Gleanings from the Field

New Blog Address

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:28:00 +0000

I have been working on a major update of our website and as a result the location of this blog has changed.

New blog address for Gleanings from the Field:
http://www.dahlfred.com/blogs/gleanings-from-the-field

New feed address for Gleanings from the Field:
http://www.dahlfred.com/blogs/gleanings-from-the-field?format=feed&type=rss

My apologies for the inconvenience of updating your settings but I have not been able to figure out how to redirect the old address to the new ones.

When did Siam become Thailand?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Siam is the old name for Thailand and I have never known why and how that name change came about. A Bangkok academic is now petitioning the government to change the name back to Siam in order to make a step towards creating greater peace and unity in the nation. For those who are curious about the history of the name change from Siam to Thailand or wonder how on earth changing the country's name could do anything in the way of reconciling a divided nation, check out the Bangkok Post article "What's in a name?" The comments on this article are at least as interesting as the article itself as people weigh in on whether they think the change is a good idea.

True Repentance

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:14:00 +0000

What is true repentance? This morning I read Matthew 26 and as I reflected on it, I was struck by Matthew Henry's commentary on Peter's denial of Christ. Henry writes, "Peter wept bitterly. Sorrow for sin must not be slight, but great and deep. Peter, who wept so bitterly for denying Christ, never denied him again, but confessed him often in the face of danger. True repentance for any sin will be shown by the contrary grace and duty; that is a sign of our sorrowing not only bitterly, but sincerely."

In Thailand, I have seen far too many professions of faith that bear no fruit. I have also heard too many Christians misdiagnose the problem of people who profess faith in Christ but don't follow through. One suggestion is that these backsliders need more encouragement. Another suggestion is that they need more follow-up and discipling. Both of these may be true to a degree depending upon how we understand the terms but neither seem to get at the heart of the matter that genuine repentance has likely not occurred. Repentance is not only stopping doing something bad but is also the beginning of doing something new. As Henry points out, Peter not only ceased denying Christ, but he also did the exact opposite - stood up and boldly proclaimed him from that point onward. Repentance does not consist of merely admitting to, or confessing ones sins either to God or to others. Repentance is a decisive turning from evil and self, and towards God. Granted, some new believers exhibit more obvious repentance earlier on because of the gross nature of their former life while others seem to grow or change more slowly as it is less obvious elements, like attitudes of the heart, which need the most change. But in either case, there is a definitive turning. If this change is missing in the life of any supposed Christian believer then, Biblicially speaking, it is not possible to call that one a Christian (regardless of what label you use to modify the term Christian, i.e. nominal, backslidden, carnal, immature, not growing or what not).

The most helpful thing that a Christian believer can do to help a professing Chrisitian who does not appear to have repented is to kindly yet firmly talk with him, opening the Scriptures, and help him see the true state of his heart before God. The book of 1 John was written to help professing Christians have assurance that they are saved (cf. 1 John 5:13) and if we have doubts as to someone's conversion, some time in 1 John will hopefully help to either comfort or convict.

"And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly ethe love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him hought to walk in the same way in which he walked." 1 John 2:3-6 (ESV)

The Westminster Shorter Catechism also helpfully summarizes the Biblical doctrine of repentance so that, in a nutshell, we might know what it is that we it is that we should be looking for in the lives of those who profess Christ.

87. What is repentance unto life?
Repentance unto life is a saving grace,1 whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin,2 and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,3 doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,4 with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.5

1 Acts 11:18
2 Acts 2:37
3 Joel 2:13
4 Jeremiah 31:18-19
5 Psalm 119:59

True repentance is a beautiful thing, as illustrated by the life of Peter who, after being brought to the end of himself, was a new man: humble, yet bold and God-confident, not self confident. Profession of faith without true repentance, however, is an embarrassment to all who call themselves Christians and a defamation of the character of God.

Contextualization and its Abuse

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:34:00 +0000

In the United States, there is currently a debate about whether preachers should contextualize the Gospel. Those who oppose contextualization view those who favor it as people who compromise and undermine the true Biblical Gospel in the name of winning a hearing. Some of those who advocate for contextualization claim that those who don't contextualize (as they define it) are are going to fail to reach the current generation.

I've done a number of posts that deal with the issue of contextualization, realizing that some readers may misunderstand where I am coming from, and exactly what I am advocating. For those who are confused about contextualization or who suspect that I may be compromising the Gospel by advocating for contextualization, I want to recommend Dr. David Sills recent blog post on Reclaiming Contextualization. Sills discusses what is proper contextualization, why it is necessary, and how the term has been abused and redefined in recent debates.

