From Valerie Jayne Oon: "God Answers"

Elder's Note: This is from Val's Facebook note. She made a note, tagged all her atheist friends, and came under lots of fire for it. Hahahhaa. The Lord be your blessing in return, Val!

Again, read this in entirety or not at all. Atheists, unleash your skepticism (:
And I hope this will encourage the people running after God.
--

Walking home, I had debated in my head the wisdom of publishing this post. And if I’m honest, the only reasons stopping me are fear and shame. Fear of judgment and sadly, ashamed of God. I’ve been an atheist a good part of my thinking life and consequently, I know a good many people who stand on the same camp. People who, as I had been, would seriously question the sanity and intellect of theists. This is no joke for me. I’ve been wrestling with notions of my potential dementia or stupidity.

For months now, I’ve been struggling to come to terms with the concept of a loving God, our Creator, His omniproperties and His supernatural ability. My faith in Christianity has been, hitherto, experimental. In fact, oh my God, I’ve just remembered that now would be about time my timeline expired. Wow, great timing, God. So, in my hunger for The Truth and partly because of a personal ‘immersive’ side project to ‘field research’ for a module I was taking last semester (PH2211 Philosophy of Religion), I joined The Outreach and was soon convinced by Daniel to challenge the existence of God by means of an experimental faith that will span 6 months. And let me tell you, I had been fully prepared to walk away smugly in 6 months, all equipped with robust academic reasons against the existence of this being. Unfortunately for my conceit, He triumphed. Kind of. But in return, He is giving (has given and will give) me so much more.

My experimental journey with the Creator began with a tearfully uttered sinner’s prayer at CKRM, a church that move(d) in the power of the Holy Spirit, the second (?) time I visited. Why tearfully? I don’t know what came over me, I attribute it to fatigue (don’t wanna be presumptuous yet). That day was business as usual for the ‘crazy church’ (yes, that’s what I called it), manifestations all over the place that sent me to fits of hilarity. I have to admit that part of the reason I bothered spending my Saturday over there was the entertain I got in return. The presence of God in that place, apparently, was so strong that people drop like flies under the Spirit all throughout the preaching. Not only that, people laugh and run around the place, roar and tremble and all that stuff. I don’t even hear half the things the pastor says. (You people are so thinking we’re loonies.) That day, AGAIN, one of the pastors called me up to pray (with the intention of causing my manifestation-unsuccessfully). By the way, Dick is scared to death of that place because of that. Sorry your secret is out, dear. This time I was really scared because Dick had just fallen under the Spirit right before my eyes. I was totally NOT laughing anymore because I know him and I know he wouldn’t fake something like that. It was either delusion or the presence is real. So by that time, I was bawling my eyes out worrying for him. And honestly, I was half prepared to flee from this cult parade. Ok because I had been crying at the time, this part is a bit blurry. I can’t remember what the pastor was praying but she made me cry even harder, in a not-so-bad way, with me all the time trying my utmost best to stand on my wobbly feet and finally surrendering my full weight on Janice. Then I just felt, I don’t know, like, ready. I felt ready to get to know this God and see if He works out for me. So that was it–my first step, with Daniel and Janice and Dick holding my hands.

The past few months had me catapulting from vibrant belief to stubborn unbelief, desperate longing to incredulous disdain. Midway through this journey, I realized that no academic grounding can keep my faith until I experience the full glory of His word fulfilled for me. I completed that philosophy module defeated in my search for Truth because philosophy did nothing for me except give me false excitement only to take it away with each counter-argument and counter-counter-argument. And in the end, it left me with an inconclusive conclusion that made me wildly ravenous for a transcendental understanding of this world.

I began praying to God for a revelation. For such a spectacular revelation of His existence that I would have to be stupid to deny it. For such an intimate display that would only make sense to me and me alone and in that instant, strengthen my faith in Him so that I can never be the same again. For my own story to tell. A proof of Him so strong that my testimony can bring glory to Him through its impartation to disbelievers because I had been one of them. I don’t want a subpar understanding, I don’t want a subpar faith. I don’t want signs that I can rationalize to shreds of useless paper. I don’t want a squeak. I want to shout it out. I want the best or nothing at all. And if He was so great, I want to see Him do that.

Today, He finally moved a muscle. Today is the beginning of my never-be-the-same-again.

Today started out bad for me. In fact, it had started being bad since about that day I clubbed. God must be finally doing something about my social smoking. (Yep, secret’s out, not everyone knows that.) Long story short, I felt like crap after that day. In fact, on my way home at 4 a.m., I felt so remorseful I went to sit at the park and prayed for God to keep my bearings. Mostly, I also felt guilty towards Dick for dishonoring God. Weird how my brain works. That was Saturday. And then I couldn’t get my lazy ass to run. So I’m in desperate want of endorphin and I just felt ready to blow my top at some poor guy (namely, Dick). He really doesn’t deserve that so I prayed before leaving the house that God will bless the poor guy and bless me with some joy until I get my runner’s high.

We have theology classes by Chris the Genius, B.A. Theology, in Daniel’s house every Tuesday and today’s lesson on the apocalyptic worldviews of the Israelites pre-birth of Jesus -??- did nothing for me. But after class, I was fixated with Daniel’s gossip sharing with Dick and somehow the conversation evolved to him telling me about manifestations and testimonies of people who only experience it after years of desiring it. I began tearing and holding back tears. Specifically at the time Daniel mentioned his experience when he prayed for the Spirit to come and be his friend, stretching his hand out, it happened. It swept over him. Couldn’t complete his sentence, reduced to fits of giggles. And then I started sobbing, full force, like someone died. Ok I may be emotional but I don’t quite SOB at nothing. How do I explain what I felt at the time? Just…moved. Profoundly touched by some unnamed event or feeling or something. An opening in my heart. We joined hands in prayer and I just…felt. I felt that God…is. He exists. Period. You can have a bunch of academics postulating until the cow comes home and not reach a satisfactory conclusion but I tell you, this feeling. It’s like “Shut up, I am here. See? You can quit speculating.” I have NEVER felt like that in my life. Doubt consumes me. Doubt is me. But at that moment, all my heart and mind were in complete agreement to a fact that just happened. Wow. And I was uplifted.

