The Gospel in All Its Forms

Like God, the gospel is both one and more than that.
by Tim Keller

The gospel has been described as a pool in which a toddler can wade and yet an elephant can swim. It is both simple enough to tell to a child and profound enough for the greatest minds to explore. Indeed, even angels never tire of looking into it (1 Peter 1:12). Humans are by no means angels, however, so rather than contemplating it, we argue about it.

A generation ago evangelicals agreed on "the simple gospel": (1) God made you and wants to have a relationship with you, (2) but your sin separates you from God. (3) Jesus took the punishment your sins deserved, (4) so if you repent from sins and trust in him for your salvation, you will be forgiven, justified, and accepted freely by grace, and indwelt with his Spirit until you die and go to heaven.

There are today at least two major criticisms of this simple formulation. Many say that it is too individualistic, that Christ's salvation is not so much to bring individual happiness as to bring peace, justice, and a new creation. A second criticism is that there is no one "simple gospel" because "everything is contextual" and the Bible itself contains many gospel presentations that exist in tension with each other.

No single gospel message?
Let's take the second criticism first. The belief that there is no single basic gospel outline in the Bible goes back at least to the Tubingen school of biblical scholarship, which insisted Paul's gospel of justification was sharply different from Jesus' gospel of the kingdom. In the 20th century, British professor C.H. Dodd countered that there was one consensus gospel message in the Bible. Then, in turn, James Dunn argued in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977) that the gospel formulations in the Bible are so different that we can't come up with a single outline.

Now hundreds of websites of young Christian leaders complain that the older evangelical church spent too much time reading Romans rather than Jesus' declaration that "the kingdom of God is at hand." But to be true to first-century Christians' own understanding of the gospel, I believe we must side with Dodd over Dunn. Paul is emphatic that the gospel he presents is the same as the one preached by the Jerusalem apostles. "Whether it was I or they," Paul says, referring to Peter and the others, "so we preached and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:10-11). This statement assumes a single body of gospel content.

One gospel, many forms
So yes, there must be one gospel, yet there are clearly different forms in which that one gospel can be expressed. This is the Bible's own way of speaking of the gospel, and we should stick with it. Paul is an example. After insisting there is only one gospel (Gal. 1:8), he then speaks of being entrusted with "the gospel of the uncircumcised" as opposed to the "gospel of the circumcised" (Gal. 2:7).

READ ON!

Seeing is Believing

“What is it this time?” asked Abba Ah Beng as senior disciple Ah Kow dragged junior disciple Ah Lek into his meditation cell. “Why are you interrupting my meditation on the gospel of John?”

“I caught this thief stealing food from the kitchen,” shouted Ah Kow, “he must be punished. Greedy pig!”

“Ah Lek, what have you to say for yourself?” asked Abba Ah Beng, his serenity of biblical meditation shattered.

Silence. Ah Lek just looked at the ground.

“Young man, tell me the truth. Are you stealing food from the kitchen?”

Again silence.

“Go to your cell and stay there for three days! You will only have water but no food. You will confess and fast and pray for forgiveness” Abba Ah Beng ordered.

One week later, Ah Kow spotted Ah Lek sneaking out of the kitchen window with a bag of roast beef. “Gotcha,” Ah Kow thought to himself as he followed Ah Lek at a distance. “Where are you going? I’m gonna catch you with food in your mouth”

Ah Lek walked briskly to the village. It was a cold winter evening. Reaching the edge of the village, he looked fugitively around before ducking into a small hut. He was there for an hour before he came out. A pretty young girl came to the door and waved goodbye to him. Watching from behind a bush, Ah Kow’s jaw dropped to the ground.

“Is this true? Senior disciple said you are keeping a mistress in the village. Tell me the truth or I will expel you.” Abba Ah Beng’s face was turning a crimson red as he struggled to keep his temper. The other disciples cowered in the background.

