Putera UMNO chief has been grilled for being extravagant with the truth and is now being made fun of for his MBA from "Princeton"However comical I may find this scenario, I find it equally amusing in the Christian circuit (could have been circus mind you) and the health supplement purveyors. Many claim to be Doctors when titles can be more or less bought off the shelves or honorary titles are being conferred by suspectable organisations.
Why are people so hungry for recognition and are so insecure for the lack of qualification? Let me propose that they do not know their God nor have accepted themselves. They have to hide behind achievements and recognitions by their peers.For those who profess to be believers, is not their identity, destiny, significance and sustenance found in Jesus? If not, may I suggest that their faith in God has missed the target should they choose the route of buying titles or choose to display their honorary titles prominently .
I am not debunking recognition for scholarly achievements and academic excellence. I am amused at bogus titles. Come to think of it, are we not laughing at the number of datuks in town?
9 comments:
Hi y!
I;m right there with thee.
"was once when you throw a stone into an assembly of dignotaries, the likelihhod of hitting a Datuk is 9 in 10.
Now the likely of hitting a Datuk-cum-Dr is, my educated guess, 5 in 10.
Well, leadership by example again -- a certain Datuk Bandar had foooled the people of KL for almost 10 short years going about with a prefix of DR -- he convenient dropped the "ass" that goes with a Masters from Indunesia.
hehe!
9 in 10 and 5 in 10?
wow so high?
i have no problem in churches wanting to reach out but to compete to be recognised as first and biggest is another matter... that i agree with you
Methodologies can change and do change but the core message cannot, however the message must be communicated in a relevant timely and clear way so that it can be understood for each era and culture.
Whose theological tradition is right? For me, I would becareful so that I might not become a pharisee and sadducee of our day.
What is the acceptable theological approach? Did Jesus use the 'correct' approach during His time? What about Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Mark and Matthew? Were they accepted by and large by the religious authority?
Methods are just a medium of communications. There are in my opinion no correct method nor right method. But there is a right and wrong message. As you mentioned hip-hop, is it not a means of communication? My opinion is that hip-hop, just like classical music, or rock or pop or jazz or soul music is mere communications method or channel. The eternal message can be carried through the hip-hop channel if it can reach a new generation who has not or will not listen through the old method. I do actually believe that Jesus would hip-hop with the new generation! After all he partied with tax collectors and prostitutes and wined and dined at dinners. I would hip-hop with them but not use their message!
We are in the world yet not of the world. If separation is only by means of dressings and music that to me is very artificial. Paul employed methods that were popular of the age. For example he used the poem 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Acts 17:28. For all we know that could be the pop/rock/hip hop music of that age. Separation from the world is not being sucked in by the spirit of the age, such as materialism, humanism, new ageism, universalism and so on.
What method then is scriptural? I am afraid there is no method proscribed by scripture, it does not even tell us how we preach! Do we preach only exposition? Do we preach topical? Do we tell stories like Jesus or teach like Sermon on the Mount? Do we write letters like Paul and preach until some one fell asleep and down a building?
Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious authority of the day, orthodox, conservative, righteous (even Jesus commended them for their righteousness and law keeping) but they got it wrong in proscribing rules and laws beyond scriptures. But in their understanding and worldview, they knew no better. They obviously think they are right yet Jesus condemned them for being white washed tombs.
What is leaven? If I am not mistaken, the leaven that Paul talked about is the leaven of Judaism (Gal 5:8). At that time, the Jews were imposing upon the Gospel the necessity of circumcision for salvation. So Paul was warning against additions to the pure message of salvation by faith through grace. In the Corinthian passage, the leaven was people who were corrupt and scandalous who were causing tons of trouble for the church. Therefore Paul was preventing a young church from being corrupt. However, if we take it to apply to today, what is the equivalent of circumcision and can we nowadays excommunicate those who are corrupt and scandalous? This latter matter now becomes church discipline. Which church will send those who deliberately and continually sin out of fellowship? Sadly not many and even if they do, others will welcome them in because they believe grace is to be extended!
