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!