In Defense of the Sermon - Part 2

In the previous post, we looked at the Biblical precedent for preaching and saw that sermons are not merely a Western cultural tradition but have their foundation in the pages of Scripture. In this post, I would like to wrap up by responding to some objections to maintaining the sermon as a central part of the life of the Christian church.

Objection#1 “Sermons are ineffective”
Perhaps you will grant to me the fact that preaching is important in Scripture but would go on to add that times have changed and sermons just don’t “work”. In some ways, I agree. I have heard lots of sermons that just don’t work. But it is not because the idea of preaching a sermon is a bad one but rather because the sermon that someone decided to preach was a bad sermon. It was boring. It was irrelevant. It was mostly the preacher’s own ideas and hobby horses with little reference to Scripture. It explained the meaning of the passage for ancient Israelites but failed to show how it applies to modern listeners. It was all puffed up emotion or moralistic platitudes with little reference to Scripture. It did nothing to address the misunderstandings and objections of the listeners, failing to make people see what God is saying and how it intersects with their life. It is just a collection of observations about the passage that the preacher thought were interesting but there is no overall coherent message. The preacher, fearing that he will lose people, fills his sermon with too many irrelevant funny stories that at the end of the day make people laugh but fails to feed them with the Word of God. There are lots of examples of bad sermons but that is not any justification for getting rid of the sermon. It is every reason to raise the bar for our preachers, making clear to our preachers that assembling some cool stories and a token passage of Scripture on Saturday night is not an acceptable way to feed the flock of God with His Word.

We shouldn’t be surprised if a bad sermon is not effective. However, when a sermon is Biblically grounded and speaks directly to the people where they are, we should expect it to be much more effective. Of course, we must not forget the God factor. It is possible to preach a good Biblical sermon and get little response, through no fault of the preacher but through the hardness of the listeners’ hearts and the sovereign decision of God. But when the preaching is Biblical and the Holy Spirit is moving, look out! Peter preached at Pentecost and three thousand people repented in one day. I’d say that that was an effective sermon.

Objection#2 “People learn better in a participatory environment. Listening to a sermon is too passive.”
God knows about different learning styles. He invented them. The people in ancient Israel and the New Testament church had a variety of learning styles too because people are people no matter what century they live in. And for that reason, we should not fail to have Bible study groups, Sunday school classes, and personal conversations that help people understand God’s Word in an interactive two-sided way. But God has still given us the sermon in the pages of Scripture as a central way to proclaim God’s Word and teach His people. As for the sermon being too passive, I want to suggest that the problem may not be with the preacher but with the listener. Are you as a listener paying close attention to what the preacher is saying, looking back at the passage being preached to see if the Scripture really says that, and actively thinking about what is being said and what it means for you? A lot of people have not been instructed as to how to listen to a sermon, so they just sit there expecting their weekly dose of encouragement to be served up on a silver platter without any thinking required on their part. Sometimes I will take notes on a sermon so that I can look back at them and be reminded of the content of the sermon and can think upon it later. We need to train people to be active listeners. And the listeners themselves need discipline themselves to pay careful attention. For those coming from a Thai Buddhist background, the idea that it is important to pay attention to the content of the sermon may be difficult to grasp at first. If a Buddhist goes to the temple and at least physically hears the monk preaching, then the listener earns merit and has derived religious benefit from the exercise even if they spent the majority of the time whispering to their friend or examining the paint on the wall of the temple. However, if someone wants to hear what God wants to say to them in the Bible, it would seem natural that they would want to pay attention to what is being preached. Someone is not going to get much out of the sermon if they are fiddling with their mobile phone or doodling inside the back cover of the songbook. It takes work to get something out of a sermon. If someone is not willing to do a some work in their listening and pay attention to the sermon, then I am not surprised that they don’t get anything out of the sermon.