Jesus was popular with the common people (5,000 men not counting woman and children at the feeding, crowds were thronging around him watching him perform miracles etc, now those are methods to attract attention one can add) even though the authority rejected him. Peter’s message reached many thousands in a single day and the early church brought in thousands daily. I am sure they were using new methods then. Does this mean they were wrong by being popular? Let me end this long comment by saying we should not discard new methods that can carry the old message. In their case, it was new methods carrying a ‘new’ message of Jesus.
Good write up brother. So you think classical music is the only pure form for worship. Were not most of the popular classical composers susceptible in their lifestyle of excess, adultery etc too? Many of our hymns music were based on the form of music of the time it was written. It was popular for that time and era. All that the Hymn writers did was to put in words to fit the music. Likewise Methodist hymns by the Wesley brothers and the Salvation Army hymns which many traditional churches still use were actually popular music used in pubs, which were all associated with drunkenness and debauchery. Swing low sweet chariot is an old Negro song, a popular hymn. It has a rock and soul rhythm. Music is a media of the time and worship music are but a reflection of the music of the era. There is no such thing as Christian and non-Christian music. Music is neutral. There is such thing, however, as Christian and non-Christian lyrics.
I believe that the church needs to redeem the culture they are confronting. To redeem like Jesus when he came into our world of sin and take us out of it through his incarnation. He was involved with us sinners, not detached and judgemental. I believe the church need to be involved with our culture in the way of incarnation like our Lord in order redemption can be offered. As an aside, do you know that the name God was the name of a deity in Europe, which had some not so holy features at that time? The church has redeemed it and now owned it and transformed it into what we use it in as Christians nowadays without blinking. In the same way, Allah is being used in the Middle East in the Christian churches.
If I blaspheme against my Lord, I repent. However I do not think so. It may be speculative but I don’t think I am that far from the truth. The Pharisees condemned Him for eating and drinking with sinners! If that is not partying I don’t know what is! He was obviously enjoying the company of sinners and prostitutes not in the way we associated modern partying and drunken cavorting. But it was scandalous enough for the Pharisees to condemn Him. His love for sinners is non exclusive but inclusive. His company was obviously enjoyed by sinners and prostitutes too. Otherwise why do they invite him and the Pharisees noted it? Like wise, he would be found in the company of hip-hoppers nowadays. He would touch their lives and turn them around through His involvement with the hip-hoppers. He would hip-hop with them but use His own words. I believe our Lord is not a square spoilsport but a bright spark in any party. He is not that stern that he cannot enjoy the abundant life that He himself offers. He is involved but not into their lifestyle or ethics or philosophies. He drinks but is not a drunk. He eats but is not a glutton.
Yes, I agree with you that our mind and lives need to be transformed by the Word so that we would not let the world squeeze us into its mould or philosophies. Hebrews 4:12 For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart.
I agree with you that it is rebellion if we contradict scriptures purposely and wilfully. But the rebellion of young people nowadays need not be against God but rather His Church and its perceived irrelevant message. They do not understand how it can apply to them here and now. The challenge for us is to make it relevant, understood and applicable to the here and now. Are young people willing to listen to the message? We can dismiss that and say it’s their lost if they choose to rebel. But are they rebelling against God or a message that is communicated in a language they cannot understand?
The verse in Acts 17:28 shows that Paul was getting involved with the people he was trying to reach by using the language they can understand. We enter into their world and then make corrections. We have no right to make corrections unless we understand their world. I am expositing that Paul may have used a popular poem or even a song. Could it not be a popular hip-hop song that we use for today, and use it to reach the young people? I don’t listen to hip-hop but if need be, I will do so in order to understand them. And I don’t think Jesus would come in cold in his communications with the people at His time. I am sure His parables and stories were common stories and even scandalous stories of His time.
