Two types of poverty

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3)

In 'The cost of discipleship', Dietrich Bonhoeffer contrasts two types of poverty and points out that only one glorifies Christ, while the other is a caricature that in truth is of the Antichrist:

Privation is the lot of the disciples in every sphere of their lives. They are the 'poor' tout court (Luke 6:20). They have no security, no possessions to call their own, not even a foot of earth to call their home, no earthly society to claim their absolute allegiance. Nay more, they have no spiritual power, experience or knowledge to afford them consolation or security. For his sake the have lost all. In following him they lost even their own lives, and everything that could make them rich. Now they are poor - so inexperienced, so stupid, that they have no other hope but him who called them. Jesus knew all about others too, the representatives and preachers of the national religion, who enjoy greatness and renown, whose feet are firmly planted on the earth, who are deeply rooted in the culture and piety of the people and moulded by the spirit of the age. Yet it is not they, but the disciples who are called blessed - theirs in the kingdom of heaven ... They have their treasure in secret, they find it on the cross. And they have the promise that they will one day visibly enjoy the glory of the kingdom, which in principle is already realised in the utter poverty of the cross.

This beatitude is poles removed from the caricatures of it which appear in political and social manifestos. The Antichrist also calls the poor blessed, but not for the sake of the cross, which embraces all poverty and transforms it into a source of blessing. He fights the cross with political and sociological ideology. He may call it Christian, but that only makes him a still more dangerous enemy.

Preaching as bridge building - insights from John Stott

A snapshot of timeless wisdom from one who's devoted his life to live and preach between two worlds - extracted from an interview with Al Mohler which is worth reading in full:

Mohler: You have pictured the great challenge of preaching as creating a bridge between two worlds — the world of the biblical text and the world of the contemporary hearer. That chasm seems ever more imposing in the modern world. How can the preacher really bridge that chasm? 

Stott: Any bridge, if it is to be effective, must be firmly grounded on both sides of the canyon. To build a bridge between the modern world and the biblical world we must first be careful students of both. We must be ever engaged in careful biblical exegesis, conscientiously and continually, and yet also involved in careful study of the contemporary context. Only this will allow us to relate one to the other.

I find it helpful in my own study to ask two questions of the text — and in the right order. First, “What does it mean?” and second, “What does it say?”

The answer to the first is determined by the original author. I am fond of citing E. D. Hirsch in his book Validity in Interpretation, when he wrote: “The text means what its author meant.”

That is my major quarrel with the existentialists, who say that the text means what it means to me — the reader — independent of what the author meant. We must say “no” to that. A text means primarily what its author meant. It is the author who establishes the meaning of the text.

Beyond that, we must accept the discipline of grammatical and historical exegesis, of thinking ourselves back into the historical, geographical, cultural, and social situation in which the author was writing. We must do this to understand what the text means. It cannot be neglected.

The second question moves us from the original meaning of the text to its contemporary message — “What does it say?” If we ask the first question without asking the second, we lapse into antiquarianism, unrelated to modern reality.

On the other hand, if we leap to the second question, “What does it say today?,” we lapse into existentialism, unrelated to the reality of biblical revelation. We have to relate the past revelation of God to the present reality of the modern world.

"Pray Beyond the Sick List"

Reading and reflecting on an article by David Powlison on "Pray Beyond the Sick List" (originally published in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, Winter 2005) has been a great help.

I can echo Powlison's lament that much of our public prayers, whether during church service, prayer meetings -  even in my own private prayers - are often "medically informative but spiritually impoverished". Powlison's threefold warning on persisting in such forms of prayer certainly got my attention. I've paraphrased them as follows:
1) they can compromise our witness about our Lord;
2) they can actually be "disheartening and distracting the faith of God's people"; and
3) they can feed our inclination to worship the idol called HEALTH.

Powlison summarises his concerns with some stirring words:

"prayer can become a breeding ground for many bizarre ideas and practices: a spiritually sanctioned version of THE EXACT SAME OBSESSION WITH HEALTH AND MEDICINE THAT CHARACTERIZES THE WIDER CULTURE; naming and claiming your healing; superstitious belief that the quantity or fervency of prayer is decisive in getting God's ear; the notion that prayer has some intrinsic "power"; questioning the faith of a person who doesn't get better." (EMPHASIS mine)

What's the antidote to such "spiritually impoverished" prayers?

Powlison suggests that the solution is to let God's Word shape how we understand and practice prayer, how we request prayer for and from others, how we model and teach prayer. In particular, he encourages us to keep these factors in view:

1. Keep spiritual issues in view

Powlison invites us to take a closer look at the oft-cited passage in James 5:13-20.

