Posted Joshua Woo

We are currently going through Diogenes Allen's book 'Philosophy For Understanding Theology', chapter by chapter. We had our first session today. 

Diogenes Allen is currently Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote this book in the early 1980s to help students to understand the philosophical background of Christian theology. Since its publication, the book has aided many students in understanding the history of Christian thoughts. (Eric Springsted, 'Philosopher In Service Of The Church: Diogenes Allen retires after 35 years at PTS,' in Inspire, Summer/Fall 2002, volume 7, no. 1.)
 
Christian and non-Christian thinking:
Our session began by each of us sharing what do we understand by the term 'philosophy'? 

Andreas shared that philosophy is the subject that tries to make sense of life. Jonah and Wei Yi said that whenever they hear the word 'philosophy', they would think of 'metaphysics'. 

Katherine has the impression that philosophy probes deep into life, asking questions about the origin and meaning of it. Mui Kiang indicated that philosophy helps us to engage, clarify, and respond critically in our communication with people.

Others said that it a force that lies behind everything, for instance in all the fiction and non-fiction books that we read (Andreas added that it includes cook books and books on gardening). As long as we probe deeper, we would find philosophy. 

The general consensus that I gathered from the group was the understanding that philosophy is that which helps us to approach life deeper, to learn about and examine it more consciously.

Then we proceeded by the reading of two extracts of ancient poems:

[Minos said to Zeus]
"They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one,
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But you are not dead: You live and abide forever;
For in you we live and move and have our being."
(Extract from Cretica, a poem by Cretan philosopher and religious prophet Epimenides of Knossos)

"Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken;
For every street, every marketplace is full of Zeus;
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.;
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus; 
For we are indeed his offspring..."
(Extract from Phaenomena), a poet by Greek philosopher and doctor Aratus)

Then followed by a reading from Acts 17.24 to 28:

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"

And finally, we read from apostle Paul's letter to Titus (1.12-13):

"One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith..."

What are we seeing here? Was Paul's theology shaped by Greek philosophy and theology, or was he using relevant non-Christian thoughts to explain Christian theology according to his audience?

Allen states that Christian theology's two main sources are the Bible and Hellenistic culture, especially Greek philosophy. Acts 17.28 is an example where Christian theology has an identical idea with that of Greek theology. Hence we see that there are identical ideas between Christian's and non-Christian's thoughts.

Critic of Christianity often charges that Christian theology is actually derived and shaped by non-Christian theology. Whether this is correct is unanswerable. We simply have no way to verify that. The fact that Paul quoted from non-Christian ideas does not say anything more than the fact that he quoted them. It could very well be that Paul already had those conviction and his employment of them were for mere missiological purposes.

Nonetheless what is certain is that there are areas where Christian thoughts and non-Christian ones converged. Therefore the distinctiveness of Christian thinking can be expected from non-Christians. 
Jonah illustrated this point with us with a Chinese proverb, "A damaged clock still gets the time right twice a day." Non-Christian thoughts still have something Christian within them.

Ontology and epistemology:
Allen pointed out the two fundamental ways that we can use to discern and compare between Christian and non-Christian ideas. 

The first way is 'ontology'. Basically, ontology is the status of a thing in reality. For eg. I am a real person while Gandalf from the book 'Lord of the Ring' is a fictional person. We are ontologically different. We do not share identical status in reality.

Second way is 'epistemology'. It is a "study of the kinds of ground on which we make claims and which studies the relationship between different grounds." This concerns the source of our knowledge, our capability to know and verifiability of what we know. 

In the chapter, Allen points out that the foundation of Christian theology is the ontology of the world as God's creation. "The Genesis stories of creation make it clear that the world has a beginning. Because it has a beginning, it is not eternal. This means it is not ultimate. God, its Maker, who is without beginning or end, is ultimate. This is utterly different from Aristotle's view. For him the universe had no beginning. It has always existed and always will exist. [...] Its existence is inferred from the motions we observe on earth and in the heavens." (Italic original)

Our epistemic ground (that is our source for this knowledge about the ontology of the world as God's creation) is in God's own initiative to reveal it to us. 

