Leadership as Embodying

Some reflections amidst my exilic period...

I've been reading Christopher J. H. Wright's book "Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament" and it's contents has been cluttering in my mind for the last few weeks. Especially in the area of Jesus embodying God's vision for Israel. C. J. H. Wright is one of my favorite authors (along with another Wright, with the initials N. T.). Along with N. T. Wright, he also gives us a Jesus who embodied God's vision for Israel. As God's chosen messiah, Jesus did not just hold office, but became an encapsulated version of Israel, with the task of fulfilling God's call and will for the nation chosen by him. Jesus did not simply explained the kingdom in a sense but he went a step further, living what the kingdom of God required. In that way he became the obedient son whereas the called nation failed to do so. Because he was to embody Israel in being the obedient son, he also became their embodied sacrifice. 

I could go on and on with this but let me just stop at that point and divert our thoughts to leadership. Reflecting on this, leadership is in a way a call to embodiment. Embodiment in a sense that the leader becomes what God desires for the church. Leaders, have to encapsulate the vision of God for the community. It is only then that the church with the picture of God's vision incarnated in the life and thoughts of the leader able to grasp God's will and ways. 

This is not to mean that the leader becomes like Jesus, in a way that he is above reproach and everything he does is God's will. No, not at all. It is actually telling the leader the call upon his life and the kind of responsibility that is placed upon him; being obedient to God in serving the Church in mediating the vision. 

These are at best fragmented thoughts and not a full blown description of what I'm thinking. I would appreciate comments that would help harness where i might lack clarity or erred. But the idea that Leadership is embodiment still stands and i hope to build on this in the future.  

Reflections on being Exiled

The year has not ended but there is a resounding theme that keeps banging on the doors of my thoughts, mainly the turmoil of being to some extent exiled. I think it is a resounding theme that I keep on going through and one that I seek on reflecting on constantly in many days to come. But one thing is constant when all seems lost, the hopeful expectation of an exodus. 

I find that ministry and theological life in shifting Malaysia, with the parody of old school mentality combined with some western thought patters makes the journey a bumpy one at best. Some parts of Malaysia are clearly premodern in their thought patters and some parts are modern in their thought patterns. The irony is some theological students or fulltime workers do not understand these tensions. Many are still working out their sermons, teaching, ministry patterns on worn out methods (not that there is an ideal method) or doing things based on tradition (how things have always been done). Not many see the need of contextualizing their theological training or biblical preaching and teaching. 

Because of this ministry and theological way of communicating becomes static to those who have no background on these issues. Now is the minister is not sensitive to this, it does not matter how biblically based your teaching might be, you stand to lose a whole generation. 

I think this is the kind of thing that goes around the mind of someone in exile. A parody of anguish and hope. 

What do you think of expository preaching

I've been thinking about preaching for the past few days and especially in the best method used when preaching. I hear a lot of talk about the importance about expository preaching and i'm in agreement with all the emphasis on it. The need for the bible to be expounded and the bible to be taught and preached in church is vital, mainly because we do find that most of the stuff taught are mainly one line verses from the bible or sometimes a passage is read but the sermon and points or the topic have nothing to do with the passage read. So to come up with the method of expository preaching is simply great because the message and points are derived from the exposition of the chosen text. 

But i do have some minor problems with just strictly sticking on with just expository sermons. One of the reasons being, some passages in the bible are not adequate enough to give meaning to a given topic. The method of expository preaching simply hits a brick wall because it simply has to derive it's points from the passage and when it deviates everything runs havoc. One has to dig in the bible and look for particular passages so that one can arrive at the juncture where a text would fit in adequately giving justice to the topic. 

Although I place the above as a minor issue, i'm not at all against expository preaching. For me, we have to use a variety of methods with the intention of presenting biblical preaching as well as a message that is both relevant and understandable. Sort of like messages that Jesus gave. I'm not sure if Jesus gave an expository message to his hearers but what we do find him telling stories and occasionally expounding what we call the OT now. And at times this makes me wonder what method did the apostles use when they preached to the congregation? 

So what about you? Do you have any thoughts on expository preaching? Or are there any other ways that a pastor or preacher(teacher) can use for the purpose of preaching? 

