stillhaventfound.org

I attended a workshop at the GoForth National Missions Conference last week. I wish I could have attended the whole conference but I was working. The last time I attended the conference was in 2005 and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s so wonderful to be around other Christians passionate about missions. It really brings you perspective - this is what a Christian ought to be living for!

The workshop I attended was called “Reaching International Students in Singapore”. This is of course the topic I’ve been into recently. The session was led by the people from the Fellowship of Evangelical Students (FES). These are the people in charge of the Christian Fellowship (CF) groups at the various University and Polytechnic campuses throughout Singapore.

The 2.5 hours session consisted of introductory talks and some activities. I’ll just mention some interesting things that were mentioned. One speaker mentioned that Singapore was previously seen as the Antioch of Asia. That is, we’re a base to send out missionaries to the surrounding countries. And while that’s still true, he pointed out that many people are now flocking to Singapore - foreign workers and students. It’s interesting to see it this way. While there’s still a great need for missions in terms of moving cross-culturally, it’s good to recognize that a lot of students and workers are coming to Singapore and there’s a huge harvest field here in Singapore.

It was also mentioned that the top 6 countries from which foreign students come are, in order, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam and South Korea. It’s also important to note that Singapore is aiming for 150,000 foreign students in Singapore by 2015. So there’s only going to be more of them coming.

While I thought the session was pretty OK, I felt it didn’t give a very good big picture of what’s involved in reaching out to international students here. The reason is because the speakers were only from one organization. FES does a lot of good work in the Universities and Polytechnics but it has to be noted that most international students do NOT study in these campuses. Most international students do not enter the Government/Public school systems. It was pointed out that only 35% of international students study in this sector. Meanwhile, the majority (65%) study in the private school system. That is, they study in private schools like United World College (UWC) or Singapore American School, but they also study in tertiary-level commercial schools that are sprouting out all over Singapore. These are the schools that offer external diplomas and degrees. For example, a famous tertiary-level private educational organization is Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS). This is one of the biggest around. There are other big ones like Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) or PSB Academy. However, there are tons and tons of smaller organizations too that most of us have never heard of.

For me, I’m interested in the international students in these organizations as opposed to those in the campuses that FES has a base in or those in government Primary or Secondary schools or those in International schools like UWC. Why? Because the international students in schools like MDIS or APMI and also in the smaller commercial schools are the most neglected and isolated of all international students. Ok, maybe not so much the bigger commercial schools like MDIS as you have a lot of Singaporean students studying in MDIS. But for the smaller commercial schools, a lot of them consist mostly of international students and hardly any Singaporean students. That means you’ll have fewer Singaporeans to reach out to such students. An international student in UWC or NUS or in local Primary or Secondary schools will have a lot of connections to Singaporean Christian students or churches. Not so for the international students in the smaller tertiary-level private schools. Not only is it more unlikely for such students to hear the gospel due to a lack of Singaporean Christian friends in these schools, but such students are also so much more open to friendships because most of their friends are fellow international students and so they long to get to know Singaporean friends to practice their English and also integrate to Singaporean society.

Therefore, I think it’s these students that are the most interesting lot. They are extremely open and they are longing to get to know other Singaporeans. Another interesting group of international students is the group that comes to Singapore solely to learn English in language schools. They may stay for 3 months or 6 months or a year. Their purpose is only to learn English and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends and so are also extremely open to friendship.

I’ve taught in both kinds of schools before. Right now, I’m teaching in a language school, but before I taught in private school that offers external diplomas/degrees and where about 90% of the students are from China and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends. These people are so open to friendship with Singaporeans and also pretty open to the gospel.

So how do we reach out to these two neglected groups? I believe the best way is to offer free English classes to them…

I haven’t been posting because I’ve been pretty busy the past few weeks. I was looking for a job more intensively. And I’ve also been busy completing an essay for one of my Master of Education (TESOL) modules.

I left my previous English teaching job in April after fulfilling my commitments there. Then I started my Masters and worked part-time at one of my previous jobs. This was also an English teaching job but to 1-3 students at a time. Also, the students were already quite good at English. Though English was their Second Language (they were mainly Koreans who have come to study in Singapore schools), they were very young and thus caught up very fast - a case for the Critical Period Hypothesis that states that if people below a certain age learn another language, they’d do so much more easily than if the person started their learning past that critical period. Teaching to these students was thus quite boring for me and not very challenging. Firstly, it was not the kind of students I wanted to teach. I want to teach young adults who truly have difficulty learning English. And I want to teach in a classroom setting. The dynamics are very different when teaching in a classroom. It’s much more challenging and different skills are involved. This is what I want to do in future and thus while working part-time there, I was also searching for another job.

I wrote about the reasons why I left my previous English teaching job here. The major reason was because it didn’t really care about the students, but only about making money. More specifically, three things really made me leave. Firstly, I was made to use their coursebooks which they created by themselves. To say the least, it was pathetic and not fit to be used as a text. Secondly, they didn’t grade their students properly. Their students only had two levels to go to! Most language schools would have about 6 levels - Beginner, Elementary, Lower-Intermediate, Intermediate, Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. The implication of having two levels only was that in my class, there were students of varying levels. Of course, that always happens in a language classroom because no two students would have the exact level of language competence. But having only two levels meant that the difference in language ability within each class is even greater than it should be. And you can’t teach well like that. Thirdly, they had an absolutely ridiculous number of students in each class. For example, there were classes with over 40 (nearly 50) students in the register. So I brought up these points to my boss many times but she didn’t understand.

I feel strongly about all this because I know no language school in Australia (and I would probably say also America, Canada, UK and New Zealand, except for the fact that I don’t have any experience there) who would allow what I experienced to occur in their school. They are just too professional to allow all that. It’s about being professional in one’s job. It’s about going along with best practices and measuring up to international benchmarks. Singapore is a country which has always been pretty advanced and modern (except in their human rights and politics) in what they do. But in this area, it’s so far behind that it’s laughable. I do believe we are one of the best in our mainstream education system. I don’t agree with a lot of things, but if you’re talking about the system and the orthodoxy of the system, you can’t complain. It’s up there with the best. But when it comes to their English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, we are just so far behind.

I say the above not just based on my experience of my previous school. But I’ve also been to many job interviews over the past few weeks. I know there are language schools that are trying to do the best that they can with what they have. These are schools with ESL departments led by experienced professionals and they know what they’re doing. But I’ve also come across many schools where it’s only about the money they make.