Discovering Bible Reading

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:00:00 +0000

What is the best book or study guide or method to help Christians grow in their faith? Even on the mission field in Thailand, it seems like the options are endless as more and more literature is produced so that it might seem difficult to find the materials that will be most beneficial. A few weeks ago, I suggested a “new” method of spiritual growth to a Christian couple that I am working with. We had been discussing the nature and role of the Bible in our lives so I suggested that they start in Matthew chapter one and read one chapter every day. I told them that when they had finished reading a chapter, they should think about what that chapter says about God and about themselves. Also, are there any examples to follow or avoid? Is there something to thank or praise God for in what they read? How can they apply to their lives what they read in the Bible? This would be their homework and the next time we got together, we would all share one thing that was a blessing to us from our reading during the previous week.

Even though they have Christians for more than five years, having come to faith in a large church in Bangkok, this was a novel idea to them. Up until this point, their Bible reading had mainly consisted of reading the Thai version of a little devotional booklet called “Our Daily Bread” which contains a different story each day paired with a Bible verse or two. Reading this little booklet is better than nothing but it really provides very little Scripture in and of itself and is hardly designed to be a person’s only method of regular intake from the Bible. There was some confusion and reluctance on the wife’s part to try out this new idea, reading a chapter per day through a book of the Bible. She said, “Can I just read Our Daily Bread for now?” I strongly encouraged her to give this new method a try, just for one week. “Try reading a chapter per day just for one week and if you don’t like it, that’s fine. You can go back to Our Daily Bread”. She consented to give it a try.

A few days ago I went back to visit them to continue with our chronological Bible studies and inquired about their Bible reading. Both husband and wife piped up immediately, sharing how this or that verse in their daily readings from Matthew had encouraged or challenged them. I know that just reading through the Bible isn’t very creative or trendy but it is a very basic and essential God ordained method of spiritual growth. All the devotional books and study guides in the world can’t compare with the basic discipline of reading the Bible and thinking about what it says. And it gives me great joy to see Christian believers discovering the joy and blessing of one of God’s very ordinary, but very amazing and wonderful means of grace.

Music Education and Missions

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:46:00 +0000

A young man from one of our supporting churches recently emailed with the following question, "I was wondering if you have ever heard of anyone using music education as a platform for missions. If someone wanted to do something like that, how might they get started?" I imagine that there are lots of Christians out there who are interested in missions but not quite sure if their interests and skills are usable on the mission field and if so, how. So I thought I would post our answer to his question in hopes that others who are wondering about getting involved in missions, particularly in the area of music, would be benefited.

"There are lots of ways to use music education in missions. Formally, you can get a job teaching music education in a school, either in the local language or more likely in English. In a number of countries, there are schools that want to offer an international track where local students have all their classes in English, including various subject matter like science, math, music and so forth. Of course, there are also international schools, both secular and Christian where one can also be a music teacher. The requirements to teach in the Christian (MK) schools are probably lower than the secular ones. Getting a job as a music teacher in a school is something that can be done in an open or a closed country.

Informally, if you are in an open country, doing church planting, student work, or some other kind of ministry, you can teach music classes as a way to build relationships and get to know local people as a way to share the Gospel. This would most likely need to be done in the local language. And when you are in church based (or parachurch) ministry, there is always going to be worship music and worship leading of some sort. Neither my wife nor I are musical so if we were going to form a new church planting team, we would want to have a co-worker (missionary or local) who is musical. Worship is a really important part of the local church and we need music people to complement the other gifts on the team/in the church. Here in Thailand, it is common to teach guitar as form of outreach and I heard about a woman in Cambodia who teaches French horn.

Where to get started? If you are going to do something formal, like teach music education in a school, I'd get a degree in music and teaching/education and spend a few years teaching music in a school in the U.S., all the while serving in your local church. Then after you have some formal experience on your resume, contact the missions agencies working in the country where you want to go and ask about the possibilities for music education and missions. Or you could make some inquiries up front before finishing a music degree or starting to teach. It can never hurt to have some solid information on options before you begin down a certain track. If you want to use music informally for outreach, I'd check into the missions agencies in the country where you want to work and tell them that music is one of the things that you want to do. The more information that the missions agency or denominational missions board has about who you are and what you want to do, the better they will be able to point you in the right direction and match you up with a church planting team or ministry who is in need of someone with your interests and skills.

