A Christian viewpoint on poverty

One of my dear cyber-friends yesterday wrote on Facebook: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” 1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV) Isn’t the last phrase interesting? “Pierced THEMSELVES.” This initiated a lively debate on the issue of money and poverty and the love of money and materialism and many other issues. After commenting back and forth (eventually the discussion took place between three people) I felt that the topic is important enough to blog about and perhaps get some more response.
One of the important remarks made was that it is not money as such that is a root of all evil, but rather the love of money. Which of course is true. And an equally important comment stated that the love of money is not restricted only to rich people, but that poor people often, in spite of their lack of money, also have an unhealthy love for money.
I myself have used these arguments often. But I cannot help wondering if I’m not using these arguments mainly to justify my relative wealth (and even using the term “relative wealth” is a way of justifying what I have while all around me people are literally dying of hunger.) And if you think you’re not rich, have a quick look at the Global Rich List and determine your position when your income is compared with the rest of the world’s population. You’re in for a shock.
The simple fact is that millions of people are living in extreme poverty through no choice of their own. Some were unfortunate enough to be born to parents who cannot care for them. Some were born in a country in war. Some were born in a country which has not had sufficient rain for many years. Obviously there are people who are extremely poor because they chose to squander their money on gambling or drugs or alcohol. But most of the people whom I know in Swaziland who live in extreme poverty (and approximately 60% of the population live on 45 US cents per day or less), had no choice in the matter. And the question which I have to answer, if I am seriously seeking the will of God, is what my responsibility is towards those who are less fortunate than I am. Is it all right with God if I continue with my life, making more money, collecting more material possessions, going on more expensive vacations, while all around me people are dying.
I was having a chat with a Black nurse yesterday about this very topic, and she made the remark that it sometimes seems that the poorer the people are, the more willing they are to share with others. Of course, this is not universally true, but I do have the same impression. I am busy collecting personal data of the 663 caregivers who are part of Shiselweni Home-Based Care, a ministry of our church consisting solely of volunteers, who are giving their time and energy to help people with HIV and AIDS. One of the questions I ask them, is how many orphans they are taking care of. With almost 15% of Swaziland’s population made up of orphans with very few official orphanages, it is usually the extended family that needs to take care of the orphans. However, if there is no extended family, then other community members will take over that task. One of our caregivers has four children of her own, ranging from 8 – 16, and then she is also taking care of 16 other children! Another one has five of her own children, ranging in age from 15 – 23. She is also caring for 15 other children. Sometimes it’s one or two, sometimes four or five orphans, but these people who are living in extreme poverty, without running water and usually without electricity, are doing things that the rich will most probably not even consider doing.
(We have now started with a project to assist these caregivers in Swaziland with food and medicine to enable them to do their work more efficiently. We call it: “Adopt-a-Caregiver”. If you are interested in helping these selfless people to have an even larger impact on Swaziland, you are welcome to contact me on wyngaard@lando.co.za )
We will have to start rethinking our attitude towards money and material possessions. I am convinced that God is not happy with the way in which the majority of rich Christians think about money.

