A joyful crucible

Each day begins as a reflection for a disciple, a constant internal wrestling of the will, a reflection of whether following Jesus means a joyful escapade of exiting adventures and lasting fulfillment or a pathway that leads to a crucible path into the scorns of afflictions.

Some say following Jesus changed their lives for the better. Some testify that having Jesus in their life has given then peace in a world raging in havoc. Some say that when they have Jesus, they are blessed materially and that life seems like a steady flow of outpouring blessing that depicts a stream flowing and steering them to paths always filled with green pastures. A life that's void of hardship and pain. After all Christ died instead of them for sins that were supposed to condemn them to the gallows of death. But now, it's all a steady flow of blessing because God ultimately sees us in Jesus.

But is this what following Jesus entails? Does this reflect a theology that is close to what it means to be a disciple of Jesus? I think too much of our teachings stem for the spring of what i mentioned above. Most of our daily inspiration and preconceived ideas are directed to a meaning or passage of blessing that entails bliss forevermore. And because of that we crucify to death the meaning of following Jesus.

I think in my own reflection, in the walk of following Jesus, the best description i can use to describe how it feels on an experience basis is a joyful crucible. It is a parody really. The meshing of joy and pain married together that we do not have enough words to convey meaning to this experience. There is really true joy and peace that one experiences when one meets Jesus and seeks to walk faithfully with him. But another side of the coin is the constant tug of pain that a complicated spheres of life can dent the best disciple to probing questions filled with angst on how to develop a hopeful trust.

That is why the only 'logical' side of understanding life is the obedient outflow of meaningless obedience that would eventually be revealed and vindicated in Jesus in the Resurrection of our bodies. As the experience of getting the tattoo above would depict it is a joyful crucible indeed.

OT: Reading with the modern mind or some other way?

I'm doing a course on Old Testament survey and we were in a discussion on whether it was possible, using our modern minds to exegete the text scientifically, that is reading the text with modern bearings, that the Israelites were able to cross the Red Sea (i'll not get into details about the Reed sea debate)?

Some scholars contend that the number of Israelites, if there were millions of them, it would be impossible for them to cross the Red sea in the space of hours but it might take a week for them to do so. (Sorry I haven't got the time to cite the references of where i got these facts. I'll probably do explanation when i have free time to spare)

But let me just pose a few questions on this. Should we use modern ways to read some portions or the whole of the Old Testament? Modern as in reading them in the way we read historical books now, where facts are studied and chosen and weighed to determine whether they are real or not.

For the moment though, I lean towards trying to understand the OT in the manner how someone in that particular era understood things. Take for example missionaries who come from developed countries and they work among tribal groups who live in the jungle. If the wanted to communicate Christianity with these people, do you think it necessary for them go tell these people about the original Greek language of a certain word, or talk to these people about science and religion? I think these people would be scratching their heads and wondering what on earth these missionaries are talking about.

I think it is more rewarding to read an ancient text, not to look too much into how they relate scientifically (although in some cases this is needed), or factually (in the manner of archaeological discoveries). Another way to appreciate the ancient text is also to read them in a way that we try to dig out their theological bearings or meanings. The bible is first and foremost, after all, a book telling us about God and his story.

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. 

Not Even God...when Disappointed

I keep coming back to the chapter "Bonhoeffer on Disappointment" in a book edited by Brian Rosner entitled "Consolations of Theology". That particular chapter (the one i noted above) is the one that Rosner wrote and it was brilliantly done as he writes how Bonhoeffer dealt with disappointment. I'll probably do a post on that chapter as a whole somewhere in the distant or near future but I'd like to draw our attention on this particular passage from the book.

On a subheading that reads "Popular Strategies" on dealing with disappointment Rosner mentions four ways in which people in general deal with it. The first being 'wallowing in regret' followed by 'seeking to curb desire', the third 'seeking a substitute' and the last being 'giving up hope for the thought of hope in the afterlife'. But as Rosner writes, Bonhoeffer never resorted to these popular ways in dealing with disappointment.

