Our own worst enemies?

About a month or so ago I received a tract in my letterbox that made me look for a brick wall to bang my head against.

This tract tells the story of a man who lived in a big city and had graduated from university with honours. He was also very rich and famous which caused him to be quite proud of himself. Other people called him “The Great One”.

This man had a baby daughter who goes to Sunday School, reads the Bible and gives her life to Jesus. The daughter sets about explaining to her father that if he doesn’t know Jesus, when he dies he won’t be able to go to heaven. “The Great One” refuses to listen saying things like, “I am Far too educated to believe that there is a God.” - “What could a mere child possibly teach a scholar like me?” - “Religion is only for the weak.” The man dies and comes before Jesus who says to him, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”. Then there are pictures of the man being thrown into hell by an angel and the little girl being taken of to heaven once she dies. The last call to action is said this way, “Don’t let your pride and rebellion take you to hell forever…Trust Jesus Christ right now.”

I really wonder whether these types of productions do more damage than good. Think about it this way… If you are considering a relationship with someone, what are the first things you want to know? I want to know what they are like, what makes them tick, what their friends are like and what they are passionate about. The answers to these questions will determine my interest or desire in forming a friendship with someone. How inspired would you be to develop a friendship with person X if they said to you, “If you don’t accept me and let me be your friend then I am going to pour kerosene over you and light a match!” I’d be reaching for my cell phone to call the police. Potentially if I was really afraid of them I might agree then and there but would my heart really be in the relationship? But what would I think about X? Would I think they are loving, gracious and full of mercy? Would I serve them out of love or out of fear?

So the question is… If this type of approach doesn’t work for human relationships, why is it still used to introduce people to God??

What did Jesus do? I recall him saying quite a few of times, “Come follow me”. Where’s the hell, fire and brimstone? Rather than an ultimatum He is giving an invitation? An invitation to come and hang out with Him - to see what He is like, to find out what is He passionate about? Is it an invitation to a relationship and is it that relationship that inspired people to become disciples? Hmmm…I wonder if there is something for us to learn here?

Rachel.

Postscript

I’ve have recently finished reading the book “Irresistible Evangelism” by Steve Sjogren, Dave Ping and Doug Pollock all of whom have extensive experience introducing people to Christ. It’s the best book I have ever read on the topic and immensely practical. If you don’t think evangelism is your gifting, or you’ve tried everything with no noticeable impact, then this book is a must read.

Food for thought...

From NZ Herald! 15.04.2002

Dialogue: Spiritual plight of a fence-sitter
By SANDY BURGHAM

List any regular spiritual practices you are involved with," read the question. Hmmm. Like many, I consider myself a "spiritual" person, but what exactly does that mean? My pen remained poised; how could I explain that my form of spirituality remained more in my head than in any form of consistent practice? Sure, there is a splash of meditation here and a few kooky beliefs there, but actual regular expression of spirituality? Well that would have to rate a big fat zero.

I guess my church-going friends would smugly embrace such a question. But for me spending an hour in church just doesn't make the short list of things to do on a Sunday morning. It's not that I don't like the idea of churches, in fact they are among my favourite places to visit when sightseeing abroad. But I have always felt the concept of regular church attendance to be alienating, even though the ritual of a church service would probably provide some respite in a chaotic life such as mine. And I wasn't really sure why.

So I did a quick straw poll among my many non-church-going friends as to why we don't pop in occasionally for a new perspective and a recharge of hope and inspiration.

And this is what I found: while we are aware that churches are not exactly in the position to turn away potential new recruits, the thought of just dropping in for a free trial evokes some basic fears. While we may say, "We don't believe in all of that", there are far simpler things than confusion over Christianity that hold us back.

For starters most imagined causing uncomfortable silence to fall on members of the congregation as they turned to stare at the spiritual fence-sitter among them. And what if one was expected to sign up when one had no real intention of committed attendance every week?

Add to this the thought of a whole lot of overenthusiastic new best friends and most of us want to run a mile.

And then there is the underlying fear of making a fool of oneself for not knowing the drill. "What if you forget the loose change for the plate?" and "How much is one supposed to give?" And then the biggest one of all: "I don't know any of the tunes."

Even the handwritten lyrics projected overhead with the guitar accompaniment are of no real help when it comes to hymns. We have all been at weddings and funerals where we have had to mumble one beat behind the crowd, hoping our voice is either drowned out or accidentally synchronises with those older members of the singing congregation. (This explains why numbers swell at Christmas - thank God for carols, which provide one of the few times that spiritual fence-sitters can blend into the crowd.)

And then of course there is the overall boredom factor. It seems we have a lot of baggage regarding what we think church is like these days - which is probably as accurate as our perceptions of what school is like now.

We seem to imagine highly formalised ceremonies akin to the Queen Mother's funeral. And indeed while the latter drew people of all ages, classes, races and denominations together, we should remember that not only was this a state funeral but one befitting a royal of 101 years of age.