There is also the area of ethno-musicology which deals with study of indigenous forms of music in order to develop contextualized forms of worship. I don't know much about that but I think that Wycliffe has some people working in that area so you might ask them if interested."

Evangelical Unity in Thailand

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:53:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:54:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:25:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:18:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:07:00 +0000

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)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:05:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:11:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 06:31:00 +0000

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.

Worldview Evangelism

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:05:00 +0000

How do you communicate the Gospel to someone who has absolutely zero foundation in the Bible? In this fascinating and helpful lecture on “Worldview Evangelism”, Don Carson makes the case that sharing the Gospel with postmodern Westerners is not really that different than sharing the Gospel with animistic tribes, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or anyone else without a Judeo-Christian framework in their cultural background. You start at the beginning. The cross of Christ makes no sense without the Old Testament foundations which provide the framework for understanding the nature and character of God, man’s nature and origin, the truth about the spiritual realm (in contrast to an animistic/occult perspective), and a bit of the history of how God relates to people. Some may wonder whether it is really necessary to go through the work of laying down the Old Testament foundations before getting to Jesus. Take a listen to Don Carson’s opening story about his missionary friend’s experience in India and you’ll get a picture of how a failure to set a framework and teach a Biblical worldview first can lead to syncretism and nominalism.

Although the word “contextualization” is sometimes abused in order to justify a watered-down repackaging of Gospel, it’s proper meaning is to teach and live out the Gospel in a way that is clear and understandable in a given cultural context - whether that be young Western postmodern relativists or Thai Buddhists/animists or anybody else. What is the Biblical truth and how do you teach and express it (live it out) in a given context? Good contextualization should make clear the difference between the Gospel and other worldviews, and in all things not sinful take on the cultural/local garb of where the Gospel is being presented.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, either for the West or for Thailand, but in order to do contextualization well one needs to understand the Bible thoroughly and understand the culture as thoroughly as possible. I am still working on both of those and will be for years to come. By knowing the culture, I don’t mean being conversant with every pop musician or fad TV show that comes down the pike, but rather understanding the beliefs and values that shapes people’s outlook on the world. When that happens, it becomes easier to anticipate common objections and misunderstandings in response to the Gospel (or a particular presentation of it). Understanding the culture also helps one to know what people are interested in, what fires them up, what excites them, what concerns them, what makes them afraid. All these things can provide a conversation starter that can be an opening for talking about spiritual truths. It can also give insight into what areas of discipleship will probably need special attention.

With that said, take a listen to Carson’s talk on "Worldview Evangelism". There are actually five lectures in the series on “Reaching an Untouched Generation”. I have finished the Worldview Evangelism one and highly recommend it. I’ve also started listening to one on “Apostolic Evangelism of Biblical Illiterates” which covers Paul’s sermon in the Aeropagus in Acts 17. This one is quite good so far and I hope to listen to the other three as time allows. (Thanks to Rich Cho for recommending these sermons)

Feed Issue

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:55:00 +0000

For those of you who read this blog through a feed, I am having a problem with the atom.xml feed right now. I have tried tracking down the problem to no avail although the Google help forum discussion makes me think that it is probably an internal issue that the Google/Blogspot techs need to work out (although they claim to have fixed it already http://knownissues.blogspot.com). Hopefully the feed will "just work" soon. Even so, if any of you who have knowledge in this area have suggestions, I am all ears.

UPDATE: As of Tuesday afternoon (Thai time), the feed seems to be working again. Now let's wait and see if it is really fixed

The Playboy Bunny and Contextualization

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:15:00 +0000

I see it all over the place. It’s on T-shirts, handbags, motorcycles, car windows and wherever else is fashionable. The image of the Playboy Bunny seems to be everywhere in Thailand these days. However, I suspect that most Thais are not aware that it is the official symbol of a well known pornography magazine. A young woman at church was wearing a stylish t-shirt with the Playboy bunny on the front and I asked her if she knew where the rabbit picture comes from. She replied, “No” and I explained that it is the symbol used by a well known pornography magazine in America. “Oh” she responded uninterestedly, “I didn’t know that”. I thought that perhaps I had been unclear in my explanation so I went on, “When Westerners see this rabbit picture they are reminded of a magazine with naked women in it. A pornography magazine.” She still seemed unconcerned that she had the logo of a porn mag emblazoned on the front of her shirt. “Why do you like the rabbit picture?” I inquired further. At this point, I might have guessed her reply. “It’s cute. I like it.”

