Strategy 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Joseph tests his brothers
* Solomon tests mothers

Q. Joseph pretended to be a stranger before his brothers (Gen 42:7-25, 44:1-17). Was it just a strategy, probably to learn what they intended to do? It may be for a selfish purpose but how about for a more noble purpose, such as Solomon’s command to cut the baby into halves (1 Ki 3:16-28), or did he actually mislead the women being judged to believe it was his real intention? Is God commanding Abraham to slay Isaac a similar setting to “test” the person under trial or was it an abuse of power in some sense? How far can Christians adopt such a strategy? Is Tamar’s pretense to be a whore a noble sacrifice (Gen 38:14-26), or even worse than Rahab telling white lies because she committed adultery? Is such pretense justifiable?

A. Joseph
• Gen 42:7a As soon as Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them, but he pretended to be a stranger and spoke harshly to them.
• Gen 42:24a He turned away from them and began to weep, but then turned back and spoke to them again.
• Gen 44:33-34 “Now then, please let your servant remain here as my lord’s slave in place of the boy, and let the boy return with his brothers. How can I go back to my father if the boy is not with me? No! Do not let me see the misery that would come upon my father.”

I believe it was Joseph’s strategy to find out whether his brothers had changed. The last time he saw them he was 17 (Gen 37:2), distressed and pleading with them for his life, but they would not listen (Gen 42:21). He was 30 years old when he became second-in-command in Egypt (Gen 41:46). There were 7 years of abundance before the famine began (Gen 41:53-54). So it was at least 20 years he had not seen them. What kind of people had they become? Were they still jealous and ruthless, not caring about their own brother or father? He needed to know, and the only way he could find out is to test them, using situations similar to 20 years ago to see how they would react, e.g.:
• Benjamin’s portion five times as much as anyone else (Gen 43:34), to see if the elder brothers would be jealous,
• Framing Benjamin so that he will become a slave and freeing the rest (Gen 44:10), to see if they will save Benjamin.
His strategy worked and his witnessed their change, turning from selfish people who didn’t care about anyone else to willing to sacrifice themselves to save their brother and father. I don’t think it was for a selfish purpose.

Solomon
He actually led the women to believe that was his intention, otherwise the real mother would not have given up her baby to the other woman:
• 1 Kings 3:26 The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”
Is this deception? I would say no. Solomon had no personal advantage to be gained. The women were alone, there was no one in the house as witness (3:18). This was a case of one person’s word against another (22-23). The only way he could get at the truth was to know what’s in their heart, which one has compassion for her son. Truly he had wisdom from God to administer justice (3:28).

(To be continued)

Cheating in Business

Q. Laban might be cheating Jacob and vice versa, but they had an agreement (Gen 29:18-43). Is such cheating already part of the expectation? In chess or some card game such as bridge, falsehood is an expected tactic. Can such expectation be rationalized in the business world?

A. No, business is based on trust, and cheating is not part of the expectation in business agreements. But cheating happens because we are fallen sinners. It is ironic that the one who cheated his father is himself cheated by his father-in-law. In dealing with the example of Jacob, let me quote from Gleason Archer in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
1. Even though Scripture records the dishonesty of men, this does not necessarily mean that it approves or condones such a sin. The same is true of other types of sin committed by religious leaders.
2. The mere recording of an episode involving subterfuge or deception does not imply that the person resorting to it was acting responsibly on the highest level of faith or furnishing a valid example of conduct that believers might justifiably follow today.

The OT in fact gives a lot of instructions and warnings on fair dealings e.g.
1. Fair wages
• Leviticus 19:13 You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning.
• Deuteronomy 24:15 You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.

2. Fair weights
• Proverbs 20:23 Differing weights are an abomination to the LORD, And a false scale is not good.
• Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.

3. Fair treatment
• Exodus 23:9 You must not oppress foreigners. You know what it’s like to be a foreigner, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.
• Leviticus 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
• Deuteronomy 10:1 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.

