Government Prophets

The Jehovah’s Witnesses predicted Christ’s return many times. And they got them all wrong. In an attempt to save face, they claimed that Jesus actually did return on October 1, 1914 in an invisible way.

Edgar Whisenant, a former rocket scientist, circulated a booklet around the United States “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988”. He said that Christ would return on September 12, 1988. People pulled their children out of school in order to be together as a family when Christ came back. They began to withdraw from all long-term commitments. They quit their jobs and gave up their projects in work, in church, and elsewhere.

The prediction failed.

Edgar Whisenant revised his prediction, saying that his calculations were one year off. He said Christ would return instead on September 1, 1989 (or one day earlier or later). Or, if not then, on Rosh Hashanah 1990 or 1991 or 1992. Or, at the latest, September 15 – 17, 1993.

All predictions failed. Chiew…

Déjà vu like mad.

It was predicted that my posting would come by September 18, 2006. I stopped teaching at St. Xavier’s Institution in August, attended my convocation, and waited for September to come.

The prediction failed. I took up the job at Convent Green Lane.

It was predicted that the posting would come by January 2006. I stopped teaching at Convent Green Lane in November, and waited for January to come.

The prediction failed. Now, I sit jobless.

It was said that my posting status can be checked online at http://apps.emoe.gov.my/gsst/gsst.cfm by December 22, 2006. Go and see for yourself.

“The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.”

The latest prediction says that the posting will come by February 16, 2006. A coursemate says my posting status can be checked in the same website by December 30, 2006. Another source says the Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri said that university graduates will get their posting by mid January.

You know what I say?

“REPENT THEREFORE AND BE CONVERTED, THAT YOUR SINS MAY BE BLOTTED OUT!!”

False prophets. All of them. Terrible…

Stir Me Some Magic

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had." (John 5:2-4)

This is one of the workings of God that I did not understand. Why would God send an angel to stir a particular pool? Why stir it only at a certain time? Why is it that only the first guy who went into the pool will be healed? I thought the work of God cannot be analyzed in a test tube. If so, why is He showing such a trend at the Bethesda pool?

It seems unlikely of God’s character to show grace sparingly. Why dangle candy at a multitude of people, but choose to heal only one at a time? There was a man who had an infirmity for 38 years (John 5:5), but someone always beat him to it whenever the pool was stirred.

I didn’t understand this working of God. Until I watched Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" late at night on Christmas Eve.

It occurred to me that events similar to the stirring of the pool at Bethesda still happen today. Every year, people wait for that special day to come.

It is only on that day when the soup lines are open. The poor can get a bowl of soup for free. It is only on that day when the church doors are open. The homeless can keep warm for a short while. It is only on that day when donations are collected for charity. The needy suddenly get a windfall. It is only on that day when food is given for free. Some people get a warm meal only once a year.

That day is Christmas Day.

The Bethesda pool is a place when rules were broken. God broke the laws of natural biology to make some people happy. The sick can hope for magic.

Christmas Day is a day when the society's rules are broken. People go against the law of personal benefit to make someone else happy. The helpless and unfortunate can hope for unmerited generosity for a change.

Christmas Day is also a day when the bond of sin was broken. God broke the law of punishment for sin when He sent Jesus Christ to forgive them. The guilty and heavy-hearted can hope for pardon and eternal life.

As the Bethesda pool is a place for law-breaking, so is Christmas day. God set the example when He first broke the rules: He didn't give us what we deserve, and He gave us what we do not deserve.

So go on, and make someone happy. Show some charity. For charity itself is a work of God.

Just don’t become like this guy:

Uncle Scrooge!

Dear Junior

I had a talk with Abraham Choong last week, and with John Khor yesterday. From the two conversations I had with them, I am prompted to write a letter to my unborn kid.

Dear son/daughter,

Get an education. Maybe you have plans to start working after your secondary education. But these days, if you don’t have a degree, you’re gonna get stuck. People won’t hire you easily because in the end of the day, they still wanna see some kind of paper qualification. Even if they do hire you, they won’t give you a graduate’s pay. Getting increments to make up for your lack of a degree is a long and hard road. Be smart. Go study.

I won’t be able to afford to put you through some fancy college to do the course of your choice. So you’re gonna have to take life the hard way. Go take Form 6. You may not end up doing the course of your choice in university. But do it anyway. Get in there, get a degree, and get out.

Here’s the thing. University education does not sufficiently train you for the working world nowadays. Since no one will do it for you, you got to do it for yourself. Train yourself for your job! Do things that are outside your academic requirements. Take up big projects. Dare to imagine. Take up challenges that you never thought possible. Expand your social circle and develop yourself as a balanced individual. Learn to be wise.

Get your nose buried only in your books, and I’ll cut your allowance.

Take up temporary jobs when you can. If it pays well, good. You can do whatever you want with your own money. Go buy that 1000 Ringgit handphone if you want to, because I’m sure as heaven I won’t get one for you. It doesn’t register with my logic.

If the temporary job is non-profit, do it anyway. It’s not the money you should be after at this point of time. It’s the experience. If what you do for non-profit can give you invaluable experience for your job, what seems like foolishness today will be great wisdom tomorrow. Trust me on this. On-the-job experience with a finished product to show beats a purely academic resume anytime.

Let your friends go nuts over their 4.0. Get yourself a 3.0, and the confidence to take on the world. Then we'll see who really goes nuts.

Always remember. Your paper qualification will get you a job. Your experience will let you keep it.

Graduating with the course of your choice is only an added bonus in obtaining a degree. In reality, almost everyone starts from zero when they start working. Most people end up working in a job that has no relation at all with what they studied. So, if this is the case, why be picky over your course? That’s why I’m saying – get in, get a degree (any degree), and get out.

