Video Clip: "LAUGHING WITH" by Regina Spektor

This song made me think. Read the lyrics and then listen to the song.

Lyrics

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’re starving or freezing or so very poor

No one laughs at God
When the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God
When it’s gotten real late
And their kid’s not back from the party yet

No one laughs at God
When their airplane start to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God
When they see the one they love, hand in hand with someone else
And they hope that they’re mistaken

No one laughs at God
When the cops knock on their door
And they say we got some bad news, sir
No one’s laughing at God
When there’s a famine or fire or flood

*Chorus*
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke
God can be funny,
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’ve lost all they’ve got
And they don’t know what for

No one laughs at God on the day they realize
That the last sight they’ll ever see is a pair of hateful eyes
No one’s laughing at God when they’re saying their goodbyes
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke
God can be funny,
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one laughing at God in hospital
No one’s laughing at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God when they’re starving or freezing or so very
poor

No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God
No one’s laughing at God
We’re all laughing with God

Here's the clip - thanks to Youtube

AFRIKAANS POETRY: 25 Junie 2009

25 Junie 2009

Michael Jackson het kom groet.

(Hy sal nou nooit weer sing nie.)

Ek het hom ook nie ontmoet nie

en sal dus nie hulde bring nie.

Sy stem bly ewig klink -

ons gaan aanhou na hom luister –

al was sy lewenspad versink

in die skadu’s van die duister.

Dit was nog altyd of Swart of Wit

of Billie Jean is 'n Riller

voor hy in die skande sit …

Iewers in die wêreld is dit nou stiller.

Michael Jackson laat drie kinders na

wat vir altyd oor hulle pa gaan vra.

***

Sy het ook die stryd verloor.

Haar soektog na ewige roem

het langsamerhand versmoor

in 'n kanker wat mense verdoem.

Sy was Charlie se mooiste Engel

en romanties verbind aan 'n Man van Staal.

Later was haar lewenspad verstrengel

met een wat haar sterfkreet wou vertaal.

Ongelukkig het haar laaste asem

verdwyn in die kameraflitse van skok

oor 'n ander, dooier wasem

wat eerder die kykers gaan lok.

Farah Fawcett is ook dood,

maar Michael het haar van die voorblad af gestoot.

WHAT DO MEN EXPECT FROM CHURCH?

This article was originally published on the website of the Dutch Reformed Church's newspaper (and can be viewed in the original Afrikaans here). Angus Buchan is a Zambian-born farmer from Scottich descent who eventually started farming near Greytown, in Kwazulu Natal. He wrote a book about his experiences on God's provision, which was made into the movie - Faith like potatoes. He also pastors a charismatic church in Greytown, and he holds a yearly gathering for men on his farm, to which around 100,000 men came in 2009.

WHAT DO MEN EXPECT FROM CHURCH?

One can reason until daybreak about the 'Mighty Men-conferences. There are academic questions on the why and how of the gatherings that can keep psychologists and sociologists busy for hours on end. There are theological questions about the message being preached and more specifically the theology of manliness that's being preached. There's also the question of the financial profits. And much more. But: It remains a fact, men find something at these meetings that they don't necessarily get at their own churches.

All over the world people talk about the "disappearing men syndrome," that is men who increasingly leave the church. The modern-day Amos figure, Angus Buchan, is enough to give a local pastor a inferiority comlex for the rest of his life and pushing the congregation's evangelism committee to dissolution. Men go to listen to him in hordes bigger as Daniel or Gideon's.

What is happening here? According to a recent study in Britain 60 percent of men said they do not like flowers or embroidered drapes or table cloths in the church. They do not like holding hands or sitting in a circle where they have to talk about their feelings. The part of the church service they like the most, is the sermon, and they'd like to sing more macho songs such as (Onwards Christian Soldiers," or "How Great Thou Art," or "Amazing Grace." They are tired of sentimental lovey-dovey songs. They don't like churches that are made up to look like a Laura Ashley showroom.

It seems therefore as if the church provide more in the needs of women when it comes to the setting up of the church building as well as the structure of the meetings. Little girls sit during lunch break on the school's steps to share their sandwiches. Boys eat theirs quickly and go play competitive games on the playground. In the church, women can do the same, but what challenges are there for the men?

On the question in the investigation of what sort of activities men enjoy, they answered they like doing stuff in teams, such as organising sport competitions, launching do-it-yourself projects, participate in curry-evenings, go bowling or go out together for a beer or watching sports events together. And they want more purpose, more inner discipline (better defined parameters in which they should stay) to live out their faith, less changes in church services, i.e. more continuity and less sentimentality. They want sermons to challenge them intellectually.

Does this mean a return to and enforcing of the traditional roles of (men are from Mars and women are from Venus?" Not necessarily. But Buchan seems to be doing something right. The church has much to learn from him.

IS EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET IN THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN"?

