Yesterday night, I went out with a group of Christians for an exposure walk around Geylang. For those not familiar with Singapore, Geylang is Singapore’s infamous red-light district - although also famous for its good food! Each group spent about 40 minutes walking along 4 streets. We also entered the alleys. It was definitely an insightful experience for me.
This group was a bunch of progressive-leaning Christians from the Student Christian Movement (SCM) and Free Community Church (FCC).They’re hoping to start a ministry to the sex workers in Geylang and so this was an awareness trip organized for people interested in the ministry.
I brought an East-Timor missionary friend I met at the YWAM gathering I attended two weeks ago. Incidentally, YWAM has also been working with sex workers. Just before that gathering took place two weeks ago, YWAM held a mooncake party for sex-workers in the same room. Both FCC and YWAM are situated in Geylang and so it’s good that they’re working with these people.
Anyway, this group hopes to use some form of English classes to reach out to the sex workers. That’s definitely interesting and it’s been done before. For example, there’s an x:talk project in London which gives “free English classes for sex workers by sex workers”. A Thai NGO, Empower, also offers English classes to sex workers. From a Christian bent, you have Rehab Ministries.
For these people, improving their English empowers them:
Many foreign sex workers struggle to string a sentence together when they are negotiating prices and sexual acts with clients. When men put pressure on them to provide sex acts without a condom, it is much harder to refuse when they are unable to cajole punters into accepting something safer. The language barrier means they also fail to secure themselves the best possible deals and working conditions with brothel owners.
But of course there are many important issues to think about. For example, by teaching English, are we thus “encouraging them to do the work”, which was a criticism of the Thai NGO Empower (see Robert Preece’s “The Edge of ESP: English for Sex Workers” article in the Aug/Sep 1997 edition of TESOL Matters). That is, are we legitimizing their kind of work?
And if we see this as “ministry” to sex workers, what is the purpose of our ministry? What are we trying to help them for? Should we even be seeing what we do as trying to “help” them? Is that being too condescending? Or should our work been seen as more of coming alongside them? x:talk quoted Australian Aboriginal activist Lila Watson in their website:
If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.
How do we define our success? Do we seek that they quit their jobs and find a new one? But what if they can’t find a better job - in their home country or here? The problem is definitely more complex than just getting them to quit their job, if indeed that is one of our goals.
Do we see this from a moralistic (”oh, sex work is really bad and it’s a sin!”) point of view, or do we see this from another perspective? And very importantly, because we’re Christians, how does the gospel of Jesus Christ fit into all this? A lot of tough questions to think about. And how we answer, I would argue, depends a lot on our ideology and Christian beliefs. The more progressive SCM/FCC would view their ministry differently from how YWAM views their ministry. I’m sure both will have similarities, but also differences. For me, I’m more progressive in relation to most evangelicals, but more conservative in relation to SCM/FCC.
Anyway, this last month or so has opened up my eyes to the opportunities in using teaching English to reach out to people beyond international students. I’ve been working with Christian friends over the past few months to start a weekly free English class for international students. That’s been going well, but we still need more support and help so if you’re reading this and would like to be involved in any (however small) way, do get in touch with me! But along the way I’ve come across people who have asked me to consider free English classes for migrant workers and now I’m thinking about how such can be done for sex workers. I’m not sure I’ll really get into working with migrant or sex workers just yet because working with international students and working with migrant/sex workers is very different. At least I can relate better to the international students who are around my age and with whom I have a lot in common. But I definitely want to move towards working with the migrant and sex workers in the (hopefully near) future.
The greatest tension in the New Testament is between the indicative (what God has already done and what is already true about us) and the imperative (what remains to be done as we respond to God by faith and obedience in the power of the Holy Spirit). That tension can be seen in verses like Romans 6:6: “Knowing this that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.” You have to know and believe positional truth in order to successfully progress in your sanctification. Positional sanctification is the basis for our progressive sanctification.
The balance between the indicative and the imperative is about equal in Scripture, but I have not observed that balance being taught in our churches. We seem to focus more on the imperatives, i.e. instructing believers what they must do instead of balancing that with what God has already done. Many people attend evangelical churches for years and never hear enough positional truth to understand that they are children of God who are alive and free in Christ.
Vos says that the heart of legalism is when we separate the law of God from the person of God. And what we have got then are bare imperatives that don’t have an indicative that will sustain them.
God himself in his grace, love, kindness, and generosity was the indicative that would have sustained the imperative of “Don’t eat the fruit of this tree.”
The gospel of grace is all about the indicative. That is, the gospel is all about what is already done, what is already true. Contrast this with the imperative, or what one ought to do. Scripture contains both the indicative and imperative. A preacher ought to preach both. Paul clearly preached both. But it’s not just about anyhow preaching both so that we get a balance of both kinds of messages. Rather, I think it’s extremely important to be able to bring out the clear relationship between the two.
It’s my understanding of how both of these kinds of passages interact with each other and play out in the Bible that gives rise to 1) my appreciation of New Creation’s constant focus on the indicatives - I appreciate this so much simply because I feel every other church I’ve been to over-emphasizes the imperatives 2) my concern for what I feel is New Creation’s under-emphasis on the imperatives (the imperatives are very seldom preached at all), which I think is an over-reaction towards the other churches’ over-emphasis on the imperatives.