On the third popular startegies on dealing with disappointment, as i mentioned above, Bonhoeffer did not cave in and followed the popular way on dealing with disappointment, in that he did not seek a substitute to find momentary happiness as a consolation for unattained or unfulfilled desire or longings. Rosner writes "Seeking compensation elsewhere when our desires are frustrated also seems logical enough."(116) I find this true of how we ussually deal with disappointment, we might have a compulsion to buy things, fill ourselves with activities that are filled with 'fun', in a temporary way to combat a wounded heart. Read the following exerp from Rosner here which blew me away on what Bonhoeffer thought about this:

"With respect to seperation from love ones, aware of the pain that he may be prolonging, Bonhoeffer nontheless avers: "Some people...find compensation in short-lived pleasures that offer redier satisfactions...When we are forcibly seperated for any considarable length of time from those we love, we simply cannot, as most can, get some cheap substitute through other people- I don't mean because of moral considerations...we have to suffer unspeakably from the seperation, and feel the longing till it almost makes us ill. That is the only way...in which we can preserve unimpaired our relationship with our loved ones." He insists that "nothing can make up for the absence of someone whom we love." Not even God: "It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap; he doesn't fill it, but on the contrary, he keeps it empty and so help us to keep alive our former communion with each other, even in the cost of pain."" (116)

I wrote this in the margins of my book after reading this passage, a spur in the moment kind of thing: This third point embraces pain (longing) to the fullest/ at it's fullest level. There is absolutely no compensation for our longings...in the end they (our longings) become a drive in us (in a way that it pushes us).

What do you think of the exerpt above from the book? Or particularly the statement that said "It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap; he doesn't fill it, but on the contrary, he keeps it empty and so help us to keep alive our former communion with each other, even in the cost of pain."

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!

Dogs, Simplicity and feeling extraordinary

"A dog has no use for fancy cars, or big homes or designer clothes. A water logged stick would do just fine. A dog didn't care if you're rich or poor or clever or dull, smart or dumb. Give him your heart and it will give you his...

...How many people can you say that about? How many people can make you feel rare and pure and special. How many people can make you feel extraordinary?"

The quote above is taken from the movie "Marley and Me". I hope i got it word for word though. Anyway, the quote above comes at the end of the movie which has a lot of meaning to it. Sometimes we think the best things in life that are worth all of our pursuits are success, riches and a having leverage because we have this great status. There are many other things as well but unlike a dog, it just values simplicity. It values love and attention and some crazy fun with its master of course. So the saying is true, "Give him your heart and it will give you his... ".

What grips me about the quote is when it comes to the last set of sentences. How many people would be capable to give their heart (selfless friendship)? How many are at least willing? How many would be so reckless to do so? "How many people can make you feel extraordinary?"

A verse for everything?

There have been times when people have asked pastors, "Where can I find a verse for when I'm facing an exam?" or "Is there a specific verse for me getting retrenched from my work?" or "Is there a verse for me to find a wife/husband?" and with those questions some go and look for these verses and give these people answers to their question.

Some bibles even come with verse support system for time like when we are worried, in fear, sad, lonely and that's just to name a few. Sometimes it feels like the bible is a book where we get answers to specific issues in life. I wonder what verse would be fitted to questions pertaining the Internet.

While the intent might be a genuine thought of wanting to apply the bible to life, this is somewhat a faulty way for us to read the bible. We take verses out of context and that will eventually lead to a degree of distortion. So if the bible is not supposed to be read in this manner, do you have any perspective on how we are to read the bible?

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.