4. Fair ownership
• Proverbs 23:10 Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
• Proverbs 23:10 Don’t cheat your neighbor by moving the ancient boundary markers; don’t take the land of defenseless orphans.

You can see that in all areas of commercial life, God demands that there be no cheating, especially of the poor and the weak.

However, when it comes to games, whether card games or sports, I believe it is a different story. Participants know that it is a game, and bluffing, fake maneuvers etc. are part of the game. No life/death decisions are on the balance. Nor are large financial amounts at stake, at least they shouldn’t be. So false moves are an expected tactic, but cannot be rationalized in business where fair dealings are demanded.

Undercover (Espionage 2)

(Continued from yesterday)

Ahithophel, David’s trusted counselor, turned against David and conspired with Absalom (15:12). His advice was highly regarded by David, like that of one who inquires of God (16:23), but he betrayed David and became a traitor like Judas. He gave good advice (17:14) to attack David while he was weary and weak, and to strike only him down (17:3) while leaving all the people unharmed (17:4), but the Lord frustrated his advice to bring disaster on Absalom (17:14). So God over-ruled man’s plots to accomplish His purpose.

Lastly, let’s look at Hushai’s advice. He emphasized that David and his men are fighters, that David was experienced, hiding in caves, liable to strike first, and able to melt his enemy’s heart with fear (17:8-10. All of these are true, but in the past! At present David was actually not in a condition and spirit to fight against his own son, which is why he fled in the first place. Instead of choosing 12,000 men to do a lightning strike as Ahithophel suggested, Hushai advised gathering all Israel to do an all-out attack to exterminate David and all his men. It will take time to mobilize this vast army, and will in fact buy the time for David to escape. Yet this appealed to Absalom’s vanity as Hushai recommended that Absalom himself lead them into battle, and he took the bait and sealed his own fate.

In conclusion, I believe there is a difference between personal relations and national affairs. David avoided war with Absalom to protect the people. Absalom and Ahithophel were treacherous and punished by God for their rebellion. Hushai’s use of equivocation and withholding information are partial truths allowed by the Lord to thwart Absalom’s conspiracy.

In extending the above to undercover police work, I believe there are parallels to justify their existence in principle:
* Police forces are a legitimate arm of government instituted by God – Rom 13:4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
* Criminals are law-breakers opposed to God and not entitled to the whole truth to hurt people.

However, I would also question some of their practices which go beyond ethical detective work e.g. use of means disproportionate to the ends, illegal methods, excessive use of force etc. Hope this helps.

Espionage 1

As I introduced the subject last week, I will try to answer the question I received on falsehood over the next few weeks. I am a pastor, not an ethicist or a theologian. Each query deserves a more thorough treatment than I can provide, but I will present my opinion based on my understanding of the Bible. I will address the general question of which ethical system last, as my approach is to go directly to the Word and let the biblical principles speak for themselves, rather than align myself with a system and interpret the Word from that perspective. I have also referred the questions to a Christian ethics lecturer in our local seminary so he can shed more light on the subject.

Q. Undercover (2 Sam 15:32-37; 16:15-17:14). No one would query a police undercover to penetrate the vice circle an evil act, but is it considered deceptive?

A. Hushai concealed his true loyalties from Absalom, but I believe espionage warrants deeper considerations compared to personal cases. We need to look at the background before assessing Hushai’s actions. First, Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel (15:6) and then rebelled against his own father David, whom God chose to be king. This is high treason against God’s chosen one which must be squelched. As God’s enemy, he was not entitled to the whole truth so that he can harm people.

Secondly, it is ironic that Absalom stole the people’s heart by pretense. He also pretended to worship the Lord in Hebron when in fact he was conspiring to usurp the throne. In being deceived it seems poetic justice that he got a taste of his own medicine. In God’s retribution, He allows those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it (Job 4:8).

