Ebola and the Church

At least something concerning the Ebola epidemic is pretty close to the top of every news program today. There is reporting on the facts on the ground in Africa, reports on the panic and even hysteria
that seems to be spreading among the general population in the US, There is a lot on how politicians are using that to further their own ambitions.

Ebola has been around for a long time--first noted in 1976--and there have been many outbreaks since then. But, the current epidemic has been going on since March. That's actually been a pretty long time, and it was reported in the news, but didn't get a huge amount of attention. It was over in a faraway place, a sad story, but these things happen. .

As it spread, there was some discussion about how to contain it from spreading and especially with international air travel being so easy. But, it was a theoretical discussion and it didn't occupy our attention other than a little, "What would we do if it did come over here?"

Then we had some Americans who were serving and caring for Ebola victims in Africa and who were eventually airlifted out. That started getting more attention and some even wondered why we would take the risk of bringing the disease here. Then, a man from Liberia was diagnosed with Ebola at a hospital in Dallas, and later two nurses who cared for him. The idea of closing out borders started getting a lot of traction, and some even extended it to Americans. Donald Trump (admittedly not known for tact, compassion, or a moral compass) tweeted in a series of tweets that the do-gooders should be left to do their good deeds, but if they get infected, then they would just need to "suffer the consequences." Ann Coulter, a prominent conservative pundit, wrote an article entitled, "Ebola Doc's Condition Downgraded to 'Idiotic'" criticising the doctor, the church, and missionaries for trying to save the world when America still had plenty of needs.

Criticism started building and certainly some of that was justified. We really weren't prepared. But, the criticism aimed at the nurses sounded a bit hypocritical and unfair. Now, politicians are trying to make points and show that they are strong and decisive leaders by imposing a blanket quarantine (later weakened somewhat, but only in the face of intense criticism). I don't want to argue that there is no need for any kind of quarantine, but the blanket nature and the rhetoric that makes pariah's of those who try to serve others is very discomforting. Governor Christi's visible contempt for the nurse who was the first to experience this is worrying.

"But," you might say, "what do you expect of a politician, a political pundit, or egotistical businessman?" Point taken. And, maybe the same could be said of the public.

But, what about the church? Where is the voice of the church?  Who is talking about this issue? Well, I'm not in the US right now, so maybe there is something coming from pulpits that I don't know about, but what I do listen to in podcasts or on Facebook (basically just family and church friends) is pretty silent, or (maybe worse) just echoing the same voice that we hear in the media.

Epidemics have changed the course of history, empires have fallen, and battles have been lost due to epidemics. Some of the ruined cities that archaeologists explore are thought to have been abandoned because of an epidemic. Historians blame the fall of the Aztecs and Incas on imported diseases. Some say that epidemics were a factor in the fall of the Roman Empire and some of those were brought back by soldiers returning from faraway lands to the east. In the Antonine Plague starting around AD 165, the death toll reached as high as 2,000 deaths per day just in the city of Rome. A later outbreak starting in AD 251 killed 5,000 per day at its height, and again, that's just talking about Rome itself.

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage (an important Roman city in what is now Egypt) during the second plague. People were deserting the cities and fleeing to the countryside in huge caravans. The breakdown of social order and the chaos is pretty hard to fathom. It is something totally out of our experience and unimaginable (unless your a Hollywood script writer).

Of this plague we actually have some good records and the interesting thing is that there was a lot of comparison between the average citizen and the Christian. Christianity was still not accepted by Roman law and there was still serious persecution of those who proclaimed Christ. But, when the plagues came, the Christians really made their mark and they were noticed. It was noted that the Roman priests fled the city along with everyone else who could, but the Christians stayed behind and didn't just try to survive, they actively took care of the sick, those who were left behind by their families who had escaped. Many of the Christians died with them, and they weren't stupid. They knew the dangers and the high likelihood that they would die, but they served anyway.

