But I have to admit that something in my heart went against it. It was my past experience. I distinctly remember making the decision several times to be like Daniel and to pray three times a day. But I can probably count on one hand the number of times I actually managed to do so. Failure upon embarrassing failure. Couple years ago, I would have preached to myself: “overcome your past experience and obey.” But I cannot anymore.

Andrew Murray, in one of his books on prayer, points out that prayerlessness is a sin just as stealing or lust is a sin. After all, a person who doesn’t pray is practically expressing his unbelief and distrust in a loving and caring God. And as we cannot simply break with sin, especially habitual sins, we cannot easily break with the sin of prayerlessness. It takes God’s power to change.

What I therefore realized is that change is not just about doing the right thing (i.e. praying three times a day). Rather, I first have to become the person who does the right thing: a person who loves to pray, who loves to spend time with his heavenly father and who has the necessary grace-driven discipline to seek God’s face in times when the desire to do so reaches a low. And this makes a huge difference.

Here is why I personally would refrain from applications such as “Be like Daniel and pray three times!” If this is done mechanically and done for the wrong motives, we have become merely religious people, not Christ-centered people. In addition, if we are able to bring up the discipline to obey (which is a crushingly hard thing to do) and consequently become the people who are able to pray three times by our own effort, we have an identity problem: we are back to defining who we are by what we accomplish and are thus no different from how the world defines people.

As Tim Keller pointed out, the gospel narrative tells us that we stop defining ourselves by what we do. Rather our identity stems from what Christ has done for us. Defining ourselves by our accomplishments leads to self-righteousness and pride if we are successful in achieving our aims by our own efforts. Or we’ll end up with inferiority complexes and deep frustrations if we fail. We either beat up others or we beat up ourselves or we go back and forth. (I thank Tim Keller for the words). Conversely, the gospel narrative is the only way that can make us truly humble because every good thing happening in and through us is by God’s grace. And it can make us truly bold because God’s grace elevates us and gives us a status of worth, which truly is beyond this world: to be called God’s children.

The story of Daniel is that he prayed, that he was put into the lion’s den and miraculously saved by an angel of God. He escaped the lions unharmed. But Daniel’s story points to a much greater and even more marvelous story. Years later, there was another man greatly beloved who prayed three times, with tears, sweating and blood. Like Daniel, he was thrown into a lion’s den as Psalm 22 says: “Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.” But this time, there was no angel to save. On the cross, Jesus was literally overpowered and his bones were crushed. This, in fact, is how Jesus bore my sin of disinterest in God, my vain confidence in myself, and my lack of spirituality and discipline, all expressed in prayerlessness.

I am back to the question of how I can become the person who loves to pray and who is unceasing in prayer. Only when I look at the Lamb of God and when I realize that the person whose prayer life was faultless went into the lion’s den to pay for my failures. He is the Lord who has always loved me now lives in me through his Holy Spirit. This is the starting point for my sanctification process towards a life of unceasing communion with God.

May God help me.

Every once in a while a company is so deeply impacted and shaped by a single leader that this person becomes the very identity of the entire organization. There can be no doubt that such has been the case with Apple and the recently deceased Steve Jobs. Newspaper headlines were overflowing with discussions on how Apple will continue without their charismatic genius and their most creative brain. There was one article in particular, published in the New York Times, which I found very interesting and relevant. One must not stretch analogies too far but I immediately had to wonder whether there are parallels between how to run a company and a church. The question is: can churches be (functional) one-man shows as it had been the case with Apple and Steve Jobs or Microsoft and Bill Gates? And the answer to that question is a very emphatic “yes”.

The Church account is full of charismatic leaders. It always has been so and, as it seems, it always will be. Their names are acknowledged and revered by Christians all over the world: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Moody, and the list goes on and on… At any given point of Christian history there have been leaders who possessed an extra-portion of the Holy Spirit’s anointing and who were thus used by God in a unique and remarkable way. And like Steve Jobs they often possessed the ability to hit the nerve of their culture so precisely, or better let me rephrase this, they were always years ahead of their contemporary fellows that almost everything they tackled ended up having a noticeable and sometimes even lasting impact. There is certainly nothing wrong with this. It is how God, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen to work at times. But the question is what to do if the leader passes away. Will the church continue to thrive and do well? Will the movement sustain its dynamic and power?

Unfortunately, in many cases the church did not continue well. Collin Hansen, in an excellent piece on pastoral succession, mentioned one negative example among so many. Charles Spurgeon, the gifted man of God in the 19^th century, is one of my all-time favorite preachers. He not only preached more than 3,000 different sermons and led thousands of people to Christ but he also trained young men as pastors. Several men had the privilege to learn from the “prince of preachers”. Yet, the death of this great man of God caused a gap and damage in his own church congregation that remained irreparable. When I visited London several years ago I was eager to see the great Metropolitan Tabernacle, the place, which regularly drew thousands of people Sunday after Sunday to his powerful voice. To my disappointment, only the front facade of this former mega-church seemed to have survived the two fires and the bomb drop during World War II. It was even sadder for me to see that the damage, which the loss of Spurgeon himself had caused, was even greater, as also pointed out by Hansen.