Regardless of it’s original context, the rabbit image of the Playboy Bunny has been imported into Thailand and turned into a popular fashion image in a way that has no relation to pornography. On the one hand, I suppose that this is a good thing in the sense that the image itself has been redeemed and disassociated with it’s sleazy origin. On the other hand, I don’t think that I will ever be able to see that symbol without thinking, “That’s from a porn magazine”. Even if I was into the latest fashions, I don’t think I would ever want to own or use any product with that label on it because of the association that I make with it. Maybe some people can get past that (and that is fine), and apparently many Thai think nothing of the Playboy Bunny more than merely being a cute symbol. In their cultural background, the Playboy Bunny means nothing but I would never use it because in my cultural background it does. It is not a right or wrong issue but merely a cultural issue. Although, in my culture, it’s wrong. As much as I would like to see the Playboy Bunny disappear from Thai fashion, it is the Thais themselves who make the decision as to what they will (and will not) import from other countries and cultures and how they will use it. Many times, imports from elsewhere take on a life of their own in new soil and whoever originated the item has no control over how it is used or adapted.

Related to the contextualization of the Christian message and church practice, as a missionary I may see some sort of practice or custom in Thai religion that could be adapted and redeemed for use in Thai Christian practice. As an outsider, I may think to myself, “This is a great idea. Adapting this existing Thai Buddhist practice for use in the church will reduce the foreignness of Christianity and help Thai Christians to be more Thai.” Perhaps it is a good idea or perhaps it is not, but if Thai Christians don’t want to use it because of its previous association with Buddhist or animistic practice, then it’s not going to work. As an outsider, I may have some ideas for contextualization but in the end it is the Thai themselves who need to live with whatever way church is to be done in Thailand. An outsider’s perspective can be helpful in thinking things through and making suggestions but the insider’s perspective is equally, if not more important, in deciding what is going to be the best way to live out the truth of Scripture in the Thai context.

With that said, the fate of the Playboy Bunny symbol in Thailand needs to be decided by the Thai themselves. Maybe many don’t care - or won’t care that it did come from a porn magazine originally, even if they knew. It doesn’t mean much of anything in the Thai context so if Thai folks want to wear the bunny, that’s fine. However, if I were to meet a Thai exchange student in America who was wearing a Playboy Bunny shirt that she brought with her from Thailand, I would do all that I can to let her know what that symbol is communicating to those around her and let her know the potential trouble it could invite. If she chooses to continue to wear it after that, that’s up to her, but I would at least want her to know that in America, the Playboy Bunny symbol is not just a cute rabbit picture.

Worship on the High Places

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:45:00 +0000

Why is it that so many people like to worship on high places? This morning, a friend and I hiked up a steep mountain at the end of a peninsula in Prajuab province, Thailand. At the top, there was a glorious view of the surrounding area - ocean to the east, coast to the north and south, and distant mountains to the West in the direction of Burma. But on top of the mountain, there was also a small shrine to the Buddha’s footprint with accompanying Buddha images. Throughout Thailand, there are lots of shrines and yellow Buddhist prayer flags on the tops of hills and mountains. Every time I see them, I can’t help but think of the high places in the Old Testament that the Israelites worshipped on. When the Israelites worshipped on these high places, it was usually idolatrous worship in violation of the First Commandment (and probably the Second Commandment as well).

What is it about worshipping on top of a mountain that so many people find attractive? Does it make people feel closer to God (or whatever it is that they are worshipping)? I suspect that the animist peoples living all around Old Testament Israelites are not that dissimilar to modern Thai Buddhists in that both regard certain spots as more sacred than others, especially high places. In fact, in looking around me, I am sure that many Thai regard some spots as more sacred and hence shrines and altars pop up in places that one would not always expect. Perhaps somehow more merit is earned in building a shrine on a mountain top than in a plain because it takes much more effort to lug all the building materials up the mountain. Some shrines and temples have long long staircases going up to the top so that worshippers can earn merit through merely walking up that oppressively long flight of stairs.

As a worshipper of the Lord Jesus Christ, I rejoice in the glory of God that I see through the things that he has created. The view from the top of the mountain this morning was especially beautiful and was wonderful testimony to the creativity and power of the Lord of heaven and earth. I also rejoice that God is present in all places and that I do not need to climb a mountain or walk up hundreds of steps to be closer to God. Instead, I humble myself in the knowledge that none of my efforts will carry me up to the heavens to God, but only the Lord Jesus Christ who came down from heaven can bring me up to heaven on that final day.

