2010: LIVING THE GLORY OF CHRISTMAS

“There were shepherds . . . the glory of the Lord shone around them . . . But the angel said to them . . . ‘To you– is born this day . . . a Savior’. . . So they hurried off and found . . . the baby lying in the manger.”  Luke 2:8-14

We can find within the traditional Christian calendar used in the more historic churches as well as in the worship of the ancient churches, a profound understanding that the spirit of Christmas ought to help us begin every new year with a renewed vision of God’s glory—which is the true glory of Christmas.

First off, for the believer, Christmas is not just a celebration of Jesus’ birth on earth but a celebration of His birth in our hearts.  And that having been born in us even also as a seed, He lives in us for this reason:  that we may be restored to His likeness.  It is this very work of Christ in us that partly defines the glory of Christmas.  Christ is born in our hearts for far much more than to bring us into heaven.  He is born in us to unite us to Himself, that we also manifest His likeness and hence the glory of God.

It is for this reason that right after Christmas comes the season of Epiphany: the beginning of every new year, is a season of Epiphany!  Epiphany means, “appearance;” epiphany means the manifestation of Christ.  Until Christ again, bodily returns to earth when we shall see Him in His resurrected body, he is now primarily manifest when His likeness is manifest through humans who offer their lives to him for this very purpose:  to be an “epiphany” of Christ.

When we can see in the weakness of human flesh, the glory of God, it is then we see an epiphany of Jesus.  It is then we encounter a living manifestation of the life of Jesus, changing a person from the likeness of Adam and into the likeness of Christ.

So the question we must ask ourselves is this: would we like to begin the new year with an “epiphany” of Christ in us?  Do we want to see in the new year, a new manifestation of His life in us?  Would we like to let others see this manifestation of Jesus?  Because when they do, then we are sharing the hope of the world through our very life.

So let again revisit the story of Christmas, and again reflect on the glory of Christmas.  All over the world, it is common for homes to put up brightly lit, tinsel-covered, glorious Christmas trees, and brightly coloured lights and candles and decorations.  Perhaps in some way, all this is part of what we call the “glory of Christmas.”

But let us also be mindful that the true glory of the first Christmas, is not in these things.  It’s not in the “Christmas tinsel.”  The true glory of Christmas is rather found in things very plain, simple, and humble.  Now Christmas is about how God came down, and lived among us.  But how far did He come down?  It’s an important question, because in Jesus, we see God for who He is. 

How far down did He come?

1. I. HE CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN.

In a small village, He was born in poverty and scandal.  The son of a teenage peasant girl named Mary.  She was pregnant, but not married!  Her protruding belly branded her— an adulteress.  For her husband to be— was not His natural father!  Yet the day came, Jesus was born!  In an animal stable.  They laid Him in a manger, a feeding trough for donkeys!  So the air smelled with urine and donkey dung.

First to greet Jesus’ birth were the shepherds.  These were not white haired clean-cut looking Kiwi sheep herders.  They were rough, smelly, and dirty.  Most were not, morally upright people.  I sought to identify a “functional equivalent” for these shepherds— to help us reflect, on who they might be, in our setting.  But not wanting to offend anyone, I’ll suggest: you imagine who might fill that role.  But I would say: the kind of places they would frequent may be similar to what we have here in the Geylang area!  Living in dormitories or one-room rented flats.

Most of these shepherds were not out looking for God.  They were neither pious, nor devoutly religious people.  Yet to them the angels came, and proclaimed: “To you!  Is born this day . . . a Savior, who is the Messiah.”

Then Jesus grew up.  In a “kampong,” called Nazareth.  It was so bad, they used to say, “Could anything good, come out of Nazareth?”  Nazareth was in Galilee.  95% of Galileans were poor.  Jesus was one of them, and became a carpenter.  Then at age 30 He one day went into the Synagogue, and proclaimed: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me, to bring good news to the poor. . . to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)

Then for the final three years of His life, He ministered to His fellow Galileans.  He never wrote a book.  He never held a political office.  He never owned a home.  He lived on handouts.  Except for Jerusalem, He never visited the big cities.  He had no credentials but Himself.  But He attracted all kinds of people.  The poor, the rich.  Prostitutes.  Political revolutionaries.  Religious people.  Political leaders.  But above all, the oppressed and downtrodden.  Everyone invited him for dinner.  He enjoyed a good meal, with just about anyone!

But public opinion turned against Him.  Threatened by His revolution, the leaders sought to kill Him.  His followers left Him.  They nailed Him to a cross, between two thieves.  He died disgraced, in total shame.

20 centuries have come and gone.  Yet today He is the central figure of the human race.  All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected humanity on this earth, as much as that one solitary life.

He is the true King of Heaven and Earth.  In Him, the Kingdom of God has come.  One day the kingdoms of this world shall cease, but His kingdom shall never end.  When He first came, there was no room in the inn.  But when He comes again, the whole world will not be able to contain His glory.

The greatest event in human history was the birth of Jesus Christ.  This event divided history, into two parts:  before and after Christ!  The creator of all things, shrank Himself down. so small, as to become a single fertilised egg.  And we “beheld His glory!”  This– is the glory of Christmas.

“He made Himself nothing.”  He “emptied Himself” of all His glory.  Why?  To show us, what He is like!  That God– is humble!  He is approachable!  He is touched by our suffering!  He is giving!  “He is the image of the invisible God!”

Yet there’s more!  For in Him, we now see– our true humanity!  He became like us, that we might become like Him!  He is not only the image of God— He is the image of the perfect man, and woman.  If you’re a Christian, He is the image of what God re-making you and I to become.  He is changing us into His likeness.  Therefore, He says to you and I:

1. II. GO AND DO LIKEWISE!

All through the Gospels, that’s the word Jesus keeps speaking to us: “Go, and do likewise!  He says, “This is how I’ve lived my life.  Put your feet in my footsteps, and follow me!”  People were asking Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?  Who do I show kindness to?”  And He said, “All people.  Rich or poor.  Every skin colour.  Locals.  Foreigners.  Whatever you think their sin is, it’s not the issue: be a neighbour.  And make sure you be a neighbour to people you tend to despise.  These especially, are your neighbours.”  “Come down!  Go, and do likewise!”

The other day, I was boarding the LRT in Sengkang.  I was behind the yellow line, waiting for passengers to exit.  But there were these “China” foreign workers blocking the entrance, positioning themselves to be “first” inside the coach.  Since I was doing the “right thing,” I gave a “look,” to let them know, they were doing the wrong thing!  But the Lord spoke to me.  And I realised that, these are foreigners; they don’t know all the “rules,” but God loves them.  What they need is kindness, and forbearance; not correction.  Anyone can judge!  But are you willing to die for them?  Jesus was, and He did.  “Go and do likewise!”

Last week we met a Taiwanese woman at a coffee shop.  We talked for over an hour.  She’s been here for about two years, and suffering from culture shock.  She said we were the nicest people she’s met since coming here.  But I know she’s suffering culture shock.  Are we sensitive to these “strangers” in our midst?

Now let’s reflect on the situation here in the Geylang area.  Let’s evaluate our perspectives.  Because, if we compare Geylang to Shenton Way, there’s the probability that there is a whole lot more “sin” going on in Shenton Way than in Geylang.  Why?  Because throughout those tall buildings is marital adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, cheating, backstabbing, politicking, slander and malice!  Those things are just not as visible.

Geylang is more like an open wound, caused by the sickness of our whole world.  But by sheer geography, this community comprises, “our neighbours.”  And because we’re bound to “bump” into people who are different, Jesus says, “Go, and do likewise.”

We are also surrounded by people of other religious persuasions.  But they are not spiritual “competitors,” or “enemies.”  They are also, our “neighbours.”  How we understand people, determines how we treat them.  Do we see them as so depraved they deserve our contempt, or as people whom God loves?

How are we postured to people who are “not like us?”  Who are “different from us?  Not as “prim and proper” as us?  But we’re all, “diamonds in the rough.”  For inside the heart of every person, lies a “spark” of God’s glory!  That’s why we’re “redeemable.  That’s why we matter to God.  So we’re called not to judge but to see people through Christ’s eyes.

Over these past days, I felt the Lord impress me with this thought:  Revival in this church is linked to how deeply in our heart, we’re willing to embrace this community.

Because, for however long it may be— this church, like other churches here, is for this moment, God’s hope for this area.  God sometimes keeps a person or people in a certain place until lessons are learned that He wants to teach in that place.  So therefore, “for such a time as this,” this part of the land, of the “good earth,” is part of the “pasture,” for this church.

It is part of the “pasture” where the “shepherd,” meaning this church, has to “be a neighbour,” to the lost sheep.  I’m not talking about going out and “witnessing.”  I am rather referring to our posture towards “our neighbors.”  The posture of our heart towards people who are different from us, especially people we tend to brand as depraved, “immoral,” or of a different religious persuasion, or simply find different from us.  The problem, is not what’s “out there, around us.  It’s here, in our heart.  It’s our posture to human beings— created in the image of God.

So that when opportunity arises, we are kind, and what is manifest is not “judgment,” or irritation, but the warmth of Christ.  That’s what it means to be a “Christian:” a little “christ,” a disciple of Jesus Christ.  That to all men, and all women, the warmth and love of Christ is manifest.  I would challenge us that for 2010, let’s strive not to be all the more known for Christianity.  But rather to be known as “Christ-like.”

1. III. AND HE SHALL LIFT YOU UP.

Humble yourselves and He shall lift you up!  Become a magnetic house of healing!  Jesus said, “When you give a banquet, do not invite your friends . . . or rich neighbors,” or anyone who can repay you.  But rather, “invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.  And you will be blessed!”  (Luke 14:12-14).

You set your self to become a “different kind” of church.  A magnetic house of healing.  A church without walls.  Let your fruit “hang over the walls,” for the poor in the land.  Don’t worry about not attracting the right kind of people you’d like to bring here, to these premises.  But become a “magnetic house of healing,” and God will fill the church.  He fill it, if we’re open to all kinds of people who healing.  And along the way, God will send a few rich people along the way also, because there are some who’d believe and be attracted to what your doing.

If you embrace the whole community with all you heart, be a neighbour to this whole community, “You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. . . . you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.” (Isaiah 58:11-12)

1. He came all the way down.
2. Go and do likewise.
3. And He shall lift you up.

Monte Lee Rice (December 2009)

The Christmas miracle

“’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)

God favours those who are barren, yet open to His Word.

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!”

1. 1. Rest in the knowledge you are highly favoured by God.

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.

1. 2. Rest in God’s “timing.”

There are times in the human predicament that a “womb” is closed.

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.

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.

1. 3. Be ready for God’s timing.

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.”

Down through the epochs of Scripture, God sometimes “opens wombs.”  There are times when God shows up. . . a serendipity surprises us!  And life is born in the “darkness of human impossibility!”  But will you be ready for God’s visitation?  Are you ready for His timing?

Rest in God’s “timing,” and be ready for His timing.

1. 4. Open your self to God’s fullness.

“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.

Finally, Mary was open to fullness of God.  She was open to His fullness because she was open to the possibilities of God who out of darkness, brings forth new life.

But if we are open to God’s fullness, we have to open His way.  His way may require our willingness to look foolish in the eyes of the world.  Mary looked foolish because for several months she was pregnant though her marriage to Joseph wa not yet formalized and consummated.  Some thought she was an adulteress.

But Mary restined in the knowledge that she was highly favoured by God.  She rested in God’s timing.  She rested in God’s ways.  She readied herself for God’s timing.  And she was open for God’s fullness.  In spite of all the possible and probable shame and misunderstanding that were to come upon her, she said to the Lord, “Be it unto 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 Morning Song:  “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.”

Martin Luther’s doctrine of love, suffering, faith and true ministers of God’s Word

“Now it it not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.”

(Martin Luther, Luther’s Works XXXI, 52; Heidelberg Disputation, par 20)

“That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as if it were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened. . . . He deserves to be called a theologian however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.“

(Luther’s Works, XXXI, 52; Heidelberg Disputation pars 19, 20)

THEOLOGIES OF GLORY VERSUS THE TRUE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

In April 1518 Martin Luther traveled to Heidelberg in order to attack what he identified as a wrong kind of thinking about God and a wrong kind of thinking about the Christian’s relation and faith in God.  This wrong kind of thinking Luther called a “theology of glory.”

This event when Luther attacked this wrong kind of thinking about Christian life and faith, is called the Heidelberg Disputation.  Luther delivered this lecture about six months after he nailed his Ninety-five Thesis on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg, thus igniting the Protestant Reformation.  During this lecture, Luther contrasted “theologies of glory” with the true “theology of the cross,” which underlies his entire outlook on the Christian life, and how he understood God’s involvement in the Christian’s life.

THE WRONGNESS OF ALL THEOLOGIES OF GLORY

According to Luther, “theologies of glory” encourage Christians to seek “God in heaven,” but not in and through the “sufferings” of this present world.

