Search in ARCHIVES

July 2, 2006

The Church in Mozambique – A mile wide but an inch deep?

 

A while ago I went to Maputo as part of a four-man ministry team.

A bishop of a group of non-denominationally aligned local churches had asked us to help him establish a school of church leadership. The idea was to present a two day preaching workshop, followed by a further two days servant leadership conference.

About fifty pastors from sixteen different churches attended all four days. On the fifth day another 120 or so leaders joined the group for a recap of the material.

I am not sure who learned more, the pastors who attended or the team who presented. Here are some of the things that impacted us.
One often hears the term ‘African time’ worked into some or other criticism, however, I learned on this trip that African time is not necessarily a bad thing. On the Friday before we left, my wrist watch fell off my arm. I was on route to have the strap repaired when the Holy Spirit arrested me with the thought, “Don’t wear a watch for the trip. My time is not always your idea of time.”  There are two Greek words in the New testament translated as ‘time’. One is Chronos which signifies chronological time. The other is Kairois which signifies a moment when things come together. As a typical Eurocentric  South African I am obsessed with chronological time, but God seems more concerned with Kairios time. In general I would describe ‘African time’ as more Kairios than Chronos and that means that perhaps ‘African time’ is closer to God’s idea than we think.

The first day started thirty minutes late as delegates straggled in from their long taxi rides from all over Maputo. Then the hosting Bishop made his ten minute opening address last for thirty minutes! But hey, who was watch-watching? Certainly not me, because I wasn’t wearing one! So, we eventually began the workshop an hour later than planned and started off by asking the delegates to be in the building before nine each day. The next day most of them were there by eight thirty and we started the session at nine. Every day they arrived a little early so that we could begin on Chronos time. However, during the sessions we had to stretch the allocations for group work so that they could explore each issue more conversationally. I felt that together we found a harmony between two different approaches – no, African time is not a bad thing.

We also assumed that people would not want to talk on cell phones during the sessions. Most of the pastors who attended were very poor yet almost all of them had a cell phone. In preparation for the conference one of our team had phoned a member of the hosting organisation. “Why are you whispering?” he asked, and the pastor replied, “because I am busy preaching.”  We asked them to switch off their cells phones before the start of each session. But the problem with this is that we made no allowance for local transport conditions. What about the delegate standing waiting for a taxi and just calling to say “Please send someone to pick me up. I don’t want to miss any of the teaching”?

Actually, we assumed many things. For instance, we had no idea that small group work is not common in the local environment. Most of their instruction is of the ‘chalk and talk’ variety. Throughout the four days of instruction we had them sit at tables of four to discuss and then work through exercises. At first they just looked and us, and then at each other, and then they went for it with gusto. Ten minute exercises took twenty minutes, and it was hard to get them to stop ‘sharing’, but we were relaxed and allowed the discussions to continue until the kairios time was right.

We assumed that the delegates would know how to respond to session evaluation questionnaires, but they didn’t understand the concept. They perceived the ‘teacher’ to be an authority figure and didn’t understand why we would want them to presume to comment on his material or presentation. We assumed that they would understand our westernised illustrations and applications, but of course in many cases they didn’t – our fault, not theirs. We assumed that the organisers would know what we would expect them  to arrange for the conference, but they didn’t. Tables and chairs? What for? Remember that small group work was a foreign concept. Tea breaks? (or should I say ‘cell phone breaks’) Great idea, but you mean we need to actually provide tea? Not as strange as it seems because they are a poor people and usually just have a drink of local water at the breaks.

If there is one thing that I really learned from the trip, it is that it is no coincidence that the word assumption begins with ‘ass’.
Another lesson for me was the reminder that different doesn’t mean wrong or inferior. Many of the pastors who attended had little formal education and did not process information in a logical reductionist fashion. They learned more from stories and role plays and group discussions than they did from numbered notes on a printed page. Actually, these Mozambiquen Pastors seemed typically ‘post-modern’ in the way they processed information.

The preaching workshop included a steady build up to a five minute sermon presentation.  The small group work centred on helping each other with each stage of the preparation. Because there were so many delegates and we had limited time, we decided that we would only ask seven of them to present their sermons. The first one up was a dignified looking man in his late fifties who had been preaching for forty years. He read his text and then proceeded to preach on everything except what the text contained. My heart sank! A major point of the workshop was to teach expository, not topical, preaching. He concluded happily and I asked the other pastors to comment. To my joy they picked up on everything they had learned from our time together and pointed out the poor man’s shortcomings. “I know” he confided later, “I had planned to preach as I had been taught, but when I stood up it all just disappeared, and I found myself doing what I had been doing each Sunday for forty years.”

