Here We Go Again . . .

I recall around 20 years ago I spent a week transcribing a series of Bible College lectures for a correspondence school—32 all up—through the book of Romans. This was a tedious task since the speaker (a well-known pastor in those circles) often repeated himself, and used so many clichés (which had to be either paraphrased or edited out due to the sheer number of recurrences).

One thing that surprised me while I was listening to this series wasn’t the way the speaker would quote verses (as they say) “Left, right and centre” in support of his arguments, but the way that the collection of verses he used could well be counted on both hands. In 32 hours of speaking, he used countless verses, but the vast majority of these were simply a recall of his “favourites.”

I knew, as I was typing in the words from the cassette tape playing next to me, that not five minutes into the lecture, the pastor would use at least one of his favourite verses from Ephesians and another from Colossians. I remember mentally rolling my eyes and thinking, “Here we go again . . .” Before the hour was done, at least one of those verses would have made another two or three appearances in one form or another.

Fast forward a few years, and I find myself in a Bible study with a similar Bible teacher, well-studied, well-articulated, but once again choosing to use his repertoire of well-worn passages to repeatedly emphasise whatever point they were trying to make at the time.

I found the same thing when I was setting up a website a couple of years ago. Throughout the myriad of articles, the writer had liberally used his “top 10” Scripture verses in every possible context.

When I was going through the ordination process fresh out of Bible College, I thought I had all the right answers. I believe that I satisfied the criteria and said all the right things during the two sessions I had with the ordination committee. Then, towards the end of the last session, one of the pastors commented on one of the sermons I had preached, drawing my attention to the fact that I had never mentioned one particular catchphrase which was a hallmark of this particular Fellowship. It was his opinion that we must always bring people back to 2 Timothy 2:15, regardless of the context of the rest of the message.

I’m aware that these people possibly had no idea what they were doing. They all loved the Bible, believed sincerely in the fact that it is God’s inspired book, and paid special attention numerous times to the original languages and how the nuance of certain Greek or Hebrew words could add another amazing dimension to understanding the message of the text. But somehow, they all still reverted to a lazy habit of taking their favourite verses and juxtaposing them against whatever topic they were using in any number of varied ways.

Now I know people who would normally hear these preachers would do so for an hour a week. Like any normal church attendee, they would probably forget 99% of what was spoken. Thus, when the speaker started “expositing” the following week, they wouldn’t comprehend that he has quoted the same five verses every week for the past seven, or that, for some reason, he always seemed to weave in “My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness” into every sermon topic for the past quarter.

I use this as a lesson and perhaps a warning to all who claim to speak for God in any capacity: Don’t be lazy and give in to the temptation to fall back on the familiar. Likewise, don’t think you must always bring people’s attention to your favourite (aka “God’s favourite”) verses. Use fresh expressions—in this case verses that you may not know so well—to support and reinforce the truth you are telling. Never go into a group study, lecture, or pulpit expecting to “wing it” because this is the time when you will find yourself falling back on the familiar, the tried and tested.

Let’s face it: God can use anyone, even if they are ill-prepared. But more effective is the one who can stand up and articulate truth with passion, freshness and clarity. Make this your goal, otherwise the only response you may solicit from those hearing your voice may be: “Here we go again . . .”

A Review of Ken Ham’s “The Six Days of Creation”

I have been focusing on the arguments and tactics of one man, Mr. Ken Ham. In my opinion, and based on the analysis above, I do not find him to be a capable interpreter of the Word of God. (Daniel Jepsen)

creation ministries and inclusivity

I’m reading the latest issue of Creation Ministries International’s Prayer News which contains a front page article entitled, ‘Inclusivity?: How well-meaning Christians can love people to death.’

I have had two issues with CMI for many years, even when I actively supported them and believed Genesis according to their literal interpretation.

The issues are these:

Firstly, in all their literature (magazines, tracts, web and books) they seemed to me to belittle people who dared to believe differently than they. Cartoons in their tracts poked fun at evolutionists and mocked their beliefs. Articles in the magazines seemed to capitalise on making those who didn’t believe in a literal beginnings narrative appear foolish and uninformed/unintelligent.