Call me delusional. Then again, I wouldn’t even say this is a full revelation from God. He knows it’s not enough for me. It’s just a stir from Him. Something to keep me going, or just to cheer me up, or maybe He’s just being kind to Dick. I still have my doubts but now, I have no doubt that He will make Himself real to me… IF He really exists.

A statement I find so impactful I had to put it here

This was an answer given in response to a non-believing friend:

"How else can i understand this faith without immersing myself into it?-is there another way?, and finally, most imptly, i have been continually exposed to supernatural manifestations the past months. BUT i have been careful to 'resist' and doubt its effect, even as i prayed to God to touch me (because Christians would say He wouldn't presumptuously invade your personal space). it's personal so there's no other ways to justify other than give you a (as far as possible) rational account of my experience which of course is open to criticism. but then i value empiricism and so do many philosophers right. so that's all i can say. i felt it. and it was like no other. But the Christian God is not a God of Science. He will not be treated as an experiment yielding results that can be tested for anomaly and whatnot."

- Val Oon

Elder's Note: The first and last statement of this reply really demonstrates some fantastic insight into the working of God and about Christianity in general. Amen to them both. Our Christianity is experiential, and when we immerse ourselves in it, we begin to really KNOW if God is that real or not. Yet He is not an experiment. He is a BEING. "He will not be treated as an experiment". Powerful stuff.

And all this comes from a less than 1 yr old God-Fearer!

28th July 2009.

The day the Holy Spirit walked into our BI class. =)

What a blessed night.

We give Him all the glory.

Interesting Post by Ken Schenck...

Hi All,

An interesting post from Ken Schenck...as usual, thought-provoking, and always worthy of consideration...

To see what others have commented on this post, the URL is: http://kenschenck.blogspot.com/2009/07/41-apostles-overseers-and-deacons.html

Enjoy!

Apostles, Overseers, and Deacons

The New Testament does not articulate a clear leadership structure for a local assembly of believers. That is not to say that such churches did not have a fairly common structure. We may catch glimpses of one from time to time, like when Paul greets "overseers and deacons" at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). Paul calls himself and Barnabas "apostles" (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1-6). 1 Peter refers to "elders" (1 Pet. 5:1), and 1 Timothy has a list of qualifications for an overseer or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13).

But we are left to sort out exactly what these roles were and whether they were relatively uniform throughout early Christianity. Or did the leadership structures of local assemblies and Christian synagogues actually vary somewhat from place to place. It seems impossible to answer such questions definitively, although we can make educated guesses. When all is said and done, we must ultimately recognize that even if we knew for sure how leadership took place, we would still only have descriptions, not prescriptions for how churches should structure their leadership today.

Perhaps the easiest place to begin is with the category of apostle, a person "sent" on a mission. We find the word used in more than one way in Acts and Paul's writings. On the one hand are "the Twelve." The book of Acts in particular considered the twelve apostles in a special category of apostle, one for which Paul himself would not have qualified. In Acts 1, the earliest believers replace Judas with Matthias so that the number of twelve remains intact (1:12-16).

The qualifications for this role were that a person had been with Jesus from the time of his baptism up until the time of the resurrection (1:21-22). Acts implies that more than one person might have fit into this category, but it is Matthias who is chosen. Some have speculated that the early church made a bad decision here, that Paul should have been Judas' replacement. [1] But Paul would not have qualified as Judas' replacement given the criteria. He apparently had no encounters with Jesus during his earthly life. [2]

At the same time, both Paul and Acts also use a broader definition of a "sent one," an apostle. Acts 14:14 calls Paul and Barnabas apostles in this more general sense. And when Paul is defending his rights as an apostle, his criteria seem to be 1) that one has seen the risen Lord and 2) that the risen Lord has commissioned you as a special representative of it (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1). It is in this sense that he considers himself and Barnabas to be apostles (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:5-6). And it is perhaps in this sense that he considers the husband-wife pair of Andronicus and Junia to be apostles (Rom. 16:7).

There are some Pentecostal traditions today that use the word "apostle" of some of its leaders, many of which use the word Apostolic in their name. On the one hand, it is hard to find fault with the idea that certain individuals believe themselves to be called and sent by God in some special sense. At the same time, the burden of proof is on anyone who would suggest that we have apostles today of the same sort Paul or Barnabas were. Could the risen Christ appear to someone today in the manner he appeared to Paul? Certainly.

But it is not clear that any of those who call themselves apostles today would claim to have seen the risen Christ in the same way as Paul saw him. Similarly, Paul seemed to have considered himself the last of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:8-9). With some three years separating himself from the resurrection appearances he narrates, he considers himself to have been a "miscarriage" and uses the word "lastly." By implication, he does not believe any new apostles have come on the scene in the over twenty intervening years. You can see how extremely "untimely born" would be someone claiming that suddenly, two thousand years later at the beginning of the twentieth century, a whole slough of new apostles have suddenly started to flow again!

A second category of importance in the early church seems to be that of elder. In the Methodist tradition, ministers have historically been called "ordained elders." Presbyterian and Congregationalist traditions also have a category they call "teaching" elders that understands the word in this way (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). No doubt this use of the word relates to 1 Peter 5:1, where Peter calls himself a "fellow elder" with the elders that are leaders in the churches to which he writes.

However, the Presbyterian sense of a group of "ruling elders" in a local church probably comes closer to what the New Testament usually meant when it referred to elders. Indeed, the word "Presbyterian" is a reflection of the Greek word for elder, presbyteros. We know that members of the Jewish ruling council were considered elders (e.g., Acts 6:12; 24:1). We can imagine that synagogues throughout the Diaspora were also structured in this way. Acts refers to the leaders of the Jerusalem church beyond James and the apostles, "elders" (e.g., 15:6). So it is no surprise to hear Acts tell us that Paul and Barnabas appointed "elders" in every town (14:23).

The word elder of course refers to an older person (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:1), and so it seems overwhelmingly likely that any elders in the early church were older. We can imagine that such elders tended to be male, but we have no evidence that a woman could not be an elder in a church. The matter of Paul's churches in particular is a question. If they had elders, it is hard to imagine that a Priscilla (e.g., Rom. 16:3; Acts 18:26) or a Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) would not have been on such a body at the appropriate age.

