than to anchor messages based more deeply upon pop psychology or modern leadership and motivational theories and platitudes. Their resolve to dismiss any value or need to learn from other traditions would of course include any openness to acquaint themselves with some basic trans-accepted principles in Bible reading. This is especially so since they choose rather to base their entire conception of Christian faith exclusively upon the teachings of their movement’s leaders or local senior pastor. And by the way, I am not referring to the Protestant historical-grammatical exegesis. I am rather simply referring to the older historical practice of devotionally reading the whole Bible as participants within the grand biblical plot of creation, fall and recreation through Christ. The one enduring manner that believers down through history have done so, has been through the classic biblical typological story-line of exodus-wilderness-promise land. This simply means that Christians have best read the Scriptures when they have come to see themselves as “pilgrims” delivered out of Egypt, now in this present age journeying through the wilderness, and receiving their strength through the outpouring of God’s Spirit, as they journey towards the Promised Land.

There is as well, a mindset amongst so many believers, particularly amongst those highly influenced by the more success-themed teachings, that the things they possess are signs of God’s favour towards them. Coupled with this is their conviction that their consumerist life-style is in some way, their “Christian right.” These believe that “in Christ,” they are free to purchase the most non-essential or trivial items- at whatever the cost, without any whim of conscience. But let it be unreservedly said that their consumer-driven life-style is a blight to the counter-cultural witness of the Church. Their present consumer-driven life-style is particularly damaging to the counter-cultural witness of the Church during this present time of economic crisis.

9. Contrasts between cheap and costly grace

Bonhoeffer rightly diagnosed the impoverished preaching of grace in the success-themed “grace” movement, after witnessing the emergence of a similar “Christian” ethos in Nazi Germany. This resulted in the unfortunate wedding between many of the German churches to the predominate values of German nationalism. It was then that Bonhoeffer foresaw and warned the global church about the perils of “cheap grace;” the “preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance . . . grace without discipleship.”[41] As rightly declared by Bonhoeffer however, the true preaching of grace can never place a “full stop” after the term- justification! A believer only fully apprehends God’s grace as he or she makes conscious and successive decisions to step into the footprints of Christ and enter into His life journey. And the believer who wholly steps into the footprints of Christ with the resolve to enter into His life journey, does so because he or she then realises that Jesus’ aim towards us is nothing less the total “re-creation” of our entire life.[42]

So as earlier mentioned, the true biblical story and archetypical plot of redemption is radically and diametrically opposite to the “rags to riches” success-driven vision of redemption. These two divergent arch-story-plots are diametrically opposite because the world’s “rags to riches” idea of human redemption fails to appreciate the awful reality of sin. Embracing God’s script for our lives is obviously entirely diametrically opposed to the world’s script, because it is none other than the god called mammon, is choreographing the world’s “rags to riches” script of redemption.

So then, our need is for a radical “deprogramming” of a sin-infected mind-set. Jesus has made this deprogramming script available for us through His complete life-story. Therefore, it is none other than Jesus who has choreographed for us, the “riches to rags to riches” script that is thus now the biblical paradigm for our own life-journey towards redemption. This script which Jesus has enacted for us, encompasses his entire life, suffering on the cross, and resurrection. This is precisely what Jesus reveals to us through His invitation: “Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me!” This is why Bonhoeffer rightly observed that, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”[43] But it is the willing experience to step into the totality of Christ’s life, to receive His life journey as the “script” for our life, and allow Him to thus “script” our life according to His pattern, that we experience the result of biblical redemption, which is sanctification- our restoration into His likeness.

The success-themed “grace” gospel strives to centre our concern upon our life “in Christ”-our positional righteousness in Christ. Nonetheless, this again is not the whole story! Rather it is our life “in Christ,” and Christ “in us!” The good news of this complete equation is Christ becoming “formed in us” (Gal 4:19). For as C. S. Lewis rightly observed, Jesus “intends to come and live in it [our life] Himself.” However, “the process will be long and in parts painful.” So, “we must not be surprised if we are in for a rough time!”[44] God is thus not out to improve our personality. He is not out to create in us, “a better you.” He is rather out to grant us the personality of Jesus Christ.

It is the very personality of Jesus, which the New Testament calls, the “new self. This again is why biblical redemption is not foremost “rags to riches,” but “riches to rags.” For God’s process of redemption, means that we have “lose our “self,” so we can find our true self. In other words, in the paradoxical word of Jesus, we can only find our life, when we first lose our life. God is bestowing His grace upon us, that through the receiving of His grace, we become living sacraments of His grace. Through the receiving of His grace, we learn to give grace.”[45] Because as Jesus says, we know one has been forgiven much, when we see such a one- forgiving others (Luke 7:47).

In his classic expose of “cheap grace” titled, The Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer has perceptively demonstrated that an authentic encounter with God’s grace is not a wholly passive, unilateral experience. When God bestows His grace upon us, it always also calls us into a dialogical encounter with Himself. God’s grace comes through the call of Jesus, when He says, “come and follow me.”[46] The call of Jesus therefore also accompanies that very moment in time when a person is justified from his or her sins. It is not a call that is subsequent to justification, although a person may not become cognizant of the “call,” or fully comprehend the life-changing implications of that “call” until many years after God justifies the person.