Silence. Ah Lek continued to look at the ground.

“Go to your cell until I decide what to do with you! You are a disgrace to our community”

That night, Abba Ah Beng cannot find peace as he tried to meditate. His soul was in turmoil. He dressed and went to the house by the village. He knocked on the door. A pretty young girl opened the door. “Abba sir. I had wanted to come to see you but my father is very sick and I cannot leave his side. He is a strong man but he fell down last month . Now he cannot move his arms and legs. Your disciple is very kind to bring food for us. I have planned to come to thank you personally when my father is better.”

Abba Ah Beng looked into the shack through the door and saw a shrunken paralysed man lying on the bed. Compassion filled his heart and he felt a strong stirring of the Holy Spirit. Abba Ah Beng strode to the bed and commanded, “In the Name of Jesus be well!” The man sunken on the bed blinked as he felt strength returning to his limbs.

“Ah Lek, why didn’t you tell us you are helping this sick man and his daughter?” Abba Ah Beng said, facing all his disciples in the chapel the next morning.

“I..I didn’t think I should. Didn’t Jesus teach that in works of charity, do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing?” stammered Ah Lek.

“I do not think Jesus meant it so literally. It will be confusing if your right and left hand do not know what each is doing. He means we must not boast about our good deeds. At times you have to let others know or it may be misinterpreted. You could have been expelled.”

Turning to Ah Kow, Abba Ah Beng said, “And why are you so quick to judge your brother disciple? You see him stealing food and think he is a greedy pig. You see a girl and think he is having a mistress. In your mind, you have already judged him guilty before you give him a chance to prove his innocence. I wish you will have the love to judge your brother innocent unless proven otherwise.”

“Or better still don’t judge at all,” Abba Ah Beng turning to the rest of the disciples, “ Jesus said ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’ Next time, think carefully before you cast the first stone.”.

more Abba Ah Beng stories

A Study of Islam for Christians in Malaysia

I always have the conviction that Christians should know more about Islam, the religion of the majority of their neighbours in Malaysia.

Anglican Rev. Albert Sundararaj Walters, Vicar of the Parish of St. Peter, Kuala Lumpur has just written such a book. He starts with a general survey of Islam in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Then he narrows his focus to issues between Christians and Muslims in Malaysia and concludes with some bridge building strategies.

you can order his books by writing to him at albertwalters@gmail.com




ISBN 978-983-43378-1-0 No. of pages: 428
Publisher: Council of Churches of Malaysia Year: 2007
Price: RM35.00 US$15 GBP£12 (postage & packaging extra)

KNOWING OUR NEIGHBOUR:
A STUDY OF ISLAM FOR CHRISTIANS IN MALAYSIA


CONTENTS

PART ONE
THE ISLAMIC FAITH: A SHORT INTRODUCTION
1 Arabia before Islam: Geographical and Human Setting
2 Prophet Muhammad and the Early Muslim Community
3 The Expansion of Islam
4 Christians under Islamic Rule
5 The Quran and the Hadith
6 Doctrines of the Islamic Faith
7 The Five Pillars of Islam
8 Islamic Law and Sunni Schools of Fiqh
9 The Emergence of Sunni Theology
10 Sufism: Development, Thought and Practice
11 Islamic Personal and Communal Life
12 Status of Woman in Islam
13 Modern Islamic Movements


PART TWO
MALAYSIA: THE MELTING POT
14 Islam in Southeast Asia
15 The Introduction and Spread of Islam in Malaysia
16 Malaysia: The Context
17 Islamic Resurgence and Islamisation in Malaysia
18 Christians Respond to Islamisation


PART THREE
CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS
19 Christian Attitudes to Islam
20 Muslim Perceptions of Christianity
21 Christians and Muslims in Malaysia
22 The Church in Malaysia: Issues and Challenges
23 Building Bridges: Celebrating Diversity

The Church And "Para-Church"

In an illuminating discussion on the meaning of laity and clergy, Paul Stevens wrote, “Clergy must be liberated by laity from having the impossible task of representing the entire ministry of the church. Laity must be liberated from becoming clergy assistants to discover and embrace their own ministry. Pastors then become assistants to the rest of the people of God. This mutual liberation must be a ministry of love, not rebellion.”

