William Chong

This morning I was at a men’s Bible study. We’re currently examining Colossians 2 and what the passage is referring to, and what we can draw out of it into our daily living.

The discussion this morning centered around Col 2:16-17. One person explained that this passage means we shouldn’t therefore judge other Christian’s differences in beliefs and traditions, and seek to promote unity between faith traditions. He gave the example of seeking unity with people who are in the Roman Catholic church.

However, another person in the group countered that purity was more important, and that this verse doesn’t absolve Christians of the responsibility to do things such as “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). He countered that to keep the purity of the church we should separate from other faith traditions that add regulations and rules to what Christ has done, such as the Roman Catholic church.

There were a host of other topics that came out of studying this text together: the sufficiency of Christ, legalism, the role of the Ten Commandments in our life today, Roman Catholics and what they believe, and so on. But we all had to leave and the main question seemed unresolved: what is more important for the Body of Christ, unity or purity? Also, does Colossians 2:16-17 refer to unity/purity or is it in a different context?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Truth and love, thanks!

Here’s another thought-provoking write-up by Jamie Brown:

“There are several reasons for opposing it. One, it’s too new. Two, it’s often worldly, even blasphemous. The new Christian music is not as pleasant as the established style. Because there are so many new songs you can’t learn them all. It puts too much emphasis on instrumental music rather than Godly lyrics. This new music creates disturbances; people act indecently and disorderly. The preceding generation got along without it. It’s a money making scene and some of these new music upstarts are lewd and loose.”

The Anglican pastor’s name is William Romaine and his critique was featured in An Essay on Psalmody. It was written in 1723. The “new music” he was referring to? The hymns of Isaac Watts.

It’s really easy to criticize new music, idolize old music, and demonize what you don’t like.

For those who don’t know, Isaac Watts was a prolific writer of such hymnal standards as “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”, “Alas! and did my Saviour bleed”, and “Joy to the world!”. He was also known as the Father of English Hymnody.

I guess it goes to show that the conflicts over the style of worship music in churches today are not new ones.

You can read the full article here: The Problem with Postulating « Worthily Magnify.

In my last post I shared some of my thoughts regarding some of evangelical Christianity’s worrying obsession with the laminin molecule. I noted that firstly, laminin as described by Louie Giglio in this “How Great is our God” video differed in a number of ways to its real-life composition and mode of action. Secondly, I suggested that we shouldn’t need to draw from something outside the Bible to affirm the truth of passages like Colossians 1:17.

The following are two more reasons why more discernment would be helpful regarding laminin.

3. There are better examples of observable molecules that point to our Creator.

If Christian evangelists like Giglio really wanted more substantial candidates for purposeful design and creation, the laminin molecule is a poor choice. While the bulk of Wikipedia editors and neo-Darwinists will beg to differ, some better examples of observable molecules in the body that have been mooted to show evidence of design include:

• the blood clotting cascade – Dr Michael Behe coined the term “irreducible complexity” to describe biochemical systems that comprise of many interactive and well-matched parts that are unlikely to have evolved naturally, as “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”.
• DNA – the linked article gives an informed overview of the intricate nature of DNA. Even since my undergraduate studies there have already been new things discovered about DNA that show that it is far more complex and purposeful than just “a genetic zipper”. The ENCODE project published its findings in Nature, basically stating that DNA is immensely more complex than previously thought (you can read the abstract here: it’s quite technical)
• the white blood cell – check out this video by Harvard University’s Bio Visions team. It illustrates complex cellular functions such as kinesins motoring along microtubules, mitochondria doing its work as the cell’s “energy pack”, and so on – much like a finely-tuned automobile.

The problem is that it takes a lot of work to try and help someone understand the intricacies of something like DNA, which even today scientists do not fully grasp. On the other hand, any layperson can easily be told that an object is a particular shape. Perhaps the reason why laminin is so popular is not because it inherently shows more evidence of purposeful design, but because Giglio has told everyone it is cross-shaped. In this case it has become less about science and more about subjectivity.

4. A preoccupation with laminins overshadows the Bible and the Gospel.

Some people who discover this message will literally say that they have fallen in love with laminin. When this is at the expense of loving Jesus I have to say I become less enthused by the ramifications of Giglio’s message. In fact, when you think about it carefully, Giglio’s self-described “left hook” actually didn’t lead to us learning anything new about God. Sure, it made us feel that God is a big and vast creator of everything (particularly earlier in the show when he makes the comparison between the sizes of planets). But you don’t need a cross-shaped laminin to tell you that: you could have just read the Bible and got it straight from the Creator’s mouth (2 Chronicles 2:5-6, Isaiah 44:24, Revelation 4:11).

