Ripostes

Welcome to my blog

2006-04-20T00:11:00.000-04:00

(Note: this post stays at the top; do scroll down a little to check for more recent posts. Thanks!)

Dear new readers whether or not you came from the kind link from Sharper Iron: welcome and thanks for dropping by! Do feel free to leave a comment or take a passing glance at my other posts, some of which are listed here:

I. My husband Loy teases me about my "Theologicus" posts! (Humph! :)
Tom Harpur and his Easter heresy
Evidence and the Christian
Why do so many people believe in God?
On theologising the Asian Tsunami disaster
Christian Tsunami Relief: good works with good news...bad?
Testimony from Meulaboh: fact or fiction?
Simply because it is Christian to nurse the sick
Separating the sacred and the secular in worship
What is Contemporary Worship Music? A Review of John Frame's Defense of CWM

II. On Babies, Miraculous gifts from God
Tiniest Surviving Baby
An even tinier baby survives
Surgery on a baby's grape-sized heart

III. On favourite writers and interesting articles
Neil Postman and Canada's Family Literacy Day
C.S. Lewis and The Great Divorce
We have 'no right to happiness'
Are Women Human?
Desperate to be housewives
Our unhealthy obsession with sickness and "wellness"

I hope that this will help give a better idea of topics I'm interested in (if you are interested in knowing...) so that you can see if you would like to come by my blog every now and then and perhaps leave some comments too... I'm currently working on a critique of Joseph Prince's Health and Wholeness through the Holy Communion. The title of his booklet is rather self-explanatory. This is certainly the first time I've heard of someone teaching about the healing powers and purpose of the Lord's Supper (because, supposedly, it is God's will that all Christians be healthy and strong), and claiming that this teaching is scripturally-based and indeed emphasized in the Bible! My contention is simply that this teaching is, firstly, unscriptural (as far as I can honestly see, anyway); and secondly, worth a critique because it claims to be scriptural. I'm not exactly sure of the reach of his booklet and teachings in Singapore on health and wealth, but know that he does have a significant amount of influence over his congregation of more than 10,000 members. Just as good philosophy must exist, if for nothing else, because bad philosophy does (Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"), a biblical critique must exist for bad and misleading theology. I pray that I will be able to do so in a spirit of love and truth.

"Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us..."

2006-03-26T16:15:00.000-05:00

Link; link.

Just how hard it is to take a family shot nowadays

2006-02-01T20:48:00.000-05:00

Life was so much simpler just a mere year ago. Then, Penelope was still in mommy's womb, and there was only Amy to join us at the table. Now, the family is slightly expanded. Penelope is out and about, and Amy the bear has been joined by--from left to right--Ploppy the 12" duck (from Grandma), Moomoo the cow (from Nainai), Ninnin (on top of Moomoo; pronounced as in hanyu pinyin, 2nd tone, light tone), and Stripey (from Auntie Dianne).

Here's a bigger picture of all 8 of us taken on Loy's birthday this year, with an apple crumble gracing the table again. Long may we be able to continue this tradition!

Weird Wise Words

2006-01-23T23:10:00.000-05:00

Came across this website called World Wide Words while searching, again, for the meaning of "the exception proves the rule". What an interesting and informative site that reminds us of the wonderful and wacky world of the English language! It also appears to be the place to watch for a preview of newly coined words and phrases, their definitions (what an impressive project it is!) and history, most of which have yet to make their way into standard dictionaries--phishing and televersity, for example. One can certainly learn a quick thing or two just by glancing through the list, and clicking on words that catch your attention. I learned the meaning of obesogenic, defined as referring to "conditions that lead people to become excessively fat—a worrying trend in developed countries, especially among young people, who are eating too much of the wrong things and not taking enough exercise...", a word that may have first appeared in print in 1996 in a British newspaper.

The importance of our worldview

2006-01-14T16:35:00.000-05:00

I was led to reflect a little on the above question by Theodore Dalrymple's recent article, "Most murderers just need to get a life".

Dalrymple, a psychiatrist, draws on his experience of preparing reports on murderers and notes a pattern--among the poor which feature prominently--which leads him to conclude that "their main problem was that they had not the faintest idea how to live and yet - this is the hallmark of modernity - they were plentifully supplied with ego." His analysis of this group of murderers is a harsh one, and one can all too easily accuse him of showing a moralistic bourgeois prejudice against the lower classes. But I think that much truth lies in his analysis. The issue is really not about how much money one has; these murderers aren't criticised for being poor. As Thomas Sowell notes, Dalrymple's own father was born in a slum, but in a very different era which did not give the poor so many excuses and incentives to remain at the bottom of the social ladder. Dalrymple rightly observes, "The poor who once prided themselves on such things as respectability, cleanliness, honesty, orderliness and thrift, often in the most difficult circumstances, now pride themselves on their bohemianism. Disorder and chaos are a metonym for freedom and authenticity. But they are bohemians without being artistic, and the result is a squalor scarcely credible in times of supposed prosperity." We are largely what we believe and think, and what we do often arise from what we are, inside. Much like the clothes we wear, the inner life manifests itself in the outer which is a reflection of what is inner.

Dalrymple describes the typical home of such a murderer: a small messy apartment where the television and video dominate the inhabitants' unproductive lives. In his words, "these are the homes in which the television or video is never switched off so long as there is someone awake in the house. There are also many more videos on shelves in every room throughout the house, for images of a pseudo-reality mean more to the inhabitants than most of life as they actually live it." Drifting aimlessly from one vicarious pleasure to the next, and being employed in not much else besides satisfying certain basic needs and desires, these people, as it were, make themselves more susceptible to criminal tendencies and opportunities.

According to Dalrymple, these typically present details of such apartments tell us a great deal about the people who inhabit them. Their lack of a healthy worldview and purpose-driven inner life manifests itself in the messy and degrading clutter of dirty clothes, beer cans and videotapes. I would go further to suggest that their abject looking homes are not only the effect of their having 'no life', but also a cause of the continuation of such an existence by making them inured to such a lifestyle, or perhaps subconsciously persuading them to despair of ever being able to live on a higher plane. To break from this vicious cycle, one will need a radical change from within.

Can we as individuals avoid, or step out of the type of worldview and life Dalrymple writes about? Can we really fault these murderers for having, as it were, 'no life' in the first place? These are complex questions, but I think that the answer to both questions is yes. It is true that many biological and sociological factors play a part in shaping us, but blaming our parents or society for the lives we lead and the wrong we do undermines our ability to think and choose for ourselves, a capacity and prerogative that is at the heart of what it is to be human, a creature made in God's likeness.

Good work, Military Review!

2006-01-12T23:22:00.000-05:00

This is my first post in a long while due to a busy mommy schedule, and I am one who feels more at home with a friend's playful definition of politics as "many insects" than with its more conventional one as the art or science of government or governing. As such, it seems a little strange that I should be commenting on anything regarding the US military. But I just felt like doing a little blogging on this article which made me impressed by the willingness of the US Army's Military Review to publish so scathing a criticism of its soldiers and their work in Iraq. To me this is one of the best things about America and liberal democracy. One is free, within reasonable legal bounds, to disagree, to criticise, to comment, on even the most sensitive of issues. And if the criticism is given by well-meaning gentlemen (excuse this plausibly un-PC term), is constructive, or could be used by the parties being criticised for honest self-examination, then the more the better even though criticism is often unpleasant business.

Thus, while some may question the wisdom of publishing an 'anti-US Army' essay in the Military Review, and others may disagree with the accuracy of the critique, I applaud its editor, Col. William M. Darley, for having the moral courage to publish such a critique.

"We've had some very strong reaction as to why the Military Review would even consider publishing this," he [Darley] said as he strolled across the grounds of Fort Leavenworth last week. He said he did so because he wants "to win the war" in Iraq.

Berkeley Trip (20 Dec 2005 to 4 Jan 2006)

2006-01-05T12:03:00.000-05:00

The alternate title to this post is renqing. I stayed in the Berkeley area for three years and Elaine one, yet it sometimes seems as if we have been there for ages.

And it is not quite because of the wonderful weather (though, as Mark Twain said, "the coldest winter I've ever spent was a summer in San Francisco"), the character of the quaint (read, "Berserkely") university town, the wiff of freedom (or "running amok", as your will), or the well heeled squirrels of Grinnell Natural Area--though these will always have a special place in our hearts; it's always been the people.

It has always been in large part the "tangible humanity", as I like to call it in a more reflective mood, that makes the essential difference. Some have become friends, others we only just or barely know. All play an essential part in defining the character of the place.

* * * * *

Fetus: Little one, a feeling human being

2005-09-03T22:27:00.000-04:00

Just felt compelled to link to this article, "Babies Cry in the Womb" after it touched my heart and reminded me yet again about the preciousness of all babies, born and unborn.

"For You, O Lord, are my hope,
my trust, O LORD from my youth.
Upon you I have leaned from before my birth..."
~ Psalm 71:6a (ESV)

Eternity in our hearts

2005-08-13T01:16:00.000-04:00

"Poll: Most in US Reject Moral Absolutes", but such statistics tell only a little part of the whole story...

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made..." ~ Romans 1:19-20a

A dog is a man's best friend and...

2005-08-03T23:20:00.000-04:00

...a pig is a dog's best friend. While we personally do not believe that dogs are man's best friends, Loy thought that this would be a cute caption for these pictures we took at a friend's place. I've got another one: Babe, the dogpig. Well, best friend or dogpig, this little dog really loves his piggy companion, and actually positioned the pig to watch TV with him by his side!

If perhaps the Lord wills...

2005-07-22T15:20:00.000-04:00

It's encouraging to observe that there have been several comments posted on an post of mine entitled "Neither Healthy nor Gospel: The Health and Weath Gospel". A commentor going by "cyberanger" asked a question concerning the Lord's will:

Do you agree that we will have to pray according to God's Will? Is it God's Will to heal or not to heal? God is NOT the author of confusion...people are confused.

My husband (Loy) was prompted to reply at length. He (Loy) says that there's a lot more that can be said on the subject, and he expresses some dissatisfaction with the reply, but "it will have to do for now".

Hide-a-TV

2005-07-21T19:08:00.000-04:00

If the following brings a knowing smile to your face, and perhaps even a suppressed chuckle, you, like myself, probably know that it's "Waterston", not "Waterson".

Bookcase
Principle: Hide-a-TV
For those who like to brag that they never watch television (that five-hour-a-day Law & Order habit notwithstanding), a 42-inch flat screen spins around to reveal this beautiful stainless-steel bookcase. Fill it with your rare-book collection and no one ever has to know what a huge Sam Waterson fan you are.

(Excerpted from "The Oddest TV" in Esquire, found on KeepMedia--subscription needed)

The Heliocentric Worldview and God's Unconditional Love for Us

2005-07-21T17:45:00.000-04:00

Having committed myself to a weekly private tuition arrangement (a rather bold experiment, in my view, for a nursing mum of a 2 month old baby--Dad's still complaining about booting him and baby out to the mall during the session), I came across the following Neil Postman while browsing the internet for suitable essays for teaching purposes. Entitled "Informing Ourselves to Death", this paper was given as a speech at a meeting of the German Informatics Society on October 11, 1990 in Stuttgart. A paper written late in his career, it was as interesting as I expected it to be. (I had read Amusing Ourselves to Death (1986) with much enthusiasm and Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1971) with much less--) His main thesis is that we are now living with a sort of cultural AIDS brought on by the information glut--one that's steadily reducing our ability to sort out truths from falsehoods, and to use information in a productive, problem-solving way that people in the past were (supposedly) much better able to.

Even though I am usually in basic or substantial agreement with Postman whose ruminations on the role of technology in our culture have taught me much, this is one paper in which I feel he has given in to too much overstatement. Take two examples:

The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it.

and

The point is that, in a world without spiritual or intellectual order, nothing is unbelievable; nothing is predictable, and therefore, nothing comes as a particular surprise.

We can, however, still appreciate a more modest point and the way he expresses it: "technological change is always a Faustian bargain: Technology giveth and technology taketh away, and not always in equal measure. A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided."

My main disagreement with his nonetheless interesting paper has to do with his suggestion that "before Galileo and Kepler, it was possible to believe that the Earth was the stable center of the universe, and that God took a special interest in our affairs. Afterward, the Earth became a lonely wanderer in an obscure galaxy in a hidden corner of the universe, and we were left to wonder if God had any interest in us at all. The ordered, comprehensible world of the Middle Ages began to unravel because people no longer saw in the stars the face of a friend." Postman seeks to contrast a pre-heliocentric (I mean the perspective), pre-scientific world where there was a more-or-less ordered and comprehensible worldview supposedly shared by most medievals, to one which was ushered in by the invention of the printing press and which continues with us today with the computer. The point of the contrast is that in the former world, information was scarce but "its very scarcity made it both important and usable," whereas in the latter, we have a glut of information--"what started out as a liberating stream has turned into a deluge of chaos."

Firstly, his portrayal of the medieval situation is simplistic and highly romanticised. His citing of impressive numbers (e.g. 11,520 newspapers in the US) that follow also does not convince me that I, an individual member of such a world, am desperately drowning in information to the extent of a kind of paralysis; I may read the local newspaper I subscribe to or the NY Times on the net, and not be in the least bit concerned about the remaining 11,519 'choices available'.

Secondly, and here's where I think Postman has made the biggest blunder in this piece: it has never been the case that mankind has in any way merited God's love. To suggest that the medieval had imagined himself worthy of divine favour because he was an inhabitant of earth which he understood as occupying the central place in the cosmos is, firstly, to be mistaken about how medievals thought of the significance of the geocentric cosmos. If anything, earth being at the centre also meant that earth was at the very bottom of the cosmos, where the dregs where, farthest from things heavenly. Furthermore, the Christian would know from the Bible that God's love for us is, and has been, and can only ever be, unconditional--because we are infinitely unworthy of it, just as He in His good pleasure chose the very rebellious, often disobedient Israelites to be His special people. To fancy otherwise would be presumption indeed.

If God has any interest in us--and He surely does--it is because of His good pleasure and grace. The heliocentric view of the world has properly replaced the geocentric one, but the lesson remains pretty much the same: God's unconditional love for us lowly, sin-stained wretches displayed for us in his Son who is at the centre of all things.

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." ~ Ephesians 2:4-10 (ESV)

The gift of a new life

2005-05-09T10:20:00.000-04:00

Penelope Loy Hsin Ying entered the world at 0028 hrs May 9 (EDT -0400) 2005, unpersuaded by the wishes of various concerned parties that she arrive on Mother's Day, deciding instead to stick precisely to the predicted due date. Mother and child are both well and resting even as I conclude this brief note.

O Lord, our God, our homes are Thine forever!
We trust to Thee their problems, toil, and care;
Their bonds of love no enemy can sever
If Thou art always Lord and Master there:
Be Thou the center of our least endeavor
Be Thou our Guest, our hearts and homes to share.

- Barbara B. Hart,

(Also posted on From a Singapore Angle)

Christian Moms: called to be faithful, not perfect

2005-05-07T22:35:00.000-04:00

A Happy Mothers' Day to all moms, including mine!

May this interview of former Christian Parenting Today editor Carla Barnhill by Jane Johnson Struck be an encouragement to all you Christian moms who aspire, or have aspired, to be "the perfect Proverbs 31 mother". I have found much wisdom in her words, her point about trusting wholly in God's goodness for the well-being of our children touching me in particular. God willing, we shall very soon have our little one in our arms.

And as a tribute to all parents who desire to be, who are, or/and have been, good godly examples to their children, here's an audio sample from a lovely song entitled "We Love You" by the Herbster Trio.

Peace in the midst of my storm

2005-05-06T17:40:00.000-04:00

From the CD: His Way Is Perfect, sung by Sherry Oliver Trainer

Peace in the midst of my storm
(90s mp3 sample)

When my way seems so dim and unclear
Jesus I’m glad I know you are near
Weary and worn from this life I live
I long for the peace that you give

Chorus
Peace in the midst of my storm
Peace in the midst of my storm
Draw me close to thyself O Lord
And give me peace in the midst of my storm...

A commentary on recent events.

Am I a female (blog) preacher/teacher?

2005-05-02T23:24:00.000-04:00

Quick answer, after a little reflection: I really don't think I am!

Came across a discussion on Sharper Iron (30 April 2005 post) that caught my attention--or rather, gave me an alarming jolt initially--because it pertains directly to some of what I have been doing on this blog: that is, post my theological views. Could I really have been in error and disobedience to God's Word when I did that? Was I presuming to be teaching men? Now, there has been, and is, much debate as to whether a woman should have pastoral (teaching, preaching) authority over men. In my mind, the Bible is clear that the woman is to be subordinate to the man, and especially in the church, in spiritual matters. That is why I do not believe it is right to have women pastors.

It is not my purpose here to really delve into this issue, or even to discuss with any great comprehensiveness the issue of "Theologicas" (my informal term--deriving from a personal joke between my husband and I--for women blogging on issues of theology). I just thought I'd share a few of my own thoughts, which will also help me to clarify for myself what it is I hope to achieve through being, at times on my blog, a "Theologica". Such discussions are valuable, and we can always pray that disagreements expressed in love and with a shared regard for God's truth as revealed in His inerrant and holy Word will be used for His glory and for the growth and edification of His children.

The discussion was kickstarted by a post by R.C. Sproul Jr. who wrote:

A blog, for instance, could mean at least two different things. First, it could be an online journal wherein the writer simply shares the news of his or her day. I’m read plenty of blogs like that, complete with lists of how many loads of laundry were completed, and just exactly how the family car broke down. Then there are blogs that have a different purpose. The writer has an agenda beyond recording their day. They want their readers to be changed, to learn, to be sanctified. There is, in short, an important teaching element.

According to Sproul:

Scope of teaching for women (Titus 2:3-6):
1. Older women teaching younger women (specific, limited audience)-- and not just women, but more specifically, women in one's own neighbourhood ("Serving your sisters in cyberspace isn’t probably what Paul had in mind, especially if you aren’t ministering to those who are, in real life, your neighbors.")
2. Content of that teaching (to love their husbands, children, to be self-controlled, pure, etc.--exclusively relating to familial relationships and the conforming of one's character to God's Word)

Thus, what's objectionable are women who appear or in fact presume to teach beyond this limited scope: those who "set out, or so it seems, to set the world straight about Auburn Avenue theology, the history of the New Testament church, that seek to change this government policy or that, that direct you to this teacher or some other." The problem isn't even that these women are teaching falsehood (though some or even many do or might); it is simply the fact that they are teaching at all. "People are teaching who shouldn’t be teaching. And people are learning where they ought not to be learning."

Because of the internet's reach to both male and female audiences worldwide, Sproul thinks that it is wrong (unbiblical) for women to post their theological views on their own blogs period. Whatever their motives, no matter their tone, regardless of whether they address their writings to younger women or no.
---

Now for some thoughts of mine:

First, his bifurcation of blogs into two principal kinds: (a) online journals that are clearly largely and most obviously personal; and (b) those with "an agenda beyond recording their day" is true to some extent and ambiguous to some extent. I have no problems with his identification of category (a). But (b) appears to cover rather indiscriminately a variety of possibilities that would have been better distinguished.

Authoritative teaching is one, as in those who actually post sermons, and in the capacity of a teacher of the Word (e.g. many pastors do this). But there is also the blogger who simply wants to share, rather than teach, on theological issues. And there is a significant difference between sharing and teaching. Some might see sharing as a kind of teaching, but that's to risk blurring an important distinction and is an idea that suggests that all sharing is necessarily teaching, which obviously is not so. Consider the sharing that takes place in small group Bible study, or the interactive adult Sunday School lesson. I've attended several of such sessions in conservative Baptist churches and have never yet heard that it is improper for women to share their views on what the Bible verses say, and how they think biblical lessons can be applied to Christian living that is relevant to both genders.

Perhaps it will be countered that such sharing takes place under the leadership of a man, and is thus strictly speaking, not unbiblical. But that seems to take into account only the formal aspect (vital as it is) of the situation, not what actually takes place--for instance, the very real possibility that in a meaningful discussion male members of the group actually come to gain great spiritual insight from the sharing of female members. Wouldn't this then come under Sproul's objection about those who "ought not" to, but do, learn from those who shouldn't be teaching? [Hubby: since one man--woman's modus ponens may turn out to be another man's modus tollens, perhaps another conclusion that could be drawn is that if Sproul wants to be consistent, he should condemn all such sharing as unbiblical as well, if he has not already done so.]

If Sproul is right, we also have to seriously wonder about the wisdom of forums like Sharper Iron where women do share on theological issues, and where their views are read by men (and hopefully not always in an inconsequential manner).

I agree with this respondent who clarifies that "blogging isn't (or at least shouldn't be) about exercising teaching authority," but often, more like the sharing of ideas (theological or otherwise) between laymen much in the manner C.S. Lewis characterised his own apologetic and theological writings. Writing (and publishing--being able to air one's views in a public arena) is a blessing given by God's grace, and can be used wisely for His glory. Who is to deny women, to whom God has given also intellect, emotions, and a desire to seek after Him and to understand and defend His truth, this right to do so? Must we say that Dorothy Sayers, or any other female writer whose theological ideas and books are published (on paper, or on the net) are female preachers/teachers that ought to be rebuked simply because they, by the act of publishing (making available their theological views to a potentially wide audience), are presuming to teach men?

And what about female professors in co-ed seminaries: are they necessarily restricted to teaching biblical languages and must scrupulously eschew anything that smacks of the theological? But where and how does one draw the line, anyway? Aren't our whole lives, and all that we study supposed to be guided by theological principles (and by implication a making known of what these are in a seminary context)? I know of a very conservative Reformed seminary where a women co-teaches a class of young women and men the theology of music and worship. Does this contravene Biblical teaching? I don't think so. What the Bible explicitly forbids is the exercising of teaching authority of women over men in the context of the church.

