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.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 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 :)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
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.”
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.”
Monday, October 23, 2006
I've Been Pos Ekspressed
Joshua, any news about your posting?
No news. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
So, when are you getting your posting?
Dunno when. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
Hey, do you know where you’ll be posted yet?
Dunno where. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
I know people mean well when they ask me about my posting. But after getting asked for the 70 x 7th time, you got to get a little bit tired of repeating the same answer over and over again, isn’t it?
Well, some people say I have the habit of repeating myself anyway. And I sound exactly the same each time I repeat it… Point flow, emphasis, intonation and all.
I remember Sharon commenting that I sounded like a tape recorder whenever I repeated the Aquathon Challenge story to every committee member separately. “You sound exactly the same wan! Each time! The things you say, which one you say first… Even the tone!” She exclaimed.
Must be a teacher’s trait la… Have to what. Imagine, you have to say the same thing about the same subject over and over again, every time you go to class. It’s got to stick with you somehow. Like a habit…
Anyway, I checked the letter box today. And I got this:
No news. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
So, when are you getting your posting?
Dunno when. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
Hey, do you know where you’ll be posted yet?
Dunno where. Next year lah. They say got interview by November.
I know people mean well when they ask me about my posting. But after getting asked for the 70 x 7th time, you got to get a little bit tired of repeating the same answer over and over again, isn’t it?
Well, some people say I have the habit of repeating myself anyway. And I sound exactly the same each time I repeat it… Point flow, emphasis, intonation and all.
I remember Sharon commenting that I sounded like a tape recorder whenever I repeated the Aquathon Challenge story to every committee member separately. “You sound exactly the same wan! Each time! The things you say, which one you say first… Even the tone!” She exclaimed.
Must be a teacher’s trait la… Have to what. Imagine, you have to say the same thing about the same subject over and over again, every time you go to class. It’s got to stick with you somehow. Like a habit…
Anyway, I checked the letter box today. And I got this:
It’s the letter for Temuduga Urusan Pengambilan Untuk Lantikan Sebagai Guru Siswazah/ Lepasan Diploma from the Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Yeah. So, now I have a new answer to repeat! Golly :)
Joshua, any news about your posting?
Got interview letter already. 14th November, at Politeknik Seberang Perai.
So, when are you getting your posting?
Dunno when, but got interview letter already. 14th November, at Politeknik Seberang Perai.
Hey, do you know where you’ll be posted yet?
Dunno where. But got interview letter already. 14th November, at Politeknik Seberang Perai.
So, Sabah ah? Or Sarawak?
I said I dunno where! I dunno if it’s Sabah, or Sarawak, OR BRUNEI OR BUKIT KAYU HITAM! It’s just an interview! 14th November, at Politeknik Seberang Perai! Aaaargh! Yeaaaargh! Yeeeek!!
Hehehe… I know people love me. I love them too :)
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Inerrancy Of Scripture
“All the words in the Bible are God’s words. Since God cannot lie or speak falsely, then all the words in Scripture are completely true.”
The inerrancy of Scripture is quite a huge concern in the evangelical world today, as Scripture is being challenged for its inerrancy. Even Christians have started to believe that although the main teachings of the Bible are infallible, the Bible cannot be completely true in every single thing it says.
The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. In other words, the Bible always tells the truth in everything it talks about.
Is the Bible absolutely truthful in everything it says? It must be recognized that absolute truthfulness in speech is consistent with some other types of statements, such as:
1. The Bible can be inerrant and still speak in the ordinary language of everyday speech.
This Bible is flawless even when it comes to scientific, historical, or numerical descriptions of facts and events.
For example, the Bible talks about the “sun rising” and the “rain falling”. Scientifically speaking, the sun does not “rise” because the Earth rotates in its orbit around the sun. Also, scientifically speaking, the rain does not “fall” downwards. The rain falls downwards, sideways, or upwards, depending on the direction of the Earth’s gravitational pull. But the Bible’s descriptions of the “sun rising” and the “rain falling” are still true, because this is what exactly happens from the perspective of the speaker.
Another example concerning numbers and measurements. A reporter can say that 8,000 people were killed in a battle without implying that exactly 8000 people have died; not 7,999 people, not 8001 people. If roughly 8000 people died, it would be false to say that 16,000 people died. But it would not be false in most contexts for a reporter to say that 8000 people died when in actual fact, 7,823 or 8,242 people have died. The limits of truthfulness depend on the degree of precision implied by the speaker and expected by the hearers.
As far as the Bible writers are concerned, in some cases, they never implied that they were reporting the exact number when they record a quantitative figure. The original hearers were not expecting a totally accurate number either. Getting rounded numbers is not really a problem, because firstly, rounded numbers are not necessary false numbers. And secondly, the original hearers were not expecting a statistical report anyway. Rounded numbers are equally true for them as the accurate figure, in which they were not really interested in. So, there is no falsehood in the Bible as far as numerical measurements are concerned.
2. The Bible can be inerrant and still include loose or free quotations.
The method of quoting what someone says varies from culture to culture. In contemporary American or British culture, we use quotation marks when we quote a person word for word (direct quotation). And if we are not quoting a person for his exact words, we only expect an accurate report of the substance in that statement (indirect quotation).
Ancient Greek writing had no quotation marks or equivalent kinds of punctuation. Therefore, only indirect quotations could be done by the Bible’s writers. They did not ordinarily imply that they were quoting the exact words of the speaker, not did the original hearers expect verbatim quotations. So, loose or free quotations of the Old Testament or of the words of Jesus are consistent with the inerrancy of the Bible, as long as the content reported is not false.
