My Thoughts, My World-View

    Author: Author

    • The Current Political Scene in Malaysia Amidst Covid-19 Issues

      As the country is fighting off the global pandemic (COVID-19), politicians have decided that one and a half months of ‘ceasefire’ is enough – the political news became active once more. There are just too many things to be said of Malaysia’s political scene. Accusations are thrown left, right and center. To top this off, just before the Movement Control Order was put into effect, mid-March, there were the infamous “Sheraton Move” where one of the parties that made up the ruling coalition decided to join forces with the old regime. This “move” sent panic among the political scene in Malaysia and the citizens who were in the know waited for each blow with bated breath.

      Before long, the 7th Prime Minister officially resigned – sending the formal collapse of the now old ‘new coalition – Pakatan’ – replaced by the new ‘new coalition – Perikatan’. This was also the first time the ruling coalition is fully made up of Malay political parties. A new 8th Prime Minister was officially installed. And in the past few weeks, the fight has begun anew for the power to rule over Malaysia.

      Honestly, at this point, I have to personally agree with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (translated: supreme head or King, with a capital ‘K’) who is the constitutional monarch of Malaysia: this is really not the best time for political instability. Point: a big recession is coming as a fallout of COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world. The world will change for the next 6 months to 3 years as it seeks to control the effects of this pandemic. Yes, those naysayers who live in denial of this still mysterious virus, have no idea the effects it has on people, especially those with heart problems especially the elderly. Demand for gross products and services will fall collectively – the investment plans made in the last 5 years will not bring in an expected return. Though it is natural for new businesses to pick up where new demands are identified, this will not be fast enough – more turmoil will wreck the local economy for the immediate future. For a country to be disunited (see America in 2020 for example) is to prolong the effects of the pandemic and to deepen the troughs of recession.

      My prediction is that a hard line from the new government will come – to enforce political stability within the nation. It has happened before, ironically, in the administration of the 4th Prime Minister then. You cannot please everyone, but it is possible to at least please the rationale majority who wants to survive the start of recession. My pity is on the new batches of university graduates who has been conditioned to a positive and thriving economy landscape: this is going to shock many of them as they fight (yes, fight and struggle) to earn a living with those who may not even have the paper qualifications they have. In recession, sadly but true, paper qualifications matter little – employers will look at a person’s skill, experience, attitude and merit. If there is a good thing we can say in recessions, it is that: it is a great leveler of the privileged and unprivileged. The fittest and wittiest will survive.

      Is there a right or wrong in the “fight” between the two men pictured above? No. I have learnt a long time ago that there are more to the story than what is given through the media. Politics is like a mud pit – it is hard to distinguish who is who because of the mud, and often, it is not personal. I believe in that in the minds of each individual politician (in Malaysia) there is the belief that they are contributing to the greater good of the nation in one way or another. Whether this belief is mixed with personal motivations that benefits them personally or benefits their ideology or anything else, it is not for us to know – as is natural. But that is the reason that we should never put our hope – even if any political party uses that word “hope” – in politicians. As the psalmist puts it so eloquently in Psalms 118:8-9: It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.

    • Verbal versus Written Conversations

      Over the years I found myself writing a lot. From a cold start – that is without any preparation at all – I can type about 75 word per minute. That is alright. But I do know that I have averaged much higher over the years especially when I get into the “zone”. Writing takes skill, however. Anyone can write, but to write with clarity and with economy of words is truly something that takes experience and also talent. In this, my wife has the better skill in writing. I have to remind myself that everyone has their own style – some are more long-winded than others, while others are more descriptive than others, and there are those who are just very academic – dry and to the point. Is one better than the other? No – it depends on the circumstances.

      Unfortunately, there are some who have declared themselves “masters” of this craft and thinks too highly of themselves in this particular skill. I remember one who would declare boldly declare that this or that author has a lot of flowery words and long-winded – indirectly putting the person down in his ‘authoritative’ declaration – while elevating authors who shared the same writing style as himself. This is nonsense. But to an impressionable young person (that I was then), in my mind, written works had to be of a certain style.

      The truth of the matter is: literature allows for a variety of styles. Even within the academic realm, there is room for the style of Michael Porter and for the writings of John W. Creswell and of Peter Drucker. It would be extremely foolish for one to be declared better than the other. If it is a matter of preference, that is an entirely other thing.

      For myself, writing should be as close as possible to a person’s verbal style. Perhaps this is my personal preference, but I want to ‘read’ and ‘hear’ the voice of the author. I think it would be quite shocking to meet the author in person only to find that the person speaks different from the way he/she writes. That would be quite shocking (to me, at least).