This is why Bonhoeffer also warns that the preaching of “grace without discipleship,” the preaching of grace without a call to “deny your self,” is the preaching of “cheap grace.”[47] The full biblical picture of the term “grace” is quite loaded and multilayered. At one level, it signifies God’s freely given favour upon us, which includes His freely given call upon us. Right at the same plane yet on a deeper level however, God’s grace is “costly because it calls us to follow” Jesus.[48] So Jesus describes the encounter with God’s grace through the parables of the treasure hidden in the field, and the pearl of great price (Matt 13:44-45).

When a person discovers “grace,” which is nothing less than the entire kingdom of God, he sells off all he has that he may enjoy it and it alone. Therefore, he is like the person who finds treasure hidden in a field. But to get the treasure, he must first acquire ownership of the field. So what he does is to sell off all he owns, just to buy that one field. Then he begins the task of digging out the treasure! Alternatively, the person touched by God’s grace is like a merchant who discovers “one pearl of great value.” But again- it is beyond his present cash flow. So therefore, he raises funds by also selling off all he owns- just to buy that “one pearl of great value!”

Therefore, when a person is “graced” by God, and thus apprehends His call, such a person embarks upon a great quest. He gladly sells all he has, in order to finance this quest to find and dig out the hidden treasure. Therefore, God’s grace “is costly because it costs a man his life.” Yet “it is grace because it gives a man the only true life.” It is the only true life, which can only be lived by not mere “believing,” but by following Jesus.[49] True believing, as preached by Bonhoeffer, always therefore means deciding to follow Jesus, to take our feet off the ground and put them into the footprints of Jesus. That is why Bonhoeffer rightly preached that “only he who believes obeys, and only he who obeys, believers.”[50] Again, the experience of grace calls us to step not into a “rags to riches” story, but into the “riches to rags” story of Jesus Christ. Again, an even more accurately description of this graced-called life, is that we are to now step into the “riches to rags to riches” story of Jesus Christ.

10. The river of God’s grace

So how might we better understand, encounter, and identity God’s grace?” I have already alluded to a number of helpful models, analogies and metaphors. What I now mention, in seeking to bring this discussion to a closure, will only build upon and further clarify what I have already mentioned. Another biblical metaphor of God’s grace is that of the flowing river. We find the image in John 1:15: “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” The verb is not quite past tense; it is rather what we call an active indicative verb, conveying a continuous motion. God’s grace is still flowing! Yet even more illuminating is the term “upon.” We can translate “upon” as, “instead” or “after.” The image is that of one measure of “grace,” constantly being displaced by another measure of grace. It is just as when we watch the river’s flow of running water. New water displaces the water that was there a moment earlier. “Grace takes the place of grace . . . ever new . . . ever fresh.”[51] Grace then, is like water. And the water constantly flows downward, never upward.

To further help us appreciate the contours of God’s grace, I will draw attention to a recent living example of the “grace-lived” life: Brennan Manning. Manning is the author of the emerging classic, The Ragamuffin Gospel.[52] Critics have come to hail Manning’s book, The Ragamuffin Gospel, as a classic meditation, one of the best ever, on the grace of God. The subject of the whole text is grace, God’s grace. Yet it’s not just an exposition of God’s grace. It is rather a meditation on what a “grace-lived” life looks like and implies, in our 21st century first-world material and consumer and success-driven ethos.

Here is how Manning defines grace: “Grace is the active expression of his love.”[53] Manning’s title to his meditation, The Ragamuffin Gospel, directly infers his definition of grace as the “active expression” of God’s love. The word “ragamuffin” is rare. However, its meaning refers to a ragged, poorly clothed person; or a disreputable person. Manning came up with this peculiar title for his book from listening to a young lady describe her first ever reading on the life of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. The young woman said, “Wow! Like Jesus has this totally intense thing for ragamuffins.” For there in the Gospel, as Manning was himself reminded, “Jesus spent a disproportionate amount of time with people . . . [like] the poor . . . the hungry, sinners, prostitutes, tax collectors . . . the downtrodden, the little ones, the least, the last . . . . In short, Jesus hung out with ragamuffins.”[54] If we want to receive God’s grace, we must take our place, not at the high seat, but at the lowest seat at the table. For only there, can we then hear the word, “Friend, come up higher” (Luke 14:10).

We can argue that Manning’s “storied” thesis is actually to some extent a more updated version of Bonhoeffer’s classic, The Cost of Discipleship. Contrary to popular Protestant thinking, God’s grace is far more that a purely transactional status God bestows upon us at the “new birth.” That is “cheap grace.” Conversion to Christ involves repentance; a willful turning towards a whole new paradigm on life. And with and through that turning, comes a whole new kind of lifestyle, that will create a definitive counter-cultural witness to our consensus around us, tangibly evidenced by how we create and expend our wealth. Manning’s Ragamuffin Gospel reflects the gist of Manning’s life teachings. What Manning has taught through his whole life’s existence, is a profound theological exposition into the meaning and very expression of God’s grace.

According to Manning, the grace of God is not just a noun describing our passive receiving of God’s favour through keeping our eyes on Jesus. No, not at all! Although on one level, we will keep our eyes on Jesus, as we allow Him to work in our lives. Like St Francis of Assisi, Manning taught through his own life, that growing in God’s grace comes through embracing, what Foster elsewhere calls, the spiritual discipline of simplicity.[55] So in willful and deliberate contrast to the American Christian Evangelical but consumerist-driven lifestyle, Manning went about some thirty years ago and developed a modern day (and Protestant version) Franciscan community. Manning’s traveling community drew membership from a number of financially secure followers. Most notable of whom was the late and Grammy awarding winning Christian songwriter, Rich Mullins (who died in a car accident in 1997).