If you know the system, beat the system.

Oh yeah, while you’re doing all that, remember this: Don’t sleep around. Don’t drink. Don’t do drugs. Don’t think you’re too smart. I may be from the dinosaur generation by the time you’re old enough to read this. If you don’t want to take it from me, then don’t take it from me. Take it from the guy who was way smarter than any of us:

This guy slept with more women you can imagine, got more money than you can think of, and was more power hungry than your university’s pak guard. But in the end of the day, he had this to say:

“Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all” – Solomon.

Come And See

One fine day at Bethabara, John was standing with two of his disciples. When Jesus walked by, John pointed his two disciples towards Jesus and said, “Behold the Lamb of God!" The two disciples ditched John and followed Jesus.

Then Jesus turned, and seeing them following, said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), “where are You staying?” (John 1:38)

When Jesus asked “What do you seek?” The two disciples of John did not answer that question. Instead, they addressed Jesus as “Rabbi”. Then, they asked Him where He was staying.

The disciples’ first response showed the humility of their hearts. By addressing Jesus as Rabbi, they humbly recognized Jesus as their teacher, and themselves as the learners. They turned to Jesus so He could teach them what John could never teach. They wanted to learn from Jesus what they could never learn from anyone else.

After that, they asked Jesus where He was staying. The disciples’ second response showed the eagerness of their souls. No, they were not interested in the geographical location of Jesus’ abode. They wanted to know where Jesus would be staying, so they could be with Jesus for as long as it was possible.

How did Jesus respond to the two disciples?

He said to them, “Come and see.”
They came and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him that day. (John 1:39)

********************

Jesus found Philip. And in turn, Philip found Nathanael. Enthusiastically, Philip told Nathanael that he has found the One of whom Moses and the prophets wrote about.

And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

How did Philip respond to Nathanael?

Philip said to him, “Come and see.” (John 1:46)

Nathanel came to see for himself where Jesus was. When he had encountered Jesus, he said, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

********************

This Christmas, let us come and see. In humility of heart and eagerness of soul, come and see the goodness of God, in the sending of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Come and see the one whom Moses and the prophets wrote about. The one who loves us and saves us from our sin. The one who gave His life for us so we may have eternal life.

What good can come out from Israel? What good can come out from Palestine?

This Christmas, go and see. You may find the Prince of Peace. The One who is yet to bring everlasting peace on earth, but who has already made peace for us with God.

We Are Immortals

Dunno if you remember this show. Duncan MacLeod is the Highlander. For over 400 years, he constantly faced other immortals in a combat to the death. The winner takes his enemy's head, and with it his immortal power. One by one, immortals will fall as their heads are decapitated.

In the end, there can be only one. May it be Duncan MacLeod, the Highlander!

And the theme song goes, “Who waaants… to liiiiive… foreveeeeeer…”

We are all made to live forever. Christians and non-Christians alike. Every single one of us! Do you find this surprising?

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

What happens after death is, there will be a resurrection. ALL who are in the graves will come back to life. Either to the resurrection of life, or to the resurrection of condemnation.

“I have hope in God… that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24:15).

Yup, there it is again. Both the just, AND the unjust, will be called back for a reckoning.

“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

In that day of reckoning, some will awake to everlasting life, and some will awake to everlasting contempt.

We are all indiscriminately made to live forever. Still not convinced? Logic itself says so:

We say that after we die, we go to heaven or go to hell.
If we go to heaven, we will have everlasting life.
If we go to hell, we will have everlasting death, right?
In hell, there will be suffering. So that means we can feel pain, right?
So if we can feel pain in hell, how can we be dead?
So that means in hell, we have... Everlasting life!

There you go. Actually, the discussion boils down to this. What really is life? What really is death? Is life a state of existence, and death a state of non-existence?

The bible defines life and death rather differently. Life means “being in a relationship with God.” Therefore, everlasting life means “being forever with God”. Death means “separated from a relationship with God.” Therefore death, in its most final meaning, is “separated forever from God.” In other words, Christian jargon calls this spiritual death.

Let’s hear Jesus Himself define what eternal life is:

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

Therefore, life is not merely a state of existence, and death is not a state of non-existence. Life or death is defined in terms of a person’s relationship with God. Either we know God and are eternally in a good relationship with Him. That is life. Or, we don't know God and are eternally in a bad relationship with Him. That is death.

If we have life, we will be in heaven where God is present. If we have death, then we will be in hell where God is absent.

So who says death is really the end?

Weird Christians

My laptop died today.

Demonic Dave would've said, "This is demonic oppression! They don't want you to blog anymore in Hasten Ministries."

Judgmental Jill would've said, "Surely you have sinned!"

Gullible Garfield would've said, "Izzit ah? Must be lah..."

Frank Faith would've said, "You must believe that there is hope. Call Dell."

Pentecostal Pam would've said, "Pray! Just pray! He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world! Don't call Dell!"

Prosperity Patricia would've said, "Aiya, just call Dell la. They will do everything for you. Pay money only ma... You got give money to church or not? If you did, then the money will come back to you wan. No need to worry..."

Theological Theo would look at everyone, and said, "You all... RACA!!"

Everyone would stare at Theological Theo. Then, he would mutter to himself as he walks away, "Raca means fool in Aramaic... As in the original text in Mark..."




Read all about it!

Hymns vs Choruses

Was looking through some old emails. Found this one. Utterly hilarious!!

******************************

An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

"Well," said the farmer, "It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns."

"Praise choruses?" said his wife. "What are those?"

"Oh, they're OK. They are sort of like hymns, only different," said the farmer.

"Well, what's the difference?" asked his wife.