Thoughts on Keller

There's an article on Tim Keller and how he started in NYC. Quite an interesting read and because of that it made me think as well as gave a spark of excitement and enthusiasm inside me. An enthusiasm for ministry as well as the vigorous task of plunging into scholarship and the real world. I really respect this pastor, although i'm not so much a fan of the circle he hangs out with (Reformed) but I find Keller to be an ideal representation of what Reformed should be. Well it's just my opinion that is. Oh and he like's Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" (that's just an added bonus to why i like this guy, well this may this had something to do with it.) . Let me just direct your attention to two quotes i took from the artile that made me think (quotes are in italics):

Tim found Manhattan non-Christians amazingly, sometimes naïvely, curious. Though the borough's 1.6 million people were used to religious diversity, many had never talked to an evangelical. Tim's interest in art and music was an indispensable gift in communicating. His omnivorous reading also helped. New York is a city of high achievers to whom, Keller says, it made sense that a minister should be a scholar of ancient texts, exposing them to ideas and information beyond their experience. They needed someone who spoke their language, though, and Keller was a quick learner. "I saw New York mentor Tim," Sherman says. "There's something about the density of the city, the way your lives get intertwined with a secular culture."

One of the things that caught my attention here is the zeal to learn as well as being open to stuff people in general are exposed to (music, arts, etc). Pastors in the context that i live in are especially weak in these area. Again let me say that this observation does not apply to all Malaysia but the small place where i call home. So I hope that might avert some offense on my part, hopefully. Pastors here are respected to some degree (in spiritual matters) but that is about it. And pastors are those people who 'abstain' from the secular world. An example of this is those in ministry are 'forbidden' to hear any form of secular music, only the praise and worship kind are acceptable. There were times when books, the Harry Potter series or Twilight series, were publicly denounced by the church and calling for parent not to allow their children read them. There are far worse case scenarios where pastors or those in ministry were only supposed to wear slacks only and no jeans! I'm not sure if this is still ongoing but I think it still applies in some places.

Because of constrains like this pastors are hedged from knowing how to approach the 'secular' world or better how to engage in the world. And with that also the way a pastor might communicate to people might have a negative effect as well. Negative in a sense that people engaged in the world cannot understand terms used by pastors, hence there is a sort of communication breakdown. Because of communication breakdown, teachings and preachings are a dread to people in the pews.

So, what can pastors do to maintain proper communication that connect speak to people? Simply get immersed in culture, get to know what people are into, what people like for that matter. Now I'm not advocating that pastors go watch porn because people are into that. Clearly that is not what i mean! My advice to pastors is don't be too paranoid of things in the world-music, literature, art and other stuff. Learn to be curious and most of all be a learner. If you want people to know anything about the bible, why not you take time to learn the stuff that interest them?

Take Mark Robers who did a post on the Twilight novels that his daughter reads. Take some advice from him. Read it here.

Sherman relates Keller's vision to the apostle Paul. "Paul had this sense of, I really should go talk to Caesar. He's not above caring for Onesimus the slave, but somebody should go to talk to Caesar. When you go to New York, that's what you're doing. Somebody should talk to the editorial committee of The New York Times; somebody should talk to Barnard, to Columbia. Somebody should talk to Wall Street."

Reading this gave some boost of confidence which at times is sadly not evident to pastors or fulltime workers. A lot of pastors tend to be wimpy probably because they are not well versed in things their secular church members who have degrees to prove their credentials. This might be one reason but I think there are other reasons as well. But reading Keller and what he says about apostle Paul really pumped me up. That's the kind of confidance i want to have if i were a pastor or want other pastors here to have.

I have to say that as a student of theology, immersed in my culture, i find the state of embracing ministry fulltime to have a bad effect on my confidance. I see things have to change here and the mentality for that matter simply has to change. Well these are simply some thought that came to me when i read the artile. It lighted up my soul. So my mind is still fresh with it!

Denominational Red Tapes

I have a habit of staying awake and depriving myself of sleep. It is clearly something bad but you have to blame modernity for creating things such as light bulbs that extend the role of the sun, mimicking daylight. I blame it also on reading. Sometimes i read too much. Well enough about that. As i was browsing the net and checking on blog updates, I wasn't disappointed in my findings. It got me thinking about denominations and procedures that denominations create in the matter of ordaining ministers.