Objection#3 “The sermon is a Western church tradition, rooted in culture and not the Bible. We should find more indigenous ways of teaching the Bible.”
We have already covered the Biblical foundations for preaching and observed that preaching is rooted in Scripture. It may have become Western church tradition but with good reason - it is in the Bible. From a cultural and pragmatic point of view though, I would say that preaching is a culturally appropriate and indigenous form of speech in many cultures. It is here in Thailand. Buddhist monks preach. They give sermons. I went to the book shop at the local shopping center, and there is a big tall shelf with tons of MP3 CDs and VCDs of Buddhist monks preaching. Some are more serious conservative preachers and some look like popular youth speakers, trying to connect Buddhist teachings to the lives of modern young people. The fact that they sell Buddhist sermons in the book shop means that someone is buying them. Many nights when I go out to buy food at the fresh market across from the big temple here in town, there is a monk preaching on a loud speaker for all the surrounding community to hear. Granted, I have my doubts as to how many people are listening but he is preaching nonetheless. Monks preach on the radio and on TV, besides at the temple. So, just from a cultural contextualization point of view, the sermon is a very valid form of indigenous Thai speech that is used to communicate religious truth. Truthfully, it is the interactive participatory discussion around the Bible that feels more foreign to Thai people than the sermon. Although I wouldn’t go this far, if you wanted to be really indigenous in your church planting, then you should cut out the participation and question-and-answer time because that has more of a foreign feel to it than a sermon.

The institution of the sermon is rooted in Scripture and is an important model of communicating God’s truth that he has given to the church. Granted, we need to use a range of methods to communicate God’s truth, but I would seriously question anyone who would want to jettison the sermon from the life of the Christian church. To get rid of or sideline the sermon in churches today, either Thai or Western, would be to ignore both the Biblical precedent and the common cultural conventions of religious communication.

In Defense of the Sermon - Part 1

I’ve heard some missionaries say that the sermon is not all that important for the spiritual growth of believers. Others have suggested that the sermon be done away with all together. Isn’t the sermon merely a cultural tradition of the Western church anyway? Shouldn’t we find some better, less passive, and more culturally appropriate way to help believers understand and apply the Bible?

Hearing statements like this have concerned me because in the name of contextualization and better spiritual growth, we are about to throw out something that not only has a firm Biblical basis but is also an appropriate and contextual form of religious speech in Thai culture. In this first of two posts about the sermon, I would like to lay out some Biblical arguments for why churches should retain the sermon as a centerpiece of Christian worship and teaching. Not only churches in the West, but churches everywhere.

The Biblical Precedent for Preaching
If we look through Scripture just briefly, we’ll see lots of examples of preaching. The idea of the sermon was not developed in some Puritan think tank in 16th century England. When the people of Israel had newly entered in the land of Canaan, Joshua expounds to the people the history of what God has done for them (Joshua 24:1-13) and upon that basis goes on to challenge them to choose whether they will serve the God of Israel or some other gods (Joshua 24:14-15). Here we have two fundamental components of a sermon: explanation of God’s words and actions and application of that to the lives of the listeners. Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel stood up in the public square, bringing God’s word to the people, and exhorted them to turn back to God. In the book of Nehemiah, we see a wonderful example of this as Ezra the priest stands up to expound the law of God to all the people who are gathered in the public square (Nehemiah 8:1-8). Ezra stood up on a wooden platform and read the Law of God to the people from morning until midday and the other priests with Ezra helped explain what Ezra was reading so that the people could understand it. The Bible and it’s explanation and application were central for Ezra (Ezra 7:10) because that is what the people needed most - to hear from God. And the sermon was the appointed vehicle for doing so. If we skip over to the New Testament, we see that Jesus preached. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) he starts from the people’s misunderstanding of the Word of God and goes on to explain its true meaning, which had been distorted by the Pharisees. Some missionaries say that Jesus used stories so therefore we should emphasize stories over exposition of Scripture. Granted, Jesus did use stories but that is not all he did. He also explained Scripture and applied it to people’s lives. That’s preaching. Although it wasn’t a sermon per se, Jesus even engaged in systematic theology with the two disciples on the Emmaus road. “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). In other words, Jesus went through the Scriptures systematically drawing out all the relevant parts to explain the doctrine of Himself. The apostle Peter picked up on this on the day of Pentecost, preaching to the people about the person and work of Jesus Christ from the Old Testament (Acts 2:14-36), applying these truths to his listeners (“you killed Jesus”). Three thousand were convicted to the heart and repented. The apostle Paul’s common method of evangelism was to visit the synagogue in the city he was visiting and preach to the people gathered there (Acts 19:8 is just one example). Sure he taught from house to house, but he also taught publicly (Acts 20:20). When Paul was booted out of the synagogue in Ephesus, he started preaching in the hall of Tyrannus. Paul certainly knew the value of teaching people at home and speaking with individuals and small groups, but he also preached to large groups.