A lot of schools have no clue what ESL teaching is. People don’t know that the ESL/EFL industry is huge and there’s been decades and decades of research and practical experience to draw from. In Australia (and other English-speaking countries too I’m sure), eventhough you’re a teacher who’s qualified to teach English in a mainstream school, you’ll never be able to teach ESL. You need a TESOL/TEFL/TESL certificate because they know that ESL teaching is totally different from normal English teaching. The methodology is unique. But in Singapore, many schools think that just because you have experience in teaching English in a mainstream school means you’re qualified to teach ESL. I know many schools which advertise that they’ll consider those who have a Bachelor of English or Mass Communications or Arts. What?? Having studied English (let alone the others) in University would definitely not prepare you to teach ESL simply because the way one teaches ESL students requires a set of skills that studying English in University will not give you. I’d go so far as to say that through my experiences in teaching in other areas, I think teaching ESL is probably one of the most, if not the most, difficult kind of teaching there is. If you teach other subjects, the major requirement is to have expert knowledge in that subject area. For teaching ESL, one needs to have both expert knowledge (i.e. of the English language), but it also requires a set of teaching skills that is unique. This is because you aren’t just teaching the content of the English language. That’s just a small part of ESL teaching. You’re also teaching language skills and you yourself have got to possess the skill of using the English language to facilitate English learning. I know of qualified mainstream teachers in Australia who’ve said that they’ve benefited and learned more from their TESOL certificate than from their Postgraduate Diploma of Education. I’ve gone through my TESOL/CELTA certification - all 120 hours of input and 6 hours of meticulously evaluated teaching practice - and till now I still feel so inadequate because there’s so much more to learn.

I did a little bit of research on Australia’s high standards of ESL education. Australia has an ELT (English Language Teaching) accreditation scheme called The National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). The aim of NEAS Australia is to “establish and uphold high standards of service provision in English Language Teaching in Australia”. Not all English language schools in Australia are accredited by NEAS and of course that just means it hasn’t reached such standards. But many schools are (check it out under the “approved elt centres” link). Looking through the criteria for being accredited, I would posit a guess that probably less than 5% or 3% of language schools in Singapore (or other private schools that have an ESL department) would be able to attain the standards needed for accreditation. I would not be surprised if no school/department here would be able to.

Here are some important standards that I know many language schools/departments would not be able to meet (you can view their Standards and Criteria for ELT Accreditation here):

1) Under the Academic management section, it states that the centre has to appoint “a suitably qualified and experienced person responsible for the academic management” and beyond having a recognized degree, this person has to have “five years experience in managing and/or teaching on ELT programs” and also a “TESOL qualification at postgraduate diploma level or about”.

I have come across many schools/departments headed by people who would not even come near to such qualifications or experience. I’ve been to many interviews and I don’t recall a single person who’s interviewed me with such qualifications or experience. In fact, most have not taught ESL for many years and most do not even have a TESOL certification. I think I’ve only come across two or three interviewers who I would say have a good knowledge of what teaching ESL is about and who have good qualifications.
a word about degrees and qualifications.

2) Under the Teachers section, all teachers need to have not just a degree but also some sort of TESOL qualification. A teaching qualification would not do. That means, as I’ve already said, that a person can be qualified to teach in mainstream schools with some sort of Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE), but still not be able to teach in the ELT centre. Why? Because teaching ESL is a totally different ballgame.

As I mentioned above, I know many teachers teaching ESL in Singapore who would not be able to qualify as ESL teachers in Australia.

3) Under Teacher professional development, it’s stated that the ELT centre needs to facilitate “ongoing professional development of teaching staff, to ensure teachers are kept up-to-date with current theory, knowledge and practice in the field”. Also, “newly qualified staff are provided with mentoring and support during their first year of employment”.

Again, I know no English school/department in Singapore that does this. And I think this is very important because the new staff need guidance and all the teaching staff need to receive ongoing professional development. Why? Because I think that a TESOL certificate is really the bare minimum that an ESL teacher ought to have. It hardly makes a person a good teacher and there’s still so much more to learn. A school that really cares for its students and its teachers would think about how they can provide teacher development.

4) Under Program delivery, “the student:teacher ratio for classroom based instruction does not exceed 18 students per teacher per class.”

As mentioned above, my first school had about 40 students on average on the class register. I’ve heard of at least 2 classes there just hitting under 50 students!! My previous boss told me the school went by the Ministry of Education’s standards of 40 students per class. I argued back that such standards are not appropriate for ESL teaching.

I’m glad to know, however, that I know no other schools that accept that number of students per class. The most elsewhere I know would be 25 to 30, which is still too high. Many schools I know have between 10 and 20 students, but probably only because they can’t get more per class. If they could get more, I have no doubts that a lot of them would just squeeze them all into one class because it makes good business sense.

Just a note here regarding certification. A certificate or a degree is a just a paper. One can be certified and qualified, and yet be a bad teacher. And one can lack paper qualifications and yet be a great teacher. One owner of a school who interviewed me didn’t care whether its teachers were certified or not. I was quite shocked, not because I think certification is the be all and end all of ESL teaching, but because I think it shows a lack of awareness of TESOL being a very specialized field that requires a unique set of skills to be good at it. Of course, such skills can be learned on the job. It could be learned internally in the school. But schools here don’t train their teachers. Many just think that if you’re experienced in teaching before or if you’re good at teaching in general, you’d make a good ESL teacher as there isn’t much difference between teaching in general and ESL teaching in particular.

Anyway, on to some specific encounters during my search for a job. I’ve talked to at least two people whose experience have further confirmed to me how education is becoming more of a business than about the learning of students. One person was part of a group that came together to start a school because they got so sick of their past experiences in the education industry and how the people there only wanted to make money. Another person talked about being cheated by a partner.

I also had a good talk with a HR personnel who interviewed me. This person honestly shared with me that the White teachers in the school were given a higher starting salary and didn’t have to do as much administrative work as local teachers. This (along with other repulsive company practices) made me sick and this person shared that she didn’t agree with it, but it was the owner’s policy. We got along well during our talk and so I asked why he continued in his job if he didn’t agree with such practices. I got a good enough answer from him.

In a way, I don’t blame the school for such policies. The students want white teachers, so the school has to provide for them if it wants their business. But it just shows how ignorant the students are and how much of an unprincipled money-grabbing fool the owner is. The owner is a typical Singaporean with a hangover colonial mentality. Compare him and his school with another school owned by a British. I had one of my first interviews (for an ESL teaching job) in Singapore with him. He offered me a job which I didn’t take for some reasons. But I asked him honestly whether it’s hard for a non-White to get an ESL teaching job in Singapore. He said he had no problems hiring a non-White as long as the person is qualified and able to teach well. Skin color didn’t make a difference to him. And he went on to say that if his students came to him to ask for a White teacher, he’d tell the student to either accept the teacher he has or leave. What can I say? Either a very lousy businessman, or one with principles.