"Times have changed," said the most hip Christian I know. "Most churches now offer a continuum of worship options from conservative to radical services." Marketing to a different target audience, one might say. From highly formal for the oldies to more of a casual bedlam approach for young kids with ambient tunes from a new generation. But this still sounds to me like they are simply preaching to the converted. The thought of a groovy service just wouldn't be enough to get my friends or me.

So what would it take? Well, here's a thought. Recently an agnostic friend went for an uncharacteristic Sunday jog to the waterfront in St Heliers. Passing the local church, he noticed that the cars choked both sides of the road and the church carpark overflowed. The same phenomenon was repeated at the next church, where grass verges were jam-packed with cars, literally clustering around the house of worship.

"Wow," he thought, "maybe church is back! I wonder who goes? What am I missing out on? Why aren't I there? What's it all about? Is this all there is?"

As he pondered the bigger questions in life, he reached the waterfront and there he found his answer. It was actually all due to Round the Bays day.

Hmmm ... rent a crowd. It almost had him.

Something to ponder…

There’s this thing I do every week with out fail – well unless I’m sick or out of town. There is a certain amount of ritual involved. It includes turning up at my friends place, we catch up on our weeks events, have a meal together and then we get all dolled up to go to a meeting place. There we meet some more of our friends and exchange hugs and hello’s, latest news etc. We learn some new things which after a time we get to put into practice on a whole bunch of other people. I love this ritual, it’s fantastic, it’s so much fun and the fellowship with people is great. We even have in-depth conversations about God, faith and morality. Sound familiar? No it’s not church but my weekly dance night at the Auckland Ceroc “club”.

This whole weekly ritual of mine has really got me thinking. Why is it that I always look forward to my Friday night dance ritual with anticipation but on too many occasions I have to drag myself to church? If I miss a week of church, no big deal, but if I miss a week of dance I feel like I’ve missed out on something and I can’t wait to go the next week.

I have raised this quandary with other Christians and discovered that I am not alone in this feeling. I wonder why that is and what should be done about it…something to ponder I guess.

The smacking bill

To smack or not to smack that is the question?

Not being a parent I don’t feel that I am the best qualified to deal with this issue. All I know is I was smacked when I was young and I believe that it was for my benefit not detriment. I have just put some various bits of information, views etc for people to comment if they wish. At the end of the piece there is an option for people who would like to TAKE ACTION in response to what they have read.

The Green Party’s Bill

Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill www.greens.org.nz

“The purpose of this Bill is to stop force, and associated violence being inflicted
on children in the context of correction or discipline. Presently, section 59 of
the Crimes Act 1961 acts as a justification, excuse or defence for parents and
guardians using force against their children where they are doing so for the
purposes of correction and the force used is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Bill will repeal that provision.

The effect of this amendment is that the statutory protection for use of force
by parents and guardians will be removed. Children will now be in the same
position as everyone else so far as the use of force (assault) is concerned.
The use of force on a child may constitute an assault under section 194(a) of
the Crimes Act, a comparatively new provision in the criminal law, and the
repeal of section 59 ought not revive any old common law justification, excuse
or defence that the provision may have codified.”

Points to ponder:

· Bob McCoskrie (from Family First) says a blanket ban on physical force is not the answer to child abuse, and should be stopped before it goes through the costly and time consuming select committee process. Source: www.newstalkzb.co.nz

· Sue Bradford says that I have no right to assault my husband so why do I have a right to assault my child. I can just imagine if I took this to its logical conclusion and told my wife “You will eat all your veggies or you will get no pudding!” Yeah Right! Brian Spicer

· I was always warned that if I did X or Y that it would result in a smack. I chose to do X or Y, therefore I chose to be disciplined by smacking. If reasoning works as a disciplinary process in all situations then the child has agreed to submit themselves to such consequence. Rachel Waters


TAKE ACTION: Contact Family First on www.familyfirst.org.nz or bob@familyfirst.org.nz for more information about how you can take action and stand up for the rights of Families in New Zealand.

Movie Review

The Da Vinci Code…no threat to faith

I went along to see The Da Vinci Code movie over the weekend. I went because a lot of my friends are non-Christians and I wanted to be able to discuss intelligently the claims made by the movie (and I assume the book). To be honest, it was an average film but not the worst I’ve seen. The acting was poor and it was quite predictable – even to someone who has not read the book. (I do wonder how much of the controversy surrounding the film is what makes it hold your attention i.e. wanting to see what all the fuss is about. Although my boss thinks it is the most boring movie he has ever seen.)

Too often people forget that Dan Brown’s book is a work of fiction – so logic would suggest that anything it says either cannot be believed, should be taken with a huge cup of salt or can easily be refuted when serious investigation into historical documents is undertaken. Some of the theories presented just show the ignorance of either the author or film maker about the nature of life in Jesus’ day - which just makes the key suppositions soooo unbelievable – even for fiction. For example, Mary Magdalene being wisked off to France where she lived in secret and raised Jesus’ child? Such a “theory” fails to consider the difficulties that women, without a husband to provide for them, would have faced – anonymity would have been virtually impossible. And do we really think that she could have got from Jerusalem to France without someone saying “What the”? Also the Pharisees and Sadducees were desperate to find means of discrediting Jesus at the time, if there was any truth to such claims they would have uncovered them. Jesus would have then rightly been labeled a fraud, a really good magician or just plain crazy – He certainly wouldn’t have the followers he does today.