"Notice ... how pointedly James keeps spiritual issues in view. His letter is about growing in wisdom, and HE DOESN'T CHANGE THAT EMPHASIS WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING THE SICK. What he writes is predicated on his understanding that suffering presents an occasion to become wise, a good gift from above: “Count it all joy when you meet various trials … If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask … .” He has already illustrated this regarding the issues of poverty, injustice, and interpersonal conflict. Now he illustrates it regarding sickness." (EMPHASIS mine)

In other words, understood within the context of our Lord who is totally, sovereignly at work in all our circumstances, sickness as a form of suffering is God's provision for our growth, a "very good gift" from the all powerful and all wise and loving God.

Keeping spiritual issues in view also helps us see at least two other ways that God works in sickness:

"Sickness, like any other weakness and trouble, can force us to stop and face ourselves, to stop and find the Lord."

How we respond to sickness (complain and grumble? anger? denial? blame? fearful? crave attention? indulge? depressed? etc.) exposes what lies within our hearts, leading us to greater dependency on the mercies of the Lord Jesus, and deeper delight in the love of God.

Keeping spiritual issues in view help us see what God is ALWAYS interested to do in us:

"Is God interested in healing any particular illness? Sometimes, sometimes not. But is He always interested in making us wise, holy, trusting, and loving, even in the context of our pain, disability, and dying? Yes, yes again, and amen."

2. Long for Christ's Kingdom 

Powlison also shows us that when we allow God's Word to shape how we pray for the sick, our emphases will change.

From his survey of prayers of God's people in the Bible in both testaments (especially the Psalms, the Lord's Prayer, Philippians 1:9-11, Colossians 1:9-14, Ephesians 1:15-23 & 3:14-21), Powlison identifies three emphases in biblical prayers, what he calls "circumstantial prayers", "wisdom prayers" and "kingdom prayers":

"1. Sometimes we ask God to change our circumstances—heal the sick, give us daily bread, protect us from suffering and evildoers, make our political leaders just, convert our friends and family, make our work and ministries prosper, provide us with a spouse, quiet this dangerous storm, send us rain, give us a child.
2. Sometimes we ask God to change us—deepen our faith, teach us to love each other, forgive our sins, make us wise where we tend to be foolish, help us know You better, give us understanding of Scripture, teach us how to encourage others.
3. Sometimes we ask God to change everything by revealing Himself more fully on the stage of real life, magnifying the degree to which His glory and rule are obvious—Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, be exalted above the heavens, let Your glory be over all of the earth, let Your glory fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, come Lord Jesus."

Allowing God's Word to shape our prayers means keeping all three emphases together as we pray, including when we pray for the sick. Powlison explains:

"If you just pray for better circumstances, then God becomes the errand boy (usually somewhat disappointing) who exists to give you your shopping list of desires and pleasures—no sanctifying purposes, no higher glory ... If you only pray for personal change, then it tends to reveal an obsession with moral self improvement, a self-absorbed spirituality detached from engaging with other people and the tasks of life ... If we only pray for the sweeping invasion of the kingdom, then prayers tend towards irrelevance and overgeneralization, failing to work out how the actual kingdom rights real wrongs, wipes away real tears, and removes real sins... "

Powlison's article is a helpful reminder amidst much present calls to prayer. The zeal behind many prayer rallies of late has been a great blessing to God's people. But may we heed the loving exhortation in this article to pray "far beyond the sick list, [but] in a noticeably different way for the sick."  

What seems obvious is often not true

Has it occurred to you that what seems obvious is often not true, but what's true is often not obvious?

This was impressed upon me recently when I read the Lord's message to the church in Smyrna in Revelation 2:9, "I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." 

The Agora, the ancient city’s market space,
originally built by Alexander the Great
(photo source: blog.marshillchurch.org)

Ancient Smyrna was known for its affluence and impressive city structures, even earning the nickname "the glory of Asia". Yet the followers of Jesus experienced ongoing physical hardships and were normally found among the poorer quarters of the city. They sought to follow the one called King of the Jews; yet they were regarded in the eyes of Jews and pagans alike as godless atheists, scums of the earth.

But the Lord Jesus sends this message to his people at Smyrna that while they seemed impoverished, "yet you are rich!" On the other hand, those who seemed so zealous for God, to the point of persecuting the church, they were in truth co-horts of the evil one, "a synagogue of Satan."

What seems obvious is often not true, but what's true is often not obvious.

I'm reminded of how this rings true in defining moments in the Bible story-line. To list but a few:

- What seemed wise and good in the eyes of Adam & Eve and what they were in truth (Genesis 3)

- What was the wise and obvious course of action when Israel heard the reports of the spies about  the promised land (Numbers 13)

- Who is the true king: the lord of the entire Roman world or the one lying in a manger? (Luke 2)

- How can the one forsaken by God, deserted by his disciples, rejected by his people, unable to even save himself be Saviour of the world? (Matthew 27)

It is no surprise that this reality should continue even into our own life stories. May the Lord grant us wisdom and grace to "live by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7)

When all has been said & done

Dale Ralph Davis reflects upon how Mephibosheth did what he could to express his fidelity to Yahweh's anointed when the latter was exiled due to Absalom's coup (2 Samuel 19:24-30), and relates a true story he read about Orop, a boy who lived near the Akobo (Sudan) mission station.