These Pastors generally operate as ‘one man bands’ and see themselves as doing the work of the ministry, instead of preparing God’s people for works of service (Ephesians 4:9). In fact, many of them see ‘works of service’ as the people serving them. We taught on servant leadership and used Jesus’ foot washing as an example. At lunch times some of the women took basins, jugs of water, and towels which they held so that the ‘pastors’ could wash their hands before eating. On the day we taught on servant leadership, we took over that menial role. The next day we asked the four Bishops present to perform that service, which they happily did. I noticed that the senior Bishop liked to wait inside the hall for his food to be brought to him, but my spirit soured when I saw him with a basin in his hands. On the last day of the conference I spotted him standing in line like all the rest!

I must confess that this ministry trip has given me a lot to think about.

I am convinced that biblical principles far outweigh cultural considerations.

Mozambique thumbprint flagSo I am comfortable teaching the concept of expository rather than topical preaching. But I wonder if it is not presumptuous to teach that a sermon must have a clear purpose, a proposition, a short introduction and a content appropriate conclusion? Is this really the best way to preach in a typically African cultural setting? Good governance is a biblical principle, but do they really need to have a formal church membership? Stewardship is certainly taught in the Bible, but is a finance committee necessary in a small indigenous church?

How would I pastor a church if I were in their circumstances? They have so little, and even their language does not lend itself to philosophical or spiritual concepts. Yet they appear hungry for truth, and they seem to want to be faithful pastors of God’s people. And oh how they love to sing and to pray – if only I could import that spirit of spontaneous boldness! Perhaps the ‘inch deep’ aspect of African Christianity is more a matter of definition than of fact!

I hope that we left a lasting legacy of truth and praxis. I trust God that some mindsets shifted. However, I know that I have been changed in some ways by the Pastors of Maputo, and I bless them for this. I wonder if at least one of them said, “aiysh, those peoples’ ideas are a mile deep but only an inch wide!”

 

The Church in Mozambique – A mile wide but an inch deep? Read More »

God’s influence through our influence

‘Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people’. Proverbs 14:34

 I was one of the over 450 Christians leaders who attended the National Initiative for Reformation of South Africa (NIRSA) consultation called by Michael Cassidy and Moss Ntlha to address the crisis in our nation. While some may say “crisis, what crisis”, the majority of us acknowledge that South Africa is currently in more than just a spot of difficulty.

The end product of the consultation was a twenty-six point declaration of intent flowing out of what the document describes as ‘a prophetic and urgent call to Church, Government and society at large…’. The call is to apply ourselves diligently to the reformation and renewal of South African society. It is also to commit ourselves to finding effective solutions to community and national problems, and to apply ourselves with intentionality to more effective nation building.

The document uses the words ‘themselves’ in referring to Church, Government and society, but I have purposefully replaced it with ‘ourselves’. If you are reading this article then you are most probably a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, a member of South African society, and a voting influencer of government. A major take-away for me from the consultation was that it is up to each of  us to make a difference.

One of the speakers made the point that if we, who know the living God, do nothing to change our national situation, then how can we expect those who do not know Him to do better.
At first there was a call for the church to unite and speak with one voice, but that changed to a call for each of us to rise up and make a difference. According to the 2001 census 79% of the South African  population classify themselves as Christian. We can argue about what ‘Christian’ means in this context, but it still indicates that the vast majority of citizens regard themselves as accessible to the Christian message. So, why can’t we make a difference? Michael Cassidy spoke of the ‘law of the few’; the ability of a relatively small number of people to create the critical mass and momentum needed to influence a nation. Well, we are not so few!

All of us have a circle of influence. For some this might be small but for others it is extensive. Small or big, all of us influence others with what we say, what we do, and how we live. We can extend God’s influence through our influence. So the challenge to me was, and continues to be, ‘What are you going to say and do within your circle of influence to reform this nation?”

The NIRSA declaration of intent contains many resolutions that each of us can adopt. For instance: to support prayer initiatives; to engage in the affairs of this nation and to hold government and public officials accountable; to vote responsibly; to conduct our business to the highest standard of integrity and biblical ethics; to support biblical good governance initiatives… There are twenty-six resolutions in all and you can request a copy of the document from communications@nirsa.co.za.

