Evangelical Unity in Thailand

How do very different denominations work together to do church planting? This is the big question that remains to be answered as the 7th Thailand Congress on Evangelism in Bangkok came to an end this past week. The conference brought together three of the largest Protestant church groups in Thailand - the Church of Christ in Thailand (CCT), the Thailand Baptist Convention, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand (EFT). In the past, these large denominations didn’t get along very well so it is encouraging to see leaders and members of these different groups coming together in order to pursue the goal of proclaiming Christ throughout Thailand. A few years back, the involved denominations had formed the Thailand Evangelism Coordinating Committee (TEC) and came up with Vision 2010 which aims to see a church planted in every provincial district (อำเภอ), a Christian group in every sub-district (ตำบล), and a Christian presence in every neighborhood/village (หมู่บ้าน).

Throughout the conference pastors, Bible college professors, and other church leaders from the various groups preached on the themes of Obedience, Faithfulness, Unity, and Cooperation. Listening to the preachers, worship leaders, and other speakers up on stage, I got the sense that the goal of the week was not so much as to spell out how to work together in unity, but rather to rally the troops and encourage the people in attendance that unity is important and the God will work as we work together in obedience and faithfulness to the Great Commission.

There was one session during the week where everyone broke up into smaller groups according to province in order to discuss which districts and sub-districts had or did not yet have a Christian group of some sort. I had thought initially that this would be a time of some substantial planning, bringing together all the church leaders from the given province. Perhaps it was for some provincial groups but for my group and the groups of others whom I talked to, the provincial session didn’t amount to much more than checking off a list of which sub-districts had Christians in them. What that means is that the real work of planning is going to have to be done on the local level after the conference is done.

What does evangelical unity look like in Thailand? The preachers at the conference spoke in many general terms about the importance of unity and loving one another, and the wonderful blessings that flow from unity. The actual “how to” be united in Christ and how to pursue this vision of nationwide church planting was not spelled out. The real test of unity will come as provincial church leaders come together and discuss how to reach their provinces for Christ. Although it was barely mentioned at the evangelism congress, there are still very deep differences between the various groups in terms of theology and practice. Since that is the case, it would seem that evangelical unity in Thailand will not mean that Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and Baptists join together in planting churches. That would be unrealistic and unwise.

Positively, what evangelical unity in Thailand could mean is that Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and Baptists get together to pray for one another and pull out a map of their province to take a look at which districts and sub-districts don’t yet have churches and then decide who will take responsibility for outreach and church planting in which area. Talking to the Thai pastors and church leaders at the conference, I got the sense that even though differences exist, their feeling is that having a church of any variety in an area is better than none. And if a given church is truly preaching the Gospel in accordance with Scripture, than I agree. Since Christians still compose less than 1% of the Thai population , there is plenty of room for everybody to find their own area of work as there is lots of room for lots more churches to be planted everywhere. (click here for map of percent of Christians in Thailand, by district)

The Thai church needs much prayer as they push forward in pursuing this vision of a church in every provincial district (อำเภอ), a Christian group in every sub-district (ตำบล), and a Christian presence in every neighborhood/village (หมู่บ้าน). The temptation to compromise the Biblical gospel in the name of reaching people for Christ is strong. Bad theology from the West, particularly the prosperity gospel of health and wealth is making inroads in many churches. The pressure for Thai Christians to return to their former religion or to pursue worldly wealth and status is ever present. An easy believe-ism which regards salvation as nothing more than saying a prayer of confession is common. Although the majority of Thai come from broken homes, it is rare to hearing teaching on marriage and family in many Thai churches.

May Christ be proclaimed throughout Thailand, and Biblical disciples be made. Not merely converts but true disciples who learn to obey all that Jesus commanded, from a heart of gratitude for the abundant grace poured out through Jesus work on the cross.

Thai Church Denominations

The church landscape in every country looks a bit different, depending on local conditions and the missions history of that nation. Here in Thailand, Catholics have been in the country since the 1600s, and Protestants since the early 1800s. The Christian groups recognized by the Thai government, registered through the Department of Religion are the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ in Thailand (CCT), the Thailand Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand (EFT), and the Seventh Day Adventists. The Hope of Bangkok church denomination (Pentecostal) and the Rom Glao (ร่มเกล้า) church association falls within the broadly Protestant evangelical fold but are not registered through the Department of Religion. The Hope of Bangkok churches are registered as a foundation and I am not sure how the Rom Glao churches are registered. The Hope Church denomination had a big split last year regarding the political ambitions and financial dealings of one of their leaders, and is rumored to be splintering further. I am afraid that I don't have details so we'll have to wait a few years and see how the dust settles and affects the overall landscape of evangelical Christianity in Thailand. There are other church associations, I am sure, but the ones mentioned above are the biggies. It should also be noted that the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witness are in Thailand as well although I am not sure how they are recognized by the government or how they get their visas.