I wrote to the Ministry of Education here and asked whether there are any standards for ESL schools and teaching here in Singapore - just like NEAS in Australia. And I’m looking forward to hearing from them if they bother to reply me. While being critical of the many ESL schools here, I do understand that a lot of unprofessionalism comes from a general desire to make money and also ignorance of what ESL is all about. The latter is understandable because we don’t have that long a history of being into ESL like other places like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. These countries have much better standards of professionalism because they’ve been doing this for ages. The ESL industry is only starting to come alive due to more intense globalization. More and more foreign students are coming to Singapore - especially from China, but also from Southeast Asia - and the numbers are only going to increase further as the Singapore government pushes hard to reach its goal of attracting 150,000 foreign students by 2015. All this only means more money and bigger business for many private education organisations. It remains to be seen how the ESL industry in Singapore will develop.

One thing I’ve realized is that there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to provide good education for foreign students. From what I know (which may be wrong), students who come to further their studies in private education organisations here do not really know much about the schools here. That’s because there are just so many around. Sure, there are some of better reputation. But then there are so many other small ones offering education programs. Students overseas mostly go through agencies in their home countries. By the time they reach Singapore, most would already have chosen which school to go to. And agencies over there don’t care whether the school is good or not, but only how much commission they get from the school. So the agencies would probably recommend a school that pays them more per student.

Therefore, a good language school which puts the students’ language learning above making money and which thus invests in good teachers and good facilities and makes sure that the classroom size is small, etc., may not make as much business as a school which puts money first and doesn’t care so much about the students’ learning, but which has more money to pay agents overseas. There’s thus very little monetary incentive to be a good language school.

Of course, Singapore does have accreditation schemes for private education organisations, but I don’t think they have any yet in regards to ESL teaching. I hope one day they will come up with one like NEAS in Australia, although I think it’s still a long way away.

Just watched the above. Awesome, awesome stuff. Need to watch more of these kind of things! The more I watch them, the more my heart is challenged to get out of this comfort zone which I’ve been in far too long. As I mentioned here, reading The Heavenly Man really challenged me. And I’ll probably look back upon that as a defining moment in my life. It made me think really seriously about being a missionary to China. It made me think seriously about being a missionary to a persecuted area. It made me think seriously about improving my really bad Chinese (Mandarin)!

I stopped learning Chinese when I was 10 years old when I left for Australia. When I returned back to Singapore, I didn’t want to study Chinese (I had too much to catch up) and was allowed to take German as my second language. So I’m your typical English-educated Banana/Potato (white on the inside, yellow on the outside for those not in the know) Singaporean who grew up not really liking Chinese. Of course I regret not continuing my Chinese because I’m so far behind now. People talk about Singaporeans being poor in their Chinese and that makes me even more discouraged to pick it up now because I’m so much worse than the typical Singaporean of my age! But I think I may pick it up real soon. Not sure whether I should because I don’t know if I’ll use it in future. Besides the fact that I’d like to spend time mastering my Spanish, I’m also not sure if I’ll go to China in future. I think there are places in the world that need missionaries more urgently than China - like Muslim nations and the unreached places. And anyway, I’m not sure how much I’m needed in China. The lives of Christians there would put all of us to shame. They know what it means to live for Jesus more than any of us. They know what persecution is about and they’d gladly suffer it. That can’t be said of us in the developed world. They’d make so much better missionaries to unsafe places (like Muslim nations) because they’ve experienced enough in their own country to not fear persecution!

Christianity in China is easily the real deal - clearly what Christianity is meant to be like. Of course, such forms of Christianity (when people are truly living for God and not building their own kingdom) are seen everywhere. But I don’t see much of it in the developed world. The Christians in China and places like that are the true warriors of faith. No doubt about that. No Christian leader in the developed world (no matter how famous or well-known) could even compare to most of those faceless heroes in China and the like.

I can’t wait to get Brother Yun’s new book Living Water. Though I don’t expect to agree with all the teachings in it (the book is meant to be of his teachings). I can admire his dedication to God without agreeing with everything he teaches. One can live the true Christian life without having one’s doctrines perfect, just as one can have his doctrines perfect (or more perfect) yet not live as one ought to live. I admire his lifestyle. But I probably wouldn’t agree with everything he teaches. I wasn’t comfortable with some of the songs I heard on the above video which focused more on what the Christians are going to do for God, rather than on what God has done for them in Christ. I still love grace and believe that good biblical teaching and preaching should be focused primarily on God’s grace as shown to us in Christ’s death for us. And that’s clear in the posts I’ve written on grace. What God has done for us in Christ is what the gospel is all about. The gospel of Christ is the message of God’s love for us in Christ. The gospel is not about about what we ought to do for God, it’s what God has already done for us. And yet there’s also a side of me that believes so greatly on giving my all to God - a place I’m very far from now, of course. (If I’m truly living that out, I won’t have time to blog. Duh!) I believe that Christians are called to give their all, to stop building their kingdom (which I think most Christians are actually doing, especially in the developed world) and to start living wholeheartedly for God and His glory alone. How do I reconcile the emphasis on God’s grace and the call to give all? It’s difficult. There’s a certain tension there, I admit. I love New Creation’s grace message (not everything, but a lot), but in my opinion there’s no way that the lives of the majority of the members of New Creation reflect how Christians are meant to live. I love the passion and zeal among City Harvest members for the lost (when they’re not thinking only of money), though I can’t agree with a lot of the teachings which lack the focus of grace. The lifestyle of City Harvest members challenges me (when they’re not chasing after money). I want to be in such an environment. It’s definitely closer to what I envision Christianity is meant to be, than it is in New Creation. The missions and reaching the lost. That’s beyond exciting! That’s what it’s meant to be like!

While I’ve been generally supportive of the Florida Healing Revival, I’d prefer to see Christianity in China as a model of how Christianity ought to be like. Up to this point, I don’t doubt that what’s happening in Florida is the work of God. But we also have to get our perspectives right. Christianity isn’t all about healing and miracles. Jesus promised persecution. Christianity as it’s meant to be would be filled with healings, miracles and persecutions too. It’ll be filled with suffering and victory. All of that happened in Brother Yun’s life and in the lives of many Chinese Christians. And I’m very sure that one day the Church will be awakened from its state of slumber. We will see increased healings and miracles, but also increased persecution. To tell you the truth, I can’t wait for that day…

I want to touch on some negative criticisms in this post and the next one. In my previous post, I linked to some ultra-critical websites - not because I totally agree with them but because I think it’s wrong not to take into account some specific critical comments by them. Take for example this testimony of someone whose friend, a pastor, was proclaimed healed by Todd Bentley, but who died soon after. How do people who are more positive towards the revival react to this?

I’m mentioning this testimony because I believe it’s important to deal with it. A lot of people reject the charismatic movement because there’s been a lot of abuses and excesses. If only charismatics would be more open to criticisms and recognize the correctness of certain criticisms, then there would be less anti-charismatics around and the charismatic movement would be more mature. There’s been dogmatism in both the charismatic and non-charismatic worlds of Christianity - not just in the non-charismatic world. And if we let go of that dogmatism, both sides can learn much from each other.