This is what happens when you think every single thing on the internet falls under the denominator "public domain." Being published on the Internet does NOT mean it's a free-for-all. At least this family didn't find their photo being used to advertise a porn site or something! The article was first published on BBC News. I did not ask BBC's permission to repost their article, as I am not trying to pass it off as my own and I hereby acknoweldge their authorship and copyright. You should therefore go visit their site! Read the article on it's original spot here.

US family turned into advertising

From this family photo in St Louis...

A couple from the United States got a shock when they learned their family photo was being used, unauthorised, on an advertising poster in Prague.

Danielle and Jeff Smith used the photo as their Christmas card, and also posted it on an internet blog.

A friend travelling in the Czech capital alerted them when he spotted the Smiths smiling at him, life-size, from a poster in a supermarket.

The owner of the shop has promised to remove the image.

...to a supermarket advertising poster in Prague

"It's a life-size picture in a grocery store window in Prague - my Christmas card photo!" said a startled Ms Smith, 36, who lives in a suburb of St Louis.

Mario Bertuccio, whose Grazie shop specialises in Italian food imports, said that he thought the image had been computer-generated.

He used it to advertise his shop's grocery delivery service.

When told that it showed a real family, he took steps to remove it.

"We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology," said Mr Bertuccio, adding that if the family had lived locally, he would have offered them a bottle of wine.

The Smiths and the photographer who took the picture, Gina Kelly, say that no permission was sought or given for the photograph to be used.

They said they would add a watermark to any family photos they post in the future.

Cartoon: God, where are you?

Sometimes one just have to be put into perspective with regards to God. We tend to think we are so important and God has to answer all our demands.

We create some sort of a genie in a prayer and base it on the belief that, because we are safe in God's hands, God must hand us everything we want. And if our prayers don't get answered, we get angry and accuse God that He has forsaken us.



Thank you Naked Pastor for the contradictory insight through art to this ill-fated belief.

BOOKS I'M CURRENTLY READING

I went on a little spending spree recently and bought some reading stuff. Now I'm working through them with anticipation of the new stuff I'm going to learn.

Here's what I'm currently reading (obviously not all at once):

* The Blue Parakeet - Scot McKnight
* House Church and Mission - Roger W. Gehring
* Justification, God's plan & Paul's Vision - Tom Wright
* The emotionally healthy church - Peter Scazzero
* Neem, lees! Hoe ons die Bybel hoor en verstaan (Take, Read! How we read and understand the Bible) - Dirkie Smit
* Gereedskap vir geestelike leierskap (Equipment for Religious Leadership) - Braam Hanekom
* John, a Postmodern Gospel - Patrick Chatelion Counet
* From Fast to Feast. A ritual-liturgical exploration of reconciliation in South African cultural contexts - Cas Wepener

Any other recommendations would be welcome!

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CHRISTIAN BLOGGERS

This very insightful blogpost by Michael Patton (writer at Parchment and Pen) provides valuable guidelines on online conduct by Christian bloggers. I truly hope we could all accept his suggestions as code of conduct and adhere to the principles he puts forward. In fact, I'm going to reread this post several times and henceforth stick to its suggestions myself.

What if God Read Your Posts? A Reminder About Christian Conduct on the Internet

~ C Michael Patton ~

I believe that we are to defend the faith. I believe that we are to contend for the faith.�One of my great loves in theology is the discipline of apologetics. But sometimes our zealousness for our faith�can have the opposite effect and actually undermine our witness. We can shame God. What if God read your posts? Wait, God does read your posts.

I am going to be talking about how to engage people in theological issues in general, but this will have particular relevance to how we interact online, especially in blogs.

Before the internet, maybe things were a little�more tame. I don�t know. Maybe people expressed themselves with more caution, more gentleness, more respect. This is not so today. Not by a long shot.�If I was a non-Christian and witnessed how Christians often treat each other in the blogosphere, I would have a natural reaction of disgust.

Today your voice�can be heard by�an unheard of number of people . . . anyone�s voice can. Set your light on a hill. Not only do we have a�bigger hill�to let the Gospel shine brightly, but through blogs, forums, emails, and many other forms of quasi-anonymous venues, we also have the chance to let our sinfulness shine brightly.

The other day I drove up to a stop sign. Another car, just to my left, was pulling up as well. It was one of those times where I was not sure who got there first. Since I was to the right of them, I went ahead and turned. As I went past their car to my left, I could plainly see the two young college boys were not too happy with my presumptuous decision. They were shouting and pointing and looking at me as if I had just crossed the line which kept their self-control at bay. I am not a lip reader, but I could tell that they were calling me names that would have given them time-out in Hell.

I thought about this and wondered whether they would have reacted the same way if we were not in our cars. What if we were just walking and I happened to cut in front of them. I am sure that the reaction would have been much different. Much more cordial and tame.

Why? What an odd people we are. Put up a safety barrier of a car and we will act in a way that dehumanizes one another. We will say things about another person created in the image of God that would never be said in most other contexts. Why not? We will never actually meet this person. It is not as if this person, were we to see them in line at McDonald�s, would come up to us and say �Hey, I am the guy that cut you off at the stop sign. Now what is it you were saying?� Then we would be in trouble.