The farmer said, "Well, it's like this - If I were to say to you: "Martha, the cows are in the corn"' - well, that would be a hymn. If on the other hand, I were to say to you:

'Martha, Martha, Martha,
Oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA,
the cows, the big cows,
the brown cows,
the black cows, the white cows,
the black and white cows,
the COWS, COWS, COWS
are in the corn,
are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
the CORN, CORN, CORN.'

Then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well, that would be a praise chorus."

The next weekend, his nephew, a young, new Christian from the city came to visit and attended the local church of the small town. He went home and his mother asked him how it was.

"Well," said the young man, "It was good. They did something different however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs."

"Hymns?" asked his mother. "What are those?"

"Oh, they're OK. They are sort of like regular songs, only different," said the young man.

"Well, what's the difference?" asked his mother.

The young man said, "Well, it's like this - If I were to say to you: 'Martha, the cows are in the corn' - well, that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you:

'Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.

For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense
Hearkenest they in God's sun or His rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.

Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.

So look to the bright shining day by and by
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animals make my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.'

Then if I were to do only verses one, three and four and do a key change on the last verse, well that would be a hymn."

******************************

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! It's a classic :)

The Sky Is Falling!

We have a problem. Let’s call it Chicken Little’s tension.

Many bible passages warn us to be ready of Christ’s unexpected, sudden return. But many bible passages also indicate numerous important and visible events that must take place before Christ returns.

Here's the thing. Why the urgency to prepare for Christ’s return, if the events that precede Christ’s return have not happened yet? Isn’t it wiser to just wait it out and observe world events, instead of running helter-skelter?

Also, if the important events that precede Christ’s return are observable, how can Christ’s return be unexpected then? Isn’t it contradictory to prepare of something unexpected, if we know what will happen before that?

So, how? Can Christ really come at any time?

Two possible solutions to solve Chicken Little’s tension:

A) Concede that Christ could not come at any time.

This position, as taken by Louis Berkhof, has two difficulties. Firstly, it seems to nullify the force of the warnings of Jesus to “take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is” (Mark 13:33). Secondly, it seems to use the signs in a way quite opposite from the way Jesus intended them to be used. Jesus meant for the signs to intensify our sense of eager expectation. But rather, this position uses the signs as a reason to convince ourselves that “Jesus couldn’t come for a many more years, not until this sign and that sign is fulfilled.”

B) Accept that Christ indeed could come at any time.

The prelude of signs can be reconciled with the unexpected return of Christ in 3 ways:

i) The New Testament talks about two distinct returns of Christ – a secret, invisible coming (i.e. a coming for His saints, or Rapture) and a public, visible coming (i.e. a coming with His saints to reign over the earth). The secret coming can occur at any moment. The public coming will occur after the signs are fulfilled.

The difficulty of this position, as proposed by John Nelson Darby, is that it is hard to separate two separate comings of Christ from the bible. And since the suggestion of this position is quite recent (i.e. in the 19th century), this shows that this position isn’t the only possible solution to Chicken Little’s tension.

ii) All the signs have been fulfilled, and therefore Christ could indeed return at any moment.

This position is not convincing. It is not convincing to look back at history and try to see how the signs have been fulfilled in certain key events in the past. It is like trying to squeeze Scripture into the mould of history, when it should be the other way around. It is like trying to make Scripture say what we want it to say, and trying to see the signs as we would want to see them.

iii) Admit that it is unlikely, but possible that the signs have already been fulfilled.

This view proposes that we cannot pinpoint with certainty whether or not the signs have been fulfilled in history. Therefore, it is unlikely that the signs have happened. However, since we cannot know for sure whether or not the signs have been fulfilled, it is also possible that they have already happened.

So, if Chicken Little holds on to this view, he will always be on his toes. When he sees a wave of events happening in the world, it may or may not be the last, real sign before Christ returns. If it was, he will be ready. Even if it wasn’t, each successive wave of events will increase his sense of expectancy of Christ’s return.

And this is good. Responsible exegesis of Scripture, an expectation of Christ’s sudden return, and a measure of humility in human understanding, are all three preserved in this position.

As for me, at this moment of time, I’m with solution B, and a combination of option (i) and (iii).

How about you?

Yet Another Boring Day

Boring update: A boring boy wearing a boring-looking National Conference Enzyme t-shirt was spotted roaming Queensbay Mall. He was wearing blue Cheetah shorts that has no pockets. So he was carrying his handphone and keys in his hand.

He saw what he wanted for Christmas:







The price is not friendly. But if you buy for me... I'll be friendly :)


Can find at Bore-ders Bookstore.

Christianity And Family

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

We all need objective truth. But we never really know it. Until it hits us personally.

Picture this. Your son comes home from school one day. He says, “Dad. I’m a homosexual. I have a gay boyfriend.” What can you say?


You try to reason with your son. Discourage him. Correct him. Your son persistently asks you, “Why?” You are forced to dig deeper and deeper into your presuppositions that determine your value system. When you hit rock bottom, you’re going to say “I’m not going to approve of it. I didn’t raise you to be gay.” Your son will shrug, and walk away. And you’re going to sit by yourself on the dining table. Confused, frustrated, angry, and helpless.




You’re going to wish you can appeal to some kind of authority that is higher than yourself, so you can convince your son. You’ll scramble to look for a kind of authority that is binding. A kind of standard that is absolutely true, definitely right, that you can totally trust. An objective truth that can be no two ways about it.

That kind of authority can come about only if there is such a thing as absolute truth. Absolute truth can come about only when there is someone in absolute authority. Who else is absolute, except for God alone?

