Those who know me well can attest to the fact that the main thrust of my conversations of late, has been the challenge to change that faces the church in these days. I’ve become quite adept at raising issues, warning about the nature and form of these challenges and threats, and even suggesting possible ways of addressing them or preparing for them. Theory is one thing, as it keeps one in a place of “well, we’ll get around to preparing for those things sometime!” It’s a very different story altogether though, when one is confronted with a real challenge when you’re not even anticipating it, almost like the boxer who is knocked down by a left hook, because all of his training and attention has been on countering the expected right hand punch. 

Two incidents in the past week caused me to sit up and pay attention. I’ll explain in a little while what they have in common, and what the challenge is to any church, no matter what its size. 

The first incident made newspaper headlines in the south east Asian nation where we were visiting one of our pastoral couples. It was the talk of the church community and, more importantly, the talk of the secular community too, as evidenced in the report I read in one of the national Sunday newspapers at the culmination of my visit. The story involved one of the nation’s mega-churches which is being investigated by government agencies for suspected financial irregularities. This followed the investment of a very large sum of money by the church into an equally large and famous shopping complex in the city, which will give the church a sizeable ownership stake in the mall. At issue for the government are two concerns – a. the size of the monetary investment, and b. the fact that a church is buying a stake in commercial property. The church’s response is that its membership has grown to the point where they cannot find auditorium space big enough to accommodate their worshipping community, and there is no ground available, sufficient to build an auditorium to meet their needs. For this reason, they have opted to buy into the huge shopping mall and convert the top two floors into an auditorium, that will meet both current numbers and projected growth for the next few years. 

 

Having arrived home, I watched the first evening television news bulletin in order to familiarise myself with local matters. One of the main items was a statement made by the newsreader on behalf of the station, defending itself against an attack by a local NGO. At issue, was the NGO’s assertion that the television channel was guilty of allowing false information to be broadcast, that could be detrimental to many thousands of its viewers. The allegation was that the television station had broadcast a half hour “advertisement” the previous morning, a Sunday, in which a preacher and faith healer had claimed that he could heal people who were HIV+ or were living with AIDS. The specific NGO is widely regarded as a spokesman for people with HIV or AIDS, so its criticism of any agency that it views as harming the lives of such individuals is taken seriously. Except that this was no ordinary criticism. In its defence, the television station included footage of the news conference convened earlier that day by the NGO, during which its criticism and demands were aired. The substance of their charge was: the television station must unequivocally withdraw the “advert” as the claims made are misleading to people with these illnesses, and will give them false hope. The advert referred to is a half hour programme of footage filmed at one of the specific faith healer’s many international meetings, where viewers are shown claimed healings taking place, and hear testimonies of people who confirm that they have been healed in these meetings. If the television station failed to withdraw these programmes and make an apology, the NGO threatened to take legal action against it on the basis of false advertising. This would follow a submission to this country’s Advertising Standards Authority to rule against the merits of this faith healer’s claims, on the basis of irresponsible and false advertising.    

 

To its credit, the television station pointed out that, as is the case with many other television ministries, this preacher purchases thirty minutes of airtime from the channel as a simple commercial transaction. In exchange, the channel agrees to broadcast its programme to its viewers. The fact that they provide broadcast time does not mean that they endorse the editorial content of the programme, and would remove the programme only if instructed to do so if the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it was misleading or false advertising. 

 

This incident raises two issues for me. Firstly, the fact that a body deeming itself to be the official spokesperson on behalf of HIV+ or people living with AIDS has crossed a line by giving itself authority to judge whether or not a person can be healed by the power of God. Secondly, based on its conclusions, it insists that the voice of faith be removed from a public broadcaster or, at the very least, the segment proclaiming that God can heal these illnesses must be removed from the programme so that people are not given false hope and, that failing to comply to its wishes, legal action will be taken to force their will. 

So, what do these two incidents have in common? The fact that a message is being sent to the church that we are being watched closely, that what we say and how we behave is being monitored by a sceptical world, and that they have a certain behavioural expectation that Christians should conform to. Whether we like it or not, we are being held accountable for belief being reflected in unblemished behaviour. How does this affect these two stories? 

 

In the first instance, given the fact that the nation I’m referring to is a country whose predominant religious climate is not Christian, one can appreciate that the way church operates is not always understood by government. However, to question the fact that the people of God give generously to the work of the kingdom (let’s just stick with giving because the idea of ‘sowing’ would be way too much to understand in a secular context), would seem rather unfair. Furthermore, if an ownership stake in a very important shopping complex is on offer to anyone, and the church sees a potential solution to its accommodation problem if it were to acquire that stake, why should it be prevented from making an offer to purchase, just because it is a church? How that decision is taken, how the money is raised, how much of a consultative process with the members of the church took place prior to buying the stake etc, are all issues which need to be clarified, and, in that sense, the community at large has a right to know. Certainly, the membership of the church should be able to defend the actions of the leadership who have been involved in such a big decision (meaning therefore, that they know the details), and, for transparency, the secular community should know that they can trust the witness, intentions and truthfulness of the church in all matters, not just this one.         

With regard to the second story, we need to defend with all that’s within us, the reality that God can and does heal people miraculously and that, just because these issues require faith, does not mean that such claims are misleading or constitute false advertising! However, if we are going to make these claims on a public broadcaster (or in any context for that matter), let’s be sure as a Christian community that we can back up our claims with verifiable proof that cannot be disputed, and can silence such accusations from those that accuse us of smoke and mirrors trickery, misleading statements, or deception. Let’s make sure that we live above board, that our yea is yea, and that we inspire confidence in people who watch our lives.