I squinted at the answer (when I read it in
the Straits Times yesterday). I find it quite pretentious. What might it be that when made more obvious could “turn away a lot of
potential seekers”? It can’t be the message of the Cross. It can’t be about
the love of God. It can’t be the sermon on the mount. It can’t be the promise
of Jesus about overcoming the world. Obviously the church didn’t need to be
secretive about all of that.
So what do
the church want to keep less than obvious about for fear of repelling
pre-believers away? What is holding them back to be frank and open with the
"potential seekers”? And how
about the part regarding their concern that potential seekers may “not want to
be associated with the church until they become believers”? Underscore
"until they become believers".
What
distinguishes the believers from the potential seekers? What
privileges does
becoming a believer in City Harvest have over “potential seekers”? Are they
more agreeable, pliable or flexible? Are they more enlightened, more
spiritually informed and more open to the mysterious works of the church? Is it
only believers in the church who will wholeheartedly embrace the crossover
project with the aim that every gyration of the body in what appears to be no
more modest than a swimsuit will bring about a genuine conversion of the heart?
Or,
doesn’t this all hint to something that is more than just a simple evangelistic
message? Doesn’t it suggest to the layman with average common sense, whether a
believer or not, that there is certainly something more to it than meets the
eye when the church leaders prefer obliquity to clarity? Doesn’t this remind
you of a second-hand car salesman tempering with the odometer before a sale
with the aim of giving the wrong impression of how much mileage the car has
travelled?
Isn’t this why the car salesman has to be less obvious about his sale pitch so
as to not “turn away a lot of potential seekers” or in this case, potential
buyers?
To be honest, I will never expect the
congregation as a whole to be informed of everything that the church does. That
would be too impractical and administratively messy. Imagine putting up on the
big screen a long list of rolls of toilet paper, cartons of detergent and
reams of paper purchased
by the church during Sunday services. That’s overkill and brainless I know. But
I am sure on matters of such importance like piling up million-dollar loans to
finance extravagant music videos about staged licentiousness, booze and
fornication with the less-than-obvious message of repentance and salvation, the
congregation as a whole ought to have the right to be informed.
What's more, I am quite sure that the leaders
had prayed over the
crossover project and had thus received what they had
perceived as divine endorsement. This has to be presumed since the defence of
the trial is all about theological legitimacy. If this is so, shouldn't the leaders, like Moses armed with the
decalogue, confidently and triumphantly declare to the congregation everything
about the crossover project leaving nothing out. Too naive?
Now, I am not suggesting to the leaders to ask
their church for
approval on whether all that sexually provocative hip-bopping,
dry humping and body bumping are ultimately earnest evangelism at its
post-modernist best. Or whether China wine and Kill Bill are evangelistic tools
that aim to expand the Kingdom of God to the furthest regions of the unsaved
world. All that is obviously debatable. But the church leaders should at the
very least inform the congregation about what they are doing, how much is
roughly invested in what they are doing, and maybe
elaborate a little on why
they are doing what they are doing.
If it helps, for a visual demonstration (since
a picture obviously paints a thousand words), maybe the church can set up a
sneak preview of China Wine just before its worldwide release so that the
congregation can have a foretaste of what the future of evangelism is all about
and hopefully have their collective faith further edified. Wouldn’t that be what is minimally expected of the church
leaders who
are the trustees of the people’s money, the shepherd of the people’s hearts,
the custodian of the people’s faith and the protector of the people’s trust? Is
that asking too much from the leaders? Should they even endeavor to be less
than obvious if what they are doing is something that is obviously glorifying
and praiseworthy?
Now, enough of the serious stuff and the
rhetorical questions. I have cheekily culled 4 lessons (addressed to
hypothetical
church leaders of course) that I have learned from the reply given
by the church’s longest serving trustee. Here’s a recap, “If it is so obvious that we are doing this as a church, we might turn
away a lot of potential seekers who do not want to be associated with the
church until they become believers.”
And if you are someone who operates on the same level of satirical irony as I do, you wouldn’t really take these 4 lessons too
seriously. So, please indulge me
as I unpack them in a way that makes the real
message I intend to convey less than obvious. I call this less-than-direct
approach "serving up a taste of
one's own medicine".
1) 1# lesson: Never be too honest with your
new members or newcomers. And don't worry or sweat too much about it since
they will eventually come to understand why you as the church leader need to do
what you as the church leader need to do. That day of enlightenment
will
ultimately come when they are sufficiently immersed or indoctrinated in the
compelling teachings of your church. At this juncture, it is important to
believe by faith that they will one day come around to equally believe by faith
in what you are planning for them - just as long as you do not make your true
intention too obvious to them.
2) 2# lesson: Never assume that your
congregation is mature enough to understand whatever you deem is in their best
interest
at heart - even if it would possibly take a
stretch-until-breaking-point of logic and reason to interpret what you deem as
in their best interest is in fact in their best interest. If you pay no
heed
to this second lesson, that is, to mindlessly assume that your congregation is
mature enough to lend their blessings to whatever you do under the naïve guise
of expanding-the-kingdom-of-God, then you not only run the risk of bleeding
membership from the get-go but also turn potential pre
-believers into
inveterate non-believers for life.
3) 3# lesson: Never show or discuss your
doubts or reservation about a particular project to your
congregation. I have
to add this in as a preemptive defence because you are behind that pulpit for a
reason (unless of course you happen to be behind that pulpit for a purpose
other than merits). The congregation naturally looks up to you. Next to the
Holy Trinity, you are their eyes, mouth and
ears to the other realm. You are
the spiritual bridge that connects them to the object of their worship. As
such,
the general rule is to never share with them your doubts about a project even
if you really have genuine doubts about it. This is especially so if you happen
to smell a rat midstream. The congregation looks to you to complete what you have
in the first place convinced them to start. So, it is almost equivalent to the
unpardonable sin to express your reservation halfway when the
congregation had
been so drummed up by your weekly fiery sermons before the project commencement
that they would automatically associate such doubts as coming from the dark
side. Therefore, be wary of expressing your reservation even if you have good
reasons to do so because at certain point in your project, the majority stake
of it will unknowingly be transferred over to the vanguard section of the
congregation and you can do nothing about it except to go with the raging flow
(which is actually
a flow that you had once quite unwittingly created).
4) And here’s the final 4# lesson. Always believe
that you can get away with anything if you are of the earnest (though often
misguided) belief that you are doing it all for the Kingdom of God. Hence, when
the heart is untainted, as one can always claim, there can be no corrupt
intent. This obviously takes a lot of faith and it is not to be attempted by
ordinary and sincere Christians in the context
of a home group. For such a
spiritual leap into the
realm of the impossible, or as some critics may call
it "delusional", you will
need a big enough congregation who will faithfully believe in and pray for you
to the very end despite what is painfully obvious staring at them straight in
the face. Alas, if one’s innocence can be based purely and solely on one's
belief and nothing else, notwithstanding how self-serving it can be, then I
guess the only guilty people left in this world would be those who have the
audacity
to suspect another person’s self-proclaimed pure intention and to uncover it
for what it really is. Cheerz
No comments:
Post a Comment