Missionary Don McClure tells how Orop loved to come to school. But he couldn't learn anything; he couldn't even write the letters of his own name in the right order. So he had to give up his place in school for another child. 

He would still come, however, and sit outside the school window to listen to the Bible stories. Then he would round up a group of boys and retell the Bible stories. But he'd get them all mixed up; so McClure had to forbid Orop to tell stories about Jesus!

But then Orop received his call. Dr. McCLure told him that when he went out to a village to preach Orop could carry God's Book (McClure's Bible) for him. So every day as the sun came up Orop would be waiting for McClure and carry God's Book to the village du jour. 

He did what he could.

One day a bunch of small boys were playing in the river when a crocodile latched on to one of them. All ran. But Orop jumped in to fight the croc. He succeeded in freeing the boy but the crocodile grabbed Orop instead. They only recovered one arm and one leg to bury.

He did what he could.

Orop had told his mother that he was not afraid to die, because Jesus would come to take him by the hand and lead him home. After his death this testimony stirred his mother to seek Jesus.

He had done what he could.  

(emphasis added)

At the cross, Jesus the Christ has done all that is necessary to bring us to God. All that is needed has been said and done. May the Lord help us to respond to his great love by doing what we can.

God has spoken ... so what?

It is good to have confidence that the Bible is God's Word to us. But Dale Ralph Davis reminds us that so often, that is simply not good enough.

Commenting on the account of Abner, the late King Saul's command-in-chief, in 2 Samuel 2:12-3:39, Davis highlights the irony that Abner, though knowing full well that God had promised the kingdom to David, persisted to establish an alternate kingdom under Saul's son Ishbosheth and waged ongoing military campaigns against David and his people (though as the story unfolds, he was actually labouring to solidify his own power!).

Abner knew clearly what God had spoken ... but so what?

Davis' comments are very insightful:

Since Abner clearly knew that Yahweh had promised David the kingship 93:9-10, 17-18), his armed resistance seems baffling. But for anyone who looks at humanity and history through the doctrine of original sin, it is not baffling at all. Only perverse.

Davis goes on to relate an incident in Germany during World War II as related in Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich:

Abner's resistance reminds me of an anecdote about Hermann Goering, head of German's Luftwaffe in World War II. Sometime in 1942-43 Goering was upset with General Galland, commander of his fighter planes, for reporting to Hitler that several American fighter planes had been shot down over Aachen. Galland told Goering it was a true report. Goering was obstinate: That is simply not true. It's impossible. Galland challenged Goering to go to Aachen and see for himself - the downed planes were there. Goering then tried a more diplomatic approach, urging Galland to admit he had made a mistake. But Galland wouldn't budge, so Goering ended the debate: 'I officially assert that the American fighter planes did not reach Aachen.' Galland entered one last eye-witness objection: 'But, sir, they were there!' Goering lost all self control as he pontificated, 'I herewith give you an official order that they weren't there! Do you understand? The American fighters were not there!' Off he stalked.

Davis observes,

Never mind evidence. Never  mind facts. Never mind testimony. Goering will believe what he wants to believe. Never mind Yahweh's promise to David. Never mind that Abner himself can quote the promise.! Never mind that Yahweh has already established David as king in Judah. Abner will try to impose his own authority. It is absurd; it is, in a word, sin.

Davis concludes with these sobering words:

Abner is not far from any one of us. We share an Abner-nature that harbors sin's stupidity, perversity, and twistedness. Let Abner preach to you. Let him tell you that it is possible to know the truth but not embrace the truth, to quote the truth but not submit to the truth, to hold the truth and yet assault the truth. And so Abner joins all the other anti-christs who strut around and say, 'I will be king' (1 Kings 1:5).

 We'd do well to take this to heart and cling on tightly to the mercies of our God through Christ Jesus our Saviour King.

On proving God through science

Came across this quote from C.S Lewis from a friend's seminar on "Has Science Disproved God" which I found very insightful (what else would you expect from Lewis?)

"Looking for God by exploring space is like reading Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady MacBeth ... My point is, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to play."

Though the analogy is not perfect (indeed, which analogy isn't?), for God did make a brief but by no means cameo appearance in his "play" - when the Word became flesh ...

We need true religious tolerance, not religious pluralism

Our PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak

Religious pluralism is once again in the limelight following our Prime Minister's well-publicised warning to Muslims against religious pluralism. Reaction to the PM's statement has been mixed - understandably, even from within Christian circles.