CCT was started by American Presbyterians in the 19th century and currently maintains fraternal ties with the Presbyterian Church (USA), although it now includes Baptists, Lutherans and Pentecostals and is overall probably more evangelical than the PCUSA. The Thailand Baptist Convention is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA, and the EFT is really more of an umbrella organization that includes many different smaller church groups, including the Associated Churches of Thailand (ACT) which is connected to OMF, the mission organization that we are part of.

Generally speaking, Pentecostal churches make up a large section of Thai Protestant churches and their theology and worship style extends far beyond churches that would identify themselves as Pentecostal. It seems that a majority of Thai churches are egalitarian to a large degree although most pastors are still men. I have heard however that the Baptist Convention retains more a traditional complementarian view (only men as pastors).

This past week I attended the 7th Thailand Congress on Evangelism in Bangkok which brought together three of the largest Protestant church groups (CCT, Baptists, & EFT). In my next post, I’ll share some thoughts on the conference and take a look at the state of evangelical Protestant unity in Thailand.

Animism and the Prosperity Gospel

I keep hearing, both first hand and from others, evidences of a theology of the prosperity Gospel creeping through the Thai church. Certainly not all Thai Christians think this way and I don’t want to overgeneralize but I hear enough of it to be concerned. By the term “prosperity gospel”, I mean this type of “Christian” teaching that tells people that God wants them to be healthy and wealthy, and to see health and wealth as sure signs of God’s blessing in their life. I grant that God’s gracious provision of good health and financial prosperity are blessings from God but Biblically speaking, the pursuit of these things should not be the goal of the Christian life (1 Tim 6:10 “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”) but rather, we should be content with what we have (Phil 4:10-13), and trust God to provide for our needs as we make obedience and faithfulness to God our primary concern (Matt. 6:33).

In many Thai churches, part of the worship service is a time for people to get up and give testimonies of God working in their lives in during the past week. There is certainly a place for praising God for giving physical healing, helping in times of financial difficulty, and other practical matters. But when these are nearly exclusively the types of praises that people are giving, then there is a problem. I asked an elderly Thai Christian, who has been a believer for twenty to thirty years, “Since you became a Christian, how have you seen God change your life?” He replied, “I was rather poor but now I am lower middle class.” I was hoping for more but that was it! I was talking with a fellow missionary who told me about the weekly “testimonies” of a church elder at the church where she and her husband worship. I know this church elder personally and he is a very kind grandfatherly type of man who in many ways is a great blessing to that church. However, at the same time, he is getting up in the worship service each week telling the people how God has blessed him financially, flashing money and new electronic gadgets as evidences of God’s blessing.

When I hear Thai believers who talk about God’s blessings in almost entirely financial terms, I can’t help but think of the prosperity gospel from the West which is making in roads in Thai churches. However, I also wonder if the animist mindset which saturates Thai culture is also influencing their thinking. On paper, Thailand is a Buddhist country but in practice, Thai Buddhists worship a variety of spirits and angelic beings. They are just as likely to seek help from a psychic, spirit medium, or a spirit reputed to be living in a large tree, as they are to seek help from a Buddhist monk. And Thai animistic Buddhism is a very practical religion. It entirely focused around seeking religious and spiritual solutions to everyday practical problems. There is no concern about glorifying or obeying any superior being other than doing a certain set of prescribed rituals in order to bring about a certain desired result - whether that be passing the university entrance exam, getting your husband to stop drinking, or being more successful in your business ventures. It is all about getting the spirits to help you pursue your own ideas of what a happy and prosperous life should look like. The variety of spirits don’t have any overarching plan or rules or priorities for how you should live your life or what the purpose of your life is. They are merely powers to be bargained with to get what you want. Seeing that this is the focus of animistic practice, I wonder if this mindset gets carried over into the church as Thai Buddhists become Thai Christians. In the animistic practice that they were used to, certain rituals were performed in order to bring the desired blessings. Now that one has become a Christian, are Christian rituals (such as going to church, tithing, singing worship songs, serving on the church committee) substituted in an ongoing pursuit of one’s own idea of a happy prosperous life without concern for what God desires or what God’s plan is for a their life? God desires to be glorified through repentance from sin, belief in Christ, and God-honoring living, exemplified in honesty, integrity, kindness, forgiveness, and reconciled relationships. But it seem that some view godliness (in this case, going through the outward motions of Christianity) as a means of financial gain (1 Tim 6:5).

Again, I am not sure where the unBiblical thinking is coming from, whether it be a heretical Western “Christian” religiousity or the remaining baggage from an unchallenged animistic worldview. Either way, the result is the same, and the Biblical faith is twisted into a pursuit of health, wealth, and one’s own ideas about what life should be like, and not about what God wants. The tragedy is that the joy and freedom of living in Christ is much more valuable than any worldly wealth or ideas of the happy life, but many don’t have the eyes or hearts to see it.