Let me come back to the news article. I think there are some very insightful and valuable lessons one can learn from this piece. Steve Jobs’ successor at Apple is Timothy Cook. Relatively soon after Job’s death was announced he wrote an email to his employees reassuring them that Apple is not going to change. As the article points out, this can certainly be good or bad. There is a very fine balance to strike. Even more intriguingly, the author speaks about the legacy of Steve Jobs becoming a trap. To illustrate his point, he talks about the Walt Disney Company. Let me cite:

“In the years after the death in 1966 of the entertainment company’s founder, the executives strived to stay true to Walt Disney’s spirit. For years, Mr. Disney’s old office was preserved like an untouched museum. Its executives often praised corporate decision-making by saying, “Walt would have liked it.” But by the late 1970s, Disney was struggling after a string of box-office flops and was the subject of a hostile takeover attempt.”

Somehow, these lines sounded too familiar in my ears; uncomfortably familiar.

What are the lessons to be learned? First, sticking to a legacy of a single person can stifle and choke the church. What is true for business, such as the above-mentioned Disney Company or Apple is also true to some extent for the church. Simply asking the question whether the deceased leader would have liked something is not enough. Even worse, it is a sure ‘recipe for problems’. This kind of attitude is very likely to kill every new initiative and idea simply by stating: “This is not how XYZ would have done it” or “We never did this under his/her leadership.” It is one of the surest ways to slowly kill a church.

Second, change is a necessary must. Walt Disney’s company had to radically change to return to success. Apple will have to change to adapt to a superfast, evolving culture. And every church has to change to keep up with God’s guidance imparted through his living, dynamic Holy Spirit.  There can be no way around it. A musician from my all-time favorite orchestra, the more than 125-year old Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, once said: “Everything that does not change is dead.” And if you think of how protective all of the orchestra members are when it comes to their own traditions and historical legacy, it is a remarkable sentence. As paradoxical as it may sound, it is by means of change and adaptation of how they are preserving and retaining and reliving their traditions. I am not saying that every change within the body of Christ is good. But change is certainly a sign that there is life in the church even after having lost a powerful, able leader.

Third, the article talks about maintaining the “heart” of Apple. And what the author means by this are the creativity and the enthusiasm of Steve Jobs. In our church we probably wouldn’t call it “heart” but rather “spirit” (small “s” as opposed to the Holy Spirit). The spirit of a leader has to continue. It is crucial to understand that the spirit is not just methodology or knowledge. It goes far beyond that. It cannot be captured accurately in a few bullet points.

What is the spirit of UBF? What is the spirit that the generation to come should inherit and take over? I am in no position to write about this. It will take the wisest people of us and the help of outside counselors to answer this question well. Most of all, it will require us to honestly re-examine our history and the life of the founder of our ministry: the many good, as well as the painfully bad. And even though I argued that this sentence should no longer count as an all-decisive argument, let me finish by saying: “I think our founder would have wanted us to do so.”

In loving memory of Dr. Lee on the occasion of Founder’s Day.

(Artwork used with kind permission from: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=809)

The historical eye-witness account

My first example is John MacArthur, pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church. MacArthur is considered by many to be one of the greatest expository preachers of our time, and I agree. His approach to Genesis 1 is quite literal. He treats the chapter as an eyewitness account of creation and reads it as one would read a history text. In MacArthur’s interpretation, each day of Genesis 1 is a 24-hour period, and the universe is no older than a few thousand years. Following this approach, God created physical light on day one and sun, moon and stars on day four. Needless to say, at least half of his sermon on Genesis 1 is an argument against evolution and its implications. Against the possibility of theistic evolution he argues that evolution itself is impossible. The historical elements of Genesis 1 are, according to him, so overwhelmingly obvious that he dismisses every other approach as turning science into a hermeneutic.

Although I absolutely admire MacArthur’s seriousness toward the word of God and his zeal to defend God’s truth, I find his approach too one-sided. As I mentioned, he approaches Genesis 1 as historical account, but not as an ancient historical document. Modern historians write chronologically, but ancient historians often did not (see, for example, the synoptic gospels). MacArthur doesn’t provide much explanation for why he believes that Genesis 1 is historical narrative. And, unfortunately, he doesn’t give much attention to the putative intentions of the original author. No consideration is given to the putative first hearers and readers of Genesis 1 (the Israelites wandering between Egypt and Canaan) and how they would have understood it.

God, the prophet of creation

A less literal approach can be seen in the interpretation of Mark Driscoll. Driscoll is a relatively young pastor of Mars Hill, a thriving and growing megachurch in Seattle. For him, the entire creation of the universe, including sun, moon and stars, is completed in the sentence, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He sees evidence for this interpretation in the fact that the word for “made” in verse 1 is bara,’whereas for the following days, the author uses the word asa. He explains these two Hebrew words with a simple illustration. To “make” a bed can have two meanings. It can mean to construct and build a bed from scratch with wood, nails, etc. Or it can mean to tidy it up in the morning. Thus, when the Bible says that God made light, expanse, plants, land, etc. it does not necessarily mean that God created something that did not exist before. For instance, Driscoll interprets the appearance of light on day one simply as sunrise. When God separates the land from the sea, he is thinking of the Israelites in the desert and interprets this as God bringing forth the Promised Land as his own special ‘real estate.’ He also doesn’t see the making of sun, moon and stars on Day 4 as creating something new, but as God narrating and prophesying that he did create sun, moon and stars as mentioned in verse 1. So God doesn’t create something new every day, but he speaks and prophesies in his creation every day. Driscoll sees God as a prophet who is lovingly involved with his creation and speaking to it. In Driscoll’s sermon, he argues against macroevolution but he personally believes in an old earth.

