Church growth

"Christian expansion is serial not progressive."  KS Tan said these words were said at a recent CMS Conference and set me thinking.

What Dr Tan said is not unique.  He either quoted Andrew Walls or Sam George.  The notion is that Christianity has expanded to be one of the global faiths.  But unlike Islam and many others, Christianity did not preserve its geographical core.  Jerusalem was its original base.  Then Antioch.  Then Rome.  Then elsewhere.  In a recent era, most missionaries were from the "Western countries".  Now, it seems that the Christian faith is declining in those countries, while blooming in some African and Asian nations.

There is overall growth, but the center changes.  We should not think of Christianity as a Western religion anymore.  It was not, in the start, and it seems to be shifting again.

Do you think so?

Along with the geographic shift comes a culture shift.  Another angle that set me thinking came from viralchrist.com.  David Ryser wrote:

I came across a quote attributed most often to Rev. Sam Pascoe. It is a short version of the history of Christianity, and it goes like this: Christianity started in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise.

Some of the students were only 18 or 19 years old--barely out of diapers--and I wanted them to understand and appreciate the import of the last line, so I clarified it by adding, “An enterprise. That’s a business.” After a few moments Martha, the youngest student in the class, raised her hand. I could not imagine what her question might be. I thought the little vignette was self-explanatory, and that I had performed it brilliantly. Nevertheless, I acknowledged Martha’s raised hand, “Yes, Martha.” She asked such a simple question, “A business? But isn’t it supposed to be a body?” I could not envision where this line of questioning was going, and the only response I could think of was, “Yes.” She continued, “But when a body becomes a business, isn’t that a prostitute?

So, what do you think?  Has the church become like a prostitute as it becomes more business-minded in the way it behaves?  How?  How has it not?

How do you think the church behaves?  How should she behave?  What did Jesus mean for the church to be?

How can the church correct its course if it is not on it?

Does the change in the serial nature of the way the church progresses affect its behaviour?  Should it?

Wealth discrimination

Often, people admire the rich, and shun the poor.  This is a form of discrimination that happens in society.  To avoid this discrimination, most appear middle-class.

Even so, there are struggles.  Some of the poor end up poorer as they take up debts to act middle class.

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote that "it is expensive to be poor".  She notes that in the USA, President Johnson started a war against poverty 50 years ago.  “Better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities” would be the ways the nation accomplishes this.

However, the ideal was not easy to accomplish.  A war in Vietnam took the USA's attention away from this project.  People were prone to addiction.  People have children, and single mothers were an economic drain.  People who stayed home and collecting benefits for their children made the poverty cycle worse, when their children lacked the motivation to work from seeing the examples of their parents.  That caused society to label these people negatively.  But, as Ehrenreich points out, "poverty is not a character failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.".

Ehrenreich points out that some entry level jobs that women in poverty find are really a trap.  They cannot advance from these jobs, the pay is abysmal, and the jobs do not allow you the freedom to run your schedule.  I know some garment factory workers in Cambodia who can attest to this.

Another one from Ehrenreich relates to accommodation. One needs to live somewhere where one can access one's workplace within a reasonable amount of time.  Many move to the city for this reason.  This makes rent in the city expensive.  Those who do not earn enough to rent in the city are forced to stay in motels, which cost more money.  It doesn't make sense.

So generally, unless some help is given, the poor end up getting poorer, while the rich live on, unaware of their circumstances.  Do you think so?

A recent discussion on Australian radio relates to the present unemployment situation.  Apparently, the government needs to review the budget, as the trend is towards higher unemployment.  As people demand higher wages, employers find it hard to pay.  Inflation pushes up the wages.  But as business looks for off-shore resources to outsource to, and because of an aging population, this causes fewer employed people to support an increasing number of retirees and unsuccessful job seekers.  How will the economy survive?

What do you think?  Is there a way out of this problem?  How does one escape poverty?  Can the rich help?  How?  Do they want to?  How are governments to create sustainable employment?

The interpretation has changed

A family has recently returned from Malaysia.  There were a few reasons for this.  The most startling one related to their visas.