According to Manning, the first introductory example of God’s grace in the Bible begins not in the Gospels, but in Genesis, in the story of Abraham’s journey up Mount Moriah. It was there as we recall that God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. It is in fact this story, which Manning uses to begin his meditation upon the meaning of God’s grace. A meaning, which as earlier mentioned, means nothing less that “the active expression of his love.” Manning writes,

“The child of God knows that the graced life calls him or her to live on a cold and windy mountain, not on the flattened plain of reasonable, middle-of-the-road religion. For at the heart of the gospel of grace, the sky darkens, the wind howls, [and] a young man walks up another Moriah . . . Unlike Abraham, he carries a cross on his back, rather than sticks . . . Like Abraham [eg, He climbs], listening to a wild and restless God who will have His way with us, no matter what the cost. This is the God of the gospel of grace.[56]

Manning then goes on to say that the experience of God’s grace should, if we’re truly open to the full meaning and implications of grace, cause in us a radical disjunction between our entire existence and the setting we live in. It will thus cause a genuine distaste for the status quo of our modern world. The reason for this all boils down to the very experience of realising that God has accepted us, just as we are. This experience of having been accepted just as we are by God, thus leads to our own and genuine self-acceptance. For we then realise that, “genuine self-acceptance is not derived from the power of positive thinking, mind-games, or pop psychology. It is an act of faith in the God of grace.[57] Therefore, as Manning concludes,

“The acceptance of self does not mean to be resigned to the status quo. On the contrary, the more fully we accept ourselves, the more successfully we begin to grow. [For] Love is far better stimulus than threat or pressure.”[58]

So the life-style implication is this: We no longer find ourselves bound to the social mirror. For, “When we accept ourselves for what we are, we decrease our hunger for power . . . We are no longer preoccupied with being powerful or popular. . . “[59] What then happens, as the rest of Manning’s book demonstrates, is that we begin freely entering into the “downward flow” of God’s grace.

At the heart of Manning’s doctrine, and what he has in fact constantly stressed, is what the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard calls “the task of ‘becoming’ a Christian, as opposed to ‘being’ a Christian.”[60] This parallel between Manning’s teaching about God’s grace and Kierkegaard’s teaching on “becoming” a Christian is made by the Christian philosopher Carl Raschke. Raschke finds in Manning a prime example of many emerging postmodern Christian ministry paradigms, which are fortunately shifting away from the late 20th century customer-driven, affluent-friendly ministry model to a radical counterculture form of ministry. A major tenet to the emerging counterculture ministry model is that Christian discipleship should naturally result in a disciple’s eventual deconstruction of the presumed moral “correctness” of the world’s archetypical quest for material and positional-evidenced success and affluence.[61]

So back to the link between Manning and Kierkegaard. By beginning his meditation on God’s grace with the story of Abraham’s climb to Mount Moriah, Manning was evidently choosing to align his meditation with Kierkegaard’s earlier and more seminal teaching on Christian faith through the story of Abraham’s “leap of faith” at Mount Moriah. As Raschke observes regarding Kierkegaard’s influence on Manning’s reflections on God’s grace: “Becoming a Christian, as Kierkegaard explained with irony, is not climbing a ladder of spiritual, let alone material, ’success.’ It all comes down to . . . taking what Kierkegaard himself referred to as the ‘leap of faith,’ a leap into the fearful and unknown.”[62]

So as a primal paradigm for Christian faith, Abraham’s “leap of faith,” the letting go of Isaac at Mount Moriah, is thus paradigmatic for real decisions every believer must mentally embrace and journey through. These are the tough, risky decisions God’s grace will impose upon our will, as we travel through our personal journey towards “becoming a Christian.” What does it mean now, to “become” a Christian? “Becoming” a Christian, is to become conformed in the likeness of God, revealed in the face of Jesus Christ (Rom 8:28-29; 2 Cor 4:6).

Encountering God’s grace comes through making the “leap of faith,” a leap from trust in one’s self to trust in God alone for our present and future existence. As Manning says, our human will plays a part. Our own will plays a part along with God’s sovereign call, because upon hearing God’s call to Himself, we embrace a “decisive conversion- a turning from mistrust to trust.”[63] Even more so, Manning adds that the experience of grace immediately confronts us with the wrongness of our entire present existence in this world’s order. For the truth is that our entire striving towards success, has been premised upon our aching need for have or “self” validated. We have this aching need to have our “self” validated through the acquisition of all our things- our material wealth, our positions, our achievements, our titles, and all our success.