Christians who embrace nothing but a “theology of glory” are according to Luther, like Moses who said to God, “Show me your glory” (Ex 33:18-23).  These kinds of theologies only seek to know God in his majesty, as He is in heaven.

Christians who are entrapped by this false “theology of glory” imagine that the best of God’s works, or even more so, God’s works altogether are thus always beautiful, fine, attractive.  But Luther taught that the in fact, God’s works are directly the opposite.  For God in fact will make us “nothing” and even “stupid” if that is what it take to reveal His true love to us (LW, XXXI, 33, HDT, par 4).

But these Christians who can only embrace a “theology of glory” are those who have forgotten God’s reply to Moses, telling him he is to rather see His “backside.”  That reply according to Luther, is what he calls, the “theology of the cross.”  Christians are to therefore rather focus in this present life, on finding God in the things that are lowly, despised, weak, foolish, and rejected.

Hence, Luther wrote, “Now it not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross.” (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works XXXI, 52; Heidelberg Disputation, par 20)

THE ROOT OF THEOLOGIES OF GLORY IS NOT GOD’S LOVE BUT HUMAN LOVE

Luther taught that the root of this false “theology of glory” is not God’s kind of live but “human love.”  In contrast to God’s love, human love is essentially selfish and seeks only one’s own best interests but not the interest of others.

According to Luther, this perverted kind of love makes people incapable of receiving God’s grace (LW, XXXI, 57, HDT, par 28).  Moreover, Luther believed that this “human love” causes people to love only that which they can immediately enjoy.

Much of Luther’s lecture at Heidelberg consisted of this contrast between God’s love and human love.  Luther’s main point was that, “The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it.  The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.” (LW, XXXI, 57).

Luther thus pointed out that the flaw of human love is that it is basically passive rather than active. It constantly seeks to receive rather than give out.

Human love therefore results in covetousness.  People who are thus preoccupied with receiving, are basically receivers and not givers.  Yet God is a giver, and his entire aim towards us in Christ is to transform us into givers.

Amongst Christians, all works that are prompted by this “human love” are “deadly sins” (LW, XXXI, 43, 45 HDT, par 28).  And amongst Christians, a main symptom of these sins is perverted love, which is caused by not having a fear in God (LW, XXXI, 47, HDT, par 8.)

THE TRUE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS

In contrast to this wrong “theology of glory,” Luther called Christians to embrace the true theology, which is the “theology of the cross.”  Comprehending the “theology of the cross,” begins by asking God to remove from us that root of “human love,” and replace it with God’s kind of love; namely, “God’s love.”

“God’s love,” said Luther, seeks not one’s own interest but the interests of others.  It is love “born of the cross.”  It is therefore a “love of the cross.”  It “turns in the direction where it does not find good which it may enjoy but where it may confer good upon the bad and the needy person.” (LW, XXXI, 57, HDT, par 28.)

Luther went on to say that without the true eye of faith, it is impossible for Christians to perceive and discern the true works of God.  Without the eye of faith, Christians perceive God’s works as “unattractive” and “evil.” (LW, XXX, HDT, par 3)

Luther went on to teach alongside this “theology of the cross,” the “theology of paradoxes.” By the “theology of paradoxes,” Luther meant that sometimes God works in us by forgiving us and encouraging us, but sometimes He works in us by putting us down, by taking away our hope, and by leading us into desperation (LW, XIV, 95).

For this reason, Luther wrote, “You [God] exalt us when you humble us.  You make us righteous when you make us sinners. . . .  You grant us victory when you cause us to be defended.  You give us life when you permit us to be killed” (LW, XIV, 95).  Luther went so far as to say that sometimes God allows His works to create bad results (LW, XXXI, 45, HDT, pars 5, 6).

Luther therefore encouraged Christians to look for God’s work in and through whatever suffering might fall upon them.  Luther therefore wrote, “He, however, who has emptied himself through suffering no longer does work but knows that God works and does all things in him.  For this reason, whether God does works or not, it is all the same to him.  He neither boast if he does good works, nor is he disturbed if God does not do good works through him.  He knows that is sufficient of he suffers and is brought low by the cross in order to be annihilated all the more.” (LW, XXXI, 55).

Faith in God thus involves faith in God when the natural circumstances contradict God’s love towards us.  So Luther wrote concerning the promises of God, “Faith is holding fast to the deep and hidden ‘yes’ under and above the ‘no’ by firmly trusting God’s Word.” (LW, XVII, 203; German/Latin translation).

Luther continues to teach that to see God at work through our sufferings requires a revelation birthed by the Holy Spirit.  Only the Spirit can grant us “faith” in God’s hidden work through suffering.  So Luther wrote, “No one can correctly understand God or His Word, unless he has received such understanding from the Holy Spirit.  But no one can receive it from the Holy Sprit without experiencing, proving, and feeling it” (LW, XXI, 299).

A TRUE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS REVEALS GOD’S LOVE

Because Luther preached that God only works in us through this theology of the cross, Luther characterized the church as a hospital for the incurably sick.  As Chrstians, our life in the hospital is that as “ministers” to one another.  We therefore cannot live for ourselves but rather, in Christ, “Every man is created and born for others” (LW, XVI, 346; German/Latin translation).

Therefore Luther said that if we do not use everything we have to serve our neighbour, we rob him of what we owe him according to God’s will (LW, XXXII, 224).  But, “Since Christ lives in us through faith . . . He arouses us to do good works which He does as the fulfillment of the commands of God given us through faith” (LW, XXXI, 56, HDT, par 27).

GOD’S LOVE IS EVIDENCED NOT BY RECEIVING BUT BY GIVING

According to Luther, to know that Christ lives in us, ought to lead us to primarily lead us to only one practical implication:  that He is in us that we might be a “Christ” to others.

This is precisely Luther’s comment and reading of Galatians 2:19-20, where Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.”

If our focus is correctly on allowing God to replace our “human love” with His love, then we are simply not preoccupied with receiving things from God to use for our own pleasure.

Rather, recognizing we are “ministers” in God’s “hospital, our concern is on becoming a “Christ” to others.  This is Luther’s understanding of what it means to live in union with Christ; to be indwelt by the Spirit of Christ.

For this reason, Luther wrote, “Surely we are named after Christ not because he is absent from us, but because he dwells in us; that is, because we believe in him are ‘Christs’ to one another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us.” (LW, XXXI, 368).

I gathered these extracts from Luther’s writings from an Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s article, “Theology of the Cross: A Stumbling Block to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality?”

Kärkkäinen offers some closing reflections:

1. God’s love seek out the weak things to make them new.

“For Luther, God’s love means . . . loving something . . . that exists in weakness and shame, in order to make it something new.  That is what it means to be God: to create something out of nothing.

Evangelical theology in general and Pentecostal/charismatic in particular has not paid much attention to the category of love, but rather has focused on the grace of God.  Luther’s theology of love, combined with the biblical . . . view of God’s passionate love, could help evangelical to say something [more] worthwhile about agape.

2. Faith is proved when our hands are empty but our hearts are full.

Luther’s theology of the cross takes suffering and death seriously, so seriously that it also takes hope seriously: it is constitutive of God to make new life out of death, out of nihil.

The concept of ‘faith’ also has to be critically scrutinized by Pentecostals/charismatics. . . .  there is reservation in talking about faith as an ‘empty hand’ (George Muller) that reaches to God and his mercy.  Faith is not so much needed when one sees God’s miracles; faith is needed when we are facing the dark side of life . . .

3. The church is not a showplace for the successful but a hospital for the suffering and needy.

And finally . . . another lesson to learn from Luther: the church is not a showplace for the successful but a hospital for the suffering and needy!”

Extracted from:

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Theology of the Cross: A Stumbling Block to Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality?” The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler, eds. Wonsuk Ma and Robert P. Menzies (New York, NY; London, UK: T & T International, 2004).

“Freely you received, freely give.”

These are some thoughts on celebrating Christmas.  But even more, these are thoughts reflecting how the true spirit of Christmas ought to posture our journey in and through the new year.

Jesus said, “Freely you received, freely give.”  God gives that we may give as He gives.  God freely gives but always with the purpose of changing us.  God freely gives, but He does not give just to bless; He gives to invest in the growth of whatever He blesses with His gifts.

Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins, so that we can go to heaven when we die.  The Bible does not teach that; at least not in quite that perspective.  Rather, our eternal livelihood in God’s presence is a by-product of a greater purpose God has designed towards us.  For what the Bible teaches is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, so that He may restore us into His likeness.

This Christmas, let us be mindful that God is greater than Santa Clause and nothing like Santa Claus.  Contrary to the ill-fated beliefs of far too many Christians today, God does not freely give to us, without seeking a change in us.  He does not freely give to us just to make us happy and affirm us as His children.  God does not freely give in order to solve all our problems, fulfill all our desires, and make feel good and happy.  This kind of thinking is pure delusion and a very poor and very wrong image of God and His blessings.  This whole mindset misses the greater nature, power and purpose of God the giving God; of God who freely gives because He is the Most Moved Giver.

A helpful contemporary metaphor to describe God in His giving to us, is the idea of an “angel investor,” but in the best sense of the word.  God graces us with His gifts because He finds all of us to be a worthy investment of His grace.  This is partly what the Bible means by “redemption.”

God finds us humans redeemable for one reason:  He created us in His likeness.  So He has staked His very existence in fact, to secure our redemption.  He has redeemed us, for one reason: to restore all things back to their original purpose.  It does not matter how far we have strayed from the divine purpose.  In all our sins, we are redeemable.

“He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created.” (James 1:18).  A Santa Claus god gives so that we can have and enjoy things.  But the true God freely gives so that we can become joyful givers, passing down all that he passes down to us.

God give so that hopefully, we become something like God: a gracious person endowed with the supernatural capacity to freely and joyfully give to whomever lacks the “gift” we receive from God.

Every gift that God bestows upon us has a prophetic purpose.  Every gift God freely gives us is divinely purposed to produce a change in our wicked heart.  And the evidence of that change is how well we also become endowed with the grace of giving.

As He restores us into His likeness, we become ambassadors of heaven.  As ambassadors of heaven, we give as God has given to us, and still gives to us.  Everything passes down from the Father to us, so that we become channels of His blessing.

Whatever God gives us, if we give it away, especially as an investment in others, our act of giving will last forever.  But whatever God gives us, if we keep it only to our self, it will soon pass away; it will not last into eternity.  The time will come when whatever gifts we have received but failed to somehow pass on to others, those gifts will rot; they will burn, they will pass away.

There are acts we do however, which can last forever.  What lasts for eternity is the motive and purity behind every gift and blessing we pass on to others.

As “calculating” humans who are still growing in the ways of Jesus, we may question the effectiveness of what we give.  We may regret what we have given because we perceive our “gifts” have been ill planned, squandered, or have not resulted in the desired fruit or long-term outcome.

So we must remind ourselves that what will last forever, is the purity of our act; the purity of our giving.  If we freely give in pure gratitude for what God has freely given us, our action—our act of giving, will last forever.

What can we give?

We can give our time; we can give our material possessions; we can give expertise.  We can give our gifts; we can pass down and on, what has been passed down to us.  We can give grace.  We can give forbearance.  We can give forgiveness.  We can give others the benefit of the doubt.

We can give our selves to creating goods, services and technologies  that may not make us rich but will make the world a better place, especially for those who have less than us.  We can give our excess away.

Who should we give?

We should give to everyone, but especially to those who cannot pay us back.  So we should foremost give to the poor, to children, to the elderly, to the widows, to the broken, to the destitute.  We should give to those who have broken the law and suffered for their transgressions.  We should give everyone who needs a second chance, and to everyone who need a new lease in life.  This is what the Bible means by preaching the “Year of the Lord,” the acceptable year of the Lord;” the year of Jubilee.

And may I say to my Pentecostal brothers and sisters, and also to my Charismatic brethren who value manifestations of God’s Spirit through the miraculous, to give freely give largely sums up the meaning of Pentecost, because Pentecost is the beginning of the year of Jubilee; the Age of the Spirit; the Age of God’s prophetic people.  If we presume we are full of the Spirit and speak in tongues but find it hard to free give or freely forgive, we had better reflect if we are living out the year of Jubilee.  What we might really be living out is just remnants of a once great move of God’s Spirit in our life.

How should we give?

We give without expecting anything in return.  We freely give because we have freely received.  But we can hope and pray that whomever we give to will in turn become prompted to also give. We cab hope and pray that to whomever we give, will pass on the grace of giving.

We can hope and pray that whomever we forgive, will likewise forgive someone else.

We can hope and pray that as God’s grace flows through us, so also it will continue to flow through whomever we have freely given.

God is building a new world; He is building a new world out of this present one, which is passing away.  Every good thing we do; every pure act that results from encountering God’s grace in our life, will last forever.  Every act of kindness will last forever.  Every act of charity will endure for all eternity.  What we do in life, will indeed last for eternity.  That is why the Scripture says, “Let us know become weary in well doing, for in due season we will reap a harvest.