As recognised by the abovementioned respondent, these laymen exchanges on weighty theological issues carries its own risks, "for example, the danger of plausible-sounding ideas taking hold among people who lack the training to recognise them as being, in fact, long-dismissed heresies. However, the answer to this is better catechising from our pastors, not the abolition of Christian conversation, whether online or off." Amen to that.

Second, Titus 2 does instruct older women to teach the younger women in the ways Sproul outlines. However, it does not say that the content of the teaching is to be thus limited. Surely it would be more than permissible--even commendable and in fact commanded--that women teach other women about the good news (that is, evangelise). And is not the teaching of the gospel essentially theological, and indeed at the very heart of Christian theology? And would it be wrong, on Sproul's account, for a woman to share the gospel with her male colleague if God provides an opportunity? Titus 2:3 also teaches that "older women likewise are to be reverent in their behaviour, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good..." Now this seems to me to include subjects that go beyond merely how a wife should love and respect her husband, etc. For one, the older women should ideally be able to understand why Paul instructs such behaviour, and to give an answer from God's Word to younger women who ask for such reasons or who need rebuke from Scripture because they are, let's say, given to much wine?

These are just my penny's worth of thoughts on this issue. I'm looking forward to seeing how Christian conversation on this issue develops on Sharper Iron.

An eventful haircut

2005-04-30T15:40:00.000-04:00

“A bob, a rounded look… no layering please…” My wife tried her best to explain to the hairdresser.

She’s always had trouble getting what she wants for a haircut in North America. It’s the same story in Berkeley, California, and now Toronto, Ontario. I think the only other country outside Singapore where we know for sure that the random hairdresser would understand her specifications is Malaysia.

Admittedly, there were other complications that day. You see, the hairdresser was really a trainee, and my wife was not in a salon (where they charge 25CND for a cut) but a hair-styling college in the local mall (7CND). We are Singaporeans, after all.

The trainee told my wife that a “bob” in her world would mean much shorter hair at the back, which was exactly the opposite of what was desired, that is, shorter hair at the sides, longer at the back.

Here, the customers are mostly attended to by students; though supervised and—I gathered— given much help by three teachers. One of them stood out. Her benign and debonair bearing—not to mention a very spunky hairstyle for a middle-aged looking Asian aunty—marked her out as the authoritative one around here. She was very much in demand too, and it didn’t take long for my wife to learn her name: Yoshi.

But I was talking about the trainee, inexperienced in way of the Asian bob, and having difficulties understanding what my wife wanted. She tried to be friendly enough, but unbeknownst to her, her complaints to a colleague at the counter was overheard (by my mother-in-law who, was then visiting with us).

“I can’t cut without a style! She must give me a style! How can I cut without a style?”

Despite having been told from the beginning that the hair should reach about 1 inch below the ears, the trainee had to re-trim. Twice. At least she was scrupulous in explaining how the trainees were advised to err on the side of caution: complaints were apparently not uncommon and cut hair not being immediately replaceable.

An hour must have passed before she had trimmed to the desired length, and now she asked for a teacher to hear the requests regarding that dreaded “rounded look”. The teacher too did not seem to understand.

Another fifteen minutes and little progress.

Yoshi was then called, and everything changed from that moment on. She listened for a little while to what was wanted, said “Ok,” proceeded to give instructions to the student, and began to work on my wife’s hair herself. Though calls never stop coming in for her to do one thing or another, she never missed a beat, giving out instructions for the traineers to handle each crisis even as she cut away.

Almost halfway through, a call came for Yoshi from the counter: an irate customer had returned to complain about the red dye bleeding into her blond. She was obviously very upset: and in all her gesticulations and explanations, she just came short of stamping her foot and demanding in tears a free “correction” treatment for her allegedly freaky look. (My wife assured me, however, that she looked quite normal.)

The trainee stylist who had attended to her tried several times to “but” in. Her attempts to defend herself, though polite, were obviously still grating to the customer.

Yoshi never stopped cutting through all this drama. She simply said “Ok,” occasionally, and whenever the customer paused her ranting, said very calmly, “It looks alright. Red will bleed a little…”

After about 10 minutes, the customer had said her fill, failed to get a free treatment from Yoshi, and left.

“Girls, you must learn to keep quiet. Let the customers say what they want. When customers are angry, they won’t listen. Just let them talk…”

“But, but…”

“See? But again. Learn to keep quiet. When they are finished talking, they’ll go. Ah ah ah… see? There you go again. Go and have some cake in the other room.”

My wife’s hair was almost done, and Yoshi had understood perfectly what was wanted. Maybe it’s the Asian schoolgirl haircut she’s familiar with.

[Based upon true events.]

Medieval Cookery for Modern Cooks

2005-04-28T19:50:00.000-04:00

It was the 27th of March 2005, Easter Sunday, after the morning church service. I was just glancing through the cookbook shelves at the Downtown Toronto Goodwill as I usually do at thrift stores, yard sales and flea markets--all in hopes of finding that unique or old-fashioned cookbook to add to the modest collection Loy and I started when we got married a year and a half ago. Optimism wasn't high that day as soon as I saw the very paupered looking shelf, with only a very small number of cookbooks lying around. After thumbing perfunctorily through several of them, however, I caught sight of this delightful volume! It didn't take me long to decide that this purchase had to be made, and paid just Can$4 for it: what a bargain for a unique 1976 University of Toronto hardback!

This book contains more than a hundred medieval recipes, all lovingly tested and formulated (for the proportions) in the kitchen by writers Hieatt and Butler using ingredients that are for the most part easily available and familiar to modern cooks. The variety is mouthwatering: there are recipes for soppes and potages, entremets, fyshh, rostes and bakes metes of flessh, stewes, and desserts. I am not sure but wouldn't be all that surprised if this is the only book of its kind around, that combines knowledge of medieval food history with so many practical recipes.

To whet your appetite a little, here are some interesting facts about medieval food and cookery you might not have known:
- Contrary to what is commonly thought, medieval fare was mostly simple and bland (to modern tastes)--not often the rich, spicy foods drowned in outlandish sauces that appear in medieval tales
- "The most elaborate multi-course feasts had a higher proportion of roasts and plain boiled meats, served with simple 'pottages' of vegetables, than of fancier dishes." (ix)
- Roasted meats were very common; "...it is precisely because roasting is a simple, common procedure that no one would have thought it necessary to write down directions for performing it." (x)
- Recipe rolls, generally assumed to be from royal or aristocratic households, include many simple vegetable dishes.
- The order followed in English feast menus is one that is familiar to us in the respect of enjoying the dessert at the end. The plainer foods were first served, with the meal concluding with fruits, nuts, wafers, and other small delicacies. The French, however, were already tending to serve as a first course some "appetizers" of "pastries and elegant concoctions" before the more substantial part of the meal. (xi-xii)
- While the rich probably ate a fairly elaborate midday or late morning dinner as their main meal of the day, the poor (that is, most other people, like the poor widow of the Nun's Priest's Tale) might have to content themselves with a diet consisting "almost entirely of bread and milk, with bacon and a few eggs to add variety. In a period of drought Piers Plowman complained that he did not even have bacon--just some fresh cheese, the coarsest types of bread, and a supply of herbs and greens..." (xii)
- You would probably have eaten better as a servant in a well-to-do and fairly compassionate household. If the morning breakfast menu for the nurse in an early 6th century source is not far from the typical, you might expect beer and boiled mutton bones.

To check out a variation of a medieval honey almond rice pudding recipe I tried with some satisfaction, click here.

Neither Healthy Nor Gospel: the Health and Wealth Gospel

2005-04-27T23:42:00.000-04:00

I recently came across a little booklet entitled Health and Wholeness through the Holy Communion by Joseph Prince (who is the pastor of a mega-church in Singapore). After glancing through it, I felt motivated to write a response.

(Preliminary note on the term “health and wealth gospel”: By that term is designated a brand of teaching within the professing Christian church that espouses and emphasizes the idea of temporal benefits (mainly, health and wealth) as being of great importance in God’s will for all Christians. According to this teaching, Christians can and should access such divine benefits by claiming in faith God’s supposed promises in these regard. Associated ideas and terminology include “faith healing”, “positive confession”, and “name-it-and-claim-it”. The intuition or reasoning behind such teaching is the rather simplistic one that moves from certain obvious scriptural truths, e.g., God’s love for us and His omnipotence, to the false conclusion that He must therefore want and would bless His own with what seems obviously desirable to humans—health and wealth. This teaching, however, ultimately fails to do justice to the whole counsel of Scripture, and fails to glorify God in all His revealed wisdom, love, majesty and sovereignty. I believe that “health and wealth gospel” describes Prince’s teachings; but whether or not it accurately describes the said teaching is not the main point of this critique.)

I shall first briefly lay out the main propositions of Prince’s teaching on the Holy Communion (HC), and then proceed to examine each of them in further detail. His teaching can be summed up thusly:

Optimal health is God’s will for all Christians. Therefore, something is very wrong when Christians suffer weakness, sickness, or premature death (WSPD). To be precise, there is “one and only one reason” (10) for WSPD and that is the “failure to discern the Lord’s body” (11) in the partaking of the Holy Communion. Now, if it is true that there is only one reason for WSPD, and that it is the unworthy partaking of the HC—understood as the failure to discern and claim by faith the healing power of the communion bread—then Prince is justified in concluding that Christians should be in good health if they do what he proposes as they approach the Lord’s Table. It is my contention that this claim on which his entire teaching on the HC depends is false.

Prince then goes on to interpret a few relevant verses in 1 Cor 11, attempting to clarify what a few of the key expressions mean. First, it is to the “principalities and powers” (that is, the devils) that we “proclaim the Lord’s death” (v. 26) and His victory over them. Second, partaking “in an unworthy manner” (v. 29) refers to the partaking of the HC without a recognition and claiming by faith of its healing powers. Third, the command to “examine yourselves” before one partakes (v. 28) refers, once again, to reflection to see if one is approaching the Table in faith that consuming the bread will make one healthy and whole. Fourth, the warning of drinking “judgement” to oneself (v. 29) refers to missing out on the blessing of healing, and continuing to suffer the divine sentence of physical susceptibility to WSPD that befell all humankind when Adam and Eve fell into sin. All these notions, however, seem to be neither taught in 1 Cor 11 nor in the handful of other verses he cites in support of them. I will consider, for instance, his use of Col 2:15 in his teaching of the proclamation made to devils (v. 26); and Acts 2:42 which he cites to persuade that his view of the HC is not a novel one but indeed one that was accepted and practiced by the early church.

In conclusion, since the effects of the HC are so wonderful, guaranteeing health and wholeness—even a sort of perennial youthfulness (“And even your friends will see the results. They will begin to ask you, “Hey, why do you seem to look younger and younger? You never seem to age!” p. 47)—Prince encourages his readers to partake of the HC as often as possible, as often as you need it, as the more you partake, the better you will get.

Now I shall move on to a more detailed examination and critique of Prince’s teachings listed above. If you are interested in critiquing Prince's or like teachings; if you agree with Prince and would like to respond; or if you're simply interested for other reasons, read on!

Health the Lord’s Will for All Christians and the Holy Communion the Channel : citing 1 Cor 11:29-30, Prince says that WSPD befalls Christian because they fail to recognize and claimthe healing power of the communion bread. Quoting him: “And this was the reason why they were not receiving the divine life of their Saviour,” getting weak, sick, etc. So, according to Prince, the purpose of the Holy Communion is to receive divine life and health from Christ. According to our Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul, however, we are to partake of the Holy Communion simply, and profoundly, “in remembrance” of Christ’s sacrifice for us (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24). And trying to argue that the healing power is not explicitly stated in these verses because it was assumed and understood by the early church, and thus not in need of explicit mention, is a dangerous Pandora’s box—and certainly not a good interpretative principle, especially when it is nowhere else clearly taught.

According to Prince, the Bible gives exactly only one reason why weakness, sickness and premature death (WSPDC) befall Christians (10). But that does not seem correct. Just off the top of my head, I can think of various possibilities. How about the glorification of God (e.g. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” recorded in 2 Cor 12:7-10; and Prince’s interpretation of this as persecution is not a convincing one), and the effects of sin? In fact, Prince himself later writes that “disease is due to the devil’s oppression,” (22) and still later, that we should “understand that when Adam sinned against God, a divine sentence fell on the human race. Weakness, sickness and death are some effects of that divine sentence.” (47) There seems to be an inconsistency in his claims: is there one or a number of reasons why WSPD befall Christians? The widely accepted view of WSPD is that it is a result of our fallen condition in a fallen world. So, I agree with Prince when he attributes WSPD to the fall, but disagree with him if he’s trying also to attribute all disease to the devil, which is strongly suggested.

Prince attempts to argue that “the Bible treats disease and demon possession as the same thing since they both originate from the devil. Acts 10:38 says that Jesus went about doing good and ‘…healing all who were oppressed by the devil’. Notice that disease is due to the devil’s oppression.” (22) I shall just examine the verse cited here. “Healing all who were oppressed by the devil” does not translate easily to “all who are sick were sick because they were oppressed by the devil”. Jesus went about “doing good and healing…” We know for certain that He cast out demons, and that he healed people of their diseases. The latter activity could certainly be described as “doing good”, thus making it totally unnecessary for one to interpret the "healing all who were oppressed by the devil" as including those who were simply sick by no specific and direct fault of the devil. This verse cannot properly be used as biblical evidence that all sickness is solely or even primarily of the devil’s doing.

Relatedly, I find it hard to see how the “proclaim[ing] [of] the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26) refers to a proclamation of Christ’s victory to the devil, and denouncing the devil’s power over the Christian. There is nothing in the context that even suggests that it to is the devil that we are proclaiming the wonderful truth of Christ’s triumph over sin and death. Rather, the obvious teaching in 1 Cor 11:23-26 is that the purpose of the HC is to commemorate and celebrate the Lord’s death and resurrection for our redemption, and that it is to be observed “until He comes” – that is, it is to be a perpetual observance until Christ’s second coming. Likewise, Col 2:15 which is cited by Prince to relate to 1 Cor 11:26, does not seem warranted, in the context of the latter, to have that significance with which to guide our interpretation of it. Col 2:15 appears in the context of Paul’s exhortation to the church to be no longer subject to former superstitions and rituals that are contrary to, and which slight, the victory of the cross of Jesus Christ over spiritual death. Quoting Col 2:13-17:

13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

What is clear in these verses is that Col 2:15 leads to the conclusion (“Therefore”) in verse 16. There is no mention of the HC here. Nor is there mention of health and wholeness for all Christians. To use Col 2:15 to interpret 1 Cor 11:26 is not warranted by the contexts of either verse, and is a dangerous hermeneutic that can potentially lead to all kinds of error.

To Partake Unworthily is to Do So Without Recognising the Bread’s Healing Power
Prince also attempts to answer the question: “What is it to partake unworthily? Read the rest of verse 29 and you will conclude that if you fail, to discern or understand the significance of the Lord’s body, you are eating and drinking in an unworthy manner. The Corinthians partook unworthily because they did not recognize that the broken body of the Lord was meant to bring them health and wholeness.” (42-43) If these verses are read in context, it will be seen that the much more obvious reading of partaking unworthily is to use the HC as an occasion for feasting and factious gratification of the flesh, and not as a grateful remembrance of Christ’s death for us. It is worth quoting several of the surrounding relevant verses here (with emphasis of my own in italics):

20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,
21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. …
… 33So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
34If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Interestingly, Prince does comment on these verses, on the impropriety of treating the Holy Communion “as a common meal”, and “not apprehending their [the bread and wine’s] symbolic import.” (quoting from the Vine’s Expository Dictionary) What is wrong is that he continues to insist on adding his own preferred teaching to what the Bible clearly teaches. He emphasizes what is not in the verses: “Jesus wants us to take the bread and believe that His body was broken so that our bodies can be made well. And when we discern it that way, we are partaking worthily.” (45) Not surprisingly, he does not offer any other scriptural basis for this his main teaching. If, as he claims, he is merely giving attention to what the Bible gives focus to, one should reasonably expect to see him substantiating his key teaching/s with a whole list of verses, all carefully exposited. We do not see more than a small handful of verses in his entire booklet. Further, many, if not most of those he cites he interprets all too conveniently and mistakenly to give the appearance of supporting his own teaching.

Prince then mentions the generally understood way in which participating unworthily means—using the Supper as an occasion for feasting and sensual gratification instead of remembering the Lord. Following this, in a move that makes light of Paul’s command to “examine yourselves” and his grave rebuke of the Corinthians, goes on to write: “So, Paul was not saying that if you have sin in your life, you cannot partake.” (44) First of all, this sounds almost like an implicit endorsement of the Corinthians' behaviour. Secondly, it is ambiguous what "have sin in your life" means here. Read as "having still a sinful nature in you," this seems to be an attack on a strawman, which is, in this case, the supposed misconception of many or most orthodox Christians that we can approach the Lord’s Table only if we are 100% sure that we have confessed all our sins, and are sin-free. This is not recognized orthodox teaching; we can never be totally sinless in this lifetime. Nevertheless, this strawman inserted here could help make his case seem stronger. And Prince mentions, only to gloss over this correct understanding of what partaking “unworthily” means (the one emphasized by Paul), and goes on to repeat his own teaching, this time putting it into the apostle’s mouth: “Paul…was teaching us that when we fail to discern the body, we should not partake because we are not claiming by faith what Jesus has done for us.” (44)

Partaking in the Lord’s Supper Reverses the Effects of Sin on our Bodies
Having supposedly established that the Lord’s Supper was instituted to give physical health to believers, Prince goes on to explain that drinking judgement to oneself does not mean condemnation to hell (which is correct, since once saved, always saved), and that the Greek word often translated as judgement is krima, which means divine sentence. (Why the Greek word is brought up here is a puzzle to me. It is also not always used to refer to divine judgement, e.g. Matt 7:2) He then goes on to argue that krima in 1 Cor 11:29 refers specifically to the physical deterioration and imperfection that arises from Adam’s fall into sin. Where does he get this from? Certainly not from krima alone! What krima refers to has to be carefully discerned from the context in which it appears, here as in elsewhere. Krima is also a fairly common and general word for judgement, of various sorts (see Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words on this).
Contrary to Prince’s assertion, there is nothing in 1 Cor 11:29 which specifies that the krima here refers to the postlapsarian curse. Going by what the following verse provides, it most probably refers to the judgement or punishment of weakness and sickness for those who partake of the Supper unworthily, not judging the body rightly, that is—not doing it in thankful remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins (vv. 24, 25).

He concludes: “Everytime you partake, you are reversing the effects of the curse or divine judgement in your body.” (46) So Prince is teaching that the worst that can happen to those who partake unworthily is that they will be denying themselves the healing and restorative power of the communion bread. This sounds, at best, like a really weak interpretation of such strong expressions as “will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” (11:27b) and “eats and drinks judgement to himself…” (11:29)!

The Early Church Believed in the Healing Power of the Holy Communion
We can examine Prince’s use of Acts 2:42 as an example of another rather careless application of scripture. Acts 2:42 is cited seemingly as evidence that the early church believed in the “Holy Communion as a key channel of health of wholeness for His people”. “The early church believed this. That is why ‘…they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ They made a big deal of those things that God made a big deal of.” (13) Let us now read the verse ourselves: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

The last sentence of Prince’s quoted here is ironic, as there is no explicit teaching of the health and wholeness gospel in the Bible, much less any emphasis (“big deal”) on any putative health and wholeness purpose of the Lord’s supper. Acts 2:42 simply describes what the early church did, which includes “the breaking of bread,” but does not state any very specific reason why they did so. We can only properly deduce that they did so from what the Lord Himself taught, e.g. in Luke 22:19, which is to commemorate His death and resurrection until He comes.

So…the More the Better
Prince also teaches that “…healing through the Holy Communion can also be a gradual process. As you partake, you will get better over time. The more you partake, the better you get.” (34-35) Not only is this based on the very suspect teaching of the healing powers of the Lord’s Supper, it is the case that even if one accepts the latter, one is not sure where this principle of “more is better” comes from. Certainly not from Paul’s epistle. He urges further, that “Jesus told us to have communion often.” (37) Where did our Lord say that? The Bible only records, on this issue, Jesus’ words “as often as you” partake of the HC (e.g. 1 Cor 11:25), which does not mean in a straightforward reading as do it often, but as often as you do it. Since the HC is a commemoration of the key event in redemptive history, we can safely say that the Lord will be pleased if we do it often, in the right way. There is no prescriptive frequency of this ordinance, however, in the Bible. Not surprisingly, Prince does not attempt to offer any scriptural support attempted here when he advocates: “Do as Jesus said – have it often.” (38) “How often? … It depends on how much you want His health and wholeness.” (Ibid.) “Pastor, don’t be extreme…” Actually, the question is not one of whether what is taught is “extreme” or not. That’s the least of our concerns. What matters is whether it is what the Bible teaches. It is not. Where then did Prince get this idea that one will get progressively better, increasingly healthy and whole, by having HC often? I guess Prince may have derived this idea from the common unreflective intuition that if something is good for one, then more of that something is better. On a little more reflection, however, there is much that is suspect with this line of reasoning. Vitamin supplements come immediately to mind.

Prince’s teaching, like those of Kenneth Hagin’s and Kenneth Copeland’s, seem to me to tend towards trivializing a great and sovereign creator God. I quote from an article on a similar topic:

In contrast to word-faith theology, sound biblical theology teaches that God does not have to do anything. God, the Creator of all things, is sovereign in all things, not the creature. God is not obligated to heal or prosper anyone, yet He graciously does, and neither is deserved. Someone has said: "healing is not a divine obligation, it is a divine gift". The receiver of the gift can make no demands. God can be trusted to do all things well.