Proverbs 14:34 reads, ‘Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people’. If we, who are disciples of the Lord Jesus, speak and act and live righteously then will not our nation be exalted? And if we sin will not this disgrace the people of our land? Of course the organs of state, the politicians and policy makers need to act righteously – they have immense circles of influence. But we need to set the example and lead the way in the reformation of South Africa.

 

God’s influence through our influence Read More »

Inerrancy of Scripture

The word ‘errancy’ has the power to inflame some theologians to cry “heresy!” in the face of anyone who dares to hold a non-traditional view of how the Bible came into being.

A most unfortunate consequence of the modern inerrancy debate is that for so many people it links the word errancy with heresy. If someone says that the Bible is not fully inerrant in all it presents, at least as reformed scholars define the term, then some are sure to label him a heretic. The problem is that whilst we should equate inerrancy with truthfulness, we more often equated it with error-less-ness. This might sound a little like a word game, but consider this. To speak about the Bible as truthful means that it is honest, frank, open, straightforward, ingenuous, and candid. However, to speak of it as without error implies that it is specifically accurate in all that it presents.

Those who hold that the Bible is fully inerrant in this latter sense take pains to qualify its factual accuracy. For instance, they say that the Bible’s inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed rather than what is merely reported; that it is without error in terms of what its statements meant in the cultural setting in which they were expressed; that reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather than technical language; and so on. Now this seems to me to be the real word game! Why all these qualifications to ‘full’ inerrancy?

Surely it is because anyone with half a theological eye can see that the Bible contains many anomalies, is written from some very human perspectives, and displays very human authorship traits.

So why not just say that the Bible is truthful, honest, frank, candid, and ingenuous and dump the concept of ‘full inerrancy’ on the scrap heap of historical reformed theology?
I believe that the reason so many still fight over this essentially Calvinistic concept is because they have linked it to the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. The argument is that if God inspired the writing of scripture, then how can we admit that it contains anomalies and human inconsistencies? If we believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, then to admit an error would be to charge God with being fallible. However, few today hold to a dictation theory of biblical inspiration. Instead, the typical traditional statement is that God so influenced the human authors of scripture that their words were precisely those that He wished recorded. Isn’t this just another word game? What is the practical difference between this contention and the idea that God dictated the Bible?

Why do so many reformed theologians go to such lengths to preserve the idea that the Bible is free from meaningful human input, even when the biblical record itself tells a completely different story? (1 Cor. 7:12 for instance) I think it is because of an unwillingness to admit that God has not determined all things in advance. Once again, when it comes to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, we are drawn into word games.

Despite what is so often affirmed, to hold that God is sovereign does not mean that He has predetermined all things.
To say that God is sovereign merely means that He has the absolute ability to do anything, or to allow anything He wants. Because God is sovereign He can elect to allow people to partner with Him in producing the Bible and He can determine the scope and limitations of such co-authorship. If this is indeed the case, then we have no need to claim that the Bible is free from anomalies. We merely need to claim that it is what God wants it to be – truthful, candid, and ingenious.

I hold that the Bible is fully divine and fully human. Does this make it less than fully inspired? No it does not. Does this make it less than fully authoritative? Again, no it does not. I believe that the Bible is inerrant in that it is truthful, honest, frank, ingenuous, and candid. However, I do not believe that inerrancy is what defines the unique nature of the Bible. Its unique attribute is that it is the inspired and authoritative written Word of God. I have a lot more to say about this topic in my book ‘Truth is the Word’ available HERE.

 

Inerrancy of Scripture Read More »

About Me

My name is Christopher Peppler and I was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1947. While working in the financial sector I achieved a number of business qualifications from the Institute of Bankers, Damelin Management School, and The University of the Witwatersrand Business School. After over 20 years as a banker, I followed God’s calling and joined the ministry full time. After becoming a pastor of what is now a quite considerable church, I  earned an undergraduate theological qualification from the Baptist Theological College of Southern Africa and post-graduate degrees from two United States institutions. I was also awarded the Doctor of Theology in Systematic Theology from the University of Zululand in 2000.

Four years before that I established the South African Theological Seminary (SATS), which today is represented in over 70 countries and has more than 2 500 active students enrolled with it. I presently play an role supervising Masters and Doctoral students.

I am a passionate champion of the Christocentric or Christ-centred Principle, an approach to biblical interpretation and theological construction that emphasises the centrality of Jesus

I have been happily married to Patricia since the age of 20, have two children, Lance and Karen, a daughter-in-law Tracey, and granddaughters Jessica and Kirsten. I have now retired from both church and seminary leadership and devote my time to writing, discipling, and the classical guitar.

If you would like to read my testimony to Jesus then click HERE.