Third, David fled from Jerusalem to avoid Absalom bringing ruin upon him and his officials and put the city to the sword (15:14). This is an honorable and just act to protect the lives of civilians and the innocent. He loved his people and they reciprocated, as evidenced by Ittai’s (15:21) and Hushai’s unwavering loyalty (15:32) and the whole countryside weeping (15:23) as they passed. This is in stark contrast to Absalom’s vanity who wished to get the glory for himself (17:11), and cared nothing about wiping out David’s men (17:12).

Next, let’s examine Hushai’s actions. His words were ambivalent, but technically he did not lie. He said to Absalom, “No, the one chosen by the LORD, by these people, and by all the men of Israel–his I will be, and I will remain with him. Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve the son? Just as I served your father, so I will serve you.” (16:18-19). It is not clear who Hushai was referring to when he said “whom he should serve”. Absalom thought it meant him, but Hushai might be referring to David as the one chosen by the Lord. Furthermore, in serving the son, he was in fact serving the father, as his double agent. My observation is that while we are called to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15) and do not lie to each other (Col 3:9), we are not called upon to tell the whole truth to all at all times. Non-disclosure or silence is not necessarily sinning against the truth, as the Lord Himself had done that on different occasions e.g. Mt 21:27, 26:63.

(To be continued)

Election of Saints (Election 4)

Yesterday we covered five other types of election – that of Christ, angels, Israel, God’s workers, and churches – to point out that God’s choice is much broader than election of people to salvation, and that we should not think of only the latter as all there is to election. Today we continue to explore the election of saints. This doctrine had been debated for centuries between Calvinists and Arminians. All I can do is to present my views for you to consider.

First of all, does God choose some to be saved? I believe He does, based on the following:
• Acts 13:48b and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
• Rom 8:29-30 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.
• Eph 1:4-6 For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will–to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves.
• 1 Thes 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you,
• 2 Thes 2:13b because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Based on the above, before the creation of the world, God chose those He loved and appointed them to be saved. In an unbroken chain, He foreknew or fore-loved them, predestined them to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, called them, justified them, and ultimately glorified them. All of this is strictly because He loved them, in accordance with His pleasure and will. This immediately raises some serious objections: God is not fair, as the unbelievers never had a chance. Let’s take each one in turn.

To begin with, God is more than fair – He is gracious. Before the fall of man, when the angels sinned, what did God do?
• 2 Pet 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
He did not save any of the fallen angels, but sent them to hell. Justice demands that sin must be punished, and this is exactly what the angels who sinned deserved. God would be perfectly fair to treat man the same way, but He didn’t. By an act of compassion He saved some. He showed them grace, above and beyond what justice and fairness required. The condemned received what they justly deserve. The elect received more than they deserve – they received mercy and grace. Mercy is God withholding from us the punishment we justly deserve. Grace is God giving us the goodness we don’t deserve. The Bible did not explain why God chose some and not others. He simply chooses as He pleases. While not exactly the same, it is similar to the principle behind the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Mt 20:15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

Secondly, do unbelievers have a chance? This is what the Bible said:
• Mt 23:37b how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
• John 5:40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
• Rom 1:19-20 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The NT consistently puts the responsibility on men being unwilling and refusing to believe, despite the fact that God had made it plain to them so that they are without excuse.

I’ve shared with enough unbelievers to know that not all are satisfied with the above answers. All I can say is that’s as far as what the Bible reveals. For those who want to press for a “better” explanation, let me refer to
• Rom 9:19-21 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?'” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
God as Creator is sovereign. He has a right to choose what He wills. There is a point beyond which we cannot talk back to God. He is God and we are not. We may be too proud to admit it, but we are His creatures, whether we like it or not. So I go as far as the Bible would go, but no more.

There’s More than One Kind (Election 3)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Christ as chosen servant
* Elect angels
* Israel as chosen people
* Choosing of apostles

Last time we looked at the fact that God chooses, and He chooses fairly, consistent with His character. Today we continue with the kinds of election in the Bible before we zero in the election of saints:

1. Election of Christ
First and foremost is the election of Christ as the Messiah, to accomplish God’s redemptive plan:
* Is 42:1 Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight.
* 1 Pet 2:6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
The Son is the chosen atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2). This is the Father choosing Christ before the creation of the world (1 Pet 1:20), and has nothing to do with the election of individuals for salvation.