      That is why I find it hard to write at times – I often wait for the ‘mood’ or the ‘circumstances to align’ before typing the first word of the article or written correspondence. When everything aligns, I find that I speed as fast as I can think. Is that good? I do not know. But the downside is that the writing suffers for lack of ‘editing’.

      This whole RMO (Restricted Movement Order) due to the Covid-19 pandemic, has made me appreciate verbal conversations. For me, speaking face-to-face is “easier” because words can always be accompanied with gestures and any other physical actions. Even the intonation of words can really convey things that cannot be conveyed on paper. To me, the main advantage that writing has over verbal is the need to think, re-think and re-think again before we finalise and send our message. That gives more meaningful food for thought rather than the easy misinterpretation of our modern means written communication (Whatsapp, Telegram, Wechat, and the like).

      Verbal communication is hard because it can easily get side-tracked. Our emotions can affect the way we communicate – whether we realise it or not. At times, this hampers the very purpose we intended. It is rare for younger generations to understand the unwritten rules of verbal communication – we tend to be impatient to make our points and to speed the whole conversation along. Perhaps that is the reason that the new generation detest orations and speeches – but prefer the fluidity of podcast sessions where people are constantly talking and changing topics.

      But when we master the art of verbal communication, we find that our ideas are nearly always communicated clearly – dispelling misunderstanding and encouraging cooperation. In fact, a sudden pause in the verbal communication speaks volumes in ways that the written medium just cannot encapsulate.

      I do miss verbal communications that are honest, unfiltered and unreserved. Those are almost always with people whom we can trust (non-self-righteous and hypocritical) and with those whom we can be vulnerable to. Cultivate both skills and life will be sweetened somewhat by it.

    • Movies Worth Re-watching (My Pick) – Gladiator (2000)

      Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott were at their peak on this one.

      One of the great changes in academia at the time this film was released was the re-ignited interest in the Roman Empire of old. I remembered that many journals and magazines were peppered with articles and facts about the victories, drama, politics and ultimate downfall of the greatest empire in human history. Rare feat for a film in my own opinion.

      There were a lot gore in the show – no sexual graphics – and a lot of story. It was the time tested story of a man who gained the world and lost it all in a moment. Against the rule and wrath of a mad emperor, this broken man begins to claw his way out of the pit of despair, long enough to fulfill his promise and… depart. The grandeur of the movie hinges not on the scenes, filmography and breathtaking landscapes – but in the superb acting of the cast. Russell Crowe’s expressions of hopelessness, doubt and determination were more than believable – the audience could feel it, from moment to moment, scene to scene; no wonder it swept most of the awards of that time!

      “Win the crowd, and you will win your freedom.”

      If not for the irony of the statement and the context of it, the quotes in the film would be called prophetic (for our time)! Did I forget to mention that the villain (emperor) was brilliantly acted by Joaquin Phoenix, way before his acting chops were acknowledged in the disturbing anti-hero film “Joker”? Without the stellar cast, nothing would have worked.

      “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.”

      The film came out at a time when civil disobedience and the rise of social justice issues were starting to gain traction in the West. I could remember watching this movie twice during OCF (Overseas Christian Fellowship) in 2000. I did some research as I wrote the newsletter of our newly formed bible study group – there was an unwritten tradition that the gladiators that were to fight, were to face the Emperor and utter a vow of the dead men. They knew they were at the foremost – entertainers. And with that, their lives were not their own, but held by the audience and the emperor.

      This was one of the first movies I watched where the hero died fulfilling his mission – and died with dignity. There was no moving on – but in single-minded fulfillment of his heart’s mission – to see his family in the afterlife.

      In some sense, this is the great intention of the Christian believer. It is not about platitudes or encouragement, for the struggle will always be personal and always while we are disadvantaged by our weak flesh. Nevertheless, the hope of the eternal propels us forward, to finish the race.

      That lesson, I kept in my mind – and I choose to revisit it every now and then through this epic film.

    • Traumatic Listening Experience

      It is often something that is not talked about publicly, but something that is frequently talked, whispered in private – that there is something disturbing in certain types of preaching. Coming from a conservative, evangelical, Reformed Christian persuasion there are things that are plainly obvious but are considered taboo to be talked about (at least openly). Simply: some preachings are dangerous to the listeners. Having time to step back from the activity of preaching, it is more plain to me now that certain types of preaching should be avoided at all cost and not indulged in – particularly if it is a weekly dose of.