While there are biblical commands and principles for skilful living (e.g. in Proverbs) and a joyful, blessed life, the Bible does not portray God as functioning like a perfectly running vending machine where we will surely get our pop if we insert our coins. Often He works in mysterious ways, and Job eventually came to know this well. What He promises is that He has our best at heart and will reward the faithful in His own way and in His own time (Rom 8:28; Heb 11:6). Importantly, consistent throughout Scripture is the teaching that Christians should not seek a heaven here on earth. Rather, “we are seeking the city which is to come.” In the light of that glorious promise and prospect, we consider it our principal duty and joy to “do His will” (Heb 13:21), obeying His Word and trusting that He will give the increase (1 Cor 3:6), and waiting eagerly for His second coming (Tit 2:13). This is also why we are told to “consider it all joy…when [we] encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of [our] faith produces endurance.” (Jam 1:2-3)

Testimonies of Healing Through the Holy Communion
The booklet also attempts to use testimonies to persuade the reader of the rightness of the teaching. The use of testimonies, and other so-called evidences to prove any one position can get tricky (see, for example, my earlier posts here and here). My point here, however, is a modest one—that it may be a big mistake to give to testimonies more significance than they properly deserve (e.g. the healing of the Khmer pastor, and Prince’s own). Testimonies of God’s goodness and grace are good--edifying to believers, and glorifying to God, and may lead some nonbelievers to seek after Him. They do not, however, constitute in any straightforward way solid evidence for the spiritual condition of the professors, or for the positions that they hold. Many faith healers and their proponents like to argue this way: how can one witness such wonderful miracles and doubt that they are from God? Christ Himself has the answer: "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'” (Matthew 7:22). "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24) My purpose here is not to suggest that Prince or his followers are deliberately being false teachers or false prophets. In all likelihood, if I am correct, they are sincerely mistaken. These passages were cited to show that the mere performance of “signs and wonders” such as physical healing does not prove that one is of the Lord and of the truth. Scripture aside, what shall we as Christians properly respond to similar testimonies that we know have also been given, and are currently still being given, by those of other faiths—say, Hindus or Muslims?

Final Thoughts

A typical strategy of health and wealth gospellers is to base whole teachings (the ones they and their church emphasize) on one or very few verses which might suggest, at a glance, something of a support for their preferred doctrine. For an example of this, we can do worse than examine Prince’s use of Psalm 105:37 as evidence that all the Israelites who left Egypt during the historic exodus left “healed, healthy and whole.” The problem is that the Bible does not make that explicit. The word that is translated as “feeble” in the phrase “none feeble among His tribes” in the NKJV which Prince quotes from is the Hebrew kashal. A quick check with Vine’s Expository Dictionary revealed that the primary meaning of this word is “to stumble, to be weak.” It appears some 60 times in the Old Testament, also often used figuratively to describe the consequences of divine judgement on sin—as in how God will “lay stumbling blocks before this people…” (Jer 6:21a). The first thing that can be observed is that it is far from clear how we can get the idea of perfect health from “none feeble”, where kashal refers primarily to stumbling, or falling. The NIV and the NASB in fact, translate the same phrase without using the word “feeble”, staying closer to the literal Hebrew. If this is the only verse which one can appeal to for the reading that all the Israelites left Egypt perfectly healthy and strong, then we should at least prudently withhold either assent or denial of this claim. The primary point that seems to be made by Ps 105:37 is that every Israelite was physically able to walk out of Egypt.

Prince teaches elsewhere of the power of one’s words to bless or to curse, and many of his followers exhibit a certain wariness of even mentioning what’s ‘taboo’. An obvious taboo for them is sickness. The apostle Paul himself, however, did not superstitiously refrain from mentioning Timothy’s “frequent ailments.” (2 Tim 5:23b) He recognized them as what they were, and recommended a commonsensical, very pragmatic help for them: to “use a little wine” for the purification of the water Timothy was drinking. Contrast Paul’s advice to Timothy with, for instance, health gospeller Kenneth Hagin’s plain denials of the reality of headaches: “…if I had a headache, I wouldn't tell anybody. And if somebody asked me how I was feeling, I would say, "I'm fine, thank you." (The Name of Jesus, p. 44; taken from “How the Health and Wealth Gospel Twists Scripture”) Hagin’s God is too small. “He who is in you is greater than He who is of the world.” (1 John 4:4b) We should fear--that is, reverence--the Lord, not be in constant superstitious terror of accidentally saying (or, as many of them like to put it, “pronouncing”—) anything that even remotely smacks of the negative, fearing that we would be then sub- or unconsciously bringing a curse unto ourselves. God is all-sovereign, and has promised that “all things work for the good of those who love Him.” (Rom 8:28) God knows we are but dust (Ps 103:14) and knows to help, deliver and richly bless (in His own way—not necessarily, perhaps not even primarily, in the forms of health and wealth) those who trust in Him (e.g., Matt 28:20; Jam 5:11; 2 Pet 5:6, 10; Phil 4:6-9, 19; Col 3:23-24).

It is joy that is promised. It is the Lord’s presence with us always that is promised. It is that trials refine and strengthen our character and faith that is promised—not that it will always be well and dandy, comfortable and luxuriant here on earth for His children. One major principle of the Bible, made most clear in the New Testament, is that there will be trials, as it was in the days of Job, as it was it the days of the apostles, as it is in our day. God allows trials in the lives of Christians, such as persecution which is promised to those who desire to live godly in this world (2 Tim 3:12), so that they might be blessed and so that He might be glorified. The disciples, seeing a blind man, asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus’ answer is instructive: “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (Jn 9:1-3)

In any case, what one is asked to do in response to sickness is to pray: “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him…” (James 5:14a) There is simply no verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches that Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper to gain physical healing.

We may feel that it’s “not nice” to criticize and confront fellow believers, and disagreement is necessarily unpleasant (if we are right in maintaining p, then they who maintain ~p must be wrong!). Where the truth is concerned, however, I believe there is no other way. Like Paul in Acts 4:19-20, we must fear and heed God rather than man.

“We count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.” ~ James 5:11

Further reading:
A Summary, According to the Holy Scriptures, of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 1550
“Four Views of the Lord’s Supper”
“The Word-Faith Movement”
“Weblog: Kenneth Hagin, 'Word of Faith' Preacher, Dies at 86”
“How the Health and Wealth Gospel Twists Scripture”

Making vice a "virtue" and the myth of Christian prudery

2005-04-26T22:35:00.000-04:00

Came across an interesting piece by Wheaton College professor W. Jay Wood entitled "The 'Virtue' of Lust?". It is a review of philosopher Simon Blackburn's new book Lust. I haven't read the book myself, but think that some of the points raised by the reviewer ring so true--especially the ones concerning the fairly common misconceptions that Christians are prudes that squirm at the mention of sex and that the Bible is some kind of bowdlerized text. Rather, the Bible teaches that God created us male and female, and designed for us to enjoy sexual intimacy within the bounds of marriage of one man and one woman, for the purposes of experiencing a special and beautiful union and for procreation. One does not have to look far in the Bible to reach Genesis 2:24-25 which reads: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." There are also scores of narratives in the Old Testament that document the sexual encounters and misadventures of the patriarchs and even King David himself. The New Testament contains many verses that deal quite openly with sexual matters, among them those that teach of the special relationship between a man and his wife, how a marriage bed should be honoured, and how--as even the Wife of Bath knew--there are spousal 'duties' that ought to be honoured for the good of the marriage and ultimately, for the glory of God.

I'm also reminded of a book I bought at the UCBerkeley bookstore for less than $2 many months ago--Primers for Prudery: Sexual Advice to Victorian America. If memory serves (the book not being with me at present), it argues that the preponderance of material relating to restrictions placed on sexual matters in Victorian times suggest, if anything, a society which was certainly not all that straitlaced, and one needing such advice which was not wanting in supply!

It's almost time to have our lives changed forever

2005-04-13T22:05:00.000-04:00

Click on the radio clock to listen to the music

This is a picture of the first musical toy we have bought for our little baby on the way. I saw it sitting pretty and neglected on a shelf in a second-hand baby items store in Toronto and, having found it to be in good working condition, decided to purchase it. It's rather cool... a 1971 made-in-USA Original Fisher Price toy with Japanese-manufactured musical movement (explains a little why it still works well?) and a 1964 Canada patent. Come to think of it, this toy is 2 years older than Daddy! We hope that Penelope will like it as much as we do. It certainly is cute, and plays a cherubic tune (with its springy 'antenna' gently bobbing around from the vibration) that I imagine she might enjoy as we change her diapers. When baby comes within the next 2-4 weeks, time for blogging and other personal interest activities will be greatly reduced. We're happy and thankful though, and making the most of the time we have left as a carefree couple!

See Loy's post on the same issue...

Thomas Todhunter Shields, "the Battling Baptist", fifty years on...

2005-04-11T22:05:00.000-04:00

*Dear reader, please accept my welcome and short introduction to my blog if you're a first-time visitor and feel like you might like to see what else I have here.

T. T. Shields (1873-1955)

Asst. Pastor Edwin Fry and Loy at the book sale at the concourse;
and dessert for the evening

Last Saturday, 9 April 2005, Jarvis Street Baptist Church honoured the 50th death anniversary of its longest serving (44 years) and most famous pastor, Dr. T. T. Shields with a symposium commemorating his fiery yet compassionate personality, and his deep love for Christ, the Gospel, and the Fundamentals of the faith. It was an event Loy and I couldn't miss. Like Loy said, it would be like being in Philadelphia, Penn. and not attending a symposium on John Gresham Machen; or being in London and not visiting Spurgeon's London Metropolitan Tabernacle.

For another quick introduction to Shields, click here. The last I checked, the links to the sermon and to The Gospel Witness (the periodical Shields founded in 1922 and in which he was its main contributor, often dictating to his secretary for hours on end) work, but not, unfortunately, the bonus links which would have been aptly named indeed if they did work!

For a much fuller, illuminating, and edifying account of the man, read this essay by Douglas Adams, the son of one of Shields' seminary (Toronto Baptist) professors who himself taught for a time at TBS and is currently pursuing a PhD in Shields in the University of Western Ontario. The better one knows another, the more blemishes one tends to discover. Shields with us is no exception. The term "the Battling Baptist" was in fact coined by an antagonistic critic to refer to Shields' often combative stance on many issues. Shields' life, however, is surely one which God used greatly for His glory, the salvation of many souls, and for the contending of the faith once delivered (Jude 3). It is also an encouraging reminder that God can be pleased to use us His imperfect vessels.

The night ended with a few generations of Jarvis Street church members, friends and family (biological and spiritual), chorusing "The Sands of Time are Sinking". Truly,

The sands of time are sinking, the dawn of Heaven breaks;
The summer morn I’ve sighed for—the fair, sweet morn awakes:
Dark, dark hath been the midnight, but dayspring is at hand,
And glory, glory dwelleth in Immanuel’s land.

O Christ, He is the fountain, the deep, sweet well of love!
The streams of earth I’ve tasted more deep I’ll drink above:
There to an ocean fullness His mercy doth expand,
And glory, glory dwelleth in Immanuel’s land!

Five Singaporeans and an Easter Cantata at Jarvis Street, Toronto

2005-04-11T20:30:00.000-04:00

(From left: Rueben, Alex, Yeow Tong, Loy and Elaine)

This year Jarvis Street Baptist Church commemorated the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with an Easter Cantata entitled "He is the King of Glory". The Choir had been practicing for months for this cantata, and it was finally performed to a full hall (praise the Lord for answered prayers!) on March 25, 2005 (Good Friday). What do Singaporeans have to do with this?

The Lord graciously brought together the five of us--a rather motley group--to be a part of this memorable evening of remembrance and celebration. There are the two University of Toronto undergraduates Rueben and Alex ("the young ones") who have been in Toronto for about two years now and who were the first among us to attend services at Jarvis; the "fresh-off-the-boat" Yeow Tong who began his graduate studies in the Ontario Insitute of Studies in Education (UofT) in January 05; the UC Berkeley 4th year grad student Loy who came to Toronto in Fall 04 to continue his research under his professor who moved to UofT; and Elaine his wife (that's me!) who's a teacher on no-pay leave accompanying him as a homemaker, or as I like to put it sometimes--as a pei du ma ma (a Chinese expression usually applied to Mainland Chinese mothers who are accompanying their young children studying overseas in Singapore). With the exception of Yeow Tong, all of us sang in the Choir that night, and were very thankful for the way the Lord allowed our voices to be used for His glory. Loy and I are regular choir members in Jarvis; Rueben and Alex were roped in for the Cantata.

Rudy Bauman, a 73 year old from Switzerland who has been the choir director for about thirty years, put together a smooth-flowing, meaningful, and rousing selection of songs and scripture to become "He is the King of Glory". This cantata traced the mission and life of Christ--from the time of Old Testament prophecies, to the birth of the Child, to how He grew strong in wisdom and in grace, to His adult ministry, to how He came to His last supper with His disciples, to Gethsemane, and to how He was betrayed, accused of blasphemy, crucified, and how He finally rose triumphant from the grave on the third day as He said. Being John Rutter fans, Loy and I were pleasantly surprised to hear a very Rutter-ish moment in one of the pieces entitled "The Beatitudes", in the line "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you for my sake".Several of the pieces were really tough, especially Handel's "Worthy is the Lamb" and its pages of "Amens" in counterpoint which concludes the selection. But worthy indeed is He, to receive all blessing, honour and glory in the best that we can try to give, and He enabled us to learn all the pieces in time, and gave us voices to sing on Good Friday evening. As Yeow Tong commented after the service, the acoustics of the hall (more than a hundred years old) is great, and together with the grand pipe organ, really made the Cantata a success. But a simply "successful" performance without God's working in the hearts of the audience would be mere vainglory, a travesty in God's house. We know, however, that many--including ourselves--have prayed that hearts would be touched and re-energised with the gospel message, and trust that God's Word will not return to Him empty (Isaiah 55:11). Hallelujah, what a Saviour!

*I will soon up upload 2-3 of our favourite pieces as soon as my husband gets to converting the tape recording to MP3 files. The quality of the original recording was not too good, but I hope that most of the words will be audible. Watch for it!

"But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him."
~ Isaiah 53:5-6 ~

Guess what this is, sleepyheads

2005-04-08T21:23:00.000-04:00

Answer: click here

I'm really divided as to whether I'll want such a product if and when it does get onto the shelves. To snooze or not to snooze in the first place...

Our unhealthy obsession with sickness and "wellness"

2005-04-08T10:23:00.000-04:00

Thoughts and passions evoked by an article entitled "Our unhealthy obsession with sickness" by Frank Furedi, published on 23 March 2005, with the opening paragraphs excerpted below:

We live in a world where illnesses are on the increase. The distinguishing feature of the twenty-first century is that health has become a dominant issue, both in our personal lives and in public life. It has become a highly politicised issue, too, and an increasingly important site of government intervention and policymaking. With every year that passes, we seem to spend more and more time and resources thinking about health and sickness. I think there are four possible reasons for this.

First, there is the imperative of medicalisation. When the concept of medicalisation was first formulated, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it referred to a far narrower range of phenomena than is the case today - and it was linked to the actions of a small number of professionals rather than having the all-pervasive character that it does now.

Essentially, the term medicalisation means that problems we encounter in everyday life are reinterpreted as medical ones. So problems that might traditionally have been defined as existential - that is, the problems of existence - have a medical label attached to them. Today, it is difficult to think of any kind of human experience that doesn't come with a health warning or some kind of medical explanation. (Read on...)

As I read this short article, I could not help but be reminded of my own recent attempts to gently convince an extremely well-meaning friend that I really wasn't interested in purchasing more vitamin supplements. My husband and I are already taking vitamin supplements (Centrum Daily Multivitamins--"A to Zinc"--and Materna respectively) which seem for all relevant purposes to be sufficient. Short of being experts ourselves in pharmacological products and nutrition, both appear to the fairly educated layman's eyes to be well established, reputable products--the latter in fact has been long recommended by most gynaecologists throughout Canada. The friend, however, was persistent (patient may be a better word?), and--determined to convince me of the superlative qualities of a product that she has personally tried and whose life-changing properties she now attests to--passed me reading materials and a CD of a talk by some guru who has spent years studying and lecturing on the need for good vitamin supplements for those of us who live in an increasingly health-threatening world. In such a world, our bodies are the often unwary victims to the continual assaults of toxins in the air, in the processed food we eat, in the beverages we consume, even in the fresh produce that we enjoy. In each "Did you know?" box in the margins of just about every page in his book there is bite-sized information designed to alarm, get one to pay attention. A typical example? Fruits and vegetables that we now consume contain only one fifth or less of the vitamins they are supposed to because they are grown on nutrient-poor soils. Another big "Did you know?" is that the nutrients in foods (or, believe it or not--in other health supplements) are often not effectively absorbed by our bodies. So, apparently, someone who scrupulously meets all the recommended dietary requirements may be mistakenly assured that his or her body is getting all the nutrition it needs on a daily basis. See, for example, the following excerpt that I found by simply googling "daily nutritional needs":

Eating The "Right Foods" Ensure Optimal Nutrition? Not anymore! Even though the ultimate guide to good eating has generally meant following the nutritional recipe of the "four food groups," published studies have shown that consuming a diet from the "four food groups" alone does not ensure adequate intake of all essential nutrients.

The answer to good health does not lie simply in eating the "right " foods. And, even if we were capable of supplying only nutrient-rich foods to our body, there's still a great deal that can go wrong in trying to extract and absorb these nutrients and still no guarantee that all would be assimilated.

This sounds almost identical to the materials the friend passed to me, and makes me strongly suspect that there are dozens at least of such like products and promotional strategies. How in the world is one supposed to be convinced of any one product or nutritional regime given the vast amount of information that is now available, most of which are claims which are painfully difficult if not near impossible for a layman to verify? One easy way would be to simply ask for the advice of a trusted family doctor. This method, however, would likely receive scorn and scepticism from health-food believers. "Oh, you'd be surprised but even doctors don't know about these things!" Who do we believe? Our well-meaning doctors who are after all professionals in their field, or our well-meaning friends who personally testify to these products?

Further, are we feel any guilt for 'being irresponsible for our own health' if we decide that we are not so interested in exploring new vitamin supplement options at the present time? I think not. How far should one allow oneself to be taken in this pursuit of health and wellness? I am inclined towards the position of moderation in this sense: avoid as best as you can the consumption, and especially the constant consumption, of substances that are generally known and acknowledged to be bad for you (e.g. nicotine, excessive alcohol, lard, etc.); try to exercise regularly; eat your three meals--neither starve nor indulge in gluttony; maintain a well-balanced diet that has the sweets, salts, and oils, kept to a reasonable amount (that you'd have to decide based on your current situation)--and, as many people today do, take a vitamin supplement; and finally, don't stress yourself over whether you are doing all you can to boost and maintain good health! As Furedi wryly observes, many in middle-class neighbourhoods now "spend hours looking at how many carbohydrates there are, whether it's organic, natural, holistic. Spending time reading labels is one way of doing your bit to keep well."

Racoon!

2005-04-05T13:45:00.000-04:00

Caught this critter attempting to get at my garbage. Oh no, you don't. Critter scurried away into my neighbor's backyard after the confrontation.

The entire commotion raised nary a peep from the kitty, recently satisfied with a meal at my window ledge:

The Harpur Easter Heresy

2005-03-30T01:15:00.000-05:00

Tom Harpur recently published an article in The Toronto Star entitled "Jesus is the medium who became the essential message". Unfortunately, this newspaper (much like The Straits Times) and many others, does not keep its articles online for more than a few days at most. An attempt to locate it online today three days after its first appearance led me to a subscription page. I have before me the print edition.

In a nutshell: the piece is inadequate and plain wrong not just from the perspective of a Christian who reads the Bible, but also from one who cares about proper hermeneutics and logical argumentation. I don't claim to be perfectly right in the following critique, since I came to think a lot more seriously on the topic of the Trinity only recently, and am not a properly trained Bible scholar. But I am confident that I am not wresting Scripture to my purposes.

Let me first lay out Harpur's main theses (all heretical, by the way). He basically charges that Jesus is not the Son of God (and certainly not God himself), denies the doctrine and truth of the Trinity, and asserts that the idea of the divinity of Jesus was a turn towards idolatry in the late third, fourth and fifth centuries. (The ignorant) orthodox Christians today and in the past are therefore sadly mistaken, misled, gulled into believing a heresy that has, unfortunately, led to "terrible, bloody consequences down the ages, particularly in relationships with...Judaism and Islam." In his view, apparently, if one has really read the Bible has and understood it correctly (as he thinks he has), one's eyes will be open to the fact that "Christianity is guilty of a staggering act of idolatry--one which, ironically, the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels would have utterly repudiated."

I shall try to do a brief critique of some of his points as they appear in his article, and then go into further detail about his two primary 'evidences' for asserting that Jesus is not God: (1) the testimony of the Gospels and of the apostolic epistles; and (2) the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity at the 5th century Council of Chalcedon (i.e., that the divinity of Christ was thus a late development that strayed from the earlier, more authentic faith).

Harpur begins grandly, condescendingly, smugly:

Everybody, religious or not, talks about the Ten Commandments as though he or she knows what they are but, in actual fact, very few could list them apart from not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery.

This is "unfortunate", Harpur continues, because the other commandments are just as important; and the first is the greatest of them all: to have "no other gods before" God, Yahweh (Exodus 20:1).

