How shall we continue to pray for the pandemic crisis?

Since Wuhan/China announced a lockdown on 2020 January 23, after a week of “confusion”. The rest of the world, including the Christian community, was watching and wondered what has happened to China. The Christian community responded with prayer when the WHO named the corona virus as Convid-19 on February 11 and announced the spread of the virus as pandemic on March 12, and after US government declared a national emergency on March 13.

We prayed because the threat of the convid-19 is at our door step. Christians around the world, for the first time, united in prayer against the spread of virus. We searched the scripture to find appropriate texts and analogies to help ourselves to pray more earnestly. We turned to Psalms for comfort and assurance that God is in charge. But we must take closer look at the content of our prayers and on what the world has learnt from this pandemic, before we could continue to pray.

How did we pray? Let me sum up from what I heard and read in the following;

·      “No evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your dwelling” (Psalm 91.10).

·      We are all protected by the blood of Jesus

·      We claim victory in the name of Jesus

·      We command the virus to go away

·      You, the evil one is behind the virus, and so we command you, to stop using the virus to kill us.

Three months have gone by and the pandemic still around us and killing more people every day (307,108 death as of today). God did not answer our prayers by removing the virus from us. Does God want it to stay a bit longer? If indeed God wants it to stay with us a bit longer, perhaps God has a purpose in allowing that to happen, then we may have to alter our prayer.  Have we been presumptuous in our claim of victory? Have we mistaken Satan being the culprit who is using the virus to harm us? Satan is a mighty angel created by God but he is not allowed to do anything as he likes. Satan still occupies the mighty position in the angelic realm. Even Michael, the arch angel of God, dare not slander him but gave him the right honour (Jude 1.9), have we not made a mistake by belittling him and commanding him to do things for us? Have we mistaken the virus as the enemy? Is the virus part of the creation of God? So far, none of the prayers seem to acknowledge it as a creation of God and therefore glorify God.

What has the world learnt from this pandemic and we don’t? Let me list some of them in the following;

1.     Convid-19 has made all the nations to go on their knees and humbled the most powerful countries.

2.     It put the global economy to a standstill and caused the rich poorer and poverty swept through every nation.

3.     The world is more unstable than before because the shifting of the world power and the repositioning of world order has sped up while the nations are caught unprepared.

4.     America for the first time fighting a war against an invisible enemy in her own land and lost more lives than during the WW2 and Vietnam war. The POTUS employs the “wag the dog” strategy to divert attention from his own failure by blaming others.

5.     This led to a war of words between the 5 English speaking countries or the 5 EYES and China. This coincides with the election in November 3 and Trump is seeking reelection and his campaigning message is simply “The pandemic crisis is the fault of China”!

6.     Scientists confirm that Convid-19 is natural and is part of nature. It has been with us at least for the past 10 years and it might continue to stay with us for a long time. Only vaccine could prevent an infection and the world needs a vaccine to put the pandemic to a stop.

How shall we continue to pray? From the above observation, there appears to be an invisible objective with the coming of the pandemic and perhaps we should pray for it to come true;

1.     We give glory to God for his sovereign control of the creation. We praise him for the spreading of the gospel during this pandemic.

2.     We pray for the church. “We know that all things work for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom.8.28). All things must include the pandemic. God has given us faith, hope and love to battle trials in this world. Peter said about the faith, ^“In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (1 Peter 1.7)

3.     We pray for many to come to Jesus Christ with repentance. Though the world has been humbled by the convid-19, but we pray for more to turn to God like king Nebuchadnezzar.

4.     We pray for the leaders of the nations that they may learn a valuable lesson from this pandemic and prepare themselves for the unpredicted and unexpected disasters, and that they may always have the people in their hearts.

5.     We pray for a genuine working together among the nations to battle on in this pandemic.

6.     We pray for the stability of the world politics and the smooth transition of the world leadership and the change in the world order.

7.     We pray for the American evangelicals who are strongly behind the POTUS Donald Trump. Pray that they may correct him when he is not doing the right thing.

8.     We pray that Trump will handle the pandemic crisis well in his own country. Pray that he will put the people before his own reelection. Pray that he will not resort to starting a war to divert attention from his lagging behind in his campaign. This would be a disaster for the world if he resorts to that.