      In my previous posts, I have touched on the content of preaching – how poor content can truly spiritually weaken a believer and listener by allowing the person to stagnate and worse, to be worldly. The preoccupation of worldliness is but an inward reflection of the heart’s spiritual condition. This is discernible only by the Spirit using the instrumentality of the Word (which the Spirit inspired). Sadly, in conservative circles – particularly in Asian churches that are more strict in ‘conformity’ and ‘authority’ – this sort of action is performed quite often by the preacher.

      Thus, you do get (I kid you not) preachers who would dare to point the finger to the sin of someone in the congregation without actually pointing them out! Of course, this is partly a type of ‘defense’ that the preacher can disclaim if they are called out on abusing the pulpit – but the actual effect of being under such ‘thundering’ preaching is traumatic for the listener especially when it is done weekly. Warnings are often given in the Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, but such pointing of finger to a particular group of people who does this and that is just a tactic to ‘speak out’ against a person(s) without having to take the person aside to explain and rebuke the person(s)’s alleged wrong doing. Doubly sad is the prevalent notion that such preachers are likened to the Old Testament “man of God” – thus giving them the ‘unbiblical’ warrant of doing what no New Testament preacher ever did in Scriptures. This sort of preaching matches the attitude of the Pharisees, who were very quick to accuse and question the actions and motives of the Lord Jesus (as reflected in the Gospels). As a slight digression – the term “man of God” is often abused and misused in conservative circles, but it is made plain in Scriptures – see 2 Timothy 3:17, where the man of God obviously refers to the Christian believer (in the context of the chapter) and not to Timothy the preacher.

      The second type of preaching is those that maintain an aggressive style. Not only in raising the voice, but in actually shouting at the audience. I get that many would call this “passionate” preaching, but this is an emotive style – often to provoke the listeners to “dare” challenge what they are saying! Why? Because they believe that they have taken on themselves the “righteous anger of God”. That is what the audience believe – those who can tolerate such aggressive style week by week. In order to not be affected, the listeners must be part of the preacher’s gang – so that their conscience are not affected. “This is not about me – it is about that person or this person”. This is exactly how cultish behaviours are grown. In some of the famous preachers who employ such styles, you can almost always here some in the congregation giving their affirmations “yes, sir”, “amen” – because they see themselves as part of the support group for such preachers. Let the preacher “get ‘im” – he is “our” preacher. Notice that the Lord Jesus did not preach that way. The apostle Paul was ridiculed for his simple, quiet mannerism – in contrast to the more eloquent and if you want to speculate, flamboyant, preaching style of the other ‘super preachers’.

      Finally, you have the repetitive preacher who uses their aggressive preaching style to hide behind poor sermon preparation. I admit, there are many preachers who are not gifted in oration. Some who are not, try to compensate by picking up a technique or a trade trick. This may come to the dressing or the equipment that they use on stage. But these problems pale in comparison to the ‘lazy’ preacher who leans on their experience to preach. They serve up spiritual food that is lacking in balance, substance and “freshness”. The latter word is the relevance or application of God’s Word to the listener. If we believe that God is real and His Spirit indwells believers, His Word when properly explained is clear in how it is to be practised and used in daily living. Unfortunately, the lazy preacher begins to use the messages as a sounding board for his opinions or his ‘mission’ or ‘vision’ – not God, but his own. Carefully meditation and understanding of God’s Word will help one discern between a preacher’s words and God’s Word. God’s Word is full of diversity and unity – united in the common theme, but diverse in all aspects of life – because life IS complicated. The preacher that rehashes the same things over and over again apart from the emphasis of Scriptures is self-serving. Plainly, this is brainwashing. And it happens a lot because many like to put themselves into a man-made system, because they stand to ‘circumvent’ this system to make it their own, and they like the affirmation given by others.

      I am so soothed by the plain preaching of Scriptures nowadays. Those who prioritise God’s Word first over man’s. God’s Spirit does wonders when His Word is made plain. Preaching that is true comforts believers, affirms their position in Christ while challenging them to be set apart for Christ. Such preaching is foolish in the eyes of the unbelieving but precious and useful in God’s Almighty hand. Trauma-inducing preaching may cause momentary fear and action, but that momentum can never be sustained – because it is only sustained by fear. And to a conscience-battered, brainwashed person – everything is fearful! No more of these traumatic preaching experiences – go get some eternally memorable experiences that bring the heart to glorify God because of His great love!

