There’s something terribly wrong

This photo is very blurred. Probably a good thing.

I was invited by a Thai friend last week to go and see a play at a local university. He said it was put on by students about to enter Chiang Mai university. I wasn’t at all expecting what was to come. The play was full of sexual innuendo of a very degrading and debase kind. I couldn’t understand much of what was being said but the dances and the acting was hard to mistake. Guys with bras on (blurred photo above), transvestites, other things which were too gross to mention. There was a American woman who I’d met just before the play started who was invited also by my friend. At one stage she walked out because it was too much. Initially I though it was university students putting on the production. Then I was shocked to find out that they were highschool students performing from the major highschools in Lampang. More Specially those who had just finished highschool a couple of months before and had been accepted into Universities in Chiang Mai. It was beyond belief that 17 and 18 year old would be involved in such a play. Worse still there were many of their highschool friends in the audience, cheering and laughing at the sexually charged scenes. I couldn’t work out whether they were laughing out of embarrassment (which is what Thais do) or because it was funny.

If a play like this was put on in Australia, there would be an uproar. There is no doubt in my mind that the students would be expelled and the event banned. But this has been an annual event for the past 23 years.

There are real and serious problems with sex and sexuality in Thai society. I have no idea how it got this way but it is clear that it starts at a very early age and is rampant throughout the society. It seems very ironic in a “buddhist” nation, because a key tenet of Buddhism is to extinguish “desires”.

What am I reading now? The Rise of Christianity

I borrowed this fascinating book at the OMF Guesthouse in Bangkok while we staying there. It is an attempt by a social scientist to explain the rapid rise of Christianity, as the title suggests, “How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries”.

As far as I can tell the author, Stark is not a Christian. He estimates that there were 1,000 Christians at 40A.D and just over 33 million by 350 A.D (which was 56% of the population of the world at the time). This kind of growth requires 40% growth every decade. Sounds very dramatic but this works out in the following numbers.

No. of Christians
100 A.D. 7,530
200 A.D 217,000
300 A.D 6.3 million
350 A.D 33.9 million

Surprising, Stark reveals that the Mormons have grown at a rate of 43% per decade for the last century!

Stark then introduces social science's explanations for people converting to minority religions such as sects and cults. He and a colleague went and observed people converting to the Moonies, in particular a group started by Yong Oon Kim in 1959 in Oregon, America.

[Miss Kim tried to spread her message by talks to various groups, press releases. radio spots and renting a hall for public meetings. These methods yielded nothing. “the only ones who joined were those who interpersonal attachments to members overbalanced their attachments to nonmembers. In effect, conversion is not about seeking or embracing an ideology; it is about bringing one’s religious behaviour into alignment with that of one’s friends and family members.” (p16-17.)

“attachment lie at the heart of conversion and therefore that conversion tends to proceed along social networks formed by interpersonal attachments”

“Conversion to new, deviant religious groups occurs when, other things being equal, people have or develop stronger attachments to members of the group than they have to nonmembers.” (p.18).

Data based on records kept by a Mormon mission president gives powerful support to this proposition. “When missionaries make cold calls, knock on the doors of strangers, this eventually leads to conversion once out of a thousand calls. However, when missionaries make their first contact with a person in the home of a Mormon friend or relative of that person, this results in conversion 50% of the time.” (p.18).]

What do you think? In your experience is this true? Stark is talking about people making a major religious shift from say Christianity to Hinduism, rather than how life long Christians are born again.

Stark has many other very interesting observations which will follow in future posts.

Stark, Rodney. 1996. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

This is Thailand

Our friends working in China have a "This is China" segment in their newsletters once in a while about the weird and wondrous things about China. Well I'd thought I'd add a "This is Thailand" segment. Now why do you think this truck is parked on the side of a major highway up to Chiang Mai? I'll let people guess for a couple of days before providing the answer (please leave your guesses in the comments section). A correct guess will win you a free ticket from Bangkok to Phuket (just kidding! But Air Asia were providing 1 million free airline tickets to many destinations if you booked this week and travel 5 Jan 2010 to 30 Apr 2010 - you just pay taxes)

Stuck in Bangkok Traffic! Urrrrrhhhh!

We flew down to Bangkok on Wednesday (AirAsia of course) to apply for our daughter's passport and renew our visas and my work permit. It is a trip our whole family has to make once a year. I took our younger son with me to the Australian Embassy after we landed. Unfortunately, I needed my original marriage certificate without which they wouldn't process the application! Doohhh! So the next morning I left the guesthouse at 9:30am to get to the Australian Embassy and then meet the rest of the family at immigration at 11am. The journey takes about 1 hour normally in traffic. However, this day was no normal day. 2 hours and 15 minutes! At one point we went about 200 metres in 20 minutes! In the middle of the journey the taxi driver stopped and got out of the car and went somewhere just after a toll plaza on a huge highway which we were on. I had no idea where he went. I understood when we went past this building.

Yep. Toilet block just after the toll booth in the middle of a 8 lane highway.

Poor Lisa though. She had to go the same route to immigration and she was stuck in the same traffic but with 3 children!