This is the same context that the internet provides. People say whatever they have on their mind relying on the virtual barrier of cyberspace to protect them.

We must exercise caution. The barrier of the internet does not provide us with a black megaphone named �Judge Dredd.�

Here are some principles that I aspire to live by while interacting online, especially in this blog:

1. Never say anything to someone online that you would not say in face to face. (2 Cor. 10:10-11)

2. Don�t take things too personally. Understand that many people are insecure and will interact with violent resolve to shield their insecurity. (Prov. 16:18)

3. Don�t take things too personally, but realize that some of the things we may need to hear. (Prov. 27:6)

4. Don�t respond immediately. Give yourself some time. Rash reactions are like drops of blood. Once the shark smells it, he will attack for the kill. (Prov. 12:18)

5. Interact with great humility. Go out of your way to recognize the right things that are said before you respond to the attacks. (Prov. 15:1)

6. Recognize that while you are separated from the other person by cyber-space, there is no space that can separate you from God. (Ps. 139:7-9; Matt. 12:36)

7. Remember that virtual interactions have real people on the other end. These people are created in God�s image. Whether believers or not, they are like God. Who are we to curse someone created in the image of God? (Jam. 3:8-9)

8. Shower your response with biblical truth, but don�t shove the Bible down people�s throats. This can come across and arrogant and sloppy. Be tactful and sensitive to the context of the situation. Often, people do not avoid the Bible, they just avoid you with a Bible in your hands. (Eph. 4:29)

9. Don�t be a people pleaser. You will never satisfy everyone all the time. Speak what needs to be said without fear of reprisal from some particular group that you are trying to please. This is particularly hard for me. Sometimes when I write, I write to the donors of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. Sometimes I shape it for the legacy of Dallas Theological Seminary. Sometimes there are particular people (other bloggers) that I am fond of that I don�t want to hurt or disappoint. There is a fine line between being sensitive to an audience�and compromise to an agenda. (Gal. 1:10)

10. If you are going to take people to task, rarely do this in a public forum. Contact them personally and try to resolve the situation. Don�t use people as a public punching bag. (Matt. 18:15)

Our Attitude

Now I want to take this one step further in talking about our attitude. In my opinion, one cannot underestimate the importance of having the right attitude. Chuck Swindoll says that life is about one-percent what happens to you and ninety-nine percent how we respond—attitude.

I often talk about the importance of having an irenic approach to doing theology. It would seem that this term, �irenic� is suffering because of its overuse and misidentification with those who would choose to abuse it. To be irenic means that we are peaceful in our approach to issues. This does not involve compromise, but a willingness to engage issues fairly.

Here are some of the characteristics to being irenic in theological conversation and controversy:

• You accurately represent all theological positions, even when you strongly oppose them.
• Your tone of engagement comes from a humble respectful attitude.
• Your primary goal is not to win an argument, but to contribute to understanding.
• Your defense of your position recognizes that strengths of the opposing side.
• You are gentle.

Here are two important Scripture references concerning how we are to engage in theological discussion irenically:

2 Timothy 2:24 �The Lord�s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.�

Notice the key phrases:

• �not be quarrelsome�
• �kind to all�
• �patient when wronged�
• �with gentleness correcting�

This describes the irenic method of theological engagement.

1 Peter 3:15 �But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.�

Notice a few things about this passage:

• The context has to do with a believer �suffering for righteousness�
• We are to give an answer (apologetic) to those who ask
• This is to be done with gentleness
• This is to be done with respect

Many of us only hear the first part of the verse �give an defense,� and upon this we justify our apologetic polemic ready to destroy, slander, or misrepresent any who disagree with what we believe to be the truth. We fail to recognize that this defense, in this context, is to be given to people �who ask.� This is requested information based upon a life of integrity in the midst of our suffering. As well, this defense is to be done irenically�with gentleness and respect.

I can hear the �what abouts� coming. And in the spirit of this post let me tell you how stupid you are for questioning my . . . ahem . . . Ok, let�s deal with them.

There seems to be examples in the Scripture where the prophets, apostles, and even Christ did not engage irenically. In other words, they often seemed to engage people with a fierce resolve, respecting the truth more than the person with whom there is conflict. I admit this is true. I also admit that there are times when such polemics are important. But we need to look at the context in which this type of polemic is brought about.

1. Should we defending the faith like Christ cleansed the temple?

We often think we should speak with the authority of Christ. In defense of our attitude we will appeal to Christ�s attitude toward the pharisees or his cleansing the temple. But to refer to the example of Christ in these instances can be problematic seeing as how Christ�s actions are not always intended to set examples for us. I know this sounds off, but think about it. He worked great miracles in order to demonstrate his unique authority, he engaged people with a divine introspection knowing their thoughts, motives, and intentions, and he was the ultimate divine judge who has every right to judge all people. As well, this was not the modus operandi of Christ. Do you ever notice that he was only polemic in such a way to the self-righteous who arrogantly believed they had all the answers and were a step above all the rest?