It is, however, at least a matter of debate whether Paul's churches were structured in this way. Our personal inclination is to consider overseers (e.g., Phil. 1:1) as synonymous with elders and thus conclude that Paul's churches probably did have elders as leaders. But it is significant to notice that Paul himself does not use the word "elder" in any of his unquestioned writings. The word appears only in 1 Timothy 5, and 1 Timothy differs enough from the thinking and categories of Paul's earlier writings that most consider it pseudonymous, written to convey Paul's authority to a context several decades after his death. [3]

As is often pointed out, the operations of Paul's churches, at least the one at Corinth, seem to have proceeded in much more of a "charismatic" than "presbyterian" way. Indeed, the worship at Corinth was so "spirit" oriented and open in its participation that it had apparently disintegrated into chaos. Everyone had a hymn or a prophecy or a lesson or spoke in an unknown tongue/language or had an interpretation of someone's unknown language. Paul tries to steer them out of this chaos. Tongues must have interpretations. Two or at the most three with prophecy and tongues-speaking, and one at a time.

So while Paul's church probably did have appointed leaders, the Spirit element seems to have dominated, at least at Corinth. "Do not put out the fire of the Spirit," he tells the Thessalonians, "and do not despise prophecy" (1 Thess. 5:19-20). This tension between the Spirit and structure seems to have been one of the structural conflicts of the first century. We likely see it reflected in the words of Matthew 7:21-23. Here are pictured exorcists and prophets who do not make it into Jesus' kingdom. 3 John seems to reflect a conflict between a travelling evangelist (Demetrius) is rejected by a powerful local leader (Diotrephes). And 1 Timothy 3's attention to structure may very well be a response to such travelling teachers (cf. 2 Tim. 3:5-9).

Paul thus pays little attention to church structure in his commonly agreed writings. Only as his writings look to the period after his death does church leadership become an issue. This in itself is a significant observation. While Paul was alive, he was the final authority as an apostle and father to his churches. He probably did leave leadership behind, but a more pneumatic, spiritual kind of environment seems to have more been the normal mode of operation. Paul does not use established leadership as the solution to church conflict.

Acts, on the other hand, does. Acts presents a very orderly and structured church with a fairly clear chain of command. The subjugated Paul of Acts is not the free wheeling apostle of his own writings. Where we are headed with these observations is, once again, that there is no absolute church structure that the New Testament prescribes. We can read between the lines to find a description, and even this description implies some diversity of focus. The New Testament thus provides models from which we may choose. But it does not tell us how to structure our churches today in terms of specifics.

We have two more categories of early church leadership to consider, which we must then map to those we have already mentioned. The first is that of overseer (episkopos). The word has sometimes been translated as "bishop," but this translation is greatly misleading in our current context. A bishop today is a person of authority over many local church leaders, usually centered in a metropolitan area. The New Testament does not use the word episkopos in this way. A modern day bishop comes closer to an apostle in the early church than to an overseer or elder.

In the two words presbyteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) we see the two principal ways of structuring church leadership today. "Presbyterian" churches tend to be governed by a local group of elders, while "episcopal" churches tend to have a hierarchy of leaders that govern many local congregations, perhaps even up to the level of "archbishops" who govern bishops. Over time, of course, these structures have multiplied in diversity. In actually, Congregational churches are even more "presbyterian" than the Presbyterians, for local Presbyterian churches are actually under an authority that goes above the level of the local church. "Congregational" churches, on the other hand, are self-governing on the local level, as are most Baptist churches.

The idea of an "episcopacy" that governs local churches within a hierarchy of regional leaders is the structure of the centuries. As early as AD110, the church father Ignatius was telling the church leaders of local congregations within a city to obey their bishop/overseer, who by that time governed an entire city of leaders. The shift back to a more congregational structure among some groups thus did not come into play until well into the Protestant Reformation.

Both groups can claim biblical precedents for their structures. The congregational/presbyterian format seems to reflect the structure of most local assemblies in the early church (although not the charismatic character of many in the earliest church). Meanwhile, the episcopal structure reflects the role that apostles played in the early church and the structure that God allowed to dominate the Church for 1500 years (although often not in the give and take of the earliest church).

When Paul addresses the leaders of the church at Philippi, he includes its "overseers" and "deacons." It does not seem likely that the church at Philippi, where Paul spent far less time than at Corinth, would be larger than the single church at Corinth. It would therefore seem likely that by "overseers," Paul is referring to the elders of the church at Philippi rather than to single individuals who governed individual churches.

At the same time, if the early church borrowed the model of elders from the synagogue, it is quite possible that it also borrowed the idea of a synagogue ruler. Here we are thinking of a person who took the leadership of a synagogue for a year or so and then perhaps passed it on to someone else at a later time. Just because early churches had councils of elders would not in any way preclude a single individual from serving as leader of the group. Indeed, it is hard to imagine such leaders not emerging, whether they had any official title or not. Once again, we do not find any particular structure among churches today eliminated. We only feel chastized if we have been dogmatic about our structure.

The role of deacon seems difficult to spell out. The seven appointees of Acts 6 are often considered the precedent for deacons as individuals who perform less spiritual functions within the church, like making sure widows get fed. But Acts 6 does not call these seven individuals deacons. The two we know the most about, Stephen and Philip, become preachers. Acts 21:8 calls Philip an "evangelist," and Acts 8 certainly shows him going around proclaiming the good news and facilitating the Holy Spirit's engagement with Judea and Samaria.

One possibility that immediately comes to mind is that deacons tended to be church leaders who were not old enough to be elders. For example, it is interesting that 1 Timothy, which tells Timothy not to despise his youth (4:12) also refers to Timothy as a "deacon," even if the word is not usually translated this way in 4:6. It is this word that is used of Phoebe in Romans 16:1. In any case, the frequent translation of "servant," in Phoebe's case joined to a word that has the sense of patron (Rom. 16:2), may suggest someone who supports the church in a somewhat concrete way.

In Paul's somewhat charismatic church world, he mentions many other roles a person might have in a church. 1 Corinthians 12:28 mentions apostles, prophets, teachers, and then blurs off into things like people who perform miracles or heal or administrate or speak in tongues. This is not an absolute list, as some to make up "spiritual gift tests" treat them. The first three have the most status, but then he mentions not offices in the church but a sampling of some gifts people in the churches of his day had.