    • Commentary on Philippians 1:12-17

      It is easy to be in a hurry to rush that we miss many important aspects of “growth” itself. This is certainly very evident when it comes to the spiritual dimension. Paul, the apostle who grew not just intellectually but in his character and actions, showed the type of maturity that is often neglected and ignored by many impatient Christians: an ability to look at life through God’s lens. In verse 12 of his letter, he declares and points out to the brethren that the unpleasant circumstances that befell him was not out of God’s control but was purposed for God’s glory.

      How can imprisonment, isolation and persecution be purposed for God’s glory? For a faithful servant of God, such things would be trying indeed – it is like facing a large clouds of negativity that would not be blown away. And yet the apostle makes it clear that behind these frowning providence there lies a hidden smile that can only be perceived by the spiritually minded. For Paul, he saw the penetration of the Gospel into the emperor’s “household” was reason to rejoice!

      The more calculative may object: just a few of these have heard the Gospel because of Paul’s imprisonment, how can that overturn the negativity of Paul’s circumstances and the intense rivalry of some Roman preachers who were seeking to tarnish Paul’s reputation and to get believers to decry Paul’s ministry? For Paul, physical numbers is not the measure of one’s success. The same God who would work salvation in the heart of a single Samaritan woman in the heat of the day, is the same God who goes across the sea to save a man gripped by the dominion of evil spirits – this same God glories in the salvation of sinners, small or large it may be.

      This perception takes spiritual maturity – for at the heart is a reflection of God’s own vision for His own glory. Thus, Paul is not affected negatively by the opposition by antagonistic brethren, but rejoices (v.18)! Paul was matured enough to understand the larger picture and to rejoice in that God-directed purpose.

      It is common to find Christian believers and ministers who make such bold statements of maturity and of love, but it is what they say “behind the scenes” that reveals the level of spiritual maturity in the person. Grumblings, complains and a ‘defensive’ spirit that seeks to justify their cause are clear signs of immaturity. Those with little children can almost recall the never-ending “Daddy, mummy, he took my things and he said bad things to me!” We expect that of children. Why then do we tolerate and worse, imitate the “childish” behaviour of professing believers who pretend to be spiritually mature? Best to imitate Paul’s response knowing that it reflects the character and heart of his saviour, Jesus Christ. As Paul writes concerning the beauty and glory of his Saviour in:

      Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,  (6)  who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,  (7)  but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.  (8)  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.  (9)  Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,  (10)  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,  (11)  and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

      Philippians 2:5-11

    • Commentary on Philippians 1: 1-11

      The Word of God is bristling with power. This “power” is not perceived by worldly measurements; it is of divine origin. It is such a pity that many Christians flock to the weekly meetings on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) to be revitalised (in their mind), forgetting that we have the best fuel for our soul and body in this book (see 2 Peter 1:2-3). The natural tendency for the Christian believer is to take the Word for granted – to treat it like any other book. They insist that different books within the Bible must be held down by their own made-up pillars – often by their theological leanings and experience. When Scripture is caged and locked up to only mean what we believe it MUST only mean, we have effectively created our own religion much like the Pharisees of old. That is why we must always come and approach Scripture with reverence and openness of mind. Laziness and busyness are our constant enemies in this; we must guard ourselves against it, regardless of our theological leanings.

      This is why it is refreshing to re-read the letter of Paul to Philippians. It is a letter written while Paul was suffering in both body and mind – he was waiting for the verdict of his trial in Rome. On top of that, he faced opposition from certain church leaders who saw him as a competitor rather than a brother. Uncertainty of the future is never a nice situation to be in, but Paul shows us a Christ-honouring example through it… something we all need in the challenging phases of our life.

      Notice Paul’s humility in the very start of the letter (v.1) – he declares Timothy and himself bondservants of Jesus Christ. He does not boast on his contribution or gifts to the cause of Christ – he plainly and simply paints himself as to how he has always seen himself – a willing, happy slave for his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is something that I have appreciated when meeting with church leaders – the willingness and honest humility of the servant of Christ to be what he truly is: a servant of Christ and to those whom He died for! Be wary of those who are quick to shift the focus to their “history” and “achievements”. Be wary of ourselves – for such pride do not immediately show itself; it hides itself in our need for encouragement and in coping with uncertainty in the ministry. Many ministers “need” to prove to themselves that they are worth the effort, the money and the time given by the supporting church – and thus, they build up a ready-list of achievements and ‘wins’. Capping it with ‘praise the Lord’ does not immediately ‘purify’ the true intentions.