South African schools and the Religion / Atheism debate

Two weeks ago the director of an organisation known as Sceptic South Africa stirred up a hornets’ nest when he revealed his intention to go to court to force schools in South Africa to stop propagating religion during class time in schools. Those interested in his arguments, can read it here: Public schools flout national laws on religious instruction.
He has in the meantime apparently decided not to go to court. While one can never be 100% sure about the outcome of a court case, I doubt whether he would have been able to win this one. South Africa has an extremely liberal constitution, probably one of the most liberal in the world. But this is a blessing in disguise, because the constitution guarantees that nobody will be discriminated against for whatever reason, including religion. Furthermore, the school act allows the school’s governing body to determine the ethos of the school as well as the predominant religion of the school, with the clear understanding that there will be no discrimination in whatever form against people who do not follow this religion.
Formerly, in the pre-1994 years, all government schools were Christian. One could not be appointed as a teacher within the Education Department if one was not (at least on paper) a Christian. During my school years, we had Bible periods which were mostly a waste of time. These periods were mostly used to do homework. With the exception of my last year at school when we had a wonderful teacher for our Bible period, I learned absolutely nothing in these periods and it did not help me to grow closer to God in any way.
The school where my youngest two children attend and where my wife is also teaching, start and end each day with prayer. Nobody is forced to partake in these activities. People with strong objections are allowed to be out of the classroom during these times. What the director of Sceptic South Africa intended, was to stop any form of practising religion within school hours, which would make any prayer during school time illegal.
I don’t get overly stressed about things like this. History has shown time and again that any attempts such as this to stop the influence of Christianity, leads to the strengthening of the church. It was Tertullian who said: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” After all missionaries were forced to leave Mocambique during the Frelimo period, the church, instead of dying, became stronger. But I also realise that, should this case go to court, then I do not have the ability to make any change to the final decision. I can pray for the outcome, but that is more or less as far as it will go. Even lobbying for a certain cause, is not supposed to have any influence on the outcome of a court decision.
However, I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the past two weeks. With all due respect, I think anyone thinking that they will stop the influence of Christianity by forbidding religion in schools, still has a lot to learn. Most probably, should this case go to court and even more so if they should win the case, there will be a huge rise in people professing their faith (good), but there will also be a rise in extreme Christian fundamentalism (not so good) and both of these are going to be totally counter-productive towards the purpose of the sceptics who, it seems to me, want to eradicate all forms of religion as unscientific and therefore untrue.
But, speaking from my experience as missionary, I believe that the sceptics are also missing another extremely important point, which is the influence of African churches in Southern Africa. As the White population seems to be focussing increasingly on physical science and less on God, the opposite seems to be happening amongst Black people. Last week I was at a school in Swaziland around the time that they closed for the day. All the children gathered outside the building (they don’t have the luxury of an assembly hall) where a few closing remarks were made by the principal before the day was ended with a prayer. Because most Black churches are poor and cannot afford full-time pastors, they often make use of dedicated Christians in other occupations (tentmakers) to lead their congregations. We have at least four school teachers in our church (which is a very small church) who are tentmakers. I cannot for one moment think that these people will stop Scripture reading and prayer at their schools, even if they should be forbidden by law to do so.
I hope this doesn’t lead to a court case, as the only people who will win in the process, are the lawyers. But if it should reach that point, it will be interesting to see how the people of South Africa are going to react.

The difference between being passionate or being fanatical about something

Some time ago a friend passed on some DVDs to me which he wanted me to evaluate. The person speaking used to be a member of one of the large mainline churches in South Africa, at some stage decided that ths wasn’t the place to be and eventually, as far as I know, formed his own faith community which is not linked to any existing church. He tackles a few issues (I can’t even say hot issues, as for the most part I have never heard anyone discussing this in the past) such as sun worship and Freemasonry (which the church I belong to is officially against but which has not been on the agenda of the church for years, mainly because there are much more important things to discuss.)
This guy is absolutely fanatic about these topics. A round window in a church building indicates that the specific church is a sun worshipper (serious!) Any picture of the sun in a church indicates that the church worships the sun instead of God. A tower at a church says the same. And so on and so forth! He sees himself as a modern-day prophet called by God to warn the modern believers about the sin in their midst. I was preaching in a church in Pretoria just over a week ago and couldn’t help noticing the round window with a sun beautifully made in coloured glass. The inscription in the window comes from Malachi 4:2: “But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings.” According to the speaker on the DVD, this window indicates that this congregation is actually worshipping the sun. The way I see it, is that this window illustrates a wonderful promise from God which has nothing to do with worshipping the sun.
I didn’t bother to watch all the DVDs. I came to the point where I decided that I had much better things to do with my time. But watching part of the DVDs did get me thinking about the difference between people who are passionate about something and people who are fanatic about something. I know many people who are passionate about some cause. I, for one, am passionate about seeing the lot of people with HIV & AIDS being improved. And as I thought about this topic, I asked myself whether I would be regarded as a fanatic about AIDS. I hope not, as I see fanaticism as something negative.
I think the difference may lie in the approach. A fanatic – the way I experience it – seems to present a totally unbalanced viewpoint about a topic. In order to get their point across, they tend to lose focus on other issues which may be equally or even more important. They deliberately exaggerate in order to bring their own viewpoint across with greater authority (“Any church with round windows worship the sun”, or “If you raise your hands during worship and the palms are shoulder-high, then you are actually worshipping the sun!) They redicule people who dare to differ from them. They also deny that anyone who may feel differently about their viewpoint, may also have an equally strong viewpoint. I am pretty sure that, should I contact this person and tell him that I think that he has an unbalanced view about sun worshipping, that he will most probably attack me verbally.
But I know a lot of people who are passionate about certain things. One is passionate about prayer. The other is passionate about helping orphans. Another is passionate about peer educating (people teaching their peers about AIDS), another is passionate about helping less privileged people to be trained. The difference between them and the fanatics is that they see their passion as part of a much larger plan. The one who is passionate about prayer has often asked me to attend a prayer group as they want to pray for our work in Swaziland. The one who is passionate about helping children often contact me to find out whether they could help us with anything. Last week I was invited to speak to a group of 68 peer educators about our work. A few weeks ago I was asked to present a class on home-based caring at a training session for pastors.
I feel uncomfortable when I’m with someone who is fanatic about something, but I love being in the midst of someone who is passionate about some aspect of the work of God.