So in Romans 12:6-8 he mentions prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, contributing, leading, and being merciful. Ephesians 4:11 mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. What we have hear are important functions that need to take place in the church more than anything like an absolute list of how to package them. Those that expend great amounts of energy trying to line themselves up to these sorts of lists worry about lists Paul at least partially was creating on the spot in relation to his audiences and whose functions no doubt overlapped.

Evangelists were perhaps, like Philip, individuals who proclaimed the good news, but who had not seen the risen Jesus personallty. Travelling teachers would become a problem as the first century progressed. These were perhaps individuals who, like the Greek sophists, would set up shop in a place, relying on the patronage of some wealthy individual. A recurrent theme in books like 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, and Jude is false teaching, so it is no wonder Christianity soon developed a system of authority to control right teaching.

The role of prophets was apparently very significant in the early church. When Ephesians adds prophets to the foundation of the church (2:20), it is almost certainly referring to Christian prophets rather than the prophets of the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians 14 shows the important role they played in the worship at Corinth. Such individuals brought revelation to the assembly, which may often have urged the church on, and perhaps sometimes predicted things that were about to happen.

The vast majority of the functions of these "leadership roles" in the early church remain important for Christians today. However, there is no biblical mandate for us today to structure our leadership in the same way they did. Even in our descriptions of varying strands of the New Testament church, there is some variety. And even then, we do not find exact prescriptions for how to structure church leadership today.

[1] Indeed, some have used this instance as an argument against gambling, "casting lots." :-)

[2] Although some have argued that 2 Cor. 5:** implies that Paul had at least seen him while he was on earth. Paul's statement, however, does not necessarily imply that much.

[3] And while our personal inclination is to think Acts 14:23 is an accurate historical reflection of Paul's practice, to be circumspect we must acknowledge that Acts is not simply a documentary of what happened but is as much a position piece in relation to the church of its day, which we would see written probably in the 80s.

Family (finally completed. Phew.)

Before going on to other topics, I'd like to reiterate some of the things we've said in this Outreach about the blog: go ahead and comment, and give your own heartfelt views about some of the things we've discussed and talked about. :) We all learn from one another, and it would be great to learn from you.

How should we view our family?

1. Our family is a gift from God. In fact, everything we have is a gift from God. When we are single, singlehood is a precious gift from God that allows us to develop, train, extend our abilities, and to search within ourselves and to know who we really are as people. Some of us have this gift longer than others: some of us have less urge to get attached/married. Haha. But singlehood is still a precious gift from God. It is a precious gift up to the point when we discover that special someone we will spend the rest of our lives with. And some people never need to make that option, because God created them to be very happily single.

2. But when we have our families, the Scripture makes it clear what kind of pple we will be:
i) We will love and submit to our spouses out of respect towards Christ. There needs to be a mutual respect and submission, and as the Scriptures would have it, the man needs to take the lead in the relationship/family, demonstrating the kind sacrificial leadership that Christ demonstrated to the church, not the harsh dictatorial leadership which we are used to in the world. Similarly, wives need to submit to their husbands as the church does to the Lord--it's not as if you cannot speak your mind or voice out your honest thoughts, but when it comes to the crunch, where a decision needs to be made, you need to back up your leader, be a team player, and choose to work with your husband's decision, because whether right or wrong, we all know a team united around a leader, even if temporarily wrong, is always stronger than a team that made the right decision, but besaddled with power play. Besides, I felt that the Scriptures deliberately use the connection between Christ and the church, not to make things easy for either gender. The same issue is being dealt with: our selfishness, self-centredness and (thus) lack of surrender. Notice why husbands and wives need to follow the Scriptural injuncture: it is to get rid of our selfishness and self-preoccupation. Husbands need to love their wives as Christ loved the church, because it is a self-sacrificial love, that works for the good of the wife. Wives also have to submit to their husbands the way the church surrenders to Christ, because this demonstrates the kind of surrender we need to have towards the Lord, where we choose to let go of our will that "His will be done". Notice that when both parties look out for each other's interests rather than their own, they are actually practising mutual submission and love, albeit in different roles within the family.
(under construction)

How to overcome depression

You know, it's amazing how many of us Christians suffer from depression quite regularly. :) I myself suffered quite badly from it, and it sortof reached a climax in my JC years where I felt very very lousy about myself, and developed a very low self-esteem during that time period.

Today, my aim is not to put up a formula or a list of steps to overcome depression. I want to offer you one of the cures, a Biblical cure for that matter, one that is very experiential, and one that you won't have to strive for.

These are some verses that come to mind:

"For the joy of the LORD is your strength."

"For the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. This does not contradict any of the laws of Moses."

"And they were filled with joy" -- numerous times in Acts, especially when they were going thru deep suffering.

One powerful solution to depression is joy. I don't know about you, but I grew up in Sunday School where they used to say that joy is an attitude, and that joy is not necessarily happiness, blah blah blah blahs.

They are right. But they are probably only half right.

There's an experiential element to joy, really. Yes, joy is an attitude, and yes, being happy does not equal joyful. BUT joy is always happy. Really. You can be happy without joy, but you can never be joyful without being happy. :) Joy is not about relying on outside circumstances to feed it the happiness. Our joy comes supernaturally, even miraculously, from God, even though all the outside circumstances seem to indicate otherwise. =)

Without going into a theological treatise, let me put it very simply how we can have this experiential element of joy. It is to be filled with the Spirit. Have a powerful, wonderful, supernatural encounter with the Spirit. BOOM!--and you are fantastically refreshed, beyond anything the world or comedy night can ever give you. Hehehehe.

It's that simple. Be filled with the Spirit. And if you've never experienced that, *goes into advertisement tone*..."call your friendly Christian operator now! And if you call within the next 1 min, we'll offer you a few CDs free! If you call within the next 10 seconds, we'll even throw in a complimentary 'JOY' towel!"