Allen wrote, "The grounds for [Aristotle's claim rest on] the epistemological principle: we assert only what must be asserted to account for the operations of the world. A search for the principles of the world's operations is what motivates Aristotle. What validates the claims he makes is their success in explaining its operations.[...] In contrast to Aristotle, the claims by Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures of ancient Israel do not spring from a desire to discover the principles of nature's operations, nor even to account for the existence of the universe. Belief in a Creator is not affirmed by the ancient Israelites because they desire to explain the world's existence and order. Its existence and order do not form the grounds for their belief in God. On the contrary, they believed in God because they believed God's self-revelation, first to Abraham, [...] and then to other patriarchs, such as Isaac and Jacob, and to the prophets. Their belief in the divine is a response to God's initiative, rather than the result of their investigations of nature's order and origin." (Italics original)

'Idolatry' is misguided epistemology.
This chapter emphasizes the foundation of Christian theology is in our understanding of the ontological difference between the world and God that must not be confused. "There is a distinction between God and the world which is more fundamental than any distinction between any two things which are both part of the world. However great the ontological difference may be between things that are part of the world, it is dwarfed in comparison to the ontological difference that exists between the Creator and creatures."

From this point, we learned to see 'idolatry' in a deeper way and why it is so condemned in Christianity. Idolatry is simply attributing wrong ontology due to misguided epistemology. It is the act of distorting the truth based on false knowledge. In other words, one commits idolatry when he/she gives a wrong status of existence to things or beings. And very often, we are tempted to distort God with our epistemology. 

"[Concepts] by which we understand various kinds of things within the world do not enable  us to comprehend God because God does not fall under any classification or genus within which we place the various beings of which the world consists. [...] Divine perfection is not according to some notion of perfection which we gain by comparing created beings with each other. Rather we understand that God is perfect (complete and full) because God created the world freely, and we can understand that even though we do not comprehend the perfection of divine being." (Italics original)

Sin and natural theology.
We asked if sin had distorted our mind to the extend that we would not be able to see the Creator without special help from God? Can general revelation (1) lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God and (2) by that making better humans?

Maricel shared with us her interesting exposure to a tribal group in the Philippines. In her first visit to them, the tribe has not been taught about Christianity. What was surprising to Maricel was the fact that these tribal people already possessed an idea of a cosmic creator. And based on that belief, they were harmonious with the environment and treated their surrounding and everyone with care and respect.

However, Maricel was rather upset when she visited the tribe again. This time, the tribe has been taught about Christianity. Some of them have even converted into the faith. To Maricel's horror, the converts were not as harmonious with the environment as they used to be. Due to the teaching that the creation is God's gift in human's disposal, the converts had exploited the surrounding for their selfish gain. And the conversion has also implanted antagonism among the tribal people. 

In this case, general revelation can lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God but not so in making better humans. To think deeper into it, is not the right acknowledgment of God leads to being better humans? Is Matthew 7.15-20 relevant here? Can we judge the rightness of an acknowledgement of God by the fruits of that acknowledgement?

Andreas suggested that the converts' action is motivated by the wrong interpretation of the 'Cultural Mandate' passages in Genesis 1.28. This shows the important link between our belief and our action. What we believe affects how we relate and react. To cite Richard M. Weaver, "Ideas have consequences."

Of course those who see nothing wrong in the converts' exploitation of the natural world and antagonism against their neighbor would cite Matthew 10.34 as a justification. 
 
Katherine shared that in the context of urban city, it seems that special revelation is more needed as there is nothing around us that immediately appears as natural to us, and so make it hard for us to appreciate general revelation. 

When we look around us, we see human constructs in the form of building, garden, mechanical vehicle, artificial food and drink, chemical cosmetic, fiber clothing, and etc. In such a context, it is not easy for us to see how the sky, the rain, the soil and our sustenance are connected. Whatever that grows naturally around us are usually undesirable pest and fungus. City life is more or less a plastic existence.

