Smart theology, poor Christianity
(A letter to the Times Sunday, and my response to the letter)

Sir

Thank you for the invitation to respond to Ken Rowley and his article 'Smart Move, Poor Theology.'
I agree that Pastor Justice has poor theology in some areas.
However I have occasionally read Mr Rowley’s articles and from them I have to say he has smart theology but no Christianity!
He has openly stated that he believes the so-called gospels of Judas and Thomas are better than the four biblical Gospels. When challenged to state who he believes Jesus is, he replied in the past tense that Jesus was a member of some obscure Jewish sect.
However we Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate - present tense.
Jesus spoke against the Sadducees, who were religious rationalists of that time. They denied the existence of angels, or other spirits, and all miracles, especially the resurrection. They were rationalists, deniers of the supernatural. In Matthew chapter 22 verse 29 Jesus told the Sadducees "Ye deceive yourselves, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God". Jesus' answer gives the three incapacities of the rationalist; self-deception (Rom.1. 21, 22); ignorance of the spiritual content of Scripture (Acts 13. 27) and disbelief in the intervention of divine power (2 Peter 3. 5 to 9).
From his writings it is obvious the Ken Rowley is an intelligent rationalist - a modern day Sadducee!
The Bible judges Christians and shows us our faults.
However Ken Rowley judges the Bible and finds its 'faults'.
Therefore he places his intellect as above and better than the written word of God.
Christians however place their intellect as below the Bible and by FAITH they accept that God's word is infallible.
I am sure that an intelligent man like Mr. Rowley will accept that human intellect, even his own, is fallible.
Christians do not rely on fallible human intellect but rely on guidance from the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Where does Ken Rowley rely on guidance from?
Since he does not confess Jesus is God incarnate, Ken cannot have the holy Spirit as a guide.
Again I say who then is your guide Mr. Rowley?
It is established now that Rowley is not a Christian but rather a religious rationalist.
Jesus warned us in one parable that an enemy would sow tares among the good seed. The problem with tares is that it looks just like wheat!
Is it possible that the tares appear so much like the good seed that the tares actually believe they are wheat?
Does this explain why some are told on Judgement Day "Depart from me, I never knew you"?
When I have a car problem I seek help from a real mechanic.
When I want dental guidance I go to a qualified dentist.
Surely then it is not too much to ask the Sunday Times to get a real Christian to write Christian articles instead of Mr Rowley with his unknown guide!
Malangabi Crawford.

Hey, thanks for your strong response!

A few points:
1. If you’d read my article, ‘Not Pastorised’ you’d know I don't claim to be a Christian—at least not in the way the church defines the term. As I explained there, my own practice is closest to Zen than anything else.
2. The column I write is not intended to be a Christian one (or even a religious one)—the Christian writer the Times Sunday 'hires' is Pastor Dan Mdluli. I write about religious issues from time-to-time simply because I consider them interesting and important issues.
3. I have never (as far as I know) said that the gospels of Judas and Thomas are 'better' than the canonical ones. ‘Better’ is a meaningless term in this context and I’m rather fond of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I wrote in my discussion of the gospel of Judas that I don’t have much personal use for it because it is clearly late and Docetist. The gospel of Thomas appeals to me because it is closer to the oral record than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and also because it contains koans and even a mondo or two.
4. Yes, all human intellect is fallible—which is why I keep mine in good working order. This is sensible, for even if there is absolute truth it always has to be understood (filtered) by our human intellect. Reliance on divine inspiration for understanding the scriptures is no doubt why there are so many different denominations and sects within Christendom and why controversies such as the so-called Montanist heresy came about. Texts are wonderful tools but studying any book about God won’t help with the direct experience of knowing God, just as a book of road signs won’t teach you how to drive a car—even a book entitled ‘How to Drive a Car’ is no substitute for really driving. Christian mystics—and all the other mystics—have always known that God is beyond the texts. Texts can be a useful start, but if you’re freezing to death in the middle of a severe winter then be sensible and use your Bible or Qu’ran or Rig-Veda or the Pali Canon or the Book of the Dead to start a fire. In any case, to suggest switching off your mind (as you do) so that ‘divine inspiration’ can explain the text is the kind of mischief that allows people to believe that talking donkeys are real and that fables are historical events. If, as a literature teacher, I taught that method to my students, how well do you think they would do? The Cambridge examiners would fall about laughing.
5. As for ‘real dentists’ and ‘real mechanics’—I am indeed a real and qualified theologian. But ‘theologian’ doesn’t have to mean ‘Christian’.
6. For me the purpose of writing articles is to stimulate thinking and response.

Thank you for thinking and responding.