Nah, seriously. :) If you've never been filled with the Spirit, "call now". Ask someone who's been filled with the Spirit. God will use them to guide you there. =))

Meditations on the Love of God

In the last few days, I have had a very good chance to think about the love of God. The agape love of God is something that appears to have no equivalent in the human realm. Here are some things for you to ponder about:

1. The love of God towards the whole of humankind, those obedient AND those rebellious. He gives his sun and rain to both the godly and the ungodly alike.
2. The patience of God even when people are evidently doing wrong. Israel and Judah tested God for hundreds of years before he gave them up completely to the consequences of their wrongdoing.
3. Whenever God disciplines his children, it's never for the sake of inflicting pain. It's always for the sake of leading the person to repentance. So the pain feels very different from the one that's meant just to say "I caught you, you rascal". The pain that's just meant to punish usually results in messages of condemnation. The pain that's meant to lead to repentance ALWAYS says, "Come back to me, and I will forgive you, love you, cleanse you, clothe you, and heal your land". In fact, the Scripture says it most clearly when it says "the goodness of God leads people to repentance". In other words, God's usual mode of getting sinners to repent is goodness, and not shame, pain and fear.
4. Paul's description of God's love as flowing through the church is most apt. Love is patient, love is kind, love keeps no record of wrongs, love believes the best about others, love never ceases, and love never fails. All this, despite the imperfection of human life. And all this, despite the fact that mankind usually doesn't reciprocate God's love.

It's this last point that strikes me the most. When I compare myself to the ideal of God's love, I can see so many ways in which I fall short. Do we really love those who despise us? Bless those who curse us? Are we patient with those who offend us again and again? How do we continue believing the best about others, especially when they always have the potential to fail us? Above all, how do we forgive others, helping others to grow, despite the fact that the bad memory of being let down haunts us so persistently? It's always easy to do things the fleshly way--to pay back others what they have done to us, to strike down those who fail us, and to crush the broken reed that is in our path. It's easier to believe in a God that is vindictive than to believe in a God who supplies us the supernatural strength to endure injustice. Much much harder it is to live the Spirit's way: so hard to pray "Lord, forgive them--they know not what they do". Yet that's what the power of God points to: it is God's supernatural power, to enable us to live life the Spirit's way. That's how we know it's God's power. When it results in us being able to love in a way that's completely more than normal.

On Sunday, after such a winding toss and turn, I made up my mind. Despite my pain, and despite the disappointments I've had with others, I hope to love people all the same. I have to say I am not there yet. I am angry. I am frustrated and disappointed. But this is why I need the Lord--this shows me the extent of my human love, and shows me the lack that needs to be plugged in to the power of God. In fact, this is a wonderful situation to be in. Any situation that shows me and convinces me how limited I am in my flesh, and gives me more reason to believe that I need Jesus, is a fantastic situation. This is wonderful because when (and I say WHEN, not if) I am able to love the Jesus way, to extend to others a generosity beyond the human limit, to believe in others beyond the human limit, and to suffer and forgive beyond the human limit, I will know, I will know, I will KNOW--that it was never me who was able to love this way. It could only have been, and can only be, the Lord.

May God bless all of you in all you do.

Announcements 11/7/09

Hi guys,

The Outreach would like to welcome 2 new prophetic elders into our midst. :) Will announce their names soon, especially when it's time for us to lay hands and pray for them as part of the Outreach. But just wanna thank the Lord for bringing 2 pple to exemplify and demonstrate the level of faith that I really hope all of us will grow to have.

I quote Chris: "The 5-fold ministry are all experts, experts meant to train us in the different areas that God has called every Christian to do." So see these new elders as people who can inspire us in terms of their sensitivity to the Spirit's voice, the move of the Spirit's power, and in faith in Jesus Christ. Not to mention also living a life that is obedient to the Lord, even if it costs us something.

So my prayer is that we will learn as much from them as we can, and really grow as a result of their contribution. Keep an open ear to prophecy, because the Bible says "despise not prophecy". It's easy to get cynical, but our God is alive; and if he is living and active, he definitely watches over our daily lives and has something specific to say to us. I pray you will be blessed as a result of their ministry.

To the new elders: we're glad you're here! WELCOME!!

Finale: Here's a posting I promised -- The FiveFold Ministry (Part VIII)

After discussing all we did, what are some broad strokes we can take away from this and how does this affect the Outreach?

1. There is no one final biblical pattern about leadership structure (the Bible gives some leeway as to how exactly you structure it), but based on the evidence in Ephesians and in 1 Peter, we at the Outreach believe that ultimately all the 5-fold ministers are elders. By doing so, we are breaking down the "elder/pastor" division, or even the "pastor/prophet/apostle" division. The Bible also shows us that eldership is not about doing admin work and simply sitting in the board of a church. It is a spiritual position, and from its description, the kind of leadership it describes is the kind that most of us would associate with being a minister today.

2. In line with what the Word of God indicates about all the 5-fold as fellow elders, the Outreach is consciously moving away from a "Senior Pastor" kind of system. One reason is because i) No one person has all the giftings, and often in a one-man dominated leadership, the church tends to lopside (or if you want to be positive: SPECIALISE) and be very strong in certain aspects, but very weak in others; ii) every elder should be counted upon as a minister in his own right--able to hear God for himself, to love others, and ultimately to shoulder the responsibility of the church; iii) we noticed that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So many men and women of God have started off fantastically, sincerely before God to live their life for the Lord to the fullest--but along the way, couldn't withstand the temptations and the applause of man (and the pressures of life) that comes with being the senior leader in a church. I believe no one man is strong enough. There is only one man strong enough for such a leadership position: Jesus Christ our Lord. So given that our Lord himself advocated that his disciples work in twos, and subsequent church structures have always revolved around a team one way or the other, we believe that having a team of elders is much stronger than one person:

Two are better than one
For if one falls, the other can pick him up
But pity the man who falls and has no one to pick him up
A cord of three strands is not easily broken.
-- King Solomon