Check out the Lausanne document on “The Relationship between Church and Para-Church Organizations”. In this paper, I try to describe a Para-church Organization I am a member of, namely Graduate Christian Fellowship, indicating its origin, reason for existence, particular emphases, and the way it relates to the church generally, suggesting how both the Para-church Organization and the Church can learn from the Lausanne recommendations that can enable them to function more harmoniously together and achieve their objectives more effectively. Views expressed are entirely the author's alone.

Hospitable Society

Feasting and care for the poor have been polarized in contemporary culture. If you’re a “conservative,” you’re in favor of free trade, consumption without guilt, festivity without concern for those who can’t join you, who probably deserve their poverty anyway. If you’re a “liberal,” you renounce festivity because other people are hungry and how dare you eat when someone else isn’t.

The Biblical prophets combine a promise of festivity with severe denunciation of greed, luxury, and oppression. But they combine the two seamlessly by emphasizing hospitality. The promise is a feast like the feasts of the Pentateuch, where the widow, stranger, and Levite are not forgotten but included as welcome guests.

Against both “conservative” indifference and liberal asceticism, the Bible presents the ideal of the hospitable society.

- Peter Leithart

Apakah alam semesta itu kekal adanya? Atau memiliki asal-muasal?

Translate: English

Beberapa orang percaya bahwa alam semesta ini kekal adanya dan tidak memiliki suatu asal-muasal. Teori matematika memungkinkan suatu jumlah yang tidak terhingga dan ini menyebabkan asumsi akan mungkinnya ketidak terbatasan dalam suatu peristiwa.

Norman Geisler dalam bukunya menekankan bahwa ada dua jenis kekekalan: kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia matematika dan kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia nyata.

Kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia matematika itu mungkin. Tetapi kekekalan ini hanya dapat dihubungkan terhadap sesuatu yang abstract (sesuatu yang tidak memiliki suatu dimensi). Sebagai contoh: adanya jumlah titik-titik yang tidak terbatas (titik imaginasi) diantara tepi meja ke tepi lainnya.

Kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dunia nyata itu ada hubungannya terhadap sesuatu yang pasti dan nyata. Kita bisa memiliki jumlah titik-titik yang tidak terbatas dari tepi buku yang satu ke tepi lainnya (sesuatu yang abstract). Tetapi kita tidak bisa memiliki jumlah buku yang tidak terhingga dalam dunia nyata.

Kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia matematika tidak akan mungkin untuk di-terapkan dalam dunia nyata. William Lane Craig, Phd, memberikan suatu ilustrasi yang jelas mengenai hal ini.

Pernyataan pertama: Saya memiliki sejumlah kelereng yang tidak terbatas dan saya akan memberikan seluruh kelereng yang saya miliki kepada anda. Maka kelereng saya tidak tersisa satu pun.

Pernyataan kedua: Saya memiliki kelereng yang jumlahnya tidak terbatas dan saya hanya akan memberikan kelereng dengan nomor yang ganjil dan saya akan menyimpan kelereng yang bernomor genap. Maka jumlah kelereng saya akan sama jumlahnya dengan kelereng anda (sama-sama tidak terhingga).

Pernyataan ketiga: Saya hanya akan memberikan kelereng yang bernomor 4 keatas kepada anda. Jadi kelereng saya tinggal tiga.

Illustrasi ini menunjukan bahwa kekekalan dalam dunia nyata itu tidak mungkin untuk terjadi karena kesimpulan yang saling bertolak belakang.