9.     We pray for patience for everyone while we carry out the lockdown order or MCO.

10.  We pray for the medical staffs who serve in the frontline to save lives. Pray for police and soldiers who carry out their duty to maintain orderliness in the society. Pray for those who work on the vaccine in the labs.

Maranatha!

Which model?

I would like to sum up my paper on “A history of the Reformed Baptist thinking in Malaysia.” In this summary I would like to show you two different models of the local church that emerged from all the discussion. One is a combination of a self defined image plus an image defined by others, and the other is an image defined by the factual teaching from the New Testament.  The Reformed Baptists have already established a model of the church by our belief and practice. The Reformed believers have already projected an outstanding image by our philosophy. The Christian public has also defined the Reformed believers, based on what they saw and heard, in a negative way. In the eyes of the Christian public, they have almost nothing good to say about the Reformed believers. It is a fact of life, if we do not define ourselves clearly and properly by a good philosophy and a healthy practice, others will define us in a way that will not make us happy. So, we do have a choice, either we define ourselves or be defined by others.

Let me show you the two distinctive images;

Firstly, this is the existing image of the Reformed Baptist church that has been projected by us as well as being perceived by the Christian public.

1.       We are reformed believers or Calvinists.

2.       We subscribe to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith as the rule of belief and practice and we interpret the Bible according to the doctrines found in the Confession.

3.       We believe that the “moral” Law of Moses still has a hold on the Christians and therefore our teaching of this Law is always preceding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4.       We believe that the ultimate purpose of God giving the 4^th commandment is that it should be kept as a rite until the end of the world. Therefore, we observe a Christian Sabbath that is on the Sunday as an act of obedience to the 4^th commandment.

5.        We do not like to emphasize on the Holy Wind[i] and we also do not like the “sign seeking”[ii] theology. .

6.       We sing hymns and psalms only during the public worship[iii].

7.       We have a pastor to supervise the local church ministry.

Secondly, this is the image of the local church that emerged from the exegetical observation and study of the New Testament texts.

1.       We are an assembly of pneumatic[iv] people who have been saved by Christ Jesus and created anew in Christ Jesus and are being transformed into the His likeness by the Holy Wind.

2.       We have entered the Sabbatical rest of God and we are reminded that we no longer depending on our laboring for salvation. We are called to enjoy the Sabbath everyday and to worship the Lord of the Sabbath both in private and in public assembly for the rest of our lives or till the return of the Lord.

3.       We are called to wait in a peaceful and quiet manner for the return of the Lord Jesus by conducting our lives in a manner that is worthy of the gospel and the Holy Wind.

4.       We obey the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that was preached since the days of Adam.

5.       We are called to carefully study the Bible and ensure that we understand what it says and not forcing it to say what we want it to say, and then we will put into practice all that we learn from it.

6.       We sing psalms, songs accompanied by string instruments, hymns and spiritual songs in the worship[v].

7.       We have a board of elders to supervise the life of the local church.

These two lists are definitely not exhaustive and more could be added to them. The point that I want to establish is that we are far from being perfect as an assembly of believers in Christ Jesus. We must not be fooled by anyone that we are the perfect model of the local church compare to other evangelical churches. We must not be fooled to think too highly of ourselves because in actual fact we share many short comings with the other evangelical churches.

We have a choice. We can either choose to remain at the same spot or we can redefine ourselves and move on. Remain would mean perpetuating the current condition and it might mean a dead end for the reformed work in Malaysia. Having surveyed our major doctrinal thinking, redefining and regrouping ourselves seems to be the only reasonable choice to make. We cannot move on with our old human philosophy. We can only move forward with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our old thinking and tradition are like the old wine skin and it cannot hold the gospel and it might burst anytime. So we must change into a new wine skin quickly so that we might be able to move forward with the gospel.

---

[i] “Holy Spirit”

[ii] “Charismatic”

[iii] The hymns we use today are in no way identical to the hymns mentioned in the New Testament.

[iv] “spiritual people”

[v] See my article on “How to sing?”

Where is the basis of appointment?