So this is the way Outreach leadership will be functioning:
1. In all things, the elders will meet together and seek the Lord's will. Every elder needs to seek God for himself, hearing the voice of God for himself, and then make a convicted stand about what he hears from the Lord. If some elders have not yet heard anything from the Lord, we will not rush to make a decision--every elder must be convinced in and of himself that this is what the Lord wants (rather than going along simply because someone else said that this is what the Lord says).
2. Instead of having a singular senior pastor (after all, every ministry still needs someone to be the main leader at the end of the day), every elder is the "senior pastor" of the portfolio he is in charge of. E.g. if you have a Prophetic Elder, the Prophetic Elder is the senior leader for all decisions involving the Prophetic or the direction of the church. On the other hand, if the issue being discussed is a Pastoral issue, the Prophetic Elder votes just like any other elder, because the senior elder in this case is the Pastoral Elder.
3. However, in making decisions, it must always be a consensus among the elders. Let's put it this way: if what you received is truly from the Lord, there's no need to fear that others won't get the same message from Him too. So our aim is to be as precise as possible: and let the Lord use all of us to come to a good decision together. After elders have waited on the Lord, they are to vote, and the side with the most votes will be the one that the church should move towards (see earlier posts as to what the elders should do if this turns out to be a wrong decision).
4. What then is the role of being the senior elder in your portfolio? You have a veto vote in case any of the decisions made go against certain Biblical convictions, or if you really cannot in good conscience support the decision that has been made, because of its ramifications on how it affects your ministry. When the veto is used, it simply means we all must go back and pray more, and come back another day to decide. You will also be the facilitator for the discussion: rather than giving your ideas first, it is best to hear what everyone else has to say, put it together, and form a consensus in the Lord.

Another issue: The Order of Service
In light of the role of the 5-fold ministry, we also feel room should be made within the order of service to allow different elders to use the gifts God gave them to bless the people. So in different weeks, we will have different agendas. Here are some possibilities as to how the service can be arranged:

A possible format, let's say, if we are starting at 2.30 p.m.

2:30-2:45 Fellowship
2:45-3:00 Prayer
3:00-3:30 Worship
3:30-3:45 Offering/Holy Communion
3:45-4:30 Ministry Time
4:30 - 5:00 Fellowship/Free & Easy

So when it comes to Ministry Time, it's possible for different weeks to have different things. In the Outreach, tentatively, there are some possibilities:

1) Sermon Time: this is usually taken by the Teaching Elder, or the Pastoral Elder, if he wants to give a message of encouragement.

2) Pastor's Time: this can take the form of a 1-to-1 or 1-to-2 counselling time, just for the pastors to hear what's going on in people's lives, pray for them, and give practical advice. So as many pastors as possible can take part in this, where everyone breaks up into different groups etc. The pastors will sense from the Lord who they should talk to and minister to, and for the rest of us not involved, we can always have a prayer meeting on the spot. :)

3) Evangelistic Service: as the name implies, the sermon for that day can be evangelistic. There can even be a situation where there's no sermon, but just the declaration of the Gospel and ministering healing to the sick. Other evangelistic programmes like drama, musicals, etc are also welcome, so long they declare the gospel faithfully and serve as a form of dramatic presentation of the Gospel. =) At the end of the day, nothing must detract from the Gospel. Heh.

4) Prophetic Time: in our experience, it is better for a prophet not to take the pulpit and preach, but rather just to minister to the people. The exception to this rule would be when the prophet has an extended message from God for the entire church (in which, for purposes of good teaching, the Teaching Elder should be involved in the drafting of the message). So it is possible for the entire time to be a prophetic time: where people deliver messages from the Lord, sing prophetically, minister in signs and wonders (by the way, signs and wonders are welcome anytime, even if it's not prophetic time!), get people filled with the Spirit, etc.

5) Apostolic Address: every once in a while, let's say every 6 months or one year, it would be good for the local apostle to address the congregation(s)--this kind of an occasion would be big enough probably even to gather all the churches who are within the same fellowship for the address. Usually the apostolic address would aim to settle a few issues: i) Theological issues (esp if, God forbid, there is heresy); ii) Encouragement to everyone as to how to practically live their Christian life; iii) Instructions towards Elders; iv) if the occasion calls for it, Church Discipline and Excommunication. It can also be a chance to remind the congregations about God's plan for the churches and how they should continue to move towards the destiny God has for them. So it sort of resembles the PM's National Day Rally or even the US President's "State of the Nation" address.

Yesh. Hope this series on the 5-fold ministry has been helpful for all of you reading. And yes I know the Apostolic section is not complete: doing a bit more research before I come back and finish it off. Pls feel free to give your comments on the comments page--no question is too threatening or too sensitive to be asked. What matters most is that we all come honestly before the Lord, lay down our understanding on the table, and sharpen each other in terms of faith and theology.

And one final thing: I pray that this experiment with letting the 5-fold eldership minister in the church will bring great benefits to all. It's quite innovative and bold, and I know there will be teething problems that need to be solved, but I believe at the end of the day we will all be stronger for it. And for those of you who are elders, I pray you will be blessed and experience the thrill of God's power flowing through you to touch the lives of those you minister to!

Agape!

What a wonderful wonderful day!

Hi guys, I decided to set up a new category of posts called "rants", for church members to post up at the comments section anything they want the other church members to know. :) It can be something utterly random, really. And it can be about Church or even your personal life. Try to keep it to one (max 2) sentences k?

Here's my rant for the day: What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful day it has been at Outreach today!

P.S. We'll have something like this every 2 weeks or so. :)

NEWLY UPDATED! Here's a posting I promised -- The FiveFold Ministry (Part VII)

Before I go on to part B: let me spill the beans first about what the Apostolic ministry is about and its function. Then, for those who need more proof that the apostles are not limited to the Twelve or the 1st century apostles, you can read the rest of the article to satisfy your intellectual curiosity. :D

In sum (and in light of all that I'm going to say in this article):
1. Since the term "Apostle" means "sent one", an Apostle is an elder who has been sent on a mission (to be very specific, as a messenger via the messenger concept). This mission is usually such a giant task, and thus requires a great amount of divine intervention in order to make the mission work.
2. This mission can be given (or "commissioned") by Christ himself OR by the Church (presumably under the leading of the Holy Spirit).
3. From the precedence of Scriptures, we would argue that this mission usually involves some kind of spearheading or being a pioneer, either to a foreign land or in a certain unique kind of ministry. One such ministry, for instance, is that of rapidly planting churches (not just planting one church, but planting a series of churches).
4. Because the mission itself is so hard and so new, God adequately supplies all that is needed for the apostle(s) to get their work done:
i. The ability to perform supernatural signs and wonders to get the mission done;
ii. Authority to cast out demons, heal the sick, and pronounce judgment, as part of the mission;
iii. Ability to explain the Scriptures and the truth to the new converts;
iv. Supernatural deliverance from potentially fatal trouble (cf. Peter's imprisonment and Paul's shipwreck);
v. Wisdom and prophetic guidance for the mission.
Notice that each element by itself does not constitute proof that someone is an Apostle: but if all the factors are combined and show some kind of God-given mission, this would prove that God has indeed commissioned the Apostle to carry out the mission.
5. Intense suffering--as part of the mission.