Read this blog post by Adam Walker on the frustrations of his ordination process. According to the denomination that Adam is applying for his M.Div. from Princeton is not enough and he needs to do a whole years worth of courses to meet the standard requirement for him to get ordained. But to get a clearer picture of the situation, I encourage you to read the post and get a feel of what is happening.

Tony Jones, someone who is known for controversy (Emergent), has issued a petition of ordination for Adam on his blog regarding the whole fiasco. Tony is obviously pissed on what is happening as he states here, "Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common sense, then the shark has officially been jumped."

Reading these two blog posts, it does make me wonder whether denominations are actually hindering gifted and called people with the intention to serve the body of Christ their rightful place to minister. Sometimes it does seem like procedures can be a hindrance if there are too many red tapes to follow through to actually ordain someone. But with that on the side, I do understand that there is wisdom to have some sort of guideline or procedure to see if someone is fit for ordination.

I've had my fair share of 'denominational red tape' awhile back and I do have some '2 cent' (trying my best to sound 'humble') experience on this issue at hand. So what do you think, are there pro and cons of denominational procedures such as that is stated in the two blog posts that i linked above?

Simple, Concise and a Robust Gospel

A few weeks back I did a post on whether we could tweet the gospel. CT actually posed the question to Rob Bell. A while after that there have been numerous blog posts talking about the possibility of tweeting the gospel. Some criticized Bell for his take on it (well his take on the gospel based on his book "Jesus Wants to Save Christians") which you could read here. And on the same site also, a few days after critiquing Bell, there was a post on "How would you present this gospel on Twitter?" and it was a contest on who could put up the best way to convey the gospel via tweets. Just a note here, i'm not posting this to say that I disapprove of them for making it into a contest, in fact i'm up for any contest that gives me a chance to win books.

Reading the post again a few days after it was posted, there were a lot of responses from people on their take on tweeting the gospel. But I was somewhat disappointed with the answers that were put up. It makes me wonder whether it is even a good idea to even think of tweeting the gospel. Because of the concise nature, a lot of things get lost, and it really makes the Christian message look kind of dour and sour. See for yourselves here.

I'm not an enemy of simplicity and concise presentations but somethings are not worth working out in simplistic forms. Why? Because we might miss some important detail. Details that might have been vital in our presentation. So what should we do, if we wanted to present a simple yet concise as well as robust gospel?

I like McKnight's take on this

"The gospel is the story of the work of the triune God (Father, Son, and Spirit) to completely restore broken image-bearers () in the context of the community of faith (Israel, Kingdom, and Church) through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Pentecostal Spirit, to union with God and communion with others for the good of the world." Read the rest of the article here.

To me this would be a better way at conveying simplicity, conciseness and a wider grasp of the gospel as a whole.

A new kind of relevant

Sometimes we can't help but be pulled by the currents surrounding us and telling us the latest trend setting moves, the latest gadgets, the in thing, the latest catch phrase and many more. The pressure to sound, look and think old often grip us in the nerves so much so that we become people constantly challenged to chart a pathway that looks forward. The pressures and challenges of being relevant.

Being relevant is what we want and need to chart forward but often we plow in the wrong direction way too often, more often than we want sometimes. When i say this I'm mostly reframing these thoughts on being church. I agree with the fact that we have to be relevant, we need to. With the escalating changes in the society, it's simply dumb not to be relevant, to think new things.

But all to often the church at times has charted a misleading demeanor of how to be relevant. We put our efforts of carrying the yardstick of relevance, too much I think, in the our church building's architecture, the order of service, the music we sing and how it is played, the programs we have, the order of service and some things that I could think of. We care too much in the image of being relevant so much so that it disfigures the potent witness the church could have had towards society. Being relevant has become an idol in itself and unless we are ready to admit to this that is.

So, where should we chart a progressive and 'balanced' take on being relevant? One thing is for sure though is we need to be relevant. We need fresh expressions of faith coupled with how we merge them with the progressive phase of technology for example. We need at some points facilities, if we have the means, for social engagement and connecting with people around us. In a way, being relevant tells us we are serious about our faith by adapting an ancient faith in a changing world.