Harpur does not neglect to ask the reader to "note in passing that this passage acknowledges that there are other gods to be worshipped." This is a careless if not naive reading of the expression "other gods". The reference to "other gods", as made clear by many passages, is more properly taken to mean "other (supposed) gods". Just to cite a few verses: we have Psalm 135 in which the psalmist proclaims "For I know that the Lord is great, and that our God is above all gods," and clarifies this reference to other supposed gods with the following: "The idols [gods] of the nations are but silver and gold, the work of man's hands". That is to say, that these "gods" aren't really gods at all: they do not even have breath in their mouths! (See also Psalm 115:2-8 which contains the same idea in very similar language) In fact, read on in Exodus 20 (where the 10 commandments are listed), and you'll soon see God commanding that humans "shall not make for" themselves "gods of silver or gods of gold" (v. 23). Elijah's challenge to the worshippers of Baal is another clear and instructive example: hypothetically, "if... Baal [is God], follow him." (1 Kings 18:21) Surely Elijah's faith is not wavering here. Again, in vv. 24 and 25, he calls the Baal worshippers to "call on the name of your god". Simply put, the use of the words "other gods" in no way necessarily means that one concedes the existence of many gods.

Anyway, Harpur's highlighting of the first commandment leads up to his main charge that Christians are guilty of idolatry, in having another god, Jesus, in place of God the Father. He claims that Jesus was just a "first century peasant man...whose historicity is now in serious dispute". What evidence does he cite for this serious claim? Nothing more than "(see, for example, The Jesus Myth by G. A. Wells). But I'm going to let this slide because it basically cuts against the rest of his arguments. If the historicity of Jesus is in doubt, then it is moot to argue that in fact, Jesus did not teach that he is God. If anyone is interested, he or she can read the very scholarly The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg (Amazon.com)

Harpur then (the nerve of him) contends that Jesus of the Gospels would have agreed with him. One is tempted to go--huh? with eyes wide open with incredulity. He says:

After all, when challenged by his enemies to cite the greatest commandment in the Torah, he (Mt. 22:37) promptly replied it was: Love the God with all of one's heart, soul and mind--and of one's neighbour as oneself.

Ok, maybe Harpur meant something like this: if Jesus understood himself to be God, He would have told the man to worship Him in more direct terms instead. Since he didn't, he did not understand himself to be God. But this is a rather suspicious move. By the same logic, if God Himself were to have said the same thing (as He in fact commanded Moses to teach the children of Israel in Deut 6:5), Harpur would have to conclude that God Himself did not understand himself to be God!

He then continues to misread Jesus' words to bolster his case. In Mark 10:17, a wealthy young man comes to Jesus and asks him "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus does not, as Harpur writes, instantly tell the young man off. Instead, He asks (and one can reasonably imagine a gentle questioning, prodding tone here), "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (v. 18) Is Jesus saying here that he is not God? Not only is it far from obvious that he's doing so, his question in no way suggests that he cannot be properly called "good" (that is, recognised as God). Jesus' question is more accurately understood as "Recognising Me only as a teacher (not God), why do you call me that which is God's alone?" Again, Harpur's presupposition that Jesus is not God has led him to go for a simplistic reading that conveniently serves his cause.

Harpur continues on the same thread, asserting that the Gospels always portray Jesus in total subordination to God--never equality: "Nowhere does he [Jesus] ever categorically claim to be God." Actually, the first assertion (taken correctly) is true enough. The Gospels is always portraying Jesus as being obedient to the will of the Father (e.g., Luke 22:42 "...not my will, but yours be done..."). But that in itself is not evidence that Jesus is subordinate to God in the sense that He is not also equally God.

In any case, there is ample scripture where the divinity of Jesus is implicitly or explicitly claimed: Just to name a few, we have Matthew 11:27--"... no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son"; Mark 2:5-11 where Jesus asserts his divinity by answering the silent charge of blasphemy (for, "who can forgive sins but God alone?") with "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'?" (See also Matt 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:18-26) We also see Jesus saying in John 10:30 that He "and the Father are one." And when Jesus asks Peter who he thought He was, and Peter answered "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus does not disagree but instead commends him, saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 16:16-17) And in John 5:18, Jesus' claim to Sonship is taken as a claim to equality with God--"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He was... calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Let us not forget that this was the very reason the high priest gave when he ordered that Jesus was to be sentenced to death for blasphemy (Matthew 26:63-68).

The first three verses of the Gospel of John proclaims: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” If this is not clear textual evidence of the divinity of Christ, I don't know what is.

The apostles likewise (contrary to Harpur's claim that "Jesus is always totally subordinate to God" in the Pauline epistles-) present in their letters to the churches in equally unambiguous terms that Jesus is God Himself, a third and equal member of the Trinity. To cite just a small handful of many like passages: "Who, although He [Jesus] existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped..." (Philippians 2:6); "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11); "But of the Son He [Godd] says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever… Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth…'" (Hebrews 1:8a, 10a).

Not happy to simply charge that Jesus is not God, Harpur moves on to accuse Christians who celebrate Easter with the singing of hymns of being mistaken, probably just out of plain ignorance. He makes it a point to insist that Jesus' resurrection is not, as Christians supposedly believe and as "many Easter hymns wrongly clarion", his own work. Rather, "God [the Father] raised him from the dead". I believe he's mistaken about orthodox Christian teaching here. We do agree that it was God who raised Jesus (also divine and equal with God the Father) from the dead, and a survey of the hymns would probably show that no effort has been made to deny that wonderful truth. (Surely Harpur can't be faulting any particular hymn for not including all the doctrines in the Bible? In any case, he does not bother to name even one of these "many" allegedly mistaken hymns) But wait: Harpur further writes that Paul makes plain in 1 Corinthians 15:44 that Jesus' resurrection was not physical but spiritual. He would do well to carefully reread and reconsiderthis verse in its context. Importantly, consider that Jesus' resurrected body was was clearly physical (he was seen, touched; he ate, etc.) and yet clearly unique in having the crucifixion wounds still obvious, and being a body that could permeate matter (He came through a closed and locked door): that His resurrected body was not physically like ours in its entirety, and obviously "spiritual" in some sense, does not mean that it was merely spirit with nothing physical. And by the way, the first half of this same chapter makes clear that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is of central importance to the gospel and the Christian faith:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” (3-4)
...and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised… and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” (14-15, 17)

Does Tom Harpur not have the Bible in its entirety, or has one in which all these passages are sadly missing? My bafflement is genuine, though I should know that the Bible does tell us not to be surprised that there would be heresies afoot, and people who will refuse to read His Word for what it is. In the words of Isaac Watts, "is this vile world a friend of grace, to help me on to God?"

Harpur's use of Scripture is indeed mind-boggling. Scattered throughout his article are references (or supposed 'prooftexts' to bolster his point) from both the old and the new testaments, such as Exodus 20:1, Matthew 22:37, Mark 10:17, and the "Acts of the Apostles and the letters of St. Paul". Yet, for all his quoting of Scripture which implicitly suggests his belief that they stand as good, even credible evidence anyhow (for his present purposes anyway), he is sloppy in his use of them. Furthermore, he closes ranks with those who outrightly deny Scripture its divine inspiration and truth: with feminist Elaine Pagels who holds that "we have been left with only the story and the position of the winning side" (i.e., God is an impotent communicator, and/or not God of the Scriptures), and with Judaists and Muslims who deny the clear testimony of the Bible (especially the New Testament) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The question is: why use Scripture when you do not even recognise its authority, or even its reliability as God's Word? Admittedly, one could either be of the position that the Bible is indeed God's Word, making the issue one of interpretation; or hold that the Bible is not God's Word, in which case the above question is somewhat irrelevant. I do not know for sure what Harpur's position is regards the inspiration of Scripture. (This is the first time I've heard his name) I just keep getting the impression that he somehow wants to contend for the Scriptures as they should be properly read--and by implication (even if not a necessary or strone one) that they are of some worth as God's Word. (See, for example, his claim that "Christianity took a tragic and fateful turn toward idolatry in the late third, fourth and fifth centuries.") Yet he clearly neglects important passages in Scripture and misreads those he cites. In the apt and appropriately strong words of the Puritan preacher Thomas Watson, "they that deny Christ to be God, must greatly wrest, or else deny the Scripture to be the Word of God." Most probably though, I am just plainly mistaken about Harpur's larger theology and view of the Bible. He probably denies Scripture to be the Word of God: no bafflement here then.

As for Harpur's argument that the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ was a late development that strayed from the true and earlier faith, we have to note first of all that the formulation of the doctrines in the Chalcedonian Council is simply no argument or necessary evidence for the lateness (and/or falsehood) of the same. Let us understand the historical context of the convening, and the conclusions of, this Council. There were a variety of positions and heresies existing during the first few centuries AD, some of which affirmed or emphasized the deity of Christ to the denial of his humanity (e.g. Apollinarius, Alexandrian school), and others which denied or obscured it in preference to His humanity (e.g. Antiochian school). Thus, it is not clear at all that Christ's deity was somehow recognised or established only by the 5th century Chalcedonian Council, as suggested by Harpur. In fact, the Creed of Nicea of 325 AD and the two other ecumenical councils leading up to Chacedon all affirmed that Christ was of the same essence as God the Father.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the Gospels and the Epistles in the New Testament all predate any of the abovementioned councils. As I have tried to show above, the balance of scripture indeed teaches the divinity of Christ--and also for the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Denying the truth of scripture, reading it carelessly is another thing altogether.

In conclusion, let me quote from Fred Zaspel in his article “The Formulation of the Trinity in the Thought of Benjamin B. Warfield,” published in The Gospel Witness (November 2004), p. 12:

For [the late Princeton theologian] Warfield, all "subordinationist passages" in the Scriptures have in view the attending doctrines of the covenant of redemption, the incarnation, humiliation, and the two natures of Christ. In his powerful conclusion of the matter:

"Certainly in such circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament."

One may feel hard-pressed to choose between the trivialising of Easter by the predominance of Easter bunnies and chocolate eggs, or the downright insult to and denial of its main message--or maybe not. At least the bunnies and those who sell them don't claim to be theologians.

To echo the words of apostle John in the last verse of the gospel which bears his name, there are also many other things that can be said here, but we must for the moment defer to the constraints of time and space.

Epilogue
--the excerpt of a response from a certain Rev. Ralph Garbe to Tom Harpur's article printed in The Toronto Star: "It is the height of cynicism that Tom Harpur wishes 'a happy Easter to you all' (which includes me) after he thoroughly denounces the faith of orthodox Christian believers in the divinity of Christ. ... I find Harpur's article offensive and its appearance in the Star at Easter... entitrely inappropriate. Easter is much more than a symbol of immortality, as Harpur claims. It is about God who does not stand aloof from our struggles but who, in the person of Jesus Christ, immerses himself in our life and in selfless love sacrifices himself to forgive us and give us new life."

I'm thinking of sending in a response too to the Star. A much shorter one, which I hope they won't edit to the point of misrepresentation in the event that I do send it.

Desperate to be housewives

2005-03-14T22:25:00.000-05:00

(Picture from youngminds.org.uk)

The central argument in this article entitled "Desperate to be housewives: young women yearn for 1950s role as stay-at-home mums" seems to ring with certain truth, at least from my own limited experiences and impressions. I had noticed a few years back that more of my peers seemed to voice the opinion that they would certainly prefer to be stay-home mums if they got married and had kids; to be there full-time for them during what's probably the most crucial, formative first years of their lives. To be a stay-home mum is really a luxury these days, suggesting that one's income is not necessary for the maintenance of a fairly comfortable lifestyle for the family. Either that, or one is so convinced of the merits of doing so that both parents are willing to lead a much more frugal and modest lifestyle for the sake of giving their children something deemed far more precious--the love, attention and training that only a full-time mum can provide.

Both the ability and happy willingness to be stay-home mums and housewives can be correlated, I think, to the higher education and greater confidence that many more women today enjoy (as opposed, let's say, to women a few decades ago, when a more radical, modern feminism was beginning its heyday). Equipped with more resources (intellectual, material, etc.) to occupy their time meaningfully at home and with their kids, possessed of the benefit of historical hindsight (having seen many women fail at juggling family and career), no longer feeling the need to "prove" themselves as women to be "as capable as the men" in the workforce, and possibly feeling the strain and meaninglessness of perpetually being a rat race in a society that is increasingly seeing the decline of a crude materialism, it is understandable that more young women today crave the satisfaction that comes from fulfilling this traditional role.

Prior to industrialisation and even up to the earlier half of the 20th century, housewives had lots to occupy her body and her mind with: the growing, preserving, pickling and bottling of fruits and vegetables, tending of animals, meat-curing, spinning, sewing, brewing, baking, and catering, not to mention the management of servants (if she had them) and the whole economy of the household. A cursory reading of Proverbs 31 gives a picture of a very fulfilling life for the "stay-home mum"--fulfilling not just in terms of days being filled with manual business, but importantly, intellectually, socially and emotionally. Just consider this: "She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard... she makes linen garments and sells them... she looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her..." (vv. 16, 24a, 27-28) But with the advent of big industry, smaller families, and generally less land to grow anything, many of these jobs were taken out of the home, leaving the housewife with less interesting employment. She might look around and suspect that working women seemed to have it better. They, at least, had daily work that was more mentally challenging, that contributed in more tangible ways to society, and did not have to be "stuck at home just bearing and rearing children". Perhaps this was generally true for a significant number of women in the recent past, but today's educated woman once again can have loads at home with which to exercise her many talents. The rearing and educating of young children is now widely recognised as a big job and a study in itself, ideally to be left in the hands of parents who have, or who are continually acquiring the requisite knowledge, sense and sensibility to discipline and nurture in proper ways. She can also work from home on flexible and rewarding assignments, do her own research on subjects of interest, engage in part-time social work, write, read, form reading groups, and blog. The list could go on and on.

If you ask me, the role of stay-home mum is more than just based on tradition, but on something much more fundamental--the way God made women! (Now, this is bound to be highly controversial, and may seem to some of you to smack too much of the detested sexism supposedly perpetuated by the allegedly patriarchial Bible. There are too many issues here for me to deal justly with them at this point in time, and so I'll move on, content with showing my awareness of a few possible objections and emphasizing the key adverbs.) The point I'm making is not that God made women only to be housewives and mothers. It is that He has made us such that we possess certain unique reproductive capabilities, and also given us a certain disposition and position to care for and nurture our offspring in a most profound way. Hannah (mother of the prophet Samuel) who prayed desperately for a son and who "would make him a little robe...from year to year" (1 Samuel 1; 2:19); and Lois and Eunice (grandmother and mother of Timothy) "of the sincere faith" (2 Timothy 1:5a) come immediately to mind. I can't speak for all my friends or peers, much less for women in general, but I can confidently say that I'm thankful to be a stay-home mum and housewife (for now, until my job contract calls me back!). I think it's one of the best and most fulfilling jobs in the world.

Review of Book and DVD about Christians in China

2005-03-10T21:03:00.000-05:00

From Christianity Today (Feb 2005), "Behind China's Closed Doors--Newly confident house churches open themselves up to the world", by Richard R. Cook:

In late 2003, three remarkable events took place that signal a fundamental shift in how China's house church sees itself.

First, Regnery Publishing released veteran journalist David Aikman's Jesus in Beijing. Then, China Soul for Christ Foundation in Los Angeles issued Yuan Zhiming's dvd series The Cross: Jesus in China.

Both of these journalistic works put names and faces on the house-church movement. Previously, a veil of secrecy covered the movement. Jesus in Beijing introduces Western readers to the key house-church leaders, based on interviews and research in China by the former Beijing bureau chief for Time. The Cross is a powerful collection of interviews and testimonies, taped on location in China, of Christians from all walks of life, collected across three years. Yuan brilliantly combines his talents as a filmmaker, philosopher, and apologist as he weaves the dozens of stories into a coherent montage.

Aikman and Yuan have given us pictures, video testimonies, and careful descriptions of house-church ministries—and the house-church leaders participated, apparently regardless of the risk of imprisonment inside China.

A third event occurred in Chicago at the 2003 Christmas Conference, sponsored by Christian Life Press. At the conference, I was stunned to meet some of these Chinese brothers and sisters featured in the book and the videos. To keep track of the all-star lineup of speakers, I often referred to my now well-worn copy of Jesus in Beijing.

On the last evening, the organizers expressed thanks to Western Christians for 200 years of Protestant missions in China. They rounded up the handful of Westerners in attendance and asked us to sit in the front row. About a dozen of us were asked to stand while 2,000 Chinese Christians thunderously applauded.

One prominent Chinese church leader sitting close to me warmly grasped my hand and humbly offered his heartfelt thanks. Embarrassed, I thought: Who am I to accept thanks for missionary giants such as Robert Morrison, Hudson Taylor, and the Boxer-era martyrs? Although I felt awkward, I realized that I was witnessing a new epoch in the development of China's house churches—a self-confident movement that openly acknowledges its Western past but is in no way beholden to it.

The Chicago conference also signaled to me another new reality of Chinese Christianity: Due to slow but steady emigration of Chinese overseas, China's house-church leaders have now established a strong support system internationally. Westerners (unlike the Chinese themselves) do not always appreciate the huge influence on China itself that nearly 40 million overseas Chinese wield in commerce, politics, and academia—and increasingly in religion. I now believe mainland Chinese Christians, working inside and outside of China's borders, may be reaching a critical mass. There is potential for them to emerge as a new force in global Christianity.

I've come to this assessment after recent research and interaction with pastors of house churches that are not registered with China's government. After years of quietly digging deep roots during decades of persecution, house churches in China today seem ready to achieve new milestones. These churches have a new self-understanding, new self-confidence, and they are now creating new structures and ministries to expand. Significantly, these ministries are not financially dependent on Western groups or other well-established ministries to the Chinese. (Although there are also important developments in the state-registered Three-Self and Catholic churches, I will only focus on Protestant house churches.)

New Self-Understanding

In the late 1990s, a number of large house-church networks published a united appeal to the government calling for dialogue and understanding, and they issued a comprehensive joint confession of faith.

At the time, I was puzzled. But the events of 2003 suggest that house-church leaders demonstrated great foresight. They are cultivating a new self-understanding and desire to do more than just react to events inside China. They see themselves as more than just a persecuted church. With new confidence, they serve God openly and boldly. Their movement is now emerging as an integral part of the vibrant new churches that are swelling in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

In issuing a publicly signed, credible statement of faith, these Chinese Christians are showing everyone that they are committed to biblical Christianity and orthodox theology. They see themselves as a religious movement with a worldwide outreach. The united appeal and statement of faith help create a durable consensus on which house-church leaders are taking important steps forward.

I have also heard sharp criticism of Jesus in Beijing and The Cross for putting Christians at risk of arrest. Indeed, three prominent leaders were arrested in mid-February 2004, just a few months after the release of the book and videos. But it's still not fully clear whether these materials played a role. Careful analysis may yet show that the current wave of persecution started before the release of the works by Aikman and Yuan. Others allege some house-church leaders did not give permission to publish their names and the details of their lives. I certainly hope none of the subjects was deceived. But I believe their willingness to talk to a prominent journalist, record their stories on video, and travel to Chicago, indicates that house-church Christians, numbering between 20 million and 60 million, are eager to preserve and to make public the marvelous narrative of their movement. (See "House-Church Leader Arrested")

Inside-Outside

Regardless of their courage and foresight, the Chinese house church still faces immense challenges. And the growing expatriate Chinese community is beginning to take steps to help.

One such group, Christian Life Press (www.cclife.org), organized the extraordinary 2003 Christmas Conference. Pine and Esther Wang from suburban Chicago established this organization in 1997 to address the needs of foreign-born Chinese in America as well as support house-church leaders still in China.

According to the 2000 census, there are 2.7 million ethnic Chinese in the United States. Nearly 1.7 million of those were born in China and are part of the explosive growth of the U.S. foreign-born population. According to the Wangs, these Chinese immigrants "came to this country after the bankruptcy of the Communist systems, looking for a new way of life which represents the love, the hope, and the future."

"Many came to Christ but struggled in their spiritual growth."

It doesn't surprise me that an organization that dared invite prominent house-church leaders from China (and hold all their meetings in Mandarin, not English) was both young and founded by mainland Chinese Christians.

Yuan Zhiming formed China Soul for Christ Foundation (www.chinasoul.com) in 1999 as an umbrella for his media ministry. It is difficult to imagine an older and well-established organization risking such a cutting-edge project as The Cross.

His group says, "We are fully aware that God is at work. It is our responsibility to record truthfully God's amazing grace: How such boundless grace falls upon this ancient country of wide expanse and abundant legacy. How God baptizes hundreds of thousands of his sons and daughters with fire and the Holy Spirit. How his sons and daughters go out weeping and return with songs of joy."

His dual-language video series may prove to be one of the most powerful evangelistic tools in contemporary Chinese history.

There are many other examples of these "new wineskins," including the well-known Back to Jerusalem group. The vision to bring the gospel from China along the Silk Road and "back to Jerusalem" originated before 1949.

"Back to Jerusalem" is now a concept adopted by numerous groups, some of which are in China and some of which are abroad. Author Paul Hattaway and several prominent house-church Christians coauthored a 2003 book outlining their controversial goal of sending 100,000 Chinese missionaries to 51 nations. Some critics find their vision reckless, but Back to Jerusalem is willing to try something new.

The Good and the Ugly

As Chinese Christians emerge on the world stage, they will naturally display their internal conflicts to all of us. We will witness the good and the ugly of the house-church movement. We Christians in the West will need to abandon unrealistic and romantic notions about them.

Chinese Christians are divided over a variety of issues: Some will have nothing to do with government-registered Three-Self Patriotic Movement churches; others work with them happily. Some look for overseas financial support; others reject it. Some partner with extremist Christian groups; others think the groups are heretical. And then there is the usual array of arguments about the role of spiritual gifts and other doctrines.

In 2003, the Chinese themselves took new responsibility to make the world aware of what God is doing to build his kingdom among the 1.3 billion Chinese. Chinese Christians are joining other Christians in developing new expressions of Christianity to carry the gospel to all peoples.

