Warning: getimagesize(/home/content/d/a/h/dahlfredweb/html/images/stories/images/stories/photocopier-xerox-2004.jpg) [function.getimagesize]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/content/d/a/h/dahlfredweb/html/components/com_customproperties/helper.php on line 375

The barriers to communicating the Gospel in Thailand are tremendous even though Thai people are some of the nicest you’ll ever meet.  The guy who owns the photocopy shop where I regularly go is a great example of this.  When I was starting up an evangelistic kids club, I took some cartoon pictures of the sun, moon, stars, animals, numbers, and so forth down to the copy shop to be laminated.  As the photocopy guy was putting them in the plastic sleeves to stick in the laminating machine, he asked, “What are these for?”  So I explained that I was teaching children about God creating the world.  That got us off on discussion about spiritual matters and comparative religion.  I regularly had pictures to laminate for the kids club so the photocopy guy and I had several conversations along these lines on many occasions.  I’ve never detected any hostility from him but it has become clear that what I am trying to explain is simply not “clicking” in his mind.  

In December 2009, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA), together with major Thai church denominations, sponsored and promoted the "My Hope Thailand” evangelistic project.  They produced an evangelistic TV program that aired several times on Thai national TV just before Christmas. The program featured testimonies and music videos from Thai pop stars who became Christians, as well as preaching from Billy Graham and Franklin Graham, dubbed in Thai.

 

As a result of the program and associated church based events, nearly 12,000 people made "decisions for Christ".  Many in the Christian community (both in Thailand and abroad) were overjoyed by the number of “new Christians” produced by My Hope (such as here and here) but I have a more mixed review of the project.  But before I get to the negatives, I want to say up front that there were some really good aspects about the My Hope project:

Learning to read and write a language with a non-Roman script (such as Thai, Arabic, or Hindi) is challenging enough already so the thought of learning to touch type in that language can be daunting.  For myself, the time investment involved was considerable but typing in Thai is a ministry skill that I am really glad to have picked up along the way.Being able to touch type in Thai opens up all sorts of possibilities that I wouldn’t have otherwise.  When I need to write up a handout or a Bible study, I am able to do it.  When I am preparing my sermon and want to write my notes, or at least key words and phrases in Thai, it is quick and simple.  When I type up a lesson plan for our kids club that I want to go over with some Thai helpers, I can do it up neatly and quickly in Thai so that we can all be looking at the same piece of paper.  When I want to send an email, leave a comment on Facebook, or chat online with a Thai friend, I can do it.  It is really freeing to not be consigned to cutting and pasting from the dictionary on my computer.  Cut and paste is so slow and tedious that if that’s the only way I had to do it, I would do very little on the computer in Thai and thus miss out on online opportunities for communicating with Thai friends and co-workers.

From Buddha to Jesus: An Insider’s View of Buddhism & Christianity, by Steve Cioccolanti (Sweet Life International, 2007, 240pp.)

 

—reviewed by Larry Dinkins You wouldn’t expect a pastor of an International Church in Melbourne, Australia with a name like “Cioccolanti” (Italian for “chocolate”) to claim an inside track to the mind and worldview of Buddhists. However, his claim to an insider’s view of Buddhism is substantiated by his Thai upbringing and exposure to a very religiously diverse extended family. Besides his Thai Buddhist roots, Steve has added to that a broad education in America and Europe which allows him to address Buddhist issues from both an oriental and occidental viewpoint.

For English speakers, there is a massive amount of Christian books and resources available but for many other languages in the world, it is simply not the case.  Two recent experiences really drove this truth home, as it relates to Thailand.  I had the chance to visit Bangkok Bible Seminary (BBS), take a tour, and talk to some teachers and students.  When we went up to their small library to look around, I was surprised to see that only about one-fourth of the library was Thai Christian books and the rest were in English.  The students all know some English but the majority really don’t know enough to make use of these English books at any significant level.  So, about 75% of their seminary library is functionally unusable for the majority of the BBS student body.  If the English level of the majority of students is insufficient to make good use of the resources in the library, why not add more Thai books?  Because they just don’t exist.

Imagine this. You’re a new missionary, freshly arrived to the field.   After years of preparation, you’re finally here and you can’t wait to start telling people the Gospel.  There is just one slight problem though. The language  You can barely tell people your name.  Even after a six months or a year of language study, it still feels a bit beyond you to give a really good explanation of the Gospel to your neighbor or the lady selling fruit at the market.  But, behold!  What do I see on the literature table at the church camp?  It’s the Four Spiritual Laws - translated in the local language!  That’s the ticket.  You buy a whole stack.  Your neighbor gets one.  The fruit lady gets one.  The guy at the gas station gets one.  Even the Buddhist monk gets one.   Even though you can’t give a good verbal explanation in the local language yet, at least these folks have gotten the Gospel message in a form that they can understand.  Or have they?