God’s grace thus tells us that “God is on our side and thus we are victors regardless of how well we have played the game.”[64] Therefore, what now happens to the grace-touched believer, is not- as the success-themed gospel message so often tells us- that we are now free to pursue without guilt all our innate dreams and present pursuits to continue “climbing” this world’s ladder to success. Rather, what now happened to the grace-touched believer is that knowing God accepts us just as we are in all our failure, we are now free to no longer pursue the “success” dreams the world has laid upon use.[65]

We are now free to let it all go- to take the existential “leap of faith,” and fall into thin air. We now are willing to fall freely along with the downward current of God’s grace. For the river of God’s grace flows naturally not upward but downward. That is why God gives grace to the humble and not the proud. The grace-touched disciple thus worries less about what to wear or what to drink, because he or she has come down to the level of the birds in the air, and the lilies in the field (Matt 6:25-34). Because such a disciple no longer worships mammon (Matt 6:24), he receives all things in life, no matter how big or small as God’s gifts, and thus as expressions of God’s grace. Thus, the disciple is free to serve the kingdom of God, and so go downwards with the flow of grace (Matt 6:33).

The freed-up disciple that has been touched by grace, is thus willing to embrace the script laid out for him by the Lord Jesus- the redemption that comes through entering into Jesus’ kenosis, and thus His “riches to rags” story. Yet thank God that this “riches to rags to riches” story paradoxically leads us back to true riches, which involves the process of being conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ. Consequently, there will always come a point in time when the graced-touched disciple, will be confronted with a genuine “call” to in some manner or way, express a solidarity with the poor of this world. This is inevitable because just like water, grace goes downward. And its power will pull us towards its rushing, downward destination towards the sea, where it brings fresh life to all things.

Entering into Jesus’ kenosis, the process of allowing Christ to script our lives according to his pattern is the only true and authentic response to God’s grace. Two things naturally happen when God touches us through His grace, which is the river of His grace. First is that this same grace flows through us. Second is that we flow with His grace, which is flowing downward. Grace will always lead us into service, servant-hood, and servant-leadership. God’s grace is the water that flows from the high places to the lowest places.

If just once we have received God’s grace, we are like the growing disciple named Much Afraid, in Hannah Hurnard’s spiritual allegory, Hind’s Feet in High Places. While climbing the high places towards the Shepherd’s Land, she heard the rushing water’s song as it flowed down the mountain: “Come, Let us go away- Lower, lower every day . . . from the heights we leap and flow, to the valleys down below. From the height we leap and go, to the valleys down below. Always answering to the call, to the lowest place of all.” And once Much Afraid surrenders to that call, she receives her new name, Grace and Glory. God’s grace comes to those who in sheer abandonment surrender to the downward flow of grace. The grace-touched disciple prays, “Abba, I abandon myself into your hands. Do with me what you will. Whatever you may do, I thank you. Into your hands, I commend my spirit. I give myself; I surrender myself into your hands without reserve, with boundless confidence, for you are my Father.”[66]

I will now bring this essay to a closure. I will do so by briefly mentioning a few areas where proponents of the success-themed Gospel, as well as the rest of us living within a consumerist culture, can begin to demonstrate some kind of “counter-culture” witness, through this season of financial turmoil. As just discussed, I will do so from the premise that these are also a few areas reflecting our decision to fall freely downwards along the river of God’s grace, even as through the power of His Spirit, He has poured out His grace upon us. These are just some very brief thoughts, which have come to mind over the past few days.

If the success-themed “grace-centered” church wants to find its call and centre within the greater Body of Christ, then it will have to embark on four broad movements. First, it must acknowledge both the “dark” and “light” sides of material wealth. Second, it will have shift its mindset away from the world’s “rags to riches” idea of redemption, and back towards the biblical paradigm plot of “riches to rags,” foremost modeled for us in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ. In so doing, there are obviously endless implications that this basic paradigm shift would create within the entire life and ministerial ethos of any given church or movement. Third, and which would create other major paradigm shifts within any Christian community or movement, it would be to embrace the “full Gospel” of God’s grace. This is only possible by embracing all the major purposes of Christ’s atonement. Such would indeed result in a truly orthodox and robust Christian message of grace, as it holds in tension the two needful dictums of us “in Christ” and Christ “in us” (Rom 8:10; Gal 2:20).

Finally, you will have to embrace the fear of the Lord.

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour; and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! for it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’” (Matt 4:8-10)

The god of the world, whose lieutenant elsewhere is called mammon, promises Jesus the whole world, if He would “worship” him. As Nouwen points out, among the three temptations used by the devil to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, this was the “temptation to power.”[67] Yet the way of Jesus and of His leadership is not through the will to power. It is a rise to leadership that rather comes through taking the low place. It is the way of taking the servant’s role, the place of the child. It is through way of the servant and the child, because only through this way, can the Father lead Jesus.

It is thus not an active-tense paradigm of leading, but rather of a passive-tense paradigm of leading. It is thus a way that is not best described as leading, but rather of- being led. Right there in the desert, Jesus therefore established His whole way of leadership- servant-leadership. It was to be the way not of upward mobility, but of “downward mobility, ending on the cross.[68] Nouwen perceptibly draws the application: “The Christian leader . . . needs to be radically poor, journeying with nothing except a staff . . . (Mark 6:8). For only through embracing the process of becoming poor in the eyes of this world order, can we discover Jesus’ “giving” style of leadership.

This is a style, which in the Gospels, Jesus calls, servant-leadership. And through it we foremost learn that the greatest need we have as leaders, is not in knowing how to lead, but in how to be led, “by allowing ourselves to be led.” So what Jesus’ reply to the devil signified was that he was further entering into his kenosis. Right there in the desert He was further emptying Himself of all his heavenly glory, that He may model trust in the Father alone. So right there, Jesus goes back in time to where Adam fell. But where the first Adam failed, the second Adam succeeded, for “he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death upon a cross.” (Phil 2:8).[69] He lost his life that He may find it again for all mankind.