      It is worth noting as well that the greeting is given first to the “saints” in Philippi, before it is given to the elders and deacons of the church. Again, this is how Paul sees ministers – not as reverends with titles and positions, but as those who truly “come last” as the Lord Jesus constantly reminded His disciples: the greatest is the one who serves, just as He came to die for sinners.

      This thought holds true as we see Paul confessing his heart’s desire in verse 3 to 6 – his desire is for the brethren, Christian believers, to be built up and complete as the Day approaches when we see Him face-to-face. The command to love our neighbour is not a theoretical lesson but a practical action. It begins with the desire of our heart. Do we rejoice in seeing brethren? Far away brethren that we hardly meet? Paul does. It ought to cause us to be ashamed of our self-focus and our narrow view of what Christianity is about. Paul did not identify these as Gentile believers who were converted out of paganism – nor did he identify these as Jewish believers – they were merely “saints” and “believers” who are all “partakers with me of grace”. What a magnificent and challenging thought for modern Christians who are so quick to identify and preach their own “affiliations” and “groupings”, whether it is through theological leanings or by their practices.

      Whatever circumstance we may find ourselves in – whether in much or in lack – we MUST check our desires: is it for those whom Christ died for? Is it in serving the Lord with all humility, knowing how unworthy we are and how we are the least of all believers? Perhaps this week, this day, we need to pray for others and to pray that we can happily call ourselves “bondservants” of Christ – not one who is free to do as our hearts would want, but one who is moved and freed by the gracious love and act of the Holy One who gave Himself for unworthy us. Amen.

    • Psalm 1:1-3

      The psalmist proclaims the blessedness of walking upright before the LORD in the opening verses of the poetic magnum opus of the Bible. If we were to read it with a liberal mindset that is saturated with modern inclinations and belief, we would find the first verse offensive: how can the psalmist have an elevated view on such a “holy person”? There is great offence to claim that a spiritually sensitive, godward looking person is more “blessed” than a pagan person. The world we live in has unfortunately become a morally selfish and dark world – one that elevates self to godhood (even though the words may not explicitly state that). The modern man finds it dumb to acknowledge that order in this universe points to a singular Higher Being, also known as, the Creator of all things. Instead, they insist that the modern man is self-made out of randomness – they violently wipe away any possibility that randomness is merely a cope out excuse to allow for anarchy and a covering of all things under moral ambiguity.

      If we, the reader, can accept the premise that there is a God, and that God is the source of all things whether material or immaterial – then the only conclusion is “happy” or “blessed” is the person who is on the side of that Creator! To acknowledge our Creator is like a child who acknowledges his or her parent as a parent: it is just natural and right. The child who refuses to acknowledge the presence, part and position of the parent is universally identified as an errant child. How is it that anyone would fault the same logic between the creature and his or her Creator?

      The second verse posits the source for “knowing” this God or Creator. The creature is woefully unequipped to know the Maker, for it is like the finite trying to experience the infinite. In this universe, God condescends Himself – put Himself down – to our level in order to communicate His thoughts to us. Without this condescension on His part, no creature can ever know his or her Creator. Thus, the blessed man who acknowledges God finds true delight in knowing His will and thoughts. This is unlike the many who claims belief in God but finds no delight in knowing God; hypocrites who desire mere identification with the Creator, but with no real love or desire for more. This is not a harsh pronouncement, the logic is sound. Does not one rightly worries for the child that refuses any communication with the parents upon birth! What is the natural reaction for one, is also the basis for the other.

      For the sinner who confesses his or her inadequacies and looks heavenward for answers, it is normal to find rapturous delight in understanding the mind of the Creator. Not only delight but purpose, strength, conviction and direction – all important components that grow the person in his or her journey in life. The psalmist provides the most apt picture that transcends all generation – the natural picture of a tree’s dependency to its water source. A tree needs water and finds permanent sustenance from the river. The roots gravitate naturally towards the direction of the river and in time shows the proof of dependence by the bearing of fruit. Despite harsh circumstances that are unpredictable, the tree survives; whether it is famine, drought or the wars of men – the tree can survive when its root and place is by the rivers of water. Similarly, the person that abides by the purpose, direction, conviction and truths of the Creator of all, will bear the fruit of his or her existence – despite whatever opposition or unfavourable circumstances. This is what the psalmist is inspired to proclaim. Ironically, this is what the modern person needs, in a world full of noise and confusion – we need to come back to the reason for our being and to find delight in “getting it”.

    • On Whose Authority?

      And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?