Without God and His authority in Scriptures, there is no real way to argue with your son about homosexuality. He is going to throw words like prejudice, cultural relativism, universality of love, generation gap, and freedom of choice at you. Deep down inside, you just know that it is wrong. But you don’t know how to articulate it. You’ll find yourself desperately helpless to nail it down for your son. Unless God speaks.

That’s why any responsible parent will not dichotomize the Christian faith from the reality of life. Thus it is important for families to recognize the supreme authority of Scripture on the first level, apply it to issues in everyday life on the second level, and openly discuss it with the family over the dining table on the third level.

Now, blow up this picture into a national context. Then, try to look at it from a global context. I believe you’ll begin to see why it makes perfect sense to govern a country based on the highest authority – God Himself.

Since the very beginning, God already instituted His laws. He showed His people how to live, because He loved them. He gave them the 10 commandments.

His people broke all of them. So, are the 10 commandments redundant then?

No, they are not. Repentance has meaning because the commandments were instituted in the first place. If God never gave the 10 commandments because He foresaw its unfeasibility, how will people ever know the right from the wrong? If people will never know the right from the wrong, how will people ever come to know Him? If people can never know Him, what meaning is there in their very own existence?

None at all.

That’s why I have reason to believe that God’s laws should be instituted on all levels. Starting from the family unit, extending to the country’s government, and reaching out to global realization. So people can have a chance to obey. So people can have a chance to know God.

Sure, people can choose to disobey. But that choice to disobey is possible only after the absolute standard of truth is set from the beginning. Not before. Adam and Eve had freedom of choice only after the tree of forbidden fruit was put in the Garden of Eden. Not before. Real choice came into being only after a standard of right and wrong was set. Without a standard that distinguishes between the two, there is no such thing as freedom of choice.

So, does God’s truth infringe on human rights? Is God's rule oppresive? I don’t think so. Rather, the institution of God’s truth is what really gives mankind the ability, and the freedom to choose. It is "the truth that shall make you free".

“Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!” – Martin Luther King.

Boring Is As Boring Does

“He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

I am, indeed, a bore. I asked myself 4 questions. Here are my findings:

What do you like to do?

I don’t know. At one time, I swam a lot, did lifesaving a lot, presided a Christian Fellowship, debated quite a bit. But all those were things that I needed to do. Now that those things are abruptly over for me, I can do what I want to do. But what do I like to do?

I must’ve been doing only the things that I need to do for too long. Now that I don’t need to do those things anymore, what do I really want to do? I don’t even know.

Where do you like to go?

I can go to the pool. But that’s because there is where I train. I can go to the shopping mall. But it’s not as though I can buy anything there. I can go to the bowling alley. But bowling is no fun when you got no one of “your type” to bowl with. I can go play ping pong. But no one seems to be interested in it nowadays. I can go to the badminton court. But you need to find a group of people to do that with you. I can just go for a run outside. But I am afraid of getting the “black out” feeling. Because I’ve been out of touch with physical activity for too long.

I don’t go to discos, I don’t go to pubs. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke. If I can’t appreciate museums or art galleries, and if going to cinemas is carnal… I don’t know where I want to go.

What was the latest piece of clothing that you bought?

A pair of long khakis. But that was because I needed to get a pair to help out with D Jungle People. It’s like their uniform.

The fact is, I don’t buy clothes! All my t-shirts are free. I get a lot of free t-shirts from swimming competitions since I was 8. I don’t remember deliberately buying a t-shirt from a store. Camp t-shirts and debating t-shirts don't count. Put me in a store and ask me to pick a t-shirt. I wouldn’t even know what to do.

What was the last book you read?

Discipleship Of The Mind by James W Sire. Was preparing for a workshop on worldviews then.

Currently reading a Francis Schaeffer book. A trilogy – A God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, God Is Here And He Is Not Silent. What kinda book is that??

My gosh. A Francis Schaeffer book. I must be truly boring...

When a dispute arose between John’s disciples and the Jews, John said “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven” (John 3:27) John may be losing a lot of people to Jesus when Jesus started baptizing in Judea. But John said “He must increase, but I must decrease.”

Yes, the joy of Christian living is in seeing more and more of our inner lives being conformed to be more like Christ, and in seeing more and more of our outer lives being surrendered to Him. We want to see more and more of Him in us, and less and less of ourselves. As Eric Liddell said, “It’s complete surrender.”

But doesn’t God allow us that little space for us to do what we like? Doesn’t He permit us to have that small, little place for us to choose what we want for ourselves… to be happy?

I'm sure He does.

Sigh… Hence the struggle to walk the line between selfless godliness and selfish hedonism.

Or maybe I’m just feeling depressed. Or maybe it’s the book that I’ve been reading. Maybe it’s because the book has been going on and on about how everything from art to literature to music to theology has gone below the “line of despair”. Maybe things will get better when I hit the good news/solution part of the book.

Or maybe I should just stop reading Francis Schaeffer. And stop being boring.

*I can't even find a picture for this entry. Boooring...*

Boooring...

I was browsing through other people’s blogs yesterday. Then I looked at my own blog entries. It suddenly struck me. Gosh, what a boring person I am! Just look at the things I blog about!

Any other normal person would blog about something interesting that has happened during the day. Or some random thought. Or someone he/she met yesterday. Or what he ate for lunch. Where she went last weekend. What he did two nights ago. Something new she found out as “fact of the day”. How he is feeling. What she is doing. Or wanting to do. Just simple, normal things. And they turn out to be quite interesting to read about.

When I glance through my blog… Oh my goodness! What a bore I must be!

I do want to post more light-hearted entries. Something not so serious, or something about myself. But what can I do. The last time I let a little bit of my personality in, someone called me boastful and pompous. *blek*

Here’s how I rationalize my blog posts. Say if I can write one blog post a day, what would I want to write about? Things that are beneficial, or things that don’t matter at all? Well, I could write a balance of both. Like, 3 serious posts and 4 nonsense posts a week.