Some reader responses (Jan07):

What Ken is saying is very true, Pastor Justice should humble himself and go to bible school. His books should be introspected by theologians before sellers. For him to work alone is unhealthy.
He must try to be open and simple (akhulumiseke), and give advice to other pastors like Maseko, Jeremiah, Thwala to go to bible school and they should check their theology, which must be improved.
Thank you once again Ken for what you said, it is the truth, you have spoken for all theologians.
Pastor,
Mbabane.

Ken Rowley is right, I wouldn’t have put it more correct than him. The world is yearning for more Mother Theresas, a school teacher who left her profession in heed of God’s call. At the height of her ministry, when she was interviewed on why she was doing what she was doing, her reply was that when she washed the wounds and fed the destitute that she saw the face of Jesus.

Ken, you could not have said it better. These days Christianity is about wealth outside, not the heart. Swazis wake up, give your money to the needy.
Thabo.

Well, I certainly agree with Mr Rowley. As Christians, we’ve completely forgotten the way to salvation. Now healing of the sick, which is a gift from God, is used to draw people to churches.
Reasons are solely for money purposes in form of offerings. Government and church bodies have a duty to protect the vulnerable by putting laws that will monitor bogus pastors who advertise their said powers and gifts through the media.
Control is the key word.

Smart move, poor theology

Apparently there was a big fuss over one of Pastor Justice’s articles a little while back; I see now that he has joined the church crew who are writing and promoting their own books. Though classified as ‘Religion’ or ‘Self-help’, these books should really be placed on the fiction shelves, for it is clear these evangelists have lost the plot. The basic idea is that we shouldn't ever be sick, but must always be healthy; we shouldn't ever be poor, but must always be wealthy; and all this is because Christian’s are 'King's kids', that is, children of the King (obviously Christ, but in a country like ours there are many other resonances).
I have a problem with this. Suppose we are children of the King, but does that mean we are supposed to be 'kids' forever? The early church didn’t think so. Paul, in that wonderful 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, wrote, 'When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.' One problem with the ‘King’s kids’ theology is that it will never grow up. Writers like Pastor Justice are seeing through a glass, darkly.
And if we do grow up, what might we be, having started as King's kids? There can only be one King. What if we are groomed for the Throne but can’t get it? It is human nature to aspire to greatness. Is this why preachers aren’t satisfied with titles like ‘pastor’ but want to be called ‘apostles’ and such like? The devil fell from Heaven because of this very thing, that he thought it was time to grow up and become King.
The problem with this kind of theology is that it is founded on a selected metaphor, yet that there are many others—equally striking—to choose from. Why not 'King of Kings', which would make us all Kings? Or 'Lamb of God', so that we could be real kids? (J) Or the 'Suffering Servant', so we can really suffer?
How about 'Prince of Peace', so that we can be peacemakers? For sure we need a few peacemakers. (The Sermon on the Mount, anyone?)
No, to take one image and major on it always leads to imbalance and distortion; after a while the distortion becomes little more than half-truth and smoke.
I wouldn't have so much of a problem if these writers were majoring on the idea of being a servant: at least there the focus is on others. Or they could even focus on justice (J). Unfortunately, this theology’s agenda has been set by the world’s values and so these books and articles are in fact little different from the thousands of articles and books found in any magazine or bookstore in every country these days—publications that usually have nothing to do with Christ. Everyone’s theology, alas, can so easily be hijacked by the spirit of the world. ‘King’s kids’ theology is part of a worldwide prosperity cult that's peddled by a thousand success gurus who are remarkably successful in selling plenty of copies of their own writings to a million needy people. And these days, becoming a success guru is a smart career move, even better than becoming a DJ (J).
Christian writing has certainly changed. When I was a boy, browsing the books on the dusty shelves of our church library, the books were all about 'going to the foot of the cross', repenting of our selfishness and 'becoming a broken vessel' to be used by God; now the books on the shelves are 'The Seven Steps to Personal Success' or similar titles with similar sentiments.
We can perhaps blame much of this on television. When Christianity moved from sacred buildings into hotels, bars, and people's living rooms via TV, the message immediately became something different. The 'otherness' was removed. On TV, there is no sacred human activity, no ritual, no sense of being in a sacred place, just the preacher as today's personality, today's talk-show host (I noticed, significantly, that a very recent advert said ‘Pastor Justice will be healing the sick’, not ‘God will be healing the sick’: this kind of thing is par for this particular course). As Neil Postman put it, 'the message of television... is not only that all the world is a stage but that the stage is located in Las Vegas, Nevada.' Postman’s is a telling comment, for Las Vegas is the prosperity Mecca of our times, the place of pilgrimage dedicated to money and the hope that one day we can all become rich.