Please don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that small groups in homes are bad or that people should not circle up the chairs at times and have a discussion around the Bible. I think that both of these are great. Personal evangelism and small Bible studies have been greatly used of God to advance his church over the centuries. But God has also used the sermon to mighty effect throughout history and there is a strong Biblical precedent for continuing to preach sermons today.

The Preacher as Prophet
There is a sense in which the New Testament preacher takes up the mantle of Old Testament prophet. I don’t mean to say that there is a continuing gift of prophecy but rather that as the preacher stands in the place of God in speaking to the people (as Moses did), their is a certain commanding authority and one-sidedness that is derived from the Word of God. In Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, Mark Dever writes, “Permit me to suggest that the one-sidedness of preaching is not only excusable but is actually important. If in our preaching we stand in the place of God, giving His Word by His Spirit to His people, then surely it is appropriate that it be one-sided - not that it should be one-sided in the sense that the one preaching is never to be questioned; but, in the event of preaching itself, the univocal character of God’s Word comes as a monologue to us, not hoping to solicit interest and participation but requiring that we respond. Something of this character must be retained.” (Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church, p.33). If the sermon is done away with than the church misses out on that prophetic voice of God made visible in the act of preaching. In Scripture, a high place is given to the prophetic exposition of God’s Word in the act of preaching, and we would do well to uphold and maintain it.

In the next post, we’ll take a look at, and respond to, some objections to the continuing use of the sermon in the life of the church.

Same Words, Different Worlds

Have you ever been talking with someone and just feel like you’re not communicating? You’re speaking the same language but somehow you’re not understanding each other and the whole conversation feels like ships passing in the night? You are on the same page, reading the same words, but getting totally different things out of it?

One of the challenges of communicating the Gospel in Thailand is what I am going to call the “definition gap”. The definition gap occurs when two people are speaking the same language and using the same words but loading totally different meanings into those words. It’s as if I start telling you about a guy named “Bob”, meaning my next door neighbor. But you think I am talking about Bill Murray’s character named “Bob” in the movie “What about Bob?”. We are both talking about “Bob” but meaning two totally different things.

In Thailand, both missionaries and Thai Christians use words like “God”, “sin”, “heaven”, and “hell” to share the Gospel but what Thai Buddhists understand by these words is usually completely different. The word used for “God” (พระเจ้า) is also commonly used to talk about the king, not to mention any variety of other gods or spirits. “Sin” (บาป) is popularly construed as killing animals, and is not defined in relation to the Creator God to whom we are responsible. Heaven and hell are sometimes not understood as being literal places as seen in the idiom, “Heaven is in your chest, and hell is in your heart” (สวรรค์อยู่ในอก นรกอยู่ในใจ) which means that this life is either heaven or hell depending upon what you make of it. Even when heaven and hell are seen as literal places, they are not final destinations in Buddhist thinking. Once you pay off enough karma in hell, you can be reborn in the human world. And when you finish paying off that last little bit of karma that has followed you along to heaven, then you can move on to the next spiritual rebirth and finally blink out of existence by reaching Nirvana. Can you see how problems of understanding can, and often do happen when Christians use words that Buddhists understand in a totally different way? The tragedy here is that well meaning Christians assume that when they use certain words, that the Buddhist listener will automatically fill in that word with the Christian meaning. However, it is completely unrealistic to assume that someone completely unfamiliar with the Bible and the Christian faith will assume the Biblical meaning of sin when the word “sin” (or บาป in Thai) is employed. Would it not be a better assumption that my Buddhist listener will think of the Buddhist concept of sin when the Christian starts talking about sin?

