Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Ponderisms

Found the "Ponderisms" in a forum. Feel that it is quite meaningful so decide to share it with whoever is reading my blog:


PONDERISMS


* I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes.

* Gardening Rule: When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant.

* The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement.

* Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

* There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.

* Life is sexually transmitted.

* Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

* The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

* Some people are like Slinkies. Not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

* Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing.

* Have you noticed since everyone has a camcorder these days no one talks about seeing UFOs like they used to?

* Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

* All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

* In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

* Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

* How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?

* Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze these dangly things here, and drink whatever comes out?"

* Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there? I'm gonna eat the next thing that comes outta its butt."

* Why is there a light in the fridge and not in the freezer?

* If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a song about him?

* Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're both dogs!

* If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that Acme crap, why didn't he just buy dinner?

* If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, then what is baby oil made from?

* If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

* Why do the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same tune?

* Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet Soup?

* Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him on a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

* Does pushing the elevator button more than once make it arrive faster?

* Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Rate This Post

Monday, December 25, 2006

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Biting My Tongue

This article is about speaking in tongue. For those interested in this issue can read the article below:



http://graceatwork.org/view.php3?Id=350

When I was interviewed for the position of pastor of First
Baptist Church, I had to answer one key question: "Do you
speak in tongues?"
The church had been split by the charismatic
controversy. They had to know.
My answer then and my answer now is this:"What you need to
know is my theology on the matter. That is more critical
then whether I have this gift."

I have not revisited this topic for some time. In the twenty
odd years since that interview many of the churches I know
have moved beyond that controversy and that divide. There
has been a lot of maturing all round. Although different
churches still have different views on the subject there is
a much higher level of mutual respect and a lot of healthy
learning between different traditions. (I am grateful for
the many friends I have from Pentecostal and charismatic
traditions. I am grateful for their friendship and the
opportunities we have for working together.)

But once in a while you get "deja vu all over again" and you
get a speaker or a group that pushes the classical
Pentecostal position on tongues, tongues here understood as
an unknown language, sounds uttered in prayer unintelligible
to the one praying and to others (1 Corinthians 14:2).

Usually the agenda is the desire to see the release of God's
supernatural power. This is something seen as happening in a
believer's life separate from conversion, an event often
referred to as the baptism of the Spirit. As evidence that
this release had taken place, one was given the gift of
tongues. Tongues became something very critical because it
was identified with spiritual empowerment which is the real
goal.

So what is my take on this?

First off I am very grateful to my Pentecostal and
charismatic friends for reminding us of the need for the
Holy Spirit's power. Luke summarizes Jesus's ministry in
this way: "...with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God
anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went
around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the
devil, because God was with him." (Acts 10:38 NET)
The link between supernatural power, the Holy Spirit and
the ability to do God's work is clear. And Jesus is the
model for His church.

Too often the modern church has put her trust in techniques,
technology and good marketing to get God's job done,
basically paying lip service to the need for the Spirit's
anointing. We welcome every reminder that while we should
appreciate all tools the Lord gives us, our ultimate trust
is in Him and in His empowerment.

But what is the linkage between spiritual anointing and the
gift of tongues? Is tongues something that everyone should
be seeking as the sign of God's empowerment?

My starting point is 1 Corinthians 12: 29-30

"Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are
they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform
miracles, do they? Not all have gifts of healing, do they?
Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do
they?" (NET)

There is no ambiguity in the Greek. Paul is asking a
rhetorical question that demands the answer "no". No,
tongues is not for everyone.

Remember that Paul is writing to a church that included a
faction that was pushing for more dramatic manifestations of
the Spirit including the gift of tongues. This was a group
who probably saw themselves as spiritual elites who wanted
others to join them and apparently one of the marks that you
had reached their level of anointing was the exercise of the
gift of tongues.
Paul is clear. No, not everyone has this gift. Indeed it is
the Lord who decides who gets what gift. (1 Corinthians
12:11).

But Paul is not against the gift of tongues. He admits to
exercising the gift frequently in his private prayers. But
he is also clear that his preference is that intelligible
language be used when the church gathers so that believers
can be edified.

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you,
but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to
instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a
tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:18-19 NET).

There are those who argue that there is a "sign of tongues"
which is to be differentiated from the "gift of tongues." At
Pentecost one of the signs that the Spirit had come was
tongues. And everyone ought to seek this "sign of tongues"
as evidence for the Spirit's anointing though not all will
be given the "gift of tongues."

I do not see this differentiation in Scripture.
The word "tongues" is the same both in Acts 2 and in 1
Corinthians. And if one were to push for the signs at
Pentecost should we not also push for the sound of a violent
wind and the tongues of fire?

Therefore I am not convinced that the gift of tongues is the
indispensable sign of God's empowerment or that all
Christians should strive to get it. And I am against any
sort of elitism in the church. There are no second class
Christians at the Lord's table.