A plastic world places more urgency on special revelation. And the only thing or being that appears more revelatory is the embodied message: that is us, the Christians. The burden to be an authentic living message is more necessary in a context surrounded by artificial construction.  

In closing: Revisiting the relationship between philosophy and theology:
At the end of the session, we discussed about the models that relate the two disciplines. We came up with four.

Model one: Philosophy and theology relates to each other like a Vern Diagram. There are areas where both disciplines intersect and share something in common.

Model two: Philosophy is the subset of theology. All philosophical questions can best be understood through theology. And in some occasions, answered by theology. 

Model three: Theology is the subset of philosophy. All theological questions originated from philosophical inquiry and therefore theology began from within philosophy.

Model four: Philosophy and theology do not relate with each other. Both disciplines ask different questions and provide different answers.

We had a great time examining and critiquing each model. And at the end of the day, we do not have a conclusion which model provides the definite description of this troubling relationship. At best, we can only see them in context. That means each model is truest when it is in the context of inquiry that is most relevant to it.

Posted by Joshua Woo

This evening we screened and watched the debate over Richard Dawkins' 2006's book The God Delusion, organised by Fixed Point Foundation. The length of the debate is about 1 hour and 40 minutes long. 

It was only natural that the screening session was a little dry given that particular topic, the nature of the debate, and the fact that we were trying to understand every words uttered in-between the debaters' rhetorics the whole time. Nothing short of the like in sitting through a counseling session talking to a stubborn congregant. Nonetheless, each debater's occasional compulsion to correct the opposite party was sometimes hilarious and engaging. These helped to keep us fixated and enjoyed the exchange between the two prolific speakers. 

The better part came after the screening: the discussion time. We started off by evaluating each debater's strengths and weaknesses. All that were present in the evening agreed that the strength of Lennox was in his ability to engage and counter Dawkins' arguments. His content was solid and he spoke lucidly. However, his weakness lies in the few seeming occasions when he critiqued Dawkins' personality rather than the proposals.

Dawkins on the other end had the better composure that appeared to focus more on the issues rather than attempting to ridicule his opponent. We like the way he carried himself throughout the debate. Yet his arguments were weak as compared to Lennox's. At times, he misunderstood Lennox. For an instance, Dawkins' mumbled that Lennox charged him for having faith in the cosmos. But that was not what Lennox talked about. Lennox was actually saying that having faith in the idea that there is nothing in the cosmos except matters is seemingly a commitment of faith.  

Among other things, we discussed the idea of evolution, which was one of the central contentions in the debate. Dawkins mentioned that it was the theory of evolution that led him away from believing in God in his teenage years. Hence we spent significant portion of time conversing over 'evolution'; what does it really means and its implication on our faith. 

Tommy, who taught Biology at a senior secondary school in Indonesia, elaborated to us his understanding of evolution and how he taught it to his students. He also shared with us the idea of 'theistic evolution' which Mui Kiang was interested to find out more. 

Benjamin Lee rightly remarked that we have no empirical fact that shows Darwin was an atheist. At best, he was an agnostic. (And it was not because of his discovery that led him to agnosticism. Rather, it was the death of his beloved daughter that affected his faith.)  So Benjamin thought that evolution does not necessarily contradict the Christian faith. 

It was at this point when Wei Yi raised a question regarding 'evolution' and its compatibility with certain interpretations of certain passages in the Bible that seem to show that there is no gap in the development of the human species. If humans came about through a long process of natural selection and mutation, then how should we understand apostle Paul's argument in Romans 5.12-21 that presupposes the historicity of Adam? We have no answer, of course. However, I have to say that Biologos has a series of articles on this question even though it is just some scholars' attempt, among others, to approach the problem.

We are reminded by Yip Khiong that whether 'evolution' is true or not is up to the experts to figure out. Our faith does not hinge on it. Instead, our faith is anchored in the historicity of Christ's resurrection which can be investigated historically. A new friend, Hai, shared with us that his looked at 'evolution' in term of the philosophical baggages of the term. It is on these grounds that Christians may evaluate and engage the concept. 