2. Election of angels
* 1 Tim 5:21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
This is the only reference to elect angels in the Bible, so the reason why certain angels were elected is unclear. In any event, Paul was admonishing Timothy before God, Christ, and the elect angels as witnesses on how to manage church affairs. So again it is unrelated to election of persons for salvation.

3. Election of Israel
* Deu 7:6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
* Is 45:4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me.
There are numerous references to Israel as God’s chosen people, but Deut 7:7-8a spells out the reason: “The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers …” This is God choosing the whole nation Israel to be His instrument not because they were better or had done something good, but simply because He loved them. This too, has no relationship to choosing individuals to be saved.

4. Election of workers
* Lk 6:13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles.
* Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
Throughout the OT God chose individuals or groups for specific offices or tasks e.g. Abraham to be the father of a great nation (Gen 12:2), Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Ex 3:10), Levites to be priests (Deut 21:5), David to be king (1 Sam 16:12). In the NT the Lord Jesus chose apostles that they might be with Him, and that He might send them out to preach (Mk 3:14). He chose Paul to be apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13, Ga 2:8). In all these examples the people were elected to specific functions, not selected for heaven.

5. Election of churches
* 1 Pet 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
God also chose communities of believers to gather together collectively as churches, after they are saved. There are also references to God choosing the place and form of worship, as well as means to accomplish ends. All these are beyond God electing people to salvation, which we will discuss next time. So don’t associate election only with salvation, as it is much broader than what we think.

Falsehood

Several weeks ago I received a very comprehensive question on the subject of falsehood. Since the topic is vast and the inquirer had obviously put in a lot of thought wrestling with the issue, I thought it would be appropriate for me to post the entire question so that the reader might get the scope of my posts over the next few weeks. I know that not many people are interested in theological/ethical issues, but I write to crystallize my own thinking as well. So here is the question, with my response to follow over the next few weeks:

Falsehood is a very big Christian Ethics topic. Whilst the Bible teaching on absolute honesty/sincerity is very consistent, there are some grey areas so that even honest Christians would have different approaches. Which one do you think best explains the Bible’s teaching on this issue:
* Augustine’s Unqualified Absolutism that all falsehood are evil,
* Martin’s Luther’s Conflicting Absolutism to choose the lesser evil, or
* Charles Hodge’s Graded Absolutism that if the intention is good, then it might not be evil (seems a bit close to Fletcher’s Situational Ethics)?

Ethical standards should not change with time or culture, but is it really so? Which of the following examples do you think can be better explained using cultural diversity than nowadays:

(1) Undercover (2 Sam 15:32-37; 16:15-17:14). No one would query a police undercover to penetrate the vice circle an evil act, but is it considered deceptive?

(2) Mutual Expectation/Agreement: Laban might be cheating Jacob and vice versa, but they had an agreement (Gen 29:18-43). Is such cheating already part of the expectation? In chess or some card game such as bridge, falsehood is an expected tactic. Can such expectation be rationalized in the business world?

(3) An Excuse: Saul appeared to be finding an excuse to explain his act of offering, but it might just be the true reason behind what he did (1 Sam 13:8-13). Otherwise, why would he do such an act? Some excuses are lies, some are half truth, such as Abraham only saying his wife to be his sister (Gen 12:10-13; 20:2-5, 12). Is telling half truth still lying? Is it conditional i.e. it’s lying if it aims to mislead, and vice versa?