This reflection naturally infers why we must embrace the “fear of the Lord.” It should naturally empower us to realise that the grace-touched life is a life thoroughly lived out in the “fear of the Lord.” For to become a servant-leader like Jesus, we must realise that too often in this present age, “Wealth and riches prevent us from truly discerning the way of Jesus.[70] So in reply to the devil, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 6:13, “You shall fear the Lord your God and serve only him.” Now what does it mean to “fear the Lord,” other than to worship Him alone? To fear the Lord is to reverence God. Reverence is giving God space to be God in our life. Reverence, fear, worship- it all means the same thing. To fear God means that we trust not in ourselves, but trust our entire existence into the hands of God. Reverence, the fear of the Lord, is no less or more than letting God be God! We let go and let God be God! To fear God means that we longer strive to achieve and attain, but we let go and let God lead us. We surrender to the flow of His grace.

“Trust me to turn My hand upon you and remove the boulder that has choked your river-bed, and take away all the sand that has silted up the channel. . . . I will perfect that which concerns you. Fear not, O child of My love; fear not.”

“Beloved, Let us love. ‘Lord, what is love?’ ‘Love is that which inspired My life, and led Me to My Cross, and held Me on my Cross.’ ‘Lord, evermore give us this love.’

Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after love, for they shall be filled.[71]

Notes

[1] Richard Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex & Power (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1985).

[2] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 2.

[3] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 1.

[4] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 3-4.

[5] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 247.

[6] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 45-46.

[7] Blogpastor ( http://www.blogpastor.net ).

[8] see Blogpastor at: http://www.blogpastor.net/category/church/megachurches .

[9] See Blogpastor at: http://www.blogpastor.net/category/society-culture .

[10] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 20f.

[11] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 40.

[12] Gordon Wong, “Consumers in a Dog Eat dog World: Bible Bites and Barks on Ancient Societies,” Church & Society in Asia Today 11, no. 2 (August 2008): 5-9 (9).

[13] Peter Kuzmic, “Pentecostals Respond to Marxism,” in Called and Empowered: Global Mission in Pentecostal Perspective, eds., Murray A Dempster, Byron D. Klaus, and Douglas Peterson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), 147, 161-162.

[14] Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: The Globalized World in the Twenty-First Century, 2nd ed. (London, UK: Penguin Books, 2006), 470.

[15] Elmer A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981), Martens, God’s Design, 166, 168, 178-189.

[16] Steven R. Covey, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness (New York, NY: Free Press; Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2004), 9.

[17] Covey, The 8th Habit, 9-10.

[18] Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth, rev. ed. (London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), 100-101.

[19] Foster, Celebration of Discipline, 100-101.

[20] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 25-26.

[21] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 52-53.

[22] Francis Chan, “Temasek to Start Firm-wide Pay Cuts,” The Straits Times (Saturday, November 22, 2008), page A22.

[23] Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 52.

[24] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1955; Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1995), 130.

[25] Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 130, 132.

[26] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1908; New York, NY: Doubleday; Image Books, 2001), 137.

[27] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 142.

[28] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 166.

[29] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 94.

[30] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 155.

[31] Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 94.

[32] Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 98-106f.

[33] N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL; IVP Academic; Intervarsity Press, 1999), 183,

[34] Sivin Kit, “I Shop Therefore I am: Consumerism and Its Impact on Christian Life and Ministry,” Church & Society in Asia Today 11, no. 2 (August 2008): 41-50 (43, 44).

[35] Kit, “I Shop Therefore I am,” Church & Society in Asia Today, 44.

[36] Kit, “I Shop Therefore I am,” Church & Society in Asia Today, 41, 45.

[37] Dan P. McAdams, The Redemptive Self: Stories Americans Live By (Oxford University Press, 2006), 7.

[38] Simon Chan, “Evidential Glossolalia and the Doctrine of Subsequence,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1999): 195-211 (208).

[39] Kit, “I Shop Therefore I am,” Church & Society in Asia Today, 44.

[40] Robert A. Kelly, “Lutheranism as Counterculture? The Doctrine of Justification and Consumer-Capitalism,” Currents in Theology and Mission 24, no. 6 (December 1997): 497; quoted in Kit, “I Shop Therefore I am,” Church & Society in Asia Today, 44.

[41] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, rev. ed. (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. 1963), 45, 47, 53.

[42] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 67.

[43] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 99.

[44] C. S. Lewis, “Counting the Cost,” in Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: Scribner; Simon & Schuster Inc., 1952), 159, 160.

[45] Lewis, “The New Man,” in Mere Christianity, 175.

[46] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 47, 55, 62, 82.

[47] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 47.

[48] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 47.

[49] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 47.

[50] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 74.

[51] Amy Carmichael, If (London, UK: Dohnavur Fellowship; Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938), 73-74.

[52] Brennan Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, Inc., 1990, 2000).

[53] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 39.

[54] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 51.

[55] Foster, “The Discipline of Simplicity,” in Celebration of Discipline, 99-119; “The Vow of Simplicity,” in The Challenge of the Disciplined Life, 71-87.

[56] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 40.

[57] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 49.

[58] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 49.

[59] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 49-51.