      Matthew 21:23 (NASB)

      The question posed by the Jewish leaders actually captures their religious mentality and mannerism at that time – spirituality is all about citing or referring to a particular rabbi or teacher: the more prominent the teacher, the “better” the teaching would be. In giving his own testimony of the conversion wrought in his heart, the apostle Paul would give evidence to the religious leaders of his own “religious grooming” and steady progression within the Pharaisical ranks by citing his honoured mentor, Gamaliel in Acts 22:3. Here was a culture not unlike our own, where prominence and power are weighed by the people “we know”.

      Thus, it was not surprising that the Jews, in general, were amazed that an “unknown” man (Jesus of Nazareth) was deemed a prophet, who had no “great person” authenticating and giving Him His credentials to preach and teach. This was an abnormality among the Jewish community. Jesus’ answer in Matthew 21:24-25 revealed the truth concerning ALL prophets of God – their authority came from God Himself, visible by God’s authenticating power working among them (visibly seen in prophets like Moses and Elijah). In Jesus Christ’s case, He is God, as He clearly explained in the Gospel of John, especially in John 8:48-59. This was evidenced by the manner of His speaking (with authority, Matthew 7:29) and by the effect it had on the people (through His miracles).

      The great tragedy that we see is the return of Modern-Day Christianity to the practices of the Jewish people 2,000 years ago. Preachers are more concerned with the “quotations” that they use and by the “camp” that they belong to, rather than pointing to the Self-authenticating and Innate Authority of the Word of God. In this, the modern church apes the academic world – citing the interpretation of this person and that, rather than trusting in the plain language of Scripture. Certainly, there are some things that are difficult to understand and some that will not be fully known until the Lord’s Return – nevertheless, what we have is clearly explained and constantly repeated throughout Scriptures. We should major on the things that God deems as important – this is by the repetition and clarity given. Likewise, we should minor (not specialise) in the things that are obscure and unique.

      The pursuit of “authority” beyond those of Scriptures give rise to the constant idol that is warned by the apostle Paul – that of the “institution of church” itself. The “man of perdition” is the man that usurps God’s place as the head of the Church –

      Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

      2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

      Historically, many have pointed the finger to the Roman Pope, but could the “man of lawlessness” be much closer? That document that is proclaimed by many (whether they be creeds or confessions or statements of faiths) as necessary has become the tool to subjugate and control the mind of well-meaning Christians into conformity with “people” rather than of God! We need to wake up from this “tradition” and come back to THE authority of Scripture. The heart is easily swayed by man’s own whimsical fancies without realising it.

      We need to check ourselves. Are we believing something because of the list of “celebrity preachers” who endorses such views? Are we attracted to a message because of that quote that ‘perfectly” captures the interpretation? Or are we hooked unto the words because they are God’s? This is what we need to recover. 500 years of Reformation and it seems to me, we are starting back at where we supposedly left. It is time for us to check our beliefs – on whose authority do we believe.

    • The Failure of Practical Expository Preaching

      History is one of those subjects that are vital in developing our thought processes and our character but is commonly hated by many. There is a prevalent notion among the newer generations that the only history that we should be bothered with is the history that we make. Such responses aptly summarise the key problem with these generations: preoccupation with self.

      In the modern evangelical movement (church scene), we find similar shifts happening especially with the ‘expository preaching’ development of the last few decades. Though this may not be reflected within the academic or theoretical arena, it certainly is seen in the practice. To set the context – “expository preaching” has (surprisingly) varied definitions based on one’s theological and church background. I find Raymond’s article on “The Gospel Coalition” helpful as he does the difficult task of compiling a few sources for the definition: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erik-raymond/what-is-expository-preaching/

      John MacArthur: The message finds its sole source in Scripture. The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis. The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context. The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture. The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.

      Bryan Chappell: The main idea of an expository sermon the topic, the divisions of that idea, main points, and the development of those divisions, all come from truths the text itself contains. No significant portions of the text is ignored. In other words, expositors willingly stay within the boundaries of the text and do not leave until they have surveyed its entirety with its hearers.

      John Stott: Exposition refers to the content of the sermon (biblical truth) rather than its style (a running commentary). To expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor opens what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted, and unfolds what is tightly packed.

      Although there are nuances in the preachers’ definitions, we can see the areas of agreement. My definition would be like this: “expository preaching” is the art (skill) of examining, elaborating and clarifying the Word of God, whether it is a single verse, or a passage or large portions of Scripture, to an intended audience. If there is any ingenuity in my definition (it is not my intention) it would be the final four words – “to an intended audience” which I will explain in due time.