I hope to do a little series on this issue. Like I said above, I think this gets to the heart of why I appreciate New Creation so much - and why New Creation’s preaching has transformed so many lives -, yet this issue also relates to my biggest criticism of New Creation.
As I’ve always believed and I’ve constantly mentioned, history is full of over-reactions. This is clear in the history of the world, the history of Christianity and the history of ideas in any discipline. It’s no different with what we’re talking about here. The way I see it, in reaction to most church’s constant focus on the imperatives, New Creation has over-reacted and gone the other way. It’s beautiful to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ (the message of the indicatives of Scripture) being preached so clearly every time. It’s especially beautiful in the light of the fact that so many churches preach what New Creation would call “mixture”. It’s beautiful to hear the preaching in New Creation when we take into account the way the imperatives are constantly (over)-emphasized (wrongly) in most churches today. But the Bible and Paul clearly preached both the indicatives and also the imperatives. The message to the church was both “It is done” (indicative) and “Do” (imperatives). But this was no “mixture”. The “Do” had nothing to do with earning one’s salvation or earning God’s favour. The “Do” had everything to do with because it’s already done, because we’ve already been saved in Christ, because we’re already favoured in Christ - i.e. we do because it is already done. There is thus a proper way - the biblical way that Paul used - to preach both the indicatives and imperatives that avoids “mixture” and legalism. It is simply in grounding the imperatives in the indicatives, or what Sinclair Ferguson alluded to: making sure your imperatives are sustained (and empowered) by the indicatives.
Despite mostly agreeing with his other sentences above, I’d probably like to take a bit of issue with this sentence by Neil Anderson: “The balance between the indicative and the imperative is about equal in Scripture”. As I said, I don’t think it’s about balancing the quantity of the indicatives and imperatives in one’s preaching (if indeed he’s suggesting something like that), so much as it is about understanding the proper relationship between the two. But if we want to talk about quantity, I would argue the Bible leans more towards emphasizing the indicative than the imperative. I would argue this not from counting how many passages deal with the indicatives and how many deal with the imperatives. Rather, I think it’s important to see things from a bigger perspective. Viewed from a big picture perspective and from the history of the God’s redemptive plan for mankind, it’s all about the indicative. That is, the whole Bible is about getting us to see what God has done for us in Christ. God’s mission in this world is all about Jesus’ death and resurrection. The most essential message in the whole of the Bible is the gospel (His death and resurrection) of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3). That is the dominant message, the most important message. In a sense, the Bible is one grand indicative. That is so clear. And those who still think that Christianity is all about what we do for God or even our response to what God has done for us in Christ have totally missed what Christianity is all about.
Therefore, while I don’t think New Creation is as balanced as Paul in its preaching, if I had to err on either side, I’d rather err on the side of over-emphasizing the indicatives and the message of the gospel, than over-emphasizing the imperatives or what we have to do for God.
I just came back from a small gathering of Christians who arranged a meeting with Youth With A Mission (YWAM) to find out more about their organization. Besides the great food, great fellowship and great discussions (including how we Christians in Singapore ought to be treating the migrant workers in our midst), I was so glad to hear a bit more about what YWAM is all about. I’ve encountered YWAM a lot of times in the past year or so (including in Perth last year), but never really had the desire to find out more about the group. I came away from the meeting last night really attracted to this group. I’m definitely going to find out more about them and maybe get more involved with them in future.
- One thing that straightaway attracted me is their focus on hearing God’s voice. This is something that I’ve been looking into and working on in the past half a year or so. To actually make “Hear God’s voice” one of their foundational values is impressive. In fact, it’s third after “Know God” and “Make God Known”. I think a large part of their success is due to them hearing from God and obeying Him. I received a free book written by their founder Loren Cunningham entitled “Is That Really You, God?”, subtitled, “Hearing The Voice Of God”. And I think it’s going to be an exciting and challenging read!
- Another thing that attracted me is its value of decentralization and interdenominationalism, both of which I value highly. I think these two values make sure that authoritarianism and narrow-mindedness are avoided. There have been a lot of criticisms about YWAM being authoritative and abusive and like any group I’m certain it’s not perfect - and there have been a lot of abuses. But the fact that they value decentralization means that at least in some ways they are not all about controlling everybody and making everyone believe and act as they do. There is also a great diversity of doctrines being taught in YWAM which I think is good. The fact that this is allowed (of course, I think within limits) means that they know it’s not all about one’s doctrines, but about one’s relationship with God. We can all have different ideas, different beliefs (within limits) and be from different denominations (they even work with Catholics) because in YWAM’s eyes these are not as important as many other groups and Christians make them out to be. What’s most important is one’s relationship with God and doing His work. It seems that YWAM knows what’s important and knows the importance of majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.
- YWAM doesn’t pay any of their staff members. Each person has to raise money by himself. I think that’s good because in the first place these people there are not overpaid as most likely it means they’re not going to get a lot of money. But more importantly, it means each person has to be dependent upon God to provide. They need to go by faith. That’s radical. And there are many stories of God’s miraculous provision in response to His people’s radical faith and dependence.