If I fail to explain the Biblical meaning of sin, comparing it and contrasting it to the meaning of sin presumed by my listener, then I have no idea what my listener is really understanding. And sharing the Gospel is not about using certain words as if those words magically create understanding of the Gospel when used. Even in English, if I talk to a non-Christian about “being washed in the blood of the Lamb” or “the imputation of righteousness” or “the substitutionary atonement of Christ”, I am going to get a lot of confused looks. Those phrases all have specific meaning for me, but if the listener doesn’t know the technical and precise understanding that I am pouring into those words, then I am wasting my breath. Sharing the Gospel is about creating understanding so that the truth about God, the truth about self, and the truth about the world is laid bare in a way that is UNDERSTOOD. If understanding doesn’t happen, then true communication has not happened and the Biblical Gospel has not been heard.

The fact that there has been this “definition gap” in Gospel communication in Thailand has gone unnoticed in many parts of the church in Thailand. Christian amnesia kicks in and Christians forget how they thought and what they believed before they were Christians. Hence, they use common terms with a new Christian meaning and assume that their Buddhist friends and neighbors are going to “get it”. The problem is more severe for those who have grown up in the church, and have learned the Christian meaning of these terms from an early age. And then you have missionaries who presume that because they say baap (บาป), the Thai word for sin, then their Thai Buddhist hearers will know what they are talking about. I admit that I myself at times have fallen into the later category, not realizing that I was not communicating what I thought I was communicating. Actually, I may still be doing it at times because I am still learning what exactly it is that people are thinking and how their worldview works. And studying Buddhism in the classroom has not been the complete answer either because what is in the books and what the guy on the street actually believe and do are often different.

A number of missionaries have been concerned about this “definition gap” or problem in message contextualization as it may also be called. And now there are some Thai pastors and church leaders who are becoming concerned as well. At the upcoming Thailand Protestant Congress on Evangelism, the following video spot will be shown, inviting Thai church leaders to come discuss the problem of communicating the message of the Gospel in Thailand in ways that create understanding.

The speaker in the video above is Rev. Bantoon Boon-it of Suebsamphantawong Church in Bangkok. For non-Thai speakers, the gist of the video is this: Communication is made up of information and relationship. Pastor Bantoon says, ‘If I ask my wife for a glass of water but don’t have the right tone of voice, I might get a glass of water but she might not be so happy about it. If I ask a stranger for a glass of water, I might get the water but not as I would like because I don’t know the person. However, if I ask for a glass of water using the Latin word AQUA, it is not going to matter if I have a good relationship with the person I am asking because they are going to have no idea what I am talking about it they don’t know Latin.’ The point he is making is that although the Thai church has done a decent job of relating to people, yet somehow the Gospel is not getting through in many cases because of the ‘definition gap’ or a lack of message contextualization.

There are lots of contextualization issues to be addressed in Thailand (worship music, clothing, liturgy, architecture, etc.) but the most important is the Gospel. Is the content of the Gospel being preached, taught, and shared in a way that really creates understanding? Or are we creating confusion, or even worse swinging wide open the doors to syncretism and false conversions? Are we giving people the opportunity to paste Christian words onto their existing Buddhist animistic worldview, creating the impression of Christianity while leaving their former worldview intact? Form without substance. It is good to see this issue being brought up for discussion and I hope that a number of Thai Christian leaders will see the importance of getting the content of the Gospel right and taking the time figure out whether what they think they are communicating is actually getting through.

Do I Need to Know THIS Word?