2. Defending the faith like Paul encountered the Galatians.

Many times we will appeal to Paul�s example. His polemics, especially to the Galatians, are used to defend our own less than gracious encounters. But this has problems as well.

First, Paul was an apostle who carried the authority of an apostle. Being such, he had both divine authority and the divine ability to speak to a situation with infallible guidance. This is something that most of us we cannot claim. Can we?

Second, Paul primarily only spoke in such a way to those who were under his authority. He was their leader and had the right and obligation as their leader to engage them in a candid way. He was their pastor. Pastor�s can and sometimes should speak in such a manner to their flock.

Third, like Christ, Paul did not always engage people in such a way. In fact, as noted above, the encouraged his people to be gracious, humble, and respectful in all their dealing with those with whom there is disagreement. In 1 Thess 2:7 he describes his own ministry as one of gentleness, comparing it to a mother caring for her children.

Sadly, it often seems as if there are people out there who not only think they are an apostle, but also think that they are talking to their own congregation. Some even seem to enjoy polemical engagement in an unhealthy manner. In fact, I think that a lot of ministries would not know what to do if they did not have someone to fight.

Sadly, many times this attitude is found more in my own conservative Calvinistic circles than in any other. For this I am sorry and ashamed. Sometimes Calvinists often make the worst Calvinists . But, of course, it can be found in any group. Baptists have a knack for it. Even emergers can display the most angered, discounting, and arrogant spirit that I have ever seen. What about politics? Ahem . . .

Why do we sometimes act this way?

I am not sure.

Maybe its because we are so confident in the particulars of our faith that we feel we have the right to shout the loudest. We have the greatest message. We feel our polemic will force the truth into the mind of those who oppose.

Or . . .

Maybe we think that we have to set an example of the truth to those who are listening from the outside. Like in a debate, we don�t really think we are going to convert our opponent, but we hope to solidify our position among those who are listening.

Or . . .

Maybe it is because we are so insecure in our position that we think the louder we are the more true our words are. As I tell students, if you are not confident about what you are saying, you can first speak deeper, second speak louder. And if both of these don�t work, speak with a British accent!! In truth, I have found that the most fundamentally uninformed folk believers are often the most polemically militant because they, deep down, don�t really know why they believe what they believe. Their only recourse is not a gentle engagement, but a raised voice.

What part of gentleness and respect don�t we understand?

I am certainly not perfect with this issue. Believe me. This is self-therapy. Awww . . . aren�t I humble? Let us all try to be more gentle, humble, and respectful when defending the faith. In earnestly contending for the faith, let us be irenic.

For those of you who will respond to this by posting with a sawed off shot loaded with your favorite Scripture, take you proof-texting and shove them . . . Ahem . . . Please deal with the Scriptures in such a way that takes into account their context.

Remember, God does read your posts (and mine).

ANOTHER CHURCH ACCEPTS BELHAR

Although there is a very long way still to go, the Christian Reformed Church of North America voted at their synod meeting this week to start the process of adopting the Belhar Confession as fourth doctrinal creed in 2012.

This significant development from a theologically more concervative reformed denomination is presenting mounting evidence that the Belhar Confession is indeed much bigger than a political struggle between political foes in South Africa, and should be taken seriously.

My own denomination, the Dutch Reformed Church, is very far from adopting Belhar as confessional creed. If taken in consideration that all the other churches, who accepted the validity of Belhar as confessional creed, took 20 years or longer to reach the point of accepting it, there could still be a change in the views of DRC members and clergy.

Perhaps we in the NGK should start asking why churches outside of our context see this document as a valid confession of faith? Perhaps we could start by reading the thing and speaking to ordinary members of the Uniting Reformed Church about why they view it as a confession of their faith? And, perhaps, we could listen to them instead of looking for hidden political motives?

DAILY INSPIRATION

1. Wake Up!! Decide to have a good day. "Today is the day the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." Psalms 118:24

2. Dress Up!! The best way to dress up is to put on a smile. A smile is an inexpensive way to improve your looks. "The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at outward appearance; but the Lord looks at the heart." I Samuel 16:7

3. Shut Up!! Say nice things and learn to listen. God gave us two ears and one mouth, so He must have meant for us to do twice as much listening as talking. "He who guards his lips guards his soul." Proverbs 13:3

4. Stand Up!!... For what you believe in. Stand for something or you will fall for anything.. "Let us not be weary in doing good; for at the proper time, we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good..." Galatians 6:9-10

5. Look Up!!... To the Lord.
"I can do everything through Christ who strengthens me." Phillippians 4:13

6. Reach Up!!... For something higher. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, And He will direct your path."
Proverbs 3:5-6

7. Lift Up!!... Your Prayers.
"Do not worry about anything; instead PRAY ABOUT EVERYTHING."
Philippians 4:6

MARRIAGE UNDER ATTACK? NO - EXTREME FUNDAMENTALISM IS!