Cyprian wrote of this in 251, and  seemed almost welcoming of the pestilence. He noted how horrific the disease was but claimed that only non-Christians had to fear it. He stated that this plague

"...examines the minds of the human race; whether the well care for the sick, whether the relatives dutifully love their kinsmen as they should, whether the masters show compassion for their ailing slaves, whether the physicians do not desert the afflicted…Although this mortality has contributed nothing else, it has especially accomplished this for Christians and servants of God, that we have begun gladly to seek martyrdom while we are learning not to fear death.  These are trying exercises for us, not deaths; they give to the mind the glory of fortitude; by contempt of death they prepare for the crown…[O]ur brethren who have been freed from the world by the summons of the Lord should not be mourned, since we know that they are not lost but sent before; that in departing they lead the way; that as travelers, as voyagers are wont to be, they should be longed for, not lamented…” (Mortality 15-20, 1958 ed.) [The Rise of Christianity, p. 81, par. 1-2]

But, it was just bishops who noticed. It became a topic of conversation as people branded Christians as "gamblers" while wondering how they could do this. And, this made a huge difference even long term. A century later the emperor Julian pushed to start other charities in an effort to match the Christians.  He wrote to the high priest of Galatia in 362 to push them to work to meet the moral standards shown by Christians, and he attributed the growth of the church to their “moral character, even if pretended,” and their benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead.” Indeed, at the beginning of the second plague, the church was still made up of people who were mostly of Jewish origin (estimated at 70%) and afterward the ratio soon was about half and half. 


Today, the church has lost its voice. It has become a part of the culture. It talks a lot about the degradation of the moral structure of our society and points to a list of sins that prove it and seem surprised when non-Christians don't hold to those same values (as if holding to a set of values were enough). We have retreated from society, circled the wagons around our faith, and fire at all those outside the circle.

We are not of this world, but we are supposed to be in it. We are not allowed to retreat into our own cocoon. And why is that? We have lost our first love, and that love is a love of Christ. No evangelical would want to admit that. We do love Christ! That's why go to church every Sunday. That's why we are willing to speak out on moral issues. That's why we give to the church, do good works, etc. But, the Bible challenges us to show it in actions, and the primary one is that we should be like Christ. I think that doesn't mean just that we use that to judge what we don't do. Jesus wouldn't steal, so I won't steal. But, what was the main characteristic of Jesus life--the thing that is repeated over and over. None of the gospels emphasizes how well Jesus followed the Law or any other ideas of morality. Certainly I am not to say that he was not moral (he was perfect), but that's not their emphasis. The emphasis is on his love--love for the disciples, love for people around him, and more than that, love for the world (a term John clearly uses to talk about the whole world system and sinful mankind). He loved and the result of that is grace towards the worst sinners and sacrifice for that world that was so against him and the kingdom of God.

We scream out against the world, when we should not be surprised that the world doesn't have our values. But, we don't show love.

Listen carefully the next time you hear about Ebola. You'll hear a lot about what we should do to protect our country, and  that certainly is important. The duty of the government is to protect its citizens. You'll hear discussions about medical issues by people who barely know the difference between aspirin and Tylenol.

But, how often do you hear people expressing, not just some horror that results in pity, but a real love and concern for the families destroyed, the devastation of communities, the orphans left  behind? Surely you will hear some, but then it moves on to the next topic. Where is the love for others? Love results in actions, produces a gracious heart, and leads to sacrifice. Who is willing to sacrifice, even a little time in prayer, a little money toward relief, a voice of reason to push for more done in Africa, much less one's time or one's life?

The early church was a persecuted minority, but they loved their neighbors. They applied Christian doctrine to their lives. They really believed that life was not about expanding their wealth and living more comfortably and it wasn't even just trying to survive. In fact, the survival they thought of was only in the eternal sense. They didn't fear death. They feared embarrassing their Lord.

I read an article a few weeks ago, in Slate by Brian Palmer. The author was at an Ebola consultation and heard it said, “MSF is the only group on the ground,” said one doctor, using the French acronym for Doctors Without Borders. “They are the only ones making any difference.” The congregation nodded in agreement. But, he notes that this is ignoring another group who were also at work, the missionaries. No one was even thinking of them, in spite of the headlines about the missionaries who had contracted Ebola while helping in Africa. He writes, "Missionary doctors and nurses are stationed throughout Africa, in rural outposts and urban slums. Rather than parachuting in during crises, like some international medicine specialists, a large number of them have undertaken long-term commitments to address the health problems of poor Africans." He goes on to talk about his discomfort with the missionary doctors, because of their connecting medical work with their faith, but also admits that this discomfort is due to his own bias. He admits that possibly his atheism has made him biased. "I'm not altogether proud of this bias--I'm just trying to be honest." 