Purely functional creation

The next interpretation I would like to discuss is that of John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Walton recently published a book called The Lost World of Genesis 1. His conclusions are radical and provocative, significantly different from what has traditionally been taught about Genesis 1. He begins with the observation that Genesis 1 is a piece of Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) literature. This implies that Genesis 1 is not a modern scientific text and should never be read as such. Furthermore, he identifies a number of parallels and similarities between the Genesis account and ANE worldviews. He attempts to understand Genesis 1 in light of ANE cosmology.

Analyzing the meaning of the Hebrew word bara, he concludes that Genesis 1 is not intended to describe the material origins of the universe. Walton is not saying that he doesn’t believe that God is the creator of matter. But he contends that Genesis 1 is not that story. Instead, he sees the chapter depicting God as a functional creator. The first three days are about the installment of basic functions. The light in the first day refers to the function of time; the expanse in day two refers to the function of weather; and day three deals with the function of food. Days four to six are about assignment of roles and spheres to those cosmic functionaries. In Walton’s interpretation, the account reaches its climax on the seventh day when God rests. His rest means that he enters his creation to rule over it. To illustrate, he compares God’s activity to the establishment of a new company or business. The functions of the company are first established (Days 1-3) and then the functionaries are assigned (Days 4-6). Then the only thing that remains is for the CEO to enter his office and begin running the company (Day 7). In Genesis 1, God is not creating a company; he is making the earth into a temple for himself. All of creation is God’s temple, and the days of creation are the inauguration of the temple, climaxing in God’s rest in his temple to rule over the earth.

Walton’s conclusions may seem too extreme. Many would disagree with his claim that Genesis 1 doesn’t have anything to say about material origins. Like MacArthur, he doesn’t seem open to accepting the possibility that there may be multiple valid interpretations and approaches to the text. Nevertheless, Walton’s analysis did give plausible answers to a couple of questions I had about Genesis 1. His desire to do excellent exegesis is unmistakable.

The song of creation

Last, but not least, I will mention Tim Keller’s take on this passage. Keller is founder and pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York. Keller wrote an excellent and easily readable white paper on the debate over creation versus evolution. On the question of literary genre, Keller points out that Genesis 1 does not make use of parallelism, the predominant feature of Hebrew poetry. Nevertheless, the many repetitions in the passage sound to him like refrains. Thus, Keller sees Genesis 1 as a creation song. He finds evidence for his view in the fact that there are some contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. This he resolves by explaining that Genesis 1 and 2 share a ‘partnership’ similar to that seen in Exodus 14 and 15. One is the actual historical account, the other is a song paraphrasing the historical events utilizing metaphors and lyricism. In the case of Exodus 14-15, the event is the crossing of the Red Sea. That story is first told through the historical narrative, and then it is celebrated through the songs of Miriam and Moses. A similar thing is happening in Genesis 1-2, but the order is reversed; first comes the song, then somes the narrative.

In contrast to those who favor literal approaches to Genesis 1, Keller doesn’t think that Genesis 1 intends to say much about how God created the universe. Rather, he thinks that Genesis 1 is explaining why and for what. Keller does not argue at all against evolution. He does, however, strongly argue against a naturalistic view of the beginnings of the universe which claims that life came into existence only by impersonal, random and natural forces. He beautifully illustrates how Genesis 1 explains our longing for perfection and beauty and enjoyment. Most of all, he points to Jesus, the Word of God and the agent by which God created heaven and earth. Keller shows that on the cross, the opposite of creation occurs: Jesus was deconstructed, destroyed and unmade. All of this happened so that we, his fallen creation, could be remade and recreated for eternal joy.

I have presented four thoughtful and divergent views on Genesis 1 by contemporary Bible teachers. Which of these views sounds most plausible to you? What is your take on Genesis 1?

Let me finish with a few simple suggestions on how to deal with the difficulties of Genesis 1.

Suggestion 1: Before attempting to interpret this difficult first chapter of the Bible, invest some thought in how to do solid exegesis. Otherwise you may fall into the trap of arbitrarily of reading your own cultural biases into an Ancient Near-Eastern text.

Suggestion 2: Don’t treat Genesis 1 as a scientific or pseudo-scientific text. Genesis 1 was never meant to be a scientific treatise. (Example: When the author speaks about the creation of light, do not imagine he is talking about the phenomenon of electromagnetic waves or photons.) Because Genesis 1 deals with the origins of all things, and because the origin of the universe is a scientific pursuit, many people approach Genesis 1 with a desire to answer scientific questions. Well, don’t.

Suggestion 3: If you want to approach Genesis 1 more literally, consider the fact that the chapter does have a number of poetic elements, and one should be very cautious about applying literal interpretations to poetry. And vice versa: if you favor a less literal approach, consider the fact that Genesis 1 also contains elements of Hebrew narrative.

Suggestion 4: Don’t hesitate to consult the opinions of experts and scholars. So much is hidden to the untrained eye. For better or for worse, abundant resources are available.

Suggestion 5: Don’t be too quick to reach conclusions, and don’t be content with easy answers. Augustine of Hippo, the great bishop and philosopher, struggled extensively with Genesis 1 for many years. These honest struggles produced remarkable insights that are well worth reading even today.

Suggestion 6: Think hard, stay humble. All of us might be wrong and we should always be open to correction.

Alister McGrath put it well: “Evangelicals, after all, believe in the infallibility of Scripture, not the infallibility of its interpreters.”

To begin with, it is the first chapter of the first book of the first section (OT) of the Bible. Genesis has been called “the book of beginnings” and Genesis 1 is the beginning of the book of beginnings. Furthermore, it is one of the most frequently studied passages in UBF. It is impossible to count and document all the UBF conferences, Sunday worship services, Friday meetings and Bible academies where Genesis 1 has been discussed. Genesis 1 ranks among the most often read passages in UBF (along with our other favorite passages, such as Genesis 12, John 3 and 4).

Having witnessed and participated in Genesis 1 studies in several UBF chapters, I have seen that our approach to Genesis 1 has a common flavor. The study materials that were used in these chapters were similar if not identical. We began with the same questions, so we ended up with similar answers and conclusions every single time. An advantage of this is that it fosters agreement in our teachings about Genesis 1. But this uniformity also had a downside. As I repeated the same questions over and over, I discouraged myself from thinking outside of the box. Other questions that could be asked never even came to my mind. My understanding of this passage remained nearly constant for more than a decade. I had not trained myself to think more deeply about Genesis 1.

I had conveniently overlooked scores of mind-boggling issues related to this chapter, questions which were very difficult to answer. Here are a few examples: What does the author mean by the terms “heavens” and “earth”? When God creates light, why doesn’t He call it “light” but instead calls it “day”? Why does God create light on the first day and sun, moon and stars on the fourth day? What exactly is the expanse in Day 2? Do the days in the creation account refer to 24-hour periods? How do we know? The unsolved mysteries go on and on.

I had also overlooked the fact that the diversity of interpretations of Genesis 1, even amongst evangelical ministers and scholars, is tremendous. Many of these interpretations contradict one another. I would love to discuss some of them later to give you an idea about the diversity of opinions out there.

Then, of course, there is another issue that I cannot entirely neglect. I am a trained biologist. As a scientist and researcher, I am supposed to follow the evidence. Advances in molecular biology in recent decades provide robust evidence for ancient evolutionary processes. (Another article about this may follow). Analysis of genomic DNA sequences strongly suggests that life did in fact undergo a development from relatively primitive single cells to more complex life forms. I am well aware of the arguments made by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) and Old-Earth Creationism (OEC). To my knowledge, none of the proponents of ID, YEC or OEC have thus far been able to refute the evidence found in genetic sequences. I know that some evangelicals may regard this statement of mine to be highly controversial. But I cannot deny what I know and see. To purposefully ignore the evidence would be for me an act of dishonesty.

I understand why many evangelical Christians would object to allowing science to dictate how we study the Bible. It instinctively sounds wrong, But may we consider the possibility that science can occasionally correct some interpreters of the Bible when their interpretations have gone awry? We are told in the book of Joshua that he once, in the heat of battle, commanded the sun to stand still over Gibeon. Centuries ago, some Bible readers interpreted this verse as “proof” that the sun revolves around the earth and not vice versa. It was an accomplishment of science to show that these people had erred.

I believe that all truth is God’s truth. As we open our ears to the word of God revealed in Scripture, we ought not to shut our eyes entirely to God’s revelation in nature.

And so the question remains: Are there contradictions between what scientific evidence suggests and what Genesis apparently teaches? And if yes, how can we reconcile these discrepancies?

We are slowly approaching the heart of the problem. The Pentateuch is traditionally ascribed to Moses. Jesus, in referring to the Pentateuch, mentions Moses as the author. So the question arises: What did Moses intend to say? How did he want to be understood when he edited or wrote Genesis 1? Answering this question is the opposite of being trivial. For instance, let’s start with the literary features of Genesis 1. Let’s compare the style of Genesis 1 with the remaining chapters of this book. Wouldn’t you agree that there are significant stylistic differences, and these differences are obvious even to those who cannot read it in the original Hebrew? Most of Genesis is a Hebrew narrative. But what about Genesis 1?

Genesis 1 contains elements of historical narrative; it presents God creating the universe as a factual event. But then again we find repetitions all over chapter 1, which are rather atypical for narratives. The repetitions include “God said”, “And it was so”, “God saw”, “and there was evening, and there was morning”… And so the question arises: Doesn’t the first chapter of Genesis sound a bit like poetry? Doesn’t it remind us of a song? In light of these stylistic observations, must we interpret Genesis 1 as historical narrative? Or should be rather see it as an artistic, poetic song about God the creator and his creation? Bruce Waltke, a renowned evangelical OT scholar, points out in his commentary that assigning a literary genre to Genesis 1 is exceedingly difficult.

There are few passages in the Bible besides Genesis 1 that raise so many fundamental questions and controversies. I do not claim to have many answers. But I hope I have been able to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is a difficult chapter, to put it mildly.

In my next installment on Genesis 1, I will describe four different interpretative approaches, and then I will close with a couple of suggestions.

So I grew up with the notion that worship service must be the weirdest thing on earth for people who are unaccustomed to it. Perhaps it is. But why is that the case? And who is the worship service really for?