Maricel expressed her confidence in the theology of God rather than in the various explanations provided by natural sciences to explain the origin or the creation of life. Therefore she does not have any problem with evolution. Whether we are the product of macro-evolution or not does not affect the fact that God is the sovereign creator who is free to bring about the existence of the human race with whichever means he so chosen.

The discussion was filled with laughter and shared mutual-learning experiences. It was interesting to see committed Christians with different perspective reasoning through a contentious issue together. I noticed that many of the issues were concern over different understandings of certain words. Words like 'faith', 'science', 'evolution', 'chance', and  etc.

As conclusion, we thought that there are still many more works to be done in this area. There will certainly be upcoming guided-discussion sessions to explore these issues further. Such exercises will not only satisfy our curiosity but also deepen our awareness of what God can do through them in each of our ministry.

Posted by Zhe Hao

One of the key aspects of the pastoral ministry (especially in evangelical churches) lies in the area of preaching and teaching. While the overarching role of the pastoral ministry is the oversight and care for the church of God (Acts 20:28), it often expresses itself through the model of Paul and others in the ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:4, 20:20). Therefore, this shall be the first area of consideration.

Challenges
Since the influx and the rapid changes in information technology, people today have been changed the way they think and receive information.  Neil Postman writes,

“We have reached, I believe, a critical mass in that electronic media have decisively and irreversibly changed the character of our symbolic environment. We are now a culture whose information, ideas and epistemology are given form by television, not by the printed word.”[1]

Here, Postman is saying is that as each culture processes truth as being expressed in certain symbolic forms,  the framework in which we understand and process information has changed from a textual one to a televisual one, thus neglecting the textual (printed) one as trivial or irrelevant[2] T. David Gordon affirms this in his book “Why Johnny can't preach”, stating that the people today “are no longer careful and close readers of texts, sacred or secular” and “have become a culture of telephone babblers, unskilled at the most basic questions of composition.”[3] What David Gordon is emphasising here is that the advancements in information technology has incapacitate our ability to read and write.

Our inability to appreciate texts stems from how the electronic media has shaped the pace of our lives, resulting in a highly distracted, multi-tasking lifestyle.[4] As for writing, the emergences of the telephone, Short Message Services (SMS), Web messengers, Twitter and other forms of instant communication have divested the necessity of important composition skill. In contrast to writing a letter, there is seldom a requirement for the person to compose his or her thoughts in an orderly fashion because the availability of immediate clarification. Therefore, just like how the content in these mediums rarely contain “unity, order and movement, it becomes reflected in the preacher's flow and organisation of the sermon.[5] This in itself has also affected the audience's patience to listen to sermons as monologue is no longer a common form of 'communication'. Therefore, if one would to do a verse-by-verse bible study on the pulpit for forty minutes, there will be a greater difficulty in sustaining the audience's attention compared to one done decades ago. Furthermore, the media today has created a generation that has been highly stimulated visually and kinaesthetically. This makes the task of preaching and teaching, which is traditionally founded on an audio mode, an uphill one.  It is a reality that the preachers, teachers and hearers of God's word in Singapore are engulfed and inevitably affected in such a culture.

Needs
With regards to the first challenge, the problem pointed out is not in media itself but our inadequacy in reading and composition skills. Thus, there are two needs that one could take to address this issue. The first could be to become counter-cultural in lifestyle and reduce the amount of influence that the media and new forms of communication have on self.  Needless to say, the preacher's ability to read and write must be continually honed by practices and exposure. The second is that the steward of God's word must attempt to be 'intentionally bi-cultural', that is to be engaged with the culture of the world and the culture of the Word. Christians today must not just be passive and soak in the culture of media. Engagement must be purposeful and active.

This means that though some may suggest that commercials or television programs today are trashy, trivial and unedifying, one cannot deny certain aspects we can learn from. These forms of media are not only succinct in their messages; their ability to evoke imagination and emotions is impressive. Furthermore, the people behind the scenes do take into account the “unity, order and movement” of their message. Hence, just like how the people of the past were familiar with the literary unity and features then, perhaps a sermon format that resembles a “Crime Scene Investigation” episode would be acceptable and relevant for they are our 'literature' of today. Some sermons that people have prepared today have moved from a monologue nature to a looser dialogue format because of the dialogical communication we find ourselves in today.