I should warn you from the outset that the following video clip is quite disturbing. No, it doesn't contain graphic images or swear words and pornography - or something of the sort. It is disturbing because of the way the clip is attacking the Biblical premises of marriage and if you are fundamentalistic in your view of Scripture, you will be affronted.

But then ... this clip was made by the people who also operate the website for Landover Baptist Church. This "church" doesn't exist. The site, however, is a satirical look at fundamentalism's abuse of Scripture and how it creates a loveless religion and caricature of what Jesus really came to do. Take a look here.

The video clip struck me on the level of how their satirical misquoting of Scripture - taken from its Scriptural context, stripped from its cultural context and intepreted to suit the satirical purposes of questioning the church's opposition to gay marriage - is exactly the same thing fundamentalist Christians do when they proof-text the Bible for their own miserable purposes.

NO PUN INTENDED

Thanks again to WeeJee of the website Life is a Cheese Curl.

COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL IN YOUR OWN CONTEXT

I'm not going to try and claim originality in finding this blog writer's article. That honour belongs to Matt Stone, who first expanded here on the original thoughts of David Sills. But I'm going to repost David's post here - with his permission - for you to read and think about. You can find it in it's original place here.

Reclaiming Contextualization

New missionaries often struggle to communicate God’s Word faithfully to other cultures—or at least they should. Some cultures have seven primary colors, others recognize only four, and some only have the ideas of shiny and dull. Given these realities, how would you translate Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” in a culture that doesn’t have scarlet, white, red, snow or wool? Which word best describes Jesus going to Emmaus, or Jesus walking on water in Zulu which has 120 words for walking? The Malagasy-speaking peoples of Madagascar distinguish over 200 kinds of noises and recognize over 100 colors. One missionary in the Congo consistently used a phrase for “crying out” to describe John the Baptist or the Old Testament prophets until one day he discovered that this referred to the kind of crying that little babies did in their cribs.

We must acknowledge that faithfully rendering God’s Word in another culture and language is not an easy task. Preachers and missionaries must continually strive to communicate the gospel so their hearers may understand the message and embrace Christ as their only hope of salvation. Effective gospel communicators take into consideration their cultural context, especially when preaching to the unreached or unchurched. Today, a controversial debate, pitting brother against brother, is brewing, and threatens to boil over. John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and others speak of contextualization negatively and believe that it obscures the gospel. Mark Driscoll and others advocate what they call contextualization as the only way to make the gospel relative to people today. Unfortunately, the rhetoric swirls around the use of foul language and sexual references in the pulpit. The result is an inaccurate use of the term contextualization that threatens this essential tool of Christian communicators.

When someone argues that Paul never contextualized the gospel and so they do not either, it is obvious that someone has redefined the term contextualization. They have labeled the other extreme’s use of foul language or sexual themes in sermons as contextualization, and have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The reality is that these very detractors contextualize every Sunday. They preach in English, not Greek or Hebrew, they wear suits and ties, not robes or togas, and they illustrate their sermons with modern life, not from daily life of ancient biblical times. If we forbid contextualization as a threat to the gospel, we will be allowing ourselves the luxury of having something that our hearers may never have—a gospel that they can understand. When detractors of contextualization travel, even then they “contextualize” by eating available local foods, using the national currency, or driving on the left hand side of the road. When they preach or teach those with lower levels of academic attainment, they simplify the same sermon that they preached to a more advanced congregation back home.

The problem is not the practice of contextualization; it is a misunderstanding of what the word means. Some mistakenly believe that contextualization means making Christianity look just like the culture. However, contextualization is simply the process of making the gospel understood. The only reason to utilize filthy language or to reference explicit sexual behavior would be if the local culture communicated used filthy language in every conversation so much that no message would make sense without it. Television programs without such language would require subtitles for them, as they would not understand the message without filthy language and sexual anecdotes.

Of course, this is not the case. In fact, much of what many call contextualization is simply an effort to be trendy and edgy. It may be effective, it may attract a hearing, it may not be offensive to the hearers, but that is not contextualization; that is marketing. When these brothers are invited to preach in a traditional church or conference where all the other preachers wear coats and ties, they often refuse to “fit in” and insist on T-shirts, jeans, flip flops or sneakers. They hope to communicate that they are not “your dad’s old preacher” but rather they are in step with the culture.

However, several truths are at work here. While suits and ties are not biblical, in certain venues they communicate respect for God’s Word and God’s presence. In another cultural context, a guayabera shirt could do the same, or even the casual clothes that they prefer. However, when they wear inappropriate clothing in another’s worship context, they communicate the opposite and seem disrespectful. When they utilize what many consider filthy language in their home ministries, they may make a case that it is the most appropriate and effective. However, when they communicate in a national forum—print or preaching—they are no longer in their home context and such language is inappropriate. I

t should not surprise them that it is both offensive and ineffective. What kind of language and ministry communicates respect for God’s Word, recognizes His presence, and honors Him in how we worship? In one culture, suits and ties may be necessary while in another Hawaiian shirts may communicate the same. Among Anabaptist brethren, beards may be seen as essential for godly men. However, they must make some adjustment when contextualizing the gospel among many indigenous people who cannot grow facial hair. Some Christian traditions prefer to worship God by singing metrical psalms, but their missionaries must make adjustments or risk communicating that this is the only way to worship God. Both sides of this burgeoning debate have sound theology, but they are presenting it in radically different ways. One defends controversial methods by citing the need to contextualize. The other responds by saying that contextualization is not only unnecessary, it is offensive, dishonoring to God, and brings reproach on biblical ministry.