(4) Strategy: An extension of the above tactic is Joseph pretending to be a stranger before his brothers (Gen 42:7-25, 44:1-17). Was it just a strategy, probably to learn of what they intended to do? It may be for a selfish purpose but how about for a more noble purpose, such as Solomon’s command to cut the baby into halves (1 Ki 3:16-28) or did he actually mislead the women being judged to believe it was his real intention? Is God commanding Abraham to slay Isaac a similar setting to “test” the person under trial or was it an abuse of power in some sense? How far can Christians adopt such a strategy? Is Tamar’s pretense to be a whore a noble sacrifice (Gen 38:14-26), or even worse than Rahab telling white lies because she committed adultery? Is such pretense justifiable?

(5) Setting Up: Is setting up (a trap) just an extension of the previous “Strategy” or is it considered to be falsehood? An example is Esther setting Haman up (Esther 5:7, 7:1-10). A further extension is to fool the enemy, including pretending to lose a battle in the set-up (Joshua 20:31-36). Would Jehovah Himself initiate such pretense (v. 35), or set up an ambush Himself (2 Chr 20:22), or collaborate in an ambush (Joshua 8:15-23), or create illusive sounds to distract (2 Ki 7:5-7), or collaborate in blinding the eyes of the Aramean enemies (2 Ki 6:17-20). Is the term War Ethics justifiable in times of war, as it is close to no ethics at all?

(6) Aiding and Abetting: A final extension is to accomplish God’s purpose, using whatever means. Can the end justify the means? Is Hazael repeating Elisha’s words, which indirectly is God’s words, an act of mischief to deceive (2 Ki 8:7-14)? Can God be aiding and abetting Samuel to make Saul believe that Samuel went there to invite Jesse to the sacrifice, instead of a accomplishing God’s hidden agenda (1 Sam 16:1-3)?

(7) Why did Jesus praise the shrewd manager (Lk 16:1-13) when He condemned his cheating act (v 10-11)?

(8) Would God entice somebody (Ezk 14:9)?

(9) Did Jesus do something which He said He would not do (John 7:3-10)? If it’s just because His time had not yet come, then why did He subsequently do it “in secret” (v. 10)?

Does God see us as Perfect?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Philippians 3:12
* 1 Timothy 1:15
* 1 John 1:8-10

Q. My friend told me Rom 6:6-7 proved that our old self was crucified with Christ and that we have been freed from sin. Therefore God sees us as perfect and He has faith in us. That is not what I’ve been taught. What’s your opinion on this?

A. Let’s look at Rom 6:6-7 first, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin–because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.” Our old self was indeed crucified with Christ, but that does not mean it was eradicated. It means that it was rendered powerless or inoperative. We are freed from sin in the sense that we are no longer under its domination and control. It does not mean that we are perfect and sinless. I have written on “Do we still have a sinful nature?” before and won’t repeat it here. Those interested can refer to:
http://raykliu.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/did-paul-contradict-himself-do-we-still-have-a-sinful-nature/

Does God see us as perfect? That depends on whether your friend is talking about our position in Christ, or our actual state. Positionally we are perfect in Christ. There is nothing more He needs to do to accomplish our salvation. It is complete once for all. However, our actual condition or state is a different matter. Since our sinful nature is still with us, we are liable to sin and in fact do sin:

• Paul did not think he was perfect, Phil 3:12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
• In fact, the closer he got to the Lord, the more he became aware of his sinfulness, 1 Tim 1:15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the worst.
• John said in 1 John 1:8, 10 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

More importantly, how did the Lord view His disciples? Did He consider their state perfect? Not al all! He chastised them for their lack of faith on many occasions (see Mt 6:30, 8:26, 14:31, 16:8, 17:20; Lk 12:28). Some may argue that the disciples did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit yet; if they have, they’ll be perfect. Not quite. Let me give you my rationale. You won’t find the Lord’s assessment of Christians in the gospels, because the church hasn’t been born until the day of Pentecost, except Lk 18:8 “However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” where He prophetically spoke of their lack of faith. For the Lord’s evaluation of how well believers are doing, you have to go to Rev 2 and 3, the letters to the seven churches, bearing in mind that the church is not the building, but the people. How did He view them? Did He consider them perfect?