Making a stand for Christ

In my previous post on Being in the world without being from the world, I tried to explain how people from younger Christian communities (Africa and Eastern Europe specifically) tend to make rules in order to counter the lifestyles from which they had previously come before accepting Christ. I had a lot of very positive reaction on this post (positive in the sense of people contributing towards the discussion, although not everyone agreed with the viewpoint of these Christians.) Some people did remark that this may become extremely legalistic, even Pharisaic. To which I absolutely agree.
The point I tried to make though, was that these Christians, coming from a predominantly un-Christian background, felt that they had to do something to prove that they are no longer in the world, but that they have stepped into a new world with new rules. In Swaziland where drinking until you’re blind drunk is a fairly normal part of the culture (and the same can be said about Russia), it does make sense to expect of Christians to break completely with this habit.
But I have often thought whether there are things within the Western culture that Christians will need to break from if they want to make a real stand for Christ. Many of the laws in the Old Testament, which may seem senseless to us today, were specifically proclaimed by God in order to distinguish the Israelites from the other heathen nations. One example comes to mind. Many (probably most) of the heathen nations had a multitude of gods which they worshipped. These gods were present in certain places (mostly “high places”) and in order to appease these gods, the people had to do all kinds of acts, including things like self-mutilation or even sacrificing their own children. When God saves the people of Israel, He makes new laws. He is the One and Only God and they are not allowed to worship any other. He is the One who made heaven and earth, the sun and the moon, the stars and the planets, the trees and the mountains. The “holy” places of the heathens, the places where their gods would be found or the things which they worshipped as gods, were in fact all created by Jahwe. The God of Israel will not be appeased through self-mutilation or the sacrifice of human beings, but when people have sinned, they sacrifice an animal. (Obviously, later this animal sacrifice is replaced by the sacrifice on the cross.)
We had a remarkable professor in Old Testament who regularly told us to search for the reason why these laws were made. He maintained that Leviticus is just as relevant today as any of the letters of Paul. Because if we understand the principle behind the law, we will find that the principle has never changed.
How will Christians set themselves apart from the non-Christians in today’s world? Some things are easy. Honesty is not often found in the corporate world and definitely a place where Christians should live differently. But the answers are not always as clear. As I see more and more people caught up in the race towards greater wealth, moving from one home to the next larger house, buying bigger and more luxurious cars, buying larger and larger plasma screen TV sets, I’m wondering if this is not the place where Western Christians need to say: “Enough is enough!” In a world where millions of people are dying of hunger, where injustice takes place on a huge scale against the poor and the needy, should Christians not seek the principles laid down by God and reach a point where they say: “As a Christians, I have to make a stand for what is right!”
This may sound legalistic. But is there any other way in which we can prove in today’s materialistic world that Jesus not only came to save me for eternal life, but that He saved me from these powers that threaten to take over our lives completely.
This is not the only thing which we as Western Christians need to be saved from. Where do you think we need to make a stand if we want to convince the world that Christ truly made a difference in my life?