God loves you just as you are.  But He loves you too much to leave you as you are.  Everything He gives to you, is with the aim of transforming you into His likeness.

So if God has freely given to you, you also must free give, as often as possible, as much as possible, and to as many as possible.  For in so doing, you are contributing to the building of a new world, a world built not on wood and straw but a world built on gold and silver; a world built on the foundation of Christ.  A new world built upon the very image of God Himself.  Freely you have received, freely give.

Postlude:

Some of these thoughts I’ve gleaned from a book I am presently reading by Pentecostal theologian Miroslav Volf, titled, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005).

In 2006, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, selected this book as the Lenten study book for 2006.  Dr Rowan Williams wrote in his “Foreword,” “This is a book about worshiping the true God and letting the true God act in us. . . our knowledge of this true God is utterly bound up with our willingness to receive from the hand of God the liberty to give and forgive. . .  I cannot remember having read a better account of what it means to say that Jesus suffered for us, ‘in our place.’”

Here is one Volf’s final reflections, which I find quite stimulating:  “Why do we refuse the God-given bridge that would transport us from selfishness to self-giving, from vengeance to forgiveness?  That’s a mystery that should make us tremble— tremble before the God who gives to the ungrateful and the God who forgives the ungodly.”

What it means to be “human” / Reflections on the film, 2012

The film 2012 offers some insightful dialogue and illustration on what it means to be a human being.  Moreover, my wife and I saw the film a few days ago and found it most entertaining, though the action sequences were often farfetched to the point of hysterics.  But again, there are some very insightful themes running through the film which I find that as a Christian, are especially relevant for my Christian brothers and sisters.

Note that while the film does not necessarily convey a Christian perspective towards history, I believe as I have inferred at the onset, that the film convey insights on how we ought to carry ourselves in moments of crises, let alone in the normal events of life for that matter. I thus hope that many Christians, as well as non-Christians, will watch this film in order to reflect on two themes I saw emerging through its plot, both of which I find highly relevant to the age we live in.

An apocalyptic parable on true humanity

Before I introduce these two themes, I should offer a few comments concerning the film’s apocalyptic genre and story line.  We can most benefit from the film by interpreting it as simply a parable— though a parable unfolding through a rather unimaginable and horrifying event concerning a cataclysmic reconfiguration of the earth’s crust, which results in the near extinction of human life.

To call the story a parable is to stress how the film depicts an imaginary event yet uses that event to convey, even if quite unintentionally, some very relevant lessons for real life.  When we do that, (and again, I am speaking here to my fellow Christians), then there is really no need to focus so much on dismissing the film’s value because of its apocalyptic premise derived from the Mayan Calendar, which presumably concludes that the world may end in the year 2012.

As a further qualification, it is also important to note that in the film, the world does not actually end.  The world does undergo a horrific cataclysm created by earth’s crust becoming for a moment in history, unstable.  This in turn results in a shifting of the continents and of the north and south poles, and further results in several cataclysmic and global-reaching tsunamis that reach all the way up to Mount Everest.  These tsunamis thus destroy most of the earth’s inhabitants, but in the end, a remnant of the human race survives.  Moreover, the floodwaters apparently recede, thus marking a new beginning in human history.  Hence, the story line roughly echoes the biblical story of Noah and the flood.

Now again, while this scenario may not wholly fall within the images of biblical apocalypticism, I do not find its portrayal of a cataclysmic upheaval capable of seriously threatening life on earth, as wholly impossible.  For I believe there is sufficient warrant to surmise that are a number of very possible scenarios also involving the most unmanageable, horrific and cataclysmic destruction which can very well erupt upon the earth and at any moment in human history.  We should also keep in mind that for most of history, the human race consisted of less than 200 million people around the globe.  Then during the Middle Ages, the Bubonic Plague had in fact wiped out millions of people in Europe and I believe in Northern and Central Asia.

With this mind, the film actually thus becomes deeply relevant to our postmodern age. This is because today we in fact do live in the face of very real and looming apocalyptic threats to our entire earthy existence.  This reality thus largely defines the setting that we commonly call the postmodern setting.  Postmodernity means to some extent that we have come to realise that there are definitive limitations to what extent modern science and human knowledge can insure our continued survival as a species upon the earth.  Modernity preached self-reliance and human ingenuity; it preached the message of self-interest at all costs.  However, if now live in an age marked by a deep sense of pessimism towards the future, our pessimism largely stems from realising that in ourselves, we can no longer be certain of anything concerning our future.

We should however also note that there is a more positive element to the postmodern situation.  This element is that we have come to recognise that the way forward may come, not from the things we have traditionally trusted in, but rather from the most unlikely places and people.  Hence, we should therefore be open to marginalised voices; voices that the majority or the most powerful, or most affluent, have too often marginalised for purposes beneficial to their own security.  So with reference to the film 2012, by the time the film ends, the future of humanity becomes located— in the continent of Africa.

As a Christian, I believe the Lord is coming to unite heaven and earth, which will bring about a full renewal of this world, resulting in its complete transformation into a new creation under His complete reign.  Yet I am aware that things can potentially become far worse for humanity before they get any better.  I have come to realise that if things do get far worse— and I believe they may well in fact eventually get far worse, even to the point of a global-reaching, cataclysmic and utterly complete ecological and financial breakdown, what we may find ourselves suffering under, are the consequences of our own human follies.

Yet in the event of such a possible scenario within human history, and within the possible history that all of us can very well enter into, I want to stress that we as Christians will be called upon to live a life that is counter to the ways of the world.  That will be a counter-culture way of life that is wholly expressed through an ethic fully manifesting the charity of Christ, hope is His soon coming, and certainty in the coming establishment of His kingdom upon the earth, which will culminate in the complete union of heaven and earth through the full coming of His kingdom; the kingdom of God.

The true nature of true humanity

Now I will introduce the two themes that I found so vividly illustrated in the film 2012, which together I believe reveal the true nature of true humanity.  This true nature of true humanity is therefore our true destiny and calling as human beings upon the face of the earth, both in this age and in the age to come.

The first theme we can discern in the film 2012 is this: The film provides us an epic yet also horrifyingly apocalyptic parable on, what it means to be a human being.  This theme first emerges early in the film when upon discovering the potentially impending doom facing humanity, two individuals reflect on how we might carry ourselves in a moment of life-threatening crisis.

More specifically, the film calls to imagine a moment of life-threatening crisis, where the crisis gives us a choice to act and can only act upon only one of two possible choices: the choice to save either our life— or the life of another human being.  Even more specifically, this is the moment of life-threatening crisis, when the crisis confronts a person with the choice to either save only one’s self or rather, to selflessly act without regard for ones own safety, if in doing so, one can possibly save a number of other human lives from certain doom.

In the moment of truth, how will we live?

As the movie 2012 moves towards its end, one of the two individuals, who at the beginning of the film engaged in the moral discussion that I just presented, comes face to face with a moment of truth.  It is a moment we all may at some point in the course of life encounter, where that moment asks us, “In this moment of truth, how will you live?”

What happens in the film is that a scenario develops which reminds me of that old humanistic “life boat” case study involving seven people lost at sea but with a lifeboat made for only five people.  The case study thus calls us to decide which five out of the seven people, should we allow into the lifeboat that is presumably capable of holding no more than five people.  The case study thus forces us to ask ourselves, which two people should we throw over board?  Since the boat has space for only five people, which two people should we together elect to leave behind? Who should live and who should die?

The “lifeboat” case study is one image that implicitly shapes the film’s story line, but so also does the biblical story of Noah’s arc and the flooding of the earth.  Therefore, as the movie reaches its climax, several mammoth “life-boats” are revealed, which had been built in preparation for the global flooding, each capable of saving perhaps hundreds of thousands of people from the floodwaters.  After the selected populations board the boats, there are however still thousands of others desperately seeking to board the ships.

But in midst of the ensuing tension, and hours before the tsunamis impact the ships, one of the chief architects of these mammoth lifeboats, fears that the ships cannot contain those remaining thousands waiting to board.  Therefore, in the moment of truth, this individual, fearful that the ships may not sustain everyone, seeks to close the gates from the masses still hoping to board the boats.

This individual reasons that only by closing the gates to the many still outside the boats, can the human race be preserved from compete destruction.  Note then that this individual has a grand vision, which he passionately believes in, and it is a vision for the preservation of the human race.  He then reasons that if preserving the human race involves making tough decisions as to who we should save and who we should not save, then let us made that decision, and let us limit the number of passengers into the lifeboats.

Yet then there is another man who also faces this moment of truth.  He is that man who earlier pondered, how shall we act in the true moment of truth?  How then shall we live?  How will we act in that moment where we might be called upon to selflessly act without regard for our own safety, if in doing so, we might possibly save the lives of countless other individuals besides our self?

That man speaks up and says, “What is the point of saving our self, if we think that in doing so we are preserving the human race, yet also in doing so, we are in fact acting less than human?”

That man then further argues, “What does it mean to be human?”  He continues by pleading what he believe is the nature of a true human society and culture.  He thus asks, “How can we even start a new society, a new culture, if our foundation consists of behaviours that are less than human?  How can we rebuild a truly human culture, if our founding actions involve no sense of costly yet selfless altruism, even to the extent of our laying down our lives for one another?”

That individual then concludes and challenges those already on the boat that we must take the risk of jeopardising all our lives, if in doing so— we might successfully save every other life from destruction.  Ultimately, we must do so for this reason: it is only in doing so, that we can live a life that is truly human.  If we cannot do so, we are in reality, living less than a human life.

True and false civility

Some years ago, the famous psychiatrist, Dr Scot Peck, wrote a book titled, A World Waiting to Be Born: The Search for Civility.  Peck begins his first chapter titled, “Something is Seriously Wrong,” by noting too many people, think of “civility” as simply being polite and observing proper etiquette.  Peck calls this assumption not only superficial but also horribly wrong.  For this reason Peck goes on to say that too often in our varied life settings, especially in the larger and formal organisation structures in which we work, we carry ourselves towards one another according to the secular techniques of manipulation and personal self interest.  As a result, Peck says, we fail to manifest “the glory of what it means to be human.”

Elsewhere in Peck’s book, he demonstrates how a common organisational culture that is trapped in this secular idea of polite civility, is illustrated when an organisation’s presumed identity is one of, “We’re the best in the business,” and its motto is thus “Quality at all costs.”

In contrast to this idea of civility as nothing more than politeness and following proper decorum, Peck therefore stresses that true “civility” refers to seeking the best interest of all people, regardless of the cost to one’s self.  Within this same discussion, Peck then draws attention to the biblical story of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young man, who was unwilling to part with his wealth.  Peck suggests that the story functions as a parable for all of us, and every time when we read the story or reflect on the story.

The point of the story about the rich young man who is unwilling to part with his wealth, is not that following Jesus means that Jesus wants you to necessarily let go of everything you possess and live in voluntary poverty in order that you may follow him.  Although, I would say for many of us, that may not be a bad idea!  But no.  The moral of the story is that Jesus oftentimes will come to us and ask us the question, “What are you really trusting in?  Where is your security, right now, in this moment?”

Jesus will ask us these questions because if our security is indeed in the things we possess, then how are we going to carry our self as a human being, when the moment of truth calls upon us to express our humanity?

Within this discussion, the mental psychiatrist Peck throws throw at us this observation: “Security can become an addiction, and there are many for whom enough is never enough.”  Peck goes on to say that his work in psychiatric care has convinced him that having wealth never fully satisfies the aching feeling of insecurity.  All their lives, the rich often find themselves caught up therefore, in an insatiable quest to heal this ache through the continued accumulation of wealth.

Peck notes that past statistics demonstrate that within the American setting, the wealthiest segments of the American population give away to charity a much smaller proportion of their income that do middle or working class people.  Hence, their proportional giving reveals “a telling commentary on the spiritual impoverishment of most who are financially rich.”  For similar reasons, another notable psychiatrist, Erich Fromm, realised from sheer experience in the profession of mental care, that, “The essential difference between the unhappy, neurotic type person and him of great joy is the difference between get and give.”

A truly human life therefore, is a life lived in utter selflessness towards other human beings.  A true human life is always lived in the presence of one another, and for the presence and existence of one another.  A true human life can only be lived in selfless action to one another.  This is the mark of true humanity.  Anything less, is less than human.  Anything less is to live not as a human being but to live like an animal.  This discussion thus clarifies what we should mean by the term secular humanism.

Real Christianity infers a true and biblical humanism. Christian humanism is a humanism that encourages and celebrates the true nature of true humanity.  It is founded upon a moral centre, because it is furthermore, founded upon a Person— who is the True Human.  Secular humanism however, is a humanism without the true moral centre, and thus no real moral centre.  It has no moral centre because it encourages and celebrates living only for one’s self without regard for others.  It encourages and celebrates living for one’s self especially when the well-being of your life is any way dependant upon the loss, deprivation or disregard for the best interest of another human being.