• To Ephesus Rev 2:4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.
• To Pergamum Rev 2:14-15 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.
• To Thyatira Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
• To Sardis Rev 3:2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.
• To Laodicea Rev 3:16-17 So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

Far from being perfect, the majority of the churches, His people, received the Lord’s reprimand. So if your friend considers himself and other Christians to be already perfect in their actual condition or state, he is deceiving himself and making God out to be a liar. It is a very dangerous position to be in. He should study the doctrine of sanctification carefully for himself and stick to what the Bible teaches.

Talk with a fellow Pastor 2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Staff
* Church marketing
* Church finances

(Continued from yesterday)

Staff Management
After he hired them, he gave them a lot of freedom in their ministry. His church consists of the mother church plus two daughter church plants. Besides giving them preaching opportunities monthly, he also rotates them through the three churches, so that all members at all churches are familiar with all the pastoral staff. This has the advantage of always having someone who is trained to step in as substitute in case of emergencies, and it facilitates cooperation among the three churches. It is also a step in succession planning to identify the best candidates.

During weekly staff meetings, each pastor would report on who they have visited and which families need prayer and help. This keeps each pastor accountable and helps coordination so that no families are being neglected nor burdened with too much attention. Pastors are human too and can use some peer pressure motivation. If there is inactivity several weeks in a row the guilt factor kicks in to boost productivity.

Marketing
Since my friend ran his own and his family’s business before his pastorate, he is also conversant in marketing strategies and the use of direct marketing. He has to think like a non-believer when it comes to outreach. What would appeal to the un-churched, to attract them to come? Well, it would not be the careful exposition of the text – that is necessary to clearly explain the gospel once they come, but not the drawing card to hook them in. They are more interested in good deals. For example, he would charter air-conditioned buses and sell tickets for a day-trip to some scenic spot, with lunch at a well-known buffet in the countryside. Say the actual cost of the tour bus and lunch is HK$120. He would offer seniors a 50% discount, and announce 3 months before the event that all newcomers to the church from now till the church picnic would also get the same discount. Many would use this event to invite their families and friends to church. His church had about 350 adults plus 200 children and youth. Not everyone would attend the picnic, but they were able to fill 7 buses of 60 people each.

Or he might book a popular speaker for an evangelistic dinner, and invite a TV celebrity to give his/her testimony. Say the banquet costs HK$2,200 per table of 10, but the church would offer her members a table at HK$600 each so that they can invite their unsaved friends. They would also take a free-will offering from those who can afford more to offset the subsidy. The restaurant had a capacity of only 38 tables. They sold 50 tables as soon as the offer was announced. Of course they did not refuse the over-subscription, but switched to two seatings for the evening, eventually selling a total of 70 tables. Many heard the gospel for the first time in their life because the church was willing to invest in outreach.

Church Finances
Some have questioned whether such expenditures are worth it. Let me give you one more example related to distributing flyers to the neighbors. This works in Hong Kong because of the high population density, but probably not in Toronto. Within walking distance from the church are a number of high-rise condos and several low-rental apartment complexes, each with between one to four thousand units. As in Canada, you can’t go knocking door-to-door, but you can send bulk-mail to their mail-boxes. So the church printed 60,000 color flyers and posted them for HK$0.90 each, for a total advertising budget of HK$54,000. The treasurer balked at this expenditure, but my friend explained his economics this way.

Most direct-mail response rates are only 1-2%, but let’s be conservative and assume only 0.1% of respondents would come. That would translate to 60 families. Let’s be ultra-conservative and assume only 0.01%, or 6 families. The church’s average offering is HK$1,000 per family per month. Some give several times that, some none at all, but the average over all families works out to HK$1,000 per month or HK$12,000 per year. Six new families would mean incremental income of HK$72,000 per year, 133% of the one-time cost of HK$54,000, not to mention the priceless value if someone got saved. You may argue that if they are non-believers then they won’t give. That may be true, but given time, they will hear the gospel and be saved and start contributing to the Lord’s work, both financially and in service. So it becomes an annuity. For the ensuing weeks most response cards from newcomers say they came because of the flyer. The treasurer became a supporter from then on!