How do Apostles function within the church?
1. They function (as mentioned in the Prophetic bit) as part of the foundation of the Church together with the Prophets. Why this is so is easy to see: in NT days, most apostles functioned in teams of 2, and their usual mission was to penetrate unreached territory for the gospel. There is one exception: Barnabas was (shortly) commissioned as an apostle of the Jerusalem Church towards the church in Antioch, in order to represent the 12 to teach and encourage the Antioch Christians who had fled there and formed their own local church. Now if apostles mainly do church planting (as the Scripture seems to indicate), then it is quite natural that they would function as the foundation of any local church. For instance, the very first batch of Christians in any local area would have been discipled and taught by them. And when the apostles leave, they would be the one appointing the new elders to take over them (most of these would be teachers and pastors).

Now what happens if the elders meet some trouble in the church and don't know what to do? The very first people they would naturally appeal to are the ones who discipled them: the apostles who sowed the Word of God in them in the first place. So the apostles have authority not simply because of their position or "status" as apostles, but because they have spent the time grooming up the church, being the parents of the local church and helping it to grow to where it is.

So notice that we are arguing that apostles function as the foundation and yes, have pretty high authority in the church, but not because they simply have the office. Rather, we are arguing that it is a natural progression: if an apostle has been doing his job and caring for the sheep and being one of the first few to establish the church where it is, quite naturally as the founding elders, the apostles enjoy the parental authority to discipline the church and to bring it to where God intends it to be. And we also affirm what the Scripture says: that this authority, as given by God, is not to tear people down, but to build them up.

Which also means that apostles do not have ABSOLUTE authority as a result of their position. Rather, 1) they only enjoy this authority over the churches they have functioned as apostles to. Every apostle has a scope of authority. Paul and Barnabas were given the role of apostles to the Gentiles, while the Twelve were commissioned as apostles mainly to the Jews. 2) Furthermore, apostles also do not have absolute authority in that they still need to fall within the bounds of Scripture AND they need to be in agreement with other apostles. On top of that, an apostle is also liable for rebuke by anyone if his conduct is in contravention of the Gospel (cf Galatians, where Mr "Chief Apostle" Peter is rebuked by "lower-ranking" Apostle Paul for not living up to the full implications of the Gospel.)

2. We would advise that Apostles never function alone, but follow Jesus' model of functioning in twos. In fact, we would even argue for a "team". The reason is because no apostle is perfect and needs a "buddy" who will simultaenously keep him in check and also encourage him. It's always nice to know you have a buddy, especially when you're suffering torture for the Gospel. :)

3. Although apostles need to fall within the bounds of Scripture, one of the greatest potentials for an Apostle who knows the Word of God well, is to develop on it and bring some of the loose ends to their logical conclusion (without contravening other parts of Scripture). Good apostles know that they don't have to be ultra-conservative in order to please God. Rather, they should build on the theological and practical understanding of God others have had, and help to push the understanding of God even further than before. Doing this can mean that the Elder is tentatively in controversy, and yet, part of the reason why the Elder can explain himself convincingly, particularly to Teachers, is because he uses the principles of Bible Interpretation very well. So a good Apostle would push the boundaries of Christian understanding the way the Apostle Paul did. One of the greatest compliments you can get as an Apostle is when someone else says, "This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him...Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something different, even as they do the rest of Scripture (!!!). This will result in their destruction." (2 Pet 3:15-16) So yes, as an Apostle, push the boundaries, using the Scriptures as the firm foundation that you build your "theories" on. :)

4. Apostles are not the "lords" of a church. Neither is any elder. Elders need to work TOGETHER to be effective. And just to help clarify things, no, there is no form of hierarchy among different eldership roles. As we have argued, the foundational role of prophets and apostles simply comes with the job: the fact that they set direction for the local church and help to establish the local church from its roots means that their authority flows naturally from the job that they do, rather than there being any form of fixed hierarchy where prophets and apostles are ALWAYS above the other 3 leadership giftings. It just doesn't work that way. There will be times when a pastor or a teacher can rebuke an apostle, or when the apostle is needed to take an evangelist to task, or when the prophet is needed to encourage the pastor, or when the pastor is needed to care for and give a listening ear to the apostle. This is the way God intended the Body, folks: each part doing its part, and edifying everyone else in the process, so that we all, and I repeat, all, grow into the full stature of Christ, becoming totally like Him in every way.

How would we establish if someone is an Apostle?
1. Let me begin by answering what an apostle is not. An apostle is not someone who "has arrived". Jesus' apostles had lots of problems: they had lack of faith, they had problems believing Jesus COULd actually rise from the dead, they didn't know their Scriptures well (hence the reluctance to believe in a crucified Messiah), they had greed problems (Judas particularly), they were cowards, etc etc etc. So apostles have not arrived. Apostleship is just a specific ministry function, and as the Peter episode in Galatians demonstrates, apostles need time to grow. So in your estimation of apostles, always give them time to grow, and a certain leeway for error.
2. Now on to some broad criteria of apostleship:
i) The mission. Is there a clear mission which the apostle's ministry is residing in?
ii) Is there a proper representation of the Gospel?
iii) Are there signs, wonders and miracles following to confirm that Gospel? (2 Cor 12:12)
iv) Is there a parental heart for the sheep, to be "gentle among [the sheep], like a mother tending her young"?
v) Is there theological knowledge/stability? Bible school is, needless to say, a minimum requirement.
vi) Is there suffering for the Gospel? Or is the person enjoying wealth and fame?