It’s the same thing with revivals. There’ll be a lot of abuses and excesses. And if the proponents of revivals would recognize this and be open to criticisms and if criticisms were done in a gentle and loving way, the revival would learn from its mistakes and more people would be open to God’s move.

Melinda Fish wrote the below regarding the Toronto Blessing:

Leaders must be confident they are acting out of obedience to the Lord, yet gentle in their approach to their parishioners. This is no time to display arrogance or imply that anyone reluctant to jump into the river is unspiritual or does not love God.

Beloved, can we refrain from using words like false prophet, deception… and demonic in reference to those with whom we disagree? Can we speak gently and humbly to our brothers and sisters, so that we may turn them around rather than provoke them to anger? Can we entertain the possibility that we, too, might be wrong in certain aspects? Can we, as mature Christians, be easily entreated, sympathetic, kind to all and patient when wronged?

I’m going to assume that the above testimony (of the pastor being proclaimed healed but then dying later on) is true in its every detail, which of course may not be correct. It’s very possible that the testimony is not accurate and this doesn’t have to be because the person was seeking to deceive others. There could be miscommunication involved. But I’ll give the author of the testimony the benefit of the doubt and assuming what was said is true, I think that Todd Bentley needs to respond to this unfortunate situation. That’s the right thing to do. It’ll be an uncomfortable thing to do, but it’s the right thing to do. How he ought to respond to it, I don’t know. But I know if he doesn’t respond to it, I don’t fault people for being disillusioned with him and the revival.

For me, even if Todd was at fault in this situation, I will not condemn the revival as fake or demonic because of it. Todd isn’t perfect. God works through imperfect people. I don’t believe that if a person prophecies falsely or proclaims wrongly that someone is healed, that that person is a false prophet and dangerous. Surely, false prophecies ought not to be treated lightly. Years back I was very disturbed that a well-known prophecy regarding the people in my country was proven false and that no one seemed to care about it. I talked with my pastor and friends about it and argued that someone should confront this person who prophesied falsely. I treated this issue seriously. It wasn’t that hard to confront the people (all well-known leaders) who accepted this prophecy and distributed it. It wasn’t difficult to confront the person who prophesied. But I knew that most wouldn’t care. And surely, no one I talked to cared much. I wasn’t too happy with how they treated a false prophecy lightly. But being a charismatic for a long time, I expected people to treat false prophecies lightly and not to care that much. There are definitely a lot of abuses regarding prophecies in the charismatic world.

All I wanted was for the person to own up to his mistake and the leaders who distributed the prophecies to own up to theirs. This is the right thing to do. It’s about honesty and integrity. It’s what God would want of those involved. My charismatic theology accepts that these things happen - i.e. we’re imperfect in our hearing from God and in our prophecies. That’s why I don’t like it when people speak with so much certainty of having heard from God because it may not be so. We should all have a bit more humility in this area. And when we’re wrong in our hearing from God, we need to own up to our mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet.

Of course, I know many non-charismatics have a different view of prophecies and think that if a person prophecies wrongly, that means the person is a false prophet or of the devil. I don’t believe that. That’s why I’m accepting of people who prophecy wrongly. And I won’t say that Todd or the revival is of the devil just because of this unfortunate incident. But I do expect them to deal with the criticism, apologize if needed and reflect upon the situation. Not doing so will just cause more people to be disillusioned and turned off from the revival.

So I don’t treat false prophecies lightly. But I don’t believe that every single false prophecy is a reflection that the person is from the devil. No, I just think it’s a reflection of our human fallibility and that we’re not perfect when hearing from God.

I do think critics of the revival should recognize that the revival can still be of God eventhough there’s so much imperfection and human error. But I also think that those who are in the revival ought to realize this too. If they do, then they won’t be afraid of confronting and dealing with every mistake they make and every imperfection that occurs. They won’t need to be overly defensive of everything. They will realize that it’s OK to be wrong in certain areas and thus not be afraid to confess their wrongs because they will know that God is gracious and moves in spite of our imperfections and mistakes.

So I’m OK with Todd having made such a serious mistake - if indeed he did. Even if he did, I’m still more positive about the revival than not. Pointing out that mistake (and even if there are many mistakes) doesn’t mean that the whole thing is of the devil. I mean, we got to consider the healings too. There have been many healed. What are we going to say about that? I’m quite surprised that critics of the revival so easily point out all the bad things but never comment on all the good that’s been done. We have to be balanced in our evaluation. And critics of the revival or whatever movement are not being honest if they themselves don’t deal with the good that have come out of the revival or the movement.

I’m not suggesting that we play a math game and that if there are more good than bad then overall things must be good. Rather, I believe there are explanations for everything. There has to be explanation for the bad. And there’s an explanation for the good. If we think this whole revival is fake because of some false prophecies or some people not being healed, we’re not being fair and honest because we fail to see the overwhelming good and the many healings that have occurred. The good doesn’t provide an excuse for the bad. As I’ve argued, the bad needs to be confronted and dealt with. If apologies need to be made, then it ought to be made. That’s the bad. To me, that just proves that there’s imperfection in the revival. It doesn’t mean I can go from seeing the bad to generalizing that everything is bad and the revival is fake.

Revival proponents who think that everything is just perfect and that there have been no mistakes or imperfections in this revival are clearly imbalanced in their evaluation. If they see only the good and refuse to acknowledge that there’s been bad, then their opinions aren’t that credible. But in the same way, critics of the revival who only point out the bad and don’t deal with the good aren’t being balanced in their evaluation either. And there’s a lot of both kinds of opinions around.

I’m not afraid to admit there’s been a lot of questionable stuff in the revival and that’s why I’ve provided links to extremely critical articles. But here I want to respond to those who point out the bad, but dismiss the healings completely. Jack Deere mentions in his book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, of a lady in his non-charismatic congregation who suffered from depression and had a lot of struggles in her life. She spent years in Christian counseling without much improvement. But when Dr. John White, a charismatic, ministered in his church on the topic of healing, she was instantly set free after some time of prayer and deliverance. Whenever I think of this testimony, I wonder to myself how many more people are like this person who struggled emotionally and who needed healing but didn’t get it for so many years because their church or pastor didn’t believe in such charismatic practices?

By all means, point out the false prophecies. Point out the non-healings. But if that makes us criticize everything and demonize everything charismatic or of the revival, then we’re just going the extreme opposite direction. It’s easy to criticize people when something wrong clearly happened. But how about criticizing those when something good should have happened but didn’t because the people were closed to God’s Spirit? Unlike the situation whereby a bad clearly happened and everyone recognized it (e.g. in a false prophecy), an equally bad situation whereby God’s Spirit didn’t move because we were resistant to Him is different. In the latter situation, it’s not so clear that we erred in our lack of openness to God’s Spirit. But we clearly did.