Richard R. Cook is assistant professor of mission history and global Christianity at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

Bloopers and Funny Signs in Penang

2005-03-09T13:34:00.000-05:00

Here are a few funny signs we came across during our honeymoon in Penang, Malaysia in June/July 2003 and couldn't resist taking shots of (and at). Click on the photos to enlarged versions.

Restaurant along Batu Ferringhi Road
What does the "probably" modify? Are they probably serving the finest authentic Northern Indian cuisine, or are they serving what is probably the finest authentic Northern Indian cuisine?

Night market stall on Batu Ferringhi Road, reputed to boast of the longest "pasar malam" in the world
This we'd like to see!

A shop further down from the nicest beaches on Batu Ferringhi
Spot the mistake? or was it meant to be witty?

At the poolside of Casuarina Beach Resort where we stayed for a week and didn't encounter any jellyfish in the pool... Talk about being alarmist!

Evidence and the Christian

2005-03-07T22:05:00.000-05:00

The following thoughts on evidence and the Christian were typed after reading two articles. The first is a news report entitled "Surprising new study on Shroud of Turin: Simple technique could have been used to produce image" ). I was particularly impressed by what N. D. Wilson, the man who discovered this technique, said:

"I’m a Trinitarian Christian. I believe in the Resurrection and all that it means for this world. Either the Shroud is genuine or, as I believe, it is a lie about a great truth. I think Christians should want to see religious fraud exposed wherever we can find it."

The second article ("Atheist's turn to God was a 4-year process, says friend") is about the 'conversion' of famous British atheist Antony Flew, where the word "evidence" was used a few times, and where Flew said that he was just following the evidence, wherever it led.

I have always--for as long as I've thought more seriously about these matters anyway--been slightly hesitant about claims by professing Christians that they have come to acknowledge Christ on the basis of the evidence they have seen (historical, archaeological, textual, etc.). At the same time, I have also always been sympathetic with apologists who, like Josh McDowell, aim to present nonbelievers with "evidence that demands a verdict." I do believe that there is a substantial amount of evidence for the divinely inspired nature of the Bible and for the Christian faith (e.g. the Resurrection, fulfilled prophecies, the absence of any archaeological evidence that can definitively refute any part of the Bible and much that is consistent with it). There is also, in my view, overwhelming evidence in nature itself that testify to God's existence and goodness for those who will see it. To make too much of such evidences, however, to the extent of treating it like determinative court evidence in a court trial is to give to them a status I think they were never meant to have in the converting of man's hearts. The Bible is clear that salvation comes from the Lord, and that it is faith in Christ which saves a man--not trust or reliance in what the eyes can see and mind can understand concretely--but faith as it is understood properly as "the assurance [or substance] of things hoped for, the conviction [or evidence] of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

Now faith can be encouraged and strengthened by evidence that we see and touch and understand (McDowell, Lewis, and many others have advanced in their journey towards belief in Christ by such evidences, and logical arguments), but the saving faith that matters most of all has to be something that goes beyond, and which is in fact radically different in kind, from a mere trust in the credibility of compelling evidence.

The greatest of all evidences for me as Christian is my personal relationship with a living God and the accompanying presence of the Holy Spirit within my heart that assures me that I, a sinner, have been reconciled to a God who loves me and who died in my place that I might live. And how did I come to know this and come to grow in faith and knowledge of God? 1 John 5:13 declares: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." Or, as a well-known children's song goes, "Jesus loves me this I know... the Bible tells me so!" Faith comes by hearing, and hearing (or reading) from the word of God (Romans 10:17).

"For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?" (Romans 8:24)

Why do so many people believe in God?

2005-03-05T12:10:00.000-05:00

This is the question that puzzles Ian Sample as he looks at an ICM poll which suggests that an extraordinarily high percentage of people throughout many countries do believe in God. He further asks: "And why has belief proved so resilient as scientific progress unravels the mysteries of plagues, floods, earthquakes and our understanding of the universe?" and gives his answer: "By injecting nuns with radioactive chemicals, by scanning the brains of people with epilepsy and studying naughty children, scientists are now working out why. When the evidence is pieced together, it seems that evolution prepared what society later moulded: a brain to believe." This sums up the matter of his article "Tests of Faith" published in The Guardian on 24 February 2005.

It's perhaps not all that surprising given that this is The Guardian of our times after all, but I couldn't help but notice that this writer, along with the other experts he cites, seems to have assumed from the start that belief in God is a false belief; that it is a phenomenon that calls for explanation in our modern scientific age where, presumably, people ought to know better than to believe in God.

For example, Todd Murphy, a behavioural neuroscientist, attributes as a factor in the development of religious belief the rapid expansion of our brains "as we emerged as a species," citing as an example the way questions about death and the meaning of life naturally arose from cognitive development enabling man to see a dead body and imagine ourselves in that position one day. In the search for answers to such questions, the idea of God was evolved.

The assumption that man evolved from more primitive life forms such as apes leads to the assumption that religion correspondingly evolved from basically, non-religion, to the more primitive, and then to the more sophisticated--expressions like "religion, or at least a primitive spirituality," and "the emergence of religion" are used with the air of scientific objectivity or matter-of-factly confidence.

"Some believe that religion was so successful in improving group survival that a tendency to believe was positively selected for in our evolutionary history. Others maintain that religious belief is too modern to have made any difference... While some continue to tease out the reasons for the emergence of religion and its persistent appeal, others are delving into the neuroscience of belief in the hope of finding a biological basis for religious experience."
--None of these abovementioned groups are open to the genuine possibilities that God created man as he is, and that religious belief is as old (or as young) as mankind itself.

The article also mentions the psychological tests run on children that supposedly "go some way to proving our natural tendency to believe":

If you look at three- to five-year-olds, when they do something naughty, they have an intuition that everyone knows they've been naughty, regardless of whether they have seen or heard what they've done. It's a false belief, but it's good preparation for belief in an entity that is moral and knows everything," he says. "The idea of invisible agents with a moral dimension who are watching you is highly attention-grabbing to us."

--Note that his experimental observations can yield different reasonable interpretations: the above is but one. Why not another? Why not say that these children's intuitions show just as well that they have been created by a just and loving God who has placed a knowledge of Him and of morality in their hearts such that they know when they commit wrong and as a result feel bad about it?

The experimenter Boyer's further explanation of belief persisting into adulthood as something which is in part due to unquestioning presumption has got something right, and something wrong. "Why don't you ask yourself about the existence of gravity?" he asks. "It's because a lot of the stuff you do every day presupposes it and it seems to work, so where's the motivation to question it?" he says. He is right to some extent. To be a believer, you need to at some point stop serious doubts about the truth of your beliefs. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Belief is that which one presupposes and acts upon, rather than that which one continually questions. However, as a Christian, I would disagree with him when he continues, "[i]n belief systems, you tend to enter this strange state where... [t]he general question of whether it's true is relegated." The issue of whether the Bible is true is a central one for Christians. It forms the foundation of our faith, and as such is never an irrelevant one which can be relegated. It's not that I must doubt the truth of its claims, but that I should always care that it is true--that it is indeed the inspired word of a true and living God. To quote a favourite writer:

[A] faith is not primarily a 'comfort,' but a truth about ourselves. What we in fact believe is not necessarily the theory we most desire or admire. It is the thing which, consciously or unconsciously, we take for granted and act on. ... Only when we know what we truly believe can we decide if it's 'comforting.' If we were comforted by something we do not really believe, then we had better think again. (Dorothy Sayers, "What Do We Believe" (1940), in Unpopular Opinions)

The article continues:

As a starting point, many studies focused on people with particular neural conditions that made them prone to experiences so intense, they considered them to be visions of God.

--What conclusion/s can we properly draw from these studies? All they show is that people (some, many, most of these?) with such conditions consider some of their intense experiences to be religious. It does not prove that religious ideas and experiences have only a neurological basis and no objective reality external to minds. It's a bit like trying to argue from the collective witness of paranoid people that all fears of hostile attack from others is merely a psychotic phenomenon with no objective reality whatsoever.

The same goes for the so-called research on two epileptic patients (let us say nothing for now about the sample size in this experiment) by Californian neuroscientist Ramachandran who hypothesized from their reports of deeply moving religious experiences during seizures that it what epileptic seizures so overwhelm the patients emotionally and physically such that their brains spin tales about spiritual things in an attempt to make sense of seemingly inexplicable emotions. The religious experiences thus arise from neurological malfunction; from a disruption of the function of the amygdala which helps us focus on what's significant rather than what's trivial. The seizures supposedly may cause neural reactions that make the patients "attribute significance to the banal objects and occurrences... [where] everything and anything acquires a deep significance, and when that happens, it starts resembling a religious experience". Not surprisingly, Ramachandran's hoped-for conclusion from future research that may strengthen his hypothesis is that "it's not that we have some God module in our brains, but we may have specialised circuits for belief."

Research attempting to develop devices that can stimulate biological mechanisms and drugs to enhance spirituality is also mentioned. One such researcher Newberg defends his work by citing the historical use of substances by shamans who do not disdain some help in attaining a higher spiritual experience. I'm not sure if all shamans would agree with that, but my suspicion is that such research is thought meaningful and justifiable only by those for whom there is little fear or knowledge of God. Most devout people, I believe, would distance themselves from practices that sound like taking Ecstasy to feel "high", and instead insist that spiritual experiences are enhanced by a closer relationship with one's God, however that is spelt out in different religions.

***

I found another recent article entitled "Believers go on rack to prove God relieves pain" about neuroscientific research that is carried out with largely similar presuppositions: namely that man has evolved, and along with his development and quest for survival came the evolution of the idea of God.

PEOPLE are to be tortured in laboratories at Oxford University in a United States-funded experiment to determine whether belief in God is effective in relieving pain.

Top neurologists, pharmacologists, anatomists, ethicists and theologians are to examine the scientific basis of religious belief and whether it is anything more than a placebo.

Read on...

So what if they find that their set of believers are indeed able to cope better with pain? What can that show, or prove? To begin with, I wonder at the mindsets and types of people who are willing to be subjects in such an experiment. Are they already in significant ways determined to prove to the experimenters that their beliefs do relieve pain, just by being conscious of the fact that they are in such an experiment? Secondly, whatever the experimental observations, these are still open to various interpretations, the relative strengths of which may not be obvious.

What's disturbing to me is also that this experiment seems to undermine God and religion itself by seeking to reduce, as it were, religious comfort to certain biochemical mechanisms in the brain; and also making God seem like a neural construct, and believers in Him but deceivers of themselves for the sole sake of coping with pain. That's not the God Job knew and came to know better after his unimaginably painful trial. That's also not the God I know and whom I believe made us such that we have a knowledge of Him in our hearts, so that we are all without excuse.

"He has also set eternity in their heart..." ~ Ecclesiastes 3:11b

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." ~ Romans 1:18-20

Answers to "What's wrong with this Canadian's article on the Singapore Food Safari?"

2005-03-03T19:15:00.000-05:00

This is the follow-up to an earlier post.

1. The caption to the first photo: no, Arab Street is not where most Singaporean Muslims call home.

2. The abtract: "Tour an easy way to digest great neighbourhoods"--a "tourist tour that's easy to digest" might pass for acceptable usage, but digesting neighbourhoods, no matter how great they are, is another thing altogether.

3. Malays are Malays, Malaysian are Malaysians...

4. It's Geylang Lorong, not "Gaylang Loring".

5. "A heaping plate of beef noodles" (taking "heaping" as an adjective) sounds strange.

Drawing meaning from reverend fun

2005-02-28T17:35:00.000-05:00

Came across these really quite funny and also in some way thought-provoking simple cartoons, and just thought I'd share them with you--along with a few random thoughts.

"Good thing I found you Gideon... it seems that someone has been hiding all your bibles in hotel rooms."

The motion to place free bibles in hotel/motel rooms, as well as in other places such as hospitals and prisons in the United States was mooted and passed in a Gideons convention in Louisville, Kentucky in 1908. It has been almost a hundred years since then, and more than a hundred since three traveling salesmen founded The Gideons International in 1899, and this Bible-distributing misssionary arm of the Christian church has indeed sown millions of seeds in many lands. The impact of the Gideons' work is hard, even impossible, to measure definitively, but one thing is sure: God's word is able to illumine and convict the searching heart, and we are commanded as Christians to "sow the word" (Mark 4:14) that those who will hear, and heed, shall be saved. I'm reminded of a middle-aged Chinese lady who being interviewed in a documentary "The Cross: Jesus in China" said concerning her first encounter with the Bible in the form of an old and worn copy of The Gospel of Matthew: "Who wrote this book? How can it possibly speak to my heart in this way?" (a rough translation from the Chinese)

The first Bible I owned was in fact a Gideons Bible given to every student in the mission school in Singapore I attended as a teenager.

***
"During an early misunderstanding, Joseph was given a goat of many colours."

Thank God we do not have such gross misunderstandings in the Bible we now possess. The Bible is the one ancient text that has most numerically numerous manuscript support (compare some 24,000 manuscript evidences /scrap/scrolls we now have of the New Testament with the approximately 5,000 that the second most attested text--that of Homer's--has). Not only is this the case, these manuscripts show an extraordinarily high level of agreement, with only less than 5% of it qualifying as discrepancies. Even then, these so-called discrepancies mostly fall into categories of identifiable scribal errors (e.g. jumping from one sentence to another with a similar word) and of discrepancies that do not substantially affect meaning. It has been a few years since I last read Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict, and I only wish I remembered more of it than I do. It remains in my view one of the best books on the topic of the reliability of the Bible, and an instructive treatise on the methods by which we can judge the reliability of any text.

***

"Yes, we like the Israelitzes, we let them go... no! ... we hates them, we make them make brickzeses." :) A Gollumish (oblique) commentary on the way a long-standing and persistent disobedience to God can harden and utterly corrupt the heart/mind?

A refreshing relook at 'theologizing' the Asian Tsunami and tragedies in general

2005-02-26T16:25:00.000-05:00

I say "refreshing" here mainly because there does not seem to be many sound Christian/Biblical perspectives on the tsunami (and large-scale tragedies in general) in the media, compared to the slew of views and articles that are either completely secular (which is okay, even possibly good) or worst of all, of wrong-headed, sloppy theology. Here are the views of two Scottish ministers, one in the form of a sermon you can listen to, and another an article that's surely worth a read.

The heavy Scottish accent of Rev. David Murray* is also refreshing to me, sort of like listening to Peregrin Took (a.k.a. Pippin) preaching. His sermon may be entitled "Tsunami: teaching from tragedies", and his concern is mainly to put forward the argument that we can see a sovereign God in the tsunami (Some things to think about: "Why tragedies? Why? Must we say that God does not exist, and that such tragedies are merely the workings of a blind and indifferent nature?") and that one must not presume that the victims were greater sinners than we (Luke 13:5). "Extraordinary disasters are not necessarily the results of extraordinary sins... These extraordinary tragedies should lead us to extraordinary repentance."

Some snippets:

Either He's God of the good and the bad, or He's not God at all. ... God is in these events. His judgements are not as easy to figure out as you might think. ... The Christian says there is a God, that there is a meaning, a purpose, a plan. What is it we as yet do not know all the details of...

If God were to judge every sin in this world, then people would see no need for a final judgement. But if God were to punish no sin in this world, people would say there is no divine providence. ... and so, God allows, permits, God arranges temporal, periodic judgements in order to teach people that there is a God that judges in the earth but that his judgements are to us unfathomable and unsearchable. They did not perish, He says, because they were extraordinary sinners. If God dealt with everyone like that, as the psalmist said, who could stand? ... the whole world would become a vast cemetary and there wouldn't be one left standing to comment upon.

***

Read David Robertson's 17 January 2005 article on the Asian Tsunami, which contains some very sensible, interesting and thoughtful arguments and more specifically Scottish examples (such as the "extraordinary giving" in light of the less than 0.25% of the money the average woman in Edinburgh spends on clothes, half of which she does not actually wear-). The article begins:

There have been millions of words written about the Asian Tsunami. Little wonder. The scale of the disaster is overwhelming - over 150,000 dead, millions homeless and some of the most beautiful and poorest areas of the world lying devastated. Just this week for example I was reading a report from Tear Fund stating that in Sri Lanka there are 25,000 plus dead, over one million displaced and 250,000 homeless. Here in Scotland we have witnessed the awful tragedy of the Uist family who were swept away to sea as they tried to escape the storm that blew over much of Scotland on Tuesday night. The Asian Tsunami was that magnified many times.

I do not wish to lessen or cheapen this catastrophe, nor do I have a particular desire to add to the volumes already being written. However there is one aspect of the whole affair which I would like to comment on. Despite the fact that we are supposed to be a secular society it remains the case that at times of great disaster the press do turn to religious leaders for their comments and perspectives. And generally our religious leaders had nothing to say. Sorry, they had plenty to say but most of it was pretty bland truisms repeating what every one knew anyway. The standard ‘religious’ response was along the lines of – it’s a terrible disaster, we feel for the people involved, we must do all we can to help and it raises lots of questions. (To be fair I should point out that Bishop Holloway who usually manages to put across his almost atheistic views, wrote an excellent and generally fair article in the Scotsman). In this respect I was disappointed to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury stating that it caused him to question his faith and to read the Scotman’s headline “Queens Prayers as clergy admit faith rocked by death toll” (Scotsman 3rd January). Some of the clergy were all too quick to praise humanity and question God.

Read on...

* Rev. Murray is currently pastor of the Stornoway Free Church of Scotland, and Robertson is of the Free Church of Scotland. My reference to them here does not necessarily represent a complete endorsement of the all the views expressed by them or by the organisation of which they are a part.

Surgery on a baby's grape-sized heart

2005-02-24T16:00:00.000-05:00

Here's another miraculous baby story I thought would be a nice addition to my two earlier posts. Perhaps it's because I'm a mother-to-be that such stories capture my attention a little more. But I think that I noticed them for much the same reasons that anyone else would notice them: they're simply amazing. For me, they also illustrate (not demonstrate--see comments on the significance of the seemingly miraculous) that life and death are in the hands of a sovereign, omnipotent and all-loving God.

"Man, who is born of woman, is short-lived and full of turmoil.
...his days are determined, the number of his months is with Thee,
and his limits Thou has set so that he cannot pass." ~ Job 14:1, 5

"I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well." ~ Psalm 139:14

17 Feb 2005 (CNN) -- The pediatric surgeon who performed open-heart surgery on a one-week-old baby with a heart the size of a grape said Thursday it was "a wonderful feeling" to be able to save his life.

Surgeons at Stanford University's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital believe that Jerrick De Leon, born more than 13 weeks early, is the smallest baby ever to survive an open-heart procedure called an arterial switch.

The hospital said Jerrick is expected to have a normal life, barring any medical complications from his premature birth. It said he will be placed on antibiotics as a precaution.

At the time of his operation, on February 6, Jerrick weighed just over 1.5 pounds (700 grams), said his surgeon, Dr. V. Mohan Reddy. Reddy, chief of pediatric cardiac surgery and a professor at Stanford's medical school, specializes in performing surgery on extremely small infants.

Reddy said he knew he could repair the type of heart defect the baby had, but "the complicating fact was the baby was too small and very, very premature."

Still, Reddy said he was "very confident I would be able to take care of this baby."

Jerrick was airlifted to the hospital from southern California on February 4. His mother, Maria Lourdes De Leon, a pediatric physician herself, said Jerrick's doctors had given him no chance of survival.

"It was very difficult. I was surrendering to whatever comes," she told reporters at a news conference with Reddy.
...
The hospital has been doing similar surgeries for 12 years, and its surgeons have performed more than 150 in children weighing under about 4.5 pounds (2 kilograms).

Amazing as Jerrick's case, he is not the smallest baby Dr. Reddy has succesfully operated on. In 2001, Serena Brown, one of a set of triplets born prematurely on Dec. 27 (at only 25 weeks of gestation) was diagnosed almost immediately after birth with a rare congenital heart abnormality called total anomalous pulmonary venous return, in which the veins connecting her lungs to her heart were attached to the wrong side of the heart. This meant that oxygen-rich blood from her lungs was not circulating efficiently to the rest of her body. The condition was not related to her prematurity.

The only thing keeping her alive was a naturally occurring hole between the two halves of the heart, which normally seals itself soon after birth. To correct the condition, Reddy re-attached the veins to the correct side of the heart and sealed the hole.

"The operation gives her a chance," Reddy said shortly after the surgery. "Otherwise there is a 100 percent risk of death. Her prognosis now should be like any other 25-week premature baby. There are a lot of hoops she's going to have to jump through, and lung problems can be an issue." (Information extracted from mednews.stanford.edu)

Like Serena today, Jerrick's prognosis is good, with a normal life expectancy. Dr. Reddy says, "The baby will probably do well, go home and lead a happy life with his parents." May it be so.

* Thanks to Just Jane for the teddy bear divider

College and Career at the Darvin's

2005-02-22T23:50:00.000-05:00

Below are some photos of the dinner and fellowship the College and Career group of Jarvis Street Baptist Church had on 19 February 2005 at Karissa's lovely home. The company was great, and was accompanied by a menu to beat: from the appetizers of tortilla chips with onion dip and pumpernickel with spinach dip (we're told this is a common Canadian appetizer) to the main meal consisting of baked salmon, Filipino minced beef spring rolls, fried noodles and more--right down to the dessert selection of fruit salad, three-flavoured sorbet, chocolate ice-cream, and strawberry mousse cake. Many thanks to Karissa and her mum for their labour of love. Karissa's mum was a tireless hostess for the whole evening, and really made us feel like we were being feted (or fatted*, as the case might be:)... and as meals are always to be had with thanksgiving, this wonderful dinner and time of fellowship wouldn't be complete without a time of praising God through psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, sharing of His goodness, and prayer--for it is He who has given us all things good. May it be that in whatever we do, whether we eat or drink, that we may do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

*For those of you wondering if "fatted" is a proper English word, it is. We were a little surprised ourselves.