Being in the world without being from the world

I’m busy working through the book of Revelation (again!). Contrary to most people I speak to about this book, I find this to be one of the most comforting books in the Bible. I recently purchased a new commentary on this book and although I don’t agree with everything the author says – one point being that he disagrees with the fairly general viewpoint that the Christians in the time when Revelation was written was confronted with great opposition from the Roman empire and that martyrdom was a reality with which they were confronted – I thoroughly enjoy reading through this book.
In the letter to the church in Pergamum, the author notes a few interesting issues. This church is commended for the way in which they took a stand against the worshipping of the emperor – something which was common in those days. Revelation was probably written in around 95 AD, in the time when Domitianus was emperor of Rome. He commanded that the people refer to him as deus et dominus – our lord and our god. However, although they took such a strong stand against this ungodly practice, within the church itself there were serious problems. Apparently there was a group of Christians (church members) who did not consider it inappropriate to take part in heathen festivities. These festivities were usually characterised by various forms of immorality. In this letter to the church in Pergamum, it is said that Jesus holds it against the congregation that there were people within the congregation who took part in these festivities, with the implication that the church did nothing to change their viewpoint.
This brought to mind two questions: Does the church have anything to say about the personal life of church members and does God have anything to say about the way in which I conduct my personal life – or, to put it in other words, is it possible to be in the world without being from the world? When I was much younger, the church in South Africa that we belonged to, had endless rules and regulations about what members could do and could not do, what was sin and what was not sin. These rules didn’t help much, because people still tended to do whatever they wanted – they just ensured that the church leaders didn’t catch them doing this.
In Swaziland, as I suspect in most non-Western countries, this is still true to a great extent. A former colleague of mine used to be a missionary in Zambia and he shared a story with us of how one of their male church members wanted to get married. His only means of transport was a bicycle and he picked up his future wife at her homestead and travelled with her through the forest (a fairly long distance) until they reached the church where they wanted to get married. Once at the church, the local church members decided that he couldn’t get married before being put under church discipline for some time, because nobody knew what had happened while the two were travelling by bicycle through the forest! The amazing part of this story is that the couple accepted their “punishment” and put off their wedding until the church discipline had run its course.
In most churches in Swaziland there are certain things which are absolutely considered as taboo. Smoking and drinking are non-negotiable. I’ve found the same in the church in Russia. I suspect that it would be true for many countries in Africa. These churches come from a background where people would drink until they fall down. When people accept Christ, they have to follow a totally different lifestyle to distinguish them from those who are not Christians. And this is the reason why things like smoking and drinking are such huge issues for them. In their eyes, people smoking and drinking cannot be Christians. Compare this with Indonesia, where I attended church and then, as soon as the service is over, people start lighting up their cigarettes, even while still in the church building. Granted: their buildings are totally different due to the extreme heat, which is more like an open space covered by a roof, but still…
The problem of breaking totally from your old lifestyle is that it becomes increasingly difficult to have an influence on non-Christians. And this brings me back to the main question: How to be in the world without being from the world? The answer is not easy. Few people are capable of doing this, without eventually making important sacrifices. This is apparently what had happened to some Christians in Pergamum.
What are your feelings about this?

Could the local church be the hope of the world?