For example, consider these 3 statements:
a) “I will come to the house to eat in 2 minutes,” said Ah Chong.
b) Ah Chong said that he will return home for dinner immediately.
c) Ah Chong went back to Gelugor for a meal as soon as he could.
All 3 statements are correct. None of Ah Chong’s exact, original words were repeated. But every statement is still an acceptable and truthful report of Ah Chong’s dinner plans.
3. The Bible can be inerrant and still have unusual or uncommon grammatical constructions.
Even though the Holy Spirit moved human hands to write the Words of God, the Bible was still written by ordinary people. Therefore, some Scriptural writings contain the rough language of ordinary people. This includes the usage of bad grammar in the some of the original manuscripts.
In some cases, the cases of “bad grammar” actually have a special, divine intention in what it is trying to say. For example, when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am,” (John 8:58) it is grammatically wrong, but it is completely true. When Jesus said “I am” instead of “I was,” Jesus was making a clear declaration of His deity.
But in some other cases, bad grammar is the result of stylistic irregularity. However, a statement can be grammatically wrong, but still be entirely true. For example, a rubber tapper may not be educated enough to form grammatically impeccable sentences. But he is the most trusted man in the community, because he has earned a reputation for never telling a lie. He can come up with a statements like, “I was cutting the tree skin that time la. I was late because the tree milk come out slow mah. I where can stealing your chicken and cutting tree skin at the same time?” And he can still be totally truthful.
The inerrancy of Scripture is quite a huge concern in the evangelical world today, as Scripture is being challenged for its inerrancy. Even Christians have started to believe that although the main teachings of the Bible are infallible, the Bible cannot be completely true in every single thing it says.
The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. In other words, the Bible always tells the truth in everything it talks about.
Is the Bible absolutely truthful in everything it says? It must be recognized that absolute truthfulness in speech is consistent with some other types of statements, such as:
1. The Bible can be inerrant and still speak in the ordinary language of everyday speech.
This Bible is flawless even when it comes to scientific, historical, or numerical descriptions of facts and events.
For example, the Bible talks about the “sun rising” and the “rain falling”. Scientifically speaking, the sun does not “rise” because the Earth rotates in its orbit around the sun. Also, scientifically speaking, the rain does not “fall” downwards. The rain falls downwards, sideways, or upwards, depending on the direction of the Earth’s gravitational pull. But the Bible’s descriptions of the “sun rising” and the “rain falling” are still true, because this is what exactly happens from the perspective of the speaker.
Another example concerning numbers and measurements. A reporter can say that 8,000 people were killed in a battle without implying that exactly 8000 people have died; not 7,999 people, not 8001 people. If roughly 8000 people died, it would be false to say that 16,000 people died. But it would not be false in most contexts for a reporter to say that 8000 people died when in actual fact, 7,823 or 8,242 people have died. The limits of truthfulness depend on the degree of precision implied by the speaker and expected by the hearers.
As far as the Bible writers are concerned, in some cases, they never implied that they were reporting the exact number when they record a quantitative figure. The original hearers were not expecting a totally accurate number either. Getting rounded numbers is not really a problem, because firstly, rounded numbers are not necessary false numbers. And secondly, the original hearers were not expecting a statistical report anyway. Rounded numbers are equally true for them as the accurate figure, in which they were not really interested in. So, there is no falsehood in the Bible as far as numerical measurements are concerned.
2. The Bible can be inerrant and still include loose or free quotations.
The method of quoting what someone says varies from culture to culture. In contemporary American or British culture, we use quotation marks when we quote a person word for word (direct quotation). And if we are not quoting a person for his exact words, we only expect an accurate report of the substance in that statement (indirect quotation).
Ancient Greek writing had no quotation marks or equivalent kinds of punctuation. Therefore, only indirect quotations could be done by the Bible’s writers. They did not ordinarily imply that they were quoting the exact words of the speaker, not did the original hearers expect verbatim quotations. So, loose or free quotations of the Old Testament or of the words of Jesus are consistent with the inerrancy of the Bible, as long as the content reported is not false.
For example, consider these 3 statements:
a) “I will come to the house to eat in 2 minutes,” said Ah Chong.
b) Ah Chong said that he will return home for dinner immediately.
c) Ah Chong went back to Gelugor for a meal as soon as he could.
All 3 statements are correct. None of Ah Chong’s exact, original words were repeated. But every statement is still an acceptable and truthful report of Ah Chong’s dinner plans.
3. The Bible can be inerrant and still have unusual or uncommon grammatical constructions.
Even though the Holy Spirit moved human hands to write the Words of God, the Bible was still written by ordinary people. Therefore, some Scriptural writings contain the rough language of ordinary people. This includes the usage of bad grammar in the some of the original manuscripts.
In some cases, the cases of “bad grammar” actually have a special, divine intention in what it is trying to say. For example, when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am,” (John 8:58) it is grammatically wrong, but it is completely true. When Jesus said “I am” instead of “I was,” Jesus was making a clear declaration of His deity.
But in some other cases, bad grammar is the result of stylistic irregularity. However, a statement can be grammatically wrong, but still be entirely true. For example, a rubber tapper may not be educated enough to form grammatically impeccable sentences. But he is the most trusted man in the community, because he has earned a reputation for never telling a lie. He can come up with a statements like, “I was cutting the tree skin that time la. I was late because the tree milk come out slow mah. I where can stealing your chicken and cutting tree skin at the same time?” And he can still be totally truthful.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Good people, bad people
“If you were pure and upright,
Surely now He would awake for you,
And prosper your rightful dwelling place…
Behold, God will not cast away the blameless,
Nor will He uphold the evildoers.” – Bildad (Job 8:6, 20)
“Truly I know it is so,
But how can a man be righteous before God?” – Job (Job 9:2)
When suffering befalls a person, we struggle to understand why. Is it because that person has sinned in God’s eyes? Well, sometimes yes. Sometimes no. The cause of suffering can’t be explained away as easily as that.