How about all the people in the same state as that lady above? I’m sure God desires to heal many others emotionally and physically, but because of the pride that leads many non-charismatics to be closed to learning from certain good charismatic practices, how many people continue to be in bondage and how many people remain unhealed? And of course, no one criticizes pastors and leaders who are responsible for not bringing their congregation into the fullness of what God wants for them. But in reality, there should be criticism there.

There have been many people healed in the revival. To reject it as demonic just because of some errors is wrong. If Todd Bentley is to be criticized for his false proclamation of that healing (and I think he should be), then those people who throw everything out because of some errors ought to be criticized for the people not going to the revival and not receiving their healing because they are influenced by the extreme negative criticisms. In the same way that Jack Deere ought to be criticized (and he has already confessed his wrongs) for his long time rejection of the Spirit’s power in healing which probably resulted in many people in his former congregation not receiving healing and freedom, non-charismatics and those against the revival ought to be criticized if their words have indirectly caused some Christians not to be more open to God’s power and thus miss their chance to receive their healing.

My point isn’t that everyone who goes to Florida or who is open to the revival or who goes to a charismatic church will automatically be healed. Nor am I suggesting that everyone should go to Florida or accept this revival as good or accept everything in the charismatic movement. Rather, my point is that we should be honest enough and realize that many people have been healed at Florida and in charismatic churches. And could it be possible that these people probably wouldn’t have received their healing if they hadn’t gone to Florida or if they hadn’t gone to a charismatic church which taught on healing and the power of God to heal - just as that lady in Jack Deere’s church probably wouldn’t have received her healing if the leadership in the church had not invited the charismatic Dr. John White to minister there on healing. Therefore, let us not just criticize the bad. We should do that. We should deal with the bad. But we should also realize that if we prevent good from happening to people, that’s a bad too. That ought to be criticized too.

I think I’ll stop here for this post. In the past few weeks, even more blog posts have been written on the revival than when I started this series. And a lot of negative ones too. I want to accept the good and praise God for the wonderful healings as a result of this revival. And eventhough I’m generally more positive towards the revival, I’ve also read a lot of negative stuff that have concerned me a bit. Not to the extent that I’ll reject this revival as demonic. But as I’ve said here, I think there are concerns that need to be brought out into the open, and not ignored. I’ll touch on more of them in my next post in this series.

In my previous post, I linked to various articles and blog posts on the revival and also commented a bit about my experience of previous revivals. In this post (and the next) I hope to share some of my own thoughts on the revival:

Firstly, I have no doubt a lot of what’s happening is of God because of the healings and miracles. I think the ultimate way to judge any revival is through its fruit. It’s the same way to judge miracles and healings and all. Sure, the devil can counterfeit miracles and healings and also revivals and manifestations. But if overall what you see coming out from a Christian meeting (be it a revival or healing or whatever) is people loving Jesus more, then I have no doubt God was in it. When we see weird manifestations happening that we don’t understand, all we gotta do is find out if the person involved has come out of it loving Jesus more or not. That may seem too simple, but I think it’s biblical and based on the Mark 3:24 which says that, “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” Satan would never counterfeit a miracle or manifestation if the person ends up loving Jesus more. Satan doesn’t do things that builds God’s kingdom! He does things that build his own kingdom!

Another thing is that a lot of people go there to seek God and their healing. They don’t go there to glorify the devil. And I have more faith in God’s ability to heal and in His compassion and love to answer His people’s prayers for healing than in the devil’s ability to undermine God’s desire to bless and heal His people. When we ask for something good from our heavenly Father, He’s going to answer it (Matthew 7:11) and not going to allow demonic activity and deception to reign in a place where He is being glorified and earnestly sought after.

Having said the above, that doesn’t mean I think that everything in these revival services are of God or that God would be pleased with every single thing that goes on in these meetings. On the contrary, and as I’ve said many times, I strongly believe that God moves through imperfect people, imperfect circumstances and imperfect theology. And I think there were a lot of that in the Toronto Blessing, in the Pensacola Outpouring and probably even now in this healing revival in Florida.

I’m a strong believer in grace. But I think a lot of these anointed ministers have sometimes preached “mixture” more than pure grace. But I have no doubt that God still moves through them. I think a lot of people (including myself) would be uncomfortable with some of the weird practices that we see in these revival meetings, and perhaps also the focus of these meetings (which oftentimes is the manifestations). I think perhaps God would not have liked the way certain things were done. But I have no doubt that He still moves through these people and still blesses many people.

Let me give another example. In my early days, I used to be a huge admirer of Benny Hinn. But then when I heard how he taught some outrightly unbiblical stuff (and attributed such teachings to the Spirit telling him such is so), I started to be cautious of his ministry. And I know there’s also been a lot of concern about his ministry’s finances - in fact, there seems to be a lot of concern about the finances of many big (charismatic) ministries, especially those from the Word of Faith tradition. Personally, I don’t think God is pleased with the way a lot of these ministers handle their money - especially since they seem to benefit a lot personally from a lot of the donations people give to their ministry. And anyone who knows me or has read my view of money would know how I would feel about such Christians. And I also don’t really like the way Benny Hinn does things - his showmanship on stage and all. I so much prefer such ministers to be humble and not showy - a good example of such a minister is Heidi Baker who has such a humble disposition in everything she does and it shows so clearly on stage. So I’m not crazy over some of his theology, his ministry’s handling of finances and his showmanship. To say the least, I think he’s less than perfect in many ways. I have a lot of things to be critical about regarding his ministry but that cannot prevent me from believing that God moves through him to heal many people. I would definitely bring a friend in need of healing to his meetings if I could. I know God has healed many people through him and I see Jesus being glorified in his meetings. This only brings me to the conclusion that God blesses and uses imperfect people and move through imperfect circumstances - and thank God for that because we’re all imperfect!

It’s good to read too that the leaders of the revival also know that not everything happening there is of God or is totally perfect as this quote by the pastor of the church at Lakeland demonstrates:

Todd [Bentley] and I know that not everything that’s happening here is of God. There’s a whole lot of flesh going on here as well.

I’ve seen videos of the services and at times I was not totally comfortable with a lot that was going on. This has nothing to do with the healings. I stand in awe of all that God is doing through healing so many people! But I’m uncomfortable with the hype and the self- and revival- promotion. I’m uncomfortable with the fact that sometimes there’s very little solid teaching - or any teaching at all. And perhaps the greatest thing I’m uncomfortable with, and I think the thing that most people who be uncomfortable with at first sight of the revival services, is the messiness, weirdness and disorderliness of what’s happening - and especially the bizarre manifestations that are often seen on stage and in the congregation, which J. Lee Grady talks about in his article. I know that these manifestations - especially when they occur on stage - offend a lot of people and have caused them to label these meetings demonic. I understand the concerns of these critics. I myself am uncomfortable when the focus is on such manifestations. But I’m also very careful not to judge just because I’m uncomfortable. A lot of what I see in Florida was there during the Toronto Blessing times. I think the message was different and God moved differently. Florida is a lot about healing and miracles. But the manifestations (laughter, body movements, etc.) are very much the same.