Secondly, they never allowed for a creation narrative that may include elements of evolution, or a long-day theory. It is always black and white: either you believe in a Creator God OR you believe in atheistic evolution. There was no middle ground–no possibility that a Creator God would endorse anything other than a literal interpretation of the first book in the Bible.

While I have watched Ken Ham videos, subscribed to Creation magazine (from when it was still called ‘Ex Nihilo’) and consumed numerous CMI-distributed books, I can no longer remain silent on this. I suppose it has to do with my changing view on the inerrancy of Scripture (the Bible as a community library rather than a constitution, as one writer frames it). And I don’t think CMI should assume all their readers are of their same persuasion in this regard.

I remember going door-to-door with my dad in the 80s ‘winning souls’ (even though to my recollection not one soul was ‘won’ this way). He always would ask two questions: (1) If you were to die today, do you know for sure that you would go to heaven? and (2) If I could show you from the Bible how you could know this for sure, would you be willing to take the time to listen?

The assumed truth here was that everyone respected the authority of Scripture enough to care what it said, or to believe that what it said held some credence in their life.

Very few gave us the time of day.

And CMI doesn’t seem to realise that we live in a world that does not accept foundationalistic understanding of the Bible. Sure, they may respect it as a sacred book of Christianity, but one among a number of such books of many religions. And very few would agree that it was to be taken literally (since they don’t see God endorsing the execution of adulterers, LGBT folk, or masses of non-believing ‘heathen’ living in the holy land).

In this article, Gary Bates (CEO of CMI in the US) believes that questions such as ‘Why doesn’t God love homosexuals?’ are ‘diversions from the core issue.’ And the core issue, in his opinion, is, ‘If God is Creator, He has the perfect right to say what happens with His Creation. He made it, He owns it, He sets the rules!’ This is why he sees creation as ‘the key cultural battleground in the world today.’

I believe CMI is out of touch with today’s culture. This is evident by their frequent use of warfare terminology to convey the urgency and importance of their message. In a world that is already inundated with ‘jihad’ on the news nearly every night, to speak of a Christian mission as being ‘a battleground’ is seen by many to put this brand of Christianity on the same par as extreme Islamic terrorists.

Being out of touch with the present culture is also evidenced by CMI’s assumption that postmodern Joe and Jane really care what the Bible says, or, in fact, would accept their foundational understanding of Genesis. In today’s pluralistic society, the Bible is one of many voices, and it does not carry the same authority in life as it did even 50 years ago.

Further, while I believe God did create the world (though not in the same way Gary does), I see God as one who has created and set his creation free to choose. He does not ‘rule’ creation today in the sense of a dictator, arbitrarily damning certain people to hell because they don’t believe certain facts about him or join a certain community that bears the name of his son Jesus Christ. He is a God who loves generously, forgives fully, and has reconciled the world to himself.

Sure, we make mistakes. Oil spills, global warming (another thing CMI doesn’t believe in), genocide, mass destruction of God’s creation–all these prove that we have strayed from our God-given role of being caretakers of God’s perfect world.

But through all these failures, God is still with us, calling us to join him in a quest for a better world, a more inclusive kingdom of hope and peace. And he empowers us to be his agents of change in our world.

No, true Christians aren’t loving people to death. Love that comes from God brings life, healing, reconciliation, restoration–and is always inclusive.

redefining my theology

I’ve been questioning my beliefs for the past 20 years, but have only recently begun to question the subtle ways foundationalism and my early years in a fundamentalist, KJV-Bible, dispensationalist theological environment have affected the lens through which I have, up to recently, viewed all theology.

disillusioned

There are times I get really discouraged with the way things are, fed up that people don’t meet my expectations, or just plain angry at brands or products that don’t live up to their claims.

loss

Truth is, if I were in any one of these scenarios that these friends are in at this point in time, I would think that all this talk of ‘God meant it for good,’ and ‘God knows what he’s doing’ is a load of coswallup! I would probably go so far as to ban any well-intentioned, predestinarian Christian from stepping within 1000 metres of my house. I would be angry, upset, in pain and inner turmoil.

worship?