But I am convinced that we desperately need the empowerment
of the Spirit for the life and mission of the church. How
then do we appropriate God's power for His purposes? For my
answer I go to Acts 4: 23-31.

Here we find a church totally sold out to God and His
purposes. Initial success in mission work had provoked
persecution. God's power was critically needed for a breakthrough. And so the group joined in corporate prayer beseeching the Lord to intervene and work His power with the following results:

"When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled
together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy
Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously."
(4:31 NET)

Yes there was accompanying physical phenomenon - the place
was shaken - and the Lord does that sometimes, but the key
words are "prayed," "filled with the Holy Spirit," and
"began to speak the word of God courageously."

When we focus on the phenomena of tongues we often get tied
up into all sorts of controversy that take us away from the
heart of the issue.
Instead of pushing tongues we should be searching our hearts
and asking, are we are indeed sold out to God and His
purposes? Are we really aware of our total helplessness to
do His work apart from His anointing?

Whatever our stand on the gift of the tongues, and every
church needs to define their position, we must major on
the majors.
Come O Lord and fill us again.

Your brother,
Soo-Inn Tan

Rate This Post

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Should Christians Convert Others?

I find this article interesting . . .




Should Christians Convert Others?
by Tan Soo-Inn, 25 Jul 2003

http://graceatwork.org/view.php3?Id=174
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was quite jarring to walk into bookstores in Malaysia to be confronted with the cover of the June, 30th issue of TIME magazine. The headline screamed: "Should Christians Convert Muslims?" Fact is, there are state laws in Malaysia that penalizes anyone caught "enticing" a Muslim to leave his or her faith. Therefore the issue of how Christians should reach the Muslim community for Christ is one that is hardly discussed in public in Malaysia.

My first response to the headline was "I would frame the question differently." The Scriptures teach quite clearly that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit i.e. God's own Spirit (John 16:8-11). A Christian may share the truths of the gospel, she may appeal to people to embrace the truth of the gospel, but he cannot convert anyone.

Indeed the church of Christ has often gotten into trouble when she crosses the boundary and tries to do the work of the Holy Spirit, "helping" people to convert through the use of military or governmental powers, or enticing people to Christ through the giving of aid in times of need.

(I quickly need to qualify that Christians are called to show compassion to all in need, giving with a free hand, giving unconditionally. This indirectly reveals the heart of Christ. But we cannot ever imply that to receive help, one must first embrace Christianity.)

No, we cannot convert anyone. Nevertheless, there are certain truths in the Scriptures that are clear. Two of them are:

1. Jesus is the only solution to the root problem of humankind - sin. "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12 NRSV

2. Followers of Jesus are called to bring this message to all races and communities. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20

The irony is that Islam and Christianity share a number of things in common. One of them is a common adherence to the concept of objective and absolute truth. Standing against the post modern mood of many truths for many people, Islam and Christianity would say that if Islam or Christianity were true, then other answers to the fundamental questions of humankind --- "where did we come from", "why are we what we are", "what is the ultimate solution for humankind's problems"---are wrong.

The temptation for Christians and Muslims alike, is to jettison our commitment to absolute truth. We are told to "play nice" and live and let live. Any position that takes truth as absolute will lead to fanaticism and violence. After all, the modern world is a pluralistic world of many faiths. Let every faith community do their own thing but don't try to "convert" others. This position is appealing because there many conflicts around the world that appear to be rooted in religious differences.

Unfortunately any backing away from a commitment to absolute truth undercuts the very basis of the truth of the Christian gospel. If Christianity is not true for all it is not true at all. Why should God come as man and to die on the cross if there was any other way? I am always amused when I hear people say that all religions are essentially the same. Such people betray the fact that they have not studied religions with any degree of depth.

Of course no one wants intercommunal violence. What this means for Christians is that we must take a long hard look at how we share the gospel. I am particularly partial to Leslie Newbigin's suggestion that the lives of Christians must be so different that we arouse the curiosity of those outside the faith. (See for example his "The Gospel In A Pluralist Society.") And when they ask why we are different, then we answer with the gospel. For example, I recall the enemies of Christ having to acknowledge "how they love one another" when they looked at the early Christian communities. I wonder if they would say the same today.

The whole question of Christian-Muslim relationships is a big and complex one. I speak to those within the Christian community. We follow a crucified Christ and have been specifically warned that his followers would suffer the same fate (2 Timothy 3:12). Suffering is intertwined deep in the Christian DNA. We must never kill for Christ (Matthew 26:47-56). But we must always be ready to suffer and die for Him.

Before we even think of such heroic possibilities, we must first ask: What is the quality of our life in Christ? Do Christians and churches reflect so jarringly the love and holiness of God that people pause to look and ask questions? Or are we qualitatively no different from those who do not follow Christ? If there is no real difference, then there really is nothing for people to "convert" to is there?

Your brother, Soo-Inn Tan

Rate This Post