For the most part, the world we live in, in spite of its increasing nuance towards spirituality, operates by values reflecting not a true humanism but a secular humanism that really does enthrones “self” at the centre of all things.  That is why even Christian bookstores are filled with books with titles such as “How to Become a Better You,” or “How to Be all You are Meant to Be,” or, “How to Receive all You’re Supposed to Have!”  At the root of all these pseudo-Christian books is not the paradigm of true humanity but the subhuman paradigm of self-interest.  So deep is this false humanistic in the cultures that we live, that much of the current talk within Christian circles of becoming relevant to the day we live in, or of transforming the culture around us, is really quite ludicrous.

The forces that have constructed the macro economic systems of our world, the security systems and social systems we now live within through the processes of globalisation, have constructed these systems upon premises that seek the best interests of the few without concern for the many.  The proverbial lifeboat of the film 2012 is therefore indeed a proverbial analogy of our present world order.

Many of us are right now enjoying the privileges of life on a “boat,” to which untold millions are currently barred entry into, and thus face the prospect of becoming the first causalities of whatever repercussions may erupt upon the earth because of our follies.  Moreover, added to these follies is the folly resulting from keeping our eyes closed to the many.  We close our eyes to their existence, though one day we may painfully discover that all people are indeed interdependent.  When that day comes, we may then truly learn that “No man is an island,” for the same forces that have united much of the world together in economic affluence, has united that much of the world to frustrations of the greater numbers of people who lack access to our prosperity.

Self-denial, charity, sacrifice, and healing the world

This discussion illustrates how nothing less than a complete, radical and revolutionary subversion and undermining of the entire world order, can bring healing to the world.  If a Christian truly believes that he or she lives as salt and light in the world, then he or she must also see their role as a prophetic presence in the world.  This is a prophetic presence that consistently demonstrates values that are visibly counter to the values of the world, and at the same time positively point to a world that is waiting to be born.  The good news is that to fulfill this prophetic role in the world, one need only mature and thus behave as a human being— a true human being.

To fulfill this prophetic function of living a truly human life we must however confront a common though false presumption concerning the purpose of Christian life, and about the purpose of Jesus’ life, sufferings on the cross and resurrection from the dead.  This is the misunderstanding that the ultimate purpose of Jesus’ atonement, was to insure our eternal salvation and hence, that we get to go to heaven when we die.  Now to be sure, the securing of our eternal destiny is central to why Jesus came to live and die upon the earth.  It is central because it is we and not angels whom God has created as His image-bearers— It we whom He loves as His children, and it is we who are made to reflect His likeness.

But in itself, this assumption is only a half-truth, and in itself, it makes for a very “self-centred” gospel.  It is the message of a gospel that men have not centred in the glory of God but rather in the glory of man apart from God.  Rick Warren therefore had it right when he titled the first chapter of his book titled, The Purpose Driven Life; with the title, “It all Starts with God.”  In that chapter, he moreover and rightly began the first sentence by saying, “It is not about you.”  Warren’s proposition illustrates how the primary purpose of Jesus’ atonement was far bigger than the redemption of humankind.  For even greater than to secure the redemption of humanity, is the greater purpose for which Jesus died for.  That greater purpose was to secure the glory of God.

Within the greater purpose of securing the glory of God, is that Jesus dies to reconcile all things— all things both heaven and earth, to Himself.  Jesus suffered and rose again that He might restore all things back together under His rightful reign.  So the Scripture says, “For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”  To this end, the entire purpose of God is to restore our humanity, that we might live as true human beings.  Moreover, the healing of the world involves our becoming more human; thus our becoming more humane.  To this end, God is at work to restore our humanity.

If we want to therefore carry our self in the world as a true human being— if we want to carry our self in a manner that is truly civil, we will never do so by calling attention to what we possess.  We can only show our true humanity through denying our self; and hence, by how easy it is for us to give it all away.  It is for this reason that in his Institutes of Religion, John Calvin devotes Book III to the Christian Life, and in chapter four, he summarises all of Christian life by this one phrase:  “self denial.”

By using that one phrase, “self denial,” as the most succulent description of a truly Christian lifestyle, Calvin chose to stick within a long tradition and a principle within that tradition, which every other leader of the Protestant Reformation also affirmed.  That is a tradition that thus remained connected to the best of Roman Catholic spirituality as illustrated in earlier works such as The Imitation of Christ and The Rule of St Benedict.

The tradition of self denial, which is in fact the true call of Jesus and the only call He gives any of us, when He calls us to Himself, is a tradition that stresses a central image of true humanity, which goes all the way back to the why the Gospels are in the Bible.  It is a tradition that rightly recognises that the Gospels are not provided for our intellectual assent to Jesus’ historical life, but rather foremost to grant us the one true guide on how we should live as human beings.

The Gospels are written to show us how to live— to actually imitate the life of Jesus.  That is why Jesus says, “Deny your self, and follow me.”  Moreover, God has made to some extent, the healing of the world dependent on weather or not we choose to follow Jesus.  For only in following Him can we begin truly living like human beings.

Within this context, we should thus realise that self denial is not something based on ideas of having to live with a “poverty mindset” or deny the very real and material nature of God’s blessings.  But rather, self denial is simply based on a true knowledge and comprehension of what it means to truly live like a human being.  When that knowledge is received, self denial becomes an act of calling and joyful vocation.  We begin joyfully denying our self because we have come to know that only here are living according to our high calling as real people upon the earth.  But to do that, requires our reception of a special kind of joy, and it is a joy that is freely received from the One who is humanity par excellence.

Jesus is humanity par excellence

I submit to you that there was a man who was truly human and remains the True Human, and He is the Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the one who laid down his life for His friends.  He is the one who put Himself in harm’s way and suffered harm’s way for the preservation of the entire human race.  He did so because in doing so, he truly behaved and acted as a true human.  He acted as true as a human life can ever be.

Christians rightly confess and know Jesus as the image of God.  Even more so, we have come to know He is God in the flesh.  In Him, we see God, and by his behaviour, we see and know the true personality of God.  Yet I will here also remind us that in Jesus we see true humanity.  In Him we see what human life is designed to be.

This confession that Jesus is not only truly God but truly human, is true because after His resurrection from the dead, Jesus did not stop being human.  After he rose from the dead, He remained human.  This is why He rose from the dead with an indestructible though fully physical and material body.  Even now at this moment, Jesus reigns in heaven through His very real and physically material body.  Moreover, there will come a day when He will appear and like Thomas, we will see the nail scars in His hands.

The entire weight of these reflections rest upon a cardinal doctrine, which if we in any way undermine, we therein commit heresy concerning the person of Jesus.  This doctrine we must confess in order to lift up the name of Jesus over all things, is that He is truly God and He is truly human.  As the ancient creeds effectively established the concluding synthesis of the biblical story of Jesus’ coming, death and resurrection, Jesus is and will always be truly God and truly human.  In Him we see two distinct natures, the divine and human, clearly distinguishable, yet wholly different; undivided, yet inseparable.  He is and will always be, truly God and truly Human.

If we are to therefore truly worship Him as God, and if we are to preach Him fully lifted up in all His saving glory, we must also confess Him and preach Him in all His true Humanity.  For in Him we therefore also see who were born to be, if we are ever to become truly human.  He dies to restore our humanity.  When He lives in us, He works in us to restore our humanity, by setting us on a path of human restoration.

In Jesus Christ we see not only the potential of true human life, but even more so, a vision for a true human society and human culture.  We therefore also see a vision for a new humanity upon the face of the earth.  That is why the Scripture says that Jesus is the beginning of a new humanity.  He is the First Man of a new humanity.  He is therefore the true paradigm for a true human life and human existence.

When we look at Jesus, we therefore see what were born to be.  We were born to be like Jesus.  This is God’s true purpose for all human life; to become like Jesus.  This is why the ancients said, “God became man, so that man might become something like God.”  This again is why if we want to know what God is like, we should look at Jesus, for He is not only the true man, but in Him, we see who God is.  For God is love, and love acts without regard for one’s self but wholly for the sake of those outside our self.  For this reason, God created humankind in His image that we might reflect the likeness of God in how we live.  This is our true human calling.

The process of becoming human is the process of becoming like Jesus.  So complete is the process that He works upon us both from the inside and from the outside.  There is no antithesis between the two processes.  On one hand, he works within us, transforming us from the inside out.  On the other hand, He works outside us, presenting Himself to us as our Teacher and ourselves to Him as disciples called to follow Him.  Through both ways, the goal is the same: that we might live as human beings.  When that happens, we realise that self-denial is indeed not a method towards Christ-likeness, but rather simply the fruit of becoming human, and thus, of becoming like Christ.

Servant-leadership and the vocation of true humanity

In bringing these reflections to a closure, I will now draw attention to the second theme I find so poignantly illustrated in the film 2012; this is theme of true leadership.  Moreover, this theme of true leadership is what Jesus argued as, servant-leadership.

In the movie 2012, one of the chief architects of those mammoth lifeboats was something of what we might call, a visionary leader.  He had a grand vision and it was a vision for the preservation of the human race.  To some extent, we may argue that this man possessed a noble vision.  He believed his vision was for the greater good of humanity.

This man was also a practical leader.  He was a pragmatic leader as well, because He well knew that to be most effective and efficient, he had to make practical choices that may involve refraining from higher moral ideals.  Hence, he chose not to jeopardise the lives of the few by opening the boat to the many.

This man therefore chose to insure the security of the boat and the few in the boat, by choosing not to risk the security of the boat by opening the boat to so many others hoping to step into the security of the boat.  So in all these presumptions, we have a picture of practical, pragmatic and sometimes of visionary leadership.  But in view of the true humanity of Jesus, this is a way of leadership that is nonetheless, subhuman.

Yet the other man, who I want to say was the true leader, argued that preservation of the human race is still not possible unless we seek to preserve the human race through and upon the high moral foundation of self-denial.  As earlier mentioned, this man who was the true leader, argued that a new world that is truly human cannot be rightly established unless such a world is founded upon actions involving genuine risks through the giving of our lives for one another.

This man who was the true leader, therefore sought to persuade those in the boat to risk their own secure future by taking the wild risk of opening the boat to all those outside the boat.  He called upon everyone in the boat to do so, even if in doing so, the boat might sink in the process of getting everyone into the boat.  He argued that failure to do that is to behave not as humans but as animals.  He therefore understood that true leadership is not about putting one’s personal interest before others, but about putting the interest of others before one’s own interest.  He understood that true leadership is always the laying down of our life for the common good.  He understood that true leadership is servant-leadership.

Jesus is not only the True Man but he is the true leader of the human race.  Jesus said that the rulers of this age love to be lord over others, but that is not true leadership.  True leadership is serving others.  Serving always has its penultimate and highest expression in the laying down of our life for one another.  That is what Jesus taught and it is what he modeled— not only to secure our redemption into restored humanity, but to grant us an example of true humanity.  He did this in the expectation that we would actually emulate as an act of our will, having had our will empowered by the Spirit of Christ who lives within us.

Jesus did not just give His life for us, but He modeled to us what it means to be a true human and how to live like a true human being.  It is not enough to even say, “I’ll let Jesus live through me.”  It is important to know that Jesus lives in you and that is where it all begins.  Then when He begins to live in you, you will always face choices every day, where circumstance call upon you to behave like Jesus.  That comes through an act of your will and obedience to His Word.  You can choose to disobey the Lord, even as a Christian.  For this reason, many Christians know the Lord, but actually disobey Him.  Such Christians the Bible calls, fleshy Christians; Christian who remain like spiritual babies.  However, there are times when we all disobey the Lord.  So you must choose to follow Jesus, observe how He lives, and starting acting like Him.  If you do, He will guide your steps and place your feet into His footsteps.

I have digressed here, but I am talking about servant leadership.  True leadership begins with laying down our life for others.  Any aspiration that begins with the preservation of one’s self is not true leadership.  That is a kind of leadership founded something less than a truly human life.

Some months ago, I was engaged in a discussion with a group about the nature of leadership.  In that discussion, someone suggested that there are many kinds of leadership, one of which is the idea of servant leadership, and another is what we might call visionary leadership, and that they are not the same.

Let me point out that for a Christian, there is only one valid kind of leadership, and that is servant leadership.  Any other kind of leadership model or style that fails to recognize Jesus’ model of servant leadership as the foundation, is a subhuman form of leadership.  In a truly biblical worldview, Jesus’ pattern of servant leadership and the concept of visionary leadership are not antithetical styles, but they are the same.  Having a vision for a world founded upon true justice where God’s righteousness and peace prevails requires nothing less than a great people who have discovered their true vocation as servant leaders.