Bill Hybels, pastor at Willowcreek, has a saying: The local church is the hope of the world. Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about this. Worldwide it seems as if the local church is becoming smaller and playing a less prominent role. Many people – committed Christians – have left the church, either for nothing or for a small group. These are people who have given up hope for the local church (although many still haven’t given up hope for God.)
Frankly, we (that is, our family) are hyper-critical about the local church. We experience extreme arrogance, a lack of leadership, a total lack of commitment towards those outside the church, an unwillingness to change effectively and a whole range of other issues. I’m not referring to a particular church, but rather to a whole range of churches which I see around us. I have a dear friend who is pastor in a very small local church in the town where we live. This man has vision and dreams which you rarely observe in any pastor. But his congregation doesn’t support him. He’s on his way out – going to retire and live somewhere where he won’t need to worry about things like this anymore. And the church he is leaving behind is going to become even smaller than it already is!
Most local churches are fast declining in numbers. This is often blamed on the changing environment in which we live, the post-modern outlook on life, the old-fashioned way of worship which exist in many churches, the judgmental attitude of many Christians, and the list could go on. But I’m still not convinced that these are the real reasons why people leave the church. I’ve seen a number of people in our town who left very modern-style churches to join the Anglicans (old-fashioned with a strict liturgy). I’ve been in a Presbyterian church in Rotterdam which seem to have nothing flashy in terms of worship teams, sound systems and lights, but this church is growing, in spite of most churches in Europe declining in numbers. I believe a lot has to do with people finding that they are making a difference by being part of the church.
When people step into a relationship with Christ for the first time, they need the church to bring change into their own lives, but in my opinion, as they grow in their relationship with God, their needs (should) change, so that they can become a blessing for others. I don’t often have the chance to attend church as spectator. On most Sundays I have two and sometimes three services where I have to preach. But a few weeks ago I attended church with my family and when I left the church I was overwhelmed with the feeling of: If I have to do this every Sunday and this is all that church is about, I’ll die! And this, I believe, is the reason why churches are dying: because people cannot get the impression that it makes any difference whatsoever whether they are part of the local church or not.
Coming back to what bill Hybels said: The local church can only become the hope of the world if it gets involved in the community and the people where it is situated. People need to experience that the church is offering something that they cannot find elsewhere. Probably the church will not be able to compete in terms of financial resources when real disasters strike, such as 9/11, Katrina or with a pandemic such as AIDS. But I am sure that there are hundreds of survivors of 9/11 or families who had survived Katrina who would be able to tell stories, not of what the government had done for them, but of what churches had done for them. When I was in Chicago last year, I stayed over with a family that had just returned from New Orleans where they had helped people to rebuild their houses. I cannot for one moment think that those people, whether they are Christians or not, will see the church as being irrelevant. In Southern Africa, where the AIDS pandemic is at its worst, governments of all countries are giving out billions of dollars to help control the spreading of the disease and to ensure that people are tested and will receive medication. But the real stories of hope come when people tell how the church has reached out to them. There are wonderful stories of how the church brought hope into people’s lives. And it is when I see this happening, that I know that the time of the church is not over yet. The time for ineffective churches may be over, but the world will always need hope. And nobody can bring more hope than the local church which has, itself, experienced hope through God’s love.

How my eschatology influences my life

I am in White River at the moment, (or just outside, actually, not far from the Kruger National Park) at the Africa School of Mission (ASM). They are training mostly young people eager to get involved in mission in some part of the world and the present batch of students come from countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, England and Croatia. I’ve been asked to take the week’s lectures, speaking on eschatology and the book of Revelation.

I can still remember distinctly where and when I had one of the most mind-shattering moments in my life. I was in Ovamboland, in the desert of then South-West-Africa (now Namibia) in a tent, trying to survive the hottest days and the coldest nights I’ve ever experienced, doing compulsory army service in the South African war against Angola. I took some books with me for the four months that I was there that I hoped to read. I was busy with the thesis of one of my favourite South African theologians, Adrio König and was absolutely intrigued by the way in which he discussed eschatology. And then one sentence caught my imagination, something (and I have to quote from my memory) like: “The end times only have meaning as long as we are involved with mission.” That was the moment that I decided to start working on a PhD with the theme of mission and eschatology. (If you’re interested in the topic, you can try and get a copy of the book: The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology: Toward a Christ-Centered Approach )

Later, as I started working on my PhD, David Bosch (I had the privilege to work closely with him, although not under him) referred me to an article he had written in which he said the following: “I wonder whether the real difference between “ecumenicals” and “evangelicals” (and, may I add, between different brands of “evangelicals”), does not lie in the area of eschatology… Until we clarify our convictions on eschatology, we will continue to talk at cross purposes.” Once again I had one of those “a-ha” moments, knowing that my thoughts on this topic was changed forever. (If you have access to an academic library, you can search for this article: Bosch, D J. 1982. How my mind has changed: Mission and the alternative community. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. 41 (December) pp 6–10)

As I’m getting older (and hopefully more mature in my theological thinking), I still realise the truth of these words. As we are busy with the discussions in the lecture hall at ASM, I can absolutely see how these two topics are linked to each other. I started my lectures by making the remark that many people refuse to read the book of Revelation, because it makes them afraid. Immediately a number of students in the classroom confirmed this. What I’m hoping for is to give them a more balanced viewpoint on eschatology so that, by the end of the week, they will be able to read Revelation, not with fear, but with excitement, in the same way as the first Christians to whom this book was addressed, probably read it.

Yesterday I did a short introduction on eschatology in general and then started with Revelation 1 this morning. When we read Rev 1:7: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen”, I said that, for the early church, the return of Jesus was the ultimate hope they had. They were living in wicked times. Their friends and church leaders were being persecuted and often fed to the lions. They had little hope that a change in government would make things better. And therefore they kept their eyes focussed on the return of Jesus. Yet, these early Christians simultaneously kept their eyes focussed on the world in which they lived, becoming involved in social issues, feeding the poor and caring for the sick, better than the government could do.