[60] Carl Raschke, “”Thoroughly Postmodern Ministry: Postmodern Revivalism,” in The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Baker Publishing Group, 2004), 162-163.

[61] Raschke, The Next Reformation, 159-178.

[62] Raschke, The Next Reformation, 163.

[63] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 75.

[64] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 77.

[65] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 49.

[66] Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, 118.

[67] Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1991), 55f.

[68] Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus, 62.

[69] Michael Wilcock, The Message of Luke, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 59-60.

[70] Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus, 64.

[71] Carmichael, If, 82.

Posted in Archives, Ministry, New postings, Reflections Tagged: Advent season, Christ's atonement, Christian life & ministry, Discipleship, Economy, Following Christ, Grace, Possessions, Poverty, Redemption, Servant-hood, Success, Wealth

Ojama-shimasu! (“I’m going to disturb you”)

perichorus — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:08:00 +0000

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.”

Posted in Archives, Church, New postings, Reflections Tagged: Church life, Financial meltdown, Mega-churches, Wealth

Listening to the tragedy and beauty of creation

perichorus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:35:40 +0000

I have come to now regard as one of my favourite books, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art, by Madeleine L’Engle.[1] I read it twice over the past several months. I find it so quote worthy, that I’ll be posting several entries highlighting some of L’Engle’s reflections.

L’Engle begins by discussing what it means to, “take time to be. . . being time. . . . Listen to the silence. Stay open to the voice of the Spirit. . . . Slow me down Lord.”

The broader discussion pursued here by L’Engle, is the meaning of art. L’Engle describes good art, as “cosmos in chaos.” That’s quite a mouthful. But at one simple level, L’Engle is suggesting that art which reflects the beauty of creation, should not shrink from engaging the theme of tragedy. The beauty of creation can sometimes be haunting. For the reality of tragedy clarifies the beauty of redemption. The tragedy of creation ought to evoke from a us a sustained pause. So L’Engle prays:

“Slow me down, Lord. . . . I will never understand . . . if I do not slow down and listen to what the Spirit is telling me, telling of the death of trees, the death of planets, of people, and what all these deaths mean in the light of love of the Creator.”

L’Engle calls this kind of “listening,” a “questioning”:

“This questioning of the meaning of being, and being and dying is behind the telling of stories around the tribal firs at night . . . the singing of melodies of love in spring, and “the death of green autumn. It is part of the deepest longing of the human psyche, a recurrent ache in the hearts of all of God’s creatures.”

L’Engle recalls she has been “forced to listen. . . . The Holy Spirit does not hesitate to use any method at hand to make a point to us reluctant creatures.” As she concludes the reflection, L’Engle then says, “It is a frightening thing to open oneself to this strange and dark side of the divine; it means letting go of our sane self-control, that control which gives us the illusion of safety. But safety is only an illusion, and letting it go is part of listening to the silence, and to the Spirit.”

“Generally what is more important than getting watertight answers is learning to ask the right questions.”

With reflection upon Psalm 19, L’Engle then quotes the poet E.E. Cummings:

“Now the ears of my ears are awake and now the eyes of my eyes are opened.”

“The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.”

(Psalm 19:1)

The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.

O taste and see that the Lord is good; happy are those who take refuge in him.”

(Psalm 34:7-8)

[1] Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press; Crosswicks, Ltd, 1980), 2-9.

Posted in Archives, New postings, Reflections Tagged: Art, Beauty, Creation, Listening, Prayer, Spirit, Tragedy

A newly sharpened purpose to Perichorus blog-site

perichorus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:43:19 +0000

For those who are regular or occasional visitors to Perichorus- as well as all first-time visitors, you will want to know that this blog-site has just undergone a newly sharpened purpose and direction.

You will find this more clarified purpose and theme expressed through the extensive revising of the “About Perichorus” blog-site anchor page.

Four purpose statements of Perichorus:

What you’ll find in Perichorus

This newly defined purpose emerged through the recent publishing of my three part series (plus prologue) titled, “Spirit-baptism and the Prophetic Imagination.”

What emerged through those entries has now also become something of a comprehensive manifesto of Perichorus regarding what the blog envision towards the global Pentecostal movement:

Prologue to Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination

Part 1: The Revolutionary Power of Pentecostal Spirituality

Part 2: The Decline of Pentecostalism as a Revival Movement

Part 4: Spirit-Baptism as Metaphor for the Prophetic-Vocational Anointing

To be published within several weeks’ time.

You will also note that in keeping with the new direction and clarified vision, the blog title tagline now reads, “Perichorus: A vision for true Pentecostal revival.”

I believe that this sharpening of vision and purpose must remain tentative. Through the passing of time, it will continue to evolve as the Lord further clarifies the role, purpose, and message of Perichorus.

Blessings to you

Monte

Posted in Archives, New postings, Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Perichorus keynote entries, Reflections Tagged: Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Pentecostalism, Spirit-baptism

What you’ll find in Perichorus: About Perichorus

perichorus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:13:49 +0000

What you’ll find in perichorus

Within Perichorus, you will find entries, essays, paradigms and theological reflections, each directly or indirectly reflecting a vision for true Pentecostal revival in the postmodern world.