One of the challenges of language study is deciding which words to try to remember and which ones to not worry about. Ideally, I would be able to remember and incorporate into my working knowledge all of the new Thai words that I encounter in my reading and conversation. But, there are a LOT of new words that I encounter all the time. In working through a Thai novel about the history of democracy in Thailand, every page has many words that I either have not encountered before or still haven't learned well enough to actually use them. Here's an example: In my novel, the word meru (เมรุ), pronounced "main", has come up a couple times in the context of funerals. The immediate context in the novel didn't give me enough information to figure it out but upon looking it up in the dictionary, I've found out that it means "funeral pyre" or "crematorium". So, I think it is that little building on the temple grounds where they burn the body after a Buddhist funeral. Now, is this something I should make a point of remembering? It's not a word that I hear come up in conversation very often and if I remember correctly, I usually hear people talk about "the place where you burn the body" (ที่เผาศพ), and not meru (เมรุ) so I could probably get by without bothering to memorize the word. However, now that I have blogged about, the word is probably going to be stuck in my memory whether I intend it to be or not. And besides that I just enjoy learning new words and trying them out in conversation.

One of the strange things about learning new words is that very often after I learn a new word, I start hearing it in conversation whereas before I was completely oblivious to the fact that it existed. I suppose that that can be accounted for by the fact that now that I've been made aware of the word, I pick up on it easily whereas before it was just one more unknown word in the midst of conversation and as long as I was able to get the general flow of the conversation, it wasn't necessary to know every word. I have to say though, that as I continue with language study (a perpetually unfinished task), it is nice to be picking up on more and more details in the conversations that I hear and the things that I read. And the more I understand in detail, the more involved I feel with the people that I am talking with, and the more at home I feel in the Thai language and with Thai people. And since we plan to be here long-term, that is a very good thing.

Indirect Communication

I had been told that Thai people communicate indirectly but as time has gone on I have seen so many instances of Thai people communicating quite directly and to the point that I question whether that statement is really true. Sometimes they can be quite direct but other times so indirect that I have no idea what happened.

While at the hospital recently with some believers from the PhraBaht church, I noticed that one woman had this little bookelt in her hand as we waited to go in to see the man we had come to visit. The booklet is called, in English, "Criticism: Giving it and Receiving it" or something along those lines. I asked her about it to see what she thought. It had piqued her interest because of how much gossip there is going around and how difficult it is to reconcile differences with other people. Unfortunately, she hadn't read it yet and couldn't give me a review. However, after confirming that it was indeed translated from English, I asked her to let me know what she thought when she was done. Did she think the advice and way of going about giving and receiving criticism too Western or was the advice contained therein good and usable for Thai people? She gave me a puzzled expression and said, "It shouldn't make a difference, should it?" I went on, "Well, you know that Westerners often talk pretty directly, saying exactly what they mean, and Thai people...." She interrupted, "Ah...." apparently understanding where I was going with my question and then went on to explain, "that's because when you don't know someone really well, you give them more respect. You're not close with them so therefore you need to speak more politely." "You mean speak in a round about way instead of directly?" I interjected. "Right", she confirmed and then went on, "or even sometimes with friends I might speak indirectly, especially if I need to borrow money. I wanted to borrow money from a particular friend and I took such a long and indirect route in asking her that she finally she looked at me and said, 'How much do need?' But with friends you can usually speak more directly because you are close with them. I was on the phone the other day ordering some things, speaking in a really common familiar way because I knew the person and didn't need to bother with all the pleasantries. My mom overheard the conversation and when I got off the phone reprimanded me for not speaking more politely. I explained that we knew each other and it was fine but she still wasn't buying it."

From this conversation, I think that I can draw a few helpful points about indirect communication in Thailand.

1) The better you know someone, the more directly you can speak with them. The corollary here is that indirect communication is going to be more common when you are dealing with strangers or mere acquaintances.

2) When someone seems to be speaking around and around, there may be very well be something uncomfortable or awkward that they want to say or ask but can't quite bring themselves to say it. The speaker may feel awkward for themselves or may not want the listener to feel uncomfortable or ashamed by hearing it put bluntly.

3) Indirect communication can be a form of respecting another person, the speaker not wanting to disrespect the listener by being too familiar with them.