And this, it seems to me, is the key of a Biblical eschatology – keeping the balance between a real expectation of the second coming of Christ and being involved in the world in which God has placed us to live. As I spend a week in the lives of these young wannabe-missionaries, I hope that they will be able to keep this balance, wherever they may end up in the years to come.

Interpreting the Bible for today

A time ago I mentioned my conversation which I had with two Jehovah’s Witnesses. I received both support and criticism for the fact that I believe it is not in the best interests of the Kingdom of God to chase representatives from other faith groups away from my door. I have also had someone from the Jehovah’s Witnesses who responded to this and we have had quite a discussion going on some issues. If you want to follow the thread, you can find it here: My conversation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I decided to start a new blogpost, on the one hand because the response would become too long and also because I believe that this has importance, not only for the discussion between Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses but also for the ongoing arguments between the so-called Fundamentalists and Liberals. It all has to do with our method of interpreting the Bible.
I did my PhD on the influence that our view of eschatology has on our view of mission. The thesis is available on the internet for those who are interested, but unfortunately (and I consider this as one of the biggest mistakes I’ve ever made) I wrote it in Afrikaans and therefore you will need to be fluent in Afrikaans to be able to read it. You can find it here: http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-02212006-093453/unrestricted/thesis.pdf
One of the things I realised was that the Bible would often prophesy something, but then it would not become literally true. One example, out of many: In Joel 2:28-32 we find a prophecy from God. According to Peter, in Acts 2:1-4 this prophecy was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the believers on the day of Pentecost. This causes a huge problem for people who want to interpret every single word in the Bible literally. Let me explain:
In Joel, the following signs would appear when the prophecy is fulfilled:

• Boys and girls will prophecy (28)
• Old people will dream (28)
• Young men will have visions (28)
• God’s Spirit will come upon people (29)
• Blood (30)
• Fire (30)
• Clouds of smoke (30)
• Sun will become dark (31)
• Moon will become red (31)

Compare this with the signs which Luke describes in Acts 2:1-4:

• Wind (2)
• Tongues of fire (3)
• People were filled with the Spirit (4)
• Began to speak in foreign languages (4)

The only reasonable explanation for this is that Joel wrote from his own perspective, realising that something magnificent was going to happen but lacking the words to know exactly what it would be. Using “war terminology” (blood, fire, smoke) he tries to make his readers realise that something big is going to happen. When the prophecy is fulfilled in Acts 2, it is not war that takes place, but the wonderful outpouring of the Hole Spirit. Peter immediately realises that this was indeed the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy, but he also realises that the fulfilment is better than the prophecy. And to that we would all agree. What happened on the Day of Pentecost was so much better than the vision of war that Joel had.
Certain things in the Bible can and should be interpreted literally. The prediction of the birth of Jesus is interpreted literally. The prediction that He would die and would rise again from the dead should be interpreted literally. The prediction that Jesus will come again should be interpreted literally. The promise that Jesus would die as a sacrifice for our sin, thereby restoring the relationship between us and God, should be understood literally. But there are many prophesies which were not fulfilled literally. In a broad sense, they were fulfilled. The exile into Babylon did indeed happen. Did it last exactly 70 years? This is the question I was asked by TJ, a Jehovah’s Witness.
I am, thankfully, not an historian. But going through literature, it seems that the literal 70 years can only be explained by making a huge number of assumptions, such as that the dating of the start of the exile (587 BC) is totally incorrect, the viewpoint of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who date the start in 607 BC. Others try to play around with different year calenders, some starting in fall, others in spring, with a small number of people being moved to Babylon long before the exile and then saying that this was actually the real start of the exile. I find these arguments unconvincing and unnecessary.
One of the amazing things (as far as I am concerned) about God is that God can change. A few examples: In 1 Kings 21:21 we read: “I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel–– slave or free.” The reason for God’s anger we find in verses 25 & 26: “There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the LORD drove out before Israel.” But this is followed by Ahab’s repentance in verse 27: “When Ahab heard these words, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and fasted. He lay in sackcloth and went around meekly.” And then God says (and this is amazing): “Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.”
The story of Jonah is another example: Jonah was sent to inform the people of Nineveh of their imminent destruction: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned” (Jonah 3:4). Did it happen? No! Why not? Because the people of Nineveh repented! The clear prophecy that Nineveh would be destroyed within forty days therefore did not come to fulfilment. Is this a sign of a false prophecy or rather a sign of a gracious God?
In Daniel 9:2 we read that Daniel discovered in the Scriptures that God has said that Jerusalem would be desolated for 70 years. Then we read in verse 3: “So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.” The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the remarkable prayer of Daniel, confessing his own sin as well as the sin of his people. If God had been gracious towards Ahab, is it not possible, even highly probable, that God would have listened to the humble prayer of Daniel and decided to shorten the 70 years out of mercy for His people? Such an explanation would not only be in line with God’s conduct in other places in the Bible but would make the egg dance which needs to be done to prove the literal period of seventy years totally unnecessary.