One reason why I’m careful not to be too critical of these bizarre manifestations is because I know when God comes in power, things start to happen to people. Simply put, they start to be overcome by the presence of God. Weird things may happen. Messiness in the congregation will probably result. Things won’t be so orderly. I believe that’s what happened in past revivals of centuries ago. Maybe not that dramatic, but I’m sure there were a lot of things that occurred that would make many people uncomfortable when the power of God comes. Of course, there may be the flesh working and no one in the revival doubts that, as the above quote revealed. I think the important thing to note is not to draw attention to the manifestations and not to allow the manifestations to take the limelight. The manifestations aren’t manifestations of the Spirit per se, but the body’s response to the presence/manifestations of the Spirit. People react differently. Some may do so to copy others. Others may do so genuinely as a response to the Spirit’s presence.

For me, while I’ve been to a lot of such meetings where people exhibited manifestations, I’ve never experienced such things. If anything, I do long to experience an overwhelming presence of God like they have. I haven’t experienced God like that but I’m not going to be critical of people who are genuinely experiencing something of God. I’ve had a lot of negative experiences. I’ve been on the receiving end of pushes (and so have given out ‘courtesy falls’) when people prayed for me. I think it’s wrong to push others and all. There’s no need to stimulate a fall by pushing people over when praying for them. I think this is an area where people seek to replicate certain manifestations and that’s wrong. (This results when people are too focused on the manifestations and think that such manifestations are badges of holiness or spirituality). It’s an abuse still quite common in charismatic circles. But this abuse isn’t going to make me critical of everything because I know many people are experiencing the real thing - the real overwhelming presence of God - and we all have to be thankful for that.

Rob Rufus has some wise thoughts here:

We cannot say that everything that comes out of Florida will be God. There has never been a revival where everything is God.

…I spoke to Terry Virgo while in the United Kingdom who heads up hundreds of churches around the world and he recognizes that the power of God is there. They are genuine and there are genuine miracles. He is saying that as a movement they don’t necessarily embrace the whole package - there are some things they would have questions about.

There’s nothing wrong with having a few questions - there’s nothing wrong with not understanding everything. Put some things up on the shelf. Everything must be tested but by and large I want to strongly say that God is on the move all over the world and what is happening in Florida IS God. There is no question about that. That is God. But everything that happens through different levels and different doesn’t necessarily represent everything that we would agree with. Behind this passionate, enthusiastic face - there is a thinking mind! I am going to test everything through right theology and all of that - and all that I don’t understand I will put on the shelf and I will wait.

…There has never been a revival - not one - where all three (God, the devil, the flesh) didn’t manifest. Some people are pointing, “Look, some of that stuff is fleshly… some of that stuff is demonic… that doctrine is a bit of heresy over there”. Yes I know - but God is also moving powerfully! You will never have a revival where you can get rid of flesh, get rid of the demonic trying to come in

Commenting on his experience of previous revivals, Terry Virgo writes:

What influenced me most significantly was not the extraordinary physical manifestations but the extraordinary lasting change that I observed in the lives of people I knew. Many displayed a new love and devotion to God and a new sensitivity to the Spirit’s presence. Some embraced a new commitment to Christ and his mission to win the world for his name. The physical manifestations gradually faded but the transformed lives have remained.

Ultimately, it’s not about the manifestations, but about positive change. I may be uncomfortable with some of the manifestations but I’ve seen and heard about a lot of positive change in the lives of those in previous revivals and that’s really the main reason why I’ll never say these revivals are demonic.

So while I’m uncomfortable about this and that and while I’ll disagree with the way certain things are done, ultimately I do believe (for now) that this revival was sent sovereignly by God and that He’s moving powerfully in Florida and even throughout the world.

In my next post, I hope to share my thoughts on the criticisms that this revival has received.

I’ve been reading a bit into the latest “revival” that has hit the world - the Lakeland Florida Healing Revival. Seeing the videos (through YouTube) of what’s happening reminds me of the Toronto Blessing that occurred in the mid-1990s. That was a really huge revival during that time and I remember it clearly because the Pentecostal church I was attending in Singapore was really into it and had sent some of their staff members go over to Toronto to check it out. In fact, a lot of charismatic churches in Singapore were very into that revival. There was so much excitement in charismatic circles in Singapore and throughout the world then. Rodney Howard-Browne came to Singapore and I attended a lot of his meetings. Yes, I was very excited myself! The most distinctive aspect of the meetings was the holy laughter and if I’m not wrong, I think the distinctive message was about the Father’s love. So many lives were transformed then. But there were also a lot of criticisms of the revival. Even John Wimber (probably the most respected modern day charismatic leader ever and one who is humble, compassionate and balanced) and the Vineyard disassociated themselves from the Revival. I visited the Church in Toronto a few years later and attended the services there, but things kinda died down by then.

A smaller revival that occurred a while later was the Pensacola Outpouring. The focus on this revival was on repentance and holiness. I also managed to visit that Church before I visited Toronto - but again, probably a bit too late by then.

Well, those were pretty exciting times - especially the Toronto one. Weird things happened and so unsurprisingly criticisms abounded of some of the stuff that occurred during the services. At the peak of it all, I was quite caught up and maybe a bit too accepting of everything. I remember defending the Toronto Blessing against some of my friends’ criticisms. This was at a time when I was still thoroughly charismatic and hadn’t encountered the Reformed faith nor come to appreciate the non-charismatic side of Christianity. And so I was caught up with it all - as many charismatics were then.

Anyway, even after encountering and appreciating the non-charismatic side of Christianity years later, I didn’t reject my charismatic roots. Nor did I, after I started to appreciate the non-charismatic Christian world, become critical of all these revivals. Since the Toronto Blessing, many people have reflected upon how one should evaluate such revivals. Many books have been written and a lot of them point to revivals in history and how lots of weird and abnormal manifestations happened as the Spirit moved mightily upon people. Revivals aren’t neat things. They’re messy, not orderly. And lots of abnormal and weird things happen! So it’s not good enough to criticize a revival because of its weird manifestations.

Going back to the healing revival at Florida. I see that the blogsphere is starting to comment more and more on it and the person associated with the revival, Todd Bentley. Adrian Warnock is a respected blogger who has good relations with both Reformed (normally non- or anti-Charismatic) and Charismatic Christians. He recently wrote his thoughts on the revival here. He refers to Terry Virgo, who is the leader of a group of churches called Newfrontiers. Terry has written two posts so far on the revival. His first one was a bit more cautious. His second one, more open. Like Adrian Warnock, Terry and this group could probably be termed Reformed Charismatics too. While I would no longer call myself a Reformed Charismatic (i.e. one who appreciates both the Reformed and Charismatic worlds of Christianity) as I’m not sure how Reformed I still am, I respect such groups and leaders simply because the fact that they can claim to be Reformed in some way or that they have benefited from Reformed theology means that they have a good foundation in theology and are thus different from many flakey charismatics (or charismaniacs).