I shared my conversation at the hospital with my wife, and she had the further observation that one reason that Thai people communicate indirectly with strangers may be because they don't know how much power that person to hurt them. If you are too direct or too open with someone that you don't know well, it could come back and bite you. Information is power.

Indirect communication may very well help to avoid awkward situations and the potential for hurt but I am not convinced that it is always the most helpful form of communication. In the church context, it seems that there have been many times where a gentle indirect prodding about sin in someone's life doesn't get any results. The best way forward from there may not be to merely continue indirect making hints or just letting it go. I am not advocating legalistic picking on every little thing in people's lives that is not right but when there is big notorious ongoing sin that is going unchecked, there comes a time when indirect communication needs to be pushed aside and a more direct and firm, yet gentle and loving, form of communication needs to be pursued. Sure, it will be uncomfortable but if the joy, repentance, and restoration of the erring believer is the goal, then it is worth the risk of ruining a relationship by speaking more directly. The goal of addressing unrepentant sin in a person's life is not to beat them over the head in a self-righteous manner, but rather to see them restored, walking in joy and reconciled in their relationship with God and with others. Restoration is the broader context of the passage on church discipline in Matthew 18. Since the Thai often address uncomfortable issues where people could lose face by speaking indirectly, that type of communication would be my first stop in trying to guide someone back into a right relationship with God and others but if they don't get it or ignore it, more direct communication may be needed. It may be more culturally appropriate to just "let it go" or keep communicating indirectly for fear of losing the relationship but biblically, Jesus did not just let people go. As a shepherd going after the lost sheep, he pursued them in order to bring them home (Matt 18:10-14, notice that this section is just before the one on church discipline - the two go together). In Thai culture, there is a lot of value placed upon maintaining outward harmony even if there are known problems just beneath the surface but the goal of church life to honor God through obedient living and reconciled relationships. When people are right with each other, genuine unity is the result, not merely superficial and outward organization unity (Ephesians 4:1-16)

Bangkok Protests (Red Shirts vs. Government)

Thai political tensions are flaring up again. At the end of last year, yellow-shirted protesters flooded Bangkok trying to force the resignation of the then-current government which had the support of former prime minister Thaksin and the red-shirt protesters. The yellow-shirts succeeded and now that a yellow-shirt supported government is in power, the red-shirted pro-Thaksin protesters have taken to the streets trying to get the now current government to resign. Confused yet? I am. Here is a video from YouTube to give you a little bit of the flavor of what's currently going on in Bangkok. There is no explanation of the images in the video unforunately, but I can tell you that the first segment is the red-shirt protesters trashing cars at the Interior Ministry, including one car in the Prime Minister's motocade. The situation is constantly changing so, see the Bangkok Post website for the latest. CNN also has an article giving the recent background and possible outcomes of the current situation. We are following the events through our local Thai TV news and the Bangkok Post Breaking News RSS feed.



For those who are not familiar with Thai geography, our family is not near the situation in Bangkok, as we live two hours distant in the town of Phra Phutthabat, Saraburi province. We do, however, know many people who do live in Bangkok much closer to the current events.

The history of democracy in Thailand is extremely complicated, filled with coup d'etats, new constitutions, and changes of power through means that not everyone would call democratic. For language study, I am currently reading a Thai novel about the history of democracy in Thailand. It is a historical fiction book which follows the (fictional) lives of two men, one a policeman, one a revolutionary turned bandit, through the convulsions of the development of democracy in Thailand from its inception in 1932 through to the early 1990s (Thai edition: ประชาธิปไตยบนเส้นขนาน / English edition: Democracy, Shaken and Stirred). I am finding this book to be particularly fascinating as it helps me to get a bigger picture of what's going on in Thai politics, especially the years of background that have contributed to the ongoing political situation. The author provides an appendix at the end of the book informing the reader which characters were fictional and which were real, which is helpful. Lots of information but done in a really interesting format with plenty of action and dialogue, making it far more interesting than a history text book. I doubt that reading this book will help me to "figure out" who are the good guys and the bad guys in Thai politics (as if were that clear) but at the very least, I expect that reading this novel will give me greater insight into the expectations, trials, hopes, disappointments, and attitudes of Thai people towards their leaders and towards the political process in general.