I have no problem with your understanding of leaven. However there is specific mention of leaven by Paul in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians. Galatians were specific to a context. Judaism is not leaven but the demand of its law to be circumcised is leaven in the Galatians context. We agree with regards to 1 Corinthians. However as you too noticed how weak the church is in purging sin but we must not purge one form of sin and not the others. If you say hip-hop is sin, what about the greed, roving eyes, lying, corruption, and wickedness…. And so on? Many of these are found in churches worldwide, including your congregation and mine. Sadly.
So how do we do it? How do we check each other’s philosophy and doctrine in church? Do we form a new church so that members must proscribe to every of the correct doctrine and philosophy, if not will they then also split again and again? The curse of the 20th century is the curse of church fragmentations so much so I don’t know whether Jesus’ prayers for the unity of believers will ever be answered!
I agree too that we should be obedient to the spirit of the law, rather than the form of it.
Jesus, Peter and Paul in telling their story did not do so in the synagogues. This was new. They told it amongst the people, women and child included. This is definitely new for children and women were excluded in the meetings of men.
Yes brother we must continue to tell the old, old story. Except that the modern people are not Jews and do not know that marvellous story that Jesus died for our sins when we were yet sinners. He died as a ransom for our sin, buried and rose again so that we can have a hope and a future.
It has to be retold and retold in a way so that the post modern people can understand and receive their salvation from Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our faith, who is unchanging in love and compassion, whose mercy is everlasting yet His judgement and justice is sure.
Shalom
hmmmmmm Very interesting discussion. Here's some oddbits if I may add on, in terms of music .....
Hymns were written because many of the converts were illiterate. Hence they learned a lot of sound theology, doctrine, etc by singing.
"Modern-day" equivalent would be ones like Graham Kendrick, who specifically wrote "We Believe" to counter the wrong doctrine of the senior church leaders he encountered, esp with regards to the virgin birth and Christology.
When the Salvation Army came along with their style of evangelism, they were often condemned for using tambourines, and singing songs using tunes that were similar to what were sung in the pubs. That was shocking to many God-fearing Christians. But the Sally Army were nevertheless able to reach many who frequented those places. Some of whom went on to reach even many more others.
I am also reminded of the music produced by the Jesus movement which came out from the Hippie era. They did much good. Check out http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/jpusa.html
There is also the era called the "flower-power" or "hippie". From this period, the dropouts in the USA included many Jews. (See http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/messianic_history.htm)
Just wondering, because I cant find it offhand, isnt there a verse about to the Romans be a Roman and to the Jews be a Jew, in the context of spreading the gospel?
Well said bro.
(Wow just received another long article after this, let me comment on this first before I tackle the other one and it may take a while as I am busy doing something urgent and also preaching this Sunday)
Re: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/heresyofclaiming.htm. I don’t see where the writer is going by quoting all those people pro and against contemporary music, which is all subjective remarks, like mine. He used only 2 scripture verses when there are so many more in the Psalms. Honestly I cannot follow his arguments. One of his quotations said that music has the power to move people, which I agree. My questions are what’s wrong with that and what is wrong in using moving music to move us towards the worship of God? Are we afraid of using emotions for worship? His testimony I believe is personal. If he has a weakness for certain kind of music, not many others have the same weaknesses. Just like the issue of meat or no meat arguments in Romans and Corinthians. I would suggest that we do not impose a teaching based on personal experience.
And which era’s music does not have a philosophy and an attached lifestyle? Each type of music are for the lifestyle and culture it represents for each era. Some of the music for Psalms is definitely loud with all the cymbals and tambourines. Hymns or spiritual songs of each era are based on the types of music of each era. And I believe every country’s and era’s culture and lifestyle is fallen and therefore by extension represent rebellion against God. To follow the logic to its conclusion then all music is to be excluded from the worship of God, which I am sure scripture does not teach. Regarding hip-hop. You say it is a sinful lifestyle whilst I say it is a genre of music that is neutral and therefore harmless. It is only the lyrics we have to change. If we think church music is only the chanting and monotonous type we are so much the poorer for it. Both scriptures and church traditions inform us of the rich diversity of music used in worship.