Sometimes in life, there is a moment of truth, which will call on us to choose either the way of self-preservation or the way of self denial.  In the moment of truth, how will we live?  How will we live in the moment of truth, when Jesus comes to us and says let it all go?  How will we live in the moment of truth, when Jesus says let it all go and follow me?  How will live in the moment of truth, when in that moment we are called upon to either act without regard for our own security or even safety , if in doing so, we might secure the life and posterity of other individuals besides our self?

But the truth is that in an infinite number of small and unknown ways, the moment virtually always comes to us every day of our life.  Abraham was able to offer up Issac on Mount Moriah because his whole life revealed a pattern of hearing and responding to God’s call every day of his life.  Every day God calls us and every day we are given a choice to either obey or disobey the Word of God.  Make no mistake about it:  the New Testament does not shrink from describing Christian life according to the language of obedience and disobedience.  “Today, if you Hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.”  And a moment of truth will come when you are also called up to the top of Mount Moriah.  And there maybe even several times or more when He will call you up to the top of Mount Moriah, and offer your life a living sacrifice.

The healing of both our selves and those, whom we might need to lay down our life for, will come through the way of self-denial.  So part of the good news is that our own healing— the healing of our soul, is found through simply living like a true human being.  The healing of our soul and the healing of the world, is only found through losing our selves in the saving of those not on the boat, but who also long for a new world waiting to be born.

The revolutionary power of God’s grace

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.  For 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.

Wealth indeed has within it both a light side and a dark side.  But the disciple of Jesus gladly embraces his deliverance from the dark side of wealth and he or she will cheerfully celebrate this deliverance.  He or she will do so because as a disciple of Jesus, we acknowledge it as the god whom Jesus called mammon. And so we now embrace Jesus’ life and step into his footprints.

This is all a work of God’s grace upon our life.  In His grace, God thus comes to us and tells us He is on our side, and that we are victors regardless of how well we have played the world’s game of material gain and social status.  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.

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 that the world has laid upon use.  God’s grace thus confronts us with the wrongness of our entire present existence in this world’s order.

We are now free to let it all go— to take a “leap of faith,” and fall into thin air.  Encountering God’s grace thus then calls us to make a “leap of faith,” a leap from trust in our self, to trusting God alone for our present and future existence.  But actually, it is even more, a fall into the loving arms of Jesus.  So we are now 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’ life story; 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’ life, 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.”

The counter-cultural quality of great awakenings and spiritual revolutions

^“Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich . . . we are fools . . . but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute . . . Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world. . . .  But I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”  – Paul the apostle

God has not called us to cultural relevancy.  He has called us to counter-culture revolution.  He has called us as a creative and prophetic minority to question the prevailing consensus and speak forth a better reality.  For the kingdom of God is counter to all kingdoms of this world and is overturning their thrones.  For this reason, Mary the mother of Jesus is still celebrating the revolutionary power of God’s reign:  “He is bringing down the powerful from their thrones, and lifting up lowly; He is filling the hungry with good things, and sending the rich away empty.”  For now is the Year of the Lord, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of God.

There are Christians who are “misfits;” “misfits who believe that the way things are is not how things are supposed to be. . . [but] History has taught us that it is when ‘misfits’ call for an end of the status quo, that the rumblings of revival begin.”  – Jim Wallis, The Great Awakening: Seven Ways to Change the World

“I call upon you to be maladjusted . . . The world is in desperate need of such maladjustment.  Through such maladjustment we will be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice. . . . This hour in history needs a dedicated circle of transformed nonconformists.  The saving of our world from pending doom will come not from the actions of a conforming majority but from the creative maladjustment of a transformed minority.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

“Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. . .  Christians should take a stronger stand in favour of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.” – Dietrich Bonhoffer, sermon on 2 Corinthians 12:9; executed by the Nazis who sought to make Christian churches “culturally relevant.”

The Key to Global Prosperity

At this very moment the rich nations of the world, the affluent peoples of the world, and particularly those in the world who believe the boundless wealth they possess is given to them by the mercy of God; all these individuals, communities, peoples and nations, have together in their hands the key to an era of global prosperity not known since the dawn of human civilization.

The key is simple and is four-fold. First, all these peoples, or at least vast representations of their communities need only repent of their many extravagant indulgences which are destroying the world’s ecosystem and that even more so at the expense of the developing and non-developed nations of the world and world’s poor. Second, they must squarely resolve to adapt and find satisfied enjoyment in a far simpler lifestyle that is profoundly shaped by an awareness into how the crisis at hand further threatens the world’s poor.

They must do so because it is they— the poor of the word in the two-third’s world, who face the greatest suffering by the coming ecological and humanitarian crises, which is rooted in the past and present mindless carbon footprints— not of the two-thirds world, but by the first-world people of the world. The crises of global poverty and impending ecological disaster are one and the same. And both crises threaten the present and enjoyed security of the world’s affluent.

We all live on borrowed time. The poor of this world, the world’s oppressed, the hungry and the starving, they suffer not foremost because of those demonically-enslaved forces of terror now unleashed upon both poor and rich alike, but because of our own consumerist-driven extravagances. For it is our extravagance largely made available to us through wrong paradigms towards our entire created order, which has led and is now leading to a possible world-encompassing and cataclysmic ecological meltdown and financial ruin of many nations. At the top of this list is the United States, followed by the European Union, then China, and then India. This list is certainly even more astonishing as China and India are set to substantially lead the global economy over the next century.

Furthermore, we must squarely acknowledge that if we take the high road, we must therefore know that in the short run, the rich nations of the world will need to make far greater, biting and painful changes in how we spend our wealth. It is they who are most responsible for the coming crisis, and it is they who must also make the needed sacrifices and monetary outlay to tackle the crisis. We must do so if we are to avert the coming ecological meltdown and security-threatening crisis of global poverty.

To squarely acknowledge and embrace this cost however, is indeed a high road which can lead us into a new and profound era of global prosperity, not just for the affluent peoples of the world, but also for so many who are now living in abject poverty. We must find resolve towards this high road, for in one way or another, global poverty as it presently exists, directly threatens the economic security of every first-world community.

This threat to our present security and seeming stability exists because everything we own is in some way tied, linked and connected to the destiny of every hungry child, man and woman throughout world. We are fools if we think our lives are lived in complete isolation from the “have-nots” of this world. The very forces of globalisation which have brought us all the wealth we now enjoy, are the same forces which threaten to destroy us if we cannot find a way to let go and invest the bulk of our wealth, towards redeeming the world’s impoverished. They are the ones who will first suffer from the follies of our material extravagances when the tides of natural calamity are finally unleashed upon the earth. But is also they who will rise up in judgment against us, against our folly and against our selfish squandering of God’s creation.

Third, if this high road is taken by the rich, the affluent, the wealthy and the materially secure of the world, then let them give their wealth— let them invest without reserve to the creation of radically new technologies which will now free us from all carbon-based fuel and energy sources. For if we do so, then also we may well usher in an era of technological innovation and scientific advancement not seen since the Renaissance.

And through the spirit of profound charity towards the world’s poor and economically oppressed, this 21st century Renaissance can be simultaneously parallel to the greatest spiritual awakening ever to cover the earth. What spiritual awakenings we have known in these past three centuries can well up into an even greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh. New gifts of the Spirit will be given. The earth shall be full of the glory of the Lord. Floods of emotions will well up from within the hearts of many when the Spirit is again poured out. What man had tried to achieve through all his managerial capacities, God will achieve in one day. Swords shall be laid down.

Fourth, is perhaps the most crucial part of the key to global prosperity. This fourth aspect specifically concerns the largest religious grouping of our world— the professing Christians of the world, of whom I also represent. Even more importantly, it is the spiritually regenerate Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, who should by the very Spirit of Christ, want to lead the way out of the coming destruction. It is most damaging and irresponsible for you who are professing Christians, to forsake this earth in your belief that it is hopelessly doomed and must be doomed to destruction. For until the day He calls you to Himself, and until the day He returns in coming glory, the land where you stand is the garden He has called you care for and to till and to nurture. He has not called you to exploit and destroy for your own gratification, but to care for and he has called you to care and look after all the animals of the forest, the birds of the air and the creatures in the sea. Over all these, He has made you steward and ambassador in His behalf.

Therefore, we can argue that on the global scale, the ecological meltdown that threatens our entire human existence is also to some dire extent, caused by wrong past ideologies, mindsets and doctrines held, propagated and practised by vast communities of Christians throughout the world, especially by first-world Christians. These doctrines are doctrines touching on matters towards wealth, consumerism, material possessions, creation, the material universe, and our human role on earth as God’s steward. Therefore, the fourth key implies that repentance must be begin with the household of God. As a matter of conscience, we must turn from our preferred eagerness to identify ourselves primarily with the rich of the world, rather than with the poor of the world. Or have you forgotten the word of our brother James, who was the Lord’s brother: “Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. . . . Listen! The wages of the laborers 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. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.”

But Nineveh believed God, and God repented of the judgment about the calamity He said He would bring upon them. And He refrained from doing so. Judgment does not yet have to come.

The Church can repent on behalf of the dying believers and confess their partaking in the sins of those outside the Church. Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?” But if you do not hide, then your light shall break forth like the dawn. Then you shall enjoy the wealth of the nations, and in their riches you shall glory. For the Lord loves justice, hates robbery and wrongdoing. Then you shall be called the repairer of the breach, and the restorer of streets to live in. Justice will roll down like waters. Righteousness like an ever flowing stream. You will drink from the brook beside the way, and you will lift up your head.

“Why do you hide among the nameless and forgotten?

Why do you walk along these long forsaken roads?
Calling to me, in the hungry and the homeless,
Calling me, to water your thirst . . . “

Who is it that hides among the nameless and forgotten? Who is it that walks along these long forsaken paths? He is the one who says, “Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me”

For two years now, Corrine May’s haunting lyrics remain on my mp3. Those words are hard to remove because somehow they continue to provide connection with divine realities beyond the here and now. They touch my soul with what I know is God’s pathos and dream for a better world.

Then comes that lyrical response,
“So I’ll give you my heart and my song,
In a world where so much is right but so much is wrong.
Your love is my beginning and I know it wont be too long, Till I see you, till I hear you, till I love you again.”

A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of things he possesses.” — Jesus of Nazareth
But by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God shall he live, and neither shall he thirst for the Lord will delight in him and shall fill him. A table shall he spread before him in the presence of his enemies and with the finest of wheat he will eat and shall not want.

Is Driving a Luxury Car a Matter of Preference & Income, or a Matter of Christian Morality?

In an age, where people are destroying God’s good earth by their cravings for big fossil-fuel burning cars, beef, and every other extravagance that’s taken through exploitation and not stewardship; in an age where the forces of globalisation are not closing the gap but increasing the gaps between the rich and the poor— which thus betrays the righteousness of God’s Kingdom on earth, Jesus would probably be more pleased that we that we ask for the grace to do with less; far less. That is a true manifestation of people encountering the gospel of grace.

The time has come for first-world Christians to stop assuming their wealth is the definitive sign of God’s blessing over their lives. It is not. Far too much wealth is being created through the destruction of the earth’s climate and the neglect and exploitation of the world’s poor.

Is it not astonishing that much of recent the devastating climatic crises is not caused by purely natural climatic cycles but by the recklessness of human arrogance, greed, unbridled consumption, and the perpetually increasing levels of “wants” that are largely created by the global market system— in its innate need to increase those “wants” in order to achieve greater wealth for the most privileged players of the global market, namely multi-national corporations?

Is it not astonishing that those who suffer the most from the devastating climatic crises of our day, which are ultimately rooted in the mindless abuse of the global environment primarily in the interest of world’s most affluent— are the “poor of the earth?”

But it is they— the “poor of the earth,” who upon turning to Jesus, are in their very poverty, the best examples for all ages of God’s grace; yea, the gospel of grace. For Jesus did say of them, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.” Do not misunderstand: They are not graced by God because they are poor. Poverty is caused by the devil. No, they in their material poverty are graced by God because when they turn to Jesus they become friends of God, in a world where the rich are not willing to be their friends.

The global market of this present evil age is led not by men but by demons and principalities in high places, who are intent on making the rich richer— by making the world’s poor, poorer and ever deeper trapped in the dark bowels of poverty. Bono gave the right word for this present hour: “The Church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market, if it’s to have any meaning in the world— and stop being its apologist.”

Jesus did not come to satisfy our every want. Jesus came to deliver us from evil and make us “signs” of the kingdom. His kingdom is coming. And when He comes, He will avenge every wrong. He will, because He will establish justice on the earth.

He came and said “repent.” “Change your mind. Change your direction. You are going the wrong way. Turn around and go the other way.” He came to that we might see the kingdom, because it is another reality that is counter to this world’s realities. God has a dream, but that dream is neither expressed nor achieved through satisfying every material whim of our first-world lifestyle. They are like frogs in the well who see the sky and think it is the world.

