Problems With the Church

      The vast majority of the contemporary church has made drastic changes over the years, and unfortunately, many of these changes are for the worse. The church has gradually adapted, and often even conformed, to the declining society of the world. Ravi Zacharias said that in the process of making the church seeker-friendly, we have made it user-unfriendly. While trying to bring people into the church, we have often forgotten to help those already in it to grow. We have often made the church something like a rally spot, rather than a place where spiritually hungry and thirsty people could be filled. We have focused on making the services “fun” and have often not given the people something solid for their minds to chew on.

      We have been parroting phrases that we know are right but have not given them much thought and have not pondered on what they really mean. We have often not thought our faith through carefully. We often do not know why we believe what we believe. Our answers to the hungry questions of others have often been shallow. We have often sacrificed solid, spiritual food on the altar of entertainment.

      We need to continually wake ourselves up to the fact that the church is partly responsible for the state of the nations. We have ceased to make an impact on the world because we have become so much like it. A light conforming to darkness will not change the darkness. We need to start hungering and thirsting for the depths of God’s Word. We need to remember Romans 12:2, which tells us that we should not conform to the patterns of this world. We need to be serious about our faith and to think our faith through, and know why we believe what we believe. And as 1 Peter 3:15 says, let us always be ready to effectively answer anyone who asks about the hope we have in Jesus Christ.

      But praise the Lord that there are still many people, especially young students, who desire to come into the church to think seriously. There are those who want to receive the solid food of the Word of God, and to burrow into its depths. Let us pray that God would raise up a generation of strong, firmly-rooted people who will revive the church and cause it to shine once again like a city on a hill.

Blessings,
Nathanael Chong

Pray for America

      With the rise of militant atheism, many practices pertaining to religion, or more specifically the Christian faith, in the public arena are facing the prospect of eradication. Secular society is trying its best to stamp out all traces of Christianity, whether in government, schools, or even out on the streets.

      Children are discouraged by their teachers to read the Bible and to mention God in school assignments. Why is that so? If we really want to hold on to the First Amendment of the American Constitution, we cannot discriminate as to which group of people the freedom of expression does and does not apply to.

      When non-theists gather to proclaim their beliefs in public, they expect to be treated with respect because the Constitution grants them freedom of speech. But when Christians display messages on signboards out on the sidewalk, they are shouted at, mocked, and bullied. If we claim the freedom that was given to all Americans, we have no right to prevent others from claiming the same freedom.

      Critics have argued that the opening prayers in Congress meetings and prayers in schools are not constitutional because they often promote a specific religion and therefore should be stopped. Many invoke the statement concerning the “separation of church and state,” that religion should not be allowed to be involved in the affairs of government. My response is as follows: such interpretation of the separation of church and state is on the surface level, and has possibly resulted in misuse. Looking deeper, the statement is based on the First Amendment, which clearly places the restrictions solely on the actions of the state. Thus, the concept could be rightly stated as the “separation of state FROM church.”

      Now, they may be right concerning prayer in Congress meetings and schools. If we are to follow the First Amendment strictly, perhaps such prayers are too close to endorsing a particular faith and are on the verge of violating the law. But the question I want to put forth here is: Can you think of any worldview, other than the Judeo-Christian worldview, that could have brought about a nation like America? Think about it. I’m not asking about whether we should have prayer in Congress and schools. I’m asking if there is any other worldview that you know of that could have inscribed the very words in the founding documents of America?

      Quoting Christian apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Judaism and Christianity combined birthed this nation. Hinduism would never have brought America into being because not all men are created equal in this pantheistic framework, nor in Buddhism. Nor in Islam are we created to have liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Neither in naturalism are we endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. Dr. Zacharias observed that this nation is severing its roots, the very foundations that built it.

      On June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin, who was a self-proclaimed deist, once said this in a speech:

      “In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, . . . we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor . . . and have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we no longer need His assistance?

      “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs the affairs of man.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

      “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war or conquest.

      “I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed with our business . . .”

      This was a deist speaking. Although the motion was met with great resistance, the questions he had put forth are very important. Do we actually believe that we can now forget about the “superintending Providence” who had acted in our favour?

      Who determined that America should be an independent nation? Who gave the Founding Fathers the wisdom and principles on which they based the Constitution? Who founded the principle that men are created equal? Who gave humankind intrinsic worth?

      I am not arguing for the presence of prayer in government meetings and schools. I am pressing for the presence of thanksgiving to the God who “governs the affairs of men.” This National Day of Prayer, let us acknowledge, reflect on, and give thanks for, the person of our Heavenly Father and His hand on our lives. And let us pray for the nation of America, that her eyes would be opened and “that every knee should bow, . . . and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Blessings,

Nathanael Chong