Click on photos below to see enlarged versions.

Singapore food safari on the Toronto Star

2005-02-21T20:23:00.000-05:00

Friends in church passed us an article cut from the local press just this past Sunday--"guess which country it's about", they say. It makes a good read--the amusement factor is high, so I thought to reproduce it here. See whether you can spot all of the 'funny' bits, factual errors and colloquialisms (I'll post my answers later). Just one (the very first)--no, Arab St. is not where "most of Singapore's Muslim citizens call home" (caption to first picture).

* * * * *

The Toronto Star (Sat Feb 19)

A full plate
Visitors to Singapore kept busy on city's appetizing nightly food safari. Tour an easy way to digest great neighbourhoods, writes Marc Atchison

SINGAPORE--The scent was fresh on the trail as we headed out on our safari.

Strange noises could be heard in the night.

Eyes stalked us in the darkness.

There were times I wondered if some in our small group had the stomach for this adventure. But we all swallowed hard and continued our trek--along Singapore's world famous "night food safari."

This is one tourist tour that's easy to digest--one that introduces visitors to this island nation's incredibly appetizing variety of food and spicy neighbourhoods where its Chinese, Indian and Malay (Malaysian) peoples live.

"Come and try my food," barked one vendor as we started our hunt for food on Smith St., (a.k.a. locally as Food St.) in the city's vibrant Chinatown.

Smith St., and several other main streets in downtown Singapore are closed each night between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. so the food hawkers can set up their makeshift stalls and sell their tasty, unique dishes that reflect the blend of cultures living in this most beautiful of Asian cities.

Garry Koh, our fearless guide, directed our attention to the last of 18 food stalls set up on Smith St.

"They have the best fried carrot cake on the street," said Koh. 'We’ll start with that."

Hmmm. Start the meal with dessert. Must be a Singapore tradition, I thought

The fried carrot cake arrived looking more like an omelette. Koh addressed my confusion.

"The word carrot in Chinese actually means radish," Koh told me. "This is a radish omelette. It's very good.”

Actually, it was delicious!

Okay, what's for dessert?

"We'll have some rojak," said Koh, who disappeared into the street bedecked with coloured lights and awash in a sea of diners. He returned a few minutes later carrying a large bowl with a dark gooey substance in it.

"Rojak is a combination of fruit (pineapple), vegetables (cucumbers) and fried fritters that are blended together in a peanut sauce and then served with sprinkled peanuts," Koh explained.

The rojak didn't look very appetizing but proving once again that looks can be deceiving, the dish turned out to be spicy hot and very tasty.

"Many visitors to Singapore at first resist street food like this because it is unusual said Koh, who told of a food writer who was hesitant to sample the food on Smith St., and asked Koh to try dishes and then describe the taste so she could write a story.

As we ate, an old man appeared at our table and asked if he could have our empty can of Tiger beer.

"Let him have it--he makes sculptures with them," said Koh.

The Smith St. dishes, including beer, amounted to about $10.

It was time--to move oil--to Boon Tat St., which sits near Singapore's famed financial district. Here, businessmen loosen their ties and negotiate the price of the sizzling satays that are served up in the shadow of some of the tallest buildings in Asia.
Once again, Koh had a favourite location among the dozen or so stalls--the one run by an Indonesian man named Halin.

"This place is known for its secret dipping sauce," said Koh as he asked Halin to bring us 10 beef and 10 chicken satays."

As advertised, the satays and especially the dipping sauce, were terrific--the highlight of the safari. Try as we might, though, we could not get Halin, who serves up "over 3,000 satays a night," to reveal the recipe for his secret sauce.

"The recipe was handed down from my great grandfather to my father and now tame," said the man with the dark complexion and weathered features.

"The recipe must stay in the family," said the tired-looking man who bemoaned the fact his son had elected to go into the investment business. "He (the son) does not help we any longer and now my business may close soon."

Other hawkers approached our table offering us a variety of dishes, but Halin waved them away--all except one. He insisted the man, selling the fried stingray leave a sample for us to try. The fish, while tasty, offered too many needlesharp bones for my liking,

Boon Tat St. is especially busy on Saturday nights and Halin said, he works until the wee hours of the morning because "Saturday is when Singaporeans like to come out and play"

There are more than 3,600 restaurants in tiny Singapore because, as Koh explained: "the national pastime here is eating,"

We paid Hadin what we owed him--total cost of the satays and stingray amounted to about $15--bid him a hearty goodbye and headed for the east side of Singapore and a restaurant famous for its Chinese noodles.

Along the way, Koh pointed out Duxton Ave. and told us there were 72 pubs located on the narrow street--holdovers from the city's colonial days under British rule.

The east side of Singapore is the working class section of the city where working girls patrol dimly lit streets and locals congregate with tourists in small outdoor restaurants noted for their noodles.

The eatery located at No. 9 Gaylang Loring (loring means street) is the most noted of all, according to our guide.

For just a few dollars, a heaping plate of beef noodles was delivered to our table. Once again, the food was prepared perfectly and the one plate served three people for a cost of under $8.

"Now we'll go to Sims Ave., for dessert because it is famous for its tropical fruit creations," said Koh.

We told Garry to cancel dessert because by that time we had had our fill of Singapore's fabulous food safari.

*Singapore Airlines (www.sinagporeair.ca) offers a daffy non-stop flight from Newark to Singapore. The 181/2-hour flight has become very popular and shaves about six hours off other stopover flights to the island nation. For more information on Singapore, go to www.visitsingapore.com Tour East Holidays offers package tours to Singapore that include air, hotel meals, tours and much more for prices starting at 1$11769. For information, go to www.toureast.com or call 416-929-8017.

Marc Atchison is the Star's Travel Editor.

The Pains and Joys of Thrifting

2005-02-21T19:50:00.000-05:00

Note: Amy our bear is not part of today's purchases.

Staying in North America has made me a thrift shopper. Names like Out of the Closet (Bay Area, Calif.), Goodwill, Salvation Army, Value Village (Canada) and those of smaller stores like Wee Cycled and Previously Loved (Toronto) will always stir up in me some interest, curiosity and the anticipation of picking up a great item at an almost indecently low price. There's currently no such culture of thrifting in my home country Singapore, though the Salvation Army stores have been around for many years. Internet thrifting on e-bay and craigslist have found their way there, but are still very much in their infancy, and have yet to build up a substantial base of buyers and sellers to make it an exciting and worthwhile investment of time and hope. I remember vaguely a few second-hand (or as we also call it back home, "karang guni"--meaning "knick knacks") stores which had but a transient existence.

I love thrift stores for more than just their low prices (even though I think my husband should be properly thankful that I do like them). The dresses I like can hardly be found anywhere else with such quality (e.g. good home-made or vintage designer) and in such great variety. Don't let me give you the idea, though, that I am an incorrigible, inveterate shopper. I visit these stores but several times a year, and today was one of them: with 50% off prices that typically range from $1.99 to $7.99 at Value Village (about 20 minutes walk from our place) just for today, this was an opportunity not to be missed. This was the real sale one waits for, not like the Sears type which advertises a "this weekend only" sale just about every other weekend.

As expected, we walked past several satisfied-looking shoppers carrying their big and bulging Value Village plastic bags on our way there. When we arrived at about 11.15am, the whole store was thronging with people pushing carts filled at least to half capacity, waiting in long lines at the checkout counter, and browsing though aisles of clothes, toys, books, homeware, furniture and more with the meticulousness and singlemindedness of archaelogists digging for treasure. We joined in. I knew what I was looking for: large dresses to accommodate my growing baby and small dresses for our little one on the way. Before long, I had gathered a heap of possibilities to be further selected by the process of elimination. Not long after, my husband came up to me showing off his find of six lovely Made-in-England stoneware dessert plates which fit perfectly into a round tin with quaint prints on it--just the thing we could have used only two to three days ago when we invited some friends over for meals. Still rather pleased with his find, and it being obvious that I was far from finished with my treasure-hunting, Loy left me again to browse in other departments.

The next time he appeared, I had even more clothes hanging from my left arm, and this time his face betrayed some of the pains of a husband being made to stay too long in a crowded store. Undaunted, and giving him a sympathetic smile, I unloaded some of shortlisted clothes onto him. I had also hoped that that would make him feel a little more useful. Maybe that would give him the impression that there really wasn't much time wasted; he was performing an important and obviously much-valued service. The optimistic fantasies that a female mind in a store is sometimes capable of...

Another half an hour must have passed before I finally sat him down and made my final decisions as to what I would buy. Loy was visibly relieved when that decision-making process was over and the heap reduced by half. Next on my list was baby clothes, and off we went to the children's department. There, Loy seemed happier, or less grumpy, and patiently helped me pick out several of the cutest, sweetest-looking dresses, rompers, blouses and sleepers. We even found a Winnie-the-Pooh cot lining for only $4.99 (and that's before the 50% discount). After quickly making sure that I had not missed out any excellent buy, I was quite ready to ease Loy of the burden he was carrying and make our way to the cashier. Due to the long lines, though, it would be another half an hour before we would be able to leave the store.

While Loy was still very patiently waiting in line, I took the opportunity to as politely as possible elbow my way through the crowds to the one other department that might be worth looking at--books, specifically, cookbooks. The effort was not wasted. I found three volumes worthy of our slowly growing collection: The Teddy Bear Cookbook (London, 1986), The Microwave Cookbook (General Electric Co., 1998) for our newly acquired microwave, and the most unique of them all, Two in the Kitchen (Washington, 1974). When I returned with these finds, Loy seemed pleased too for he's also got the cook in him, with a similar penchant for interesting cookbooks. We now amused ourselves as best we could, first by estimating the total damages of this liberal shopping trip, and then with observing the people around us--a motley crowd, to say the least, ranging from young Chinese couples with their babies to elderly women with their neatly folded clothes in their carts, to whites, blacks, Latinos, and Indians either alone, or, more often than not, with friends and family. We also caught sight--with just a little annoyance--of a young boy stomping on a pile of hangers with his parents looking nonchalently on. Maybe they were just grateful that they were already near the front of the line. We noted a newborn baby sleeping soundly in a cart right behind us and struck up a little conversation with his dad.

Our turn at the cashier's finally arrived, and I was expecting a figure in the neighbourhood of $75. Loy--less adept at such estimations, and perhaps as a measure of his goodwill (I'm teasing, but not being sarcastic; he really was most obliging and sweet-natured) this whole time--said he hoped that it would be less than the $200 that he had withdrawn from the ATM earlier that morning. The total amount? A mere $37.59, 15% tax included. Now, that is something of a vindication for the wife responsible for making her husband suffer the pains of a longer than usual* shopping trip when he could have been happily blogging away in the comforts of home. And wait till I present him with the crispy honey drumsticks from the recipe found in one of the cookbooks...

*We reached home at about 1:15pm after stopping by a grocery store owned by Koreans.

Are Women Human?

2005-02-18T22:50:00.000-05:00

Dorothy Leigh Sayers (1893-1957) writes with a feistiness, wit and good commonsense that makes her essay of the above title a little gem of a contribution to discussions of feminism at a time when some of its most strident representatives appear like angry ideologues whom most women can't even identify or empathise with.

Interestingly, it was her desire to disassociate herself from the somewhat aggressive feminism of her day (which she views as completely different from feminism "in the old-fashioned sense of the word" which she could accept and even espouse) that earned her the invitation to "explain" herself before a Women's Society. I, for one, am glad that things so transpired between her and the Secretary of the society such that we have this short essay today, which is the address given to that Women's Society in 1938.

Sayers' main thesis is that men and women are first of all, and fundamentally, human beings. By virtue of that, they are much more alike than different, and any meaningful, constructive proposal for improving society must begin from that recognition and respect of a shared humanity--not from the platform of gender. Are there issues specific to women? Of course there are, but the best way to approach them may not be the aggressive feminism of today (and of her day's) that reinforces the stereotyping of what women are or should be. This kind of thinking ironically stifles individual women as they are told and believed to like or dislike certain things simply because they are women. No wonder so many women, myself included, are at times upset with some of today's feminists who presume to speak and fight for us.

There is much bandied about silly questions about "what women want" and "what a woman's view" of a matter is. Again, there is no denying that there are sometimes situations and issues where these are perhaps more relevant. To think largely or primarily in these gendered terms, however, is seriously misguided. We cannot know what women as a group want; we can only ask individual women what they want, as individuals that they are. Do women as a group want the right to study Aristotle at college, and will they benefit from it? "The answer is NOT that all women would be better for knowing Aristotle... but simply: 'What women as a class want is irrelevant. I want to know about Aristotle... and I submit that there is nothing in my shape or bodily functions which prevent my knowing about him." Way to go, Dorothy! There are Marys and there are Marthas: let her who would listen and learn from the Teacher sit at His feet and do so. It was Martha who at that time chose the worse option in busying herself with so-called women's work. "[T]he Lord answered and said to her, 'Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:41-42)

And as to what a woman's view of the matter is, it all depends on what the matter is to see if the question is silly or not. One would have thought this commonsense. In some areas where women generally as a class differ from men--such as in their ability to bear children--it might be sometimes useful to ask for the woman's opinion. For in such areas she (generally) has special knowledge and experience. And in a time and society where women spend most of their day managing the home and taking care of the children, it might also make sense to ask for the woman's view on home management, for here, again, she has special knowledge borne out of her experiences. To ask, on the other hand, what the woman's view on detective fiction is deserves the answer that Sayers suggests be given: "Go away and don't be silly. You might as well ask what is the female angle on an equilateral triangle." Maybe, just maybe, you will find in your research that while there may not be a standard, homogenous woman's viewpoint on literature, for example, that there are nonetheless a set of responses that are consistently distinct in some ways from those given by their male counterparts. I don't think that's very likely though, and especially when we consider more 'objective' fields like that of economics or medical science.

"What," men have asked distractedly from the beginning of time, "what on earth do women want?" I do not know that women, as women, want anything in particular, but as human beings they want, my good men, exactly what you want yourselves: interesting occupation, reasonable freedom for their pleasures, and a sufficient emotional outlet. What form the occupation, the pleasures and the emotion may take, depends entirely upon the individual. You know that this is so with yourselves--why will you not believe that it is so with us?"

There are too many differences in temperaments, talents, interests, proclivities, and other such things that distinguish the human race and most of these cut across categories of age, race, nationality, and gender. While there are fundamental commonalities between myself and any of my female schoolmates than any of us have with my husband, I wouldn't be surprised if my husband and I shared more fundamental interests and opinions on a variety of issues than those I share with any one of my female friends.

I shall conclude this post with the words Sayers closed her essay, for she is undoubtedly far superior in felicity of expression. (May I add that her literary gift and brilliance of mind surely played a fair part in her enduring friendship with C. S. Lewis, and which gained her also his respect and admiration as a fellow human being and colleague)

It used to be said that women had no esprit de corps; we have proved that we have--do not let us run into the opposite error of insisting that there is an aggressively feminist "point of view" about everything. To oppose one class perpetually against another--young against old, manual labour against brain-worker, rich against poor, woman against man--is to split the foundations of the State; and if the cleavage runs too deep, there remains no remedy but force and dictatorship. If you wish to preserve a free democracy, you must base
it--not on classes and categories, for this will land you in the totalitarian State, where no one may act or think except as a member of a category. You must base it upon the individual Tom, Dick and Harry, and the individual Jack and Jill--in fact, upon you and me.

Aliens and Sojourners... happy after good food and fellowship

2005-02-17T23:17:00.000-05:00

This is a photo we took today right before the Schaefers, a missionary family to India (and prior to that, Singapore, where we got to know them) left our place. They were visiting with Pastor Schaefer's sister who lives in Canada and took time to join us in our Toronto home for lunch before driving back to the States where they were visiting family and friends. There are actually 6 daughters--three are away at Bob Jones University--and they are all dear friends of ours who helped make our wedding in June 2003 an especially memorable one.

We had a good time sharing updates over a local (Singapore) lunch of Hainanese chicken rice rounded off with an American favourite, cheesecake.

Why "aliens and sojourners"? None of us are intending to settle in Canada; we're all just passing through, whether visiting with family or pursuing our studies. Legally speaking, my husband and I are indeed alien residents here in Toronto. Most importantly, we are as Christians all sojourners and pilgrims here on earth, recognising that this is not our permanent home. Perhaps this pilgrim status is all the more obvious in the job and lives of missionaries who in a very tangible sense often do not own residential property. Nonetheless, all believers are exhorted to live in a way so that others may clearly see that they are seeking a better country.

I'm reminded of a hymn of consecration composed by a contemporary writer Mac Lynch entitled "Make Me A Stranger". The first stanza goes:

Make me a stranger on earth, dear Saviour,
Make me a stranger more like Thee.
Help me keep my focus on heavenly treasure,
And not on earthly, may it be.
Lord, lead me onward, as a pilgrim,
Bound for heaven, never to roam.
Make me a stranger on earth, dear Saviour,
Till I reach my heavenly home.

"All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles
on the earth.
... But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God;
for He has prepared a city for them."
~ Hebrews 11:13, 16

More photos: click on photo to see enlarged version (warning: some are blurry and may tire your eyes if you look too long!)

Welcoming the Rooster in Singapore Chinatown

2005-02-17T20:55:00.000-05:00

Click on the photos to see enlarged versions

These are photos taken by my dad during his recent trip to Chinatown to experience and capture on camera some of the festive colours and tastes of the Chinese New Year in Singapore. He sent me a total of more than a hundred photos but that's too much to blog, so I selected a few of my favourites that seem to tell a story of their own, or are fairly representative of what New Year at home's like (I'm thinking specifically of the "bak kwa" shop and the queue that's forming...). The presence of "Wuerstelstand" at a Chinese festival fair tells well of what a multicultural society we are, and importantly, how Chinese New Year has very much become to us Singaporeans--regardless of race--a holiday like the others that is eagerly looked forward to and sumptiously enjoyed. See also the wax duck that's one of my grandma and mum's favourite foods, as well as the grumpy-looking seller of tangerines? Well, it is hot and humid in Singapore almost all throughout the year, and I'd guess that his was not the only tangerines stall around that day. And yes, that's my mum standing on the bridge linking shopping centres and overlooking the main thoroughfare in Chinatown, which is the road that you see in a few of the photos--by night and by day.

Testimony from Meulaboh: fact or fiction?

2005-02-15T16:37:00.000-05:00

"Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." ~ Daniel 5:16-18 (Emphases mine)

Since the tsunami struck various South Asian countries on Boxing Day 2004, stories of miraculous deliverance and recovery have been circulated by religious groups. The questions would be: are they true? and for the ones that are, what significance could we properly derive from them? The following is one such account (or testimony) from Meulaboh taken from an email letter forwarded to me by a friend.

We know that 80% of the town of Meulaboh in Aceh was destroyed by the tsunami waves and 80% of the people also died. This is one of the towns that was hit the hardest.

But there is a fantastic testimony from Meulaboh. In that town are about 400 Christians.

They wanted to celebrate Christmas on December 25th but were not allowed to do so by the Muslims of Meulaboh. They were told if they wanted to celebrate Christmas they needed to go outside the city of Meulaboh on a high hill and they can celebrate Christmas there.

Because the Christians desired to celebrate Christmas the 400 believers left the city on December 25th and after they celebrated Christmas they stayed overnight on the hill. ...The 400 believers were on the mountain and were all saved from destruction.

Now the Muslims of Meulaboh are saying that the God of the Christians punished us for forbidding the Christians from celebrating Christmas in the city. Others are questioning why so many Muslims died while not even one of the Christians died there.

Had the Christians insisted on their rights to celebrate Christmas in the city, they would have all died. But because they humbled themselves and followed the advice of the Muslims they all were spared destruction and can now testify of God's marvelous protection.

This is a testimony of the grace of God and the fact that as believers we have no rights in the world. Our right is to come before God and commit our lives to Him. Our right is kneeling down before the Lord almighty and commit our ways to Him. He is our Father and is very capable to care for His children. Praise the Name of the Lord.

Bill Hekman
Pastor, Calvary Life Fellowship in Indonesia

Eager to check out the credibility of this testimony, which certainly would be encouraging to the faith of Christians (see comments on this later in this post), I thought that it might be a good idea to snopes it, to begin with. The verdict: False. Now does that mean that all the so-called facts of this testimony have all been fabricated?

Firstly, the researcher Barbara Mikkelson attempts to clarify that one-third to one-half of the pre-tsunami population of 60,000 (that is, not the alleged 80%) lost their lives. Secondly, such a newsworthy story would certainly not have gone unreported or unrepeated in all the deluge of relief work done there--if it were indeed true. One might reasonably expect that some in the 400 would be ecstatic or thankful enough about their Christmas miracle to share it with Christian aid workers who would be more than happy to "trumpet" this news. But apparently, none of this happened. Thirdly, attempts to explain this absence of reporting by attributing it to the bias of a secular media also seem weak as even the Catholic News Service failed to mention the miraculous survival of the city's Christians in their report on conditions in Meulaboh. Fourthly, though there is indeed a pastor by the name of Bill Hekkman of the fellowship mentioned, Mikkelson's attempt to directly contact the putative writer of this testimony have apparently proven futile. She adds, though, that this is not surprising given the present conditions in Indonesia.

All taken, unless we have reliable sources other than that of Bill Hekkman's, Mikkelson seems to have a fairly good case. The most that one may responsibly say is that this testimony might not be true. Now, I do not claim to have the slightest idea why someone might want to smear the name of a pastor serving in Indonesia with such fabrications, or, if he knows about it and knows it to be false, why he is not sending out a desperate corrective or apology.