Nevertheless, it is true that sometimes, God allows suffering to befall us because of the sins that we’re unrepentant of. Bildad argued that if Job was “pure and upright,” God would deliver him from his suffering. Bildad’s logic was simple. Good people will not suffer, but bad people will suffer.
Of course, Job knew that well enough. He is familiar with the concept that God punishes evildoers, but delivers the blameless. Therefore, we will be spared from suffering if we are blameless.
However, if only those who are blameless will be delivered from suffering, who can escape from it then? “But how can a man be righteous before God?” Job retorted. How then, can anyone be spared from suffering?
The simple answer is, nobody. No man can ever be righteous before God. Therefore, nobody can be spared from suffering.
Very often, we hear the nagging question, “If there is God, how come good people suffer just as much – if not more – than bad people?” Well, it’s because there are no good people. There is no such thing in the first place.
Therefore, if everyone is considered bad before God, then every suffering that befalls us is, in that sense, deserved. Every good thing that comes our way is only by the grace of God. It is an undeserved favour from a gracious God.
So, how does God deal with us when we sin? God chastens us in our sin. However, even in dealing with our sin, God is still merciful. Zophar said, “Know therefore that God exacts from you less than your iniquity deserves.” (Job 11:6)
When we deserved none of His goodness, God is good to us. Even when we are punished, He punishes us for less than what we deserve.
How then, can God not be good?
Surely now He would awake for you,
And prosper your rightful dwelling place…
Behold, God will not cast away the blameless,
Nor will He uphold the evildoers.” – Bildad (Job 8:6, 20)
“Truly I know it is so,
But how can a man be righteous before God?” – Job (Job 9:2)
When suffering befalls a person, we struggle to understand why. Is it because that person has sinned in God’s eyes? Well, sometimes yes. Sometimes no. The cause of suffering can’t be explained away as easily as that.
Nevertheless, it is true that sometimes, God allows suffering to befall us because of the sins that we’re unrepentant of. Bildad argued that if Job was “pure and upright,” God would deliver him from his suffering. Bildad’s logic was simple. Good people will not suffer, but bad people will suffer.
Of course, Job knew that well enough. He is familiar with the concept that God punishes evildoers, but delivers the blameless. Therefore, we will be spared from suffering if we are blameless.
However, if only those who are blameless will be delivered from suffering, who can escape from it then? “But how can a man be righteous before God?” Job retorted. How then, can anyone be spared from suffering?
The simple answer is, nobody. No man can ever be righteous before God. Therefore, nobody can be spared from suffering.
Very often, we hear the nagging question, “If there is God, how come good people suffer just as much – if not more – than bad people?” Well, it’s because there are no good people. There is no such thing in the first place.
Therefore, if everyone is considered bad before God, then every suffering that befalls us is, in that sense, deserved. Every good thing that comes our way is only by the grace of God. It is an undeserved favour from a gracious God.
So, how does God deal with us when we sin? God chastens us in our sin. However, even in dealing with our sin, God is still merciful. Zophar said, “Know therefore that God exacts from you less than your iniquity deserves.” (Job 11:6)
When we deserved none of His goodness, God is good to us. Even when we are punished, He punishes us for less than what we deserve.
How then, can God not be good?
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Attention Seekers Anonymous
“What is man, that You should exalt him,
That You should set Your heart on him,
That You should visit him every morning,
And test him every moment?
How long?
Will You not look away from me,
And let me alone till I swallow my saliva?” (Job 7:17-19)
Have you ever felt as if your life was under the scrutiny of a microscope? Have you felt as though you have too many eyes watching your every move, judging your every action? Have you felt as though God, in His omniscience, is applying all His knowledge and attention on you, to see how you react in certain circumstances?
It is normal human behaviour to crave for attention. We want attention from our parents, from the people we look up to, from our friends and loved ones. We continually wish that God will shower all His attention on us, so we can be totally sure that every prayer we utter and every word we say is heard by Him. We want to feel that we are worth God’s attention every single minute of the day, despite His daily cosmic affairs.
But listen to the words of a suffering man. Job is one person who, in a way, got “more attention” than other people. Satan came “from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” And God said to him, “Have you considered My servant Job?”
If we were someone like Job, who was “a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil,” we would be glad that God finally took notice, isn’t it? For all the unjust evil and suffering in this world, wouldn’t it be a welcome break to see that God can, at least, recognize the good guys? “Finally, it’s about time that God acknowledges my efforts to be righteous,” we may think to ourselves.
God granted Job His special attention and put him under a microscope. After a while, instead of celebrating every moment of His undivided attention, Job started to hate it. He started to feel like he couldn’t take it any longer. “Will you look away from me?” He cried. “How long?” He exclaimed. “Why do you test me every moment? Who am I to You, that You should set your heart on me and give me so much attention?” Clearly, Job was starting to feel stifled.
We long for more and more of God. But sometimes, our motive of wanting “more of God” is more selfish in nature than it is applaudable. We want more of God for His good things. But we don’t want more of God for the things that make us feel uncomfortable.
Which brings me to think about heaven. Why do we want to get to heaven so much, that we preoccupy ourselves with what we must do to get there? Why do we long for heaven so much, that we want to do whatever it takes to make us sure of it? Do we want heaven for the infinite comfort it offers us, or do we want heaven because God is there?
Even while we are on earth, have we been longing for the gifts, or the Giver? When we say that we “desire God”, do we desire Him, or the things He is able to offer?