We progress by our embrace of relevance but we must not let the relevant bug take total control in charting our faith and influence as a church and community. Another take on relevant is also how we see shifting priorities in people. In the western world, there is a sense of disease with modernity. Thus comes a brooding postmodern generation that are not impressed with modern meanderings. More people are seeing community, justice, environmental care, spirituality, the arts as important. The church should see these groans as a 'relevant' passage to enter in. In fact, the groans displayed are stuff the christian faith is actually relevant in how it deals with them. Stuff that christian faith is closer at home with.

So we do need to rephrase how we understand being relevant, in a church community context.

Chasing Francis

I've just finished reading this fictional tale of a pastor getting himself acquainted with the rummaging of postmodernity and the question of how to live his faith in that brooding environment. It has a classic emergent/emerging storyline which appeals to the conversation. The book is entitled "Chasing Francis" and is written by Ian Morgan Cron. I think this book sort of echoes Brian Mclaren's book "A New Kind of Christian", although I'm just guessing this at the moment. But one thing about Cron's book is it's fascination with Francis of Assisi, whose life plays a guiding role in bringing life to the book.

The story starts with the introduction of the main character, Chase Falson, who is depicted as a successful mega church pastor. Falson soon becomes disillusioned with faith as it is played along the lines of certainty and the neat portrayal of Christianity. The death of one of his church member's child had deeply affected him and soon shatters the pretention of meaning on which he broke down in the middle of his 'certainty' and neat theological stance that he had always understood Christianity to be. This soon fueled the church board to give him time off because he was seen as abandoning faith altogether.

His laying off by the church board leads him to a journey or rather a pilgrimage to Italy where he found how it was a Christian lived. With the help of some monks they introduce Falson to the life of Francis of Assisi, someone who was "…a Catholic, an evangelical street preacher, a radical social activist, a contemplative who devoted hours to prayer, a mystic who had direct encounters with God, and someone who worshiped with all the enthusiasm and spontaneity of a Pentecostal. He was a wonderful integration of all the theological streams we have today…"(55). This brings to mind another of Mclaren's work "A Gracious Orthodoxy".

With the quote above in mind, I think I have done enough (I hope) to explain the main thrust of the book. The fictional story plays around these themes and presents a need for us to embrace a more holistic outlook of our Christian faith and engagement as followers of Jesus. It also falls along the lines of a critique of the modern church in its, all too often, narrow description of being a Christian and the church. But with that, this quote would redeem the negative critique of Christendom in a more fashionable way,

"Francis, you changed the church (in fact, you reevangelized it)-not through being critical but through forming a community that confounded it. For the last few years, I've been a self righteous critic of the church and all of Christendom, and I need to give that up. Sister Irene told me the other day that "no one else is your problem but you." Maybe I should try to live the "gospel without gloss" and keep my mouth shut?" (155)

But I would add that keeping our mouths totally shut would not also contribute to changing the status quo. I think what it means here is we have a responsibility more in living out what we believe as opposed to just a mere criticism of the present condition of church.

All in all, I enjoyed the book immensely because the story does in some ways reflect a journey I am all too familiar with. I would gladly recommend it to anyone who has time to read and reflect with an open heart and mind. You might find yourself also, like Falson, chasing Francis.

Coping with Change

There is one regret that i have after being involved in fulltime ministry here in the context of Malaysia that I'm in (Sarawak to be exact) and that is I should have gotten some other form of educational qualifications. Most pastors here are simply educated in one field only (theological education). Some study at most up to a bachelors level, while the bulk are simply having certificates and a diploma in theological studies. These I would say are the minimum if you want to be a fulltime pastor. Most pastors are trained to adapt to a rural setting of ministry. So most are good with their hands.

But at the juncture of the times, modernity has hit the shores of Borneo, and there is an increasing form of development that is happening. Because of this sweeping shift, it is difficult for pastors to adapt with the progress that is happening around. I'm not sure if there are others who share my views on this but I do see this as a concern, especially for fulltime pastors who have no other educational background.