Interestingly, it is my personal observation that the main preaching pastors in Singapore's largest churches are master storytellers and illustrators who performs a certain form of 'close reading' and sheds insights into the biblical texts, be it accurate or inaccurate. Whether there is a need for the form of preaching and teaching to be contextualised in such a manner remains to be a discussion for another day. Nevertheless, the challenge and the need for this generation is to filter through the vast load of information and “utter what is precious, and not what is worthless” in order to be a mouth piece of God (Jer 15:19).  

Potential and Pitfalls
An amazing contribution that has resulted from the ripples of globalisation lies in the wealth of resources that the internet has brought. Preachers and teachers now are able to employ different tools, be it to better exposit the text or present their message. More than that, the scope of imagery and illustrations has now increased with the wider exposure of different cultures and disciplines across the globe. In a place where there is no snowfall like Singapore, the metaphor of being “whiter than snow” becomes conceivable to majority of Singaporean Christians (Psa 51:7). More could be said not only of biblical metaphors but sermon illustrations as well. The downside of such availability is that the stewards of God's word might sometimes short-circuit the process through a “copy and paste approach” to sermons and teaching, resulting in plagiarism, be it intentional or unintentional. Singapore has already witness such an account which is being highlighted in our newspapers.[6]

The effect of globalisation could also be the contribution of Christian perspectives and removal of blind spots. Philip Jenkins writes,

“Looking at Southern Christianity gives a surprising new perspective on some other things that might seem to be very familiar. Perhaps the most striking example is how the newer churches can read the Bible in a way that makes that Christianity look like a wholly different religion from the faith of prosperous advanced societies of Europe or North America... In the present day, it may be that it is only in the newer churches that the Bible can be read with any authenticity and immediacy, and that Old Christendom must give priority to Southern voices.”[7]

Neither the West nor the church in Singapore has a monopoly on theology. It is with these wider perspectives contributed by the universal church, preachers and teachers are able to better exegete the text. Nevertheless, Jenkins's statement here hints of the double edged sword present today. After all, not all perspectives are equally true and helpful. While some might supplement and better elucidate God's word, some others might further confuse and draw many into error.

References:
 [1]    Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Viking, 1985), 28.
[2]    Ibid., 23.
[3]    T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub, 2009), 49; 67.
[4]    Ibid., 50.
[5]    Ibid., 66.
[6]    The Straits Time, 12 June 2010.
[7]    Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 217.

Posted by Joshua Woo


While Vinoth is confused over the laity-clergy divide, Scot McKnight recently raised very good thoughts regarding the idea of bi-vocation as the superior Christian lifestyle:

"The rhythms of life for a tentmaker are amazingly different between one who is single, married, married with young children, and married with children post-elementary school. A basic question for many tentmakers is whether or not we can survive the demands of two (potentially full-time) jobs, a spouse (who might also work part or full time), and children. [...]

... who is the real tentmaker: is it an individual, or is it actually the family as a whole? Should the question shift from considering one’s own ambitions and desire to build the Church to the desires and skillset of one’s family as a whole?"

These are provocative thoughts to those with family and who aspire to be like apostle Paul. With the wife and children in the picture, how do we then think about ministry?

Gerald Hiestand, at First Things website, posted a thoughtful article lamenting the deep problem between academic theology and local congregation (H/T: Sivin Kit):

"The drain of our wider theologians from the pastorate to the academy has resulted in a two-fold problem. First, the theological water-level of our local parishes has dropped considerably. Inasmuch as the pastoral vocation is no longer seen as a theological vocation, pastors no longer bring a strong theological presence to their local parishes. The net effect (particularly in the evangelical tradition in which I reside) is a truncated understanding of theology and its import among the laity. Theology has largely left the local church.