Frugality builds character

“I think frugality and a simple lifestyle are effective ways to cope, morally and psychologically, with the temptations of the modern consumerist world.”  Wise and timely words from Lee Wei Ling, Director of the National Neuroscience Institute, daughter of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, and a Christian.

Thank God she was able today to share her reflections in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times, page 31.  Lee goes on to add that “extravagant banquets, expensive wines, designer clothes shoes and handbags – all these things are wasteful.”  Perhaps not always, but they do indeed become “wasteful” when our expenditures on luxuries beyond our needs deprive us of true riches which can only be received through the spiritual disciplines of self-denial.  Lee thus quotes from Romans 5:3-4 to remind us how the Bible “commends suffering:”  “We glory in tribulation also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience, experience, and experience, hope.”

But we should also recall the preceding verse which reads, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand.”  “Grace” is the big buzz word today; a true spiritual gem but is becoming more and more re-invented into a doctrine that calls believers to a life of self-indulgence rather than self-denial.  The marketing teams of this re-invented doctrine have forgotten that even greater than God’s grace is God’s love.

The Bible does not describe God as “grace,” but it does describe God as love.  God is love.  So in love God pours out His grace, to empower us not towards self-indulgence, but to self-denial.  He pours out His grace to enable us to deny our self, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus.  I say this without reserve:  if any man chooses to differ on this point— if any professing Christian chooses to differ on this point, he or she is not preaching the gospel of Jesus.  He or she is not preaching the gospel of grace.  He or she is rather cheapening the gospel of grace.  He or she is reinventing the gospel into something else than the gospel of Christ.

But the true doctrine of grace recognizes grace as a verb.  It is active and is flowing of God’s love.  Grace is God’s love flowing downward.  So when we are truly caught up in God’s grace, we too also naturally flow downward, and want to flow downward, because that is the true nature of God’s love.  We freely let go, and want to free give because we have been “graced” by God.  We have been “graced” by God because as Paul says in Romans 5:5, “God’s love has been poured into our hearts.”

Furthermore, a true doctrine of grace cheerfully proclaims that God gives us grace to sustain us when He then fully sends us into experiences of “tribulation.”          In His love, God even sometimes “deprives” of what we want.  He does so for our own good because as our Father He knows best what is good for us.  Lee therefore adds that “There is benefit to be derived from a certain degree of deprivation and even suffering.  Many of the things we like in excess are bad for us – for example, fatty meats, chocolates and alcohol.  Over and above denying ourselves such pleasures, outright suffering is not always bad, and in moderation, is good character training.”

Ms Lee finally concludes her reflection by saying, “I have been through a fair amount of suffering in my life mainly because of my health.  If I had been given a choice to be spared the experience, I would actually have chosen to go through it because suffering taught me lessons no teacher or book can ever teach me.  As the ancients of various traditions knew, tribulation worketh character.”  I hope that Ms Lee receives a greater platform to shares this truly Christian perspective towards suffering, self-denial, sanctification, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and following Jesus in His paths of spiritual discipline, which truly lead to spiritual transformation.

Know Who You Are / The Mosquito Prayer

Dear God,

My father says that am too small.

My mother says that I am slow.

My teacher says that I am a dreamer.

My boss says that the others are better.

My colleagues say that I lack solidarity.

My lieutenant says that I am a coward.

My pastor says that I am a sinner.

My wife says that other earn more.

My children say that I am old-fashioned.

And you, my God, what do you say?

You say that you made me in your likeness.

Over the past year, I have found my soul deeply stirred through reading, re-reading and continually reflecting on Walter J. Hollenweger’s opus magnus work titled, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide.  Hollenweger’s 400 page work is largely and purposely, story driven.  Not a system of thinking but stories and songs.  Scattered through his book are several prayers.  I have already quoted his first prayer, which is about what people say versus what God says about us.  Following are the other several prayers:

• Prayer of the Earthworm.
• Prayer of the Caterpilar.
• Prayer of the Mosquito.
• Prayer of the Turtle.
• Prayer of the Cow.
• Prayer of the Singing Bird.
• Prayer of the Frog.
• Prayer of the Ostrich.

Hollenweger is by now an old man.  People often found his life message provocative, but I believe he is the most definitive Pentecostal statesman and theologian for the 20th century.  His book narrates what he believes are the “five historical roots” of Pentecostalism:

• Black oral root.
• Roman Catholic root.
• Evangelical root
• Critical root
• Ecumenical root.

Hollenweger believed these are not only the roots but also the true seeds of our future.  Emerging from each of those five seeds is the true calling and true future of Pentecostalism.  They point the way towards that future where the Spirit has always wanted us to go, and flourish, so that we can bless the whole Church and the world through a new Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  I think Hollenweger was right all along.

You see, the problem with virtually all of us today is that we have forgotten who we are.  We have lost our identities.  We have lost our identities. because we have lost our roots.  We are thus now rootless people.  We have become like the eagles who now act like turkeys because they forgot or never knew that they are really eagles.  We are all together like the parabolic lion character named Simba in the movie, Lion King.  So we just carry on our lives like every other creature in the forest because we forgot we are really lions.  We like Simba need to hear the Spirit of his father, who still cries out even from beyond the grave, “Know who you are.”

We live in a day when the word “tradition” spells something very unspiritual and irrelevant.  Hence, Christians do not know their inherent giftings and callings within the entire Christian Church, and to the world.  They fail to know that the DNA of where they came from represents a gift to the whole Church as well as to the world.  Every spiritual tradition has a part to play and needs the engagement of every other tradition within the Christian Church.

On this theme, the problem with far too many Pentecostals, is that they see themselves as simply Evangelicals who speak in tongues.  Or Evangelicals who believe in the miraculous works of the Spirit; or are passionate about reaching people for Christ.  But alas, we have forgotten our prophetic calling—our prophetic consciousness, to call into to question the prevailing consensus and status quo.  We have forgotten our calling to offer an alternative vision of reality that is radically counter-culture to this world’s prevailing norms.  We have forgotten that God’s dream and vision is far grander than the world’s dreams and visions for self-gratification.  We have exchanged gold for bronze because we think that bronze is gold.

We have brought into the lie that to be effective as a church we must be at the “cutting edge” of whatever is relevant.  So we have replaced the stories, symbols and narratives of the Bible for the stories, symbols and narratives of the world.  We had failed to know that in doing so, we have allowed the world’s symbols to shape our thinking and behaviour, more so than the symbols of the Scriptures.  So we have become, as so also have become Christians of other traditions, “fat cows of Bashan” who are far too at home with the first-world middle class yet very oppressive value system.  It is indeed an oppressive value system because it defines human worth according to monetary and material capital, and encourages Christians to see salvation as a ticket to heaven, and a ticket to consume whatever brings pleasure to our tummies.

Now back to Hollenweger’s prayers.  Each of his prayers tells a story about Christian life, and about being Pentecostal.  And if we are honest about ourselves and one another, these prayers express our real needs before the Lord.  I am going to recall these prayers over several entries.  I am doing so because I also believe that these are prayers that reveal our true need for repentance and revival in the Church today.  Is it not amazing?  The recession will soon past and yet our sins are still undone.  Revival is still somewhere beyond the crashing waves at the shoreline.  But one day the rain will fall again.

I think some may find my sharing something like that which comes from the mosquito who likes to draw blood from others.  Maybe it is; we are indeed earthen vessels.  Oh, how we need to pray like the “Mosquito.”

God,

Sometimes I feel like a mosquito.

In the morning, when the sun is shining,

I hum away happily.

But then an urge comes over me:

I must sink my sting into somebody;

I must draw blood in order to survive.

God, I have not made this sting.

Why must I be a mosquito?

I would prefer to be a fly,

Who lives on sugar-water

Or a butterfly who drinks honey.

Why must I be a mosquito,

Who can only survive by stinging others.

I did not make myself.

You did not ask me whether I wanted to be a mosquito,

Neither did my parents.

Dear God, will there also be mosquitoes in the kingdom of God?

What are you going to do with those that have sting others?

I have recently uploaded a sermon I preached on 10 May 2009 titled, “Why do the Nations Rage?” (Acts 4:23-31).  The message was delivered for the 2009 Missions Sunday at World Revival Prayer Fellowship.

To listen to the message, click here.

What, makes, Good Friday, Good Friday? That’s a good question because it was on Friday, perhaps Friday 7 April, 30a.d. at around 3pm, that as the Lord Jesus Christ hanged on the cross, He cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:33-34, 37-39)

Let’s get real.  It has not been a “Good Friday” for most of humanity.  The Lord Jesus Christ was not the first person to ever be crucified; nor is he the last.  And Jesus was not the first nor the last, to cry out from a “cross:” “My God my God, why have you forsaken me?”  That horrible cry of “God-forsakenness,” has been shared by countless millions upon millions of people, down through the ages, through infinite tragedies and terrors, that have shaped the experience of human existence.

Consider the testimony of Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Elie Wiesel.  Most probably, he has done more than any other man, to make known to all the world, that horrific, mass experience of “God-forsakenness” of Hitler’s Holocaust.  When during World War 2 the Nazis slaughtered six million Jews in the death camps, the gas chambers, the furnace ovens where live children and babies were tossed into the flames- alive.  I highly recommend you get a copy of his book tilted, Night.  He recalls the first night, when as a young boy, earlier a devout student of the Hebrew Scriptures, he was forced to march towards the furnace where living people were pushed into the flames.  He saw his own mother and sister forced into an extermination over.  Then just as he arrived- the order was given for no more killings that night.  But of that night, this Wiesel wrote:

“The  Almighty, the eternal and terrible Master of the Universe, chose to be silent. . . Never shall I shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, that turned my life into one long night . . . . Never shall I forget that smoke.

Never shall I forget the small faces of the children whose bodies I saw transformed into smoke under a silent sky.

Never shall I forget those flames that consumed my faith forever.

Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence that deprived me for all eternity of the desire to live.

Never shall I forget those moments that murdered my God (and my soul and turned my dreams to ashes. . . .  Never.”[i]

At the prison camp- along with thousands of onlookers, Wiesel was forced to watch hundreds of hangings at the gallows.  At one execution they were forced to march past the three victims:

“The two men were no longer alive.  But the third rope was still moving: the child [a 13 year old boy] too light, was still breathing . . . And so he remained for more than half an hour, lingering between life and death, writhing before our eyes. . . .

He was still alive when I passed him.  His tongue was still red, his eves not yet extinguished.”

Someone behind Wiesel kept asking out loud: “Where is merciful God, where is He?  For God’s sake where is God?” Wiesel then recalls that: “From within me [that moment] , I heard a voice answer, Where He is?  This is where- hanging here from this gallows . . . “[ii]

Was it a Good Friday: For Elie Wiesel, for the millions of Jews who suffered through the horrors of Hitler’s Holocaust?  For the six million Jews who murdered by Hitler?  Was it a Good Friday for:  The million Tutsis who were murdered by Hutu fanatics during the mid1990’s genocide in Rwanda, when more than a million Tutsi people were murdered, while the industrialised world watched and refused to step in?  Has it been a Good Friday for the many other millions who were murdered over the past century through all the genocides across the earth and history?  Was it a Good Friday for the 3000 murdered people at the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre?  Was it a Good Friday for the countless thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women and men indiscriminately killed in cross fires between the warring forces?  Has it been a Good Friday for the millions and millions throughout the earth, even now today, who every day suffer the pangs of hunger and malnutrition?

What about even here in Singapore?  Is today a Good Friday for a growing number of people right here who every day go to bed hungry- without enough food to eat?  Or for those who have been evacuated from their HDB flats?  Is it a Good Friday for people and families suffering horrific pain from cancer or other terminal diseases?

How about our mankind’s destruction of this good earth?  Where right now, human being are rapidly destroying 1000s animal species from the face of the earth, destroying the ozone layer, destroying the rain forests, destroying the oceans, destroying the earth?  Destroying ourselves? Is it a Good Friday?

If we’re honest with ourselves and one another, we must appreciate this reality: The Lord Jesus Christ was not the first person to ever be crucified; nor is he the last.  And, Elie Wiesel was not the first or the last to ask the question, “For God’s sake, where is God?  For so many, the seeming “silence of God,” is most deafening!

So again, Jesus was not the first nor the last to cry out from a “cross:” “My God my God, why have you forsaken me?”  The point here is that most of the world’s people’s have experienced a world that- in many respects suggest we’re all living a tragic comedy- a God-forsaken universe- a universe without God.  A universe without any ultimate meaning.

“Many atheists deny God because they care so passionately about a caring and personal God . . . [yet] the world around them is inconsistent with a god of love . . . and so they say, ‘There is no God.”[iii] Atheism is their protest against a world where the experience of evil so severely undermines the very idea of God:  How can a God, a personal and loving God at that, exists, in a world where evil prospers?  Where evil has the power to inflict horrendous pain and suffering?”  So again:  We are mindful today that most of humanity, has not known this day, as a “Good Friday.