      It is common to hear from the pulpits of many churches, or even in the explanations given in some weekly bulletins, that the church believes in “expository preaching”. However, when one sits in the pews, one quickly realises the opposite. The biggest problem is the lack of examining the Bible passage – usually, only the scantiest overview is given and the listener is to “put their faith” in that scanty overview of what the passage is about. Or, there is the over-elaboration of the wider passage (context) without dealing with the immediate passage under consideration. Even when the passage is dealt with, many verses are ignored or the most general meaning is presented to the listener. Sadly, the most dangerous form is the expositing of the preacher’s theology, mood, and direction rather than God’s. This is the most dangerous because it hides behind the illusion that the Word of God is actually being taught. From my past experiences, this has given rise to unhealthy beliefs, practices and even abuses that begin from an unbiblical indoctrination that claims otherwise. The effect is quite pronounced on the listeners – they begin to “want to please the preacher” or to “listen more to the preacher”, but not to the Word of God for themselves. The Berean spirit is usually not found in many cases. One can easily whip out the Macbook and type out every word that proceeds from the mouth of the preacher, and miss the true meaning that the Lord Jesus gave in Matthew 4:4 – “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

      Why is it so hard to find good, simple preachers who will just spend time examining the Word of God? From my own experiences and understanding of the ministers’ struggles and process – it boils down to a few factors (which cannot fit this brief article). The chief of those would be 1) insufficient time spent in the study room, 2) over-reliance on own experiences, 3) mechanical or routine treatment in studying God’s Word, 4) aiming for “the message” rather than doing the passage justice.

      The first reason is commonly found in those “over-worked” ministers, who have a hundred and one things to do every week. This is not a critique but a simple explanation of what is. Especially among certain Asian ministers, there is the unspoken belief that the minister must justify their salaries to the congregation. This results in the minister taking up all “tasks” that come in their way, whether it is from the new visitor to neighbours, elderly, children, and countless others who have been, is part of or who will join the local church. Unfortunately, this is more often found in small churches (small in size). Is this biblical? Yes and no. The apostles made it clear in Acts 6:2-4 – And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Certainly, the Christian believer should show love to their neighbours, especially ministers who ought to show hospitality – but their main job is “devotion” to PRAYER and the WORD. The minister who is not wrestling on their knees in prayer for their congregation will find it rare to find the congregation wrestling with the Word of God in their conscience.

      The second reason for this misdirection in exposition-emphasis is the over-reliance of the minister to their ‘knowledge of the Scriptures’. Every minister who is serious about their gifts and calling will grow their understanding of the whole counsel of God, there is no doubt about it. However, it is perplexing when ministers begin to unconsciously elevate biblical theology and systematic theology above the very Scriptures themselves. The common conservative defense is to claim that the particular systematic theology is derived from Scripture and remain adamant with their particular emphasis. This stumbles the preacher as they have already concluded before they even have begun, by stating that “this” is the goal or the message – the passage is merely a vehicle to help them enforce their “made-up view”. The end result is the preacher bringing his interpretation and views into the passage or verse, thus solidifying the preacher’s own bias or personal preferences over and against the passage’s actual meaning. Sometimes, this over-reliance is also the result of lack of time or exhaustion on the part of the preacher – the minister quickly relies on experience to expedite the ‘preparation of the sermon’.

      The third reason for the poor practice of expository preaching comes down to a “dulled spiritual sense’. This happens when we have gotten into a routine and allow ourselves to take things for granted. For example, the minister is called to handle the Beatitudes in Matthew 5, or another passage that he has done before: it is easy for the minister to assume that the points or message of the passage is the same as before. Thus, the minister does little to re-work on the passage, assuming that they have “done” the passage before. This is done more often or not – just try to listen to preachers who preach their “old” sermons – there is no difference. Sure, the wording(s) may change here and there, but the general points remain the same. Should we expect a thoroughly different message? No, but the grace that works in the heart and mind of the minister will help bring new things out of old things. An aging saint that grows older sees things with greater depth and with better skills than the younger self. Unfortunately, many allow their spiritual sense to be dulled by repetition and a “cold” walk with the Lord – often made worse by a lack of true and constant prayer with Him.

      Lastly, this often happens when ministers are faced with certain heart convictions – they attach whatever passage they are dealing with their “favourite topic”. There is the example given by the late teacher/preacher S Lewis Johnson of a Baptist minister who would always link the message to the importance of water baptism. This may seem funny until you realise how horrifying it is to give “permission” to listeners to do the same! Yet this is the sad reality of many who claim to be expository preachers. One preacher may claim not to believe in “works over faith”, but if every sermon is going to guilt, rebuke and call on “righteous works” do not be surprised if the congregants exhibit a tendency to legalism and salvation based on works. Likewise to the preacher who emphasises “evangelism” – every message preached becomes a call to action that is done out of a sense of duty devoid of passion and true conviction.