Sadly, none of the players in this ongoing, very public debate seems to understand the term. The resulting controversy and side-taking has led many to agree with their favorite in the fight and to embrace irresponsible “contextualization” or to reject the notion of contextualization altogether. Paul wrote in Romans 10:13-15 that all who call on the Lord may be saved and then went on to ask a series of questions that point out the importance of hearing the gospel for salvation. Ultimately, he asked, “How shall they hear?” It would be pointless to preach the gospel in English to monolingual Mandarin speakers. Instead, we must preach the gospel in culturally appropriate ways that are faithful to God’s Word. Years ago, another controversy surrounded this idea of contextualization. One camp argued that the local cultures should be allowed to determine what the content of the gospel should be and what Christianity should look like. The other side rightly argued that the Bible speaks to all cultures and is over them—informing all cultures and informed by none. No culture may change the gospel or any biblical instruction because they think it would be culturally preferable to do so.

Yet, effective gospel communicators must take into account the target culture as they preach the gospel. Because no missionary or preacher would ever want to change the gospel message in any way, many shrink back from the hard work of contextualization. However, if you do not contextualize, you are doing just that—changing the gospel. You become a modern-day Judaizer. You are in effect telling your hearers that they must become like you to be saved. While we do not want to remove the skandalon of the gospel, we do not want to add to the gospel our extrabiblical requirements.

I have written elsewhere of a humble, illiterate indigenous believer in Peru who feared for her salvation because she had always been taught that literacy was required for church membership. She equated this with salvation and believed that her inability to read would send her to hell when she died. When missionaries, and preachers, seek to contextualize the gospel, they may wonder how far is far enough and how far is too far. Paul gives us those guidelines. He wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 that he made adjustments in every lawful way so as to relate the gospel to his hearers in ways they could understand. He also gave the parameters in verse 23 where he wrote, “I do it all for the sake of the gospel.” The glory of God and reverence for His revelation should guide us in the limits of contextualization so that we never say or do anything that would bring reproach on Him or alter the gospel message. The goal of contextualization is to be culturally relevant and faithful to God’s Word.

Cultural relativism is another misunderstood term that helps us understand the process of contextualization. When secular anthropologists study cultures, they often see them as silos, distinct from others and as a universe in themselves. With such a mindset, they say that the culture that kills the second twin is not committing murder if the culture does not see it as such. This perspective is often called cultural relativism since these secular anthropologists believe that no culture can be fairly compared to another. Obviously, Christians do not embrace such nonsense; there is a God who has clearly communicated what is sin and what is not in every culture—no matter what the local culture may think. However, in the extrabiblical matters, those aspects of life that God does not address with moral import, we have freedom. All things being equal, it is not more or less sinful to live in a house made of wood, bricks, bamboo, or mud. Nor does it matter to God whether we wear leather shoes, tennis shoes, wooden shoes, or no shoes. We can enter other cultures and communicate the gospel in ways that they can readily understand, making the adjustments that are necessary for them to “hear it”—especially regarding extrabiblical matters.

Aspects that missionaries should contextualize include language, music style, musical instruments, and clothing style. Contextualization adjusts extrabiblical aspects in response to the culture; the message never changes. The term glocalization refers to the ways that multinational corporations carry on the same business in many countries but with subtly nuanced changes. McDonalds still sells hamburgers in Malaysia but the girls behind the counter wear their little paper hats on top of their head-coverings and they call their product “beefburgers,” not hamburgers, to avoid offending the Muslims who would never eat ham. We don’t eat ham on our burgers either, but the culturally offensive name prevents Muslims from getting near enough to find that out. It is the exact same product but clothed in a culturally sensitive form. Contextualization is essential, not simply trendy or stylish, and it does not water down Christ’s message.

Critical contextualization provides the needed balance. On one hand, failure to contextualize at all adds extrabiblical requirements to salvation. On the other hand, allowing the culture to contextualize with no theological or biblical limits results in syncretism and aberrant expressions of Christianity. Preaching the gospel to people with a pagan worldview results in confusion. Preaching John 3:16 to a people who worship a tree or stars or ancestors with no biblical understanding of sin may result in a show of hands at the invitation, but they will not have understood the gospel and need for Christ.