Pernyataan pertama: tidak terhingga - tidak terhingga = 0

Pernyataan kedua: tidak terhingga -tidak terhingga = tidak terhingga

Pernyataan ketiga: tidak terhingga -tidak terhingga = 3

Disini kita dapat melihat bahwa ketika kita mungurangi jumlah yang tidak terhingga terhadap jumlah lain yang tidak terhingga, kita hanya dapat menghasilkan hasil yang berbeda. Hal yang sama juga dalam kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) peristiwa-peristiwa yang terjadi di masa lalu ( mari kita gantikan kelereng dengan peristiwa-peristiwa). Kekekalan (ketidak batasan) peristiwa di alam semesta itu sangat tidak mungkin, oleh karena itu alam semesta semestinya memiliki awal. Kekekalan (ketidak batasan) peristiwa di Alam semesta itu sangat tidak mungkin, oleh karena itu alam semesta semestinya memiliki awal.

Kalaupun ada jumlah peristiwa yang tidak terbatas/kekal (Ingat bahwa asumsi akan jumlah peristiwa yang tidak terbatas/kekal hanyalah suatu konsep/ pemikiran yang tidak bisa dihubungkan dalam dunia nyata), ini tidak bisa membuktikan tentang adanya peristiwa awal/ mula-mula. Karena harus ada penyebab awal agar suatu peristiwa bisa muncul (hukum sebab dan akibat).

Kesimpulan:

1. Ada dua jenis jumlah kekekalan: Kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia matematika dan kekekalan dalam dunia nyata.
2. Menerapkan kekekalan (ketidak terbatasan) dalam dunia matematika ke dunia nyata hanya akan menghasilkan kesimpulan yang bertolak belakang.
3. Alam semesta tidak bisa memiliki ketidak terbatasan peristiwa di masa lalu, oleh sebab itu alam semesta memiliki asal muasal.

Bibliography
Geisler. Norman. L, 2006, “Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics (8^th ED.)”, Kalam cosmological argument, p. 399, Baker Academic, United States of America.

Strobel. Lee, 2004, “The case for a creator”, The evident of Cosmology: the pathway of mathematic, p. 102, Zondervan, United States of America.

Melihat Karangan ini dalam bahasa English

Seven Reasons Why I Like the Apostle Paul

Here are seven reasons why I like Paul of Tarsus.


1. He is a fanatic. Fanaticism has a bad reputation. It brings to mind suicide bombers strapping explosives to their bodies, and going to crowded places to blow up innocent men, women and children. However, the meaning of a fanatic is a person who is totally devoted to a cause. Paul is a fanatic. He is totally committed to the God of his religion. He was so incensed when he heard about The Way which taught that the Messiah has come (and he was not consulted), that he packed his bags and sailed from Tarsus to Jerusalem to persecute the followers of The Way. In Jerusalem, he became the model for the later day Inquisitors by going from house to house and arresting the followers of Jesus.

Paul is so effective that he received a personal audience from the ascended Christ Himself! Paul still remained fanatic. However he is now a 180-degrees fanatic. He just turns the other direction and remain as fanatic as before. He now champions The Way and persecutes rabbinic Judaism! The scripture did not say it but I suspect the Jerusalem Christians gave a sigh of relief when they shipped Paul back to Tarsus.

I like Paul’s fanaticism. At least you know where he stands and his commitment. Instead of wallowing in self-pity and doubt when he discovered that he was actually persecuting the followers of the Messiah, he continued in His service. For Paul, there is no either/or/maybe. It is yes or no. I remembered what my mentor once told me. He was accused by an exasperated non-Christian that he is a fanatic. “Yes, I am a fanatic,” he answered, “now, what about you?” Resounding echoes of Paul in his rebuttal.