The problem is, though he may have noticed, most of the world hasn't. Some of that is certainly due to the same bias that he admits, but could it also be that we really haven't responded with the massive support that we should have. Or, maybe it is because, even though there are missionary doctors and nurses willing to sacrifice, the church as a whole is not really speaking up. I'm actually not sure, but I do think that if we really had the mind of Christ, the world would not be able to ignore it. Emperor Julian couldn't help but notice, but we can easily be under the radar. 

Where is our influence? Where is our voice? Why isn't there a massive response to show love to our brothers?

Palmer goes on to state that the world should recognize and welcome the missionary doctors because there isn't anyone else who is really willing to stay for the long haul. He even suggests that we shower them with funds to help them out. Finally, he writes, with some irony, "As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we're finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine in Africa, I suggest we stand aside and leg God do His work."

It almost makes me want to say, "Amen." But, what I want to see is not that we stand aside and let God work. We need to step up and take up and engage in God's work actively and without fear. I'd like to make Mr. Palmer even more uncomfortable.

There Has to Be a Better Way

I just finished leading a church through a vision retreat. We only had one and a half days and had a lot to cover. The church is very conservative and though all present were key coworkers and leaders, they were all at different stages in their thinking on the church. Most did want and hope for change, but how much and where? And, even when we agree on the need for change and can agree on what needs to be changed, it is still a lot harder to actually overcome the inertia to do it and then work on all the other areas that this change affects to stick with it over the longer term. It reminds me of a statement by Shaun King, former pastor of of Atlanta's The Courageous Church. He says:

"Political campaigns based on radical change win.  Books written about radical change sell.  Sermons on radical change boost Sunday morning attendance.  The idea and thought of change is exciting to people, but mistaking that excitement for an actual willingness on behalf of those people to change now or later could be a miscalculation."

I'm praying that this church will be able to actually make some significant change even if not radical. Whatever reservations I have are not so much a lack of confidence in that church as it is a general statement about all of us. It really is exciting to go to a conference or a meeting and be challenged with making great changes, but then you go home to "the real world" and there is just too much to distract. Maintaining the status quo may not be the best, but it is a lot easier and more comfortable to most people.

I'm still thinking about the discussion raised when Pastor King resigned from the Courageous Church several weeks ago. I'll quote him again, "Big buildings. Huge crowds. Few disciples. I'm not with it. It's inefficient and just doesn't feel right with my soul. This is not a rejection of big buildings or huge crowds, but an indictment on how few disciples are being made in the process of it all. A better way has to exist."

I've been coming to similar conclusions over the years where I work. We talk a lot about how we must impact society and that the church is a lighthouse to the community, but in reality, how much impact is the church having on their neighborhood much less on society. If it were just my church or the country I worked in, I would need to look around at local issues, and certainly that is a part of what must be done. But, the problem is pretty universal and that means that we also need to look at the whole model of "church" that we've been doing. We must go back and think further about what we are doing and why.


That means going back to the original mandate. I would say that what we call the Great Commission was not really a mandate for missions but a mandate for the church. This Great Commission is not referring just to one of the programs of the church raising money for people who "go." This is the mission of the church--to make disciples of all peoples. Certainly our first "target" would have to be those we are closest to, but the mission of every church is the world.