With all the shifting, a lot of pastors are finding it hard to cope ministering in the urban areas because you do need other skills which the rural minded training cannot provide. Pastors are feeling the effects of being intimidated by their educated 'board' of leaders, which in turn tend to influence the direction of the church (at points in an unhealthy manner to some degree). Another factor I might add to is the financial struggle that pastors face. And being trained in the capacity of a rural setting, it is at times impossible to combat this problem.

This is why I see it is extremely important that future pastors get themselves trained as much as possible in other fields of education as well as their theological training. This would help immensely in their connectedness with their congregation in some level of interaction and respect. I don't mean in a sense that we need another form of degree to get proper respect, but what i am simply arguing here is 'the times they are a changing'. It would also help future generation pastors to acquire some needed financial aid having other skills to adapt to the urban setting.

I wish something would be done about this, but many don't really see this as a needed shift to adapt to. I guess many still love the old wineskins and don't see the need for change. It is considered a sin if a pastor does choose to work in another field, or after he has been trained in a theological setting he chooses to study something else other than theology is considered in, still a large circle of folks as apostasy or a sign that someone is acting like Jonah. Well, i do hope in a few more year these social stigmas would fade and be no more.

So as I type this post, I do intend to pursue another course of educational knowledge simply for the fact that change is needed. I'm not sure how this is in the west but as far as I can tell, i don't think this is so much a western issue as it is in my context.

What do you make of smoking?

I have been reading these few blog posts and it does raise some interesting opinions on smoking. Here are the links:

Towards a Theology of Smoking
Tying Up Some Loose Ends On Smoking
Responding to R.A. Torrey On Smoking
Is Smoking Sinful?

Although the opinions take neutral ground on smoking and that it can be done for the glory of God (please bear in mind, I'm just quoting this one) the only price to pay when smoking seems to be it's effect on our health. See here.

But with that, most Christians do have their biased attitude to smoking. I know, because in my context smoking is perceived to be sinful and the quote would always be "our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit" kind of argument. But I found what Tim Challies (in the link 'Is Smoking Sinful') said to be more enlightening in him mentioning that there are many other health risk things out there other then smoking which we don't hit on for example fast food. I don't think there had been any sermon incorporating abstinence towards fast foods.

I also have a post on smoking as well which I posted here. Anyway if you have any opinions or thoughts on this I would be glad to hear them out (or rather listen to them).

Taking out the 'duty' in evangelism

I think one of the perplexity that one finds in evangelism is the lack of sincerity that we often combine with reaching lost souls for Christ. A lot of the time we just reach out in a simple presentation of the gospel and then ask if a person is ready to accept Jesus in his/her life and then walk away. Evangelism with this intent is just interested in numbers, like "how many people have you turned to Christ?" where the "how many" rings out more of our real intent instead of pointing people to Jesus. Soon it becomes a duty and gets impersonal. I feel though, that there is a better way to do 'evangelism' and it takes a so called longer route in some cases.

Instead of being impersonal, lets get personal with people. Lets care about people. The fact that every person is a reflection of God's image carries much weight to this so called argument. Creating friendships are more meaningful to people rather then just talking to them about Jesus and asking them to make a decision. How will they know Jesus when we can't even reflect him? Witness comes with both words and deeds both combined to make a powerful combination that has a strong effect on people. At some points, it is this kind of connection that counts. People do smell the lack of sincerity in our actions as well as our words and this is not good.

I'm not at all saying telling people is not the way. Not at all. I'm just saying that we have to be sincere with people. We have to care enough that they are human beings and not numbered tokens that we add up for points on who wins the best converter award.

Level headed advice on discipline

"Many Christians today have rejected biblical discipline and adopted a sweet, spineless love that cannot correct," Grady said. "Our grace is greasy. No matter what an offending brother does, we stroke him and pet him and nurse his wounds while we ignore the people he wounded. No matter how heinous his sin, we offer comforting platitudes because, after all, who are we to judge?"

"To be sure, God's Word commands Christians to forgive, because God has forgiven them (Col. 3:13). But this forgiveness does not trump judgment as properly exercised in church discipline. And it cannot erase the temporal consequences of sin. Character, not gifting, is a leader's most important asset. This is the means God has ordained to accomplish his ends."

Read the full article here.