Something also that has been said about the other eldership roles can also be said about the Apostle:
1. Like every other elder, he trains up the 5-fold Christian to do every good work that Christ intended them to do. The Fivefold Ministry trains up the 5-fold Christian: and in this case, the Apostle provides an excellent example what it means to be Christ's representative at its highest level.
2. Like every other Elder, he acts as an inspiration to the flock and raises other Apostles after him to serve the Lord.

-----------
B) What Jesus used the term "Apostle" to mean

In Mark 3:13-19, we see Jesus' first use of the term "Apostle". What we can see is that out of the crowd, Jesus chose 12 men, and gave them a specific mission:

1) To be with him (v14);
2) To preach the Gospel (v14);
3) To cast out demons (v15).

We also hope that you notice that Jesus, the absolutely flawless one and the one who has the (insight of the) Spirit without limit, chose "Judas Iscariot, the one who would later betray him". Keep that in mind for our later discussion.

What is interesting here is that the Apostles were, as of that moment, not exactly "sent out ones". They were entitled thus, but right now they were to follow him around, try to do the things he was doing, and get scolded for their lack of faith. :P So we can conclude a few things from this episode:

1) They are apostles purely because Jesus said they were, not because they were in a representative capacity (yet);
2) They had a specific 3-fold mission--being with him, preaching, and casting out demons--and we notice that this mission/destiny was to dominate the rest of their earthly lives;
3) It is possible for apostles to fall away--like Judas Iscariot (and thus the fall or faithfulness of an apostle does not disprove or prove whether he was chosen);
4) Notice that they were all chosen by Jesus. I think this is quite specific, and it makes sense. If you are going to be called a "sent out one", it makes sense that you cannot send yourself. Someone has to choose you to be a messenger, and then send you out. So this passage corroborates the idea that an apostle must be specifically "called" into this area of ministry. There is this sense that the "call" is absolutely crucial to the definition of an apostle (cf the call of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13:2--"to which I have called them").

C) Who were the later apostles?

The first of the later apostles was Matthias (Acts 1). Here the criteria was quite specific: the new apostle was to be of the same level as the other apostles, in the sense of being in Jesus' ministry from the time of Jesus' baptism until resurrection, and (very importantly) to be an eyewitness of the resurrection. Now: a few things to be highlighted--notice that in the list of Acts 1:13--very few of the original apostles wrote Scriptures. Yes, they were to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection. But let's get some fishbones out of the way first: 1) very few of them wrote Scriptures (in fact, only 3: Matthew, Peter and John, and that makes up for less than half of the NT). The majority of the New Testament was written by Paul (not part of the existing 12), and some other books were written by the 2 half-brothers of Jesus (James and Jude), a second-level elder (John Mark), and even a Gentile (Luke). 2) Having a successful "ministry" (in our present terms, at least) was also not part of the criteria--James the Apostle was very quickly killed in the early days of the church, and even Peter didn't remain the Jerusalem overseer for long: he handed over the leadership to James (the half-brother) considerably early. Many of the apostles, in fact, are left in oblivion--little is known about Thomas, Bartholomew, Andrew, and Philip from our Biblical sources.

So currently, in addition to the 4 principles above, 1 big criteria is now added for the Twelve: being an eyewitness of all of Jesus' ministry and his resurrection.

This is where we can see Jesus' title for them reaching its fullest expression:
1) If the apostles are called "sent out ones", it is only because they are sent out by Jesus (Matt 28--"Go into all the world") to represent him on earth. Notice:
i) Matt 28: Proclaim (inferred from "All authority"), go, make disciples, baptise, teach (as Jesus would have);
ii) Mark 16: Go, proclaim Good News, baptise, perform signs (as Jesus would have, esp v 20 "and the Lord worked through them"). Sidenote: those who dispute the longer ending of Mark need to ask themselves in good conscience whether they accept John's narration of the woman caught in adultery, or even the extra verses in the KJV. If they will accept that, we hope in good conscience (and consistency) they will accept this as well. Further sidenote to everyone: notice how similar the longer ending of Mark is to Matthew. That's further evidence that this ending is probably a good reading compared to the short one.
iii) Luke 24: Proclaim, be witnesses, wait for Holy Spirit to give power (just like Jesus had cf Luke 4:1 and 14);
iv) Acts 1:8: Receive power, be witnesses (of Jesus/representing Jesus).

2. As part of that proper representation, they were to:
i) be utterly familiar with all that Jesus taught, said and did;
ii) see the resurrection for themselves--a foresight of the martyrdom they would face as part of representing the Master;
iii) be with the Master: but this time, with his Apostle, the Holy Spirit;
iv) proclaim the Good News (what Jesus had been doing all along)
v) cast out demons (what Jesus had been doing all along).

If I were to summarise what the Twelve were to do, it would be to follow exactly in the footsteps of Christ, to "relive" his life in their own paths, to do exactly as he would have done had he faced the people and circumstances they were to face. In contemporary terms, think WWJD, but this time not a human guesswork of what would Jesus do, but the disciples consciously imitating the Jesus they saw and touched and listening to the direction of the Holy Spirit to do so. Or another way of saying it: you know the Bible has so many versions? GNB, NIV, NLT, NRSV etc? But all of them say the same thing, only in a different way and to a different audience. They are all the same Word of God. It's the same here: the Apostles are the different versions of Jesus, to a different audience and in different sets of circumstances. But at the essence, they are to be the same: Jesus was to live in them, and do his works through them. At the end of the day, as you compare the "versions", you are meant to see Jesus consistently through them.

----------
Now as we go later in Acts, we realise the emergence of other apostles besides the Twelve. 1) The first time anyone is specifically "sent" (apostellos) is Barnabas, who is sent to the Antioch church as a representative (notice the representative function) of the Jerusalem church to encourage and teach the believers who were there. 2) Later, in Acts 13, notice the Spirit saying "Set Saul and Barnabas apart for the work to which I have called them?" This sets the stage for Saul AND Barnabas to be "sent out" into Gentile territory (their identities as apostles is later confirmed in Acts 14:4, for those who are hesitant at calling Barnabas an apostle).

(under construction) Later in the NT, we see more and more of this description of "sent"as being described of others as well. There is even the mention of a possible female apostle called Junia. Stay tuned. :) Very tired now...going to take a rest. God bless!