      True expository preaching minimises such dangerous man-initiated errors. To conclude, the onus is on the listener to make sure we “listen” to God’s Word rather than man’s word. It is not enough to claim this or that person is a “man of God” and turn off our thinking and discerning faculty. The rule of our life and conscience ought to be God’s Word that is Spirit-inspired. That is why God’s Word must be properly examined, elaborated and clarified by preachers. This is not an easy task – for it demands the preacher to do these three activities for himself FIRST before he communicates the Word to the congregation. After the application of his study is done to himself (as Paul hints in Acts 20:28), the minister can then prepare to communicate the lessons to the listener. What good is ANY expository preaching that fails to be communicated to the intended audience? Thus expository preaching must incorporate the intended audience as part of its definition. Can expository preaching be done for young children? Certainly. Can expository preaching be practiced to elderly persons? Absolutely. To make it effective, one must take into consideration the listeners – are we preparing, wording, articulating, structuring and ordering the whole message so that the Word of God is properly understood by the listeners? If we look at the time of Nehemiah, it seems that the teachers did exactly that – They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading (Nehemiah 8:8). How wonderful for the teachers and ministers were to give the sense of God’s Word clearly to the people (made up of different demographics)? This IS possible, but with hard work from the minister. It IS possible because God’s Spirit supplies what is lacking in the minister, and the listeners.

      There are more things to say on this topic – but for now, this will suffice. Food for thought, especially for those who truly yearn for “pure spiritual milk” (1 Peter 2:2).

    • Losing Assumptions

      Bruce Wayne in “Batman Begins”, played excellently by Christian Bale, said these words to his future arch-nemesis (but at that time hidden):

      “I needed to understand the thoughts
      and feelings of those who stand in
      the shadows…

      The first time you’re forced to
      steal not to starve…

      …you lose many assumptions about
      the simple nature of right and
      wrong.”

      Sometimes a book, a comic book or a poem strikes through the haze of your thoughts and like a ray of sun, pierces through that fog and gets straight to your heart. Occasionally, not often, something else does the same – and in this case, it is Nolan’s epic trilogy – at this particular line, delivered while Bruce Wayne’s past experience flashes onscreen.

      There is truth in these words.

      We make assumptions based on our own personal experiences and as time goes, these assumptions morph into “principles” that not actually dictate our direction, but in reality, excuses our intentions. The problem is that no one actually cares to peel off the assumptions that we have built our decision-making on. We take on these assumptions due to circumstances; sometimes because it worked in the past, or because of our companions and the seeking of approval from them, or even from our natural inclinations (personality). Whatever the reason for its introduction in our lives, we make assumptions. Sometimes, these assumptions are “pragmatic” – helps us to navigate through certain difficulties and uncomfortable situations in our lives. But often, these assumptions are “dangerous” – as it turns us into “zombies” that are myopic in their behaviour.

      The worst type of assumptions are made in religion – in the dawn of the 21st century, we are again revisiting this recurring problem. Religious tensions are higher than ever, and conflicts that are religion-motivated have become the norm. All this from the sad simple truth – we have lost the ability to step into the other person’s shoes. Not only do you see such disparity between different religious groups, but this conflict is intensified within the same religion – among the different sects and groups. This is especially true in Christendom. It does not matter whether you are Protestant, Evangelical, Conservative, Fundamental and Reformed – there will be a line or verse that will set you off (trigger). Sadly, even within the same belief system, there will be intense disagreements with a practice or an action (noted that there is a margin of acceptance in ‘disagreements’, especially in certain non-essential beliefs). Why do we find it hard to drop our assumptions?

      We are afraid of getting into the other person’s shoes. That is what fundamentally “shocks” me with “Batman’s confession” above. It is when we take the courage to literally walk into the mind of the “other person”, that we start to understand the issues. But we do not. It is frightening to be in a new situation, with a new context and unpredictable outcomes. It is terrifying to face the unknown, and to lose the comfort of familiarity and more importantly, to lose the security of control. When we perceive to be in the passenger seat rather than the driver’s – we become afraid. That is the core problem – our pride does not want to let go of what we think we have. Listen to the other side, and our pride gets a shattering blow that begins to crack our wall of assumptions!

    Powered by
    ►
    Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
    None
    ►
    Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
    None
    ►
    Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
    None
    ►
    Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
    None
    Powered by