The old debate on the issue about church leadership among the Reformed Baptists is always circling around the equality of the elders and the distinction among the elders. Seldom attention is given to the basis of the appointment of these leaders. We are weak and vague in this. The Reformed Baptists, generally, believe in the theory that the pastor is the leader[i]. Ephesians 4.11-12 is often quoted, accompanied by the image of the Good Shepherd[ii], as the basis for the calling of a pastor. However, anyone who has some basic idea about the art of exegesis would know that the immediate context of the passage can hardly constitute a command from the apostle as he has given to Timothy and Titus[iii]. Paul was encouraging the church to move on to maturity and unity by drawing her attention to the gift of “the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor teachers.” These four offices mentioned were the apostolic band and they were given as a whole package. Exegetically, it is arbitrary to take the pastor teacher out from the band and make it an office for today. The question would rise from within the context, why choose the pastor teacher alone and why not the apostles, the prophets, and the evangelists? However, in a cleaver manner, the role of the pastor teacher has been singled out from the list, and please do not bother to ask who gave the permission to do that. Never mind also about the fact that big argument and a little twisting here and there had been done to the text, the important thing is that a basis for the calling of the pastors has been established.

Armed with this new “biblical basis”, these experts approach Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus on the appointment of elders in the local churches, and established the following theory.

1.       A pastor is a teacher and a good one.

2.       A distinction is therefore made in the Timothy and Titus texts that there were two types of elders; namely the teaching elder and the ruling elder.

3.        The teaching elder is  a good teacher and is called by God, whereas the ruling elder is invited by the former to assist him in the work.

4.       Another distinction is made that a teaching elder is a full time worker and should be salaried by the local church while a ruling elder is not[iv].

5.       The teaching elder is therefore the pastor.

So in a very simple manner, a basis for the calling of the pastor is established and the relationship among the elders is solved. So we can confidently convincing ourselves that we can have one pastor or teaching elder and many ruling elders be appointed in a local church, with the pastor as the chief  of the elders.

Unfortunately, the story does not stop here, because there is a new voice wanting to be heard from within the same fraternal. This group of believers agrees that the “gift text” indicates a basis for the call of the pastors. They also refer to Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, but they do not do the hair splitting and twisting stance with the text. They view the “gift text” and Paul’s instruction essentially refers to the same persons who were called to be the pastors. According to this interpretation, the pastors and the elders are the same persons called by God to serve in the local churches. There is no difference between the two and the elders are the pastors. Ultimately, in a similar sentiment, that the pastor is still the designated leader in a local church.

I suspected that the apostles did not call for an “ordination” of the pastors when I was exposed to such debate. I can safely say to myself today that indeed my suspicion was right. The New Testament evidence clearly shows that there is no instruction from the apostles for the local churches to ordain pastors. Historically, I believe, “pastors” is a romantic idea created by the early Catholics and perpetuated by the Protestants till the present day. While the New Testament shows us that the apostles gave instruction to the local churches to appoint both elders and deacons only. The scripture does not show any evidence that there is a special distinction between the elders. This distinction is really a human arbitrary[v]. Elder is the highest recognition that the scripture had given to a servant of God serving in a local church. This would be also the best honor the local church can give to that man.

So, now we have three distinctive views on the basis of calling;

1.       The pastor is called by God while the elders are invited by the pastors to assist them in the local church.

2.       The elder is called by God and he is the pastor. Essentially these two are called to the same pastors’ office in the local church.

3.       A board of elders is called by God to oversee or supervise the life of the local churches. The New Testament recognizes only the elders’ office and nothing else.

Or strictly speaking, there are only two distinctive views; the difference is between a pastor leading a local church and a board of elders supervising a local church.

Why bother to establish another basis for appointment? Church members are already confused by the two existing views, why bother to produce another? Do I think that church members are not confused enough? I have two reasons why I want to be clear about the basis of calling. Firstly, it is our duty as believers to be clear headed about the scripture. If the leaders of the local churches are muddle headed, how are they going to supervise the local churches? Otherwise it will be the case of the blind leading the blind and eventually all will fall into the pit.