The more that I can understand people and their situation, the more I would hope to be able to speak the Gospel with accuracy and appropriacy into their lives. Looking at the Gospels, it seems that Jesus always knew people's starting point and worked from there in applying the truth that they needed, whether it be a word of rebuke for self-righteous Pharisees or a word of forgiveness and healing for a crippled outcast.

Snake Hunting

I am beginning to think that I should just look at run-ins with snakes as part of life here. Sun had just finished some language study and left her notebook and MP3 player on the desk in our office/guest room while I finished bringing some laundry in from outside. Leaving the reading lamp on the desk turned on, Sun and Joshua went across the street to the community center where there are some exercise machines and neighbors to talk to. I went into the office to finally do some reading for language study and catch up on email. Walking up to the desk, I jumped back in fright at the sight of a snake sunning itself under our reading lamp. The snake then quickly slithered off with a start, likely just as surprised as I was.

I was not happy. The long thin dark green snake hid itself behind the desk unit in the corner. For the next half an hour or so, I tore apart the office in a cat-and-mouse search for the snake. As soon as I found him, he was off again to a new hiding place. I thought I had him once when the little end of his tail was sticking out from under the headboard of the bed (I had removed the mattress and boards on top of the frame). I pinned down his tail with my machete, hoping to pull him backwards under the headboard, hopefully crushing him in the process. It wasn't to be. I severed part of his tail, causing him to bleed but he yanked himself free and was off again. I finally located him curled up in a zig-zag fashion against the wall behind a filing cabinet. I carefully pulled the cabinet out and slammed it against the wall, hoping to crush him. I didn't succeed in crushing him but I cut off his escape route to the left. He jagged right under Sun's sewing table where he met his doom. The snake and I went back and forth for a few minutes as I pushed aside a trash can and electrical wires in order to get a better shot at the snake. Finally, I had a good angle and pinned down his head with the end of my machete. The snake was really upset now and tried desperately to get away as I sawed off its head with my dull machete and screamed, "Die! Die! Die!". Screaming at the snake didn't really serve any other purpose other than it felt really good to say it after my long hunt for this vile intruder.

With the floor under the sewing table smeared with snake blood, I scooped up the severed snake head and took it out on the front porch where Sun & Joshua were sitting close to the house, sheltering themselves from the driving rainstorm which had begun not long after my battle with the snake. I went back and got the body and tossed it out in front of the porch where the body continued to slither for quite sometime. It was rather amazing, really. The following video was taken about ten minutes or so after I had beheaded the snake.

I don't know when it stopped moving as I threw the body into the flower bed and went back inside to clean up the mess. There was lots of blood under the sewing table and then drops of blood along the floor between the office and the front door where I carried out the snake. Dinner time was upon us and as I put the office back together, Sun reminded me that I had not yet given them the all-clear signal to come back in the house. Realizing my oversight, Sun and Joshua came back in and we sat down to dinner, albeit a bit late.

I did a bit of research on this website and think that it was a Golden Tree Snake, which is technically part of the viper family but whose venom is so mild that it doesn't have much of an effect on humans. All the same, finding a snake in your house is a bit of a tense experience because I have yet to have a snake encounter where I had the leisure of looking up the snake on the internet before needing to hunt it down with some long sharp implement.

Maybe Thai People Do Like To Read!

I've thought for a long time that Thai people don't read that much (even though the majority can read, at least to a basic level). There are very few bookstores in Thailand (not counting comic book rental shops) and I don't see people reading books that much. Out in Nong Doan, the lower class farming community where we are trying to do a church plant, I've met a number of folks who claim that they can't read (although in reality it seems that they say this because they don't have confidence in their reading ability because of low educational level). These experiences have made me think more about oral Bible story telling in ministry, the importance of good oral Biblical preaching and teaching, and distributing the Thai New Testament on MP3 for those who would rather listen than read. Along these lines, I've started listening to a few of the "Introduction to Orality" podcasts over at Story4all.