Something is not quite right if our motivation for walking with the Lord is not to find delight His presence. “The chief end of man is to know God, and to enjoy Him forever.” It is the joy of being in His presence, of having Him in our lives, that brings any genuine meaning in our relationship with God. God's real, personal presence is the desire of every Christian's heart.
Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of that desire. In heaven, we will have Him in the closest proximity possible. If we only like what God is able to give us, but we don’t like Him too much, we’d better not wish for heaven. Because if we do get there, we’re gonna be stuck there with Him forever and ever.
Will you like it that way then? To be stuck with an all-powerful, all-knowing, thrice holy God for all eternity? You’ll be wondering if you’re in heaven or in hell.
That You should set Your heart on him,
That You should visit him every morning,
And test him every moment?
How long?
Will You not look away from me,
And let me alone till I swallow my saliva?” (Job 7:17-19)
Have you ever felt as if your life was under the scrutiny of a microscope? Have you felt as though you have too many eyes watching your every move, judging your every action? Have you felt as though God, in His omniscience, is applying all His knowledge and attention on you, to see how you react in certain circumstances?
It is normal human behaviour to crave for attention. We want attention from our parents, from the people we look up to, from our friends and loved ones. We continually wish that God will shower all His attention on us, so we can be totally sure that every prayer we utter and every word we say is heard by Him. We want to feel that we are worth God’s attention every single minute of the day, despite His daily cosmic affairs.
But listen to the words of a suffering man. Job is one person who, in a way, got “more attention” than other people. Satan came “from going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” And God said to him, “Have you considered My servant Job?”
If we were someone like Job, who was “a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil,” we would be glad that God finally took notice, isn’t it? For all the unjust evil and suffering in this world, wouldn’t it be a welcome break to see that God can, at least, recognize the good guys? “Finally, it’s about time that God acknowledges my efforts to be righteous,” we may think to ourselves.
God granted Job His special attention and put him under a microscope. After a while, instead of celebrating every moment of His undivided attention, Job started to hate it. He started to feel like he couldn’t take it any longer. “Will you look away from me?” He cried. “How long?” He exclaimed. “Why do you test me every moment? Who am I to You, that You should set your heart on me and give me so much attention?” Clearly, Job was starting to feel stifled.
We long for more and more of God. But sometimes, our motive of wanting “more of God” is more selfish in nature than it is applaudable. We want more of God for His good things. But we don’t want more of God for the things that make us feel uncomfortable.
Which brings me to think about heaven. Why do we want to get to heaven so much, that we preoccupy ourselves with what we must do to get there? Why do we long for heaven so much, that we want to do whatever it takes to make us sure of it? Do we want heaven for the infinite comfort it offers us, or do we want heaven because God is there?
Even while we are on earth, have we been longing for the gifts, or the Giver? When we say that we “desire God”, do we desire Him, or the things He is able to offer?
Something is not quite right if our motivation for walking with the Lord is not to find delight His presence. “The chief end of man is to know God, and to enjoy Him forever.” It is the joy of being in His presence, of having Him in our lives, that brings any genuine meaning in our relationship with God. God's real, personal presence is the desire of every Christian's heart.
Heaven is the ultimate fulfillment of that desire. In heaven, we will have Him in the closest proximity possible. If we only like what God is able to give us, but we don’t like Him too much, we’d better not wish for heaven. Because if we do get there, we’re gonna be stuck there with Him forever and ever.
Will you like it that way then? To be stuck with an all-powerful, all-knowing, thrice holy God for all eternity? You’ll be wondering if you’re in heaven or in hell.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Can The Real Nehemiah Please Stand Up
This picture was googled up under the name cohabitation. "Nooo, that's not what necessarily happens in cohabitation!" One may protest. Granted the benefit of the doubt. But tell me if this image does not appear in people's minds when we say two people are cohabitating. This is exactly why defensive explanations always arise whenever cohabitation is discussed among those who practice it. This is exactly why Christians shouldn't be found in it. This is precisely the picture I'm trying to paint.
What I find most disappointing is this: When people appeal to a higher authority for advice, sometimes we get really bad answers. Or when look up to someone older to model after, sometimes the older ones are not of exemplary behaviour.
While cohabitation is not as explicitly stated as the warning against murder, the consistency of the Bible points against it. The prompting of the Holy Spirit is the best guide that one can have when Scriptures is opened to guide our lives. But at times, we feel a great lack of human guidance.
What do pastors have to say about the issue of cohabitation? Has the issue of unmarried couples living together become a “private family matter” that cannot be interfered with by the church? If a church has “marriage counseling” programs, what are the counselors saying? If two people are behaving unbecomingly towards one another before marriage, are pastors still marrying them in “holy matrimony” in their own church? Has turning to hasty marriages become the most convenient way to reduce pre-marital sin?
I'm hoping that in the heart of every godly leader, there has always been a desire to be a prophetic mouthpiece of God. I’m hoping that the lack of opportunity (or permission) for encounter is the only factor that is holding them back.
But then, when we look to Nehemiah, what did he do? He pulled off people’s hair, whether or not people allowed him to. Who would allow their hair to be pulled off anyway? It is needless to say that nobody really wants to hear corrective rebuke. Jesus did not ask permission from the temple synagogue to overturn the tables, did He? Neither did He see it wrong to interfere with other people’s business. He just went and put them out of business.
When pastors are short of hands to provide sound counsel to young couples, we hope that other people will have good examples to show to those who seek them. But sometimes, we use the wrong examples as our reference point. It is the non-exemplary, cohabitating couples who set models of justification for cohabitation. And people silently look up towards them as a source of encouragement or assurance in what they are doing. I can count the number of such examples that I know of in one hand. I'm hoping that I won’t need two hands to count them.