So we worship a God who blesses us, calls us by name, gives us what we want, grants us peace, and shares with us the beauty of his creation. Oh yeah, and sends his son to dies for us so we won’t have to worry about hell.

too easy

As I sit at my computer today, I am amazed how easy it is for me to write a few words and–instantly–publish them to the web for anyone anywhere to read.

It’s scary. Networking sites such as myspace, twitter and facebook allow people to interact with one another in real time, sending messages, photos, videos, music, and any other conceivable piece of media.

It’s all too easy.

Years ago it would require me to write either longhand or on a typewriter what I wanted to say, then post it to the person or people I wanted to read it. Or, if I had training or a writing gift, I could become a journalist and my essays and stories would be published in a newpaper, or an author whose books would be printed and sold all over the country.

Now I can do the same from the comfort of my own home with a few keyboard strokes and a mouseclick.

OK. You know what I mean. In fact, you’ve probably heard it all before, or maybe just accept the age of the networked home computer or mobile phone as the way it is (Maybe you never used or even have seen a typewriter). This is all very basic information to you.

I understand this. But I also have to say that, although it is very basic, this simple fact of instant access and communication brings to me a sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

Sure, I could publish anonymous messages to people I don’t know and they possibly would never discover who I am. I could . . . but that would be irresponsible. I could say all sorts of things inline knowing that no one will come banging at my door with a gun to do me in (that’s if I don’t live in China!) . . . but that too would be irresponsible.

So I say things and they are from me and everyone knows where they originated. I have friends who read my posts, my tweets, and are my facebook friends. This keeps me accountable to speak well-thought out words. If I don’t, they will let me know.

I will post things from time to time that are reactive to what I see around me and, possibly not well thought through. This is the nature of instant access to these tools. If I do, I’m sorry and I don’t mean to offend. I may make generalisations which aren’t accurate, or statements about a group of people that are a personal opinion rather than fact. Rather than hide behind a label like “I-call-it-like-I-see-it” or “tough-luck-if-they-don’t-like-it,” I take responsibility for my words and apologise if I offend anyone.

BUT if I offend someone because of something I hold with conviction, something I strongly believe in and would die for, I’m sorry–but I won’t apologise. Some things are worth standing for, and some words are worth saying regardless of the outcome.

These are some things you may read about in my posts and these are things for which I unaplogetically stand:

• The unconditional love of God for all of his creation, regardless of their perceived worth, status, or orientation.
• The equality of all people and their right to enjoy the same rights as each other with justice and dignity.
• The oneness of the people of this planet which is greater than the diversity in race, religion, culture, status, political leanings, or moral understandings.
• The responsibility we who share this planet have to be caretakers of all life and wise stewards of its resources.
• The rights of all to converse, discuss, debate, believe, or question, to embrace what I hold to, or not, provided it is all done in decency and respect of each person’s unique perspective.

While I do not apologise for what I believe, I accept responsibility for the way I convey these principles.

I apologise in advance for times when I will make an error in judgement, or stray from my own values. I apologise for not always being the one who is loving and gracious, and generous. I apologise for my human frailty in advance because I know I will have lapses of judgement. Please forgive these moments and, through them, understand that I am who you are and you are who I am, and we share this humanity in all its glory and brokenness together.

i wonder

I wonder
If the Church took
All the time
All the money
All the energy
All the thought and planning
All the personnel
That went into the preparation
Of a single Sunday morning service
And invested it in their community by
Helping the poor
Encouraging the weary
Lifting up the fallen
Binding the wounds
And supporting the weak
What incredible things would happen
And what impact would result for the fulfilling of our mission.

It would mean a more simple way
Of doing church
But a more real and meaningful way
Of being the church
And I can’t help but think
It would not only be more of what Jesus intended it to be
But would be more attractive to it’s neighbours.

hits and misses

You can tell it is Christian music because (for the most part) it is formula-driven, cliché-overloaded, and often sounds like a soppy love song. Beyond that, the musical quality tends to be poor—boring and predictable riffs, one- or two-note stretches of melody which, apart from the chords backing it up, would warrant instant ‘switch off’ for me, and singers who wouldn’t make it in the secular music industry.