My concern is with Mikkelson's suggestion that Christians are, perhaps, most prone to search for and create such comforting tales, casuistic fairy tales which are then "often immediately accepted as truth because they provide a reason for the sudden great loss of life that is easy to comprehend... Most comforting of all, they demonstrate that the faithful will always be protected from harm by a loving and just God. ...It is far more comforting to believe in an avenging God who strikes down wrongdoers even as He protects the righteous than it is to make one's peace with the concept of disaster not picking its victims." Thus, in this formulation, Christians (or the religious in general) come up looking like naive, gullible weaklings, to say the least. Let me add that if she is correct in this depiction of Christians, then they are more than just gullible weaklings--the creators of these 'facts' they know to be false show nothing of the integrity and rectitude required of Christians as commanded in the Bible.

There are two issues at hand: 1) the facts (mainly, that about 400 Christians forbidden to celebrate Christmas in the city did so on the hill, and so escaped the tsunami) and 2) the interpretation of these facts (mainly, that the faithfulness, and humble submission of the Christians to the Muslim authorities made God pleased to deliver them from the tsunami; the larger principle being, that God preserves His own). The preceding paragraphs have sought to address the first issue. Let us conclude for now that it does not seem like a well-documented or very reliable piece of reporting, even if it might be true. Let us focus on the second issue, which is the more important one with much broader significance.

Let us assume that the facts are correct. What then? Most of us are aware that the same set of facts can yield more than one interpretation. Can we judge between the validity of these differing interpretations, and say that one has more warrant than the other? On one level, we can of course do so. (I shall speak from a Christian perspective, and use Christians as examples, for then I can speak from better knowledge) For instance, compare an interpretation that views these facts as proof that God exists and that "the faithful will always be protected from harm by a loving and just God," and another that views these facts as being consistent with Bible teaching that God does sometimes preserve His own in certain ways in accordance with His sovereign will and pleasure. I would say the second one sounds more plausible, more reasonable. "Proof" is just one of those words that do not sit well with our questioning minds and the plain facts as we see them with human eyes. There are also, needless to say, too many counter-examples of similar form to "prove" the contrary position--that God does not exist (e.g. Christians have also died in this tsunami and countless other horrendous tragedies that have occurred throughout history). The first interpretation is thus not good, not too helpful. Now the question is: when someone testifies to God's goodness in the believer's life (such as in this Meulaboh case), is he or she putting forward the first (as charged by Mikkelson), or the second, interpretation?

The putative writer of the Meulaboh testimony attributes the supposed survival of the Christians to their humble submission to the advice of the Muslims. "Had the Christians insisted on their rights to celebrate Christmas in the city, they would have all died." Insofar as "Bill Hekkman" is addressing Christians, those who share his worldview, he is fully warranted to testify that God has in this instance, shown His mercy to those who have been faithful. The Bible does teach that God rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked. This formulation, however, is not to be understood in simplistic fashion--for instance, that no harm will befall the faithful; that only bad things happen to non-believers; that all bad things that happen to non-believers are punishments from God; that the "faithful" are always good, and morally superior to non-believers... (the list of misconceptions goes on, and this is not the place for a more comprehensive theological discussion--nor am I well qualified to present such one) The biblical teaching has to be understood in the context of all the Bible verses that address this issue.

"Bill Hekkman" is also justified in testifying that God "is our Father and is very capable to care for His children." It is true that our omnipotent God is more than capable to care for His own. God is not bound, however, like an automaton or well-functioning vending machine, to always deliver His children. Accounts of matyrdom, and the suffering and death of believers abound in the Bible and in church history, along with accounts of God's preservation of His own. The verses from Daniel quoted at the beginning of this post illustrate well the biblical position on this matter. God is sovereign, and His ways are not always easily understood by human minds; what He does promise that "all things work together for the good of those who love Him, and who are called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28) He allowed Stephen, one of the first deacons of the early church in the Book of Acts, to be stoned to death--to the glory of God, as a witness to many (Acts 7).

So we see that God does keep His own (they are kept in a much more profound way--the eternal salvation of their souls) , and does all for their good and for His eternal purposes. Can we attribute the deaths of non-believers to God punishing their wickedness? Put another way, are Christians saved because they are of themselves good or better, than their non-believing counterparts who perish? No. The Bible is absolutely clear on that score. Not even the saintliest amongst us humans could ever dream of meriting God's favour and heaven. "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9). We cannot say that those who perished in the tsunami disaster are especially wicked. Christ questioned his disciples about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices, asking them: "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? ...I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:2-3) God in His mercy shouts out a warning--sometimes in the most attention-grabbing form, of disasters--to sinners whom He loves and who would not heed otherwise. The message to all of us? "Repent! Prepare to meet your Maker!"

We cannot be so certain, as "Hekkman" is, that the Christians would definitely have perished if they had not humbled themselves. Logic, experience, and what we know of the Bible, make us hesitate to make that conclusion. What we do know is that, if God has in this instance delivered the Christians, it is only by His grace and for His purposes. No boasting is in order here, except to boast in an all-loving and omnipotent God who has done all things in accordance to His will. If He has saved His believers from the tsunami, they would do well to be thankful and circumspect to seek to carry out His purposes for which they have been spared.

In closing, whether or not the facts of the Meulaboh testimony are accurate, God's people are called to be honest, thankful, and to testify of His goodness to them, in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:18; Philippians 4:11-12). When seen through the eyes of faith, even the ordinary and mundane such as having enough food and clothing are received with thanksgiving as God's blessings. There is, however, not much that can be done to convince those who do not share our worldview, that these are evidences of divine goodness. I don't think, anyway, that we are called to do that, even as we are more than justified--on our beliefs--to praise the Lord who made and saved us.

Guess the hoax

2005-02-14T12:19:00.000-05:00

I first heard the (untrue) story from a Christian friend who studied in the US. The short version: "it's all going to burn anyway" (referring to the apocalypse). Anyway, it seems that this anecdote about James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior, has been circulating for a while:

James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious.

But this was what he actually said in February 1981 to the House Interior Committee:

That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations. I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.

(From the Weekly Standard, Feb 14)

We have no 'right to happiness': the case of marital infidelity and divorcing for 'love'

2005-02-12T23:05:00.000-05:00

"We have no 'right to happiness'" is the title of the last thing that C. S. Lewis wrote for publication and it appeared shortly after his death in The Saturday Evening Post of 21-28 December 1963.

Lewis focuses on sexual happiness in this essay, and in the following extract, describes the psychology accompanying erotic passions. Most of us, I believe, know people--perhaps ourselves--who have voiced similar sentiments while in the throes of love, and who have by them at times even gained much sympathy. (See also The Four Loves) There is no denial of the power of such passions, or any simple outright condemnation of it either. The great objection of Lewis' essay is to the use of such sentiments in attempts to justify or condone what's ordinarily called irresponsible behaviour.

For those of us who are more easily governed by the sway of our emotions, this may serve as a bracing corrective.

In light of the two facts that he wrote this within 2-3 years of his beloved wife's death that ended a happy marriage lasting only slightly more than 3 years, and that of him having never really been romantically involved in all the years leading up to middle-age,* I find his description of the nature of a strong erotic passion especially poignant, and even a little surprising, short as it may be in this particular piece. On the other hand, it is also possible to read a more detached tone in this excerpt, though it is not my preferred interpretation.

*Before Lewis met and fell in love with Helen Joy Davidman, he considered himself a confirmed old bachelor and might have even betrayed a little coyness about the prospect of him sharing a room with a woman. I think it struck him in the beginning as something rather 'naughty.' So set he was in his bachelor ways and mindset! I also think that he never quite recovered fully from the grief of losing Joy and was most ready to join her and His Lord in the heavenly countries shortly after her departure from this world.

When I was a youngster, all the progressive people were saying, 'Why all this prudery? Let us treat sex as we treat all our other impulses.' I was simple-minded enough to believe they meant what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilised people. All the others, we admit, have to be bridled. ... Even sleep has to be resisted if you're a sentry. But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is 'four bare legs in a bed.'

It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong--unless you steal nectarines.

... Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. ... Now though I see no good reason for giving sex this privilege, I think I see a strong cause. It is this.

It is part of the nature of a strong erotic passion--as distinct from a transcient fit of appetite--that it makes more towering promises than any other emotion. No doubt all our desires make promises, but not so impressively. To be in love involves the almost irresitible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies, and that possession of the beloved will confer, not merely frequent ecstasies, but settled, fruitful, deep-rooted, lifelong happiness. Hence all seems to be at stake. If we miss this chance we shall have lived in vain. At the very thought of such a doom we sink into fathomless depths of self-pity.

Unfortuntately these promises are found often to be quite untrue. Every experienced adult knows this to be so as regards all erotic passions (except the one he himself is feeling at the moment). We discount the world-without-end pretensions of our friends' amours easily enough. We know that such things sometimes last--and sometimes don't. And when they do last, it is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also--I must put it crudely--good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people.

If we establish a 'right to (sexual) happiness' which supercedes all the ordinary rules of behaviour, we do so not because of what our passion shows itself to be in experience but because of what it professes itself to be while we are in the grip of it. Hence, while the bad behaviour is real and works miseries and degradations, the happiness which was the object of the behaviour turns out again and again to be illusory. Everyone [except the offending party, Mr. A] knows that Mr A. in a year or so may have the same reason for deserting his new wife as for deserting the old. He will feel again that all is at stake. He will see himself again as the great lover, and his pity for himself will exclude all pity for the woman.

Certainly food for thought.

"To all life Thou givest--to both great and small": an even tinier baby survives

2005-02-10T22:12:00.000-05:00

Reading about the survival of Madeline Mann, born weighing just 9.9 ounces in 1989, made me marvel at the miracle of life and God's sovereignty and prompted my earlier post. This morning I came across a news report of the survival of baby born 1.3 ounces lighter, and who has now overtaken Madeline in being the world's smallest ever to survive. They were both delivered at the same hospital, the Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago. To watch a video of the day Rumaisa went home with her parents, click here.

Seen here ready to go home with daddy, Rumaisa was about the size of a mobile phone
when she was born. Today, almost six months' old, she weighs about 5 pounds 8 ounces.

Taken from CBC news:

The babies' 23-year-old mother developed pre-eclampsia, a disorder characterized by high blood pressure, during pregnancy. The condition endangered Rumaisa and her mother, prompting a C-section at 26 weeks. Normal gestation is 40 weeks.
...
As Axelrod reports, it's no surprise Rumaisa and Hiba are girls; 90 percent of surviving babies born weighing less than 13 ounces are female. [see also this]

"Boys to me are the weaker sex." Murakas said. "Don't laugh, but it's true."

Muraskas also said that the twins could have been helped along in their development by their mother's health problems. "Sometimes, when babies are stressed in utero, that can accelerate maturity," he said.

The twins were placed on ventilators for a few weeks and fed intravenously for a week or two until nurses could give them breast milk through feeding tubes. They were able to start drinking from bottles after about 10 weeks.

Ultrasound tests have shown no bleeding in Rumaisa's brain, a common complication in premature babies that can raise the risk of cerebral palsy. Both girls also underwent laser surgery to correct vision problems common in premature babies.

Shaik and her husband, Mohammed Abdul Rahman, 32, said they are looking forward to bringing their children home. The couple, originally from Hyderabad, India, live in the suburb of Hanover Park.

"We want them to be good human beings, good citizens, and she wants them to be doctors," said Rahman, looking at his wife.

"Doctors. Yes, of course, of course," she said, laughing.

Madeline Mann, the previous record holder as smallest known surviving premature baby, returned to Loyola Hospital earlier this year for a celebration. Now 15, she was described as a lively honor student, though small for her age, at 4-feet-7.

According to the hospital, more than 1,700 newborns weighing less than 2 pounds have been cared for there in the past 20 years.

The quote in the title of this post comes from a favourite hymn of mine entitled
"Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise" by Walter C. Smith; more specifically, from the third stanza which seems most apposite for stories such as Rumaisa's and Madeline's:

To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;
In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;
We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,
And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,

be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." ~ 1 Timothy 1:17

Thinking of home... and home treats on Chinese New Year's Day

2005-02-09T01:36:00.000-05:00

Food has a wonderfully (spell)binding effect on a people... and that seems especially true for Singaporeans--especially those who are staying abroad. Special occasions in particular make one miss local food all the more. Every Chinese New Year, my parents will cook up a storm in the kitchen, producing big pots of curry chicken, assorted vegetables, and other mouth-watering dishes that we and some relatives would enjoy for at least two days. We would also have large tins of prawn crackers ready on hand to offer to guests, many of whom apparently so used to our usual festive treats that they would come with anticipation of enjoying them. My grandma used to be in charge of frying these crackers but she's retired now, and the happy task has fallen to the younger hands of my mum and our great helper Siti.

The picture above shows off the results of my first attempt at making pineapple tarts. Such "usual" Chinese New Year goodies, found almost everywhere in Singapore during this period, aren't usual at all here, not even in Toronto Chinatown. I guess it's because goodies like pineapple tarts are more Southeast Asian Chinese. I found the recipe for this on The Star Online Kuali, and well, the tarts turned out alright and did satisfy our cravings for a New Year favourite! The recipe calls for 1 egg yolk but I found that 2 worked better for the integrity of the dough. (Important Note: we have an updated recipe for pineapple tarts that overrides the one mentioned above which refused to work for us after the first attempt--Elaine, 11 March 2005)

I also miss bak kwa, kueh bangkit, love letters, and--can you believe it--huat kueh! Wait till I get my hands on some rice flour (not so common here, except in Chinatown or larger Chinese stores), and I'll do some experimenting in the kitchen again. Meanwhile, if anyone of you knows of a good Chinese New Year recipe, please leave a comment. Thanks!

A Happy and Blessed Chinese New Year to you all!

Pork Perfect Pork Loaf, Western or Chinese

2005-02-07T14:00:00.000-05:00

Found this nifty little recipe from Pork Perfect Pork by the Canadian Pork Council, pub. 1983. This book filled with advice on pork cuts, storage, and lots of recipes, by the way, was picked up for a mere Can$1.00 at a hardware store near where we live. I tried out their simple pork loaf recipe last Saturday and the whole family (i.e., my husband and I, though strictly speaking, we have three mouths to feed) loved it. Here's the recipe, with some minor improvisations. Highly recommended for those of you who would like to enjoy a simple, microwaved pork loaf that can be prepared beforehand and cooks in 10 minutes, and which is also highly flexible--it will do well in a Western or Chinese meal.

(Presentation suggestion only. It's not even our pork loaf, which didn't stay uneaten long enough for us to think of taking a picture first. Next time perhaps...)

Pork Loaf
(2 ½ - 3 sufficient main servings, accompanied by soup and salad; or or as an accompanying dish to rice and other simple homecooked fare)

Ingredients:
400g ground pork
1 cup bread crumbs
1 packet onion soup mix
2-3 stalks finely diced celery
dash of pepper
sprinkling of corn starch
½ cup milk
2 eggs, slightly beaten
(no extra salt needed!)
Cheese to taste (optional—omit if you’d like this as an accompanying dish to a nice Chinese home-cooked meal of rice and other dishes: believe me, it tastes a little like steamed pork cooked in a Chinese way! You could even add some diced cooked Chinese mushrooms if you like)

Method:
Mix together ground pork, bread crumbs, onion soup mix, celery and pepper. Add milk, eggs, and cheese (optional); combine lightly but thoroughly. Spoon into a 1L (9 x 1 ¼ inch) glass pie plate (or close equivalent). Microwave for 5 minutes and slice loaf into six portions (optional: I do it to better ensure the interior is well cooked), and continue microwaving for another 5 minutes. Cover loaf and let stand 5-10 minutes before serving.

Bon appetit!

The Great Divorce

2005-02-04T17:40:00.000-05:00

The idea of "either or" seems to have fallen into some measure of disfavour among some of us today (perhaps an increasing number). One easily recalls the numerous strong negative reactions to Bush's statement in the aftermath of 9/11 that one is either for the US or against it. In our 'postmodern' world of--excuse the crude description here--relativism, tolerance of differences, and equality of truths, many would like to believe that all roads lead to Heaven (if there is such a place at all). Anyone who would claim otherwise must be a narrow-minded, dogmatic, unprogressive, and intolerant zealot of some partisan, exclusivist ideology. That, in turn, can be all too easily made to seem uncomfortably allied with "fundamentalists" and terrorists.

One of the most open-minded, intellectually-rigorous, passionate, humble, sensitive, and insightful writers I know, however, came to be convinced that reality is otherwise. He went on to become one of the leading Christian apologists (apology in the sense of a reasoned defense) of the 20th century. The author of works such as Mere Christianity, The Four Loves, God in the Dock, The Screwtape Letters, The Chronicles of Narnia, and a space trilogy among scores of other essays and also some poems, C.S. Lewis exhibits time and again his keen insight into the meaning of life, love, ethics and other fundamental human issues, and always with most apposite and memorable words. A comment of Orwell's writings I once read on the blurb of a collection of his essays (and which I now paraphrase horribly-) applies very well to Lewis': they tend to affect you like a splash of water, rousing and refreshing.

I quote from the Preface to The Great Divorce (1945) which I read in summer 04 and re-read in the winter of the same year on a long flight home from Christmas in the Bay Area:

It is still "either or." If we insist on keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell. I believe, to be sure, that any man who reaches Heaven will find that what he abandoned (even in plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing: that the kernel of what he was seeking even in hiss most depraved wishes will be there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in 'the High Countries.' In that sense it will be true for those who have completed the journey (and for no others) to say that good is everything and Heaven is everywhere. But we, at this end of the road [still on earth, some of us with the ultimate choice still before us-] must not try to anticipate that retrospective vision. If we do, we are likely to embrace the false and disastrous converse and fancy that everything is good and everywhere is Heaven.

But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself."

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." Mark 8:34-35

All of Us on Loy's Birthday

2005-02-03T21:05:00.000-05:00

I thought it would be nice to take a photo of the family on each member's birthday. This is the first one with all of us--Baby Loy and our teddy bear, Amy (wearing one of Baby Loy's blouses for now), and that makes it a rather special. If you read my earlier post featuring an apple crumble recipe, you'll identify the centrepiece on the table straightaway!

Monkey makes excellent English Apple Crumble!

2005-02-02T23:24:00.000-05:00

Click here for the cutest recipe presentation I've seen. Take the monkey's word for it: I baked an apple crumble pie according to its instructions for my husband's (that is, Huichieh's) birthday, and he loved it! Apple crumble is certainly one of the easiest to prepare, and one of the most comforting, foods I know. Monkey suggests 3 tablespoons of sugar, but I prefer 2.5, or even just 2, if the apples are very sweet and you're planning to eat the crumble with ice cream anyway (as Huichieh likes to do!). To further cut down on the sugar and also fat content, use a good sugar alternative like Splenda and substitute butter with margarine or "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" which supposedly contains even less fat than standard margarine. A sprinkling of cinnamon powder, a small handful of raisins (added to the top of the apples last) and a tablespoon of lemon juice add more flavour, texture and zest to this wonderful pie.

Note on the oven: If your oven is often uncooperatively hot and not too conducive to optimal browning, cover the pie with aluminium foil or with a Pyrex dish cover after about 15-20 minutes when you see that the crust is already a nice golden brown while the apples continue to soften.

Simply because it is Christian to nurse the sick

2005-02-01T01:30:00.000-05:00

Read on World Magazine Blog, a post by Bergin dated 22 January 2005:

Many Christians are incensed at recent Muslim threats against those tsunami-relief workers aiming to evangelize devastated people. Groups like World Vision International, however, never intended to proselytize, rendering such stern warnings irrelevant. “Our hope is that our work will open people up to a deeper understanding of who God is,” said World Vision staffer Tim Dearborn. Global Christianity expert Dana Robert believes Dearborn’s method and that of World Vision has proven successful as far back as the Roman Empire: “Because Christians believed in the resurrection of the body and in Jesus as a healer, they went in and nursed the sick. Those who were nursed were more likely to become a Christian. Was that a strategy? No. It was part of what it meant to be a Christian.”

I followed their link and found an interesting article entitled Christians serving in tsunami-ravaged Asia seeing gospel spread by their acts, not by preaching. The main argument is that many, or even most of the Christian groups that have done much humanitarian work, know and follow the theory: "Do good works, and local interest in the motivating faith might follow."

In providing relief as a sign of God's unconditional love, missionaries have at times laid groundwork for thousands of religious conversions, according to Todd Johnson, the director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological School. But he adds a cautionary note, especially for a region marked by passionate adherence to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism: If relief workers are perceived to have ulterior motives, good relationships can abruptly turn sour.

(Italics mine)

I believe that many Christians do know this piece of simple psychology: that if one serves with an ambiguous agenda, one will be suspect. Believers are called to be as wise as serpents too. That is why Christians must be especially sensitive and know exactly what their specific mission is (see this earlier post), when providing relief in places where another religion--in the case of the recent tsunami disaster, Islam--is dominant and often jealously guarded.

To return to the comment from Dr. Dana Robert (quoted in the article and in Bergin's post reproduced above) which inspired the title of this post, I fail to see and hesitate to endorse her connection between Christians' belief in the resurrection of the body and in Jesus as a healer, and their participation in the relief effort. My agreement with her basic and more general point also does not mean a blanket endorsement of her theology or that of her organisation's (I would need to know more about it to begin with--). All the same, I think that one specific point she makes worth stressing: "Those who were nursed were more likely to become a Christian. Was that a strategy? No. It was part of what it meant to be a Christian: to nurse the sick."

The article ends with some historical examples of how God has been pleased to bless the long-term work of genuinely humanitarian-minded Christians and mission groups in places like Korea and Thailand.