Then, I ask myself. If I know that I am able, and should be, writing things that are helpful, useful and edifying, shouldn’t I be doing more of that? Yah. You can’t argue with that. So I write 5 serious posts and 2 nonsense posts.

And then again, if I consciously know that I write nonsense posts, why am I deliberately writing them? It is one thing if my serious posts are actually nonsense posts, and I don’t even know the difference. But it is another thing if I can tell the difference, and I deliberately choose to write nonsense.

So, the logic is, if I consciously know when I am actually writing good stuff and when I am actually writing rubbish, why would I choose the latter? If I know that it is better to write about beneficial things, why not go all the way then? You can't argue with that.

So...

7 serious blog posts, 0 nonsense blog posts.

I actually have an old blog that I’ve abandoned upon starting this blog. Back then, I thought it was hedonistic and time-wasting to have a “personal” blog. It had more of myself in there. But it felt so syok sendiri. Only very few people know about that old blog...

But what if I do two different blogs then? One for serious stuff, one for syok sendiri stuff. Why not, rite? I can still maintain my objectives in my Hasten Ministries blog, and I can have some personal fun in a separate blog.


But then… Why the dichotomy? Why am I separating things like that? Does that mean that I am living a dichotomized life? Spiritual and Christian on one side, full of nonsense and hedonistic rubbish on the other side? Having two blogs with such a clear dichotomy will only prove myself to be a hypocritical person who lives a double life, wouldn’t it?

Ahhh… The complications of putting your thoughts in public.

The question still remains. Am I boring? I suspect that I am.

Hmmm…

Christianity And State

“The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” – Romans 8:19-21.




Questions of the day: How will it be like if an absolutely Christian government rules a country? What will happen if a country is ruled without a dichotomy between Christian faith and government administration?

Let us define the terms and paint the scenario. What if a government that fits these descriptions becomes a reality:

It is a Christian government, where the basis of Scripture is argued on the first level, applied in laws and ordinances in the second level, and discussed by everyone formally or casually in the third level. Christian principles are applied in every matter of governance, from economic plans to foreign policies. Administrative and ethical decisions are made according to Scriptures, not apart from it. It does not have two separate courts, e.g. a Christian Court and a Federal Court. It only has one court. There is no dichotomy.

It is a Christian government, but it does not Christianize people. It believes in a non-plural, one and only, living and true God. But it does not violate people’s free will. It does not afford every baby born in the country a Christian status by default. It does not make it legally difficult for those who want to come out from the faith. It is not troublesome for people to be labeled as a believer of another faith in their IC. An unbelieving spouse and his/her family are not required to get a Christian status by proxy. It does not insist on a Christian burial just because some people claim the deceased to be one, or used to be one. It does not barge down hotel rooms in an attempt to find promiscuous behaviour, and does not apologize after that.

It is a Christian government that is impartial. It does not grant special privileges to any race or religion, even to Christians. Even if it does, the privilege that Christians will have is extra taxation. So the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the marginalized can benefit form it.

I’m not surprised if we have doubts about the feasibility of a Christian government. This is because our picture of a theistic government is clouded by the discomforting picture of other religious governments that presently exist.

We tend to think that a country ruled by religion is oppressive, intolerant, and an infringement on human rights. But I have reason to believe that a country ruled by a Christian administration without a dichotomy between faith and government is for the betterment of humanity. Why?

Because the Christian faith is exclusively different from all other theistic beliefs. Therefore, a Christian government is also different from other non-Christian, theistic governments. Every professing Christian should not be ashamed to admit that the Christian faith is unlike all other faiths. Therefore it is only logical for a professing Christian to conclude that a hypothetical Christian government, if it exists, will be superior to presently existing religious governments.

However, even though Scripture is inerrant, improper application of Scripture will still occur, given the fallibility of man. A Christian government, even if it is run only by Christians, will not be a perfect one. Unless he who presides the entire government is perfect.

But the bible says that day will come to pass! A perfect person will one day preside a global government! The time will come when the believers who have part in the first resurrection will live, and “they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6).

Oh, how the whole creation waits. It “has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:22). We have much to look forward to. The world waits "for the sons of God to be revealed."

A Loyal Soldier In London

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, a top cleric in the Church of England, is taking aim at the “systematic erosion” of Christianity in British public life. He objected to these things:

1. The official refusal to acknowledge Christmas for fear of offending other faiths.

2. The official government Christmas cards which merely wish “Seasons Greetings”.

3. Santa on stamps instead of Jesus Christ.

4. The official documents that now invite people to write their “first name” rather than “Christian name”.

5. The decision by the local council in Plymouth to end free parking on Sundays in case it offended people who worship on other days.

6. The decision by Birmingham City Council 8 years ago to rename Christmas as “Winterval” to avoid offending others.

*Quotations taken from The Sun, Monday, 13th November 2006, Page 14.

My thoughts on the 6 objections made by John Sentamu:

Objection #1: If other faiths can have their religious celebrations, what is so offensive for Christmas to be acknowledged? It is not as though unbelievers are forced to celebrate Christmas in a “religious manner”. If one acts consistently with his Christian beliefs, then Christmas should be acknowledged, even if its acknowledgement implies a certain level of exclusivity towards other faiths. A good move.

Objection #2: If a certain religious celebration is being acknowledged in the making of a card, then it is only logical to acknowledge its spiritual significance completely. Why make a card to acknowledge the season, if you refuse to acknowledge its significance? It won't make any sense. Either make the card, or don’t make it at all. A good move.

