stillhaventfound.org

I love both New Creation Church and City Harvest Church. Both are actually very different churches. They both have very different ministries. New Creation’s focus is on the gospel of grace. City Harvest’s focus is on evangelism and missions. I think New Creation has some of the best preaching/teaching you can find anywhere in Singapore. City Harvest’s passion for reaching out is second to none in Singapore. I prefer New Creation’s focus on grace and God’s love for us - as opposed to City Harvest’s focus on loving God and man and living out the Christian life (though I think that neither portray a biblical balance). I love City Harvest’s strong cell community and think it’s closer to how a Christian community should be like.

In the past month, I’ve been spending some time with a City Harvest cell for various reasons. So I’ve been attending some cell and church meetings, as well as interacting with various cell members and a pastor. What I’ve experienced and seen have made me both uncomfortable, yet also very glad. Maybe one day I’ll share my experiences in greater detail here. A lot of things have been happening in the past few weeks and I’ve not written much about them at all (that’s why I’ve been quite silent on the blog!) because these are things that are quite sensitive and I’d have to write carefully (which takes time and a lot of thinking) if I were to share them.

As I see more people reading this blog, I’ve had to be extra careful in what I write. Especially because I touch on a lot of sensitive and controversial issues here. I don’t want my blog to be like others that just attack this or that church or teaching. On the other hand, a lot of these controversial issues are close to my heart and I know a lot of people think about them and struggle with them (just like I do) and thus I don’t want to just sweep them under the carpet and ignore issues that I think are worth discussing. That just wouldn’t be me. However, it’s also not me to come out strongly on one side and attack another. I think for any controversial issue, there are always good and bad on each side. There are good and biblical reasons for holding the view that each side holds to. Not that both sides are correct. But at least there are good reasons why people from each side believe in what they do. In regards to the above two churches, I respect both New Creation and City Harvest a lot but am not enamored by either Pastor Prince or Kong Hee to the extent that I think they can believe and do no wrong.

Anyway, recently I got to know a City Harvest member who is also a School of Theology (SOT) student. Her sister happens to be a cell leader at New Creation. I reckon any theological conversations between the two would be pretty darn interesting! Both churches of course disagree quite fundamentally with the other’s theology and focus. Generally, City Harvest would consider New Creation’s grace teachings as antinomian and New Creation would view City Harvest’s teachings as tending towards legalism.

This person shared about City Harvest’s teaching on the Tabernacle. I’ve heard such teachings before in other charismatic churches I’ve been to. The teaching goes like this: There were three parts to the Old Testament Tabernacle - the Outer Court, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies - with each coinciding with a greater experience of God. In the Old Testament, not everyone but only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and commune with God in this intimate way. However, for Christians today, because of what Jesus did, we have the opportunity or potential to enter the Holy of Holies during our time with God. However, not all Christians will experience such intimate fellowship with God in the Holy of Holies. Only those who press in and really seek after God would have such an intimate experience. Those who don’t really press in are still at the Holy Place or the Outer Court and thus experience God in a less intimate way.

The above teaching is often used to compel Christians to seek a greater and more intimate experience of God:

Where are you now? Are you in the Holy Place or the Outer Court? Do you want to enter into the Holy of Holies and experience God in a more intimate way? If you want to enter into the Holy of Holies, you have to surrender to God. You have to seek Him and press in…

I have a lot of problems with this sort of teaching because the way I see it, it’s just not biblical. It denies a very fundamental aspect of the gospel - that “in Christ” we have access to God and are already in the Holy of Holies. The book of Hebrews makes it very clear that we have access to God by faith in Christ and what He did: “…we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place (i.e. Holy of Holies) by the blood of Jesus…” (Hebrews 10:19). In the Old Testament, the presence of God was in the Holy of Holies. Not anyone could enter. Only the high priest who consecrated himself could enter the place and then only once a year. Jesus’ death did away with such a system. By his blood, we can enter the very presence of God. Therefore, for anyone to say that some Christians are only at the Outer Court or Most Holy Place and not in the Holy of Holies and that they need to press on and surrender more or whatever to enter the Holy of Holies is to say that it’s by our works and efforts that we enter God’s holy presence! The Bible says it’s by faith and the blood of Jesus that we enter God’s holy presence! In the Old Testament, the high priest had to consecrate and prepare himself to enter the Holy of Holies. All this was a shadow of what was to come. In Jesus, we don’t need to do anything (prepare ourselves by surrendering more or striving more, etc.) to enter the Holy of Holies. We just need to believe in Christ and His finished work.