But, I've been saying that all along in this blog and I don't want to focus on overseas missions right now. Even if we overlook the "all nations" part, we still have to look honestly at the rest. How good are we at actually making disciples--not converts, not members, but disciples. I don't think we're doing very well at all.  I'm ready to really rethink our idea of what the church is, and I believe that we have to start from this "mission statement" for the church. If the mission of the church is to "make disciples," that means that we order all that we do around that statement. The ultimate question for everything that we do should be, "In what way does this help us to make disciples?" and, "Is this the most effective thing that we could do to make disciples at this time and with the resources that we have?" Of course, we also need to think about whether we are giving the "all peoples" part a strong enough priority in our work, but let's skip over that for the moment. Even if all we are looking at is the immediate circle of people we have contact with (relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors), are the things we are doing really what is needed and are they the best way to accomplish what Christ has demanded that all believers do? One way to start on that is to go back to the beginning and look at the early church.

If you think about it, Jesus' mandate was audacious if not even a little ridiculous. Before Jesus ascended into heaven he had the small band of disciples gather together on a nearby mountain. There was the core 11 (Judas had betrayed him and was now already dead) and beyond them were maybe a few hundred more. They were ordinary people without a lot of education or money. They were fishermen, farmers, and even at least one tax collector. Probably most of them had never traveled beyond what is a daily commute for some of us. They knew very little about the world. They were out on the edges of the Roman Empire and Jesus' challenge was the world. That must have seemed unbelievable to even imagine that this group could do. But, not only that, when Jesus told them to make disciples of all nations (all peoples) that's about all he said. How should they proceed? Who should lead this movement? How should it be financed? I think that if I were there, I'd probably have said, "You've got to be kidding. You can't leave us with this and nothing else? How in the world can we even start on this?" You've got to give us a plan. You've got to be practical.

And yet's that's basically all that is recorded. Just do it. You figure it out. That's your mission. Get it done. It seems so radical, so huge, so impractical, and so skimpy. He does tell them that all authority in all the universe has been given to him--in other words, the outcome is already certain and he is already ruling. He does tell them that they will receive power when the Spirit comes down among them, but the strategy and planning are pretty open.

While that must have seemed scary and inadequate, at the same time, it is also freeing. There isn't a set plan beyond a few fundamentals. Other than those few things, it's all open. It means that we can be as creative and imaginative as we want and experiment as we see fit within those boundaries.

So, if we have some much freedom, why is it that all churches look basically alike? Yes, there are some huge differences in some areas and there are differences in theology, but they still look about the same (I'm talking about the "church" as a body and not about buildings, though that is true of buildings also). Some are liturgical, some free and open. Some are traditional (some even "ancient") and some contemporary. But beyond those surface things, churches still follow basically the same model.

If we have been given so much freedom, why are we still following the same basic models? And, especially when that the church is not keeping up and not fulfilling its mission, how is it that we are not crying out for change?

I want to explore that over a number of posts and hope that I can instigate some thinking and some discussion. I'm gathering a team to start a new church in the next year or so and I want the help. I don't want it to be just one more church. I want to go back to the beginning--both the original mandate and also the early church. We are in a different world than 2,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn from them. The growth of the church during those first few centuries was phenomenal. Some of the reasons for that don't exist today and can't be duplicated, but there still has be be a lot we can learn.

I'm listening. Let's talk.

This Could Be the Last Time

Last week I preached at a small church in Hualien on Taiwan's east coast. During the musical part of the worship service, the man controlling the PowerPoint for the songs stood at the side with his daughter in his arms (as you can see in the picture). He held this position throughout the entire musical part of the service, using the remote in his hand to control the slides but continuing to hold his daughter. I remember wishing that I could do that again with my own children.

I kept thinking about how tiring this must be. It's one thing to hold an infant, but this little girl is long past the "infant" stage. She must have been at least 5 years old and pretty heavy to hold for such a long time, but she also stayed still, content in his arms. I wondered if he could hold her for the whole worship service, and from there began to wonder how much longer before she got so big he couldn't do it anymore. It couldn't be much longer, as fast as kids grow. In fact, could this be the last time.

I remember holding my own children and how enjoyable that was, but I can't do that any more. They're as big as I am or bigger. I wondered when was the last time I held mine that way. There was certainly a "last time." However I don't remember when that happened. What would have changed if I had known then that it would be the last time to hold my son or daughter? If I had known, would I have held them tighter? Would I have determined that I could surely do it again? Would I have looked at them differently? Would I have cried?