A Theology of church Extinction

When I read this it got me really thinking,

"...I sometimes ask audiences how many people have ever read a book on the growth or establishment of a church, and many people raise their hands. Then I ask how many people have ever read a book on the death or extinction of a church, and virtually nobody does. But in history, church death is a very common phenomenon..."

That really blew my mind! If the small excerpt caught your attention you should read the article here.

Red alert...it's not biblical...or so it seems.

I once heard someone in church say something like this:

"There is nowhere in the bible that talks about us having a joint account."

Obviously this person thinks that we should treat the bible as a law on what we can do and what we cannot do. In this case we are guilty of acquiring microphones for our speakers because we don't find Jesus and his apostles adjusting their mics before they spoke. I'm just weary that people can stoop so low in their handling of the bible, and this is from a leader.

Let us just be clear of something here. The bible does not talk about everything in life. Notice that it was originally written in a certain context, addressing a certain group of people on issues pertaining to their day. But with that on the side the bible is the source book on our faith. Our reflections on scripture are interpretations of the ancient text on what they meant and after that seeking application of this pathway.

With that on the side, it is simply off the mark to tell someone not to watch television because Jesus never talked about TV. Or, we are not to travel by air on an airplane because it is not biblical and the bible only talks about traveling on foot and by ships. Or, it is not biblical that we have a worship band or worship leaders because we don't find this in the NT.

Remember that not everything that the bible does not mention is a reason for us to say "it is not biblical and therefore we cannot do this". It simply might be context wise or the world we are living in now.

So get your interpretation right. Please.

You can go to seminary too...for free

Calling all christian leaders, church members, youths and anyone interested (or those curious). If I were to make this call specifically, to all Mirians to be precise! I have been going through this website, "Biblical Training", and it is simply a breath of relief. Why so?

One of the problems we have in churches all around Miri is the lack of biblical literacy and knowledge, and this is never ever a good thing. I'm not saying that we need to be scholars. What we do need is to be at least informed. It is a pity in this day and age with all the biblical knowledge at the mercy of our finger tips (and some are even free!) Christians simply shrug off being knowledgeable of their faith. I have heard of people saying, "Theology are for pastors, not the people in the pew. All we need are straight to the point sermons with application. We want something relevant to real life." To me, hearing statements like this makes me sad.

Another problem that I see is on Christian teaching. There are many teachers of the bible but not all are biblical in their presentations and teachings. If people sitting in the pews simply gulping all the teaching that they hear because they simply trust that whosoever is standing at the pulpit is teaching 100% accurate word of God without discernment or 'some proper biblical knowledge', I can say that 90% of the time people are going to subscribe any form of biblical teaching.

My plea here is not to say that if we have some form of biblical study we will get things right all of the time but a plea that we become people who know enough to help us grow as well as discern what is good. Take this verse for example

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

One of the things we cal see here is that these Bereans, although taking Paul's teachings with great delight they were weighing Paul the Apostle's teaching whether it was in line with scripture! If people during the days when the apostles were still alive did this, should this responsibility not be on us as well?

Anyway rants on the side, visit Biblical Training and sign in for free, as well as learn from seasoned scholars for free as well (such as Craig Blomberg, Bill Mounce, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, Robert Stein and many more).

Warning to all Club minded churches

Making some sense of forgiving & blessing the Enemy and responsibility

Locked in inner turmoil in understanding the mandate to bless our enemies and do good to them seems to really bother me a lot. One of the things that bothered me was, if I bless this person of who has cause me much pain and inner turmoil will God simply let him go? Will God exhaust his anger and simply overlook to just turn his face upon what this person has done to me? Will this enemy of mine just take in the forgiveness that I give him and simply have no remorse about what he did? Not even lint sized remorse? Will he just take the forgiveness for granted and look at it as judgment upon me and that he deserved me to bow low to his authority without the faintest doubt that he did anything wrong?

These are things that go through my mind. These are the things that I struggle with. This is the reason I find that forgiving the enemy (a so called Christian fellow) whom has wronged me, with me obvious of my innocence. Some further questions come to mind again to propel making sense to Jesus' mandate. Let's point it specifically to a church community.

What is our call? What is the responsibility of the believer of who has been wronged?