You will therefore want to read through the blog’s four purpose statements. Together, these four purpose statements comprise the “About Perichorus” page, which is the main anchor-page of the Perichorus blog site:

2. Visioning a new kind of Pentecostal church for the postmodern world.

3. Conceptualising Pentecostal ethos through postmodern paradigms.

4. Encountering Jesus as the Baptiser in the Spirit.

To further explore the discussion developed through the four Perichorus purpose statements, visit and download the following keynote Perichorus manifesto essays:

Part 1: The Revolutionary Power of Pentecostal Spirituality

Part 2: The Decline of Pentecostalism as a Revival Movement

You may also want to visit the posting titled, “The Space where Dreams are Born.”

These manifesto entries, as well as other important key entries, are also found under the blog’s “Perichorus key entries” category.

Each entry is also themed and exists as a word calling the Pentecostal movement towards its needful evolvement into a living tradition, which is faithful to its perennial calling as a needful communal gifting within the larger Christian faith tradition.

Believing that within postmodern world that the Wesleyan roots of Classic Pentecostalism need even greater appreciation, Perichorus is thus also attempting to root Classic Pentecostal ethos, within the Wesleyan four-fold synergy of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

These reflections therefore also seek to consciously address how the doctrine of the Trinity, should shape the life of a local church, and can even facilitate a Pentecostal ethos that is responsive to the challenges of postmodernity.

Therefore, it’s good to begin visiting this site at the following two main pages:

Every encounter with the Holy Spirit is actually an encounter with the Triune God. A true Pentecostal ethos is thus actually, an ethos that is shaped by the Triune life of God. This is an ethos facilitating the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Archives, New postings, Pentecostal spirituality, Perichorus keynote entries Tagged: Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Prophetic imagination, Spirit-baptism

Encountering Jesus as the Baptiser in the Holy Spirit: About Perichorus

perichorus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:56:55 +0000

Four purpose statements of Perichorus:

2. Visioning a new kind of Pentecostal church for the postmodern world.

3. Conceptualising Pentecostal ethos through postmodern paradigms.

4. Encountering Jesus as the Baptiser in the Spirit.

Encountering Jesus as the Baptiser in the Spirit.

Finally, I am envisioning a church where we preach through word and deed, the full gospel of Jesus our Saviour, Baptiser, Healer and Coming King. This a church where we are fanning into flame the fires of Pentecost.

This means that the baptism in the Holy Spirit, lies at the centre of life in Christ. Through the baptism in the Holy Spirit, what Jesus first began to do and teach, He now continues to do through the Church when He pours out His Spirit upon us.

In the pluralistic culture of the Church world today, with its attendant marketplace of competing doctrines readily and popularly available through the both hard and soft copy, the definitive contours of Classic Pentecost are often blurred. Yet amongst the interpretive communities within Scripture, there is also all through the Bible a tradition of the Spirit’s vocational-prophetic anointing that finds its fullest expression- as we Pentecostals often agree on, in Luke-Acts.

For at the centre of the prophetic ethos which God has entrusted to Classic Pentecostalism, is the movement’s distinctive doctrine and experience of Spirit-baptism, experientially signified by the phenomena of speaking in tongues. This baptism in the Spirit is not a one-time, past event, but an ongoing encounter with Jesus, the Baptiser in the Spirit.

Historically, we have called this tarrying before the Lord. We can keep on seeking from Jesus, a fresh baptism in the Holy Spirit. This promised life of encounter through seeking after the Baptiser, is the climax to the biblical tradition regarding the vocational anointing of the Holy Spirit. A Pentecostal church ought to be especially informed by all the biblical symbols and metaphors of the Spirit’s presence, and that while we live in the Age of the Spirit, we need to seek a continual drinking of the Spirit.

A genuine and authentic Pentecostal ethos will indeed therefore manifest an “ethos of radical difference; a “radical alternative,” “to the prevailing consensus of the day,” arising from “an apocalyptic re-evaluation of everything” that had been taken for granted prior to encountering Jesus as the baptiser in the Holy Spirit.

Through the baptism in the Holy Spirit, we take a radical step into Jesus’ life-story, whereby God is further re-creating and restoring us into His likeness. Through Spirit-baptism we are thus experientially baptised into the biblical story. This story has the power to script to our own life story, as a people delivered out of Egypt, journeying now through this present age by the Spirit’s presence, as we march to a new world order, the Zion of God, where justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

It is through each new shattering experience of Spirit-baptism, that our Lord Jesus Christ disciples us through radical and new re-evaluations of so much we take for granted. Filled with the Spirit of prophesy, we become more attuned with God’s dream for the full manifestation of His Kingdom throughout all creation. Jesus empowers us to question the prevailing consensus, and prophetically proclaim through word and deed, a new future for the world around us.

Posted in Archives, New postings, Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Perichorus keynote entries Tagged: Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Spirit-baptism

Conceptualising Pentecostal ethos through postmodern paradigms: About Perichorus

perichorus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:52:55 +0000

Four purpose statements of Perichorus:

2. Visioning a new kind of Pentecostal church for the postmodern world.

3. Conceptualising Pentecostal ethos through postmodern paradigms.

4. Encountering Jesus as the Baptiser in the Spirit.

Conceptualising Pentecostal ethos through postmodern paradigms.

Third, I am also envisioning, a Pentecostal ethos emerging within postmodern wineskins. Every epoch of human history, and every human worldview, exists under the judgement of God. Yet the Holy Spirit also speaks redemptively through each wineskin and worldview. So while every epoch paradigm exhibits the corruption of humankind, each also expresses vestiges of God’s creative Spirit at work through the providential outworking of His purpose in human history.