As a young missionary, I like talking to veteran missionaries to get their perspective on things.  At our recent OMF Thailand annual conference, our guest speaker Larry Dinkins spoke on cross cultural evangelism and overcoming barriers in communicating the Gospel to Buddhists.   Larry & his wife Paula came to Thailand as new missionaries in 1981 where they did church planting and theological education until 2002 when they needed to go back to the U.S. for Paula to receive treatment for cancer in her bone marrow. The treatment for Paula’s cancer has been successful and she is in remission.  As a result Larry and Paula have been acting as mobilizers and recruiters for OMF in Southern California as well as the Midwest.  They are involved in Thai churches in the U.S. and have made numerous trips back to Thailand as well.  After listening to Larry speak at the conference, and later in a recorded lecture, I became curious and sent him an email, asking, “If you could go back to your first term on the mission field, knowing then what you know now, what would you do differently?  How would you go about planting a church in Central Thailand if you had to do it all over again?”   Larry was kind enough to email me back and here’s a bit of what he had to say:

I love reading articles about missions that both point me back to Scripture and demonstrate intimate acquaintance with the realities of life and ministry on the mission field.  "Putting Contextualization in its Place" in the recent 9Marks eJournal is one of those article.  The author presents an excellent explanation of how contextualization is found in the pages of Scripture, and is not an idea hoisted onto it.  He then goes on to explain how and his team put this principles into practice in their setting in a Central Asian country. The article covers a lot of ground and is worth reading in its entirety but I wanted to share with you one particular section that I found to be a good reminder of what my attitude and approach should be in living with and trying to serve the Thai people. 

 

******************

PAUL'S PRINCIPLES FOR CROSS-CULTURAL MINISTRY

 

Perhaps the most widely-quoted passage of Scripture that teaches about contextualization is 1 Corinthians 9:1-23:

 

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?  2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 

 

Among evangelical Christians, John 3:16 is widely regarded as a straight forward summary of the Gospel. However, to assume that someone can hear and sufficiently understand the Gospel from John 3:16 in order to be saved is to assume a lot about their background knowledge of Christianity and basic worldview assumptions.  In the West, there is still quite a bit of residual knowledge about Christianity even if people don't believe it (i.e. there is only one God, love is a good thing, history is linear, etc.).  This is a great help in presenting the Gospel to those from a culturally Christian background. But how does John 3:16 sound to someone who knows nothing about Christianity and comes from a totally different religious background and upbringing?

 

This morning my wife Sun had a good chat with one of the neighbor ladies and as they talked about this, that, and the other thing, somehow my wife ended up lending her a Christian book.  Like my wife, this neighbor is also a young mom with a little boy.  One of the things that this mom likes to do at home during the day is read.  The book that my wife lent her is called “Songs from the Heart”, the life story of a Thai traditional drama performer and musician who became a Christian, and eventually a well-respected pastor in Central Thailand.  Also significantly, Pastor Song San used his excellent musical abilities to compose many original Thai Christian hymns, using traditional Thai, Chinese, and Cambodian tunes.  Unfortunately, these traditional hymns are not used much anymore in Thai churches but they are a wonderful example of the Christian message being expressed using indigenous music and lyrics, rather than merely being translated from English.Personal testimonies are not the Gospel but many Thai Christians say that hearing testimonies of people whose lives God changed were significant in their coming to faith.  God can and does use all sorts of means to pique people’s interest enough that they want to hear the Gospel.  Things like personal testimonies, Biblical principles for parenting, practical helps, or the love of the Christian community are distinct from the Gospel message itself, but they are wonderful results of the Gospel that adorn

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.

 

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

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 PreachingIf 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).

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.

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.

 

 Download PDF of Buddhism Through Christian Eyes 

 

Print edition available from: Amazon  Christianbook.com   OMF Canada

Short yet informative book that provides for the Christian a helpful introduction to Buddhist beliefs and worldview, especially Theravada Buddhism as found in Southeast Asia.  Smith draws upon his own research and his many years of experience as a missionary in Thailand.

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)

 

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.”

John Piper has provided a very insightful reflection on the possible link between seeker-sensitive churches in the West and radical (over)contextualization on the mission field. Read Piper's blog post on "Minimizing the Bible?"Contextualization is one of the big issues among missionaries because the way mission work has been done in the past tended to be too Western and did not take sufficient account of the need to adapt the way church, evangelism, discipleship, etc. is done in non-Western cultures. However, in some corners of the mission world today, the pendulum seems to have swung in the other direction. In the name of removing Western cultural barriers that would prevent people from coming to Christ, some missionaries (and local Christians) are allowing or even promoting practices that are actually a compromise of the Gospel. Let me give just a couple examples.I've heard about a missionary in Northeast Thailand who is teaching converts to call themselves "New Buddhists" (new in the sense that they believe in Christ). Okay, so perhaps the offense of being perceived as converting to a Western religion is avoided by avoiding the label "Christian" but there is certainly an equal if not greater

I was preparing a Bible study on Psalm 19 in Thai, and wanted to cross-reference 2 Peter 1:3 (“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness... “ 2 Peter 1:3 ESV) but when I went to the standard version of the Thai Bible that is most widely used in the churches (1971 version which is similar to the RSV), I wondered whether the word that they had for godliness (“tham” ธรรม) was really the best choice.In common Thai, tham refers to the body of Buddhist teaching or the Dharma. In Christian language, it is often modified with the word “Christ” (hence Phra Christ Tham พระคริสตธรรม) to refer to the Bible, or Christian teaching. It still remains however, that the word tham by itself makes most people think of religious teaching, particularly moral or ethical teaching. So, are we to understand that godliness is merely ethical living? I opened up my Greek New Testament to find out what the original word was and found eusebeia. My Intermediate Greek Lexicon (Liddell & Scott) tells me that eusebeia means “reverence towards the gods, piety religion.” That is the general secular ancient Greek meaning. The definition of eusebeia includes “reverence” which the New Oxford American Dictionary defines as