I just glanced through http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ccm-againstpreaching.html. (I don’t have the time to go through all of the postings) I find the arguments here is pedantic. It is a misunderstanding of semantics. Most unredeemed people have a negative vibe against preacher and being preached at. So what is wrong of saying “I don’t preach” but I communicate God’s love?
Since we are into the names of God (Sorry I have made a distraction in the current discussion ;p) check out the many names of God the Jews use. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Shaddai. For e.g., El Shaddai, generally translated means God Almighty also has an original meaning of “the destroyer”. Is it not interesting?
Yes, we transform culture rather than be transformed by any culture. The Word of God confronts culture and judges culture. Like you I am concerned that culture is influencing the church. But I am not as concerned that music will teach a lifestyle as much as the modern philosophies such as post modernism represented by new ageism etc. We do not live in a vacuum. We have to interact with the world just like you say. Sure we will be tainted by the world’s culture but we have to be constantly on guard as we are told to be watchful and we have the Word as a guard and guide, unless we take the path of the Desert Monks in being ascetics.
Jesus became flesh and took on all the nature of man except sin. (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/christiandoctrine2.htm.) His message was love but not a weak love that condones sins just as you rightly pointed out with regards to the woman caught in adultery. He was more judgemental on the accusers than on the woman. He pointed out sin and called sin as sin. He confronts head on without compromise but first he gets involved with them. For the woman at the well, he communicated and conversed with her rather than preached at her. See any difference? That is being involved with people living in sin.
I have no problem with being sound in doctrine. But we must be careful on what doctrine, what is the core essential. There are shades and varieties at the edges. I personally do not believe that any one of us has their doctrine 100% right. No one, not this side of heaven, will ever get their doctrine 100% correct. I believe that Jesus will not test us in what is the right doctrine rather than what we do with our belief. He will not exclude us should we fail the 100% doctrinal test. If that is so, either the Anglicans or the Baptists will be excluded from heaven because of the difference in their doctrine of baptism ;)
Depending on what you mean by the church, (which can mean Christ’s Body, the bride of Christ, a gathering of His people etc,) rebelling against the teachings of the church is not rebelling against God. (e.g. the reformers rebelled against the RCC, the blacks in South Africa rebelling against the Afrikaans Dutch Reform church’s which teaches white supremacy, etc.) The church is not God. We cannot equate rebelling against the church as rebelling against God, because some church teachings throughout history have been wrong and can continue to be wrong.
The Hindu religion has always been pantheistic, and including Jesus as part of their pantheon of gods is not a problem for them. Missionaries who do not know or understanding it will preach/communicate the message of Jesus as Lord but not making it clear that He is the Lord of lords. They will preach Jesus as the way but may not clarify that He is the only way. That’s why we need to know their thoughts and their language to communicate clearly.
In the same way we need to know the thoughts and language of the hip hop generation to communicate the message clearly. If not we will not be able to communicate clearly. By of pronouncing that hip-hop is sin, when they see nothing wrong with it, we will quickly exclude and alienate a whole section of people. They will rebel against that kind of teachings. A six year old may accept it from us but will a sixteen year old accept it? As their parents or adults, we can force our will upon them but there will be an inward hardening of hearts and eventually they will rebel when they grow up. Is that kind of rebellion against God or us? They will think we are wrong and we will think they are wrong! Who will prevail? What good does it do? I would discuss with them why some lyrics are harmful and why some are good. I would rather they decide for themselves what is right and wrong after helping them differentiate good from evil lyrics. So just because we older generation cannot receive loud music, we cannot ban it from the church. Just as when rock music, long hair and faded jeans were an issue in our time, hip-hop is the modern equivalent. Separation by fashions and music is making the church into a dinosaur. It is artificial. Our distinctive must be in higher ethics and higher moral. As you say we can eat and drink with them but not get overboard. It is not compromising the truth of God by having relationship with sinners.