Mission outreaches, again!

I’m not dead and I haven’t been seriously ill. I just did not have the time to blog the past few weeks. Since the beginning of July I’ve first had a single girl who came to join us for a week in Swaziland, to experience what our caregivers are doing in an AIDS-infected community. While she was here, three medical students also arrived for five days, wanting to combine compulsory practical work with a medical outreach to the community. While they were around, my friend Tim Deller (http://swazilandexperience.wordpress.com/) and his dad arrived back in Swaziland, to visit many of his old friends. While they were still around, the two leaders from a team from Fresno, CA, arrived and then a few days later the rest of the team arrived and we spent a great time together in Swaziland. You can read about their experiences on their blog: Summer in Swaziland
Yesterday, as the team was preparing to return to the USA, we had a long time of debriefing, rethinking and evaluating the previous two weeks. Someone asked me a question: “This trip had cost us around $36000 (traveling, food and on the ground expenses). Do you feel that you received $36000 worth of help? Shouldn’t we rather have sent you the money and remained at home?” I had to think a few seconds before I answered: “First of all, twelve people would probably not have been able to raise $36000. Secondly, how do you determine the value of deep relationships – the type of relationships that were formed while they were in Swaziland the past two weeks? How do you determine the value of encouragement given to caregivers, working in fairly hopeless conditions, when someone from affluent USA says that she is willing to get into a taxi with a caregiver (twenty one people in a twelve-seater mini-van), walk along sandy footpaths to reach a homestead in order to apply the most basic care?”
And then the person who had asked the question, added that the spiritual growth that had taken place in the team also had to be taken into account. Probably the greatest moment, as far as I’m concerned, happened yesterday morning when one of the team members, who had never prayed in public before, voluntarily prayed while the whole group was listening. I wonder if I’ve ever been more touched by a prayer. It was an amazing experience for all of us!
I met early this morning with a group of men, some of whom are presently attending group sessions every evening focused on their own spiritual growth. Without wanting to discredit what they are doing at their church, I am absolute convinced that the spiritual growth that had taken place in the lives of most of the members of this outreach team, surpasses what will be obtained by attending lessons about the topic.
Short-term outreaches can lead to serious problems, one of the greatest probably being that the people being visited become dependent upon the outreach teams. There are many horror stories of outreach teams eventually realizing that they had been pumping money into a community, only to find that they had not been assisting the community, but had rather led them on the road of greater dependency. I still find it very difficult to know where one should help and where one should deny help. Or to rephrase: Where one should assist directly (giving something which is needed) and where one should find other means to give assistance such as helping certain forms of development to take place. I’ve made enough mistakes in my own life where I gave help in the wrong way. However, I’ve also seen the results when two groups of people from different cultures come alongside each other, the one rich (according to African standards), the other extremely poor (according to Western standards) and where they work together to address the real needs and not only the perceived needs.
I asked the group a question: “Is it necessarily wrong for people to live in a house built of mud, where they sleep on a thin grass mat on the floor and where they have to go down to a river to fetch water?” Obviously, if you had never had to stay in such circumstances (except possibly when going on some kind of exotic vacation), you would feel that it is wrong. But for those growing up in such conditions, it is fairly acceptable. To move into a community such as this, building a new home for one person (usually someone that the group had become attached to) is probably not going to be a good idea, as the neighbors are bound to wonder what that person did to deserve a new home.
Ten days ago we were part of a community project to help a certain community to get clean water. I have three basic requirements when starting any such project: It should be affordable, sustainable and duplicatable. (These are a sort of rule-of-thumb for myself and there are times when I would ignore one or more of these requirements, but then I need to make a deliberate decision that, within the circumstances, it is acceptable to do so.) The community has a real need for more clean water. The Swaziland government had installed a communal tap, but the water flow is so slow, that it takes ages to fill a container with water. After discussing a plan with the community, they came together to dig a hole in the ground. We supplied a plastic barrel (costing R300 or $40) and the community helped us to bury the barrel in river sand which acts as filter, so that eventually clear water will accumulate in the barrel through fine holes we had drilled into the bottom of the barrel. This is affordable, sustainable and duplicatable. In fact, this is the second similar project we have done.
Did I need a team from the USA to do this work? Of course not. But I’m sure that for some time to come, every team member will think of that community whenever they open a tap and see clear water running into a glass. And the community will remember that the group of people came from the USA, not to give out huge sums of money, but to address a real need that they had been struggling with for some years.