Here’s Rob Rufus’ thoughts on the revival. He’s a charismatic who is very grace-centered. J. Lee Grady, who I mentioned here, is also a charismatic who I respect. He is the editor of Charisma magazine, which is the most famous magazine for charismatic Christians. And I’ve always considered him to be pretty balanced and not a flakey charismatic. His thoughts on this revival are a bit more cautious.

(By the way, I’ve mentioned flakey charismatics a lot because there are a lot of them around. I’ve been a charismatic long enough to know that. I will always be one but I don’t see the need to defend every charismatic practice because in reality there are lots of weird things going around. I don’t agree with everything and acknowledge the many abuses and excesses. But I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are good and bad in Charismatic Christianity just as there are good and bad in non-charismatic Christianity.)

I also came across this article by Storm Harvest. I am not very familiar with this organization. From their website, their vision is to promote the prophetic (in Australia). I think their article is worth reading as it represents a more critical view of the revival from a pretty charismatic-leaning organization.

And lastly, I’d also like to mention some ultra critical websites simply because I think some of what they have to say merits reading and reflection. One is Revival School and the other is The Revival Army. Both these sites view the revival as demonic and dangerous and while at this stage I actually feel much more positive towards the revival, I think some of the stuff they have written are definitely worth reading. That doesn’t mean I agree with their conclusions, of course.

In my next post, I’ll mention some of my thoughts regarding the revival.

Yesterday, I went to a Church of Our Saviour (COOS) service where Deborah Reed was ministering. Deborah is the director of the Children’s Ministries in Bethel Church in Redding, California and also the founder of Kingdom Treasures International. Bethel Church is pastored by Bill Johnson. In the past 6 months or so, I’ve been coming across a lot of Bill Johnson’s stuff - through conferences and bookstores I’ve gone to and a recommendation from a cousin of mine. Before this time, I hadn’t heard about him. But these various encounters have made me quite interested to find out more about his ministry, which can be described as prophetic and very focused on the supernatural (healings, miracles, etc.) Check out this YouTube of Bill Johnson on the 700 club (part one, two, three) and also this creative leg-lengthening miracle that occurred during a Bill Johnson conference. I love how Bill encourages Christians into go to the streets to heal people - i.e. to pray and believe for healing for anyone they see that needs healing when they’re just going about their daily life. That’s pretty much exactly like how Jesus ministered healing, isn’t it! Jesus didn’t call people who wanted healing to come to his healing meeting. Rather, he went out into the streets and healed people. And Johnson’s ministry is all about expecting the heavenly miraculous to invade earth and expecting a supernatural form of Christianity.

Anyway, yesterday’s service was quite an eye opener. Deborah preached a little bit about children and how God can move through them. She recently held a Children’s Ministry conference at COOS and she also taught the children there how to pray for the sick. So after her preaching, she got a few dozens of children to come out to the front. The children were going to pray for the sick. Then she asked the children if God gave them any Words of Knowledge. This could come through the children feeling a pain in their own body - a way that God could speak to them regarding what He wants to heal. The children who felt God speaking through them this way spoke into the microphone regarding what sickness God wants to heal (e.g. back pains, pain in the right ankle, etc.) and then people who were sick in that area could come up to the front for the children to pray for them. People who felt the pain completely gone then started to testify and probably about 15-20 people testified of God’s healing power during that time.

It’s exciting and wonderful to see God working through these children. Some were probably as young as 5-6 years old. During the ministry time, as time wore on, some children started running and playing on stage. Deborah mentioned that we should realize that they’re still kids. They may pray and God may heal through them, but the next minute they could be slapping their friends!

Just like this situation, I do believe God dearly loves to work through children. It’s all about childlike faith and children have that. They haven’t had enough of life experience to learn how to be scared or shy or embarrassed if their prayers aren’t answered. They just believe and expect God to be true to His Word to heal when they pray for people. I think we adults have to unlearn so many things, get rid of so many negative thoughts and past experiences. We have to renew a lot of our mind and thinking - something that children don’t need to. Unlike adults, they’re not too smart for their own good. They don’t rationalize or reason out everything. If they did like most adults, it’d be hard to have faith. I think Kierkegaard and Luther are right in believing that in a sense faith is opposed to reason. Children don’t use their minds to reason that much. They just believe. And God responds to such childlike faith.

I’m starting on the book Walking with God by John Eldredge, which was just released this year. John’s written many popular books before like Wild at Heart. I haven’t read any of his previous books and I don’t plan to read them. This one only caught my attention because it’s about hearing from God. The subtitle to the book goes, “Talk to Him. Hear from Him. Really”.

I’m quite excited about this book in a way. I wrote an entry on Hearing God’s voice about 4 months ago. I have to admit that I haven’t traveled far in this area since then. I know it takes time and commitment to learn to discern God’s voice. But a few events over the past few months have made me more determined to want to see if this works for me.

I first came across this book through Tim Challies’ review of the book. Challies’ blog is perhaps the most popular Christian blog on the Internet. He’s Reformed in his belief. And so a bit too conservative (i.e. non-charismatic) for my liking. Unsurprisingly, his review was more negative than not.

One book that I read very early on in my Christian life and which has had a bit of influence over my thinking (if not consciously, then subconsciously) is the very well-known book called Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen and Robin Maxson. While this book doesn’t explicitly argue against the possibility of hearing God’s voice (it’s not a book about God’s voice per se), it promotes a view of discerning God’s will that implicitly rejects the possibility or need to hear God’s voice. Rather, it argues that in matters that are not explicitly addressed by the Bible, God would want us to use wisdom to choose. That is, God doesn’t speak to us and tell us what we should do, but we’re given the freedom to choose according to our wisdom.

One thing good about this book is that it’s very comprehensive - it’s over 500 pages long! It deals with a lot of Scripture and you know that the authors have done their homework and thought through the issues. And thus I think it’s a good book to start with. Eldredge’s and Shultz’s book would prove useful to me because they are people with the experience of hearing from God. However, Shultz’s book still left me with a lot of questions theology-wise, and from the little I’ve read from Eldredge, I haven’t been too satisfied with some of his reasonings.

I do like good theology. I think all practices should be based on good theology. And I still have a lot of questions regarding the issue of hearing from God. However, while I don’t have everything figured out theology-wise, I do have faith that God does speak and that we can hear from Him. Having moved in charismatic circles for a long time, I know of too many incidents that point to the fact that God still speaks. Of course, I’ve experienced plenty of abuses too, but shouldn’t put me off.