2. He is a systems thinker. A systems thinker is one who sees the whole picture without being bogged downed by details. That is what I like about Paul. He sees God’s plan of redemption of mankind and recreation. Paul is able to fit the jigsaw pieces of the Hebrew Bible and the gospel narratives of Jesus’ life and sees the big picture. And what was more amazing is that he is able to communicate it to others in ways that they understand. Many systems thinkers are lousy teachers. Paul’s earlier writings, in form of letters to the churches of Galatia, Thessalonica and Corinth were to address specific problems faced by these churches. Yet we see glimmers of his thinking in them. It is in the book of Romans that he blossoms and reveals God’s mighty plan for mankind and all of creation.

3. He is missional. Missional is a new word, coined by the emerging churches. When we use the word ‘mission’, we normally think of missionary going to do their work ‘over there.’ The emerging churches use the word missional to describe each of us becoming a missionary ‘over here’ or where we are now. This is another reason why I like Paul. He is not too worried about terms and set about doing what he is supposed to do and we stumble after him inventing words to describe what he did. He is missional before the word is invented. Another way to describe missional is: seeing where God is going and going with Him. That is exactly what Paul did. He sees that God’s plans involve all of mankind, not just the Jews. By default, he became the apostle to the Gentiles and I am eternally grateful to him.

4. He is courageous. How many people do you meet that can actually admit that they are wrong. “Oops. Sorry for persecuting you and leaving you in prison!” Paul was able to see his mistake and became a follower of Christ. Then he went and confront his old religion, rabbinic Judaism. Next he went and confronted the pillar of the church, Peter in Antioch. And he quarrelled with Barnabas because of John Mark. I love that guy. He is always confronting someone. Sometimes I wonder if his sufferings will be less if he is not so confrontational! Confrontation takes courage and Paul has courage. How many of us have the courage to confront the wrongs that we see? It is so much safer and easier to keep quiet and ignore it.

5. He is focussed. He knew what he has to do and he did it. He observes that a marathon runner has to lose excessive weight if he is to finish well. So Paul left all he had behind and set forth to fulfil his destiny and to suffer. He could have stayed at home in Tarsus. He would become the rabbi of a mega-synagogue, married a nice Jewish girl and have lots of little Pauls and Paulines running around. No, he detached himself from worldly attachments. In the end, he was executed by beheading at the side of a road outside a gate of Rome and buried in an unmarked grave. Regrets? He may have some but to echo Jim Elliot, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

6. He invests in people. Paul may be the foremost theologian of the Christ faith but what endear him to me are his relationships with people. His letters are full of greetings to people he had met, written to or referred to. In modern day terms, he is a foremost networker. But unlike the most networker who networks for the contacts she can use in her business, Paul’s networking is because he sees Christ in each of them. Paul is not into organisation or structures but into human resources. Paul believes that one person can make a difference. I wonder how many of us agree with Paul and believe that what each of us do here and now can make a difference. I believe if we see people as Paul sees them, we will spend more time with, and invest our resources in people.

7. He leaves an enduring legacy of hope. Paul is a reformed Pharisee, Hebrew scholar, inquisitor, theologian, missionary, pastor, teacher, church planter, mentor, and networker. He left behind a large body of writings that was never rivalled. However, the legacy he left with me is his humanity. He is honest about his struggles, his pride and his suffering. Paul suffered physical, mental, emotional and spiritual attacks. Yet, what shone though was his humanity; a man in the process of becoming a ‘new man in Christ.’ And that gives me hope. Paul’s legacy is his blessed hope; that one day, all pain and sufferings will end and we shall be with Jesus forever.

Paul is a fanatic/ systems thinker/ missional/courageous/ focussed/people orientated/eschatological hope-giving follower of the Way. Hey, he is a neat guy and I like him. I wonder if he plays golf.


more of my comments about Paul here

The People formerly known as The Congregation

We are people - flesh and blood - image bearers of the Creator - eikons, if you will.

We are not numbers.

We are the eikons who once sat in the uncomfortable pews or plush theatre seating of your preaching venues.