Objection #3: Well, I guess arguing whether or not fictional characters like Santa should be on stamps is the same as arguing whether or not other fictional characters like Spiderman or Doraemon should be on stamps. Having Jesus Christ on stamps will not make any more difference than having a graven image of Him in every town. Go ahead and make Jesus stamps if you want. But even if you don’t, it’s still cool.

Objection #4: I think there should be no distinction between “first name” and “Christian name” in the first place. A Christian name does not make a person any more Christian than the guy next door. Neither does a person that goes by the name of Joey is any more Christian than the guy named Jehoshaphat. I am not in agreement of any form of implied status of a person’s faith by the mere christening of a person’s name alone. So this is a non issue.

Objection #5: I disagree with Sentamu on this one. Christians, of all people, should not expect special privileges just so that we can “practice our religion”. We all know how it is like to see roads triple-parked and people riding motorbikes without helmets on a certain day of the week. Christians will be no different from this hypocrisy if we allow our faith to be the license to be exempted from the law.

Objection #6: Same as the Christmas card issue; either fully acknowledge the holiday, or don’t acknowledge it at all. It is redundant to acknowledge any kind of holiday if the community refuses to recognize its true significance in the first place. Why celebrate Guy Fawkes’ day if we don’t want to accept that Guy Fawkes exists?

Generally, I think Sentamu is trying to do a good thing. Three cheers to him for holding the lines in London!

Sanctity Of Life Defiled

“The Church of England believes doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.”

“The view comes in a submission from the church to a British medical ethics committee looking at the implications of keeping severely premature babies alive through technological advances.”

“The Observer reported that the church, led by the head of the world’s Anglicans Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, could not accept the view that the life of any baby is not worth living. But it added there were ‘strong proportionate reasons’ for ‘overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained.’ "

*Quotes taken from The Sun, Monday, 13th November 2006, page 14.

The right to life for newborns is no longer absolute. The irony is, the charge against the sanctity of human life did not come from a secular body, but from the Church of England. It was not a non-governmental organization or social welfare group who submitted this view to a British medical ethics committee. The church did it.

Where are the lines? Has the enemy broken through the lines in Britain? Is what we’re seeing here enemy fire or friendly fire?

The presupposition to life may be arguable in the naturalistic worldview, where the maintenance of disabled children is a liability to the economy, and a long term cause of sociological problems. It may be argued that a disabled child may not want to live with such hampering disability anyway. It may even be argued that the right to the dignity or quality of life is higher than the right to life itself. Oh, the psychological trauma the child will have to go through. Oh, the burden it will add to its already dysfunctional family (assuming that it was even born into a family in the first place). But has the church abandoned a theistic worldview to embrace a naturalistic one?

Instead of arguing on behalf of the value of human life, the Church of England championed the right for doctors to withhold treatment in exceptional circumstances. It was not the parents’ right that was championed. It was not even the baby’s right that was championed. It was the doctor’s right.

How exceptional can a circumstance be to override the presupposition that life should be maintained? If there is, what qualifies such a circumstance? How much further can the acceptance of “exceptional circumstances” be pushed? How different is this from euthanasia, or from the people’s right to death? How far is it really, from extending this step towards social engineering?

Is that all the sanctity of life means? A mere presupposition? A baseless belief that is based only on human cultural history? For all people, the church of Christ should know that the right to life is not a fallible presupposition. God’s view on the value of human life is as basic as the value of Christ’s sacrifice to preserve life eternally.

Now, it is up to the British medical ethics committee to fight on God’s behalf against the Church of England.

Do we have to fix bayonets already?

Bayonets Already?

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point – Martin Luther.

A battalion of paratroopers land in hostile territory. The perimeter is secured with urgent haste. “Don’t let them break through the lines!” Mel Gibson yelled.

Every segment of the perimeter is extremely important. If one part of the perimeter is under fierce attack, immediate attention must be concentrated on that part without compromising the rest of the perimeter, even if it means redistributing the strength of the lines. What’s most important is this: The enemy must never break through the lines!

Why is this of utmost importance? Once the enemy breaks through the lines, there is no longer a line to separate enemy territory from friendly territory. Friendly helicopters can no longer land to bring in more paratroopers. The use of artillery and machine guns must be abandoned, because you can no longer tell if your guns are shooting at enemies or friendlies. You can no longer differentiate between enemy fire and friendly fire. Bayonets must be fixed, hand-to-hand combat will ensue. Battle tactics are reduced to “whoever stabs first, wins.”

The American troops are getting overwhelmed by the Viet Kong. Mel Gibson assesses the battlefield situation, and grabs the radio receiver. “Broken arrow!” He yells. “I repeat, broken arrow!”

Broken Arrow means an American platoon is being overrun. An air strike will come and napalm the whole area. It is a final attempt to inflict maximum damage on the enemy upon conceding defeat. Enemies will die. Friendlies will die. We can only hope that more enemies will die than the remaining friendlies. After Broken Arrow, nothing is left, except dead bodies. All perish.

This scene depicted from “We Were Soldiers” poignantly paints the picture of what will happen if the church of Christ flinches at precisely that little point where the battle rages. That little point is the battle against the post-modernist age.

Truth is no longer accepted on the basis of antithesis, i.e. A is A, and A is not non-A. The lines of right and wrong are blurred to “everything is relative-ism.” Truth is perceived as cultural and subjective, instead of divine and objective. God is no longer our prime reality. Instead, what we perceive within our personal palate becomes what’s really real.

The post-modernist man asks, “How do we know?” And worse, “How do we know that we know?” The post-modernist society replies, “We don’t know how we know. Therefore, we don’t really know, do we?”