As this family has children attending an international school there, they were eligible for guardian's visas to live in that country.  Both parents were granted one of these visas each, in the past.  However, on their most recent application to have their visas renewed, they were told that Malaysian authorities would only renew one of their visas, but not both.

The law pertaining to these visas has not changed.  The law allows that guardians of children be granted visas.  Only the interpretation of the law has changed.  Ie. instead of granting such visas to both parents, the authorities will only approve the visa for one parent.

Does this seem silly to you?  Is this normal in your circumstance?  What do you think about such laws?

I remember similar experiences with traffic laws in the Philippines.  One issue was with "swerving".  Technically, it means changing lanes across multiple lanes without indicating and recklessly.  There are signs to tell drivers not to swerve ... especially near the exits from the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX).  Drivers are to try to be in the correct lanes to exit these expressway rather than to cause hazard or traffic jams through their ill-preparation.

However, traffic law enforcers would sometimes apprehend drivers in other locations, and accuse them of swerving.  Even when they have indicated, even when they change lanes slowly and carefully, and even when they only go across one lane.  The word "swerving" is sometimes subject to interpretation.  Some drivers would prefer to bribe the law enforcers rather than to argue or to plead their case in court, but this does not really help the situation.

Have you been caught out similarly?  Where?  How?  What was the circumstance?

What is the law and what should the interpretation be?

Are there any spiritual implications that you can see?

Ten percent

We read in the Old Testament about the practice of giving a tenth back to God.  This practice is often called "tithing".  We see examples and commands about tithing in Leviticus 27:30-32 and in other parts of Scripture.

What do you understand about the practice of "tithing"?  Is it something in the Old Testament that does not carry into the Church's practice today?  Or should the Church still continue to practice tithing?  If not a tenth, then how much should one put into one's offering?

Some people believe that churches should not teach about tithing as a current day practice.  A summary was put together by Russ Kelly which said that:

• The New Testament teaches that we should give generously, and not be bound by 10% rules;
• Old Testament practice of tithing was in relation to food within Israel only;
• Other offerings were given to God, eg. first fruits, not just tithes;
• No minimum amount was set in giving;
• Levites received tithes but were not allowed to own land;
• There were four tithes - religious/Levitical tithe, feast tithe, poor tithe, and tithe to the ruler;
• The poor did not tithe;
• Tithes were a form of political taxes;
• New Testament did not teach tithing but generosity;
• Church growth happened as church shared everything;
• New Testament teaches cheerful giving, not unwilling calculated giving.

Kelly had a few more points in his list.  Do you believe his exposition, though?

A criticism of tithing was found in Steve West's write-up about the practice of Hillsong.  Apparently, Hillsong is a church that teaches and practices tithing.  The church's leaders and the church consequently rakes in a lot of money, and even then, asks that tax-free concessions that are intended for poorer, struggling churches be applied to them.

But is that church not prosperous because of God's blessing to them?  Is the criticism warranted?  Or is it an abuse that has been exposed?  Is it wrong for church ministers to be financially well-to-do?

What do you think?  What do you believe?  How much are we giving to the Lord through the churches?  Is it 10%?  More?  Less?  How do we be generous back to God, who has blessed us with everything we have and so much more?

Awesome, good

"I once preached a sermon in which I described a recent holiday as 'awesome'.  An earnest student came to me at the end. 'David, only God is awesome,' she said."

These words of David Bracewell in an early edition of "Daily Bread" set me thinking.  What is awesome?  How do we use this word?  Is it an attribute reserved to be used only for God the way "holy" is only reserved for God?  What do you think?  How do you use this word?

The passage reminds me of Jesus' response to the rich young ruler "why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone".  Jesus was not saying that He was not good.  Nor was He saying that "good" is an attribute of God that people cannot claim.  But He did make the point that God is good.  He also used that to point out to his audience that he (and we) are not good enough for eternal life, except that it be given to us by the grace of our good God.

Do you consider yourself to be good?  Do you think you are good enough to deserve eternal life?  Why or why not?  How good do you think is good enough?

What do you think about these attributes?  How do they relate to you?