Even sadder is, when couples who struggle in the issue of cohabitation look towards their own families, they get even more confusing ideas. It becomes near impossible to convince someone otherwise if “family business” is already approved by family.
Is cohabitation a matter of culture? Let’s take a look at culture then. Even secular culture that holds on to some sense of morality tells us that physical proximity with the opposite sex is improper. What more for unmarried couples to live together.
Take a look at the hostels in our universities and colleges. Students of different genders are housed in separate blocks. Residents are not even allowed to walk along the corridors in the opposite gender’s block. Any entry into the opposite gender’s rooms, however brief, is forbidden. Whenever there is any form of governance, people from opposite genders are always prevented from being close to one another in private places. Even the police patrol public places to curb overly-amorous behaviour.
And we Christians revel in our God-given liberty by living together, without a single pang in our conscience. It is us Christians who should be the most ashamed.
Let’s take a look at the matter of personal taste. Yes, what we choose to do is indeed a matter of personal taste, if we do not hold on to an absolute standard of truth. If we reason without any reference to an absolute truth, pre-marital sex is a matter of personal taste. What’s so wrong with having sex with the one we love, if we are already going to get married soon anyway? So is drinking. What’s so wrong with consuming as much liquor as we want, as long as we do not cross the line of getting drunk? So is smoking. Aren’t medical reports about smoking directly linked to lung cancer flawed, since some people have chain-smoking grandmothers who lived to a ripe old age? So is gambling. What’s so wrong with placing bets with my own hard-earned money, as long as the bets are not too high?
So is cohabitation.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Harmless and Blameless?
“…That you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…” (Philippians 2:15).
Is it harmless to cohabitate? I believe not. Cohabitation is proven to be harmful, instead of helpful, for healthy relationships.
But many people contend that it is harmless. But even if it is harmless, it is not blameless. Here's why:
A non-Christian couple happily announces that they are moving in together. They are “taking their relationship to another level.” I’m sure you know well enough what that means, so I’m not going to elaborate.
A Christian couple moves in together. “Oh no, it’s not what you think,” they will try to explain. “We don’t sleep together in the same room.” Or, “We don’t sleep together on the same bed.” Or, “We don’t do anything else when sleep together on the same bed.” See if people bother to listen to lengthy explanations.
It’s not a matter of whether or not the couple is sleeping together in the same room, or on the same bed, or whether or not they are having sex on the bed. The fact that a couple is “staying together” in the same house already means they are living together! Living together is a privilege of a married couple. When two people cohabitate, they are already behaving as a married couple even before they have “become one flesh.” That alone, is improper Christian conduct.
Is living together a need, or a privilege? For a married couple, sharing a life together in the same house is a need, and also a privilege. For an unmarried couple, living together is not a need, and it is far from being a privilege that is permissible to be enjoyed before the Lord.
“But we live so far away from each other. Living together will save costs of travel. We can also spend less on food because we can cook our meals together.”
Is convenience a license for sin? Assuming a couple starts a relationship in his/her twenties. For the past 2 decades of their lives, food and accommodation has not been a problem. How come it becomes a need to live together after they have started a relationship? Living together at this stage is not a need. It is a want. If both could survive fairly well before they were together, how come they can’t live apart from each other now? What has happened to healthy restraint in a respectable relationship? Living together at this point is a luxury that people desire, but it cannot be rightfully enjoyed before marriage.
Couples who still believe that it is alright to live together will be able to come up with all kinds of explanations to justify their conduct. But here’s the rationale: If the act of living together needs so many explanations and justifications, it means that behaviour is highly questionable! Nobody will even raise an eyebrow if that behaviour is fully wholesome, pure, and acceptable by Christian norms in the first place. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a married couple lives together. But when an unmarried couple lives together, eyebrow are raised.
So why stigmatize yourself if you are “presumably innocent?” When another person asks you, “Hey, you both live together izzit?” What will your answer be? Your answer will be a yes. Then you’ll have to try filling in the blanks that follow as fast and as well as you can.
We can see that even if we think cohabitation is harmless, it still doesn’t mean it’s ok to be practiced. Even if cohabitation is harmless, how can such a conduct be blameless? How can the children of God behave this way? Can we say we are truly without fault if we cohabitate? Is this the right thing to do in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we are supposed to shine as lights in the world?
“But as Christians, as long as our conscience if free from guilt, aren’t we free to do as we wish as long as we do not sin?”
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13).
"But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9).
Is it harmless to cohabitate? I believe not. Cohabitation is proven to be harmful, instead of helpful, for healthy relationships.
But many people contend that it is harmless. But even if it is harmless, it is not blameless. Here's why:
A non-Christian couple happily announces that they are moving in together. They are “taking their relationship to another level.” I’m sure you know well enough what that means, so I’m not going to elaborate.
A Christian couple moves in together. “Oh no, it’s not what you think,” they will try to explain. “We don’t sleep together in the same room.” Or, “We don’t sleep together on the same bed.” Or, “We don’t do anything else when sleep together on the same bed.” See if people bother to listen to lengthy explanations.
It’s not a matter of whether or not the couple is sleeping together in the same room, or on the same bed, or whether or not they are having sex on the bed. The fact that a couple is “staying together” in the same house already means they are living together! Living together is a privilege of a married couple. When two people cohabitate, they are already behaving as a married couple even before they have “become one flesh.” That alone, is improper Christian conduct.
Is living together a need, or a privilege? For a married couple, sharing a life together in the same house is a need, and also a privilege. For an unmarried couple, living together is not a need, and it is far from being a privilege that is permissible to be enjoyed before the Lord.