Many missionaries provide a biblical worldview by teaching the grand narrative of God’s revelation through chronological Bible story telling. Some detractors of contextualization believe that we need only preach the gospel as we do back “home,” and this will be sufficient. However, in matriarchal societies, for instance, the mother is the most important figure. Women run the home, serve as rulers, and inherit from their female family members. If the father is even known, he is viewed as a biological necessity and not as an important person in life. When there is an important male figure, it will be the mother’s brother. How will we present the gospel here? Without studying to know the culture to contextualize the gospel, a sermon on God the Father would leave the hearers with a deficient view of God. In such cases, should we allow the culture to contextualize at will and preach God the Mother? Or, should we strike a compromise and preach God the Uncle? Of course, none of these would result in a biblical understanding of the gospel.

The missionary preacher who has studied the culture must recognize the challenges and teach the culture the biblical view of God as Father. While such a practice flies in the face of modern anthropology, it is the biblical approach to properly contextualizing the gospel and Christianity among a people. This is where the hermeneutical community brings the needed balance. As the believers in a culture have come to know the Lord, they join the preacher in studying the Bible to know how to contextualize it among them. Too many missionaries in the past have gone to both extremes, allowing sinful behaviors or forbidding neutral practices in cultures they did not understand. The discipled nationals can see sin that the missionary is unaware of and may never see, and they bring this cultural knowledge to the table.

The theologically educated missionary can bring the parameters that 2,000 years of theological and biblical reflection provide—the fence around the process. Together the missionaries and the discipled nationals will find God-honoring, biblically faithful, and culturally appropriate expressions of Christianity for the culture. When studying a passage of Scripture, and how it comes to bear on a cultural practice, the hermeneutical community will see areas needing change and find functional substitutes to address the needs.

A truth in human interaction is “you cannot not communicate.” This awkward construction emphasizes that all our messages are interpreted and assigned meanings by the receiver. Failure to consider the local worldview and culture results in miscommunication. This is easily seen when a missionary asks a Hindu if he wants to be born again or have eternal life. The Hindu believes that he is trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnations and wants to cease his endless rebirths. The Hindu spurns the missionary’s invitation and he chalks it up to a hard heart. In fact, the hearer was interpreting the missionary’s message in a culture and worldview that the missionary did not take into account.

To effectively communicate among culturally diverse others, we must learn their cultures and contextualize the gospel among them. When the preacher or missionary does not understand the culture, language, or rules of the game in a society, his presentation of the gospel is often offensive for all the wrong reasons. When hearers reject the cultural misfit who does not understand them or their cultural heritage, they also reject the gospel without even knowing it. The current debate between dear brothers in Christ—each of whom is defending what he believes to be the responsible approach to preaching the gospel—could be left for them to sort out since it need not involve us. However, the debate has grown beyond their two camps and is not happening in a corner; increasing numbers are listening, choosing sides, and shaping their own ministries to mimic their chosen champion.

Undoubtedly, the edgy language proponents push the limits of preaching and influence demographic segments of the USA population that desperately need the gospel while the other side wants to preserve the sanctity of the gospel and pulpit ministry. An East African proverb states, “When two elephants fight, the grass gets hurt.” Similarly, there are potential victims in this current struggle that are at risk, and we dare not overlook the danger. One is the pure gospel message. I am not arguing for the merits of presenting the gospel by using what my Bible-belt upbringing would call foul and filthy language. Neither am I jumping on a bandwagon going to the other extreme and pretending that the way I preach the gospel and what I wear when I do so ought to be fine for the entire world.

My concern is presenting the gospel in culturally sensitive ways that are faithful to God’s Word. When the gospel is offensive for the wrong reasons, many people will reject it without ever hearing and understanding it. Another potential victim is the unity that Christ called us to maintain. Jesus said that this testimony of unity would proclaim to the world that the Father sent Him and loves us. (John 17:23) A final potential victim is the missiological method of critical contextualization. Preachers and missionaries must present the gospel in culturally appropriate ways or people will never understand the gospel message Christ sent us to proclaim.

As I taught on the exclusivity of the gospel in the Andean community of San Agustín, the elderly brother who invited me asked about his parents and grandparents. He explained that they believed in traditional religions and the syncretism of animism with Catholicism. Although their small village did not have a priest, one would come once a year or so to perform a mass. He told me that everything was in Latin and that his parents did not even speak Spanish, much less Latin. Then he asked me what happened to his parents when they died. “Where did they go?” I humbly explained that as I understand God’s Word, they did not go to heaven if they had not heard the gospel and been born again. He thought for a moment and responded, “I believe that those priests will have a lot to answer for one day.” I felt so superior and vindicated until God brought to my mind on my drive back home how many times I had preached the gospel in ways that made sense to me with little thought as to how well the people were understanding my message.

Of course, we must contextualize the gospel message so that our hearers can properly understand it. Shame on us if we ever debate that. The current debate may be over marketing techniques but let us never sacrifice the necessity of critical contextualization.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: John Wesley

I got this quote through a tweet posted by Frank Viola. We should listen closely!