With that said, some recent experiences and some new research have made me think that reading and literature may be an important part of many Thai people's lives after all. Actually, I always wanted to believe that literature has an important role in evangelism and discipleship in Thailand for no other reason than the fact that books have had an important role in my own spiritual development. And we can't ignore the fact that God gave us the Bible in a book, not on a CD.

In his recent research dissertation on "Conversion Growth of Protestant Churches in Thailand", Marten Visser found that "[t]hough a lot of attention is given to TV and radio ministry, only 10% of the new believers mention these media as the major media influence in their conversion. 30% claim that media did not play any role at all. The remainder, 60%, mentioned printed media. This contradicts what is often said that ‘Thai people do not read’. Actually, they do. Recent research showed that two thirds of all Thai people read, not counting for study and work, an average of 39 minutes a day. Printed media like the Bible, bible correspondence courses, and Christian books have a major impact. Even tracts are mentioned by 17% of the new believers as the major media influence in their conversion." Commenting on these findings, Vissers writes, "The reason why printed media are so often mentioned is probably that printed media go from hand-to-hand, and are therefore mostly used in the context of a social network. Other media are literally broadcast, and this research again shows that that is less likely to influence people on the deep level that is needed in order to commit their lives to God."

Visser's research came to mind the other day when some neighborhood children came to play on our front porch. A little boy was hiding in an unused new trash can , popping out in order to scare his sister, claiming that he was a ghost / evil spirit. My wife Sun took the opportunity to share with the girl that if a person believes in Jesus, he doesn't need to be scared of evil spirits because Jesus is more powerful than every spirit. She didn't engage much with Sun on the topic of evil spirits but she was interested in hearing about Jesus as she had read from cover to cover the children's evangelistic magazine that we had given out as part of our neighborhood Christmas outreach a few months ago. From this magazine, she knew something about creation, Adam & Eve, the serpent who tempted them, and Jesus dying on the cross. Even though her little brother interrupted several times, she kept coming back asking Sun to tell her more about the life of Jesus. I was greatly encouraged by her interest to hear about Jesus and impressed that she had actually read the evangelistic magazine. This magazine wasn't just some cutesy pictures, a Bible verse or two and lots of games. There was lots of text and Biblical content. And she read it! Just the day before that, a couple neighborhood moms and their kids were visiting with us and Joshua on our front porch and we found out that both of the moms had read Harry Potter (in translation, of course). I think one of them was working through the series. I wouldn't have guessed that they were the kind of folks who enjoy reading but I guess that shows what I know. Sun brought out a book by a Thai man who went from poverty to being a judge, and how God had changed his life. She seemed interested in the book and took it home to read!

I am not going to stop looking into the role of oral communication and story telling in sharing the Gospel but from these recent experiences and Marten Visser's findings, I am encouraged to continue finding appropriate tracts and books to give to people in order to share the Gospel and build up believers in their knowledge and experience of God.

Thai New Testament on MP3 - Free Download

The vast majority of Thai people can read but that doesn't mean that everyone likes to read or is really good at reading. Faith Comes By Hearing has a great selection of MP3 New Testaments available for free download, including Thai. The Thailand Bible Society has one for sale for about 300 Baht but I prefer the non-drama recording available here much better - no "borrowed" movie theme music at the beginning of each chapter, and no echoing feedback voice for the sections of text when angels speak. Since it is free download, I burn it onto CDs (it fits onto two 700 MB discs) and give it to Thai folks who indicate an interest in listening to Scripture. Not everybody likes to read and some people enjoy listening to Scripture more. Personally, I find it slow to read Thai so sometimes I listen to the Thai NT MP3 file while following along in my Thai Bible. It also helps me hear the pronunciation and rhythm of speech which, as a non-native speaker, I wouldn't necessarily get just by reading silently.