Second, let’s again get real: It was not a “Good Friday” when Jesus suffered on the cross.”  I believe we do a great, and irreverent, injustice to Christ’s suffering, when we gloss, or even seek to minimise the depth by which Jesus suffered on that Friday afternoon.  But the record is clear:  Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (v34)

We well know that prior to the moment of death, the torment of crucifixion- through the onslaught of blood loss, shock, exposure, and dehydration, would result in: The victim’s complete mental and emotional breakdown.  That breakdown was evidenced by the most horrific screams of rage, pain, cursing, and utter dereliction- the total experience of abandonment, of “God-forsakenness.”

In that brief wrinkle in time, like any other victim of crucifixion, Jesus screamed out his experience of total God-forsakenness.  His words may not have been coherent.  That is why some thought (in vv35-36) that Jesus was calling out for the prophet Elijah.  But Jesus was not calling for Elijah; neither was he calling for God to save him.  He was screaming out the experience of feeling forsaken!

All through the Gospels, we see Jesus at prayer- always calling on God as “Father.”  But now for the first time, He in pain cries out not to “Father,” but He cries out with that more distant formal word, “God.” “Why have you forsaken me?”

The verse is indeed most accurate:  “Cursed is the man that hangs from a tree!” (Deuteronomy 21:23).  There on the cross Jesus’ whole good life was revised; there on the cross, those who orchestrated his death successfully and maligned him into a social misfit, utterly disgraced, ruined, and abandoned.

But Jesus suffered something even far more horrible than other victims of crucifixion: If Jesus Christ was indeed God in the flesh, we cannot escape the hard fact that in this brief wrinkle in eternity, something happened to God.  There was some kind of rupture within the person of God.  Naked and shivering on the cross, somehow, someway, the Son was separated from the Father.  He experienced and felt (if only in feeling but not reality) abandoned by the Father.

Jesus cried out to heaven in tortured agony; and from heaven there came- nothing. There was no audible response from the Father (as there had been at his baptism and transfiguration); there was only silence. Deafening silence.

For those of us who are Christians, we sometimes want so much to think of Jesus as a “hero” on the cross, who heroically rose above the sufferings of His own death; that He calmly took it all in stride.[iv] But let us be warned: If we fail to acknowledge that Jesus Himself suffered the complete experience of abandonment, alienation, of being forsaken even by the Father, we undermine the very message of the Gospel.

We do so because we are entertaining a very pagan and nonChristian idea into the nature of God: The idea that God does not experience suffering, pain, or rejection.  For reason even Martin Luther (founder of the Protestant Reformation) calls the crucifixion, the “death of God.”[v] On the cross, God in Christ, somehow in way that boggles the human imagination, experienced death.  Which leads us back to our original question: What, makes, Good Friday- Good Friday?”  

There is good news.  It is Good Friday.  For while as we’ve seen this “day,” has not been a “good Friday” for most of humanity, and while as we’ve seen this day was not a “good Friday” when Jesus suffered on the cross,” yet on the cross jesus made this day, Good Friday. 

The Scripture says (Mark 16:37) that, “Then Jesus gave a loud cry, and breathed His last.”  Just at the moment of His death, just before that moment when His soul was separated from his body, the Bible says, Jesus did not calmly whisper; he shouted!  The Greek term here is mega; as in mega department store.  At that moment, Jesus screamed out a shout!  But Mark’s Gospel does not tell us what at His death, Jesus screamed!  But the Gospel of John does:  “It is finished! (John 19:30).  Or another translation is:  “It is achieved!”  It is accomplished!”  What was achieved?

What was achieved is that this Friday became “God’s Friday!”  That is why it is Good Friday!  This was the day that God showed Himself to us as, God! This was the day that God proved His love towards us: “God proves His love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:4)  Why did Jesus die on the cross?  It all begins with the love of God.  This cross reveals the depth of God’s love towards us; that He freely enters into our own suffering, and shares our suffering with us.  God is there in our suffering, in the midst of evil, God is present and experience in Himself, the very pain of that evil.

When Wiesel watched that 13 year old boy hanging from the gallows, remember his question: “Where is merciful God, where is He?  For God’s sake where is God?” Then Wiesel “heard a voice answer, Where He is?  This is where- hanging here from this gallows . . . “  But what Wiesel has not yet discovered is this:  God in Christ, was indeed there, “hanging from this gallows.”

That is why the centurion cried out in verse 39, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

This is why Jesus is called Emmanuel: “God with us.”  The cross reveals to us that God is with us, and chooses to suffers with us in all our suffering.

This was the day that God struck the death blow to suffering, pain, and death. It’s almost as if, hanging on the cross, Jesus “breathed in” all the world’s hatred, and suffering, and evil.  And by doing so, He struck the death blow to suffering, pain, and death.  The cross was the means by which God warred against the present existence of evil.  So the Bible say, that on the cross, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities . . . triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:15)  He warred not through power but through absorbing the evil in Himself.  And this is exactly what the Bible declares: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.  All we like sheep have gone astray . . . and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:5-6)

The truth is, all of us nailed Jesus to the cross.  Because at some point in each of our lives, all of us have shown ourselves capable of the most violent of evils and crimes against humanity, against what is good and just, against even God Himself.  Everyone one of us nailed Jesus to the cross.[vi] “But God proves His love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:4)  This is why Jesus shouted, “It is achieved!”

Finally, this day is Good Friday because: On Sunday, Christ rose from the dead. Ultimately, it’s Easter morning that make today Good Friday.  Because on Easter morning, God raised Jesus from the dead.  At the end of the day, there is nothing good about Good Friday, apart from Easter morning.  For “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. . . . But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-20)

Jesus was bodily raised from the dead as the first of a new humanity.  God is even restoring and remaking, creation!  There is a restoration right now underway!  Not just people, but the entire creation.  So even now, “resurrection” is happening: from the “inside out.”  When we come to Christ, God begins transforming us, from the inside, to the outside.  People spend hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars to attend workshops and training programmes with titles like, “Total Transformation,” “Inside-Out” transformation.”  Well, this is what God in Christ offer you and I.  God is remaking us, by restoring us to Himself.  Therefore, even now all over the world, God is raising people from the dead!  Remaking us, and transforming us into His own likeness.  And this is why today is called, Good Friday.

Notes

[ii] Wiesel, Night, 64-65.

[iii] Madeleine L’Engle, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press; Crosswicks, Ltd, 1980), 19.

[iv] Jesus did not eagerly and fearlessly go to the cross.  For the night before his crucifixion, Jesus did not pray, “Thank you Father for this opportunity to suffer.”  No!  He prayed, “Father if it is at all possible, take this cup away from me.”

[v] “For God in His own nature cannot die; but now, since God and man are hunited in one Person, thne death of the man with whom God is one Thing or Person is justly called the death of God” (Luther, On the Councils and Churches, 1539, WLS I, p198); quoted in: Thomas Oden, The Word of Life, Vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (New York, NY: HarperSanFransicso; HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), 341.

[vi] We were there.  The cross of Jesus exposes not just “their” sin back then and there but our sin here and now.  When we read about them, we read about ourselves.

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold . . . He will bring forth justice to the nations.” (Isaiah 42:1)

“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” (Matthew 15:3)

“By a perversion of justice he was taken away . . . stricken for the transgression of my people.” (Isaiah 53:8)

“Would we also send Jesus to the cross?”

As we transition through the season of Lent all the way to the end of the Holy Week, the Holy Spirit reminds us that our Christian life is a perpetual turning from the ways of the world to the ways of Jesus.  The practice examining ourselves during the Holy Week usually focuses on the inner life; our sins of both omission and commission.  Of course, many believers, particularly Evangelicals, see no need for setting aside this week as a week of spiritual reflection; “We are free of all such traditions!”  The Holy Week comes and goes, and we remain satiated yet spiritually dulled in spite of our sustained praise.

Yet this is indeed a season of repentance.  And the good news is that this turning is leading us into the promise of Easter, which is Pentecost.  So we ask the good Lord to turn our hearts towards Himself.  Then as empty vessels the Lord fills us afresh!

So the during this season, the Holy Spirit will ask us questions.  He will close our eyes and draw back to into the Gospel story.  He will then open our eyes as we again behold the prophet Jesus walking about the streets of Jerusalem.  Then He will ask us, “Were you there, when they crucified the Lord?”  Then He sometimes asks us questions like, “If Jesus walked amongst us today, would you recognise Him?  Or, would you also send Him to the cross?

If our hearts our turned, the Holy will at times, ask us the question.  So if we turn our hearts, we must also ask ourselves, Are we willing to let the Spirit sift through our entire existence as a community of believers?  Are we willing to let Him also probe the systems, the apparatus, the values, and the very ethos of our gathering together?  Are we willing to allow the Spirit of God to deconstruct all that we think is right and just and good, to only find that what we perceived was right and just and good, is not God’s truth but only chaff in the wind?

What would happen if Jesus Christ came into our church and said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted?”  What would happen when He begins to uproot things in the church?  Would we recognise Him or would we also send Him to the cross?

Let us be clear:  It was not, as commonly presumed, that Jesus preached an inner righteousness while His opponents sought only an outer righteousness, and that for this reason they nailed Him to the cross.  No, it’s not that simple.  We now know enough from the sources of Jesus’ day, to suggest that His opponents were in many respects also deeply concerned with both an inner and outer righteousness of the heart.  Nor did Jesus’ opponents nail Him to the cross because He inferred His divinity or inferred Himself as the awaited Messiah.

Rather, the immediate root cause of Jesus’ death was that as God’s prophet, He questioned the prevailing consensus.  He sought to uproot “plants” which God never planted.  He publicly questioned and sought to uproot practices, systems, and symbols to which Jesus’ opponents had so deeply attached their self-identity.  He publicly called into question all our dreams, aspirations, and demarcations of faith.  He questioned prevailing perceptions, interpretations, and postures towards the symbols of faith.  He questioned the prevailing perceptions and postures towards institutions such as the Sabbath, the Torah, the Temple, and the restoration of a political nation-state.  And most threatening of all, He questioned the exclusive authority of the ruling elite.

He questioned the “boundary-markers” of faith; of “who is in and who is out.”  And even more, Jesus envisioned and proclaimed an alternative consciousness which radically jeopardised the authority of the existing power players of His day.  He publicly questioned all these things again, again, and again.  Therefore, those who were most threatened by His questioning, sought to kill him.

And how did they kill Him?  They killed him by maligning His character, His integrity, His place within the community.  They sought to silence Him as a social deviant, an unpatriotic antagoniser, a rebel and a liar.  That is why they nailed Him to the cross.  For by nailing Him to the cross, they sought to forever, ruin the name of Jesus.  The question remains:  If Jesus Christ came into our church and said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted,” would we recognise Him or would we also “nail” Him to a cross?

I have reflected on the practice of Christmas amongst many churches and believers.  Every year here in Singapore, the Muslim festival of Hari Raya Haji vividly precedes Christmas.  This is the way it is of  course within many other religiously pluralistic societies.  About two years ago, the two holidays were only a week apart.  This provided quite a contrast between visible expressions of faith and celebration, between the Muslim and Christian communities.

Given the short span between the two holidays, I saw something, which at least for me- was simply ludicrous, almost tragically comical.  I was perplexed by the bewildering reaction when I shared this reflection with fellow believers.  But here it is.

On the day of Hari Raya Haji, the Singapore Muslim community slaughters thousands of lambs, giving away most of this meat to poor Muslim families; to families in need.  Given the enormity of this exercise, we are reminded every year of this event through the media.  Lest Christians draw the wrong conclusion, this is not a case of the media playing privy to the Muslim holiday..  Not at all; the enormity of the event simply warrants news coverage.

And so in past years- when our economy was strong and booming, Christmas celebrations receive ample news coverage.  Coverage of the hundreds of thousands of dollars churches spend to give a distinct “Christian message” to the Singapore Tourism Board’s “Christmas at Orchard Road.”  Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on bringing in star-studded overseas performers, to help Christians some kind of “Christian meaning and value” to the celebration of Christmas on Orchard Road.  We invest in this “witness” through our dancing, singing, and varied on-stage performances.  In past years, we’d have Christians walking about in brightly coloured, presumably first century Holy Land costumes, along with the many colourful and brightly lit nativity scenes, floats, and “Christmas Village.”  All to insure that the “purity” of the Gospel is somehow held intact within the Orchard Road light-up.”

Just to clarify, Christmas should involve celebration.  It is a festivity and celebration of the coming of Christ.  We can and should to some extent, proclaim Christmas through this pageantry, dancing, and singing.  There has been, and there continues amongst Christians, a desire to “enculturate” popular and pop culture.  “Christmas on Orchard” is one but significant expression of this desire, which has some merit in the long-term penetration of popular culture.

Yet back to my observation a few years ago, regarding the very close proximity between Christmas Hari Raya Haji.  On that year, the broad message which became subtly visible through the media was that in midst of all the time and money given to keep Orchard Road “Christianised,” the Muslims dutifully budget and provide a free meal for the Muslim poor in the land.