"An ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge."
~ John Wesley

THE CASE AGAINST FUNDAMENTALIST BLOGGERS WHO INTENTIONALLY MISQUOTE THEIR OPPONENTS

One of the three ethical issues I have increasing problems with, is the way Christians propagate inaccurate information by spreading mass emails and text messages as if it is the truth. While it is fairly good to include your friends in a prayer request or emails concerning religious issues, it is another matter to forward messages that aren't conclusively true. I wrote about this previously, see here.

There also is a second, even more serious, ethical issue: Christians who misquote writers or speakers and then using these misquotations to attack their integrity. While a person should be willing to accept responsibility for his/her remarks, it is a quite different story to be quoted by somebody else - intentionally out of its original context - to convey a different impression of what was actually said. A point in case is the uproar in America about pres Obama's Supreme Court nominee, who apparently implied she has more wisdom than a white man because she is a Hispanic woman. In the mean time, she said she understand the issues of Hispanic people better than white men as she herself is Hispanic in the same way they, as white men, will understand white people's issues better than herself.

A more serious concern than quotation in American politics is the sudden proliferation of so-called Christian apologetic bloggers that attack fellow Christians who hold other views than their own. It seems the amount of hate speech construed under the guise of defending biblical truth - by showing how the church gets infiltrated by the devil through viewpoints held by Christian authors and speakers - is exploding on the internet. This movement gets its energy from attacking public figures and pastors and quoting them in such a way that it sounds as if they said a certain subversive thing - almost demonical, while as a matter of fact they actually said something quite different.

Let me provide you with an example: On the blog "Waak en Bid" (Watch and Pray) this now infamous blogger wrote a critique on an article published by Hennie Stander – editor of the Afrikaans magazine Maksiman and lecturer at the University of Pretoria, that was published here. He quoted Stander to show how Stander propagated accepting a worldly approach to peace. Apparently Stander said we should accept the reaction of a worker, who burned down his employer's house in an act of revenge, as normal and acceptable. Said Blogger even quoted from the blog that Stander said this is normal behavior, to make his dismay more clearly.

On the surface it would indeed seem that Hennie Stander said people should take revenge on other people. The Blogger, Thomas Lessing, is therefore quite correct in admonishing him.

Now, let us read what Stander wrote:

"Dit is nogal iets wat ’n mens moet onthou, naamlik dat vrede nie maklik of goedkoop is nie. Dit vra altyd groot opoffering en ’n duur prys. Die rede is doodgewoon omdat vrede ’n onnatuurlike reaksie is. Dit is meer gewoon of natuurlik om byvoorbeeld wraak te neem. Ek sien juis dat ’n werker in Johannesburg hierdie week sy werkgewer se huis (wat in ’n goeie buurt gestaan het) afgebrand het omdat hy gereken het dat hy benadeel is. Dit is ’n natuurlike reaksie om so op te tree."

Translated into English it reads:

"It is something that we should always remember, and that is peace does not come easily or cheap. It always asks a huge sacrifice and an expensive price. The reason is actually becaus peace is an unnatural reaction. It is more ordinary or natural for example to take revenge. I saw this week that a worker in Johannesburg burned down his employer's house (in a nice neighbourhood) becaused he felt wronged. This is a natural reaction to act in this way."

Stander actually never said revenge is the standard with which a person should act. It is quite clear that he propagates striving for peace as something that is hard work as it doesn't come naturally to people. Revenge, by contrast, is a more natural human reaction.

Stander's remarks are theologically quite correct, as the Bible teaches we naturally tend to adhere to the urges of our sinful nature and as new creation in Christ we should do the things that stand in opposition to our old being.

Now enters a blog writer who makes his living by continuously attacking the integrity of public South African theologians, by reacting on every possible publication as the newest evidence of the writer's new-age heresy. By intentionally misconstruing the remarks made by prof Stander, he succeeds in making it sound that it said something quite different in order to fit the argument which he is putting forth: Hennie Stander is promoting ideas that stand in contrast with Biblical teaching.

This amounts to slander.

This is also contrary to what the Bible teaches about Christians speaking the truth in love.

And it causes people who could have been reached for Christ, to cringe away from a loveless, hate-spewing religion as the message being communicated by these intentional misquoting of other Christians in order to attack their integrity, is that all Christians are like this. In my humble opinion this is to play with rules that were set by the devil himself: spread half-truths by destroying character and good intentions and you will never reach the unsaved for Christ!

Well, not all Christians are like this.

We don't hate people who differ from us in Scripture interpretation. We don't kill off other Christians' integrity by intentionally and constantly attacking their views while implying their views are heretical or demonic. We don't purposefully take brothers and sisters in Christ's remarks from its original context to make it sound different so we can conclusively prove they are subverting the faith and leading other Christians astray. And we don't make it our mission to commit character murder by spreading slanderous half-truths about our fellow Christian leaders, mentors, establishments or thinkers.

If I were a nonbeliever, searching for God, and I started my quest by reading these emails, blogs or even comments on other bloggers' sites, I would run away very far and very fast from anything Christian.