The second part of this problem is perhaps more even troubling. Not only has theology left the church, but the church has left theology. To be sure, many academic theologians view themselves as self-consciously serving the theological needs of the church. But on the whole, academic discourse has lost its way, becoming preoccupied with questions—especially questions regarding its right to exist—that minimize its ecclesial relevance."

These are real concerns in the west as much as in the east. That's why Gospel@Areopagus is set up. The mission is to keep the link between the academia and the churches as close as possible.

During class this week, our lecturer on ethics, Daniel Koh, made an insightful comment over the place of theology in the life of the church. While affirming the importance of mission and evangelism in the first two centuries in church history, Daniel highlighted that it was theological works produced by people like Justin Martyr, Tertulian, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, and others that provided the strong ground that empowered the activities of the churches.

Daniel's remark subverts many ideology underlying local congregations that theology is basically irrelevant to the church's life. I have heard many people who dismiss theology. Only recently, someone told me that it is okay for mission-training institutions not to require their students to undergo theological education like those provided at Trinity Theological College.

I wonder if the concern over what kind of churches are being planted matters to those who think like that?

Posted by Joshua Woo

Three weeks ago, on 9th December, Gospel@Areopagus held our first meeting. The theme of our discussion was 'Kingdom of God' (KOG). 

We have three presenters on three different topics on this theme:

Benjamin Lee on 'Church Leadership and the Kingdom of God'.

Jason Ting on ' Pentecostalism's Perspective on the Kingdom of God'.

Zhe Hao on 'Twentieth Century Theological Perspectives on the Kingdom of God'.

It was a wonderful session where we get to learn about the many issues concerning this important theme of the Christian faith: KOG. Each are given 20 minutes max to share their findings and then followed by a discussion session. 

Benjamin summarized the necessity of church leadership to emphasize on this theme in the life of the church. Following Ben Witherington III's Imminent Domain: The Story of the Kingdom of God and Its Celebration, Benjamin mentioned that the idea of KOG is the herald of the dominion of God, bringing God's rule in whatever that we are doing. The KOG is an active and passive domain of God.

God's renewal of the world is by recreating humans in the divine image, not through social or political (violent) changes. So it is one-by-one changes. Evangelism should be seen as transforming people into dominion-bearer, dominated by God's rule.

Church's leaders are expected to submit to God's rule and demand the community that they are responsible for to do the same. When more lives are changed into dominion-bearers, the values of the society would change accordingly.

Benjamin profoundly stated that the Church is the counter-balance of secular power-struggle because the KOG is the final power structure. The values of the church can be seen as a comparison between the people of God and those who are not. It is through our deeds of righteousness like evangelism and social works that God's dominion is advanced.

Although the KOG has such a significant place in the world, nonetheless we must not see the Church as reigning in the world. The Church is not into the business of furthering the Church's dominion in the society. Church leaders need to constantly emphasize the Church's mission as expanding God's dominion rather than the Church's.

In this sense, the unity among local churches must  be public and visible. Through unity that the Church able to be more effective in the work of KOG. 

Benjamin ended his presentation by sharing with us why he picked this topic. He told us that the local congregation he belongs to has never preaches on KOG. If KOG is such a central theme in Jesus' own ministry, then the local churches cannot neglect it.

During discussion time, there was an interesting question raised by other participants: If the local secular government has been doing a good job in term of social and community services, what roles are there for the local churches to play? 

None of us have any answer. However the articulation of this question forces upon us the awareness to rethink and to think hard what is the relevance and place of the Church in the local society? This is our first step.

Mui Kiang raised an acute issue prevalent among households with maids. She is convinced that the KOG has implications to the treatment of domestic helpers by Christian families. Day-off and rest-time should be given to the maids as part of Christians' daily measure to exercise the reality of the dominion of God. She remarked that perhaps due to the sensitive implications of KOG that local pulpits do not dare to preach about it.

On the other hand, Edmund mentioned that the job of the church leaders is to preach and teach faithfully and not to discern the sincerity of the members. His remark is a response to Benjamin's earlier point about the vagueness of the congregation's sincerity in living up God's dominion in the world.