“But we live so far away from each other. Living together will save costs of travel. We can also spend less on food because we can cook our meals together.”
Is convenience a license for sin? Assuming a couple starts a relationship in his/her twenties. For the past 2 decades of their lives, food and accommodation has not been a problem. How come it becomes a need to live together after they have started a relationship? Living together at this stage is not a need. It is a want. If both could survive fairly well before they were together, how come they can’t live apart from each other now? What has happened to healthy restraint in a respectable relationship? Living together at this point is a luxury that people desire, but it cannot be rightfully enjoyed before marriage.
Couples who still believe that it is alright to live together will be able to come up with all kinds of explanations to justify their conduct. But here’s the rationale: If the act of living together needs so many explanations and justifications, it means that behaviour is highly questionable! Nobody will even raise an eyebrow if that behaviour is fully wholesome, pure, and acceptable by Christian norms in the first place. Nobody raises an eyebrow when a married couple lives together. But when an unmarried couple lives together, eyebrow are raised.
So why stigmatize yourself if you are “presumably innocent?” When another person asks you, “Hey, you both live together izzit?” What will your answer be? Your answer will be a yes. Then you’ll have to try filling in the blanks that follow as fast and as well as you can.
We can see that even if we think cohabitation is harmless, it still doesn’t mean it’s ok to be practiced. Even if cohabitation is harmless, how can such a conduct be blameless? How can the children of God behave this way? Can we say we are truly without fault if we cohabitate? Is this the right thing to do in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we are supposed to shine as lights in the world?
“But as Christians, as long as our conscience if free from guilt, aren’t we free to do as we wish as long as we do not sin?”
"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another" (Galatians 5:13).
"But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak" (1 Corinthians 8:9).
Sunday, October 15, 2006
And They Lived Together Happily Ever After...
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24)
Here’s the problem. Today, some people have already left their father and mother, and are already living as one flesh with their other half even before they are married.
Cohabitation between unmarried couples have become so rampant, society has actually come to believe that it is a norm. Is cohabitation wrong? Here’s what I contend:
1. If cohabitation is a natural progression of culture, and
2. If cohabitation is a matter of “personal taste”
Then it is completely alright. If otherwise, then it is wrong.
So, is cohabitation a natural progression of culture? Let’s examine it with a comparative analysis:
Going to the cinema, when it first became commercially attainable, was considered carnal and worldly. Today, it is a norm. Is it wrong to go to cinemas?
A few centuries ago, listening to music that has any syncopated rhythm is considered chaotic, sinful, and of the devil. Today, there are as many genres of music as there are languages in African tribes. Is it wrong to listen to music that has drums and electric guitars in it?
I think the answer to both cases is no. It is not wrong to go to cinemas or listen to music that is not Beethovenly because both cases are a natural progression of culture.
What about cohabitation? It’s not a natural progression of culture. It is a natural progression of disobedience.
Moving on to the second point. Is cohabitation a matter of “personal taste” then?
When we talk about issues like going to cinemas or music, sometimes the question of “personal taste” gets mixed up with the question of “right and wrong.” We may have certain reservations about going to a certain place, or about a particular type of music. And just because we don’t have a personal taste for it, we become naturally prejudiced against it and say that it is wrong.
But the case of cohabitation is different. It is not a matter of “personal taste”. When something is black, it is black. When something is white, it is white. There is no accounting for “personal taste” when something is as clear as black and white.
Why do I confidently assert that cohabitation is not a result of a natural progression of culture? Why am I adamant that cohabitation is not a matter of “personal taste”? Well, first of all, the Bible strongly implies so. And secondly, even secular institutions that hold on to some idea of morality explicitly says so too.
Here’s the problem. Today, some people have already left their father and mother, and are already living as one flesh with their other half even before they are married.
Cohabitation between unmarried couples have become so rampant, society has actually come to believe that it is a norm. Is cohabitation wrong? Here’s what I contend:
1. If cohabitation is a natural progression of culture, and
2. If cohabitation is a matter of “personal taste”
Then it is completely alright. If otherwise, then it is wrong.
So, is cohabitation a natural progression of culture? Let’s examine it with a comparative analysis:
Going to the cinema, when it first became commercially attainable, was considered carnal and worldly. Today, it is a norm. Is it wrong to go to cinemas?
A few centuries ago, listening to music that has any syncopated rhythm is considered chaotic, sinful, and of the devil. Today, there are as many genres of music as there are languages in African tribes. Is it wrong to listen to music that has drums and electric guitars in it?
I think the answer to both cases is no. It is not wrong to go to cinemas or listen to music that is not Beethovenly because both cases are a natural progression of culture.
What about cohabitation? It’s not a natural progression of culture. It is a natural progression of disobedience.
Moving on to the second point. Is cohabitation a matter of “personal taste” then?
When we talk about issues like going to cinemas or music, sometimes the question of “personal taste” gets mixed up with the question of “right and wrong.” We may have certain reservations about going to a certain place, or about a particular type of music. And just because we don’t have a personal taste for it, we become naturally prejudiced against it and say that it is wrong.
But the case of cohabitation is different. It is not a matter of “personal taste”. When something is black, it is black. When something is white, it is white. There is no accounting for “personal taste” when something is as clear as black and white.
Why do I confidently assert that cohabitation is not a result of a natural progression of culture? Why am I adamant that cohabitation is not a matter of “personal taste”? Well, first of all, the Bible strongly implies so. And secondly, even secular institutions that hold on to some idea of morality explicitly says so too.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Frequently Asked Questions
Isn’t Christianity all about God’s love? So isn’t it a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving boyfriend/girlfriend? To say that it’s wrong to be involved in a loving relationship with a non-Christian is double standards.