Therefore, I believe that every Christian has already entered into the Holy of Holies. We have access to God because of what Christ did for us. We don’t need to seek more or strive more to enter the Holy of Holies.

Anyway, this sister shared about how she sought a deeper “Holy of Holies” experience with God and was touched deeply by God. What do I think of that? While I disagree with the theology behind the teaching, I have no reason to deny that God did touch her in a special way, that she did experience God in a deeper way. Just because I think the teaching that inspired her and many Christians to seek God in a greater way is unbiblical doesn’t mean that I think her experience was not of God. I do believe God touched her. I just wouldn’t refer to that experience as a “Holy of Holies” experience.

I’ve always believed that many times God moves in our lives in spite of our theology. If God were to bless only correct theology, then not many people would be blessed. This is not to deny the importance of good theology. It’s just to acknowledge that God is more gracious and much bigger than we think.

What this sister experienced was a deeper experience of God. While all Christians are already in the Holy of Holies, this doesn’t mean that people don’t experience God in different ways and in different qualities. We all grow in our experience with God. We all should be seeking God more and more. Entering the Holy of Holies doesn’t mean we’ve crossed the finish line and there’s nothing more to do or strive for. Certainly, we’ve crossed the finish line in terms of being perfect and righteous because of Christ’s work on the cross. Nothing can take that away from us. But our Christian life is a journey. We learn and we grow. We don’t stay stagnant. And we definitely experience God in greater ways.

So while I may have problems with the teachings that was used to justify this sister’s experience, I have no doubt that her experience was of God and that it was good for her. She may have believed in the wrong things, but her heart was right and God blessed her sincerity and those of many others who may have believed wrongly.

There is no doubt that if the above teaching is taught in an extreme manner and received wrongly, there may be many Christians in bondage and condemnation for not having “reached” the level of entering into the Holy of Holies. This may be the case. But I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and while disagreeing with the above teaching, I recognize that many lives have been transformed for the better as Christians are challenged to seek God more and more. To me, this can only be a good thing. And maybe at times better than if one has the right theology regarding the Tabernacle of God and yet become passive and don’t continuously seek God or the filling of the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18).

I haven’t written for about a week! The last week has been very busy for me! My last day at the school was on Thursday. Then I had a BBQ with about 20 of my students on Friday. I also invited some of my Christian friends who I’ve been introducing to my students over the past month or so. I do love and miss my students but ultimately I made the decision to leave because I could no longer teach there in good conscience. I could very easily continue on teaching, do a pretty decent job (by the school’s standards) and earn some decent money, but I guess I’m too much of a perfectionist to feel comfortable there. I’ll write more about this in another post. I’ve got so much to say

I only taught my students for under 2 months, but I know that my friends and I will continue to go out with and reach out to them as we’ve built up a good rapport with them. Again, so many things to say and I’ll write more in the future.

What are my plans now? I’ve sent in job applications and gone for a few interviews already. I’ll most probably start my Master in Education (TESOL) at the end of this month. It’s through distance learning. That means, no classes - just assignments. I decided to do my Masters because I want to improve my teaching. I want to be the best teacher I can be. While I already have a recognized certificate, there is so much more I can learn to help me become a better teacher.

This program consists of 8 modules in all. A full-time load would be about 4 modules per semester. It depends on me whether I want to do it full-time or part-time. If I get a job I like, I may do it part-time. If not, I may do it full-time.

The past two months have been tiring, but definitely rewarding. God has brought me good new friendships and also ministry opportunities, which have been answers to my prayers at the beginning of the year. There’s also been some challenges here and there. But I’ve been growing and learning. I’ve got a lot to say about many other things and maybe I’ll share on this blog one day. We’ll see how! Cheers!