(Most of the reflections is from the epistle of James) His responsibility is to endure through the turmoil. Keep on living a life in response to the faith... But most importantly committing oneself to God and that means much more towards leaving judgment to him. The responsibility of the believer who was wronged is to forgive the brother who has wronged him, if so his enemy and still treat him with respect (this comes as a problem if the person holds a position of status and he is actually in the wrong) in the order of blessing and doing good to our enemy.

Some thoughts come to mind…how do we actually pray for our enemies? How do we bless those who persecute us? This is a big question mark to me but I am still struggling through it. This is simply a different code of ethic. At this point I think the common knowledge here is simply; we are mere humans and judgment of determining right and wrong belongs to God. If we trust in a God who is impartial, who helps the poor and those in the position of injustice we can take the forgiveness route because we trust one that will bring no partiality in how judgment is supposed to be executed.

I think the key element here is trusting a God that is just. The struggle is waiting for judgment to happen or to be executed. Trusting God is living in this tension.

I think most of the explanation here leans on the part where the person wronged and he can do nothing about it already.

What is the responsibility of the leadership of the church of knowing the issue at hand?

Given the responsibility of shepherding the church and keeping the unity of the community, the church cannot simply sweep matters arising under the rug and make hasty decisions out of anger and without much digging in the facts. The church leadership cannot also just listen to one side of the story and simply believe without question the situation at hand.

Here is what I believe the church leadership's responsibility lays. They are to be the neutral ground in keeping the peace of the community. Possible horrible mistakes that they can either lean to is making decisions without bringing both opposing parties to hear out their views, to judge by status, to simply pursue 'reconciliation' of both opposing parties without even settling out the issue because they want to arrive to making peace and keeping the community in tack with a simple exhortation that says both have to accept God's mandate of forgiving one another.

To me all the above really does not solve the issue because the body where justice should be 'executed' because the church leadership simply does not want to struggle with the issue. Matters are not solved, justice is not served and a false sense of reconciliation although goes on a peaceful stride for some time, will eventually break and go back to the same lane.

I believe the church leadership cannot simply seek instant measures of reconciliation; they have to struggle through the things at hand and do all possible to seek a worthy decision. Taking a route that calls for instant magic is simply a adulteration of their responsibility.

Where is God in all the decisions; justice?

Sometimes I wonder why God doesn't act swiftly at what he sees. Sometimes I wonder why he doesn't simply pry open the eyes of church leaders who seem blind to the things happening around them. The big question is why does God relent to act? I found the quote below challenging as well as helpful:

If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship … The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God … My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many … in the West … (But) it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence (results from the belief in) God's refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die … (with) other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind.- Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace

This has been a long post over a period of a short hiatus from blogging. These things are still fresh in my head as well as my heart. Do let me know what you think.

The heavens are mute and in shock!

I think Jesus did more then what the picture above is depicting. It says here "Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." Jesus identified and also rubbed dirt with us.

I had this thought in my head a few days back. A man walks up to someone on the streets and talks to him about the love of God. The basic track content of explaining how someone is reconciled back to God and avoids heaven (the four spiritual laws for example).

After some time going through the tract the man soon ask the guy on the street, lets say this guy is some poor homeless guy, asks him whether he wants to accept Jesus into his life because if he does he will experience God's blessing on his life. So the homeless guy does what he is told to do from this man and prays the sinners prayer.

After that the man lights up after leading someone to Christ, thinking to himself the ecstatic cheers and applause happening in heaven over a soul that is saved. Having done his job, he leaves the 'gospel' tract with the homeless guy and a bible. The man tells him just to follow the steps found on the back of the tract where it says "Now that you are a Christian...", and then leaves smiling while the homeless guy is still in his same condition; homeless, hungry and poor. Well, at least he is saved right?

Do you think the angels and God will approve of this?

I doubt it though.

Who owns the name?

Malaysia as it is ascribed by it's leaders; a democratic country which ravels in unity. As a heading in a news paper I read today it says "Malaysia not perfect, but example of unity". Although not claiming to be a perfect reflection of unity one leader says "but we do have something to show for our unity and tolerance for each other, as an example of diversity does not mean disunity".

While there are some truth in the designation ascribed to Malaysia, internally there are some shaky issues that is threatening "unity in diversity". But just so I am 'fair' in my views at hand I must applaud the stability in terms of living in such a peaceful country, I simply can't imagine being born elsewhere.