When post-modernism infiltrates through our lines, the church of Christ will be in big trouble. If we flinch at the very area where the battle is raging, and instead, turn our attention to strengthen the areas that are already strong, it is mere flight. It is cowardice. If the enemy has already permeated the church until we can no longer use biblical, absolute truth as our attack or defense, we are a disgrace. We are a failure. If we can no longer differentiate between enemy fire and friendly fire, then the very purpose of church’s existence has ceased – for there is no more difference.

Grievous will be the day when we concede defeat and call Broken Arrow. For all will perish.

Kiam Siap Kui!

So I looked, and behold, a black horse, and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine” (Revelation 6:5-6).

I can see the “or beh” looking at me. I’m tired of always being broke. And I’m tired of getting turned down because my prices are too steep.

I always emphasize that I give quality service. But I guess that’s not the way to go. People always go for the cheaper deal. And everyone claims to be giving quality service anyway. Bah.

What to do. We’re cina. And all cina think like that. Always wanting to get the most for less. Sigh… If you can’t beat them, join them!

Here’s the new deal. RM30 per hour for personal tutoring. Maths and sciences for all forms. English proficiency lessons are incorporated as a bonus. You call me, I come there. I will prepare or buy the necessary materials at no extra cost. I have a long list of teaching stints under my belt. Taught in Penang Free School in 2002 and 2003, Convent Green Lane in 2004, Methodist Boys’ School in 2005, St Xavier’s Institution in 2006, and currently teaching in Convent Green Lane again. I’ve got good reviews from every school. Don’t believe? Ask my former students.

I’ve done personal tutoring for Form 1, Form 2, Form 3, and Form 4 too. I’ve taught in a tuition center before also. And I have a degree in Bachelor of Science With Education, with honours, mind you! Go look for a better personal tutor at such a killer rate if you can. Sure cannot find wan. Don’t believe me? Ask the black horse.

Swimming lessons. RM150 for 10 lessons, 1 hour per lesson. You arrange the venue, I come there. My credentials go a long way. Former state swimmer. My state record is still standing (Google it up and see). Qualified lifeguard and lifesaving instructor, certified by the Life Saving Society of Malaysia. Represented Malaysia in the Asia Pacific Lifesaving Sports Challenge (Japan, 2005), and in the World Lifesaving Championships (Australia, 2006).

You can be sure as heaven that you won’t drown in my hands. And I can help make you become who I once was. It can’t get any cheaper than this. Don’t believe me? Save yourself the trouble of doing a survey. I’ve done my research. You can’t possibly go any cheaper than that in the entire Penang island!

Lelong lelong… Cheap! Cheeep! Cheeep!

No need to tell you good or not. Because even if I do, you won’t believe. So…

CHEEEEP!

Recent Grouses

What irks me at the moment is how come I am almost a quarter century old, I am no longer studying, and I still don’t have what people will call a “steady job.” It’s not a laughing matter actually. No, I am not unemployed. But being a temporary teacher is not counted as a “steady job.”

Because firstly, you are operating only on a contract basis. Your term of service can be terminated at any time either by a decision of the Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah, or when the vacancy is no longer available (e.g. a permanent teacher is drafted in to take your place, or when the teacher you're replacing comes back to resume his/her duty after an extended leave).

And secondly, you don’t get paid promptly. You only get paid approximately 3 months after your contract ends. E.g. if you have a contract to work as a temporary teacher for 3 months, you’ll get paid 3 months after your contract ends. That’s equivalent to a 6-month wait of working without pay. You start working in January, you stop working in March, and you only get paid in June.

On the bright side of it, you’ll get a lump sum of money once they pay up. But on the dark side of it, it’s hard to explain to people around you how come you are always broke even though you are already perceived as a working adult. People can easily misunderstand you for being a super kiam siap miser.

Of course I wish I can be upgraded to a permanent status in Convent Green Lane. The school wishes that I can stay on too. But the decision is not in my hands, nor in the school’s hands. Everyone from the batch of 2006 is still waiting for our posting.

I checked my scholarship contract with Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. It says by 12 months upon completion of my course, I am supposed to serve the government for 4 years. If my interpretation of the clause is correct, if I don’t get hired by the government before the 12 months are up, counting from the day I finished my final exams, then I am a free agent. I reckon I can feel the thrill of being courted by private institutions by May 2007.

What frustrates me now is, I can’t even start build my own life as long as I am stuck in this limbo. It is not as though I have no other option other than wait for the government to throw me some breadcrumbs. I’m half hoping that I won’t get my posting, so I can be free to start building my life where I want it. I actually have quite a few options in my hands:

1. Lecture in private colleges, e.g. KDU, Disted Stamford, TARC, IPG, etc. There are ample private colleges in Penang. I can try for a position in the academic staff for foundational courses.

2. Work in Kumon. I’ve personally visited a Kumon Center and talked with a regional boss. I’m impressed and much in agreement with Kumon’s objectives and aspirations. They pay reasonably well too. I can take up MBA while I’m at Kumon, and work my way up to become a branch manager one day.

3. Take up a job in Tanjung Tuition Center, the biggest and most established tuition center in Penang. The center has an opening for me, courtesy of my father’s colleague who is a share holder and branch owner of the center. I have turned down the offer to work there so far, because of the limbo I’m in. Becoming a full-time tuition teacher in several centers is not a bad idea anyway.

4. Take up a Masters in Education, or in any field related to Education through a distance learning program, while I continue teaching temporarily on contract basis. And try my hand in a teacher’s training college after I’m done.

Actually I don’t see why I should be groveling at the government’s feet. If they don’t hire me, I have all to gain and nothing to lose. It’s a win-win situation for me whichever way it goes, but not so for them. If they hire me, then good. If they don’t hire me, then I’ll thank them for their generosity in giving me a free university education worth RM26,000. As for them, they will have to forfeit 4 years’ worth of service from me.