Secondly, it is for practical reason that we should be clear about the basis of appointment. Based on Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, candidates would be appointed according to the list of qualification. However, we seldom pay attention to the fact that a serving elder can be disqualified by the list of qualification. Take for instance, when a pastor was accused of having committed an act of sexual harassment and he was confronted by some church members and was asked to leave quietly, but he refused. Now there is a loophole in this calling of a pastor, because he was a pastor and not an ordinary elder, and therefore did not come under the qualification list. He was called by God and only God can disqualify him because that was the basis upon which he was ordained as the pastor.

If the man was appointed as an elder according to Paul’s instruction then he would be monitored by the qualification list.  One of the requirements clearly stated that the elder must be a husband of one wife. It means that the man must be a man of one marriage. He must be faithful to his wife and not having a second wife or sexual relationship with another woman. He must only draw sexual pleasure from his wife in a loving relationship. By no means, he should draw such pleasure, whether it is by force, threat, ape, or sexual harassment, from other women. The man who had allegedly committed the act of sexual harassment should have either disqualified himself from the job and leaves quietly, or the local church would have ask him to leave.

I hope, with this present discussion, we can now focus on the basis of appointment, and not continue to circle round the choice between the distinction among elders and equality of the elders. For the two “so called” different views actually believe in the same thing and both would have the pastor as the leader. When we are able tell in no uncertain term that there is only one basis of appointment and that is for the elders, and then we would be able to determine the office and the job description of those who are called by God to lead the local churches. At the present moment, it is quite clear that our churches are operating without a basis. In practice, of course, it is not a matter of life and death, the churches would still move on without any basis, and the leaders can be called by different names.  However, it is because we regard the Bible as the rule over our practice, we cannot ignore the fact that we do not have a basis to appoint pastors to the local churches.

---

[i] We share the common sentiment with the Catholics and many evangelical churches in Malaysia.

[ii] Ezekiel 34; John 10

[iii] 1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.4-6.

[iv] 1 Timothy 5.17-18

[v] See my exegetical observation on the related texts in the article “Elders for the pastoral ministry”.

Where is the Holy Spirit[i]?

The doctrine of the Holy Wind is almost absent from the Reformed Baptist circle. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith does not have a paragraph of comprehensive discussion on the Wind of the Lord, and this should be a great concern for the Reformed believers. John Calvin was known as the theologian of the Holy Wind. Reformed Baptists are proud to be Calvinist, but why is the doctrine of the Holy Wind almost left out in the Confession? I am not surprised that, as the result of this negligence, seldom one can hear Him being mentioned by the members and seldom one can hear Him being preached from the pulpit. This scenario was fixed probably as soon as the first Reformed Baptist church was founded in Malaysia. The church was established at the height of the “sign seeking”[ii] movement in Malaysia in the 80’s. On the contrarily, teaching was issued from the pulpit against the movement with its experiential doctrine or anybody who attempts to explore this experiential expect of the doctrine[iii]. The blasting was so effective that so much so members begin to shun away from the mentioning the Holy Wind and it was deem to be the right thing to do. As the result of this, the church has sent out a wrong message that Reformed Baptist people are “anti charismatic and the Holy Wind”. Are we? No, we are definitely not like that, but such definition is hard to remove.

Is the Holy Wind important to the Christians? The answer is a resounding “Yes”, but why nobody pays attention to Him? We all know that our Lord Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb and declared as the Son of God by the Holy Wind. He ushered our Lord Jesus Christ into a public ministry by John’s baptism. Our Lord continuously spoke to the crowd and performed signs and wonders by the Wind. The Lord reminded Nicodemus that none can enter the Kingdom of God except that he is born of the Wind. The Lord was raised from the dead by the exceedingly great power of the Wind. After the Lord was taken up, the Wind of God toke on the name and character of the Lord, and ever since He was known as the Wind of the Lord or the Wind of Christ. He established the first church in Jerusalem, and from there He spread the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. According to the gospel, the Wind of the Lord was present, from the beginning to the finishing end, in the saving work of God in the believers.