For good reason, we have valued the trans-rational experience of God’s Spirit coming upon us. Yet partly due to our right valuing towards spiritual experience, we have generally lacked awareness of our own modern paradigms. We have failed to perceive that 20th century Pentecost fell within the wineskins of modernity. Through our naive human failings, we have lacked awareness that we have picked up and internalised within our presumed “Christian” belief-system, values, practices and behaviour, so much philosophical baggage that reflects not the biblical story-world but the story-world of philosophical modernity in its worst of forms.

The result is that we and our churches become more shaped by modern management models, pop psychology, and consumerised entertainment impulses- rather than biblical theology, servant-leadership and spiritual worship. Pragmatic relevance too often, displaces spiritual reality, and has displaced a true Pentecostal ethos and reality.

We have traditionally viewed with suspicion the act of engaging the very term philosophy, because we have comically dichotomised spiritual experience from moral and intellectual reasoning. Most of us are not aware how deeply wedded modern Evangelicalism has become to the modern philosophy of human arrogance. We have generally lacked awareness to our own modern paradigms. So we have mistaken the wineskin for the wine!

But today the soil is sifting and has already sifted. We now live between the twilight of one era, and the dawning of another. Regarding the Christian Church, particularly the modern Evangelical Church, the postmodern voice is often times today something of a pagan “Cyrus,” whom as “God’s Anointed,” He has raised up to call us out of faith in ourselves and back to faith in Christ alone. Thus, through the cataclysmic events demarking the displacement of every Christian church entrapped within idolatrous trappings of modernity, a New Reformation. It will be a Reformation very much parallel to and possibly as significant to the 16th century Reformation.

The modern wineskins caused us to imagine the Triune God in mathematical calculations. Yet we are now hearing from the ancients, that what they came to discover in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was as the “dance of God!” Trinity means that God is dynamically and relationally alive, as if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally moving in a joyful, circular rhythm. They saw the Trinity as the perichoresis (peri- “around,” + “chorus”).

The dance of God. Yet the Triune God has opened the circle, making space for you and I. God’s Triune life, is the message: He invites us into the rhythm of His eternal dance. That is why the prophet spoke: “He will exult over you with loud singing, as on a day of festival!”

Seeking after and entering into God’s dream, song, and dance- and inviting others to this heavenly party, is what Pentecost is all about. God is passionate. His passion comes upon us, as His comes upon us. God poured out His passion upon His prophets. Today, He is still pouring out Pentecost.

I believe that as an oral culture, Classic Pentecostal spirituality will find its most natural release not through 20th century modernity, but through a number of cultural paradigms that are defining the emerging postmodern world. This will be a Pentecost, bursting through new wineskins; a Pentecostal ethos bursting through wineskins of postmodern metaphors and paradigms.

For the postmodern turn towards understanding reality through the power of symbol, metaphor, dialogue and oral-driven story telling, offers us our true moment in history, for it is here we realise that Pentecostal spirituality can interface with the postmodern world in ways unprecedented during the 20th century. Indeed, we must do if the broad ethos of Classical Pentecostal spirituality is to survive as a renewal movement and witness of Christ to the postmodern 21st century world.

Furthermore, our movement into the postmodern 21st century world will require our evolving into a living tradition that is faithful to our perennial calling and revolutionary ethos as a prophetic and apocalyptic witness to the coming Kingdom. Yet we must do this in a manner that is fully ecumenically engaged as a communal gifting within and towards the entire Catholic Christian tradition.

We must in all humility, stand convinced that the revolutionary ethos which we enter into through the Pentecostal baptism in the Holy Spirit, is an ethos and spirituality which God has entrusted to us as a movement through the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Through its deconstruction of the modern meta-narrative and myth of scientific certitude through human ingenuity, postmodernity is positively reminding us within the Body of Christ, that every church tradition is gifted as an interpretive community. Yet God has poured out His gift into earthen vessels; flawed vessels flawed through the utter realities of human weakness.

So like other spiritual traditions existing now and in the past within the Christian tradition, we who are representative of Classic Pentecostal spirituality, must perceive ourselves as weak earthen vessels. Yet we are earthen vessels filled with a distinctive charism (gifting), that we may contribute our gifting back to the God as the Spirit’s manifold presence throughout the entire Catholic Christian faith.

As Pentecostals, we must therefore recover our original ecumenical vision and spirit. This means that even as we seek to maintain our core distinctives, and even as we posture ourselves as a gift to the greater Christian tradition, we also remain ecumenically engaged with the entire Christian Church that we may also receive gifts and the enduring wisdom and depth already entrusted within the greater Protestant, Roman Catholic, and even Eastern Orthodox traditions.

We do this knowing that the Spirit has entrusted gifts to their traditions. And also, that our roots lie within their existence as our spiritual fathers. The spirit which thus enjoins us to offer our gifts to the whole Church, thus also enjoins us to nurture an openness to hear and receive other gifts found within other traditions, which to some extent may find at least a small niche within our own Pentecostal spirituality.

Posted in Archives, Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Perichorus keynote entries Tagged: Pentecostal ethos, Pentecostal spirituality, Postmodernity

Visioning a new kind of Pentecostal church for the postmodern world: About Perichorus

perichorus — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:49:32 +0000

Four purpose statements of Perichorus: