COC Bible Study: Church (part 1)

Nature of the Church (Nonomun ika sokun ewe ‘church’ / mwichefel)

I. Wewen mwichefel ika “church”: Ewe mwichen chon lukuluk non Sises Christ.

A. Ewe kapas “church” a feito seni ewe fosun Greek (kuriakos), wewen “pisekin ewe Samol.” Nge ach sipwe weweiti church ewe mwchefelin Christ usun mei afat non Bible a feito seni ewe kapas (ekklesia). Non Greek ‘ekklesia’ a wewe ngeni “ew mwichen aramas” ika “ew ioien aramas.” Non OT a nounou ew fos non Hebrew: (qahal) a wewe ngeni “kokon ew mwich” ika “mwichefengen”. Oruan fos ra pwan nounou: (‘edah) wewen “aramas” ika “mwich”.

B. Non NT, ewe apostle Paul a nounou ewe fos ekklesia an epwe kapas usun ekewe mwichen souleng ra nonom non ew telinimw (1 Cor 1:2 ; 2 Cor 1:1 ; Gal 1:2). John a pwan nounou ei fos non chok pwan ei wewe me non Rev 1-3). Bible a pwan kapas usun “ewe mwichefel ra chufengen non imwer” (Rom 16:5 ; Col 4:15). Iwe ei kapas a pwan wewe ngeni ewe mwichefelin non ew watten kinikin usun chowan Judea, Galilee, pwan Asia (Acts 9:31 ; I Cor 16:19).

II. Mwichefelin Christ mei (local) mei pwan (universal).

A. Local – Non Bible ewe mwichefel a tongeni wewe ngeni ewe mwichefel non ew neeni ika kinikin. Mei tongeni epwe ew kukkun mwichefel ika pwan ew watten mwichefel. Non ewe New Testament a kapas usun ekewe mwichefel non Ephesus, Rome, Phillipi pwan ekewe ekoch. A pwan kapas usun ewe mwichefel non ekewe imwen chon lukuluk (1 Cor 16:19 – non imwen Aquila me Prisca).

B. Universal – Bible a pwan kapas usun mwichefel pwe iei ewe mwicheichen chon lukuluk meinisin non unusen fonufan. (Eph 5:25)

III. Kapas awewe ren mwichefel non Bible.

A. Family – 1 Tim 5:1-2 – Paul a fonou Timothy an epwe treat ekewe aramas usun nge iir family. 2 Cor 6:18 – A afata pwe Kot ii ewe Sam ngeni chon lukuluk meinisin. Sia pwipwi me mongeang non ei familien Kot (Matt 12:49-50; 1 Jn 3:14-18).

B. Bride and Groom – Bible a pwan kapas usun ewe mwichefel pwe ii ewe “pwuluen” ika “etien” Christ. (Eph 5:32; 2 Cor 11:2)

C. New Temple – 1 Peter 2:4-8 – Ewe apostle Peter a pwarata pwe ewe mwichefel iei ewe minafon imwenfelin Kot (temple) a foruta ren souleng ra foruta ika longolong won ewe “cornerstone” iei Christ Sises.

D. Group of Priests -    1 Peter 2 a pwan pwari ngeni kich pwe Christ pwan iei ewe mwichen “souasor”.

E. Body of Christ – Non Bible mwichefelin Christ a pwan awewe ngeni ewe inisin Christ (1 Cor 12:16-17). Nge non Ephesus 1:22-23; 4:15-16; Col 2:19, Paul a apasa pwe Kraist ewe mokuran nge ewe mwichefel iei unusen ewe inis.

- A auchea ach sipwe sinei meinisin ekei kapasen awewe usun ‘church’ pwe sipwe tongeni weweiti met netipen Kot faniten mwichefel. Ew me ew ekewe kapasen awewe a pwarata ew me ew met mei auchea usun nonomun mwichefel me fan mesen Kot.

IV. Met auchean ewe mwichefelin Christ?

A. Holy and Pure. Ephesus 5 mei afata pwe Christ a tipeni an ewe mwichefel epwe unusen “pure” ika nimenimoch. Epwe wor ew manauen piin me apwonueta tipen Kot non ewe mwichefel, iwe repwe pwan imu seni ekewe sokun osukun chofona mei uu ngeni kapasen Kot (Eph 5:26-27).

B. Unity. Christ a aucheani an epwe wor ew me tipe ew non an mwichefel. Jn 10:16, Christ a mochen epwe wor chok ew mwichen sheep pwan emon chon mas, a pwan iotek pwe meinisin souleng repwe ew chok (Jn 17:21). Non 1 Cor 1:10, Paul a ureni ewe mwichefel pwe repwe fokun ew fengen. Non unusen New Testament sia kuna netipen Kot faniten an esap wor manauen eimumu me ekinikin nge a auchea an epwe wor tipeew fengen me tong fengen.

V. An mwichefel kewe angang

A. Worship. Mwichefel epwe fel ngeni Kot. Non Col 3:16, Paul a mochen repwe kol fiti kilisou non netiper ngeni Kot. Kot a pwan fori kich pwe sipwe chon manau faniten an Kot ling (Eph 1:12).  Ekewe Kolfel ra kolun fel ngeni Kot seni ekewe aramasen Kot non ewe OT.

B. Nurture. Bible a pwan ait ngeni kich pwe mei wor wisen mwichefel an epwe tumunu/foneni ekewe ra fen soulengila pwan amariireta ar repwe miritila (“mature”) lon ewe lukuluk. Christ a mochen pwe sipwe unusen miritila non ii (Col 1:28). Paul a pwan afalafala soulengin Ephesus pwe repwe amarata ewe inisin Christ pwe repwe unusen miritila non ar lukuluk (Eph 4:12-13)

C. Evangelism and Mercy. Sia pwan ko pwe sipwe chon asoulengala chon unusn fonufan (Matt 28:19). Iei ei wiis ekewe souleng non NT ra poputa ne fori nge a pwan tori kich souleng meinisin ikenai. Sia pwan ko pwe sipwe chon ateneki ekewe iir mei osupwang me pwan nom non ar need (Fofor 11:29; 2 Cor 8:4; 1 Jn 3:17). Christ a pwan ureni kich pwe sipwe tongei ekoch (pwan chon oputach) (Lk 6:35-36).

COC Bible Study students

Ngeni ami chon ach we Bible Study: Kopwe click won ena link asan, ena e mak: “COC Bible Study Ministry” iwe ina kopwe no ngeni ena page faniten ach kana lesson. Kinisou.

I guess I’m still Chuukese

You know you’re still chuukese when you see these kinds of stuff in your home:

Fried Spam . . . grease and all!!

Rice is a must have..

Who boils their water in the Northwest??

I guess I’m still Chuukese… Well, at least I can be proud of spam, rice, and boiled water!! There’s just something about them that I love.

But the real issue that I’m trying to get at is: What makes one a Chuukese? . . .  Ethnic origin? Language? Color of skin? Habits?

Hmmmm….

“Since when do we divorce the right answer from an honest answer?”

.Last Friday we had our regular meeting time for New Wine and we had the privilege of meeting Dr. Norman Cornett who was formerly a professor at McGill University in Canada. The story of his release from McGill University due to his unorthodox teaching methods without explanation was very interesting and has gotten me thinking about so much. As an introduction to his story we watched a clip from a video that summarized what he was about. The film quotes a saying by Dr. Cornett which became the emphasis of our discussion: “Since when do we divorce the right answer from an honest answer?”

Dr. Cornett explained that in an honest learning environment both students and pedagogue intersect in a dialogical dynamic where students are not merely there as “blank slates” going through the motions of receiving info and reproducing it for a grade. Students are included in the dialogue and are given freedom to contribute to any subject matter. In an environment where the student is concerned merely about getting the good grade he/she will not be authentically engaged with the material. Thus, in such a dynamic the right answer per se is the answer that gets us the results we desire. That environment is a dead environment and an immoral environment. In order to foster a truly moral and honest learning experience one must realize that there is more to learning than receiving and reproducing information. There needs to be receiving, giving, critiquing, affirming, creating, and etc. In essence, there needs to be room for ‘imagination.’ All of this has to happen both ways between teacher and students. The student should be free within the classroom setting to dialogue and think outside of the box. The student should be given the freedom to question the content, to shape the experience, to critique. Anything and all things are fair game so as to unleash a students creativity and imagination. According to Dr. Cornett the imagination is that vehicle of learning inherent in human beings that needs to be tapped if one is to truly participate in an honest education.

We touched on different issues throughout the discussion and interacted further with Dr. Cornett. He was indeed a brilliant man and a very engaging figure. He gave you the sense that he really cared about you and your thoughts. The question that I posed was: “given the dialogical and dynamic approach to education, how vital is one’s personal/relational involvement with other persons especially in the context of institutional boundaries?” He was absolutely spot on in his answer. He said that in the learning dynamic the “human touch” is absolutely crucial because education must be “involved”. To have an honest education one must experience personally the subject matter and must be be able to be involved personally with other persons. Individuals are whole persons and not merely minds to absorb information. Such an interaction takes into account the whole person encompassing other aspects of the human existence and not being limited to the overly rational anthropology that engages man primarily as a cerebral entity.

As both a teacher and a graduate student I was thoroughly intrigued by this discussion because of its implications for both theological education and education in general. What has transpired in many Christian educational institutions is the concern for spiritual formation in addition to the normal pedagogical aspect of learning theological content. However, the spiritual formation emphasis within the educational curriculums of such christian institutions are methodologically bound to the educational approach in question. Often times the formational aspect of learning is relegated to chapel times or any other extracurricular activities that are not integrally part of the classroom experience. How can we incorporate all aspects of the development process for students into the classroom? Is it necessary to consider the classroom as not merely a laboratory of learning but as a living theatre of imaginative engagement and authentic human flourishing? In other words, is there need for some sort of a liberation of Christian education from the common teacher-student approach that is not dialogical and which approaches students as blank slates????

If the answer to these is in the affirmative, then consequently, effectiveness, in terms of the achievement of high grades and passings tests, should not be the gauge we use in evaluating whether or not one has received a good education. The evaluation would have to be based on whether or not all the players in an educational setting have truly and honestly expressed themselves, not merely for the sake of a grade, but because it is both the right and honest answer.

In a cross-cultural context is there something to be said about how education is done in non-western countries? There are so many implications of this dialogical approach when we enter the cross-cultural realm. As a Chuukese, I ask myself this: “what is a truly and uniquely Micronesian education?” Due to the globalization process and the historical imprint of western imperialism and colonialism, what we have in Micronesia is quite frankly a dishonest (immoral?) and non-Micronesian/non-Chuukese education. From a Christian perspective………… more later.

Security in God’s Love

I just got done with leading a study session for IS 701 Christian Theology and World Religions. I had a great time with the students and I enjoyed each and every one of them. I am always enriched whenever I am involved in discussions with other people about theology or just about life in general. Although this was just an hour-long study session I found my heart encouraged and challenged by the students there and their interaction with the material. I am encouraged that many of them are processing the contours of a Trinitarian theology and how that informs their personal lives.  It was a great time to discuss Christian theology and its implications for our engagement of other religions of the world. 

After the study session I had a great discussion with one of the students in the study group about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such an overwhelming issue, and how easily one can get discouraged in the midst of the struggles and sufferings of the world. But one thing that we concluded was that the only way that we can engage the world with compassion and hope is to realize our security in the love of God. Because we are secure in God’s love there is nothing too small or too great that should bog us down, instead we are able to realize that through our weaknesses the power of God is made manifest.

Living into the love of God gives us the freedom to be for God. For though we are outnumbered, weak, marginalized, and incompetent, we are held up by the undying love of our Creator. His love casts away our fears; fears of not performing, fears of failing, fears of being hurt, fears of not living up to expectations, and even fears of the unknown. His love infuses us with hope; hope that God will come through, hope that brokenness will be made whole, hope that tears will be dried, hope that all will be well.

I pray that I am more and more consumed by the love of God our savior.

Occupy Portland

I was watching the news today and saw the interesting development of the “Occupy Portland” protest group that’s going on now as I’m writing this blog. The main idea is to join other such groups across the country who are making a statement directed at the corporate powers in America. The movement started in New York and is beginning to spread sporadically through major cities in the country. It is quite a statement they are making. Hopefully it doesn’t get violent as it is reported that police have made several arrests in some cities. Here is an official statement from the Portland group taken from their official website:

Occupy Portland is a nonviolent movement for accountability in the United States government. At 12PM on October 6th, 2011 we will assemble at Tom McCall Waterfront Park, North Waterfront Park and Ankeny Plaza, at The Pavilion in Portland, OR where Saturday Market touches the river, just south of the Burnside Bridge. If you are coming from the MAX, get off at Skidmore fountain and walk east to the Waterfront. We will be near the fountain.

We will gather in solidarity with the ongoing protest in New York City, Occupy Wall Street, and the growing number of cities whose people will no longer sit back watching corporate and special interests run their government. We are citizens of the United States, and this country is ours. We will take it back.

It is no longer enough to vote and to participate in the political system because our political system has been altered drastically from its intended and proper function. Currently, we are allowed to pick from a few candidates whose campaigns are funded more and more by large organizations, corporations, and special interests. The success of their campaigns depends largely on how the corporate mass media presents them. When our elected officials enter office they then pander to the small groups responsible for their election. Even good men and women cannot make real improvements that benefit the American people.

We are one city in a growing national movement of people who no longer feel that their government works in their best interest. We will assemble on October 6th to demonstrate peaceful, substantive democracy and work for real change.

Our government is divided. We, the people, are united.

A note from the Morale Team and Occupy Portland Organizers regarding posts on this page, the forum, the facebook group or any other gathering place virtual or otherwise in Occupy Portland’s name: Occupy Portland WILL NOT tolerate calls to violence, drugs or illegal activity (property destruction etc). Please find a different place to debate those topics, and if you become aware of any topics of this matter PLEASE let us know so we can take the proper actions against instigators. Thank you so much!

Chuukese Theology…. “contextualization”

Micronesia

I’ve been looking at a hot topic within evangelical theological circles concerning “contextualization” which I think is especially relevant for the Chuukese church contexts both back home in Chuuk and in the Chuukese diaspora communities here in the United States. For many, especially those of a more fundamentalist mindset, the word is equated with such negative terms as: “compromise” and “syncretism” and is often associated with “liberalism.” Of course, there really is the true danger of falling into the unhealthy compromising of biblical truth and of mixing truth with error which happens all too often in Chuukese Christianity. I also believe that much of the contextualization that goes on within “liberal” theologies today trod the routes of syncretism which subvert orthodox faithfulness to the sriptures. There are many instances in Chuukese Christianity where the prophetic gospel, from the pulpits of churches, is being compromised and has bowed to non-redepmptive cultural forms and political loyalties in ways that rather than preach redemptive truth,  preach a “merely” social gospel (although I believe the gospel has social dimensions) which promotes political agendas and syncretistic notions of animism. Hence, Chuukese churches have all too often fallen prey to the manipulation of the gospel by certain people whose loyalties are not to Christ but to Man, his culture, and his institutions. Personal ambitions often curb faithfulness to the scriptures because one is prone to utilizing scripture to further promote him/her self. If that is how contextualization is defined (which I contend is not entirely accurate) then it is understandable that such a notion is a betrayal of biblical truth and harmful for the church.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that everyone who articulates the gospel of Christ in a certain context is in one way or another involved in a form of contextualization. A more accurate understanding of contextualization as is most widely understood amongst Christian theologians (at least the ones I’ve read) is the understanding of contextualization that I am endorsing here.  As long as we are in the business of applying God’s word to contemporary life and finding the grounds of bringing the biblical gospel to bear upon our lives meaningfully, contextualization is inescapable. In fact, it is required. The distance between our world and the world of the Bible, or in other words, between our context and the context of each of the books of the Bible, makes contextualization a necessary enterprise in the interpretation of scripture and ultimately in its application. If the biblical witness is of central importance to the Christian faith, then the application of the text is fundamentally crucial to our spiritual health. Thus, the topic of contextualization cannot be relegated to a peripheral status in theological dialogue. Rather, it must be of central concern and one for which Christians must articulate with biblical faithfulness and theological precision. . I. Howard Marshall of the University of Aberdeen in discussing the different levels of Hermeneutics says, “possibly the most important and controversial issue to be considered is that of the exposition or application of the text.”[1]

I believe it is absolutely necessary for Chuukese Christians to bring this topic to the forefront of theological dialogue because we are a people who are profoundly immersed in our cultural identity as Chuukese, yet we are also grappling with implications of our evangelical Christian faith which is, in so many ways, encapsulated in the Western culture and mindset. By this, I mean that the way in which the Christian religion is communicated and lived out in the Chuukese society is in a form that is both “island” and “western.”

In a sense, I see the Chuukese plight all the more acute because we struggle to live out our faith within a triangular dynamic which includes the the Bible, the context of Western civilization, and the context of Chuuk. By context of the Bible I am referring to the witness of the Scriptures and our conviction in its authority for life. By the context of Western civilization, I mean the ideologies of western culture which have greatly impacted our lives as Chuukese. Besides the fact of globalization, our own lifestyles, politics, education, economics, etc… are very much reflective of the West and particularly of America. Even the Chuukese language bears witness to the great influence of the English language and our concepts of time, work, and ethical principles have the West written all over them. The ideals of democracy, capitalism, the American Dream, individualism, and pragmatism all have, to a certian degree, affected the lives of contemporary Chuukese. With regards to the Chuukese context, I am speaking of the very identity of a cultural Chuukese whose culutral values revolve around family, land, community and a sense of harmony with the whole. Despite all of these influences that we’ve experienced, I still meet alot of Chuukese whose cultural values are still very strong and whose animistic beliefs still continue to be present. They still speak of Chuuk as ”back home” even though they’ve lived most of their lives outside of Chuuk. Furthermore, many Chuukese who are living in the Western world outside of Chuuk face the same dilemmas of influence yet on an even more critical front. They are daily bombarded with issues which are non-existent or which are downright taboo in the Chuukese culture (dating, girls in sports, authority, abortion, homosexuality, sex education, discipline, family expectations vs. individuality etc.). These are issues with which we, as Chuukese people of faith, must deal. Such issues cannot be resolved by an easy “blanket” solution or just by simply quoting a verse in the Bible. Expository work from the biblical texts will lead us towards godly principles which will shape us to be able to deal with these issues. But those principles cannot stay in the realm of abstract principles, irrelevant ethical formulas, or out-of-touch theological jargon. They must be biblical truths that bear witness to Christ and which bear meaningfully upon the immediate contexts of each individual issue. Thus, contextualization is extremely crucial for the appropriation of redemptive truth in that it seeks to bring the message and person of Christ as witnessed to by the scriptures to the meaningful communication/engagement of real life situations in particular contexts and to particular persons.

I have been involved with numerous Chuukese colleagues in the ministry who think discussion of contextualization is a waste of time, is irrelevant, and is, “of the devil,” to use the exact wordings. Yet, it is quite ironic because these very Chuukese Christians come from an island society whose Christianity was (and is) a product of western missionary endeavors whose paradigm of engagement was nothing short  of a form of contextualization. Unless contextualization was utilized in the mission work of the early missionaries their message would not have made any kind of sense to the Chuukese mind. Contextualization, until recently, was actually a discussion that was talked about exclusively in the field of missiology. Only in recent times has contextualization been brought into the broader discussions of theology in general, and even into fields such as hermeneutics. Contextualization is not an easy issue to settle; It is complex. From a missiological viewpoint contextualization, according to New Testament scholar Dean Fleming, “has to do with how the gospel revealed in Scripture authentically comes to life in each new cultural, social, religious and historical setting.”[2]Thus, in contextualization there is a tension between two poles that need to be grappled with: the text of the scriptures and the context of its application.

---

[1] I. Howard Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving From Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 26.

[2] Dean Fleming, Contextualization In The New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 13-14.