Many of us would immediately answer, “Our worship service is for God”. For most my life, I would have answered similarly. I would have said: “Worship service ought to be God-centered. It is supposed to provide an opportunity for the body of Christ to assemble and to praise and worship God and to hear his word.” I still believe this is true and biblical. But is our worship service really for God?

Scripture suggests that God doesn’t need our worship. Isaiah tells us that heaven is God’s throne, the earth his footstool. The Almighty does not need a temple built by human hands. If God doesn’t need a temple, he probably doesn’t need our worship either. God doesn’t become more glorious when his children glorify him, because he is already infinitely glorious. God doesn’t become more complete when his bride gathers around him, because he is already complete within the community of the Trinity. God doesn’t become more joyful when people lift up his name in singing and praising, because God is already infinitely satisfied and joyful.

The question then arises: If God doesn’t need our worship, then why does the Bible repeatedly command us to worship him?

An atheist colleague of mine has told me that if the God of the Bible actually did exist, he wouldn’t like this God, because this God acts like a megalomaniac, demanding that people praise Him. How could I respond to that?

My answer is that an infinitely joyful God doesn’t demand our worship to increase his joy. Rather, he wants to spread his joy to us. As John Piper said, because God has supreme and absolute worth, the best thing He can give to us is himself. And worship in Spirit and in truth is the only way God can give himself to us. When we worship and praise God, our hearts and minds are drawn close to him, and he enters our hearts to fill us with gladness and joy. His Spirit is feeding and nourishing our weary souls. As we center on God to lift him up in praise, he in fact elevates our hearts up to him, and we find fulfillment, healing, renewal and restoration in him.

Worship service is not for God. It is for people.

If the worship service is for people, the next question is, “What kind of people?” Is it for believers or unbelievers?

Again, the Bible provides an answer. In 1 Corinthians 14:24, Paul says: “But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in…” This probably says enough. Even though Paul is addressing a different issue here, he indirectly mentions that worship service is a gathering of believers. He mentions the fact that unbelievers might come to the church. But he presents that as only an incidental possibility. In the Corinthian church that Paul established, worship services were geared toward committed Christians, not to seekers who happened to drop by.

I believe that worship service is for believers. Seeker-friendly services are not the biblical norm.

The idea that worship service is for believers has been my excuse for some of the apparently weird things that go on in our church services which make newcomers feel uncomfortable or even disturbed. For example, the frequent UBFisms during the services, such as addressing people as ‘Shepherd X’ and ‘Missionary Y.’ This was my explanation for why new people sometimes left in the middle of the service. I assumed that those who stayed must have been mature believers. Or they must have been exceptionally needy, desperate, open-minded or humble.

But gradually, it dawned on me that this was not the case. I observed that many newcomers who were already committed Christians — Bible-believing, born-again, evangelical Christians — would come just once or twice and then decide to join other churches. They didn’t feel comfortable worshiping God in UBF worship services, at least in the services I witnessed. Why not?

Believers do not live in a vacuum. Every Christian is embedded in a cultural context. Korean believers are different from German believers, and they are still different from South-American believers.

It is the grandeur and the greatness of the gospel that it can embrace all types of people. But this does not necessarily entail that all of those people share the same way of worshiping God. In fact, it is just the opposite.

I believe that the atmosphere of a worship service should allow native believers of the community being served to worship God comfortably and naturally. A worship service for intellectual students ought to be different from a worship service for believers in rural areas with less formal education. A worship service in Korea ought to be different from a worship service in the United States. Worship services should speak the language and hit the nerve of the believers of the culture and the country we are evangelizing in. This is an application of, as the Apostle Paul put it, becoming everything to everyone.

In my estimation, many worship services in UBF could use an overhaul. Maybe it’s time to openly discuss getting rid of UBFisms and jargon. Maybe it’s time to reconsider some of our long-held UBF traditions, such as singing ‘All hail the power of Jesus’ name’ at the beginning of every service. (It is a great and powerful hymn, but it’s not the only one.) And maybe it’s time to think about loosening the implicit dress code, e.g. the expectation that every man will wear a tie.

Not everything that a culture dictates is good or biblical. There is a time and place for the church to be countercultural and to defend biblical truth against the current social mores. But God’s word has intentionally granted us wide liberties in his word regarding how to structure, organize and conduct a worship service. I propose that we should start making more use of this freedom in a prayerful manner, in the interest of strengthening and advancing God’s kingdom on earth.

We all know the importance of interpreting the Bible correctly. Our understanding of Scripture deeply influences our Christian lives, our families, our ministries, etc. To give you an example, I heard of a church in Germany where in which women are still required to cover their heads with scarves before coming to church, because Paul talks about a sign of authority on their heads (1 Co 11:10). In a similar vein, Paul forbade women to preach (1Tim 2:11-15). Some churches obey this command literally, forbidding women to preach or to teach men. We in UBF do not literally follow such verses; women are allowed to publicly speak in our congregations and teach and preach from time to time. This implies that we have understood these passages in a different way. If we adhere to a certain interpretation, we should have good and sound reasons why we understood a passage in one way and not another.

The basic hypothesis of How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is that every reader is inevitably an interpreter of the Bible. We desire to try to unravel the mysteries of the Bible. We approach the Bible with a cultural mindset and a specific translation (which in itself represents an ‘interpretation’ of the original manuscripts). Knowingly or unknowingly, whenever we open our Bibles, we are already in the process of interpreting Scripture. We should, therefore, establish a set of basic ground rules for Scriptural interpretation.

And believe it or not, it can be as simple as this: Try to understand the Word of God as the original biblical authors meant it when they wrote it. This means that we can dismiss every scriptural interpretation that is foreign to the intentions of the original writers in an obvious way. Doesn’t this approach make a lot of sense? Isn’t it just common sense?

Stewart and Fee propose two steps in studying the Bible: First comes exegesis, and then comes hermeneutics. The authors define exegesis as trying to understand what the word of God meant to the original hearers Hermeneutics is defined as translating these findings into the Here and Now. The crucial point is that exegesis comes first. Only after understanding what the Word meant back then can we understand what the Word wants to tell us today. One of the very frequent mistakes that Christians commit in our days is that they either do no exegesis at all, or they do exegesis very poorly. Either way, they jump too quickly to application of the word, and soon begin proclaiming something that God had never intended to say.

Stewart and Fee apply this two-step approach to the entire Bible. In a very intelligent manner, they subdivide the Bible into literary genres. (Timothy Ha referred to a beautiful picture to illustrate this). The genres include narrative history, poetry, wisdom literature, letters, prophetic books, and so on. Sound exegesis must begin with a genuine appreciation of the literary format in which God chose to convey his message. There are many cases where we apply this correctly, even subconsciously. For example, when Job speaks about the arrows of the Almighty in him, we intuitively understand this to be a powerful literary device to express his horrendous pain and suffering. So we understand that the arrows in Job never intended to indicate that actual arrows entered Job’s body.

In contrast, when we read the beginning of Luke’s gospel, we understand that Luke is telling his audience that he is giving us a historical account of Jesus, which is meant to be taken literally.

These examples (Job and Luke) are somewhat obvious. But there are many passages where the genre is less obvious.

Stewart and Fee lead their readers from one biblical literary genre to the next, providing scores of helpful tips and advices for each category of biblical literature. From a scholarly perspective they supply many valuable guidelines dealing with how to approach the different literary genres and how to do good exegesis and sound hermeneutics. They provide lists of Do’s and Don’ts. (I readily admit that I have, at one time or another, committed each and every one of the don’ts.) At the end of the book, they recommend specific commentaries which provide solid exegesis.

One final remark: A common objection I have heard to this method of approaching the Bible goes like this: “This approach is so intellectually based! Aren’t you neglecting the role of the Holy Spirit? By promoting this kind of approach, aren’t you missing out on the power of the word of God?”

In response, here is a short story. A minister once announced that he would stop preparing his messages and skip all the tireless thinking and studying. Instead, he determined that he would just listen to the Holy Spirit and only preach what the Holy Spirit gave him to preach every Sunday. And that’s what he did. When the minister entered the pulpit he attentively listened to what the Holy Spirit told him. The Holy Spirit said, “You have been lazy. You have been really, really lazy…”

If God invests hundreds of pages in holy writ to deal with the sin of idolatry, I ought to start with the working hypothesis that I, too, could be guilty of that sin. There must be something in the fallen, sinful nature that inescapably seeks the worship, adoration, and longing after something that is not our Father God in heaven. As John Calvin pointed out, our hearts seem to be idol factories.

When I thought of idols, idolatry and idolaters, the images that came to mind were ancient pagan peoples who fell down before ugly statues, in some cases even offering up their own children. That didn’t seem relevant to me. But idols appear in many different forms. Jesus taught that money can be a very powerful idol. Teenie-bands and pop stars (as the name ‘American Idol’ suggests) have been worshiped. What about relationships? My spouse can be an idol. And then there is power and career and children and… Soon I realized that everything and everyone can be an idol. Therefore, only a very broad definition can do justice to the term “idol..” I like Tim Keller’s definition. In his book “Counterfeit Gods,” Keller defines an idol as follows: “It is anything more important to you than God… anything you seek to give you what only God can give.”

Idolatry is a very slippery slope, for this reason: Good things can be idols. Money and relationships are not bad at all. In fact, they are God’s blessings. And yet they can be devastating idols if I pursue and love them more than God. Any good thing can become an idol if I turn it into an ultimate thing.

Scarily, mission is not an exception. (For more on mission see here.) What is the ultimate goal of our lives? Is it God’s mission, or is it God himself? The distinction between the two might seem unimportant at first. But the consequences and entailments of making the wrong choice can be devastating. So I had to face this question: Is it possible that my mission, my house-church, my ministry could be an idol, just as money and sex are idols of nonbelievers? If so, what are the symptoms of worshipping mission as an idol?

Examining my own heart, I came up with these painful observations:

My joy was strongly dependent on the number of Bible students that I was able to bring to worship service.

My self-esteem and self-worth increased with every person who agreed to come to Bible study and decreased with every person who left.

I overloaded and burdened my Bible students with unrealistic expectations and humongous anticipation (such as becoming a world-class Bible teacher), which I justified by saying that I was only trying to look at these people with ‘the hope of God.’

I was not able to enjoy my Bible students for the people they are because I couldn’t be satisfied with their present stage in their discipleship (by which I meant their contributions to the ministry).

When people in whom I had invested years of prayer, labor, time and money left the ministry, I not only turned sad but became hopelessly crushed and inconsolably miserable.

After people had left, I continued to love them and to go after them because I silently hoped that they would come back to ‘my’ church. But when I realized that this was not going to happen, I gave up my relationships with them entirely.

I was willing to love my Bible students unconditionally (as long as they were around the ministry), but I was not willing to show the same kind of love to close coworkers.

I maintained little interest in others who were committed to Jesus outside of ‘my’ ministry, that is, UBF.

Serving my Bible students had led myself to neglect entirely the needs of my family and even my own needs.

I was a notorious breaker of the Sabbath rest.

At times, I was close to becoming burned out.

All of these are my personal experiences. Do any of the points above sound familiar to you? I am well aware that mission itself is good and necessary. Jesus commanded me to feed his sheep. Serving God’s mission is obedience to will. And yet, by making mission the ultimate pursuit of my existence, I was living a life of idolatry. I realized that it would, in the end, ruin my relationships with my family and my Bible students. It would turn me into a control freak. And in the end it would leave me utterly despaired, disappointed and dissatisfied. And a church that is filled with that kind of idolatry could not but end up becoming unhealthy and even abusive.

What is the solution to this dilemma? Idolatry is the worship of anything that isn’t God in an attempt to receive what only God can give. What are the things I long for and which only God can give? I seek significance. I want to live a life that truly makes a difference. I want to have purpose. I want to have a sense of security and safety. I want to be affirmed, valued and cherished. I long for the one relationship that will satisfy the hungers of my heart and the thirsts of my soul. Ultimately, I seek lavish, satisfying, overflowing love.

It would be a most foolish thing to assume that the mission I am called to serve could fulfill any of these needs. There is only one place in this universe where all of these needs are supplied. It is the place where God is worshiped and adored, through the death and life of His incarnated Son Jesus Christ, in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. The good news of the gospel is that God loves me. He made me ultimately worthy and valuable by purchasing me with the infinitely costly blood of Christ. The purpose of my life is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, and that enjoyment must begin here on earth. Unless my mission is the consequence of worship, then I have turned something good into something evil and I have done good things for wrong motives.

In one of our most studied and beloved Bible passages, Jesus stands on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, reinstating a broken, despondent, failed disciple. Not by challenging him to never deny his master again. Not by telling him to first feed more sheep. But by affirming his eternal love to Peter by asking him three times: “Do you love ME? Do you truly love ME?”

We studied the parable of the lost sons. Hearing the doctrine of forgiveness of sins didn’t shock them at all. It made no particular impression on them. It was something they had heard before. (Perhaps it was also the result of my poor gospel presentation.) However, when I mentioned Jesus’ teaching that good works done with bad intentions are evil, they were dumbstruck. How on earth could it be possible that good deeds become evil?

I was glad to see that Jesus’ teachings can still be breathtaking even in our day.

Here are some good deeds: Attending worship service on Sundays. Actively being engaged in church activities, such as choir, band, or youth group. Participating in outreach. Talking to new students. Teaching the Bible. Praying, fasting, and giving offerings. If Jesus told you that all of those things could be heinous, would you believe him? If this isn’t a radical teaching, then there is no such thing. And yet this is clearly taught in the Bible.

I cannot think of any better illustration of this than the older son in the parable of the lost sons. (By the way, Tim Keller’s sermon on this parable is a real eye-opener, and I strongly recommend it: The Prodigal Sons)

Whenever we have studied the parable of the lost sons, I have observed that many lovely, born-again Christians in UBF try to identify themselves with the younger son. In my opinion, many of them do not qualify! Many of these people are “too good” to be the younger son. After becoming part of the Father’s family, most of us did not openly rebel against him. We didn’t squander his wealth, waste his property, sleep with prostitutes, become addicted to drugs, or end up lying on the street in a gutter.

But consider the older son. Doesn’t his profile fit us much better? The older son did none of those dirty things. He was absolutely faithful. He worked hard. He didn’t miss a single church meeting. He even came to early-morning prayer. He wrote long and detailed testimonies. He fed his Father’s sheep. And yet, there is no doubt that he was just as lost as his younger brother.

Look at the messed-up vertical relationship with his Father. He didn’t truly love the Father. The Father’s possessions (the squandered property, the fattened calf) were more important to him than the Father himself. For him, the Father was a means to an end, to help him get what he really wanted. He didn’t care about his Father’s heart. Can you see the pride in his heart when he talks to his Father?

And notice the messed-up horizontal relationship with his younger brother. He wouldn’t even call him his brother. He disdained him. He looked down on him. He rejected him and abhorred him.

Keep in mind the people to whom Jesus was talking. It was the public sinners on the one hand (younger son-types) and the Pharisees and Scribes on the other hand (older brother-types). Jesus’ audience included people across the full spectrum or religiosity. And it was the religious who despised the irreligious and who couldn’t possibly understand the merciful, compassionate heart of the Father.

What I find most striking is this: The older son was not lost despite his goodness. It was not the case that he did not have enough good works to show his father. Rather, it was precisely his good works which alienated him from his father. It was his own righteousness which kept him away from the Father’s heart. It was by his own faithfulness and his own achievements which he tried to become his own savior and lord. It was his own (otherwise admirable) accomplishments which destroyed his relationships with his father and brother.

God is the embodiment of everything that is good. Therefore, anything that alienates us from God is evil. Every turning away from God towards self, every rejection of God as the only Savior and Lord, is pure evil. And if good deeds lead to that, then those good deeds have become evil.

True children of God do not only repent of the wrong things they have done and the good things they have failed to do. They also repent for the good deeds they have done with wrong motives. They repent of every evil, which has kept them away from God.

The consequences and applications of this principle for the church are astounding. We should never just promote a business-oriented or performance-oriented atmosphere, an attitude that “the show must go on.” A ministry should never just be about the number of people who attend the worship service, the number of Bible studies per week, and the number of missionaries that have been sent out. In my opinion, we need to promote and spread the flagrant, radical grace that is in God. The grace of Christ, an overflowing joy in Christ, a deeply-felt love for Christ and the desire to give glory to Christ must be the driving force and motivation behind every good deed of the saints. Any church that fails to endorse this principle has crossed the invisible line that separates the true gospel from mere religion.

Jamie’s website states: “This food revolution is about saving America’s health by changing the way you eat. It’s not just a TV show, it’s a movement for you, your family and your community.” I found this show extremely interesting, not only because it deals with food, but also because it teaches some valuable lessons on evangelism. In fact, Jamie is a perfect evangelist for his cause.

Jamie follows these principles which have great relevance for Christians who engage in outreach ministry.

Work with, not against, people in the community. The community in Jamie’s show is the city of Huntington. He made special effort to relate to this community and win people over to his cause. For instance, he made frequent visits to a local radio station to speak about his purposes and the aims of Food Revolution. He visited a local church and befriended the pastor who from the beginning became a valuable supporter and friend. He recruited a group of local high school kids to make them his “gang” (i.e., his disciples). He thus built a network within the community of people who became passive and active supporters of his cause. This turned out to be crucial because Jamie’s work in itself had potential to create serious offense. (Think about it: What is likely to happen when you start to tell people that they are overweight and need to change their eating habits?)

The Christian gospel contains messages that are inherently provocative and offensive. It is crucial that the church does not go out of its way to make matters worse by offending people needlessly. Every church (and especially every house church) is embedded in community which may include a neighborhood, a school or a university. Servants of the gospel should seek to work with the community, not against it. A church that seeks to impact the larger society must understand, love, and win over the local community first. Every evangelist should wrestle with these questions: What is the community we are embedded into? Are other local churches ministering to the same community? If so, will our church interfere with the activities of these ministries? How can the entire community benefit from our ministry and be blessed through what we do?

Develop a winsome character. Some residents of Huntigton were opposed Jamie’s activities. For example, at the local radio station, he had a rough start with a DJ named Rod. (Jamie: “Do you think we’re slowly starting to like each other?” Rod: “No.”) Lunch lady Alice kept giving him a very hard time and must have made frequent appearances in his nightmares. Instead of shunning, ignoring, or even hating these people, Jamie demonstrated a winsome character at all times. While pressing on toward his goals, he continually tried to win his enemies over and gain their support. When DJ Rod expressed his doubts that Jamie could accomplish anything, Jamie challenged him with a bet: Within one week, he would teach 1,000 people in Huntington how to cook a simple and nourishing stir-fry. Near the end of the week, it became evident that Jamie was about to accomplish this goal. But that was not enough for him. He tried his best to win over Rod so that Rod would help him out. Jamie’s winsome character prevailed. Not only did Rod advertise for Jamie on his radio show, but he himself joined Jamie’s cooking class to become the 1,000th person.

People do not easily change, especially when no TV cameras are around. There will be some who oppose a ministry and will never change. But Christians are called to grow a winsome character no matter what. As God used the fiercest persecutor of the early church to make the greatest impact on Christian history, he can always change the heart of the opposed to make them instruments for what they initially sought to resist.

Use innovative outreach methods. When faced with the challenge of teaching 1,000 people to cook within one week, Jamie experienced something on the first day that is probably very familiar to us: No one came. He was confronted with that vexing question: “How do we get people to come?” And again Jamie proved to be extremely creative and resourceful. He went to Marshall University and arranged a brilliant flash mob. No one suspected anything. All of a sudden, music began to play in the middle of the campus. Students set up dozens of tables to dance and to cook to the rhythm of the music. It was spectacular!

In the same way, isn’t it high time for us to think about novel and creative ways to reach out to students? Our traditional mode of “fishing” — talking to and inviting complete strangers to Bible study — has merits and limitations. What is our flash mob? What can we do to inspire scores of students to say, “This gospel might be a really cool thing. What is this gospel?”

Use diverse teaching strategies. Another thing that struck me was how Jamie employed diverse methods to accomplish his task. Going into schools and working with the lunch ladies was his major and most important work. But in addition, he visited a family whose members were obese and helped them to change. Jamie developed a soft spot for one overweight boy and taught him cooking one-on-one. And at the same time he taught groups, such as his high school “gang.” Jamie did not get stuck on any single method. He engaged in personal mentoring but also taught small and large groups.

In our postmodern culture, effective evangelism cannot rely on one method alone. One-to-one Bible study can be an effective way of helping one person at a time. It may work for people who are willing to enter a special teacher-student relationship. However, there will always be people who are not yet open to that kind of ministry and will only feel comfortable if they can be part of a group of peers. The most effective evangelists are never afraid to develop a diverse arsenal of teaching strategies to reach a broad audience.

In summary, if you like food and have an interest in people, watch Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. Jamie is a truly inspiring person. I have learned much from him. And not just about how to make a good stir-fry.