Because of my experiences in charismatic churches, I’ve never felt fully comfortable with Friesen/Maxson’s book. But I like it because it’s comprehensive and I think anyone who promotes a view to the contrary needs to deal with their arguments. In fact, I’ve been waiting for more than a year for the Three Views on Decision Making and the Will of God to be released. One of the views would be argued by Friesen/Maxson and of course we’ll see two other views on this topic and two responses from the two other authors. One of the other authors would be Henry Blackaby, author of Experiencing God: Knowing And Doing The Will Of God, a book which I’m considering buying.

Anyway, let me quote from a section of Friesen’s website which summarizes the authors’ view. This is the main part of their view which has stayed with me all these years. I think everyone who advocates that we ought to hear from God always before making decisions has to grapple with what they have to say here:

The apostles modeled wisdom in their decision making - “We thought it best” (1 Thessalonians 3:1).

It is fruitful, when reflecting on this question, to observe the decision-making practices of the apostles as well as their explanations for the reasons behind their actions. For instance, some weeks after Paul and his companions were forced to leave the newly founded church at Thessalonica, they agreed on a plan. It is explained in 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2, whereby the fledgling church could receive further help: ‘Therefore when we could endure it no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy � to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith.’

How was their decision made? ‘We thought it best.’

As one reads of other apostolic decisions in the New Testament, one encounters similar terminology: ‘I thought it necessary’ (Philippians 2:25-26); ‘if it is fitting’ (1 Corinthians 16:3-4); ‘it is not desirable’ (Acts 6:2-4); ‘I have decided’ (Titus 3:12).

When it came to instruction in decision making, the apostles’ exhortations were consistent with their practice. Some choices were commanded on grounds of being ‘good,’ while others were ‘better’ (1 Corinthians 7:1, 9, 26. 38).

All of the decisions referred to have two things in common: 1) since they were not determined by God’s moral will they each qualified as a matter of freedom, and 2) the terms utilized in the explanations (’good,” ‘better.’ ‘best.’ ‘fitting,’ etc.) imply some standard.

It’s clear from the above that the apostles themselves didn’t always hear from God before making decisions, even if it was an important one! Or perhaps, they did seek to hear from God but God didn’t always speak to them about certain decisions. So for some cases at least, they had to use their own wisdom to make decisions.

Of course, I don’t think it’s right to argue based on the above Scriptures that God doesn’t guide us through speaking to us. I think He does sometimes. But the above indicates that He doesn’t do so all the time and perhaps we shouldn’t expect Him to do so all the time.

So in regards to decision making, I’d disagree with those who say that God always guides us through His voice, just as I’d disagree with those who say that God never desires to guide us through His voice but would always want us to make decisions based on our wisdom.

But hearing God’s voice is more than just for the sake of decision making. As a charismatic, I believe in the supernatural gifts like interpretation of tongues, prophecy and word of knowledge. I’ve seen them in action - again, both genuine cases and not-so-genuine cases. So even if one believes as Friesen/Maxson believe that God never guides us through His voice, there are other reasons for learning to hear God’s voice. A person could be sick and we could ask God for a word of knowledge regarding what we should pray for or what the cause of the problem is. I’m not gifted in all these, but I have encountered too many of such things to know that God still speaks…

The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and sniveling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less. (Timothy Keller, The Reason For God, p. 181.)

I like this quote a lot because I think it summarizes well how we ought to think of man in the light of sin and the gospel. Some Christians look at the gospel and emphasize how flawed man is. Others look at the gospel and see in it how loved man is. I tried to share a bit of my thoughts on this issue here (Man-centered or God-centered? Part One & Two).

I like what Tim Keller said about not thinking “more of myself nor less of myself”. Rather, we should just think of ourselves less! That is, the question isn’t whether we ought to have a “low” or “high” view of ourselves. Rather, we really shouldn’t be thinking of ourselves at all so much! We should be thinking of Christ instead!

The above sounds pretty good. I started this blog post agreeing with Keller’s statement. But as I started to write, some other thoughts came into my mind. And so I’d like to provide a bit of challenge to the above.

Let me start by saying that because we’re Christians, we are new creations. We’re no longer the same as before but have been fundamentally changed in the inside of us. While it’s good to think of God and Christ more, maybe it’s not all that wrong to think of ourselves (that is, if we’re Christians) because the way we ought to think of ourselves as Christians isn’t the same as before. That is, we see ourselves as “in Christ”. Our identity now is intrinsically linked with Christ’s identity. We take our identity after his.

Therefore, everytime we think of ourselves, we shouldn’t really be thinking of ourselves alone, but who we are because of Christ and who we are in Him. Given the truth that we’re in Christ now, there’s no longer any need to dichotomize between focusing on man and focusing on Christ. In a sense, the more we talk and focus on this new creation - if we do so properly and realize that this new creation is new because of Christ and because he/she is in Christ -, the more we’re actually focusing on Christ too because this new creation cannot be understood apart from Christ.

Prosperity is how much of a blessing are you to someone else. That’s the way that God evaluates it. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 40:38 onwards)

When you get to where the priority on your finances isn’t for you, but rather it’s to bless someone else, then God will assume the liability of taking care of you. And when God takes care of you, he will take care of you better than you would ever take care of yourself. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 53:44 onwards)

Go back to Ephesians 4:28. It says let him that stole steal no more. But rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. The reason for your working should be to have to give to him that needs. (The Unjust Steward, Andrew Wommack, 41:39 onwards)

I recently finished Andrew Wommack’s series on Financial Stewardship. Wommack is from the Word of Faith (aka Health and Wealth, Prosperity Gospel) movement but his views on money are amazingly refreshing. This movement has been heavily criticized (and I’d have to say most of the time probably rightly so) for focusing excessively on money and material things, and thus promoting or encouraging greed in its adherents.

I do believe strongly in God wanting to prosper Christians. Of course, there are nuances that need to be made in regards to my previous statement. I haven’t got it all figured out yet and one day maybe I’ll get down to thinking and writing more about it. But for now, I’m unsatisfied with the view of those who say that there are no promises of prosperity for Christians. On the other hand, I’m cannot agree with the lifestyle of a lot of these prosperity preachers. There have been too many documented abuses and excesses in the movement. And yet, that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing we can learn from the message of these Christians.

I believe that if every Word of Faith preacher believed (and lived out) the same things regarding how money ought to be used (stewardship) as Andrew Wommack, the movement would have so much more credibility. As I’ve said a few times on this blog, I strongly believe in “Blessed to be a blessing” and “Prosperity with a purpose”. These are slogans thrown around in the Word of Faith movement. I think they are biblical slogans. It’s just that I think very few people in the movement truly live them out, eventhough they claim to believe in them. I feel that most of the time it’s just used as a justification for asking God to bless us materially.

If one day the movement is known for how much of a blessing they are to others, then I would truly salute them. Right now, I think it’s obvious that we hear a lot more about how God wants to bless us for our own sake, rather than to bless us so that we can bless others.