I had a short talk with my uncle last night. He just went into financial advising/planning. And so my dad asked me to talk to him regarding doing some investments with him. I have a bit of money from the insurance or whatever from my mother’s death 17 years ago. My dad’s been keeping it for me and last year when I was in Australia I asked him to put it into some investments. It was fortunate that he hadn’t invested it yet due to what happened recently in the economy. So today he asked me to talk to my uncle for a while regarding investing it now.

I’m not young and most people my age would already be well into investing and planning for their future life. Or at least they would have found out about all this stuff. For me, I don’t really care. I know a bit, but I’m not exactly keen to know more and get into all this financial thing. I asked my dad to invest the money last year because I didn’t know what to do with it. I hadn’t decided yet and so I thought I’ll get the money back from him and just invest it.

Inside me, I really hate all this focus on financial planning and making sure that one has enough money for their future and all. If non-Christians do that, then that’s understandable. It’s good to plan financially for your future. After all, for most non-Christians, the focus is on their life here and now. But when I see Christians into financially planning the same way that non-Christians are into it, I have to totally disagree.

One wise pastor I respect once asked what are the qualities that good leaders ought to have. Then he asked whether the qualities that good Christian leaders ought to have would be any different? His point was that the qualities of a good Christian leader ought to be different from what society expects of a leader in general. The same can be said of a good Christian businessman. Being a Christian ought to make a difference. Our faith ought to make a difference in the way we live and how we do things.

In the same way, I think how Christians use their money ought to be different from how non-Christians use their money. How Christians think about their future and the priorities they place on money ought to be different. Christians ought to have an eternal perspective. And to me that means not building your kingdom here on earth. Society in most countries (and especially in Singapore) expect us to think about our future and life in terms of mainly our career, family, children’s education, etc. Money is of utmost importance in the non-Christian’s life. It’s all about making sure that we have enough of it so that we can survive and even thrive. And sad to say, this has been the view of almost every Christian I’ve met.

And so my uncle started to explain to me why it’s important to save and be prepared for the future. I told him that I don’t believe it’s important to save and invest because God will provide for me and the money can be better used now to help other people who need it more than me. Yes, I told my father to invest my money because I didn’t know what I wanted to do with it. Inside me, I don’t believe in saving and investing money for the future - at least not in the way the whole world does it. But it’s also hard for me to live out this belief of mine because it’s so radical.

Why don’t I believe in saving and investing for the future the way the world does? I can think of at least two reasons now:

1) Life is not about building my kingdom. I think we can define “kingdom” in today’s terms as “me and my (future) family”. I’m a very simple person in that I want to live out what the Bible says. I don’t want to do it half-heartedly, because if I’m not hoping to do it fully, I may as well not do it at all. The Bible very clearly says that we’ve been forgiven in Christ so that we can love God and others. The love of Christ compels me to live for Him. To think about Him and His kingdom, not mine. There isn’t any greater meaning in this world than to live for the God who so loved me that He sent His Son to die for me. And so if I had money to spare, should I save it up for myself and my family in future or should I give it away to help people who need it so much more than I do - trusting that as I do the right thing, God will provide for me? I think the answer is obvious. It’s just whether I want to do the right thing or not.

2) I think often of the “Do not worry” passage (Matthew 6:25-34). I think often of how I hardly know any Christian who lives it out or even comes near to doing so. It’s simply too radical. Do not worry? Don’t worry about what we shall eat or drink or wear?? Just seek first God’s kingdom and everything will be OK? Wow, that’s faith in God’s providence.

Isn’t it the worry of what people would eat, drink and wear in future that motivates people to save and invest for the future? Isn’t it simply the lack of trust that God will provide in every way that makes us just focus on accumulating and investing money for ourselves and our future, rather than using it to help those who need it more than us right now?

I’ve got so many more things to say. But I’ll leave it at here. I do hope to read up more about what Christians think of investment. And I’m going to pray about what I should do with the money. As for why I’ve come to the above radical conclusion, read my Poverty and the Moral Responsibility of the Rich to the Poor and Encountering Peter Singer.