- YWAM also emphasizes a lot on mercy ministry - i.e. helping the poor, needy and marginalized. It’s one of their three main ministries along with Evangelism and Discipleship. I think this is in line with a more balanced and holistic view of what God’s mission in this world is about.
- I’m glad to see “inner healing” as one area that’s touched upon in their foundational DTS (Discipleship Training School) that all YWAMers need to go through. This is one area that has also been on my mind that past year or so because of various people in my life. I think there is a big need for this ministry.
If there’s any concern I have with YWAM, it is that their radicalness can easily result in legalism and abuse. But this has always been the problem when the organizations’ beliefs (churches included) are radical and they seek to promote such radicalism in their members. Any intensive pursuit of God without a strong foundation in grace can turn out badly. Pursuing God wholeheartedly often entails a lot of introspection (i.e. looking inside and searching one’s heart) and too much of that can be legalistic. On the other hand, no introspection at all can lead to stagnation and complacency. And there’s a fine line between the two. But all this is not so much a specific criticism of YWAM as it is a recognition of the danger one needs to be aware of with all organizations.
On a different aspect of the Lakeland Revival, I came across this fascinating quote by Stephen Strader, pastor of Ignited Church where Todd Bentley had ministered, on Brant Russo:
He just showed up on our front lawn and started helping people without permission.
The story goes like this: Brandt Russo goes to Lakeland to help the homeless and poor that are staying at the Ignited Church property. He asks the church to help these homeless but they refuse to do so. So he helps them without the church’s permission (I think he had God’s and that was good enough for him). The cops are called in and he’s arrested for trespassing on the church’s property.
Obviously, things are more complex than stated above. However, while I’ve been more positive about the Lakeland Revival (at least to the extent of defending a lot of it against what I felt have been unjustified criticisms), I think on this issue of ignoring the poor they are not reflecting God’s will or love. But there’s no need to single out Pastor Strader and his church because I’m very sure that faced with such a situation, most churches wouldn’t do much to help the poor and homeless.
I remember going to a church in Singapore that I was considering joining. I was very impressed with this church for various reasons. I was totally blown away at the first service I attended. Not because of the sermon. Rather, what happened was that the pastor stood in front of the congregation after the sermon and spent about 10 minutes talking about a child that the church has come to know and has been looking after. I don’t remember the exact details but I think this child was abandoned by his parents and was a bit problematic. The pastor appealed to the people in the congregation to consider adopting or taking care of him for the long term. And this wasn’t just a short appeal. But the pastor shared his heart and knew that while this was a big decision (!!), his congregation should think about it because he believed that God would want them to show love to the boy even if it meant a big sacrifice to them.
I’m not sure what happened in the end and if anyone actually took this boy in. I doubt it. We Christians have too much on our hands already to care about others. We’re too busy caring for ourselves and our own family to care about others. And I can imagine what a big sacrifice it would be to adopt that boy. And yet, I totally agreed with the pastor that God would want us to do things like that. If it’s too big a sacrifice to us, it just goes to show where our priorities are.
I didn’t join this church in the end because after having good talks with the leaders, I felt that it was a very legalistic church. Not because of the appeal above. I had no problems with that. In fact, I loved it and I’ll always remember it. But because of other matters. I guess that’s the danger. A person or the leadership of the church may know God asks us for our all and recognize that the way the majority of Christians are living nowadays is totally self-centered and that we’re far from living the ideal Christian life. But how does the leadership encourage its congregation to move towards living lives of greater obedience to God? That’s tricky. There’s a really fine line between encouraging others to put God first and being legalistic. The church made a lot of rules which I felt very uncomfortable with and which I felt was very legalistic. While I recognized the hearts and motivations of the leaders, I couldn’t agree with some of the rules they set.
Anyway, back to Russo. I’m very inspired by Russo and people like Shane Claiborne (who inspired Russo). I live my ideal life vicariously through people like them. They live out what I so passionately believe in yet have no courage to live out - at least for now. I’ll end with what Brandt Russo’s mission statement:
Jesus showed His love for us by giving up His life, hoping for the same from us. Our lives are consumed with crap. Time wasted, money blown, relationships ruined, all for the sake of the American dream. The church even seems to strive for this so called American dream. Jesus reminded us not to store up treasures on earth. He believed in simplicity. He urged his disciples to give up everything for the His sake and the sake of the gospel. He didn’t believe that the church was a physical building, but we are the church. Wherever we are, God is. All the money we waste on church buildings with nice landscaping and huge statues is just that, a waste. Jesus taught us that we are blessed from God to be a blessing. If we have “stuff”, its to give it away. Jesus taught that there is so much more to life than food and clothing and shelter. That when we meet the needs of others, our needs become met. That when we decrease and downsize our lives, the more we are able to bless others. He taught us how to be servants. He taught us to love, and we so easily forget. I want to learn the way Jesus loved, that’s my mission statement. Love.
P.S.: Here’s the trailer of a film about people like Russo and Claiborne called The Ordinary Radicals: