Author Archives: Michael J. Fast

Questions Regarding Milk vs Meat

Posted on by

Sometimes the Bible talks about spirituality in terms of food. The idea is this: new Christians, like babies, need milk. Eventually, however, as they mature, they need meat. Take, for example, the following verses:

  • I Corinthians 3:2: I gave you milk to drink. I didn’t give you solid food because you weren’t ready for it. Even now you aren’t ready for it
  • Hebrews 5:12-14 By now you should be teachers. Instead, you still need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food. All those who live on milk lack the experience to talk about what is right. They are still babies. However, solid food is for mature people, whose minds are trained by practice to know the difference between good and evil.
  • I Peter 2:2: Desire God’s pure word as newborn babies desire milk. Then you will grow in your salvation.

Here is my question: When do we start feeding ourselves?

When a baby grows old enough to start eating meat, they put it into their mouths themselves. Is it the same with disciples? Do we eventually start feeding ourselves?

A few more questions: Is is proper to say “I’m not being fed by Sunday-morning sermons”? Is that what sermons are for? Erwin McManus made the statement: “My job isn’t to feed the Christians, so they can feed the sheep. My job is to make them hungry so they can feed themselves.” Does McManus accurately reflect the truths of milk vs meat?

So what if I am not being fed? Does that mean I need to feed myself — that I have graduated to the next level of maturity where I find my own food and feed others?

Does anyone have any answers for me?

Truthtelling: The Ethics of Negotiation

Posted on by

“Is it ethical for a police hostage negotiator to promise to the hostage taker whatever his demands are, even if there is no intent to meet those demands?” I was shocked to hear this question from a Senator investigating the Manila Hostage Crisis. “What if,” the senator went on, “the hostage taker appears to have some mental issues and we need to save the hostages. Shouldn’t we just lie to him so that he lets the hostages go? Then we can arrest him and say, ‘Sorry, we did it for your own good’” (paraphrased).

It reminds me of a story I heard about comparative religion during my University days in Saskatoon. Two boys are in a house playing. The father, who is outside, sees that the house is on fire. He yells to his boys to get out of the house so they will be saved. One boy runs out immediately. The other, however, is enjoying playing so much that he ignores his father’s call. Finally, in desperation, the Father, appealing to his son’s love for fun calls out, “Come outside! There is a parade passing by!” Of course the boy runs out and is saved from the fire. What disturbs me about the story is the lie.

A lie is the opposite of trust. Why did the boy trust the father enough to come out when he said there was a parade? Because of trust. I can assure you, however, that once the boy realized his father had lied to him, a little bit of that trust was gone. Next time, the father wouldn’t be so lucky.

It goes the same for hostage negotiations. In reality, you are not just negotiating for the current crisis, you are also building trust for the next crises that come along. Otherwise, why will any subsequent hostage-taker even bother talking to negotiators?

The Media’s Role in the Manila Hostage Crisis – Updated 25 Feb 2011

Posted on by

For many years in the Philippines there was no freedom of the press. In fact, even nowadays, there are a disproportionate number of killings of media-related people here. Needless to say, this has created a culture, especially among the media themselves, of protecting at all costs the freedom of the press. These freedoms are now being called into question.

If you have been anywhere near media lately you will be aware of a recent tragic event in the Philippines. A few days ago, a former police officer took a bus full of Chinese, Canadian, and British tourists hostage. The story does not have a happy ending: 10 people are now dead, including the hostage taker. Not only did the hostage taker lose his life but another 9 hostages lost their lives as well. (I won’t get into the fact that trying to prove your innocence in one criminal activity by engaging in another criminal activity just doesn’t work.)

One group that has been blamed is the police. And of course, watching the events unfold it is hard to see how they were really unable to deal adequately with the situation. Of course, my comments are of the typical armchair variety (meaning that it is far easier for an inexperienced, not practitioner like me to “know” how it could have been done better even if my knowledge has no basis in fact!) At the present time the police have taken responsibility for their share of the debacle and are taking steps to ensure they learn from their mistakes for next time. But this post is not about the police.

Another group that has been blamed for the tragedy is the media. The media was very eager to show the events as they unfolded. In fact, I didn’t know what was happening until I began to review my twitter and facebook feeds. I was able to read the play-by-play of the events. Finally I turned on the TV to see what was really going on (albeit after the fact) and was able to take my pick of any channel showing live footage of the event. In addition to that, members of the media were in direct cellphone contact with the hostage taker at different stages of the crisis.

The problem is this. There was a TV on the bus. Yes, it is true. The hostage taker was completely and totally aware of every move the police were making towards him! If he needed another angle, just change the channel and see what is happening there. It’s like he had his own personal security system watching from every angle, keeping him safe. Conceivably, the SWAT team’s assault would have gone better if the hostage taker was not so well informed about their actions.

When asked, President Aquino said that he didn’t order a news blackout for two reasons: 1. The people would complain that the government was trying to hide something. He promised transparency in all issues and this is one of the results. 2. The law prohibits him from declaring a news blackout.

So what do we do? An incredibly newsworthy event is unfolding in front of us. The media is tasked with giving us the news. We all watched the events unfold on TV, Facebook, and Twitter. The police need to do their job and save the hostages and hostage takers.

Living in a society is not an issue of rights. Does the press have the right to freedom? Yes. Do the hostages have the right to be saved? Of course. Does the hostage taker have the right to be heard? Yes. So rights are not the issue.

Living in society is an issue of responsibility. The media has a clear role in the building of any nation. This role sometimes means not availing of a right so that some other right can be used. For example, in a hostage situation, the media need to recognise that the hostages’ right to live supersedes the media’s right to immediately broadcast. The people of nation also need to recognise that the hostages’ right to live supersedes their right to be immediately informed.

The issue here is really the use of “Live” coverage and it this issue that needs to be addressed by the taskforce President Aquino has set up to discuss the parameters on the coverage of crisis situations. What are the options?

1. Allow the media to record all events as they unfold for playback later on. Periodic statements and updates could be broadcast on a timely basis, ensuring that the integrity of the negotiations is maintained.

2. Have a delay in the “Live” feed of several minutes or hours. This would allow on the scene events to unfold without the news getting out to the hostage taker.

3. Have one feed that all news outlets share, similar to what happens at the Olympic Games. That way camera angles and scenes broadcast could be live edited to prevent information from flowing too freely at times when they should be less free.

What are your thoughts on this issue? What suggestions would you have for the media in crisis situations?

UPDATE (25 Feb 2011):

The Hong Kong government is currently conducting its own inquiry into the event. Here is what was reported today by the bus driver:

In a statement read out during the inquest proceedings of the Hong Kong court, driver Antonio Lubang said the tour guide was shot when Mendoza became enraged after seeing on live television his brother’s arrest.

Earlier testimonies at the HK court inquest indicated Mendoza was initially friendly toward the hostages.

However, he became enraged when he saw on a television set inside the bus the arrest of his policeman brother.

What else can I say? The media cannot remain blameless in this tragedy.

Pondering Matthew 5:42. Is Jesus serious?

Posted on by

Pondering Matthew 5:42. Is Jesus serious about this? Do you have any thoughts?

I mean it’s not like I disagree with Jesus or anything but this verse tells me something that I not only don’t really want to do but even conventional wisdom tells me is wrong. Here is the verse according the the God’s Word translation:

“Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don’t turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you.”

Here are a few thoughts:

1. If I did this I would have a lineup outside my door (literally).

2. What about the money I need for my own needs or even better for my family’s needs? Is Jesus telling me to give my money away when asked and then to ask others when I need money?

3. How inclusive is the list? Is it just money or does it apply to other things like my car, my house, my office, my tools, etc.? Is there a line that needs to be drawn or is it always “all in”?

4. What about the whole “give a man a fish and you’ll feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you’ll feed him for a lifetime” thing? Is that just a cute way of getting out of my responsibility?

I guess I can take the typical discipleship talk of denying myself and taking up my cross and following him daily but that is still pretty abstract. When it comes to my wallet, that is pretty real.

What has this verse meant for you? Do you even include it as part of your becoming more like Christ?

Building the Kingdom: Essentials vs Non-Essentials (Part 2)

Posted on by

A few months ago I wrote about the concept of Essentials vs Non-Essentials. At the end I expressed frustration about not having enough time in class for closure on the issues raised. Yesterday we had that closure in class.

The issues related to Essentials and Non-Essentials are quite often fought out in the issues on the periphery of our belief. That is, the battles waged in this area in our churches are primarily fought over non-essential practices as opposed to essential beliefs. The class did  an assignment  that called on them to list their core beliefs as disciples of Christ — that is the things that are absolutely essential to their life as Christians, the kinds of things that if they were not there would cause them to walk away from the group. I was mildly amused to see that the issues they considered to be core were almost exclusively theological in nature: Who is Jesus? What is the Church? Ordinances. etc. There was very little practice listed.

Which led us to the discussion of core beliefs and core practices. Of course, we all need to have core beliefs. But I just can’t survive on core beliefs. At some point those core beliefs need to come out — I need to show them in my actions.

For example, I remember watching a show called Venture on Canadian TV about 20 years ago. One episode hightlighted a new company that had developed a machine for turning garbage into potable water. The scene has stuck in my mind forever of the inventor of the machine holding a glass of water that had come from his machine. He proudly declared the water to be safe to drink. However, when asked by those present to prove his beliefs with action — in other words to drink the water — he refused saying, “I prefer wine.” Guess what? I have never heard of that machine again. Why? Because even though the inventor’s core belief was that the water was pure, his core practices did not include actually drinking the water himself!

Of course, I am not saying that everybody’s practices needs to be the same but that we find unity in the beliefs we share together. One issue that has come up in our faith community lately is how the practices that older Christians have relate to the practices that young Christians have. If we focus on the practices themselves, we will be divided. But if we focus on the core beliefs we can be unified and support a variety of legitimate core practices.

As a Theology teacher this truth strikes home for me. I must reexamine not my beliefs, but my practices so that my beliefs will be proved true in the things that I do.

How about you? Do your practices align with your beliefs?

SEATS School of Ministry starts in a few

Posted on by

SEATS School of Ministry starts in a few hours: We’ll be finishing up Essentials vs Non-Essentials http://ow.ly/29JAp

The Smallest Functional Church in the World

Posted on by

Interesting link came up in my Google Alerts today. I have a standing search going for articles including the words “functional church.” It is an effort to see how churches view the concept of being functional. It is also a search to see if the word “functional” adequately describes the church as God’s mission to the world.

This article describes the “smallest functional church in the world.” It consists of a structure built in an American cemetery that has room for one pastor and two congregants. It is in the typical white-picket-fence-with-a-cross-on-the-peak style. Interestingly enough, the “church” under discussion does not appear to have even the marks of the church, much less act in a functional way – at least function as this blog defines it.

The article does not say, however, if there are actually people who are involved in this church. I guess the questions that remain to be answered are: Is God’s kingdom truly represented here? Is the church a part of God’s mission to the world? Is the Good News of Jesus proclaimed? Have people there truly experienced God? Is the community served?

It appears that “functional church” for the builder means that you can get a couple of people inside and feel good because it looks like a church. Unfortunately, that is how a lot of us think of church. As long as there are people in the pews and it looks like a church everything is ok. What is missing, however, is the whole idea of making disciples of all nations. The story would be better perhaps if the hook was, Hey-look-at-this-tiny-church-building-that-houses-a-true-community-of-faith-that-is-able-to-engage-society-in-a-meaningful-way, or something like that.

What do you think? Does this article describe a church that is truly functional?

The Church, the World, and the Kingdom of God

Posted on by

My favourite theological motif is derived from the story of the Loving Father (also known as the Parable of the Prodigal Son). It is in fact a story about the world, which is synonymous with the family of God. The story is about a Father with two sons. One son wanders off in search of his own joy in life (but ends up realizing that true joy only lies in his father’s household). The other stays at home and faithfully works for his father (but ends up developing a non-loving attitude toward his sibling). The father is very interested in both the return of his “lost” son, as well as the proper attitude of this other son.

This is a picture of God and his relationship with the world. Some people of the world have wandered off in search for joy. Many return to God. Others are safe in the church but sometimes end up having a dim view of those who are not yet there.

It reminds me of something I read from David Fitch over at Reclaiming the Mission. He made a statement about in March 2010 that has stuck in my head. Here it is:

“There is no dividing line between the church & the world. The church may precede the world today, yet it is only living today what the world itself is ultimately called to in the future. The church in essence bleeds into the world ever calling it to its true destiny. As a foretaste of the renewal of all creation, the church cannot be discontinuous with creation. It cannot be discontinuous with the world because the church is in the process of becoming that very world renewed in Christ. Neither can it merely blend into the world for then all Mission & renewal is lost. Its presence will be in, among & for the world even as it will be distinct from the world. This is what it means to take on the incarnational nature of Christ. It is this very incarnational nature that requires the church to be a discerning community which at times both refuses conformity with the world while at other times joining in (with what God is already at work doing).”