After the discussion ended, Jason presented his Pentecostal perspective on the KOG. He started off by talking about the five points that mark the full extend of the gospel: (1) Justification, (2) Sanctification, (3) Healing, (4) Pre-millenium return of Christ, and (5) Baptized by the holy spirit.

The Pentecostal community sees the phenomenon of 'Spirit Baptism' being part of the Christian life serves as the Pentecostalism's contribution to the understanding of the KOG where Christ is the king while the Holy Spirit is the active presence.  

It is the Spirit of the eschaton that causes the fusion between space and time and so framed human responsibility as part of the in-breaking of the KOG into the present. Therefore the KOG should also reflects the possibility of divine healing on the sick as well as other physical benefits such as alleviation of poverty and increase in affluence. 

Nonetheless, Jason was critical that the prosperity gospel that is preached among local churches is a distorted teaching because it is a form of over-realized eschatology. 

Usually these types of teaching creates the ugly culture of elitism within the Church. The rich and healthy ones are deemed as being more faithful, hence they are like the first class Christians. Their wealth and health are seen as God's favor in response to their faith.  Those who are sick and poor are doubted for their faith and so considered as second class Christians. The value of their faith is not as authentic or real as compared to the first class Christians.

Jason also highlighted the lack of the talk about the role and place of the Holy Spirit in the usual discourse about the KOG.  There is a lack of seeing the phenomenon of tongues as kairos event that discloses God's presence in the world. The gift of tongues is a sign that needs to be confirmed by the life of the believers. Therefore tongue by itself is not meant to be used as 'evidence' to demonstrates  anything. Tongues should not be used as a measurement to see if someone as more spiritual or less.

Jason's presentation generated an enthusiastic discussion. Wei Yi shared about his concern over one of his church leaders who emphasizes the place of tongues in corporate worship. He said that the pastor seems to want the congregation to pray and speak in tongues during services. In similar vein, others tried to clarify with Jason whether should glossolalia be allowed during corporate worship. The group discussed over 1 Corinthians 14 to see what apostle Paul said about it.

Personally I would like to also see Jason extending his Pentecostal reflection on the KOG to include political theology, like what well-known Pentecostal theologian Amos Yang has done in In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology.

After the discussion ended, Zhe Hao took his turn to present the slightly more technical discussion on KOG by twentieth century theologians and biblical scholars.  He very briefly introduced various understandings of KOG, the language of eschatology, and apocalyticism.

He mentioned that the so-called little apocalypse in Mark 13 is the contentious ground of which scholars have different opinions on. And it is this passage that led people confused over what actually did Jesus mean by the reality of the KOG: was Jesus mistaken about the timing of the arrival of the KOG in verse 30? If not, what was Jesus trying to say about the KOG?

Again, another issue which we do not have the answer. Zhe Hao mentioned that G. E. Ladd has done a good job at sorting out the multi-layered issues surrounding this topic in The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. There is a basis from the evidence to think that the KOG is an 'already but not yet' reality at the present.

After the discussion ended, the first official G@A meeting ended with the announcement of the second session. We will still be keeping the theme for the next few sessions as it is such an important task for local churches to reoriented ourselves along the idea of the Kingdom of God. As for myself, I had the most wonderful time learning so much in the two short hours from all who have presented, those who have contributed to the discussion, and encouraged by the presence of everyone.

Posted by Joshua Woo

This is the recent debate held at Ciudad De Las Ideas festival (Mexico version of TED.com). To answer the question whether is there a purpose for the universe, the festival invited atheists and theists to give their opinion. 

The atheists are Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, and Richard Dawkins, while theists are Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, and Douglas Geivett.

Posted by Joshua Woo

I used 'challenges' because that has a positive tone compared to the word 'problems'. Seeing problems as challenges help to at least convince ourselves that which we are facing are indeed tasksand not headaches.

Over lunch, Zhe Hao and I were talking about a list of challenges to current churches. One that we noticed is the incongruity between the pulpit ministry and the personal conviction of the preacher. We have concrete examples of local famous preachers whose personal beliefs are not as unambiguous as what they preach when they are on the stage, with their Bible on one hand and the microphone on another.

We were not talking about hypocrisy of examples like the preachers who condemn adultery on the pulpit but commit adultery of their own. We were talking about preachers who, for example personally were not sure if God willed him or her to live until 160 years old, but who preach as if they are so certain that God willed them to live that long.

In my own experience, a friend and I attended one of the local megachurch. During the service, one of the pastor went onto the stage and started leading the congregation in prayers. He told us that we will live until 160 years old because that is what God had will (or something to that effect).

After the service, we went to the visitors corner which was located two stories above the 'sanctuary' to learn more about the church. We were greeted by two leaders of the church. We were warmly received and ushered to a cozy room to talk.

After I told them that I am currently attending a Presbyterian church, one of them told me that he was from a Presbyterian church in the "been there, done that" tone. I was open to the possibility that he has found his preferred place, so we did not dwell too much on his transfer. If he thinks that he is growing to be more like Christ in this church, then I share his joy.

During our conversation, we inquired about what the pastor's prayer that we will live to 160 years old because that is God's will for his people. We were curious whether did they really think that that is really God's will?

To our surprise, the two gentlemen were not as unambiguous as their pastor. They defended the pastor's prayer not by saying that it was indeed God's will for us to live until 160 years old. Rather their defense was that that was their hope that it is God's will and not that it really is God's will. This is what I meant that there is an incongruity between the preachers' personal belief and the expressed conviction while they are on the pulpit delivering a sermon.

On a personal level, there are times when I have to said what is considered the standard right belief to someone when I am not sure whether is that belief right or not. These are the times when reliability of tradition comes into the picture; how much do we trust a certain received wisdom? Nonetheless, such experience prompts me to ask, "Does that make me a hypocrite?"

On the other hand, Zhe Hao and I noticed that there is an expectation from the congregants  that a church leader must have ALL the answers with EXACT certainty. And this expectation sometimes overwhelmed our conscience that we rather provide a standard received tradition than disappointing the congregants. Add to that, people generally are drawn to those with high level of certitude. This is a real struggle for those who are seen as leaders. And perhaps this is the factor that pressured preachers to appear very certain of their conviction on certain things, which are not really certain when you ask them personally. 

Mother Theresa is a good example of this incongruity. Most people in the world regard Mother Teresa as a living saint when she was alive (most because not all). However, it was revealed that she doubted God's existence at one point in her life: "In my soul, I feel just the terrible pain of loss, of God not wanting me, of God not being God, of God not really existing." (From Catholic News Service website: Cindy Wooden, Longing for God: Mother Teresa's letters reveal isolation, doubts, dated 1 Mar 2002, [accessed 2 Dec 2010])

However, this congruity not all the time happen due to congregants' expectation. There are times when some teachings need to be presented in a paternalistic manner to prevent harm, like how countries have laws prohibiting the minors from alcohol and cigarette. It is not too stretching to see a similarity of this with the way apostle Paul dealt with the Corinthians: "Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.  I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly..." (1 Corinthians 3.1-3) 

How should one deliver a message on the pulpit to a congregation consists of members from various background and level of spirituality?

Posted by Joshua Woo

What exactly is the fundamental difference between Calvinism and Arminianism? Perhaps the conversation between Charles Simeon and John Wesley posted by Justin Taylor able to help us to understand:

[Simeon] Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.  But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.  Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

[Wesley] Yes, I do indeed.

[Simeon] And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

[Wesley] Yes, solely through Christ.

[Simeon] But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

[Wesley] No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

[Simeon] Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

[Wesley] No.

[Simeon] What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

[Wesley] Yes, altogether.

[Simeon] And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

[Wesley] Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

[Simeon] Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

(Cited in Handley Carr Glyn Moule’s 1892 biography, Charles Simeon, p. 79f.)

Posted by Joshua Woo

We strive for the proclamation of the gospel and the embodiment of ecumenical relationship. We believe that friendship is divine gift to help us approach God, the world and everyone/things around us in the Spirit of Christ as grounded in Christ's death and resurrection.