My conversation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses

We live in a small town in a quiet little road with few cars and even less pedestrians moving around on our street. Whether this is the reason, I don’t know, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to target our area for their visits. When I was still at school, our pastor told us that you never allow a Jehovah’s Witness to enter your home, you never give them money and you try and get as much literature from them that you can, which you burn as soon as they had left. Among my friends there are only a few that would get into a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness. We, on the other hand, have made a decision many years ago that we will invite them into our home and allow them to speak to us and that we will try and keep the conversation as civil as possible. What’s the use of saying that we are Christians, only to be known as someone who sets their dogs on the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
On Tuesday I had a visit from two Jehovah’s Witnesses again. Having trained a great number of people in personal evangelism, it was interesting to me to see these two men doing virtually every mistake in the book in their approach. I opened the door and greeted them (they were standing outside the security gate) and even before I could open the gate, the one man, who was obviously the leader, started speaking. I invited them in and he went on speaking. One thing I try not to reveal when speaking to them, is that I’m a pastor, because then they will definitely not be willing to speak to me if they knew that. I felt a bit trapped when the man mentioned that he was surprised that I was at home. Before I had time to think of a reason why I could be at home without telling a lie and without saying that I’m a pastor, he went on with the conversation, hardly ever allowing me to interrupt him.
His approach, as many before him, was to prove to me that we are living in the end times – something which they seem to be amazed at when I agree. The only difference is that I have good reason to believe that we had been living in the end times since the birth of Christ and not only since 1914, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
They base their argument on the following: The last king of Judah was dethroned in 607 BC (according to them). This happened at the start of the Babylonian exile. What I’m still wondering about is how they came to choose that date as the start of the exile, as all history sources show that it happened in 586 BC and not 607 BC. Dan 4:10-16 speaks of seven times. Revelation speaks of “a time, times and half a time” (12:14) which is equal to 1260 days (12:6). Seven times should therefore by 2 times 1260 which equals 2520. According to Num 14:34 the Israelites were punished one year for every day that they used to explore the promised land. So now the 2520 days becomes 2520 years!
607 + 1914 = 2520 – that is, if you believe, as they do, that the exile started in 607 BC and that there never was a year 0. And therefore, with the start of the First World War, the end times began. Thus saith the Jehovah’s Witnesses!
What does the Bible actually say about the end times: It tells us that Jesus had come in the end times (Heb 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20), that the Holy Spirit was given in the end times (Acts 2:16-17), that the apostles lived in the end times (1 Cor 10:11) and that Timothy also lived in the end times (2 Tim 3:1-5).
If I had to believe this guy, then we don’t have to worry that Jesus would come unexpectedly. According to him, the United Nations still have to collapse before Jesus can come again. Surprisingly, I had asked him a few minutes earlier whether he believed that Jesus could actually come today, to which he agreed. But then he later contradicted himself by saying that Jesus actually could not come before the United Nations had not collapsed.
Perhaps we should be thankful that their arguments are so totally illogical and that they do not have the faintest idea of how to approach someone whom they want to convince. No wonder people are chasing them away from their homes. But next time, when they come knocking at my door, I’ll invite them in once again. Perhaps the day will come when I will have the chance to share with them the gospel of God’s grace.