This draws the bigger question: for proponents of the laminin-gospel, is the Bible not enough to convince them of God’s greatness? Dr Georgia Purdom from AnswersinGenesis.org notes the following (emphasis mine):

The main problem with this type of argument is that it appears that something outside of Scripture (in this case, laminin) is vital to know the truthfulness of a biblical truth. Laminin is used to prove a biblical truth. However, we should never use our fallible, finite understanding of the world to judge the infallible Word of God. What we observe in the world can certainly be used to confirm God’s Word (and it does), but our finite observations are not in a position to evaluate the infinite things of God. Only if we start with the Bible as our ultimate standard can we have a worldview that is rational and makes sense of the evidence…

… certainly God can use signs to reveal things, and that is evident from Scripture. In Luke 2:12 an angel tells the shepherds, “This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” However, Jesus also admonishes those that improperly seek signs (Matthew 16:4). In today’s “fast food” society, many people prefer the “drive-thru” when it comes to knowing God’s truths. A sign is much quicker than studying and reasoning from the Scriptures, taking the time to pray, and discussing God’s Word with other believers.

When folks are resorting to editing the Wikipedia article to defend their laminin-driven pareidolia, then perhaps we as Christians may have an unhealthy fixation on signs and symbols. It’s as much an indictment on our generation’s short attention spans and inability to apply discernment that we baulk at doing solid research into the Scriptures, yet readily put our weight behind spurious images of Jesus “seen” in objects from Marmite to cat’s fur. Incidentally, if you’ve been to a Chuck Missler event you will likely see the same sort of thing – an intense focus on obscure conspiracy theories fuelled by questionable Scripture interpretations.

Yet here’s the most important point: all this fixation on laminins is time-consuming and is at the expense of the gospel “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:1-4). I know some will argue that talking about laminin is a good way to then start a conversation about the gospel – but once I’m called out for using a poor argument such as laminin, why would they want to listen to anything else I tell them? If I witnessed to a science graduate and tried to pull the laminin wool over their eyes, I would be laughed off and lose the opportunity to present anything further. Therefore our integrity and witness is lost, along with the chance to evangelise to those who need to hear it.

—————–

In closing, what we’ve learnt from delving carefully into something like laminin can prove useful for many other aspects of life. Without trusting and depending first and foremost on God’s Word to carefully inform our thinking, any one of us can get caught up in any number of “Christian” fads and misinformed truths. The Bereans in Acts got it right when they “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) My desire is that we would strive to do the same in all areas of our life.

—————–

As a fledgling worship leader, two blogs which I read often are Bob Kauflin’s “Worship Matters“, and Jamie Brown’s “Worthily Magnify“. It’s filled with practical and spiritual counsel on how to develop more effective and God-honouring worship leading, and it comes from leaders with many years of experience.

Brown’s recent post caught my attention this morning: it was on how a worship leader could decrease his presence. He gives immensely practical tips on how worship leaders can draw less attention to themselves. An excerpt:

I’ve heard it said that the role of a worship leader is similar to that of an usher at a wedding. An usher at a wedding is prepared, kind, there to serve, shows people how to get where they need to go from where they are, and does everything he can to make the wedding go smoothly. If the usher does a good job, no one leaves the wedding talking about the usher.

If a worship leader does a good job, no one leaves the service talking about the worship leader. That’s a sign that the worship leader’s prayer was answered – that “He must increase, but I must decrease”.

Friends who knew me before I was saved will remember and affirm that I had an extremely gifted opinion (e.g.o.) of myself. My life’s ambitions and goals were ways in which I could promote myself and my fame, whether it was aiming to be a world-famous composer, or a wildly successful singer-songwriter, or just to be well-known and well-liked by everyone around me.

Even stepping up on stage on Sundays is a daunting thing: my old man wants to glorify myself and take in all the adulation and praise, whereas it should all rightfully belong to God. So that’s why John 3:30 is reverberating wildly in my head and is a great verse for any ministry teamster in a public role. I’m grateful that God’s working on me still.

Check out the full post; it’s definitely a worthwhile read.