But, I didn't know. It just ended at some point and neither of us knew that something had happened which was final and would never be repeated. It just ended. Maybe I didn't even think about it. Maybe they didn't want it anymore as they wanted to express their "grownup status." I don't know.


That is life. Sometimes we can realize that it might be the last time. When I was with my dad last fall, I knew that it could well be the last time I saw him alive. I hoped that I would be wrong, and we made plans to live with him when we returned this summer, but I knew that there was at least a great chance that he would not live that long. I did try to savor the moment, but yet afraid to do so fully because I didn't want it to be the last time.

But, more often, we just don't think in terms of last times or only times. We don't have any real idea except for some kind of theoretical possibility way back in the far recesses of our mind. So many things happen that are precious, but we never realize that they are unique, that they will not happen again, and that they should be savored and cherished. We just live and go on oblivious to the wonder around us. Life is common and routine when it should not be. It is a wonder and it is fragile.


I know that I will never hold my daughter like that again. She's grown far to big. My two sons are even further from that possibility. I can still enjoy the wonder of their presence again every time I see them. They are wonderful creations of God and I'm honored and blessed to be their father. I must cherish them and any time I can have with them.


And yet, the same is true for everyone I meet. We have been commissioned by Christ to make disciples. That commission was not given just to a few who would be preachers, pastors, or missionaries. It was given to all who are disciples--believers of Christ. We think there will always be that chance to be a witness. There is no rush is there? So, we go on with life and leave behind the urgency that there should be.

What if this is the only time we'll meet? If I meet someone on the train or bus, I probably know that this will be my only chance to at least give them a good testimony of what God can do and to tell them about the gospel of grace. But, of those that I do know--family or friends--I seldom think that way. I don't wonder when that "last time" might be. They could be hit by a gravel truck tomorrow, but it doesn't have to be that macabre. It could just be that they will move away, or that our relationship will grow further apart.


Can I recognize the urgency of the gospel--to tell people that there is hope in life after all, that there is a God out there (and right here as well) who is all-powerful and yet knows us intimately, who is thoroughly and fully righteous and yet is gracious to us. There is a God who saves people--not just from hell, but to give them life more abundantly in the here and now. There is a God who wants us to walk with him and how will always be with us until the end of this world. I have to admit, I don't think of that as urgent.


Maybe I should be thinking more like that. Could this be the only time. Could this be the last time? If it were, and if I knew that it would be, what would or should I do differently?

Afraid to Die?

Yes, I'm still alive. I'm back in Taiwan now, and with all the missed time while away for my Dad's funeral, I had a lot to catch up on. That shouldn't be an excuse since anyone can spare a few minutes a day to write, but I didn't. But, I hope to be back to writing regularly now.

A few months ago, an old friend asked to meet with me. He is facing a crisis in his life and that has caused him to think more about the meaning and reality of his faith. We talked a bit about what he is feeling and thinking and then he turned to me and said, "You know, I've been a Christian more than 20 years, but I've suddenly realized that I really don't know much about what I believe. Once I was baptized, I sort of stopped trying to read my Bible or learn more. I had made my decision to accept Christianity, but once I did, it seems like that was enough. I don't know God any better now than I did then and I'm finding it hard to deal with this crisis." He is now reading his Bible regularly and praying about entering seminary because he wants to know more and wants to be able to encourage others to continue to grow in their faith.

The following morning, in our devotional time at the office, a coworker shared about a lady who had given a testimony at his church the day before. She has cancer and said that she realized that everyone was trying to comfort her, but they didn’t have much to say that meant anything. Was God really in control, and did he really care as her Christian friends said? She realized that the Bible that the church had given her at her baptism many years ago had not yet been opened. She began reading it and now is giving testimony to others to continue to pursue a greater knowledge of God.

Then, I read something written by a young person after a former classmate had died suddenly. One thing that struck me was her statement that suddenly she was afraid to die. However, her fear of death was not because she wasn’t sure of God’s salvation and that she would be with him in heaven. Her fear was that she felt that she had not yet done anything except satisfy her own desires. She hadn’t led anyone to Christ and hadn’t really served Him.