So you tell me… When I go to the interview with the Kementerian Pendidikan, at whose court is the ball in? I say, “You just take your pick and save me the bureaucratic nonsense lah. It’s not as though anything I say for formality’s sake is going to influence your pre-determined decision based on policies that I don’t wanna know. Either hire me, or leave me alone just a little bit longer. You only have 6 months left until I’m a free agent. So if you wanna hire me, I suggest you do it today.”

Power encounter. 14th November 2006.

Confusing But True

“This proposition is indeed so true that its negation is inconceivable. For it is quite conceivable that there is something whose non-existence is inconceivable, and this must be greater than that whose non-existence is conceivable. Wherefore, if that thing than which no greater thing is conceivable can be conceived as non-existent; then that very thing than which a greater is inconceivable is not that than which a greater is inconceivable; which is a contradiction.

So true is that there exists something than which a greater is inconceivable, that its non-existence is inconceivable: and this thing you are, O Lord our God!” – Anselm ‘Ontological Proof,’ Proslogion, iii and iv.

What in the world is Anselm taking about? Can faham or not, what it says? Try reading it again, and try to decipher what he is saying.

I said, try reading it yourself again! And try to understand what it says. I’m not going to explain it until you’ve tried it on your own.





















Try it again! Lazy lazy, air so hazy…





















Still cannot understand? Try again! “Greater joy hath no man than this, that a man tries to understand something before his friends.” – C. S. Hooi.





















Oklah, by now, if you’ve understood it by yourself, I’m sure you’re feeling very happy. If not, then let me try to explain it plainly. First, replace the word “conceivable” with “can be accepted,” and replace the word “inconceivable” with “cannot be imagined.” What Anselm is trying to say can be broken down in a logical flow of thought.

1. Something whose non-existence “cannot be imagined” must be greater than something whose non-existence is “can be accepted.”

2. Therefore, the greatest thing must be something whose non-existence “cannot be imagined.”

3. Mr. X is the greatest thing, so his non-existence “cannot be imagined.”

4. If we say Mr. X’s non-existence “can be accepted,”

5. Therefore, Mr. X is no longer the greatest thing, because his non-existence “can be accepted.”

If Mr. X is the greatest thing, then his non-existence “cannot be imagined.” If Mr. X is not the greatest thing, then his non-existence “can be accepted.” Mr. X cannot be both the greatest thing, and whose existence “can be accepted.” This is a contradiction.

In essence, the point that Anselm is trying to make is this:

“That something, which nothing can be greater than… That something, whose non-existence ‘cannot be imagined,’… That Mr. X that I’m talking about… Is the Lord our God!"

Anselm comes up with more confusing but true statements. Try sampling this one:

“I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand.”

This one, I’ll let you figure out yourself as homework :)

No Action, Write Only?

Is blogging a waste of time? Shouldn’t we be spending more time with real people to impact them in person, rather than hide behind a computer screen to write blogs? Is it cowardly behaviour to be “weighty and powerful” only in writing? Is penning down thoughts into words equivalent to doing nothing?

The work of writers should not be looked upon with disdain. Just because a literary work is produced under a roof doesn’t mean it is a vain pursuit.

Back during the times when church doors were frequently used as a notice board, the father of Protestanism, Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses and nailed it on the north door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. On the eve of All Saints’ Day, 31 October 1517, Martin Luther started Reformation ball rolling. And he did it by writing.








Back during the times when English translations of the Bible were not readily available, William Tyndale saw at first hand the ignorance of the local clergy. “If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost,” he said to a cleric. William Tyndale set out to make an English translation of the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek. When he was strangled and burnt in October 1536, his last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” William Tyndale earned himself the title as the “father of the English Bible.” And he did it by writing.



Philip Melanchton, who supported Martin Luther in Wittenberg, took over the theological leadership after Martin Luther’s death. He wrote the Commonplaces (Loci communes), the first book which described clearly the teachings of the Reformation. He was also responsible for the Augsburg Confession (1530), which is the chief statement of faith in the Lutheran churches. Philip Melanchton remained the only Protestant theologian of his day to represent the views of the people at large. And he did it by writing.




All these people (and more) changed the course of Christian history in magnanimous ways. And all of them did it by writing.

The apostle Paul was once accused to be a cowardly “blogger” of the ancient times. He wrote powerful letters that were not easy to swallow. People found little comfort in reading his letters. Because of that, some people started trying to discredit the authority of his writing by attacking the sincerity of his character. “For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” Paul heard it coming. And he replied, “Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when we are absent, such we will also be in deed when we are present.” (2 Corinthians 10:10-11)

He would’ve loved to be present in person to affirm, correct, or rebuke. But he couldn’t. What choice did he have? Therefore, he wrote. Many hearts were made sorry through reading Paul’s letters, although Paul was not physically present with them. Did Paul feel sorry for his letters?

“For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a little while. Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance.” (2 Corinthians 7:8-9)





Words are powerful things. Each work of writing is like a work of art. More importantly, it is a statement of faith, which ultimately speaks to our hearts and determines our conduct.

Writing was a very tiresome task in times past, when people had to use quill and ink. They had to find a hard, dry surface to write on. They had to do it under some decent lighting that normally came from a lamp. Today, writing is so much easier. And it is so much more readily circulated to every part of the world by just the click of a button. Countless people have benefited through other people’s writings in books, in websites, or in blogs.

It’s at the least, plainly distasteful or at the worst, foolishly offensive to imply that putting thoughts in writing is equivalent to “no action, talk only.”