Yes, Christianity is all about God’s love. Yes, it’s a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving person. But no, it is not double standards to say a Christian shouldn’t get involved in a relationship with a non-Christian.
Showing God’s love to an unbeliever is one thing. But getting into a relationship with an unbeliever is another thing. Loving your neighbour and loving your enemy is a universal call for everyone. That is called outreach. But getting involved in a romantic relationship with an unbeliever is totally different. That is called compromise.
“And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15) The love of Christ wins over the children of Belial. But Christ does not become one with Belial.
There are many ways of evangelism. Isn’t evangelism through a romantic relationship one of the best ways to show God’s love?
Yes, there are many ways of evangelism. But evangelizing through a way that causes sin is not an idea that God approves.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose the government can take active action in evangelism. For example, maybe the government can grant special privileges to professing Christians. They will be given tax exemptions of a certain percentage, housing privileges, lenient business loans, and free education. (Does that sound like a familiar modus operandi?) It is a splendid way to “show God’s love” to encourage people to come to Christ. Yes, the motive is pure. But does God approve of such a method?
“But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9).
Same goes for evangelizing through romantic relationships. Yes, the motive may be pure (although I highly doubt it to be so), but it doesn’t mean it is not a sin. As much as the Great Commission is very important to God, so is His children’s sanctification. “For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Anyway, if I may be blunt. I don’t think evangelism through a romantic relationship works. Justify it all you want. Firstly, God won’t be pleased in the first place. And secondly, if your motives are really pure, win him/her over to Christ first… Then start the romantic relationship under God’s blessings. That’s real obedience. Don’t hide behind the call for evangelism to pursue your own selfish motives.
But I have seen real-life examples when a Christian dates a non-Christian, and eventually the unbeliever is won over for Christ and both turn out to be strong Christians. If they can do it, why can’t I?
Let me put it this way. When something evil turns out to be something good in the end, it still does not justify the wrong doing that caused evil in the first place. We cannot follow someone's example of doing wrong, and hoping that good will result as well.
Let me draw another analogy. Suppose a man gets involved with drugs. After many years of addiction, he finally broke out of it. And today, he goes around to schools and colleges, telling young people to say no to drugs.
That man managed to break free from his addiction to drugs. So, is it ok for us to take drugs? Just because there are real-life stories where drug addicts can come clean, does it justify taking drugs at all? Countless people never broke out of it.
But some people do break out from drug addiction. What shall we say then? This is because God has been very gracious to them. By God’s grace alone, they did not get what they deserve. Their lives were not ruined by drugs.
Same goes for following models of “successful” unequally yoked relationships. Just because an unequally-yoked relationship worked out well for some people, does that justify our disobedience to God’s call to sanctity? Just because it worked well for other couples, does it mean it will work out well for you too? Countless unequally-yoked relationships have resulted in the worse.
But some unequally-yoked relationships do work out for the better. What shall we say then? It is solely the grace of God. By God's grace alone, He has delivered some unequally-yoked relationships from plumetting towards a downward spiral and saved them from their sin.
But shall we test God’s grace? “And why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?'... Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8).
To be continued…
Yes, Christianity is all about God’s love. Yes, it’s a good thing to share God’s love to an unbelieving person. But no, it is not double standards to say a Christian shouldn’t get involved in a relationship with a non-Christian.
Showing God’s love to an unbeliever is one thing. But getting into a relationship with an unbeliever is another thing. Loving your neighbour and loving your enemy is a universal call for everyone. That is called outreach. But getting involved in a romantic relationship with an unbeliever is totally different. That is called compromise.
“And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15) The love of Christ wins over the children of Belial. But Christ does not become one with Belial.
There are many ways of evangelism. Isn’t evangelism through a romantic relationship one of the best ways to show God’s love?
Yes, there are many ways of evangelism. But evangelizing through a way that causes sin is not an idea that God approves.
Let me draw an analogy. Suppose the government can take active action in evangelism. For example, maybe the government can grant special privileges to professing Christians. They will be given tax exemptions of a certain percentage, housing privileges, lenient business loans, and free education. (Does that sound like a familiar modus operandi?) It is a splendid way to “show God’s love” to encourage people to come to Christ. Yes, the motive is pure. But does God approve of such a method?
“But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9).
Same goes for evangelizing through romantic relationships. Yes, the motive may be pure (although I highly doubt it to be so), but it doesn’t mean it is not a sin. As much as the Great Commission is very important to God, so is His children’s sanctification. “For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Anyway, if I may be blunt. I don’t think evangelism through a romantic relationship works. Justify it all you want. Firstly, God won’t be pleased in the first place. And secondly, if your motives are really pure, win him/her over to Christ first… Then start the romantic relationship under God’s blessings. That’s real obedience. Don’t hide behind the call for evangelism to pursue your own selfish motives.
But I have seen real-life examples when a Christian dates a non-Christian, and eventually the unbeliever is won over for Christ and both turn out to be strong Christians. If they can do it, why can’t I?
Let me put it this way. When something evil turns out to be something good in the end, it still does not justify the wrong doing that caused evil in the first place. We cannot follow someone's example of doing wrong, and hoping that good will result as well.
Let me draw another analogy. Suppose a man gets involved with drugs. After many years of addiction, he finally broke out of it. And today, he goes around to schools and colleges, telling young people to say no to drugs.
That man managed to break free from his addiction to drugs. So, is it ok for us to take drugs? Just because there are real-life stories where drug addicts can come clean, does it justify taking drugs at all? Countless people never broke out of it.