We sat passively while you proof-texted your way through 3, 4, 5 or no point sermons - attempting to tell us how you and your reading of The Bible had a plan for our lives.

Perhaps God does have a plan for us - it just doesn't seem to jive with yours.

Read the rest here.

Thoughts on the emerging Ossuary Debate.

You have probably heard the accounts and reports of the finding of the alleged “Tomb of Jesus”. I am not going to write a defense or case here for either side of this debate, but I will give you things to consider as you see this unfold over the next few weeks or months.

Foundational presupposition – it’s not a hoax.

Now remember, when we talk of this ossuary, we presuppose that it’s not another hoax. Do remember that there have been archeological mishaps and frauds in the past (everything from fake paleontological finds to Holy artifacts) and some scholars are now saying that the James ossuary we heard of more than a year ago was an authentic ossuary with a later forged inscription of James name on it.

A case so compelling till you hear the counter arguments.

It has been said by wise philosophers that an argument is so compelling till you have heard the counter argument. Remember your economics class where socialism seemed so good till you heard the capitalist critique of it or vise versa? The fact is that many times when we follow the evidence, we have good arguments for both sides and end up having to make a choice of most plausible rather than from absolute proof – since such proof requires measurements and empiricism that we just can’t get sometimes from matters of history. Sometimes however, Science catches up over time and empirical measures can be obtained from new technology, like the sequencing of the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA has pretty much proven (though debate still exist for a small few) the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.

I suspect (with my present ignorance on the matter) that the complexity of the evidence will be compelling both ways and reach a point with no more qualifying experiments to break the stalemate between the arguments for and against. Such stalemates have left some cases in history and archeology unresolved, like the Getty Kuros, but we don’t get so worked up on them because of the low level of vested interest.

So my advice here is that everyone, should hear arguments from both sides, and be left to make up their God given minds – and its our Christian responsibility to make sure that the counter arguments are put out there where people will see them.

Epistemological choice we make on the questions of religion.

You will hear of the use of statistics in this debate (which we must not be too quick to dismiss) and how those inscriptions have to high a probability of the name pool to be talking about anyone else than the Christian Jesus. The thing is, the stats can go both ways, because since it is a probability, it could be that this case is from the minority amount and not the majority. We simply need a lot more test to supplement the use of the statistics. The fact is, you make a choice in subscribing to a theory of what is more plausible from the evidence presented to you – but you have to be very aware of the fact that your making a choice.

Religion is not motivated by rationale alone.

I repeated myself again about the fact that we make a choice of what to believe with the risk of looking like a Postmodern agnostic! But I do so to lay a foundation for this important point, that our decisions on the matters of religion are not motivated by rationale alone. The question of motivation is crucial, as it works to affect our industriousness in examining the evidence, the equality of honest evaluation we give to both sides of the argument and so forth. Motivation can even blind us subconsciously to compelling evidence before our eyes.

I am not saying that this matter will never be resolved; it could be that the evidence is so compelling for one side that any honest person will see it clearly. But no matter how compelling the case will be, there will be some people who would not budge from their position, and when we engage this battle, we have to learn to respect them and let them be.

Also I think its best at some point to resolve this matter for what it is – if it’s a historical issue, let’s leave our emotional baggage and religious zeal aside and engage the arguments and matter with professionalism and with clearly defined historical tools and analysis.

The economics of a controversy.

Lastly, do keep an eye on the economic paradigm of this controversy. Dan Brown has proven the profitability of this genre of media (books, documentaries, movie rights, etc.) and given the cultural climate of the USA, where many feel that the nation has been taken captive by religious zealots (sometimes paranoia, sometimes reality) – there are both monetary and non monetary benefits to shaking up Christianity. One has to wonder if James Cameron has been successful since Titanic, or if the actual motivation for this documentary of theirs was the great money that will follow this great controversy. On the counter side, he could be doing this from a passion of the truth – but the statistics are doubtful I suspect.