Some appear to link the fact of Malaysia being a pluralistic nation to a supposed necessary implication: embracing a truly Malaysia spirit therefore means embracing religious pluralism. However, such a leap appear to misunderstand what religious pluralism truly entails, as well as what it means to truly embrace people of other faiths with true neighbourly spirit.

Why religious pluralism cannot deliver

While addressing the challenge of pluralism, John Dickson helpfully points out some problems with the two forms of pluralism commonly advocated:

1. With popular pluralism, i.e. the idea that all religions are the same, Dickson points out a fundamental problem:

The basic problem with popular pluralism is that in trying to affirm all religions IT PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO NONE.

 (EMPHASIS mine)

Dickson goes on to cite examples of how Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism differ on the very fundamental issue of whether there is many or one or no God! Likewise, the central Christian belief of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ is clearly disputed by Judaism and Islam. These are just the tip of the iceberg of the many many contradictions once closer attention is paid to each religious faith.

Truth of the matter is this:

... in reality you can only insist on the harmony of the great religions (popular pluralism) by ignoring some of their most important beliefs.

Popular pluralism crumbles upon closer scrutiny.

2. Dickson mentions a second and more sophisticated approach to pluralism, what he terms 'sophisticated pluralism', which operates on the following premise:

... while there are few explicit ideas common to world religions, there is an implicit BIG IDEA [i.e. spiritual reality] made apparent by them all ... Individual religions do not describe this reality; they merely express a longing to experience it. They are spiritual emblems.

(EMPHASIS his)

Dickson points out that, while at first glance, sophisticated pluralism may seem to offer what so many want - a way of thinking about all religions as equally valid - this brand of pluralism is actually assuming an intellectual higher ground that exceeds all of the world's religions.

although the world religions are entitled to their perceptions of Reality (believing in Christ, Buddha, etc.), the truth of the situation, understood only by the pluralist, is that this Reality defies their attempts to describe and embrace it.

Pluralism, in other words, claims to have discovered a bigger truth that none of the religions has observed before; it then suggests that the smaller truths the religions thought they could see (Jesus' death for sins, for example) are in fact mistaken ...

In other words, sophisticated pluralism essentially renders all world religions (except pluralism) as fundamentally wrong. At the end of the day, it is deeply arrogant, and hugely offensive.

The alternative to religious pluralism: true tolerance

Despite the flaws of religious pluralism, many continue to advocate for it out of fear of what they think is the alternative: religious intolerance. Examples are often cited from history on the horrible violence that resulted from those who held their religion to be the only truth - hence the attractiveness of the pluralist's response that there really is no absolute truth (except pluralism!).

But Dickson points out that there is a better path to true neighbourliness in our pluralistic age than religious pluralism: true tolerance.

Tolerance does not involve treating another person's opinion as valid; it involves treating with kindness and respect someone whose opinion you believe to be untrue and invalid.

True tolerance is the ability to treat with friendship and respect those with whom you disagree. 

 I am inclined to agree with him.

Why promote the gospel?

For many (if not most) of us, the reality of God's coming judgment is pretty good motivation to share or preach or promote the gospel to our friends and loved ones.

But in his book 'Promoting the Gospel', John Dickson, reflecting on Psalm 96, rightly points out that the Bible supplies us with a more basic motivation for mission: "Declare God's glory among the nations because he is the only true Lord."

Dickson explains:

Promoting the gospel to the world is more than a rescue mission; it is a reality mission. It is God's call to the people of the world to realise they are his sole and beloved possession. This is why the central confession of the first Christians, recorded throughout the New Testament, was not "Jesus is healer' or 'Jesus is friend'; it was 'Jesus is Lord'. These words declared Jesus to be the embodiment of the lordship of the one true God, the one to whom all people - Jews and Gentiles alike - owe their loyalty.

The implications are worth pondering over. Dickson continues:

WHY PROMOTE CHRIST to your atheist friend with a nice car and the self-confidence to match? Not simply because he would be happier or more fulfilled with Jesus, but because in reality your friend belongs to the one true Lord (revealed in the gospel). Why reach out to the super-student with the first class honours degree and wardrobe of designer clothes? Not simply because Christianity will make her more moral or productive in life, but because in reality she is the possession of her one and only King. Why send out (and support) missionaries to Mongolia or Burkina Faso? Not only because Asians and Africans need rescuing from God's judgment (as we all do) but because they are creatures of the one Creator, and he alone deserves their worship.

 As the psalmist puts it in Psalm 96:3-4:

Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples.

For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.

Quoted from John Dickson, "The One and the many: why get involved in mission?", in Promoting the Gospel (Blue bottle books) [revised and republished under the title 'The Best Kept Secret of Mission']