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 Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Christ in Thailand (CCT), the Thailand Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand (EFT), and the Seventh Day Adventists. Pentecostal groups with a significant presence in the country include the Hope of Bangkok church association, the Rom Glao (ร่มเกล้า) and Rom Yen (ร่มเย็น) church associations, Jai Saman church (large Bangkok church), the Full Gospel Church association, and the Assemblies of God (Christian Samphan).  There are other church associations, I am sure, but the ones mentioned above are the biggies. It should also be noted that the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cult groups 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 Church of Christ in Thailand is not associated with the Church of Christ denomination in the United States.

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), a broadly evangelical church association which is connected to OMF, the mission organization that we are part of.

Generally speaking, Pentecostal churches make up a significant section of Thai Protestant churches thought I don't think that they constitute a majority.  That said, Pentecostal 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. However, the few explicitly Reformed churches that exist (and some Baptist churches) retain 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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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