In the news today, a headline reads "Malaysia Catholic paper wins right to use 'Allah' ". The government were initially trying to ban Christians from using 'Allah' for God. Apparently it is said that "The government had earlier decreed that non-Muslims could not even use the word as it would inflame the sensibilities of Muslim Malays, who make up 60 percent of the 27 million population. Indians and Chinese make up the rest. The ban had been aimed at a Catholic newspaper that circulates in Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo Island, where most tribal people converted to Christianity more than a century ago."

The fear is that Muslims might get confused and think that Christians are talking about the same God as them. Although the ban seems to have been lifted, it is just a softening on the initial ban as publications carry a disclaimer saying that the material is not meant for Muslims.

Sure I agree that Malaysia is diverse in terms of having many kinds of ethnic groups, diverse in the manner that people are free to practice their own religion. I can't say that I have ever experienced riots in the state that I am living in Malaysia. There is truth in saying that the notion of peace, tolerance and unity is evident in Malaysia. But the bad fruit come in when religious issues come to the fore. Such is the religious climate in a pluralistic country here.

For another helpful link on this go here.

A plea for Theologizing...a Malaysian Context

One of my pastime stuff to do is probably typing down titles of books on the search engine to search for reviews, either on blogs or online publications, I just dig doing this. My girlfriend thinks I'm weird for my unorthodox ways for relaxing and having fun (but she love me though warts and all).

I came across this sort of review about this new IVP dictionary entitled "Global Dictionary of Theology". Released in 2008, the title captured my attention, especially the word 'Global' which denotes theology that transcends the realm of the western world. I love western theology and it's literature, mainly because my theological education requires me to learn them. The other part is because tend to understand books using English language rather then Bahasa Malaysia (Malaysia's national language). I hope Malaysians will forgive me for this.

While I was in bible school I remember my lecturer saying something like this, "...this book (forgot the name of the book) is helpful but some of the things said can't really be applied fully here. This author is mainly writing from a western perspective...". That caught my attention and made me think of the possibilities of having a Malaysian/ Asian perspective view on theology.

Back to the review...I was reading through and this quote caught my attention (follow this link to the post)

"I once heard of a Karl Barth conference that was held in Germany several years ago. The conference organisers had invited a Japanese theologian to participate, but they were somewhat dismayed to find that their Japanese scholar had no interest in theologising his own national context – he was entirely preoccupied with the questions and problems of modern German thought! Presumably the conference organisers had expected their guest to provide a more exotic “oriental” perspective."

I think, this is reminder for me. I view theology to be very important for a christian, because we are in actual fact always and constantly theologizing whether we realize this or not. One of my passions is of course to study theology and make it understandable. This has always been something that I see myself doing. I don't want to sound corny in stating this though.

But one problem I find is, not many Malaysians see theology as something a christian does. Many think theology is meant only for pastors or students in bible school. Many Malaysians don't seem to mind that preachers can just preach mediocre exposition of the bible as long as it is simple and done with a preachers charisma to entertain. Many Malaysians don't seem to mind what a preacher teaches as long as they are known as pastors. And many Malaysians don't seem to see the importance of education, especially in the field of theology because the only thing that counts is practical ministry. I would further convey that many pastors in Malaysia doesn't even care to read any theological books because it takes too much of their time.
Don't get me wrong though. I love Malaysia, its my country and I was born in Malaysia, a full blooded Malaysian. The Malaysian layered criticism is one that I am in contact with and not a thorough assessment of Malaysia as a whole.

I wish Malaysians would see that they do have a voice in theology. That they will do well in charting some of their own conversations. Because only Malaysians themselves know their context and understand their cultural background. And because of that Malaysians need to think and create their own voice in understanding the bible and theology to fit to their own context. I wish that there would be more Malaysian contextualized books by Malaysians. I wish also that someday Malaysians can broaden the theological perspective in the global scene being a voice that widens the theological conversation. At the moment though, this is still a distant reality but nonetheless a worthy undertaking to plow in, one that I am willing to work at.

Are there any agreements if you are a Malaysian/ disagreements with what I said? Are there things that I missed out? I need your thoughts.