The Christian Church need not be surprised, nor need it feel threatened, that some guy has tried to create the suggestion that Jesus is not divine. I’m sorry Dan but this is not an original idea. Jesus’ divinity was under question even when he was alive – just take a look at the questions that the Pharisees and Sadducees fired at Jesus in the Gospels. In many ways the theories in The Da Vinci Code are just old stale arguments re-wrapped in more modern tinsel.

I agree with what many in the Christian church are saying, that the book and the movie provide a fantastic opportunity to talk about what we do believe and why we believe it. We don’t need to be trained evangelists - you just need to go to the movies – and try not to laugh.

Time will show that Jesus is a risen Saviour, worshiped by millions and rightly so. As for Dan Brown? I suspect he will just become an answer to a trivial pursuit question.

Rachel

Will the real Bible please stand up?


Every now and then we get asked what version of the Bible our donors will be placing with their gift of $7. The answer is difficult because in some ways we would have to say “no version”. I spoke recently with a translator from Wycliffe Bible Translators Association, who has over 25 years of experience, and asked him to explain why “no version” is still one of the best versions.

Imagine if the Bible was only available in the Indonesian language; in fact, that in Indonesian there were dozens of good translations of the Bible available, but none in English. Would it help you much? You'd have to learn Indonesian to understand what God was trying to reveal to us. But what if there were so few Indonesian speakers where you live that you could never learn Indonesian enough to be fluent, and what little you did understand was not enough to appreciate any of the Indonesian Bible versions well enough to know if one was better than another, or even to understand one of them well? Your Christian life would be stunted, you would be easily deceived by heretical teaching, the deep treasures in the Scripture would be totally locked away and inaccessible to you. At best you'd only have the general drift of what Christianity was about. Would that satisfy you?

That is the reality for millions of people even today, those who speak minority languages that for one reason or another, the rest of the world are not interested in. If such people are ever going to be able to have a theological discussion that honours Scriptural truth, they must be able to access the scriptures in the language in which they think. The language of the heart is the perfect vehicle for bringing God's truth to a searching soul, slipping past all the barriers that arise from misunderstandings of foreign translations. Historically, churches that have had the scriptures in their heart language have thrived, those that didn't, died out or became unfaithful to the truth.

New translations of the Bible have, for the last hundred years or so, have been based on thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and manuscript fragments. The very best manuscripts have only been discovered in the last few centuries. Thousands of scholars the world over have diligently worked to use all that evidence in order to construct, as accurately as possible, the text that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts contained. Modern translations, including those done into minority languages throughout the world, are based on those carefully reconstructed original language scripture texts.

What constitutes good translation procedure is well known, and modern translators are trained in these techniques. They also rely on the Holy Spirit, and are careful to not let any sectarian bias enter the translation. By diligent hard work and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit, plus careful checking of their work by highly trained consultants, and making use as appropriate of the many excellent exegetical commentaries available in recent times, the translators are able to produce as accurate and meaningful translation of the Scripture into minority languages as we in English speaking countries enjoy in the English language. Biblesinaction promotes the publication and distribution of the Bible in the heart language of minority peoples, because when God's truth comes to people in the language in which they speak about matters of the heart, it speaks with a power that the Holy Spirit can use as a sharp sword which cuts to the depths of a person's soul. Missionaries the world over have found this to be the case over and over again.

So do we give the King James Version to the Massai tribes in Africa – no. We give them the Scriptures in their heart language – by far the best version.


Rachel

Outreach

It is wonderful and amazing to see what churches in New Zealand can do when they come together in partnership to reach their community. The recent outreach in Christchurch with Pastor Greg Laurie as the visiting speaker and performances by top quality musicians, such as Steve Curtis Chapman, has been heralded as a huge success. With around 22 000 people attending over 3 nights and an estimated 2000 people making decisions for Christ, the 100 churches that were involved can, and should, be proud of what they have achieved. But it did not come without significant cost – half a million dollars and two years of planning. Yet these people were willing to carry that burden in order to have an impact in their local community.

Because of the nature of where I work and the issues that I am exposed to in the international kingdom of God, I do find myself sitting here wistfully thinking about what biblesinaction could achieve with that same amount of money. Half a million dollars – that equates to 71 428 decisions for Christ. How come? Because that’s 71 428 Bibles, at $7 a Bible, we can place in the hands of people who are hungry for God’s Word; to reach them and disciple them. That is not including the number of flow-on conversions as these same people share with their families and friends from their new Bible, the thousands of small groups studies and churches that would be planted. Is it just me or does it start one thinking about what we in New Zealand can achieve throughout the world?

Churches in the west are privileged to have relatively easy access to large sums of money, but what responsibilities and opportunities does that wealth come with? So together, as we continue to work in our God given mandates (Mt 28;19;Acts1:8), please do not let us forget those around the world who still are waiting to have their own Bible and the many millions of seekers who have heard something of Jesus but have yet to be introduced to Him personally.