How should I describe this scenario? I would say, in the absence of a good doctrine of the Wind of the Lord, believers tend to look for substitute. This tendency was clearly shown in the choice of the Jewish believers for the custom of Moses over and against the Wind of the Lord[iv]. In a similar manner, this scenario is shown in the Confession. When we neglect the Wind of the Lord, we tend to resort to a hard and harsh self made regulation to rule our life. Indeed we have particularly established a set of religious regulative principle as a replacement of the doctrine of the Wind of the Lord. A hard doctrine has presented Christ Jesus as a teacher of the Law or a moral teacher who was promoting a conservative moral teaching. Presumably, all who believe in Him should follow His moral teaching. But the question is, was Jesus a moral teacher?  If Christ Jesus was merely a moral teacher, don’t we have many of such teachers in our own cultures and why must we follow Him? In fact, every other religion offers its moral teaching and why should Christianity be so different? If Christ Jesus was merely a good moral teacher or a teacher of the Jewish Law, I would not have been His follower. If Christianity is all about strict moral practice, then I would not have been a Christian, because I have KongZi (孔子Confucius), LaoZi (老子), MoZi (墨子), and the whole lot of the Chinese moral teachers and philosophers to choose from[v].

Christianity has offered me something that I could not find elsewhere. The good news that I received gave me the joy of salvation. When I came to Christ Jesus and He gave me His Wind and by whom I have my experience of repentance and an assurance of forgiveness, and by that encounter I was assured that I have entered the Kingdom of God. In a new dimension, He has transported me to heaven and made me sit together with other believers in Christ Jesus. He helps me to understand that I have been made right with God the Father by the blood of Christ. As a way to assure me of this certainty He has poured out the love of God into my heart and gave me peace and hope and reminds me that I am an adopted child of God. He gives me the joy that is like rivers of living water flow from within me. He has made clear to me that He wants to transform me into the likeness of Christ. He is eager to see the fruit of His labor. Without any delay and untiringly, from my first day as a believer, He began to labor hard in my life to bring out the character of Christ that is reflected in His love, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. He has expressed Himself clearly that He wants me to dwell deeply in Him and walk closely with Him, and to please Him always. He teaches me to worship God and teaches me to cry and pray to the Lord. He desires that I stay close to the fellow believers and He gives me gifts and teaches me the gospel and its ministry. This whole operation of the Wind of the Lord grants me a rich and meaningful and emotional experience.

If it is such a wonderful experience to have the Wind of the Lord in our lives, why is there still apprehension found in us? I gather that many feel uncomfortable with the word “freedom” that comes with the gift of the Holy Wind, and they also feel uneasy with the “sign seeking” movement that highlighted the experiential aspect on the doctrine of the Holy Wind. Unconsciously, they apply some kind of a curb on this freedom and they prefer not to talk much about the Holy Wind as far as possible.

Why the agitation? This is really unnecessary; Our Father in heaven is the one who grants the freedom and not us. God is not worried to grant the freedom and why should we worry for Him?  It is like what the Chinese wisdom says, “The eunuch is agitated while the emperor is not.” The gospel has made it so clear that anyone who comes to Christ Jesus would gain freedom from sin and death and would also gain freedom to worship God, but never any indication about freedom from morality. The Wind of the Lord is holy and righteous in character and He will not grant us a freedom that is contradicting His own character. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient to guide every believer to the path of holiness. The Wind of the Lord is capable of leading every believer to where He wants them to go. We must not under estimate the power of the Wind of the Lord and over estimate our human effort and the capability of the regulative discipline. Indeed, we have much to learn from Jonathan Edwards[vi] when come to knowing and trusting the Wind of the Lord, and learning how to conduct ourselves under the Lordship of the Wind. Even John Calvin and his contemporary had failed to show that they have fully grasped the freedom given by the Holy Wind[vii].

Ultimately, we have to turn to the apostles’ teaching. The apostles’ were concerned about the believers’ life on earth because they were pneumatic people and they have a pneumatic life[viii]. This pneumatic life is upright and good and free. This pneumatic life would meet the demands of the gospel and the demands of any moral teaching. However, the apostles did not focus on moral demands of the gospel as the main message in their ministry; instead their attention was on the believers’ pneumatic life. For the apostles, the horse was always before the cart. The apostles’ approach was gentle and patient, and ready to bear with all the nonsense of the believers. They reminded the believers that they were pneumatic people, and then they challenged them to live a life that was worthy of the Wind of the Lord. The apostles employed lots of persuasion, encouragement, motivation, and warning, while making the challenge. They used the famous adverb “therefore” (as the result of this) to highlight that the believers were different and special and they deserved to be treated differently. I would list down some texts that show the manner in which the apostles persuaded the believers.