Now I am well aware that the “Christmas at Orchard Road” has generated substantial funds for varied charities.  But in terms of the greater picture of December of all that transpires during the festive season, this contrast between the ethos and behaviour associated with Christmas and Hari Raya Haji remains still quite vivid.  To some extent, it is matter of branding the values within an affluent first-world setting, of two contrasting religious communities.

So there comes a time that we must reflect on what we are doing.  We must reflect on how best to “brand” our Christian faith.  We must also ask in the greater picture, what kind of message we are really communicating through our attempt to keep Christmas at Orchard Road, “Christianised.”

I believe that when it comes to penetrating the media and other doors or expressions of popular culture, we Christians do have a powerful role model on how to function as a prophetic light to and within the media world.  We would do well to reflect on his life, and on how he is using his influence as a media personality and celebrity, as a witness to God’s kingdom.  The media personality is successful, culturally relevant, and a true visionary.  His name is, Bono, lead singer of the famed Irish group, U2.

Some Evangelicals struggle with Bono.  Yet I think he is one of the best examples of how a Christian media personality can use his or her life for the cause of Christ.  Bono says that he finds his faith foremost influenced by the words and actions of Jesus, the Beatitudes, and Old Testament Prophets.  I’ve come across two quotes from Bono, which deserve our reflection during this time of global economic meltdown.  Here is the first one:  “To some people the church is their ticket to respectability, a certain bourgeois point of view, a safety net for when they go to bed. My idea of Christianity is no safety net, a scathing attack on bourgeois values, and a risk to respectability.  Clamoring for better church marketing isn’t about respectability, it’s about being authentic and effective.”  Now here’s the second: “The Church is going to have to become the conscience of the free market if it’s to have any meaning in the world- and stop being its apologist.”

Now back to my observations on the practice of Christmas and Hari Raya Haji.  I wonder then if sometimes the Holy Spirit might be speaking a “word” to believers through Hari Raya Haji, although our ears have not yet opened.  For what is Christmas?  Is not Christmas the advent, the dawning of the Messianic Jubilee?  Perhaps Christmas should therefore involve most all, a giving to the poor, even as Christ first came to the poor.

Some day, the economy will recover.  When it does, what will become of “Christmas on Orchard?”  Here is a proposal.  What if rather than investing so heavily in our performance / entertainment driven “Christianisation” of the Orchard Road light-up, we rather take a less glamorous but socially conscious approach to Christmas.  Perhaps an approach that might even involve some reflection on the actions demonstrated one week earlier on Hari Raya Haji- and maybe, the Holy Spirit might even provide us a creative way to publicise that kind of spiritual act- a witness to the real meaning of Christmas, even at Orchard Road.

If Jesus came in the flesh today, what prevailing consensus would He question?

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice . . . Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house . . . Then your light shall break forth like the dawn.” (Isaiah 58:6-8)

“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted, will be uprooted.”

I am raising up a people called by my name and whose leaf shall not whither. In the year of drought, their leaf shall remain green and they will bear fruit. In that year, the fig tree will not bud and there will be no grapes on the vines. The olive crop will fail and the field will produce no fruit. Yet those people whose roots go down deep into the earth, will rejoice in the Lord because their leaf shall remain green. If though it may not be the season for bearing fruit, they will be as green trees planted by the waters. The Spirit of the Messiah will rest upon them. And all the creatures of the field will rest beneath their branches, and their leaves will give healing to the nations.

“The Sovereign Lord is my strength; he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.” Habakkuk 3:19

Last week I stood alone in an open field.  The rain just ended and the sun was setting.  Minutes earlier, I saw the lightening and heard the thunder.  But now I saw a double rainbow.  This is what the rainbow said:  God is going to send His people into a wilderness.  There they will learn that man lives not by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Why should it surprise you that God would send His people into the wilderness?  The Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness.  Jesus did not choose to go into the wilderness.  But the Spirit sent Him there.  There, Jesus learned obedience from what He suffered.  That is why He came out “full of the Holy Spirit.”  Then Jesus sent Paul into the wilderness.  He sent many others, and He is sending more into the wilderness.  For “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”

In the wilderness God is going to deliver believers from the god of money, because they have come to pride themselves in the things they own.  A flood will come in from the sea.  Some will be washed away, because it will go over every head.  But with salt the flood will wash them, that they may share in His holiness.

So the Lord will lead them into the desert and speak tenderly to them.  He will split open the rocks and give them water.  He will turn the desert into pools of water.  And to him who overcomes will He give some of the hidden manna.  So shall they come out of the desert full of the Holy Spirit.

When the sun was setting the rainbow appeared and I remembered God’s covenant:

“I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.  Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears . . . I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures.” (Gen 9:14-15)

When storms come, God sends also the rainbow.  That covenant will never cease.  It is forever in this present age, a sure and certain word.  For “the LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.  The Lord upholds all those who fall and lifts up all who are bowed down.”

That which does not destroy us, only makes us stronger

I just journeyed through one dark path, which lied on a razor’s edge.  It was the razor’s edge of speaking the truth in love.  But thanks be to God, who has given me both solice and exhortation from several of Amy Carmichel’s “IF’s.”

These “if’s” speak to both sides of the edge.  That edge is like a double-edged sword.  It is sharp enough to pierce through flesh.  And it “penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; for it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Heb 4:13)

I remember from somewhere a word spoken that now comes to mind: “That which does not destroy us, only makes us stronger.”  The Psalmist David shapes our prayer in the right direction; surely it is the Spirit who is still speaking through the prophet David (Psalm 18):  “Your right hand sustains me; you stoop down to make me great.  You broaden the path beneath me, so that my ankles do not turn.” (Ps 18)

On one side of the edge, are ten “If’s” :

1.      If I can write an unkind letter, speak an unkind word, think an unkind thought without grief and shame, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

2.      If I can hurt another by speaking faithfully without much preparation of spirit, and without hurting myself far more than I hurt that other, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

3.      If I cannot be at rest under the Unexplained, forgetting the word, “And blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me,” of if I can admit the least shadow of a misunderstanding, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

4.      If I do not give a friend “the benefit of the doubt,” but put the worst construction instead of the best on what is said or done, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

5.      If I felt injured when another lays to my charge things that I know not, forgetting that my Sinless Saviour trod this path to the end, then I now nothing of Calvary love.

6.      If I feel bitterly towards those who condemn me, as it seems to me, unjustly, forgetting that if they know me as I know myself, they would condemn me much more, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

7.      If I want to be known as the doer of something that has proved the right thing, or as the one who suggest that it should be done, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

8.      If I avoid being “ploughed under,” with all that such ploughing entails of rough handling, isolation, uncongenial situations, strange tests, then I now nothing of Calvary love.

9.      If I wonder why something trying is allowed, and press for prayer that it may be removed if I cannot be trusted with any disappointment, and cannot go on in peace under any mystery, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

10.  If I ask to be delivered from trial rather than for deliverance out of it to the praise of His glory; if I forget that the way of the cross leads to the Cross and not to a bank of flowers . . . so that I am surprised when the way is rough and think it strange- though the words is, “Think it not strange, but count it all joy,” then I know nothing of Calvary love.

On the other side are these three “if’s”:

1.      If I am perturbed by the reproach and misunderstanding that may follow action taken for  the good of  souls for whom I must give account If I cannot commit the matter and go on in peace and  in silence, remembering Gethsemane and the Cross, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

2.      If I am afraid to speak the  truth, lest I lose affection, or lest the one concerned should say, “You do not understand,” or because I fear to lose my reputation for  kindness; if I put my own god name before the other’s highest good, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

3.      If I am content t to heal a hurt slightly, saying “Peace, peace, where there is no peace,” if I forget that poignant word, “Let love be without partiality,” and blunt the edge of truth, speaking not right things but smooth things, then I know nothing of Calvary love.

God is my rock, in whom I take refuge (Psalm 18)

“The Lord has heard my prayer and has come down to save me from myself and all my enemies.  In my distress I called to the Lord: I cried to the Lord for help.  From His temple He heard my voice.”

“He reached down from on high and took hold of me he drew me out of deep waters.  He rescued me from my powerful enemy. . . .  “They confronted me in the day of my disaster, but the LORD was my support. . . . He brought me out into a spacious place; he rescued me because he delighted in me.”

The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, and a stronghold in times of trouble.

Recently, I finally finished some thorough revisions to the prologue and three parts currently comprising the “Spirit-baptism & Prophetic Imagination” series:

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 3: A vision for true Pentecostal revival

Part 4: The Prophetic  Purpose of Spirit-baptism

I undertook this revisioning for three reasons.

First, there were a number of grammatical errors and stylistic flaws rampant througout the series.  Much of the writing was therefore unncessarisly difficult to follow or read, especially de to far too many long and complex sentences.  I had thus sought to simplify quite a bit of the content, specifically, the sentence structures. In the process of doing so however, I was forced at times to further clarify thoughts and concepts.  I also needed to at time re-arrange some of the materials within the postings.  I also found it needful to add some new material within the third part of the series (“A vision for true Pentecostal revival) in the section dealing with similarities Pentecostalism may share with certain older traditions.

The second reason the revisioning stemmed from the fact that this series currently exists as a set of  keynote Perichorus manifesto essays.

Finally, with the completion of this revisioning of the series, I will now be able to more effectively tackle at some point (hopefully within the very near future!), the posting of the fourth and final part of the series, which will centre on the prophetic purpose of the Spirit-baptism.  A preview to some of the concepts which will be discussed in the final part of the series is presently available at the end of the prologue  (Prologue to Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination).

The fourth and final part will serve to not only complete the series as a fitting climax, but will also provide the original purpose of the series.  This original purpose was to substantiate the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit-baptism, through several variables quite lacking in much of the literature that has been developed thus far in the world of Pentecostal scholarship.  Again, I have briefly introduced some of these variables in the prologue of this series.

Rev Edmond Chua, CEO of the Christian Post – Singapore Editon, had graciously approached me to publish the “Lose that You May Find” article as a series to be carried on for several weeks.  The part was posted on 4 March, 2009.  I had agreed and believe that a wider readership will indeed benifit from that essay, given the present economic downturn all over the world.

Click here to download a pdf copy of this entry.

Links to the Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination series

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 3: A Vision for True Pentecostal Revival

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. 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. An important variable accounting for the globalisation of Pentecostalism has been its distinctive “oral-aural” oriented epistemology (how we know, define, and describe reality). 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.”

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.” 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.” 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. 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.” 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.

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.

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. 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.” 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. 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.” This is a turning towards a narrative-inspired imagination.  This turn, coupled with an appreciation towards cultivating an embodied gestalt and right-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.

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.” 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.” 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. 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.” 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.” The “‘orality’ of Pentecostalism,” thus “accents the intuitive” dimension of spiritual life, even more so of spiritual realities. 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.”

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. 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. 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).

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. 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.

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. This in turn leads to a transition from a primarily oral nuanced culture to a print nuanced culture. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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 left brain thinking modes rather than towards a more gestalt, affective and right 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. 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.

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. 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.” 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Christians who are more culturally disposed towards an oral-aural driven culture, naturally approach the Scriptures more so from the affective-oriented, right-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. 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).

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.”

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. 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. 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.

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.” 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.”

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.” What makes the Bible “authoritative” for us is that it is the one story through which the Sprit speaks to us. 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. 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.” 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.” 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.”

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. 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.” In Classic Pentecostalism, the doctrine of Spirit-baptism therefore “plays a hermeneutical role in which major Christian beliefs are ‘interpreted and explored.’” 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.” 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.”

Monte Lee Rice (© Copyright September 2008)

Links to the Spirit-Baptism and the Prophetic Imagination series

NOTES

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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).

Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 196.

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 23-24.

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.

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).

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

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

Hollenweger, Pentecostalism, 272.

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).

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).

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.

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

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).

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.

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).

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Bosch, Transforming Mission, 266, 270-271.

Escobar, A Time for Mission, 129-130.

Tarr, Double Image, 6-8, 97-98.

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

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.

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

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.

Tarr, Double Image, 8;

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

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.

Tarr, Double Image, 8, 102.

Tarr, Double Image, 100.

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).

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).

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

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

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

Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 63.

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.

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

Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 84.

Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 9.

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

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.

Pinnock, “Divine Relationality,” 9.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 3: A Vision for True Pentecostal Revival

Part 4: The Prophetic Purpose of Pentecostal Spirit-baptism

To be published within several weeks’ time.

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.

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.

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.

Click here for a pdf file of this article.

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

[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.

“‘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)

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).

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.  For 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.  Yet because the disciple is welcoming his deliverance from the dark side of wealth and acknowledging it as the god called mammon, the disciple thus now embraces Jesus’ life and so steps into the footprints of Jesus.

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]

Monte Lee Rice (© Copyright February 2009)

Notes

[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.

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:

[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.”

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)