So today, I gave ourselves 2 hours to get to the airport as we were travelling on the same route. What do you know? Only took 50 minutes to the airport (we were travelling in the early afternoon though as opposed to the morning). So an extra hour to kill at the airport.

Anyway, we are back in Lampang now. Very tired. Travelling with 3 young children isn't what I call fun. I don't think we have to travel again until June when we have our OMF Thailand Conference (over 6 hours of driving though!). I'm relieved though. Hopefully in just over 10 days time we will receive our daughter's passport which ends long process of getting her birth certificate translated into English, going to Bangkok to apply for her citzenship by decent, wait for the citzenship papers to arrive. Then going back to Bangkok to apply for her passport. It has taken almost 6 months!

Superhuman powers

Sometimes I wish I could have supernatural powers to tackle the evil forces. Today, it was the driver who wanted more. I went to the biggest hotel in town and organised a driver for our friends to a neighboring province. He said 1500 baht petrol plus 500 baht. 2000 baht all up. It sounded cheap so I was happy with the deal. Turn up in front of our house, Tuesday morning 8:30am. Today (Tuesday) he turns up at 7:40am. "I did say 8:30am didn't I?". "Yes, Yes, I'll wait outside". By then I had to take my son to school. When I rang our friends later in the day, I was shocked to learn that the driver changed his price to 1500 baht, plus petrol costs. He wouldn't say what the petrol price would be before they left. They ended up having to pay 1500 baht in petrol so 3,000 baht all up! I am positive that language was NOT the issue here as we clearly agreed on the total price of 2000 baht. So either the driver was naive and quoted the wrong price and was too ashamed to admit it, or he deliberately quoted a low price so that I'd agree and then force a higher price out of us on the day when it would be too late to organise other transport. Either way not happy (especially for our friends) and it dashed my hopes that I'd found a great driver to call upon to send off our visitors to Chiang Mai or other places.

Around Lampang

Local shop selling shrine down the road from where we live

Taxi! This is the equivalent to a taxi in Lampang (A Song Theew)

I recently bought a new mobile (cell) phone with a camera on it so that I could take snap shots of Lampang without having to remember my camera.

More recently the focus of the blog has changed to more theological thoughts I've been wrestling with rather than a photo blog. I don't know whether you like the change or not. Feel free to comment on where you like the change or you preferred the posts of the past.

Putting Preachers in their place

I've having recently been thinking about and blogging concerning the role of preaching in the church. The issue I’m trying to deal with is “Is preaching as it is done today, a monologue usually by one Senior ministor/pastor week by week to a passive audience, is that what the Bible intended for the Church?”. Recently, someone directed me to a talk by Mark Driscoll title d "Putting Preachers in their place" dealing with this issue. Driscoll argues yes and almost goes as far as to say to think otherwise might put you in the category of being a cult or a sect.

I’m a big fan of Driscoll and I listen to his sermons regularly. However, I must say that I did not find the argument in this talk convincing.

Driscoll supports his argument by referring to numerous passages of preaching by Jesus, Paul and other Apostles, but nearly all these passages are in the context of preaching to Non-believers outside of a church. The context is different so to then argue that preaching is essential part of church from these passages I don't think is right.

Driscoll says that Acts 13 clearly shows that there was a team of preachers at the church in Antioch. But when you look up Acts 13:1 it says “Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers”. O.k. it is possible there were a team of preachers at the church in Antioch but is this what the verse is actually saying? Is these passage advocating the current practice of most churches of one pastor preaching every week?

Don't mishear me. I’m not against preaching in church. Not at all. I’m just questioning whether preaching by one pastor every week in church was what the Bible is advocating. I believe that the word of God is central to church. I’m just not sure that preaching by one ordained person though is what the Bible is teaching. It could possibly, but it is not as clear cut as people make out. I think there is room for several teaching elders. Does preaching have to be a monologue? Is the Bible teaching this?

In Driscoll’s argument for preaching being the central part of church he goes to the teaching of the Reformers, Calvin and the like and their definitions on the marks of the church. But he does not show us where from the Bible this is evident.

Looking at preaching today. Almost all of it is done in the church to believers and hardly any to non-believers. In the New Testament most of the preaching is to non-believers. Preaching in the church context and what form it took I don’t think is clearly addressed as opposed to preaching outside of church to non-believers were there are numerous examples.

I'm happy to be corrected or convinced otherwise. Please do. But please take me to the Scriptures. However, if the current model of one pastor/minister preaching a monologue week by week to a passive audience arose through church traditional or practice then we need to recognize that this is what it is and not read back church traditional into the Scriptures.

A new way of evangelism or just a return to past?

I kind of stumbled onto to Chronological Bible Story telling in the last couple of months. I was searching for Mark Driscoll’s last words and assessment of Sydney Evangelicals when he visited last year and came across the Sydney Anglican’s website with a great collection of sermons which you could download for free. In amongst this sermons was a series of 5 talks by Don Carson on evangelism to the post modern, post Christian world (download here). They were eye opening talks which radically changed my view of evangelism. I was left wondering why I hadn’t heard this kind of thinking before of world view evangelism. Don Carson makes the point that to preach the gospel without having explained the Christian world view first makes no sense to someone with a different worldview. So if I tell a Thai Buddhist that Jesus died on the cross for there sins, they don’t see the great sacrificial love of Jesus for mankind but they see a man with obviously bad karma to have died such a terrible death. They can’t understand why you would ever want to follow a man like that.