1.       Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12.1-2)

2.       I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ….. This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind. (Ephesians 4.1-3; 17-32)

3.       Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (Colossians 3.5; Read with in context of 3.1-4.6)

4.       Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12.1-2 and read its context  12.1-13.7)

5.       Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babies, desire the pure milk of the word that you may grow thereby. (1 Peter 2.1-2)

The challenge before us today is that we must pay good attention to the Wind of the Lord and have a comprehensive grasp of the believers’ pneumatic life, if we wish to see effective result in our effort in personal growth, evangelism, missions, and church planting and building. We are in need of a comprehensive study on the doctrine of the Holy Wind, and then with the good finding we must fill in the missing part on the doctrine of the Holy Wind in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. We must be ready to provide answer to the related issues concerning the Wind of our Lord Jesus Christ. Right now, we are vulnerable because we do not have the answer.

---

[i] The word “Spirit” is not an accurate translation of the third person of the Godhead today. Modern mind would understand the word “spirit” as “alcoholic liquor” or “the invisible life principle in man and the animals”. The word “spirit” originally derived from the old Latin word “spirare” which means “breath or wind”. This Latin word was a correct translation of the Greek word “pneuma”. Unfortunately, this Latin root meaning has lost its place in the new English dictionary. In a misleading manner, based on the English translation, the Chinese and Malay Bible both translated it as the “holy soul” of God. Therefore, I would prefer to address the third person in the Godhead as the “Holy Wind” (Jn. 3.8).

[ii] It is commonly known as “charismatic movement”. However, I prefer that the word “charismatic” not to be monopolized by any movement or person.  Strictly speaking, the word “charismatic” is a biblical word and it is a definition of all the believers in Christ. The word “charismatic” derives from the Greek word “charis” which means “grace”. “Charis” is a very important word. Christians are saved by the grace of God and the church has been bestowed with many gifts (charismata) to carry out her duty.

[iii] Unfortunately, Martin Lloyd Jones was one of them and his series of sermons on “Joy unspeakable” was frequently quoted as dangerous. Ian Murray was criticized for defending Lloyd-Jones’ “experiential” attempt.

[iv] Acts 15.1; Gal.5

[v] The students of Confucius’ and Chinese philosophies commented that the gospel lacks depth in comparison with their moral teaching. They are right, in a way, because the gospel is not about moral teaching, but it is all about Jesus Christ being the Son of God and whoever believes in Him shall enter the Kingdom of God. The gospel is a critique of the philosophy and message of the moral teaching, just as it was a critique of the Pharisees’ philosophy and message. The gospel is also a critique of the common belief that “all religions teaches people to do good”.

[vi] Jonathan Edwards, “Religious Affections”.

[vii] The Reformers reserved capital punishment for believers who had violated certain doctrine and practice. John Calvin was one of such reformers. He set up church police to spy on individuals and families and he did not hesitate to punish when he found anyone has violated the church rules. He has betrayed his reputation as a theologian of the Holy Wind by swinging the big stick.  The doctrine of the Holy Wind and the big stick policy do not complement one another at ll. This big stick policy was the result of combining the church and the state and ruled them as one. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles believed in the power of the Holy Wind and had never demand death sentence on any believer.

[viii]  Somehow the adjective “pneumatic” is found in the English dictionary. I found it appropriate as a substitute for the word “spiritual.” Pneumatic life is a life that has been created by the Wind of the Lord; “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3.1).

What does the Bible say?