Like it or not, our children and young people are living in a postmodern society. To stop our children from being influenced we can choose to home school them, stop them from watching television, no newspapers, novels, comics or radio, no internet, no outside friends, and they cannot speak to anyone without our permission. But is that the way? If not, our teachings and examples have to bring them to understand issues rather than make our decisions for them. They have to ultimately make their choice in following Jesus or rejecting Him.
I agree with you the problem of postmodernism as man centred but we cannot ignore it. I would see Jesus discussing with them using their thoughts and languages to let them see the follies of their self-centeredness and lead them into surrendering to God and worship. (I just received your comments about parables and I shall respond ASAP)
Your daughter may not be Jewish but she grows up in a Christian environment. So she would understand Jesus’ love because we have been teaching our children since young. But would those who grew up without experiencing Christ’s love through parents, relatives and friends accept Him for what He has done for them without our friendship? How then can we show them Jesus as their friend, saviour and eventually Lord?
Shalom
Bro, you are truly stirring me into good works (and Word)… haha ;)
Let’s define parables and I find these helpful. http://www.bible.ca/eo/pa/pa_01.htm & http://www.carm.org/parables/parables.htm
I still stand by my understanding that parables are common stories that are meant to be understood. It is common because it employs symbols, objects and subjects of the common people. “The parables are time capsules. They are explosive. They are rich in meaning. Jesus was the master story teller. His parables are magnificent constructions of wisdom and truth wrapped in the culture of the time. To unwrap them, you need to know a little culture...”
“Jesus also used parables in replying to some of the challenges by those who opposed Him
a. During His final week in Jerusalem, He was challenged by
religious leaders - Mt 21:23-27
b. In response, He told three parables...
1) "The Two Sons" - Mt 21:28-32
2) "The Wicked Vinedressers" - Mt 21:33-46
3) "The Wedding Feast" - Mt 22:1-14”
So did Jesus spoke outside His listener’s cultural context? I don’t think so. Did He employ ‘worldly’ ways like what others did at His time? I think so. He used ‘worldly’ methods that have room for the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
We all need to understand the message to be convicted. It is by faith we understand, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. “ Heb 11:3.
It is hard enough to come into faith, why should I make it harder by preaching at their behaviour rather than preaching to them the way of salvation through the Lord. Preaching at their sins does not bring faith, while preaching the cross will. Jesus is the Word of God, and yes we preach Jesus crucified, buried and rose again.
I don’t see anything wrong with attracting the crowds, like the feeding of the 5,000 even though they deserted Him after that. If it is wrong, why did Jesus still feed them, not once but at least twice, even though He knew they would desert Him? Was He wrong? Why didn’t He simply preach the Word? Jesus drew crowds of unsaved sinners and many who shouted Hosannas ended shouting crucify! Where was the pure preaching that would produce conviction of sins? There is nothing wrong with evangelistic methods; even Paul said he would do so in order that some might be saved! Was Paul wrong in employing wrong methods?
”and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[a] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[b] but under law toward Christ[c]), that I might win those who are without law;” 1 Cor 9: 19-21
I am sure Paul’s methods failed as well as some of the disciples deserted him, e.g. “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—“ 2 Tim 4:10
When we go and people respond, we will have the chance to preach and teach them how to Love God and Love Others. Perhaps the Holy Spirit might just transform lives. Salvation and Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours. Ours is to tell others of the love of God for them.
“Would you want ETERNAL words in your discipling of your YOUTH or temporal satisfaction of their flesh?” I will not hesitate to say only the Sword of the Spirit makes disciples and only the Holy Spirit can transform them into joyous disciples who have a message for the fallen temporal world.
Ro 15: 1 We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.”[a] 4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 5 Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6 that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Shalom
Post a Comment