But some people do break out from drug addiction. What shall we say then? This is because God has been very gracious to them. By God’s grace alone, they did not get what they deserve. Their lives were not ruined by drugs.
Same goes for following models of “successful” unequally yoked relationships. Just because an unequally-yoked relationship worked out well for some people, does that justify our disobedience to God’s call to sanctity? Just because it worked well for other couples, does it mean it will work out well for you too? Countless unequally-yoked relationships have resulted in the worse.
But some unequally-yoked relationships do work out for the better. What shall we say then? It is solely the grace of God. By God's grace alone, He has delivered some unequally-yoked relationships from plumetting towards a downward spiral and saved them from their sin.
But shall we test God’s grace? “And why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?'... Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8).
To be continued…
Thursday, October 12, 2006
A Little Less Conversation
“A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain’t satisfactioning me…” – Elvis Presley.
Contrary to what Elvis Presley says, less conversation does not necessarily lead to more action. When God cannot be present in our conversations, we cannot expect any healthy progress in our spiritual lives.
Sometimes, we wonder why Christians come down hard on people who have romantic relationships with unbelievers. Christians are accused of labeling people who have non-Christian boyfriends or girlfriends – judgmentally tagging them as “unequally-yoked”. A justification is demanded.
Let’s go back to my last post, where Nehemiah kicked up a fuss about losing the “language of Judah”. Let me try to explain the biblical position against unequally yoked relationships, without using the New Testament.
Here is the simple rationale: The Israelites are rightly afraid of losing the presence of God in their lives along with the disappearance of the Hebrew language. Similarly, we should be afraid of losing the presence of God in our souls, if God is absent even in our everyday language. It all boils down to the issue of conversation.
To the Israelites, language was a barrier. God cannot be present in a husband-wife or parent-child relationship if the Hebrew language was not shared. Rightfully so. How can God be in the picture of such a relationship, if even reading of His Word together is not possible? How can the unbelieving spouse come to know God? How can the non-Hebrew speaking children learn about God?
For us, language is not a barrier. God’s Word is available today in English, Malay, and Chinese. But the question is, is God present in our relationships, romantic or platonic, even if both are speaking the same language? Consider the following questions:
1. If it is already hard for God to be talked about in the conversations of Christian families, how much harder will it be in families with unequally-yoked parents?
2. If it is already awkward for God to be mentioned among Christians friends of the same gender, how much more awkward will it be to a non-Christian person of our interest from the opposite sex?
3. If it is already strange for God to be preached in evangelism, how much stranger will it be in a romantic relationship?
4. If it is already hard for Christian parents to tell their children about God, how much harder will it be when you have an unbelieving spouse?
5. If it is already difficult to have meaningful conversations about God among Christians, how much harder will it be to live with an unbeliever for life?
The answer to all of the above, I believe, is: Impossible. Or, if I may say, by the grace of God… Near impossible.
Why is being unequally-yoked such a big issue? Because in an unequally-yoked relationship, God-talk is not possible. And why is God-talk so important in a relationship? Because it is similar with the problem of Israelite inter-marriages. When God is dropped out from our conversation, He is dropped out from our lives.
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).
Monday, October 09, 2006
No More Mr. Nice Guy
So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by their God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves”… Remember me, O my God, for good! (Nehemiah 13:25; 31)Such an account leaves quite an impression on us. Nehemiah saw a great evil in his eyes. The Israelites were intermarrying women from foreign nations. It became so bad, that “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people" (Nehemiah 13:24).
It wasn't really a problem of having children with different shades of pigmentation. It was not just a problem of cultural corrosion. Nehemiah singled out what he was unhappy about: It was a problem of losing their mother toungue.
During those times, the Word of God did not have the luxury of multiple translations in different languages. The Word was written in Hebrew, taught in Hebrew, studied in Hebrew, and spoken in Hebrew. The Word was bound as a sign on their hands. Placed as frontlets between their eyes. Taught to their children when sitting in their houses, when they are walking by the way, when they lie down and when they rise up. Written on the doorposts of their houses and their gates (Deuteronomy 11:18-20). The presence of God was lived out and transmitted through the “language of Judah”.
If someone does not know the Hebrew language, there was no way for that person to know God, or learn about Him. Even if there was a way, it would be very difficult. Imagine trying to talk to your children about God in a language that you are not familiar with. The subject of God is already not easy in itself. Talking about it in French isn’t going to help.
Nehemiah saw what was happening. He saw that the passing away of the Hebrew toungue will also mean the passing away of the presence of God in their lives. And he did not just declare an edict or make a policy from the palace to remedy the situation. He made it personal and took it upon his own hands.
Sometimes, we want to take it easy on people, especially those in the family of God, out of compassion and humanitarian reasons. Even when we see our brothers and sisters erring greatly against the Lord, we feel that is more convenient to play Mr. Nice Guy. The Bible begs to differ. Sometimes, being Mr. Nice Guy is not being nice at all. How can allowing evil for the sake of being nice be considered any good at all? It's not even good for the brother himself.
The next time we feel like playing nice in the face of erroneous sin among our brethren, we can look to Nehemiah. He contended with them. He cursed them. He struck some of them. He pulled out their hair. He made them swear. And in the end, he turned to God and said “Remember me, O my God, for good!” He wasn't ashamed of what he did. Because he knew he was doing the right thing.
If the kingdom of God matters to us more than our label as a non-offensive guy, then we will do the right thing. Check out what Jesus said to the hypocritic scribes and Pharisees:
“Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33)
Jesus abandoned the Mr. Nice Guy tag to do what needed to be done. Nehemiah did too. What about us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