——————-

John [the Baptist] answered, “A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:27-30)

(update 12/10/09: read part 2 here)

Laminin, a quiet and generally unreported molecule, is astonishingly popular in evangelical Christian circles. A casual search on google carries a plethora of links relating to laminin. In America you can buy shirts boldly proclaiming laminin. It’s the topic of numerous chain emails and social media spreads. Even in Auckland, New Zealand, I have once heard this humble glycoprotein being proudly expounded from the pulpit.

I’d say that the renown of this particular molecule has partly been fueled by this particular presentation by evangelist Louie Giglio:

Many Christians have since then leapt onto this observation as the fulfilment of Colossians 1:17. Some go so far as to proclaim this cell-adhesion molecule as an ad hoc gospel. However, I have some genuine concerns for the way this particular section of Colossians has become exegeted in the majority of the laminin-loving blogosphere, and the ramifications of this for thinking, believing Christians.

What follows are some thoughts and observations.

1. A molecule’s illustrated shape varies from its real-life shape.

I’m a medical writer by trade, so when Louie Giglio flashed the cross-shaped diagram of laminin on-screen I recognised it as a scientific illustration. Those who study chemistry and molecular biology will understand that diagrams like this don’t actually represent accurate protein shapes, but are drawn out to help the scientist or student delineate the main components of a biological structure.

You then also have to take into account that proteins move and change their conformation frequently. Giglio’s electron microscope photograph of the laminin in real life is at best, a chance capture of laminin’s genuine shape at and worst, a misrepresentation of the truth – consider the following thoughts by author of the “Exploring Creation…” textbooks, Dr Jay E. Wile:

Indeed, the electron microscope picture that Louie Giglio gives in his sermon represents just one possible shape for laminin. Consider this image, which contains two different electron microscope images of laminin:

It looks to me like the bottom one is the one that Louie Giglio used, rotated 90 degrees. This makes me wonder if he intentionally edited out the other image. In any event, the top one shows what any molecular biology graduate student would know: proteins change conformation in order to do their job. The shape at any given time is most likely transitory.

The impression that Giglio gives that all these molecules in our body just sit around being cross-shaped is actually far from reality. In fact, I’m more encouraged that God created laminins to be far more complex than a stylised diagram: to me, it serves to magnify his greatness. Why would I worship a God that would design cell-adhesion molecules to be so inflexible as to hold a singular shape? Is it not more amazing that laminins were designed with the ability to change their shape to do their job?

2. We don’t need laminins to be cross-shaped to affirm the truth of Colossians 1.

The biggest concern for me is when Christian T-shirts, blogs and facebook threads conclude that Colossians 1:17 directly refers to the laminin molecule. This divorces the verse from the rest of the section’s context (Col. 1:15-20), where one can read a moving description by the Apostle Paul of the lordship of Christ in relation to both creation and redemption. What we can draw from verse 17 is that Christ does continually sustain his creation, preventing it from falling into chaos and disintegration (Heb. 1:3). What we can’t conclude from this verse is that Christ is primarily using vaguely-cross-shaped molecules to hold all things together. Indeed in Hebrews 1:3, we see that Christ does this instead by “the word of his power” – not just Giglio’s stylised version of laminin molecules.

If God really wanted us to affirm the truth in Colossians 1 by stating that laminins were his signature, He would have made this clear in scripture. In the meantime, Colossians 1:17 is not just about laminins. I’d encourage everyone to read the passage in its entirety, particularly through to verses 21-23 which ties up the passage beautifully with the offer of Christ’s reconciliation through “the hope of the gospel”.

In the next post (if time permits) I’ll share more of my thoughts on this topic, and ask some tougher questions.

————————

This sermon was preached on Sunday at our church. It was a pretty clear gospel presentation, don’t you think?

A couple of weeks ago, I had this grandiose idea of writing a novel. The premise was this: modern-day alternate reality tracing the story of a couple of fishermen. They’d live in a world where Jesus never came. A world where Jesus never tapped anyone on the shoulder and ask: “Follow me”. Every sphere of life – politics, education, music, the arts, devoid of the influence of Jesus and Christianity. Could it have been a compelling message?

As fanciful as the idea of painting a Tolkien-level realm devoid of the influence of Jesus Christ, my fiction writing skills are pretty thumbs down and so I decided to read a book about the idea instead.

The title of this book pretty much sums up the theme of the novel, and chancellor of Knox Theological Seminary Dr D James Kennedy and documentary producer Jerry Newcombe (both Americans) tackle this intriguing premise. Each chapter in this book presents their research and suppositions on the impact of Christ has made upon humanity: covering areas from civil liberties, medicine, the arts, economics, sexuality, education, morality and more.

I’ll say it upfront – they know much more than I do. I mean, off the top of my head, the only place I can think of where Christianity might have influenced our culture today was in Puff Daddy’s Notorious B.I.G. tribute where the coda has the hymn “I’ll Fly Away” – “One bright morning when this life is over…”, or that Coolio’s “Gangster Paradise” wouldn’t have otherwise started with a verse from Psalm 23: “As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death…”.

But the authors here have over 20 pages of references. I definitely learnt a lot more than I knew about Christianity’s impact on the world. Here’s a gem of an example:

[Guido of Arrezzo, an eleventh century monk,] wanted his students to memorise the notes c-d-e-f-g-a. So he took the words of a familiar hymn “Ut Queant Laxis”, which was a Christian song centered on St. John, and he created a mnemonic device:

UT queant laxis REsonare fibris
MIre gestorum FAmuli tuorum
SOLve pollutis LAbiis reatum
Sancte Iohannes

… We still learn them this way today, except we say “doh” for “ut” and have added a “ti” after “la”.

I guess I won’t look at this song the same way again.

There are many other well-informed points that Dr Kennedy makes throughout the book, including that:

• Most of the Ivy League universities (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Columbia) had strong Christian roots. In fact, Harvard University is named after Reverend John Harvard, and an early ad for what is now Columbia University stated: “The chief thing that is aimed at in this college is to teach and engage children to know God in Jesus Christ.” You probably won’t find that in their latest ad.
• The Red Cross was started by Swiss banker, philanthropist and member of “the Church of the Awakening” Henry Dunant (he also helped establish the YMCA); Dr Louis Pasteur, who developed pasteurisation, sterilisation and vaccines against rabies, diphtheria and anthrax, was a devout Christian
• Numerous charities were started by Christians or church organisations: think Salvation Army, World Vision, Tearfund and so on
• While some Christians enabled and continued the practice of slavery, it was Christians like William Wilberforce who helped put an end to them, and Christians like Martin Luther King Jr. who paved the way for racial equality
• The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages was a result of the need for Bibles and Christian literature to be translated to local tongues and dialects

At times Dr Kennedy does make too much of a conclusion from the research. For example, in a chapter where he credits Christianity as the foundation of free enterprise and the work ethic, he moves into a 2-page diatribe calling welfare “a Christian heresy” – it reads more political than factual. In another part of the book he quotes a research article by psychiatrist David Larson and grandly concludes that being spiritually committed is good for your health, making the all-too-common mix-up between correlation and causality. Faults aside, everything with an endnote or superscripted number on it in this book is thought-provoking and points to a serious effort to accurately present facts about Christianity.

One thing I liked about this book is that it covers both the positive and negative impact on Christianity. There’s a whole chapter dedicated to injustices and sins committed in the name of Christ: the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, anti-Semitism. These are not glossed over and treated with sensitivity and truthfulness. Dr Kennedy also makes a distinction between Christendom and Christianity, suggesting that many atrocities were committed by those who were Christians only by name. It’s a fair point, and the authors give a number of examples where whole territories were declared “Christian” whether or not they had a genuine relationship with Christ or not, leading to many “Christians” causing all kinds of havoc.

All in all, if you read this book you’ll definitely learn more about the overwhelmingly positive impact of Christianity on humanity. It’s easy-to-read, biblically-sound, and presents by all accounts historically correct information to back things up. It’s definitely worth a read.

————————-

This song by Damien Rice singing “Cold Water” caught my attention today for two reasons: music and spirituality (favourite topics of mine).

Firstly, you have to hand it to Rice for pulling off a unique blend of acoustic singer-songwriter and lamentations-style folk music. The passionate modernity his band puts into the performance definitely comes close to drawing out some sort of religious experience (particularly in this longer version where the band whips into glossolalia: it’s furious, almost Pentecostal). With an artist-driven song like this (i.e. radio-friendliness not considered), you’ll either listen entranced by the music, or shake your head in bewilderment/confusion.

On spirituality. When Rice is grievously singing “Lord can you hear me now? Or am I lost?”, he offers a glimpse into an oft-hinted-at, seldom-mentioned truth: that human beings all want answers to spiritual questions. The “O God wherefore art thou” theme is repeated by vocalist Lisa Hannigan, followed by a bridge where Rice sings this seeming reply from God:

“oooo, I love you
Don’t you know I love you
And I always have
Hallelujah
Will you come with me?”

Obviously each person will ascribe their varying opinions on the real meaning behind Rice’s lyrics, but I personally found there was a fair bit of insight in there by a non-Christian artist. For Rice, the answer to “Are you there God? It’s me, Damien” is essentially “I am a loving God, come with me” – a theme certainly echoed in Scripture (e.g. Isaiah 55:3).

It’s also the way Rice sings this section in a Leonard Cohenesque, basso profundo register (not sure what God’s voice sounds like, but I know he can sing – Zephaniah 3:17) that’s made me think about this song all day.

So what do you think “Cold Water” is about?

Let’s keep our new government accountable.

The New Zealand media spotlight generally falls on Christians under two circumstances. Firstly, if there’s a tragedy or loss of life that involves a Christian individual or group. And secondly, if there’s any whiff of a scandal, controversy or a public fall from grace. So there was a strange juxtaposition this week when on the same evening that TVNZ’s Close-Up was running a piece on the legacy of tragically-slain good Samaritan (and devout Christian) Austin Hemmings, TV3′s 6pm News broke a story of Destiny Church wanting to establish a standalone community in South Auckland. The Dominion Post subsequently reported denials of a plan for a “walled city“.

The TV3 news report said this:

“Destiny Church is planning to create a holy city for its followers in the heart of South Auckland.

The church’s leader, Bishop Brian Tamaki has told supporters the plans are well advanced, and that donations for the project have topped $2.4 million.

He is urging church members to sell up their homes around the country and move to his promised land – a suggestion that is not being welcomed by everyone.

Tamaki unveiled his vision in front of thousands of parishioners at Destiny Church’s 10th birthday conference.

…

Tamaki told his parishioners the city will hold a church to seat 5000, maraes, medical centres and schools, so his parishioners never have to leave.

“Every child of every member of this church will never go to a state school again,” says Tamaki.

Destiny has 10 churches and over 7000 members throughout New Zealand.

Tamaki wants all of them to sell their homes and move to his holy nation where he can protect them …”

Through all that there’s not a single mention by Bishop Tamaki of a “walled city”, so there’s a fair bit of hyperbole being thrown around here.

I mean, I don’t purport to be defending the church zealously, but I think the report’s a bit disingenuous on a number of fronts:

• The report claims that Bishop Tamaki “is urging church members to sell up their homes around the country and move to his promised land”. In the video, the pastor does exhort to the conference audience to “shift for the purpose of God”, but he could just be referring to a shift to Auckland, rather than the planned 10-20 acre plot itself. Remember that there are Destiny Church members scattered across the country and Tamaki would have been addressing them. Besides, the report makes no mention of any proposals for housing developments: Tamaki mentions plans for a 5000-seat church, maraes, medical centres and schools. Trying to house all 7,000 churchgoers on a 10 acre plot is probably logistically impractical.
• Plenty of Christian denominations run church-affiliated schools, and plenty of parents do send their children there in favour of state schools. Examples in Auckland include Elim Christian College, Sancta Maria Catholic School, Tyndale Park Christian School, St. Kentigern College, Diocesan and so on. I suspect that the magnitude of controversy around Destiny Church’s ambitions stems from its past reputation in mainstream media, such as their much-publicised “Enough is Enough” protest against the 2004 Civil Union Bill.
• The news report also makes this statement which I just don’t see any evidence for: “Tamaki wants all of them to sell their homes and move to his holy nation where he can protect them.” Seriously? Holy nation? It’s a bit too sensationalist for my liking.

There’s been the predictable cry of “Kool-Aid” and “Waco”, where both Christians and non-Christians express their apprehension at Destiny Church’s startlingly rapid growth. Cultwatch director Mark Vrankovich warns that “if Brian becomes deranged or goes extremely strange we could end up with a Waco.”

All in all, I guess it is worth keeping an eye on developments as they arise – but for now, to clump Brian Tamaki together with infamous cult leaders like Jim Jones and David Koresh would be as premature as declaring a National Party victory in the 2008 NZ general elections. Let’s not cast the straw men into the furnace too quickly!

——————-

(Disclosures: None to declare regarding Destiny Church.)