This resonates a lot with me because it is where I see the church’s role in the world right now. We can’t transform something if we are not involved in it. Note that the very concept of transformation implies that there is not a wholesale accommodation to the world, just a participation in what God is doing to enact that transformation.

I just have a nagging question: What is the relationship between the church and the Kingdom of God? David points out that the church is a “foretaste of the renewal of all creation.” But if it is a “foretaste,” it can’t be the final product. In the following sentence we read, “the church is in the process of becoming that very world renewed in Christ.” Is it the church that is becoming the world renewed in Christ or is the renewed world the kingdom spoken of in Revelation 11:15 – “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will rule as king forever and ever.”

I guess what it comes down to is this: Is it ok for me to work at building the church or should I instead work at building the kingdom? Or is to do one to do the other as well?

Welcome To The Functional Church Blog

Posted on by

You may have noticed the new name for the blog. I decided that since most of what I was writing was related to the church and her functions as opposed to our family’s ministry it might be best to change the name to reflect that.

So what is meant by functional church?

A Functional Church goes beyond merely looking like a church; it is a church that does what it is intended to do.

Take for example a key. I can look at a key and know for sure that it is a key. Why? Because it has the marks of a key: a place to hold onto, a place that gets inserted into a lock, bumps and grooves (are these technical terms?), and perhaps a hole for attaching it to a keychain. If it has the marks of a key then it is really a key. But if I leave that key in my pocket and never use it for its intended purpose, then, even though it is really a key, it is not functional. I can even use a key as a paperweight, as a makeshift knife for opening the plastic wrap on CD cases, or even to scratch the silver stuff off a prepaid cellphone card so I can load my phone. But even though the key proves useful in these situations, it is still not being used for its intended purpose. So then, how do I make the key functional? By using it for it’s intended purpose, namely opening locks.

Initially we have identified four Marks of the Church and four Functions of the church. (We will start with these as a benchmark with the understanding that they may be changed, moved, or eliminated.)

Four Marks of the Church (what the church is while gathered): Worship, Word, Sacrament, & Governance.

Four Functions of the Church (what the church does while scattered): Community (Koinonia or Building God’s Kingdom), Proclamation (Kerygma), Truth-Telling (Marturia), & Service (Diakonia).

Of course this concept of Functional Church is a work in progress. I initially heard of it from the work of Dr. Augustine “Jun” Vencer, VP for Leadership Development at DAWN. Since then a team of us at South East Asian Theological Schools (SEATS) have been trying to distill this into local churches in South East Asia. We look forward to interacting with you on this as we develop this concept in a biblical and practical way.

What is my White Picket Fence & Church with a Steeple?

Posted on by

I have been living in a culture that is not my own for almost 11 years. From the beginning, my wife and I resolved not only to follow God’s call to this place but to do so without imposing our passport-culture’s baggage in our host culture.

You see, when I was in high-school I saw part of a movie on TV that was based upon James Michener’s Hawaii. I now realise that the book and movie were based upon Michener’s own misunderstandings of the issues of cross-cultural workers and how they related to locals. However, the story of a missionary who isn’t willing to pass the baton to the locals when the time comes has stuck with me since then. Stories also abound of how people bringing God’s message of Good News also brought with them their own cultures and forced locals to wear clothes, build churches with nice steeples and white picket fences around them.
When my wife and I arrived here, we resolved to leave the cultural baggage behind, and instead just bring the message of God’s love.
Easier said than done.
I recently realised that I am a cultural imperialist! Of course, my version of imperialism doesn’t include clothing and white picket fences. It does, however, include an innate belief that the way I do things is better than the way things are done here. When people do things differently than I would and problems arise I have an immediate solution: Simply start doing things my way and all your problems will be solved! After all, isn’t that what transformation is all about?
If my goal as an agent of transformation is not to transform culture then what is it? My wife’s words were apropos: “You are here to glorify God.”
The realised that the problem is that I am assuming that transformation means that all must embrace my culture. Rather I should assume that all must embrace my God and let the culture sort itself out.
What is your white picket fence and church with a steeple?