Books that deconstructed the monkey

I figure it would be a good idea to write a post listing some books that began the evolution of this blog as well as my thoughts and renaming it "Deconstructing the Monkey". When i started the blog the title i put up was "My Creed" (ala Jesus Creed; I'm a McKnight fan apparently) but it felt unoriginal. I think when we start something that happens. So, here is a list of books that effected my head and the ideas projected on this blog in no particular order:

• The Emerging Church- Dan Kimball
• Jesus Creed- Scot McKnight
• Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places- Eugene Peterson
• No Perfect People Allowed- John Burke
• Irresistible Revolution- Shane Claiborne
• Good News and Good Works- Ronald J. Sider
• Simply Christian- N. T. Wright
• Evil and the Justice of God: N. T. Wright
• A New Vision For Israel- Scot McKnight
• Velvet Elvis- Rob Bell
• The New Christians- Tony Jones
• Lost In Transmission- Nicholas Perrin
  
• The Blue Parakeet- Scot McKnight
  
• The Last Word- N. T. Wright
• A Generous Orthodoxy- Brian McLaren
• Blue Like Jazz- Donald Miller
• Searching For God Knows What- Donald Miller
• The Lost Message of Jesus- Steve Chalke, Alan Mann
• The Secret Message of Jesus- Brian McLaren
• Jesus Mean and Wild- Mark Galli
• Jesus and the Victory of God- N. T. Wright
• The Reason for God- Tim Keller
• The Moral Vision of the New Testament- Richard Hays
• The Jesus I never Knew- Philip Yancey
• Celebration of the Disciplines- Richard Foster
• Divine Conspiracy- Dallas Willard
  
• Inspiration and Incarnation- Peter Enns
• Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus- Ann Spangler, Lois Trevberg

There are other books, and to list them all down would take up a lot of space. So, i guess i should stop here for the moment.

American Idol and Luke 14:8-11

I watch a healthy dose of American Idol simply because it's fun. And with 5 contestants left on American Idol 2009, the odds were obvious to some on who were supposed to be safe. Simon was always reliable in his predictions but this week became the ‘unpredictable week’ when, out of all the contestants Adam was in the bottom three. Everyone was shocked.

What amused me was when Ryan Seacrest was parting the contestants to stand on the left and right, after placing Matt and Kris on the right and Allison and Danny on the left, Ryan asked Adam which group he belonged to. I think Adam was confident so he said based on last night’s performance, he chose the ranks of Danny and Allison. But boy was he in for a surprise when Ryan ushered him in the bottom three with Matt and Kris.

So much for confidence and being constantly praised by the judges as the runaway winner, which makes me think of climbing the theological ladder of getting the idea that we are the in thing in theological discussions as well as knowing the right perspective. Like Adam, we might be the one who knows the tricks of the trade meaning that we are wide in our knowledge and we might just be talking about the right stuff but let’s not let it get too much in our heads. Lets learn to say that we are always learning and stay humble despite the stuff we know and the position we hold.

Fame and pride, they corrode our sincerity and vision. When they seep in too much in us, and in our heads we forget what our passions were about and make it all about us; all about me. That's just wrong. Read Luke 14:8-11 for reference.

Tweeting the Gospel

I was reading through an interview between Mark Galli of Christianity Today and Rob Bell discussing his book "Jesus Want's to Save Christians" and this particular question of the interview caught my attention.

Galli asked "How would you present this gospel on Twitter?" (the context here is Rob Bell's presentation of the gospel in light of the book). But let's just reframe the question again; , would it be possible for you to present the gospel on twitter (in 140 characters)?

It's a good question to ask but thinking about it reminds me too much of gospel tracts. Which makes me ask another question, can the gospel be explained exaustively in a simple and concise way?

"Why Penal Substitution doesn't work with Asian-Americans"

I came across this article on penal substitution that struck a cord in me. I was especially drawn with the words "penal substitution" and "Asians". The subject matter was interesting as well; penal substitution doesn't work on Asian-Americans/ just plain Asians.

What this article shows is that Asians and Americans have different outlooks on how they view themselves. I think this has to do with context as well as values that each culture inhibits. Americans, or to put it in a general term, westerners have this guilt based complexity. What this means is westerners has this "I am good" concept wired in them. Although this is way too general to state with precision, but westerners are far more confident in their opinions, having a strong self belief in their capabilities, and a general motivation of self improvement.

Asians on the other hand struggle in these things. There is a complexity that looks at themselves as second rate or worse compared to a certain group or people in authority. In this manner Asians tend to shy away from voicing out their opinions or views by fear of rejection and criticism. They have a culture of high respect for authorities, so much so that one is obligated to accept anything or everything a high ranking official or authority figure says. This is what the author of the article calls people in a shame based complex. Again an oversimplification of descriptive projection, but the general understand of the projection is true to my experience of things.

I'm not trying to put up a summary on the article as a whole but just to show how cultural context as well as values also play in how we are to present a faithful projection of biblical teaching on certain doctrines. I am not at all saying that theology is governed only by context and culture but these two things are worth considering when we are in the business of communicating. The scripture has the capacity of being vast enough to capture the imagination of each cultural context. So with the doctrine of atonement for this matter, what we need is a more robust outlook to its meaning, i mean there are four theories that are always mentioned upon which penal substitution always gets the spotlight. To me, every theory 'works'. One does not capture the whole although some would disagree. Like for this article, some cultures might not grasp the message fully following one view. So, since the atonement can't be pinned down, it's theory, why get into all the fuss in just having one view and not use the wide biblical array of expression to capture the minds of a specific culture?

I was motivated to think through atonement because these fellow bloggers have been blogging about it the last few weeks. Check them out.

Discussing the atonement when it is no longer cool
Atonement and the warfare worldview
Penal Substitutionary Atonement

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.

What if your heroes get 'slain'?

I was listening to this panel of brilliant theologians reviewing and discussing N. T. Wright's new book "Justification" and it got me thinking (click here to the website). I do know there are alot of critics out there that disagree slightly, moderately and totally with N. T. Wright. And some of the descriptions are sometime disheartening to say the least. I do appreciate books like the one by John Piper on Wright's view of justification but it does nonetheless adds fuel to the fire. So here is my question:

"Would you take time to listen and read books by authors who has disagreed (at some level or another) with the author you really like?"

I ask this because i do have a tendency of disliking those who are slaying my hero. And because of that it does have some sort of effect in my mind every time their names come up or I have this preconceived notion already of their positions in what they write about. But thinking again, it would not be helpful if we do want to broaden our perspectives on ideas, theological issues and many other stuff.

People often talk about being charitable and things like that, but at times I'm not sure what view of being charitable is accounted for the meaning of the word. But let me just add that we don't normally follow this rule of conduct. I would just say that we are charitable on a certain degree (most of the time a very small degree) but the bulk of our assessment would always be on a disagreement basis. I think the only realistic solution to this is being able to take whatever criticism that is projected, respect the persons position relentlessly and present your own views. When there is a need to alter your positions, do so. The important thing is i should say, not to make it personal.

I think in things like disagreements between theologians on various issues, our duty as learners is not to take sides relentlessly. Of course we do have theologians which we resonate more to, but we do need to hear out critics as well. It simply broadens our perspectives on things. It also helps us be humble. Ideas and the revolutionary paths they can chart sometimes can cause us to think that we are in the elite. But at some points criticism brings us down to earth.

So my hope is that for me personally, if my heroes get slain with disagreements, regardless of how uncharitable their positions might be, i will have to conjure enough strength not to read their criticism in all their writings. In this world we need encouragements, affirmation form others and people who think like us for support. But on the other hand we need some sharpening along the way, in where criticism 'helps'. In the case of disagreements, I would like to be charitable to those who slay my heroes. I can learn from them too. Although my ears are red listening to their positions, I'll try as much to change the colours in time.

If qualification was the only determining factor

"You're asking somebody who has invested 25 years of his life in seminary training. What I have learned about pastors of large effective churches who have not gone to seminary is that they are avid readers—insatiable in their appetite for understanding life and the world, culture, and the Bible. And a great number of them have done the equivalent of seminary education by seeking out gifted mentors who have a wealth of resources and provide guided studies. So I think many of these people—the ones that last over the long haul—have the characteristics that I've just described."

The excerpt above is taken from this interview which I found beneficial and to some degree a measure of hope to some extent for those who don't see themselves going to seminary but wanting to get involved in ministry. I have been thinking a lot on these lines lately. Especially in the area of qualification. Not necessarily on the lines of being a pastor but in general. Sometimes the pressure to attain a standard of qualification can be daunting. I have this desire to be a writer but sometimes the 'qualification' bug never seems to lay of it's biting. So I have been surfing the Internet for some guidance of sorts. Some helpful articles scattered here and there but nothing concrete I might add.

What does it take to be a writer, a pastor, a scholar, a something anyway? Reading the article, it did mention that seminary helps in the discipline of thinking in a certain way. I agree with that. Seminaries do help in that manner. My stint in bible college helped me immensely I should say. The methods and constructive way of thinking are like unseen tools that form a structure of thought especially in theological issues and the bible. I'm grateful for the training. I would say that seminary or any sort of training structures us in the formation of discipline of a certain field of knowledge or skill. It would not be the determining element that ensures 'success', but a needed element if you have it.

So then, what if one does not have the needed qualification in a certain field? One has to have desire to pursue. The excerpt that I quoted above states that the successful pastors who have no theological training never stopped reading. They kept that discipline. The continued their quest to learn. the desire to pursue guided by the constant urge to learn are essential. Another thing I liked about the quote above was the mentioning that these pastors having mentors. I would say this is an important element in progress. We need guided wisdom from experienced people helping us to chart our energy of pursuit and progressive desire of learning. I think having a mentor helps us mature, shedding of unnecessary enthusiasm, and in the process seeping in a realistic vision.

So in the end, having the necessary qualification helps (considerably at times) but it is not a determining factor of pursuing what we want to do or are called to do.

Walking Again after Blogging

Let me start with a question, "How has your journey through the blogging world been?" I ask the question because, although i have enjoyed many meaningful interaction reading the comments and putting my opinions up front, there have been major turning points that have sort of plumed me down in my journey. I'm still recovering from the process though, but it has been a rough tumble nonetheless.

I've only started blogging last year. It started as something that I wanted to try out as an outlet to project my thoughts and opinion on issues regarding the christian faith. After getting the hang of it, blogging turned out to be fun whenever I read comments from people. I have to say that it is something i look forward to whenever I have just published a post. I really value the interactions. Putting up opinions is not something we do as something normal in the context of place I am in so, it was good that I had some sort of outlet to share some of my own opinions on stuff.

But as this got underway, there were complications that I faced, mainly from my 'employers' as they were somewhat disgusted with some of the post that I had put up on the blog, so much so as there we threats of taking legal action against me. I had a meeting with them and was soon relieved from my responsibilities where I worked. They even gave me an option of stepping down early from the agreed 1 year term that I served with a full payment of my salary according to the amount of month left before the contract expired, but I opted to stay on until I fulfilled my time working there. But those months were torrid as I was deprived of anymore responsibilities.

Blogging does has it's good spots where we are able to share our opinions on stuff but it can also lead to unimaginable anguish if people take these opinions on a different stance other that what they were supposed to be, just personal opinions which people can agree or disagree with. But on a side not, i have no hard feelings on the things that has happened now. It has been one of the dark chapters in my life, one that I don't think i would want to relive again. But things happen and the only way through is forward. It has been a long and winding battle to forgive, to move on and look ahead, but then that's life. I'm discerning more challenges up ahead, and the constant thought of "will they ever cease?" I doubt they will.

So here's to my experience in blogging. Bitter sweet memories. I wouldn't trade them but then again I wouldn't relive them (hurtful ones that is)! So back to the question:

"How has your journey through the blogging world been?"

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.

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.

Does morality need God?

There is a post by Scot McKnight entitled "Do you need God to be Moral?" which i found interesting given the nature of the post. He asks this question "How do traditional Christians explain places where there is very little religious belief but there is a clear presence of good, respectable morals and civility?"

I presume many have this idea where a place/ context/ society will become morally bankrupt if they don't have God in the picture. There is some truth to this. It is true that religion does play a big part in the belief systems of people. But i would say now that to be moral one does not need a belief in God.

To me, being moral, having a sense of right and wrong is inherent in all human beings regardless of what one believes. So regardless if one is religious, atheist, agnostic or whatever, being moral is an inherent nature in human beings. Somehow we have this sense of right and wrong.

So how would i give some sort of answer to the question posted by McKnight? Well, the possibility of a place having little religious but having a clear presence of good, respectable morals and civility is possible because we are humans that have a deep sense of right and wrong-morals. So to me it is a belief system in us that conjures up an image of society. Even the people who say that they live by no rules also ascribe to a system of beliefs that talks about how one should live and that too entails a right and wrong way to live, to put it bluntly.

What about religion. Is it bad then? Do we need it? Yes, we still do. Is being religious bad for humanity? Yes and no. I do believe that some religious beliefs suppress how we live. I would not state which though. Let me point to my tribe for example, the Kelabits. As one of the peoples group living in the jungles of Borneo, like any tribal people were animist, beliefs in spirits. Their way of life centered around this belief system. It was an oppressive belief system and gave damaging effects to the conditions of living for them. But when missionaries came they taught these people a new way of life. Teaching them proper hygiene for example. They also taught them about Christianity. In turn as life progressed, my people were living much better after they disassociated themselves from their old belief system.

What i wanted to convey was, it is the belief systems that determine the way of life we all are part of. Being religious ascribes us to a certain center, as well as the atheist system. But inherently we all function under a bigger system that is we all have an inherent moral center. Because of that we are able to live good, happy and peaceful lives.

But although I say this, I do believe that there is a bigger center that guides what we have inherently as human beings. And it is determined by following the center of human and universal existence.

Well, these are just some thoughts that I have. I don't think I have a strong argument here but it's just something worth posting i guess.

Faith-Sacrifice-Testing-Faith

I have been really slacking on two post series that i started (one on Peter Enns book and the other one on Virgin Birth). Sometimes you do something and the emotional pull of things that happen around you hits like a wave. At these times I'm pretty glad that i could still gather some thoughts here and there. If I'm lucky, i can think straight and come up with some worthy thinking on a post, well at least worthy to me that is.

Stuck in a rut at the moment and it really is draining my energy. Sometimes i wonder how Abraham does it. His walk of faith is remarkable not to mention the strain of years. I'm reading through Eugene Peterson's "The Jesus Way" and the chapter on Abraham is pretty amazing (although i had trouble reading the chapter on Moses. Really messed with my head. Anyone read the book? I could use your insights here.).

Let me quote some profound stuff that I read on Abraham chapter

"Untested faith does not yet qualify for faith." (57)

"The test is the catalyst in which our response to god, the raw material of faith, is formed into a life of faith. Or not. If the test dissolves whatever we were calling faith into romanticized sludge or pietistic ooze, we are blessedly rid of what will dissipate our life in self-deception."(57)

In other words, faith to be faith must be tested to examine the quality. Testings purify or more likely, sheds the unnecessary ounces that we gather to be faith. I really like what is said here. But it is another thing if we are to embody this sort of thinking. I would add another thing though. Maturity in faith is spelled 'Trust'. After all the sacrifices and testing going on and purging faith, or what you though faith was, the refines fire works through and yields a life of trust. Sometimes there is a slight wish that mature faith or trust to yield its fruit in an instant. I would like it that way. Wouldn't all of us?

The road from infant faith to maturity in faith is laden with sacrifices and testings, the things that happen in the in between of life. But yet, after we have arrived to maturity in faith, we stary another journey again. The only difference is we dont really have to struggle between the goads too much.

At the end of the chapeter Peterson brings up this line

Lk 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

My initial response now would be, "Lord increase my faith." But I know he would just say, "It's not about me increasing your faith, it's about you discovering it." I'd like to think that's what he would say.