I’m not advocating outreach for the sake of finances. It irks me to see televangelists always asking for money. When I was pastoring I never worried about finances, as I believe God’s work done God’s way will not lack God’s supply. But I hope lay leaders learn not to be penny wise but pound foolish, counting nickels and dimes when they should be focusing on winning the lost and building up believers. Invest in your people. You will never lose with this strategy.

We talked about other subjects too, but I’m getting long-winded and better stop here. Work with your pastor, not against him. God appointed him, not the flock, to be overseer. Blessed are the sheep who follow the shepherd as he follows the Lord.

Talk with a fellow Pastor 1

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Pictures show:
* Pastoral leadership
* Traditional recruitment process

We met up with a pastor we knew from nearly 30 years ago. He then went back with his family to Hong Kong and we have not seen each other since. But he came back to Toronto for his daughter’s wedding, and we shared for several hours about some of his ministry experiences serving as the senior pastor of a middle-income church in Hong Kong. These are basically lessons he learned, but you need to adapt them to your context instead of copying them without considering the different circumstances.

Pastoral Leadership
Although he served in a Baptist church, his leadership style is more Alliance or Presbyterian than congregational. For example, for three of the eight staff on his team, he would hire them after his interview with them, before informing his deacon board or going through a business meeting of members. This is miles apart from the typical search committee-church board-congregation approval approach which could take up to 6 months, assuming there are suitable candidates to begin with. In some cases the lead pastor is in fact shut out of the decision-making process until very late in the game, meeting with the selected candidate only to rubber-stamp the procedure.

There are pros and cons to his approach. On the one hand, it bypasses the slow screening process in which both the church and the candidate have to wait a long time before a decision is made, during which time some good candidates referred by trusted professors are picked off by other churches. The interviews aren’t fool-proof anyway, as evidenced by the number of pastoral fallouts after only one year on the job. It is the candidate’s supervisor that has to work closest with him, so it makes sense to bring the senior pastor into the hiring process sooner rather than later. On the other hand, many deacon boards would cringe in horror about giving so much “power” to their pastor, not realizing that biblically his authority is not from the board, but from God calling him to shepherd His sheep. If the people think their church constitution trumps the Bible, they are sadly mistaken!

But isn’t it dangerous to leave such major decisions in the senior pastor’s hands? What if he misjudged, or had some ulterior motive? Ultimately it boils down to trust. My friend was able to pull it off because he was their founding pastor who “built” the church from scratch 12 years ago. They knew what he stood for, so he got away with it because they trusted his judgment, and that he would act in the best interests of the church. If you are a pastor, do you have your people’s trust? That is the most important asset you have as their leader. Develop and guard it at all cost.

Personnel
There are also checks and balances built into the system. The new recruit is hired on a no-contract probationary basis. After three months, he would be sent to be evaluated by the personnel committee, the lay leaders and his peers, without the senior pastor’s presence. They would have observed him/her in action for 3 months, and form their assessment accordingly, instead of relying just on his resume, interviews and references. Mt 7:16, 20 By their fruit you will recognize them. In the traditional approach, some candidates are really good in presenting themselves, but are more talk than walk. Others are not showy, like diamond in the rough, but their character shine through their work and their relationships. Furthermore, some references are so neutral that they really don’t tell you too much, while others are very guarded as they do not want a lawsuit on their hands. His method tries to avoid some of the pitfalls.

If the new pastor passes the evaluation, the church offers him a 1-2 year contract at that point, not before. If he is proven to be true at the end of the contract, they offer him permanent full-time, subject to performance of course, but without the need for annual or bi-annual renewal. No system is perfect, but I think all churches can benefit by thinking through their hiring/firing procedures instead of just following what they’ve done last time.

(To be continued)