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.

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)

Valuing our Elderly

The following two stories from the lives of believers at the PhraBaht church (with whom we work) have reminded me of the special care that we need to take to value the elderly among us. “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. Honor widows who are truly widows.” 1 Timothy 5:1-3

Pim’s mother was discouraged. Weak and bedridden because of diabetes, she often had thoughts of death and recently she had been having dreams about her late older sister who was calling her to come join her. ‘What’s the point of living?’ she thought to herself. ‘It would be better if I were to die.’ She would often vent her frustrations to her daughter and teenage grandson. One Sunday morning before church her grandson got tired of listening to her complain. Rather coldly, he said to her ‘If you want to die, then die already’ Those words cut her deeply and she refused to be taken to church that day.

While Pim’s mother lay at home with thoughts of death and worthlessness, the believers at church had different thoughts. They missed her. After church, Sun and Muay visited her to talk, pray, and read the Bible. A few days later, Arui came to encourage her. By the time Sunday came around again, her spirits had perked up a bit and she was glad to see us when we came to pick her up and bring her to church. I don’t think that the preacher that day knew what had happened in the life of Pim’s mother during the past week. Tam, a young man doing student ministry, preached on suicide. Taking us to the Old Testament, he told us about the lives of Moses, Elijah, Job, and Jonah - men who entertained thoughts of death at one time but went on to be blessed by God and used by Him. As Pim’s mother lay on a cot near the front of the room, Tam emphatically urged the elderly to never think that they don’t have value or that God can’t use them. At the very least they can pray, and can teach their children and grandchildren from their long experience in life and with God. After the service was over, and everyone had finished lunch, I was called over to pick up Pim’s mother and bring her out to the car of another church member who was taking her home to rest. Other church members were practicing music for Christmas and later on several of us would head out to hand out tracts and do visitation. I sat down beside the cot and told Pim’s mother that I was glad that she could come today. Thinking of Tam’s sermon, I also reminded her that she was very valuable. With a big smile on her face, she sat up slightly and croaked out, “I want to go help hand out tracts today, but I can’t walk.” What a change from the previous week! Praise God for his work in the life of Pim’s mother, renewing her spirit through the love of the believers and the preaching of the Word.

Later that afternoon, I took a carload of Phra Baht church people out to Nong Doan for prayer, evangelism training, to hand out tracts, and to do visitation. On our way back home to Phra Baht that evening, I dropped off at his home an elderly man who had been a believer for about twenty years. He couldn’t get around too well because of a bone fracture in his leg that never healed properly but he still had a lot of life left in him. As we turned out of his long dirt driveway onto the main road, a voice piped up from the back of the car. ‘My Dad was really glad to come today’, his adult daughter informed me. ‘He likes doing this kind of thing.’ ‘I am glad to hear that,’ I replied, ‘it was good to have him along. I think it was really beneficial.’ In Nong Doan, we had split up into two groups to hand out tracts and visit people. I had been in a group of four together with this older gentleman and his daughter. Although he was usually very quiet at church, I was pleasantly surprised when he offered some valuable insights and contributions as we talked about the Gospel with some folks who were probably my parents age if not older. Although God can uses the most unlikely of persons to share the Gospel, humanly speaking it carries much more weight for Thai villagers to hear the Gospel from the mouth of an aged Thai believer than from this young white foreigner. This was my mindset, at least.

On the car ride home, his daughter went on to tell me, ‘The last missionary who was here (several years previous) didn’t want to take the old people out to do evangelism and my Dad was disappointed and discouraged by that. He (the missionary) thought that they were a burden.’ What a shame that some of the believers with the most experience in life, and with God, were left behind by a short-sighted missionary who didn’t want to be slowed down. Talking about the importance of every person in the body of Christ (i.e. the church), the apostle Paul said, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow greater honor.” 1 Corinthians 12:21-23. Certainly, it will take more time and energy to care for, and to bring along, our elderly saints but when we do, won’t that be a wonderful picture of the love and care that the body of Christ has for one another? (1 Corinth 12:25) Won’t that be an important part of the witness for Christ that we can offer to an unbelieving world where selfishness reigns and families are tearing apart at the seams? What do Christians communicate about God when small children and the elderly are looked at as a burden instead of a blessing? Is our value tied up in what we can do and accomplish, and how fast we can move? Or rather, is our value derived from the One who made us and the proof of the truth of our message displayed in how we love one another?

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” John 17:20-23

Statistics on Christianity in Saraburi

A lot of people have asked us how big is our town in Thailand and we finally have the answer. We recently received a CD with a ton of maps and statistics on Christianity in Thailand and we are including below a map of the province of Saraburi.