I’ve been listening to Andrew Wommack recently. The below is really a continuation from my posts here and here:

You do not lose your right standing with God if you sin. What a wonderful truth and what a radical truth to our modern day Christianity. Most Christians have been taught that when you come to the Lord, God forgives you and cleanses you and you become a new person. But then, everytime you sin, you lose that right standing with God and you have to confess that sin and put it under the blood and get back under there and if you don’t, God is displeased with you and he can’t accept you and if you were to die before you get all those sins repented of and confessed, you would go to hell. In a sense, those people are teaching you have to be born again again. That’s not eternal redemption. That’s not eternal inheritance. That’s saying that one offering of Jesus didn’t sanctify and perfect you forever (see Hebrews 10:14). But you were only sanctified and perfected until the next time you blow it, which is constantly. And a person who believes that is never going to really develop and see great growth in their life because everytime you sin you lose it all and you have to start over again. That’s not what the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures teach that you were forgiven of past, present and even future tense.

…I know that some people listening to me are saying, “Well, if people believe what you say then they’ll just go live in sin because you’re saying that they can’t lose their salvation, that God loves them anyway… That would just encourage them to go live in sin!”

Well, Paul dealt with the same thing. In Romans 6:1, he says, “What shall we say, then? Am I saying we should continue in sin that grace may abound?” Of course the answer to that is “God forbid”… If this question never comes up, if a person never says, “What are you saying? That God loves me anyway? That I remain righteous and I don’t lose my right standing with God so therefore are you saying I could just go live in sin?” If that question never comes up, then you haven’t preached the same gospel that Paul preached because it came up to him not once but four different times he dealt with this. He said, “What am I saying? Do we continue in sin? God forbid!” But eventhough you have to explain and say, “No, that’s not what I’m saying”, it should be a logical question. If that question never comes up, which in most cases it doesn’t. Most churches today nobody is interpreting them as saying “can you just go live in sin” because they’re preaching so hard against sin and they basically tie God’s love to you and acceptance of you to your performance. That’s the typical message that’s preached. That’s not what the Bible preaches.

(Eternal Redemption, Andrew Wommack, 31:20 onwards)

[A]nybody teaching grace who does not encounter the same arguments and have to explain that they are not advocating a life of sin, has not preached grace the way that Paul did. If, in our efforts to prevent misuse, we present grace in such a way that no one ever accuses us of giving people a license to sin, then we haven’t presented grace correctly.

(Commentary on Romans 6:1, Andrew Wommack)

The glory of the gospel is that God has declared Christians to be rightly related to him in spite of their sin. But our greatest temptation and mistake is to try to smuggle character into his work of grace. How easily we fall into the trap of assuming that we can only remain justified so long as there are grounds in our character for justification. But Paul’s teaching is that nothing we do ever contributes to our justification.

…[A]t the end of the day what Satan did in the Garden of Eden was to introduce the notion of legalism into the nature of the relationship that Adam and Eve had with God. And although there is a dialogue in which Eve is defensive in Genesis 3, what Satan asks is, “Has God put you in this garden and said, ‘You are not to eat of any of the trees of this garden?’”

And I think you can see in the narrative from that point onward she struggles with the answer. “Well, now there is this one tree.” But there is no recognition that he has showered upon us these great things, these other trees.

I was reared in the notion that what Satan was doing there was questioning the authority of God’s word (which he does). But more important, in that context, he was really questioning the character of the God by saying, “Don’t you see he really isn’t generous?”

Satan is saying God is like a father who takes his child into some phenomenally wonderful children’s department store the week before Christmas, shows him everything, and says to him with a cynical laugh, “And none of this is going to be yours this Christmas.”

It is the distortion. I am no psychiatrist, but I think at the human level that inevitably produces a child who will either willfully rebel or find himself always feeling he has got to do something to earn his father’s love.

It may be speculative to ask what it is the deepest thing in Satan’s heart against God. But I think there clearly is that jealously to demean his character. And the demeaning of the character of God, I think, injects into all that lies behind what we call legalism.

(Sinclair Ferguson)