Hostile Email

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:28:00 +0000

The other day I received a hostile email, presumably from a visitor to our website who did not like what he read. If memory serves me correctly, this is the first hostile mail that I have received in response to the website although I am certain that there have been others who, upon discovering the website, felt disdain and contempt rise up in their hearts but decided against letting us know their feelings. However, a man with an email address in the Netherlands has written with the following advice:

"go back home you fool and take that jesus with you"

That was the entire content of the email. Unfortunately, even if I were to have a change of heart and heed his suggestion, I have no control over where Jesus goes and what He does. I proclaim His message but that is all. Jesus is in Thailand and I have no say over the matter. Jesus said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). Jesus also knew that this work of establishing His church would not meet with popular approval, as He states elsewhere, "Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets." (Luke 6:22) Jesus is here to stay and He will always have those who proclaim Him and are not dissuaded by unkind words which lack substance.

Advantages & Disadvantages of Handing Out Tracts

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:41:00 +0000

Following on the heels of my post on "Does Handing Out Tracts Do Any Good?", I wanted to share with you a couple of well written and thoughtful posts over at The Reformed Evangelist blog:

Are Gospel Tracts Lame? and 10 Reasons for Using Gospel Tracts

The social dynamics of handing out tracts are a bit different in Thailand than in the West. As I mentioned before, just going out and handing out tracts is not nearly as ideal as sharing the Gospel in a conversation with someone that you already know. However, when someone receives a tract and reads it, it is food for thought and it might get them thinking about things they haven't previously considered. I find most people in Thailand to be receptive to receiving tracts. I say something like "This is free" (แจกฟรีครับ) or "I've come to hand out Good News" (มาแจกข่าวประเสริฐครับ). Occassionally, I've gotten stony faced looks when I go to hand a tract to someone but once I say that it is free, the person smiles and willingly takes it. I've learned from my Thai brothers and sisters that some people are afraid that you want money to make merit in return for receiving a gift of some sort. I've met these folks before. Usually they approach you on the street with some kind of cheap trinket and ask a small amount for it - to help handicapped children or make merit (create good karma) or some such. So, I can understand how some people are leery of receiving something on the street from a stranger. But happily, most people cheer up when told that the tract is free. And the practice of handing out tracts certainly forces me to overcome that fear of people looking at me as a weirdo. However, being a white guy in Thailand, I get all sorts of strange looks anyhow so regardless of whether I hand out a tract or not, people wonder "Who is that and what is he doing here?" Giving out a tract helps answer those questions.

Does Handing Out Tracts Do Any Good?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:33:00 +0000

Before I came to Thailand in 1999, I had never handed out a tract in my life. The practice of handing out tracts is not very common in the U.S. anymore and even among evangelical Christians it seems to be regarded as some kind of weird unnatural activity that only really over-the-top religious nuts engage in. Perhaps the current emphasis on friendship evangelism and building relationships in order to share the Gospel (which is good and proper as the primary method of personal evangelism) has contributed to the disdain which has fell upon handing out tracts. Tracting can seem very impersonal and artificial, but it IS one means among many that God uses to reach people with the Gospel. It really shouldn't be a stand-alone method of evangelism, but just one link in a chain of Gospel sowing that can contribute to people understanding and accepting the Gospel. Granted, lots of tracts end up in the dustbin or along the roadside, but God does use tracts as the following story illustrates. A fellow missionary gave me permission to share this encouraging story:

"This past Sunday two visitors came to church at In Grace Church: Colonel Surasak Banjukaew and his wife, Wanpen. I know them a bit (he attended SEANET this past year), but as I sat eating lunch with them I was able to learn much more about them. Surasak is the founder of a ministry among members of the military and the police force. Being a Christian in the military or police cannot be easy in this country. I find myself very encouraged that someone of his rank serves Christ so openly.

What I took special note of, though, is how Surasak and his wife became Christians. Back in the 80’s Geoff Case, an OMF Missionary in Bangkok, was going door to door, handing out tracts, and came upon Surasak’s home. At the time he was a clear Buddhist, rising in the ranks of the Thai army. Wanpen’s interest grew, and as she studied the Bible with Geoff’s wife, Surasak became interested too. They both turned to Christ and immediately started going out with the Cases doing open air evangelism and tracting.

It is this two part involvement that we aim for: Sowing with things like tracts, and saturating through Bible study with seekers. Often we don’t feel very good at either of these. Surasak’s and Wanpen’s words this weekend have encouraged us to keep our aim and press on. Thank you for backing us in prayer."