We live in the district of PhraBaht in Saraburi province, about two hours north of Bangkok. PhraBaht has 72,000 people and 75 reported Christians. The church that we work with in PhraBaht is the only one in the district and there are only 20-30 people in attendance at the Sunday worship service at that church. I know that there are some Christians in PhraBaht who go over the border to nearby Lopburi province to worship but that is still a lot of people unaccounted for. However, I will save for another time my comments on the necessity of cleansing the church roles and making a reasonable judgment about the credibility of a person's profession of faith.

The focus of our church planting work at this time is focused on nearby Nong Doan district, a lower class farming community. Nong Doan has 14,000 people and according the the statistical figures that I received, no Christians. However, I know of two Christian couples in Nong Doan. One travels to Bangkok to worship each week and the other comes to the church in PhraBaht. And then there is another single man who also comes to PhraBaht church each week. I don't know how much he really understands the Gospel but he has made a profession of faith, and he rides his old bicycle in the hot sun two hours each way to come to worship each Sunday. That last fact alone inclines me to think that there may be some genuine spiritual interest there.

For those of you who pray for us and our work in Thailand, I share these statistics to inform your prayers and to give you a visual idea of the geography of where we are. If you'd like to share this map with others or print it out for use in a prayer meeting, you can download the PDF version by clicking here. Thanks for praying.

Click on the map for a larger view

A Small Country Church

The past two Sunday, we have visited a small country church in the next province over from where we are living and going to langauge school. We drove with Ulrich, a fellow OMF missionary, and his family we found ourselves bumping and jostling over severe potholes as we made our way further away from the city and into the countryside. Brillant green rice paddies lined either side of the road way and small wooden houses on stilts and little mom and pop shops were visible every so often. We pulled the truck into the dirt yard in front of a concrete store-front type building where two side of the building opened up completely like garage doors. A handful of blue plastic chairs were lined up in about four or five short rows and we were greeted by a few of the believers who had already gathered.

Like many church in Thailand, both urban and rural, the church was very small, with only about ten people or so in attendance, not counting Ulrich, his family, and the three of us. All of these dear saints are fairly recent believers, the one who has been the Christian the longest has only been a Christian for maybe five years or so. Some of the other have only believed a few months. Interestingly enough though, the youngest adult member of the congregation is about forty! In God's providence, He has chosen to call to himself a handful of elderly women who make up about half of this congregation of ten or so. The miracle of salvation is so obvious in the lives of these women since there is very little human reason why someone who has been a Buddhist for over sixty years would decide to make such a drastic break with a society at large which equates national and ethnic identity with Buddhist. The Thai say, "To be Thai is to be Buddhist."

Until this past year sometime, Ulrich told us, the church had its own pastor. However, this pastor has now left to pursue further education in Bangkok. Unfortunately, the church is still very young spiritually and there are not yet any elders in place who could take up the reins of leadership and teaching. On my first Sunday to visit (Sun stayed behind because Joshua was not feeling well), we had just sung a song about Christ being alive and Ulrich asked the congregation (who were sitting in a circle of chairs since there were so few of us) whether they believed that Christ has risen and what they thought about that. It soon became apparent that there was some serious confusion among a number of people about the resurrection. Only at length did someone say, "Oh yes, Christ rose from the dead" and most seemed to be confused about whether believers would be resurrected. After Ulrich took them to 1 Thessalonians, they seemed to remember that believers would be ressurected at the last day. Seeking a bit of application, and wanting to test how much they really understood, Ulrich further inquired about whether there would be a resurrection for Buddhists too. At Buddhist funerals, there is an oft repeated proverb that says something to the effect of "Going away, don't come back - sleep, doesn't awake - lies down, doesn't arise". "Is this true?" asked Ulrich. "Yes, it is true" replied one elderly saint. "Really?" he replied, "We just read that believers will rise from the dead like Christ rose from the dead." Seemingly without missing a beat, our dear auntie shot back, "It is true for Buddhists, but not for Christians. Christians rise from the dead but not Buddhists." After the worship service was over that morning, I expressed to Ulrich my distress over the lack of understanding that this flock had concerning the nature of the resurrection. He too was concerned but explained that this is not the first time that he has been over this point with them. He has explained it many times, but apparently it just takes time for some things to sink in.

It was a true pleasure to visit this little flock of brothers and sisters in Christ in the Thai countryside. They were very welcoming and pleasant but I do worry for these believers, and others throughout Thailand like them, who are still confused about the basic things of the faith, like the resurrection of the the righteous and the wicked. Confusion and misunderstanding on basic points can have serious consequences for one's faith and practice. Pray for sufficient numbers of competent elders and pastors for the young believers in small churches throughout Thailand. Missionaries and Thai pastors/church planters do what they can but there is still a great need to solid Biblical teaching and preaching, especially in these small (sometimes quite poor) congregations that often can't afford to support a full-time pastor.