Why is the church so focused on getting people baptized, but satisfied to leave them there. I remember a Taiwanese pastor telling me proudly how many people his church had baptized in the previous year, and I asked him how many of those were active in the church still and were growing in their faith. He looked puzzled and just asked why I had asked that question. “Because the Great Comission didn’t say that we were to baptize all nations. It said that we are to make disciples of all nations, and baptism was just one of the steps along with going and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. That’s not just teaching, but teaching them to obey. It’s not just knowledge; it’s obedience. If we aren’t making disciples, we have failed in our mission.”

He thought for a few minutes and said, “I never thought about that. I just wanted to get them to heaven. Actually, I think only one is even coming to church regularly. I need to think about that”

Why is it that we stop so soon? Is our focus on just getting them a ticket to heaven a sign of our continued human-centric value system? We are so focused on saving people from hell, that we forget that God’s priority is something far more valuable, and that is a restored relationship with Him. God created man to know Him, to serve Him. We belong to God, but we have left him. He is not looking for believers; for the baptized. He wants disciples and we are cheating Him, ourselves, and others if we forget the rest.

So, why do we stop so soon? What should the church be doing differently? What should I be doing differently?  How much of a disciple am I?

My mission?

I don’t know when I heard the term Great Commission for the first time, but I’m sure it was early on in my Christian experience. What I do know is that it seemed to always be expressed as a directive to some individuals and that's what I assumed. It was normally a challenge to missions. Does God want you to be a missionary, or not? Does God want you to fulfill the great commission, or not? Should you go or should you stay?

I realize that I’m exaggerating a little, and making it a little more black and white than it usually is. Still, the  impression was, and often is, that this great commission is something that is given to individuals to carry out; and it’s a challenge for some of them to go, but of course not everyone. It's expanded sometimes to say that if you're not called to go, then you're called to give.

However, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to realize that it is not individualistic at all. Those last few days before Christ ascended were spent not just with the 12 apostles, but with all of the key disciples who were committed to Him. This was the climax just as Jesus was about to ascend to heaven. The emphasis was not on the individual, but on this new body that was being called out. Jesus' focus was corporate.


My experience as a missionary has only emphasized this even more. I believe that we need to look at the great commission less in terms of the individual. It shouldn't be passive, waiting on whether God might be leading someone to become a missionary. Rather, we need to look at the Great Commission in terms of the church. In a sense, this is the founding purpose of the church. If the apostles were writing a constitution for the church as an organization, this probably would have been in the preamble as its purpose clause. The church exists to carry all this out. The church should see this as their number one responsibility–making disciples of all peoples.

Instead, the Missions program has been something that is extra, peripheral to the main ministry of the church. In many churches, the Missions budget is separate. It is set through extra pledges (faith promises) and extra giving. You can give to the missions budget as long as that comes after your tithe to the church. It's not a part of the church budget.

Some of that is changing. There already is less emphasis on waiting to see who God may call into missions, and then leaving that person to run around getting support from churches and individuals. But, we haven't gone far enough at all.

I think that the church should put more effort into thinking about what their role could be in making disciples of all nations, and then coming up with a strategy for how to do so. Of course, that is not just the overseas component that we often call "missions." It’s an overall plan that includes our neighbors, the people on the other side of the town, other nations and cultures across the sea. It's comprehensive. The key point is that the responsibility belongs to the church, and not just individuals. Missions and evangelism are certainly individual in that it is individuals who are the ones who are on the contact edge between the church and the unbelieving world. However, the individuals are part of a strategy, a vision and a mission of the church. We need to be less inward thinking and more outward thinking.

Missionaries can fall into a similar rut. One problem (issue) in missions is that missionaries are often independent and individualistic in spirit. It's easy for us to just drop into the mold of thinking about  "my mission" or "but, God called me here to..." Sometimes we can forget that we are all part of a team with our sending churches and our coworkers in the plan to make disciples of all nations starting in the part of the world where we have been sent.

But, the mission is far greater than any individual and it is far greater than any mission organization. Missionaries are sent and are part of the "mission" of the church.