In addition to this what I’ve been coming across more recently is material from Larry Dinkins, a former OMF missionary to Thailand that oral story telling of the Bible, in his experience is much more effective in reaching Thais (listen here - choose the iphone option). Although Thais are 95% literate, the underlying culture is oral.

So I’m convinced (at the moment anyway) that oral Chronological Bible Story telling is the way forward for evangelism in Thailand. May God use it to bring people to him.

To read more on this go to the God Story website.

Why did Jesus decide not to reform the church from within the system?

I've been thinking lately about why Jesus chose to 12 unknown ragamuffin disciples rather than using Rabbis and other Jewish religious authorities? In effect he chose to start afresh rather than reforming the existing Jewish church. He worked outside of the system to overturn it rather than from within the system to reform it. May be it was just easier this way. I have no problems relating to this if I think of how hard it would be to reform modern day denominations!

Sometimes working within the denominational system is so hard, tiring and disheartening when you try to do something outside the box. It almost makes you want to throw up your arms and say that's it, I'm outa here. Perhaps a blog isn't the best place though to air my gripes so I'll resist the temptation.

In terms of what we are doing right now in Lampang, in many ways we are working outside of the system. We are not working at the moment in co-ordination with the other local churches in Lampang. Of course we would love to, but it just wouldn't work. Our vision is for a movement of house church with no paid professional pastor, no church building, small groups of up to 12 believers. The vision of the existing church is exactly the opposite.

We are looking and praying for a Thai believer to join our team but we want someone who shares our vision. Without a Thai co-worker we are very much constrained in terms of cultural insight and Thai way of thinking. We pray that God can overcome these constraints until God provides a Thai co-worker.

Comments to "In Defence of the Sermon - Part 2"

A fellow missionary working in Thailand wrote on his blog "In Defense of the Sermon - Part 2" dealing with 3 common objections to maintaining the sermon as a central part of the life of the Christian Church.

Objection #1 "Sermons are ineffective",

Objection #2 "People learn better in a participatory environment. Listening to a sermon is too passive.

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.”

To be honest, having graduated from a Bible College which is perhaps the only one in Australia to have a school of preaching, I had no doubt in my mind that it was the central and most important aspect of church. However, I now have a few questions which I expressed in my comments to my friend's post which follows:-

"Dear Karl,

In terms of objection #2, Frank Viola (Reimagining Church) argues that "In the first-century gathering [i.e church], neither the sermon nor "the preacher" was the center of attention. Instead, congregational participation was the divine rule" (p.53). So he is arguing that not in terms of participatory being better because of learning styles, but this was the biblical norm for the early church. He argues that there different types of meetings where preaching was central, i.e Apostolic Meetings where apostolic workers preached to an interactive audience with the goal to plant a church from scratch or to encourage an existing church one. Evangelistic meetings. These commonly occurred outside the regular meetings of the church (p.49-50). However, normal church meetings were participatory as described above.

I haven't had time to look into Viola's claims to be honest (hopefully I will find time one day), but he provides another view perspective which I was not aware of before.

I'll still thinking through this one. To be honest, I would have agreed completely with your comments upon leaving college and ministry in Australia. But being in Thailand and thinking over the role of the sermon, I'm wondering whether we can put too much emphasis on the sermon and that it becomes an idol of sorts (extreme example would be a pastor sending 30+ hours on his sermon to get it perfect while neglecting the congregation pastoraly) rather than emphasizing the Word of God . Is the sermon what is important or is it that people are receiving the Word of God. Can you even separate the two?"

Any thoughts?

The bhikkhuni question

Ajahn Brahm - Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery in Australia

I thought that the issue of the ordination of women was limited to the Anglican denomination (in the media anyway). Not so. I was surprised to read about the bhikkhumi issue in yesterday's Bangkok Post. Bhikkhuni is a fully-ordained Buddhist female monk. Apparently the practice Bhikkhuni died out many centuries ago and now it is not legally possible to become a fully-ordainted buddhist monk. Now there are people calling for it to be reinstated. A case of dejavu? Interesting what Ajahn Brahm states as reasons for reinstating bhikkumi: "It's often said that Thai people, both in Bangkok and the provinces, are moving away from Buddhism. Having bhikkhunis would be one very powerful, effective way to restore that confidence in Buddhism. It'll show that we're modern. And it'll show that we are a fair religion. How can we say that we are following reason and truth and fairness when we deny 50 percent of the population the same opportunities?

In a country like Australia, there is no choice. When other religions are introducing equal rights to women, if Buddhism doesn't we're not going to survive. It's culturally unacceptable to have a lack of equity for men and women in Western countries and it's becoming that way in Thailand.

Buddhism is also fading in Thailand because people aren't respecting monks so much. Get the women on board and they can help clean it up."

Hmmmm... Why do these arguments sound so familiar I wonder?

You can read the whole article here.