Since the day I received the Lord Jesus Christ into my life in a Methodist Church I learnt to ask a simple question; “What does the Bible say?”[i] The intention of asking the question was to set a momentum for an in depth discussion and hoping that people’s attention would be drawn to the Bible, and eventually everybody would be asking the same question. This habit has been reinforced by my days spent in both the Pusat Latihan Kristian Malaysia (i.e. Malaysian Christian Training centre and it was later known as Malaysian Bible Seminary) and Seminary Theology Malaysia. I asked the same question when I prepared my messages, Bible studies, and whenever I was confronted by tough and tricky questions. I did it so often and so much so some church members told me off with the remark, “Don’t you have a mind of your own and why do you have to ask ‘What does the Bible say?’ ”

Unfortunately, wishes and reality do not really match that well, I hardly meet people who would respond according to my wishes. I admit that this question tends to offend people because it challenges their precious conviction. I cannot remember when was the first time I offended people by raising such question, but I remember some occasions when I offended people.

 I was in Parit Buntar and Nibong Tebal, two small towns located at the border of Perak and Penang, for a period of three years. It was the first opportunity for me to try out what I learnt from the seminary and I did it with much enthusiasm. Immediately, I applied all that I know about exegesis, interpretation and preaching, into preparing messages and Bible study. I asked the question “What does the Bible say” frequently to fish discussion. During one of the Bible studies on the book of Revelation, a young lady teacher suddenly burst into tears and accused me of being so “liberal” and not biblical. After some double check, I then discovered that the teacher was from the Gospel Chapel background and believed in the Dispensational view of interpreting the book of Revelation. My approach to the book of Revelation was plain exegetical observation plus lots of questions, and I was busy helping the group to look for facts and evidences from the book. All that I have done had actually put a big question mark on her conviction, without me realizing it.

At another time, I was in the Penang Island preaching on Ephesians 1.19-21, and as usual I made my exegetical observation and remarks, plus some questions addressing the dominant understanding pertaining to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I was trying to show that the “sign seeking” point of view has got no good support from the Bible. I concluded that the New Testament understanding on the subject was not only accurate but also more superior. Can you guess what happened after the worship? My God, I was surrounded by a small group of young adult worshippers who were so angry and challenged me for a debate.

When I was in Melaka, preaching on 1 Corinthians 13, in the same manner, I raised questions on the common belief on the gifts of Holy Spirit and presented facts and evidences from the Bible, and then I put forward my exegetical observation and concluding remarks. The result was similarly hot.

When I was in Segamat, a small town in the state of Johor, I had the opportunity to cover a series of teaching on the person and the work of the Holy Spirit based on the epistles of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. I asked the same question “What does the Bible say?” and provided facts and evidences from the Bible. I reminded church members not to entertain “hear say”. The belief and teaching of the Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship was dominant in the lives of the church members and you can imagine what kind of result I would get before I finished my teaching. I have almost preached myself out of job.

Later I was invited to join the Reformed Baptist group and I went in with the impression that this group of believers would welcome my question. It started well and warm, but as time went by, I realized that after all Reformed Baptist believers do have problem with my question. During one minister conference, the founding elder was teaching on the subject of Christian Worship and insisted that only Hymns should be used in the public worship[ii]. When it was time for discussion, I asked my standard question and pressed for facts and evidences. I did not know I have offended the elder until sometime later. It was during a fraternal meeting the elder who was beside me cautioned me not ask too many questions, and then he told me that he actually wanted to give me a punch on my face[iii] when I raised questions at the Conference to challenge his conviction that only hymns should be sued.

The last straw was when I asked my children what they have learnt from the Sunday school and what must they do to please God. To my Surprise, they told me that we must keep the Law of Moses (The 10 Commandments) to please God. I was shocked because it was not my belief and I have never taught my children such belief. I reacted and I made a big blunder by confronting the issue strongly. At hind sight I should have dealt with the issue in a different manner and the end result might not be so drastic. Basically, I raised many questions and asked for facts and evidences, and instead getting the discussion that I wanted, the local church met and found me guilty of going against the Bible. This time, I have no choice but to leave. I have really preached myself out of job.

Later, I discovered that other elders were facing the same problem, but they prefer not to stir the hornet by asking too many questions. What else can I say? The question I was taught to raise is the culprit and the cause of my entire problem. I have to conclude that Christians, in general, do not like to be challenged by such question. If you do not believe in what I found and you can try by asking the question yourself.

---

[i] Rom.4.3; Gal.4.30

[ii] See my article on “How to sing?”

[iii] He is a Chinese Kung Fu expert.