And as I concluded in my comments on World Magazine Blog, there is a proper season for everything even as Christians are enjoined to "preach the word...in season and out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2a). There is a time to do good work silently, and a time to proclaim the gospel boldly. One must be sensitive to the Spirit's leading, to be wise as one is zealous. If one enters a country as a missionary, do the work of a missionary. If one enters as a humanitarian aid worker, do the work of an aid worker--and do that well, for His name's sake. If there comes good opportunity to preach the word (and it is hard to come up with more precise guidelines), "reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2b) May God grant His people the desire to obey Him, and the wisdom to do right and glorify His name.

Christian Tsunami Relief: good works with good news...bad?

2005-01-31T20:10:00.000-05:00

I came across this article today by Seema Sirohi and published in Outlook India (28 January 2005) that set me thinking more seriously about the wisdom of mixing religion with relief work. Can the two never go together? and if they can, in what way?

Right from the get-go, the title suggested much about the tenor of the article: "Counting Sheep? The proselytizing zeal of American missionaries knows no slack even in tsunami aid." To say the least, a charge seems to be implied here about the utter impropriety of leveraging on the vulnerability of tragedy victims, and the sheer insensitivity of not knowing that.

As a Christian who "takes her faith very seriously" (--and what is a Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew, supposed to be, except one who is serious about their faith? this has always struck me as a tautology often arising from lack of thought and simple bias against the religious), I must admit I felt a little personally targeted by the tone set by the title. More than that, I felt that something had to be wrong: this picture of 'underhanded' Christians and an insensitive Christianity does not square with what I know to be true according to what the Bible says.

Sirohi's main thesis is that the zeal of American religious organisations and missionaries in mixing religion and relief work has manifested itself in ways that exacerbate religious tensions. She cites, and rightly suggests as crass, the comments of Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) that "If we are going to depend on Muslims to go in and help Muslims, well, they aren't coming."

Reading her criticism of the actions of certain Christian groups and individuals is saddening, as some of her criticisms--assuming the facts are accurate--are to my mind well-warranted and consistent with biblical principles. For instance, "some Christian missionaries [in Samanthapettai, a fishing village in Tamil Nadu] reportedly refused to distribute biscuits and water unless the Hindu recipients agreed to change their faith. When TV reporters approached the nuns, they refused to comment and left."

Firstly, the Bible never teaches that we should refuse compassion and aid to non-believers. If anything, Jesus Himself repeatedly taught that the love of God is to be shown precisely by loving our neighbours in word and deed, be they Samaritan or Jew (e.g. Luke 10:27-37). The apostle James exhorts believers to show their faith by their works--for example, by not showing partiality to the rich, in giving food to the hungry, and in clothing the poor. Peter challenges believers to keep their behaviour excellent among non-believers so that they will observe the good deeds and glorify God (1 Peter 2:12). Secondly, Christians are to be people of integrity, striving to live in a way which is above reproach, "always being ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence, and keep a good conscience so that the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behaviour in Christ will be put to shame." (1 Peter 3:15) The context in this verse is slightly different, but the principle of integrity and transparency remains relevant. If the nuns did in fact deliberately evade the reporters as if they were aware of some impropriety, then they are rightly rebuked and we can pray that they will come to walk in a way more worthy of the risen Christ.

Sirohi also highlights the seemingly less-than-honest promotional tactics of World Help in its quest to gain more supporters, making its provision of Bhojpuri bibles sound more momentous than it really is. I quote:

World Help has printed 1,00,000 Bibles in Bhojpuri, a language it glibly assumes was hidden from evangelists. "Imagine a group of 90 million people who have never been able to read God's Word in their own language until just recently. What an incredible opportunity God is giving us to provide Bibles for the Bhojpuri for the very first time!" declares its mission statement. (Not quite an accurate claim: Bible work in Bhojpuri is nearly a century old in India, even older if you count work targeted at the diaspora.)

Again, if she is correct that World Help has deliberately sought to manipulate the truth for more effective sales rhetoric, her criticism is a fair one. Without further knowledge of World Help, though, one may reserve harsher judgement and generously take it that they were just mistaken in their belief about the recent realisation of a Bible in the Bhojpuri language. In any case, her case is made where it applies to a larger point: that of honesty, again, a virtue the biblical God takes very seriously. Consider passages verses like: "Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being..." (Psalm 51:6a) and "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight," Proverbs 11:1--not forgetting the commandment against lying: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness." (Exodus 23:1)

I also agree with Sirohi when she writes that by "lacing help with questions of faith, however delicately," and by "charity with an ambiguous agenda," evangelical groups--especially American ones--can deepen religious faultlines at a time when talk of civilisational wars rages in e-chat rooms." That is why I believe that Christians can and should help in the relief effort not so much by advertising that they are there as missionaries, or by making the distribution of Bibles a focus, but by doing what they have pledged to the local governments as their mission: simply, to offer humanitarian aid. There should be no ambiguity in the agenda.

By all means, be open and honest about the mission statement of your organisation (that's what's rankling many people, Sirohi included, I think). But clearly distinguish that outright evangelistic mission (by which I mean the holding of evangelistic meetings, constantly encouraging people to attend church services, and the like) from the humanitarian one, even though there is, and ought to be, a vital relationship between the two--in that we love because God first loved us, and we can show His love to others by our love for them. In a time when religious sensitivities run high, and where the American is rightly or wrongly particularly suspect, it is only to be expected that presenting too closely the good news with good works will make one stand accused of taking advantage of a bad situation. And such practice in one extreme form--the Portia-type mercy to Shylock (i.e., your faith for your bread)--has reared one of its ugliest and most harmful heads in this whole issue. "This kind of proselytisation," says Ashutosh Varshney, political science professor at Michigan University, "demeans the idea of religious conversion, for it uses helplessness to spread a religion." Amen to that. But I would like you to be clear about what I am saying.

I am not saying that Christians should not desire to reach out to the lost through the gospel. They should, and it is a command that they do. Jesus said, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20) I am also not suggesting that relief work and (the more vital) salvation work can never go together, or that they ought not to. The Holy Spirit can and does touch and convert hearts at any time, and in any place--tsunami-devastated or not. If His people pray fervently for opportunities to share the good news with the unsaved, He will provide them. There is no need to sneak in the gospel with the food, or force it down people's throats. The execution of Jesus' command was not meant to, and does not, work that way. As Ashutosh Varshney continues, a "genuine change in conviction remains the best basis for religious conversion and should not be stopped." To that I would say, the only basis for genuine conversion.

Where there are true Christians doing God's work of compassion in the right way, Christ's light and love will be manifest. As the Preacher says, "To everything there is a season..." (Ecclesiastes 3:1) Though Christians are enjoined to preach the Word, in season, out of season, there are legitimate contexts in which the cause of the Kingdom is served not by the enthusiastic distribution of Bibles or preaching from the rooftops even before one has spent time with the locals and shown that one does care. Often times, the gospel is advanced because people, seeing the excellent testimony of Christians doing good works, came forward on their own accord to ask for an account of the hope that is in us.

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jeus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." (Emphasis mine, Titus 2:11-15)

"Our people must also learn to engage in good deeds to meet pressing needs, so that they will not be unfruitful." (Titus 3:14)

Compelled by God's love and His truth, countless numbers of Christians have already gone out into the mission field to offer help to the needy and to win the lost. (All people need the Lord! As offensive as this may sound, there is no apology for the message that salvation comes by Jesus alone. Some offence is inevitable.) Much good has been done through the ages. Christian humanitarian work, like that of many other faith-based and secular organisations, is nothing new. I shall be praying that God will be glorified indeed, and many sheep brought into the Shepherd's fold, by Christian work done in a Christian way in which God will be pleased to bless.

Not all that cool...

2005-01-31T13:17:00.000-05:00

According to their assessment, I am "not nerdy, but then again not all that cool either." :)

Something from Marge Simpson comes to mind here: "Hey kids, not caring about being cool... that's cool, isn't it?" Bart and Lisa: "No."

How nerdy are you?

2005-01-31T11:59:00.000-05:00

Found this on my brother's blog--the Wx Plotter's Fun Test. According to its Nerd Quiz:

Sun of my soul: separating the sacred and the worldly in worship

2005-01-31T01:05:00.000-05:00

Note: This post can be seen as a further comment on my earlier post reviewing John Frame's defense of contemporary worship music.

"Sun of My Soul", written by John Keble in 1820, has an interesting and instructive history which I discovered when looking up the hymn in The Cyber Hymnal. “Hursley,” from the Katholisches Gesangbuch (Vienna: 1774) is given as the music to which the hymn is most commonly sung today. In addition, two alternate tunes are given: “Keble,” by John B. Dykes (1875) and “Abends,” by Herbert S. Oakeley (1874). The following is Oakeley's own explanation of why he decided to compose a new alternate tune for the words of the hymn:

I was, many years ago, impelled to set Keble’s words to music for Henry Baker, in consequence of the inadequacy if not vulgarity of the tune which had got into general use. I refer to “Hursley,” which, however, is now less often sung than formerly.

“Hursley,” strange to say, had been in use in Germany--where, as a rule, chorales (Anglicè hymn tunes) are so dignified and admirable—-since circiter 1792, and is attributed to Paul Ritter.

One of my reasons for disliking it so much is the resemblance it bears to a drinking song, “Se vuol ballare,” in Nozze di Figaro. As Mozart produced that opera in 1786, he is responsible for the opening strain, which suits his Bacchanalian words very well. But to hear "Sun of my soul, Thou Saviour dear," sung to a lively tune, unsuitable to sacred words, had the effect of driving me out of church.

Oakeley's words illustrate how the principle of association is an important one when we consider what we bring into the church service. One of the best discussions of this principle I know is in Don Lucarini and John Blanchard's Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement (Evangelical Press, 2002). In the chapter that deals with this principle, the authors take on the common argument made by proponents of CCM that it is acceptable to use popular contemporary secular tunes for worship because folk and bar tunes of Wesley's era have become our "great hymns of the faith". In other words, if even great traditional hymnwriters did not disdain the use of the 'worldly' music for their songs, then music is probably neutral and any attractive tune can be reclaimed, as it were, as Egyptian gold.

First off, the claim that Wesley used bar tunes without compunction is a suspect one--a convenient urban legend! John Makujima's Measuring the Music has a more detailed discussion on this issue. And if I remember correctly, the point made by Lucarini and Blanchard is an excellent one that explains why most conservative Christians, unlike Oakeley, have no qualms at all about using the 'bacchanialian' tune in worship: in short, the associations between "Hursley" and Mozart's opera have waned to a point when people are no longer offended or stumbled by the music. This is a classic case of God's prohibition to the Israelites boiling a young goat in its mother's milk (e.g. Exodus 23:19). This practice was not intrinsically bad, just associated too strongly with pagan sacrifices.

Will what happened to "Hursley" happen to rock and pop music we have today? Does the principle apply in much the same way? I personally very much doubt it. Rock and pop are music styles vastly different in kind from Mozart's compositions, and they are openly acknowledged by some of their artistes to be clearly opposed to God in their very natures. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of music can post a comment.

Sun of My Soul (John Keble, 1820)

Sun of my soul, Thou Savior dear,
It is not night if Thou be near;
O may no earthborn cloud arise
To hide Thee from Thy servant’s eyes.

When the soft dews of kindly sleep
My wearied eyelids gently steep,
Be my last thought, how sweet to rest
Forever on my Savior’s breast.

Abide with me from morn till eve,
For without Thee I cannot live;
Abide with me when night is nigh,
For without Thee I dare not die.

If some poor wandering child of Thine
Has spurned today the voice divine,
Now, Lord, the gracious work begin;
Let him no more lie down in sin.

Watch by the sick, enrich the poor
With blessings from Thy boundless store;
Be every mourner’s sleep tonight,
Like infants’ slumbers, pure and right.

Come near and bless us when we wake,
Ere through the world our way we take,
Till in the ocean of Thy love
We lose ourselves in Heaven above.

(Closing hymn of the final service in which Rev. Dr. T. T. Shields--one of the most respected, uncompromising and fiery preachers of 20th century Canada--preached, on 30 May 1954, before the Lord called him home on 4 April 1855, concluding his 45-year pastorship of his beloved Jarvis Street Baptist Church.)

Cartoon illustrating irony

2005-01-29T13:49:00.000-05:00

Click to see cartoon: "Here, take these extra fishes and loaves in case you want to share with someone."

Chanced upon this and couldn't help thinking back to the days when I was scouring the net and books for amusing illustrations to teach the concept of irony to Secondary One students. One does need some knowledge of the biblical account of Jesus feeding the multitudes (e.g. John 6:4-13) to appreciate this, but it is a context that is widely known, and one that can be easily furnished. Wish I had this then...

Shakespeare's coming to Ripostes!

2005-01-29T13:01:00.000-05:00

Attention all teachers, students, and lovers of Shakespeare! There's soon going to be a new website dedicated to the man whose works are "a bridge between the world we have lost and the world that we have become." (Michael Wood, In Search of Shakespeare) To whet your appetite a little, and to pre-empt some of those "oh, not another Shakespeare website!" groans, this website will bring together some of the best and most interesting articles on the bard, and tips on how to read Shakespeare aloud, point you to some of the most useful sites on Othello, and also clarify the meaning of some favourite terms like "hamartia". Among other features, there will also be a section on the stage and page debate, and also one that attempts to answer common students' questions like: Why Shakespeare? What have we to do with a dead white male?

Why the title "JC Shakespeare"? This website was designed initially with JC teachers and students in mind. The project, however, has broadened so as to include things which may not be of direct interest or relevance to the 'A' level Shakespeare syllabus. I have been working on and off on materials for such a website for ages now, and think that I should realise my plans for a Shakespeare website soon or I may never get it going.

Do watch out for the link that I shall provide soon for my biggest, most ambitious web project yet!

Note: For those of you who are not familiar with the Singapore or British education system, JC refers to junior college, which corresponds in a way to Grades 11 and 12 (I think). The JC is a place where many Singapore students have fond memories--and also unforgettable ones--of never having had to work harder to get good grades at the 'A' level examinations so as to qualify for their university of choice. I still remember dropping my cup of coffee (yes, coffee) on the history textbook on my lap one night when I dozed off while cramming for a history exam.

K9-5: Laddie, Our Faithful Night-Watchman

2005-01-29T13:00:00.000-05:00

<

Found on page 46 of The Gospel Witness and Protestant Advocate (Sept 28, 1944), a publication of JSBC, our church in Toronto, and republished here for animal lovers:

For the sake of those who love dogs, and for the sake of others who only dislike arsonists and burglars, we introduce our faithful night-watchman--Laddie. He came to us while the church was under construction [late 19th century]. When the services are in progress Laddie is kept in his own quarters. At other times he is on patrol. Laddie is beloved of all dog-lovers. We could fill a small-sized book with stories of his canine intelligence. It is enough to say that he has frightened the wits out of several would-be burglars. The police tell us he is worth a hundred men. The burglar-alarm messengers say he has a voice that can be heard in Winnipeg!

Laddie lives on the premises except when he goes home occasionally with one of the janitors. He is friendly to all until the building is locked up at night. Then he considers himself in charge, and no one can touch a door or window without being greeted with something resembling the roar of a lion.

At night he has the right-of-way through Rotunda and Offices, and has saved us from break-ins on several occasions.

Tiniest Surviving Baby: All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be - Psalm 139:16

2005-01-27T23:18:00.000-05:00

In June 1989, Madeline made history. Born at 27 weeks into her mother's pregnancy, she weighed just 9.9 ounces, less than any surviving baby in medical history... See pictures and read more.

Pooh Pooh: more amazing bread imprints

2005-01-27T22:40:00.000-05:00

The 10-year-old grilled cheese sandwich that supposedly bears the miraculous imprint of the virgin Mary made news late last year when its owner auctioned it on e-bay--and sold it for a whopping US$28,000. Now, you can have your toasted bread bear the imprint of Winnie-the-Pooh for a tiny fraction of that amount. Incidentally, my husband and I also came across a toaster that creates the imprint of Hello Kitty during our recent Christmas holiday in San Francisco.

What is Contemporary Worship Music? A review of John Frame's defense of CWM

2005-01-27T22:10:00.000-05:00

Have you ever heard that music is neutral? that all kinds of music styles should be permitted in congregational worship as long as the lyrics are Christian, and the music makes one feel closer to God? The debate over acceptable worship music has been raging as long as the so-called "culture wars" between the "modernists" and "postmodernists". Much ink has been spilled on the subject on both sides of the debate, with no perceivable end in sight. Some have questioned if music is worth making a stand about in the first place. Aren't there more fundamental issues? Shouldn't fellow Christians stand united over what's common and important instead of separating and quibbling over peripheral issues of the faith? Is music a so-called peripheral issue in Christian doctrine and practice? Are we justified by the Bible to speak of "peripheral" issues in the first place? Leaving aside the last question for now, I shall explain briefly why I strongly maintain that how we worship (what songs we sing, etc.) is a central issue in God's sight, as made clear to us by His Word.

God cares greatly about the manner and media of worship because it shows how obedient to we are to Him. Consider, for example, the remarkably detailed instructions on how his house of worship is to be constructed, right down to the precise measurements of beams and pillars. Consider again His detailed instructions on how the sacrifices are to be made --such as what qualifies as a fit offering, and what is to be burnt, and what kept as food for the priests. God also forbade His people to boil a young goat in its mother's milk, most probably because of the stain of association: this was a practice common in pagan sacrifices and Israel was not to use what was associated with the pagans in her worship of her God. There are many other such examples. God is holy, and commands His people to be holy (sanctified, set apart) as well.

John Frame, well-known 20th century theologian of the Reformed school and a student of the renowned Dutch theologian Cornelius van Til, sets out to give a carefully reasoned biblical defense of contemporary Christian music (CCM), or, as he prefers to call it, contemporary worship music (CWM). Many reviews, largely positive, have been written about his book entitled Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense (P&R Pub., 1997). Read this one, for instance.

I enjoyed reading his book and have found it to be, on the whole, very even-handed even as he makes no bones about which side he is on. His work is meant to be a defense of CWM, and one can clearly see how he has made a good case from the Bible against the blanket criticism and dismissal of all contemporary Christian compositions. No fair-minded reader can walk away from his book without being more wary of committing the fallacy of the hasty generalisation--a mistake that too many on both sides of the debate have made. There are, however, several aspects of his book which I think bear further examination.

Frame concedes that there are differences of emphasis between contemporary worship music (CWM) and traditional worship music (TWM). CWM is “primarily a celebration of the Resurrection… a large emphasis on joy, celebration. … The dark side of Christian experience still exists, but it is brought to the feet of the risen Jesus.” TWM, “on the other hand, tends to focus more on our pre-resurrection relationship with God. God is more distant, more disapproving. He is hidden, and we are unclean, unfit to enter his holy place. We are lost, without hope. As a kind of re-enactment, at least, we need to be saved from sin again by believing the gospel and finding forgiveness. Then we hear the assurance of pardon … Then we may experience some of the post-Resurrection experience, until next Sunday." (Frame, p. 80)

Does this description of TWM square with your own experience of it? It does not mine. Frame's presentation of TWM's emphasis is inaccurate and misleading, although it is to his credit that he does acknowledge his loaded language that declares his preference. There are scores and scores of traditional hymns that focus on the joy of Christian living and of victory in Jesus. A cursory look at the index of songs in most traditional hymnals should make that evident.

Frame also contends that the great merit of CWM is that it is "Christian music that is immediately accessible – to the young as well as the old, to the immature as well as the mature. Therefore... it is a valuable tool for teaching the immature, for helping the immature to become more mature. ... it is better that children sing some children’s hymns, rather than adult hymns alone. The same can be said of CWM.” (pp. 163-164) He admits that CWM songs "do not attempt to cover a great deal of doctrinal territory but to cover a small amount of teaching vividly and memorably." (p. 166)

So far as some carefully selected CWM songs can be included in the worship service to complement traditional hymns to make the congregational singing more accessible and varied, I can see the value of CWM. To argue or to imply, however, that traditional hymns are not suitable, or at least not as suitable or helpful to young Christians is to miss out on the fact that the apostles certainly did not eschew deep and sometimes difficult doctrinal truth in their epistles to new believers. Doctrines of salvation, justification, election, predestination, atonement, sanctification and depravity of man, for example, abound in the book of Romans. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul also teaches eschatology, the doctrine of end times. To mature as believers, babes in the faith must not be deemed to need 'protection' or bolstering from deep truths that God deems essential to His children's understanding. If the reservation concerning TWM is the language that many of them use, that's another matter. It is true that the language of many great hymns of the faith is of an older age (containing more passive constructions, for instance), often more literary, and more redolent with complex metaphors that demand or assume more of those singing them. I would contend, however, that most of them are not really beyond the comprehension or appreciation of most believers, given time, exposure and spiritual growth. If language that is apparently more difficult is to be a reason for TWM to be avoided in worship, to what extent do we have to apply the same principle to the Bible itself? What about passages in the Bible that are not eminently paraphraseable in simple, contemporary language that is "not too difficult for the common man"?

I fully agree with Frame that what is perhaps most important is the discretion of the church leadership in using songs (whether traditional or otherwise) that reflect proper biblical priorities and sound doctrine (p. 97). From my experience and acquaintance with several churches and organisations which use CWM, though, the tendency is to rely almost fully on the limited corpus of CWM songs and reinforce the idea that CWM is better than TWM which is dismissed--openly or, more commonly, by suggestion--as stuffy, old-fashioned, and irrelevant in today's world. Frame admits that CWM "emerged in a background of charismatic theology," and is quick to add that "for the most part it does not urge charismatic distinctives upon the worshiper." (ibid., p. 139) A child will take on characteristics of his parents on a very fundamental level, and so, CWM and charismatic theology. And if Frame is right about how CWM does not "urge Charismatic distinctives upon the worshiper," it may be that what it often omits, or neglects to emphasize, is also vitally important to Christian truth and life. We are told to teach the whole gospel. Not to do so on a consistent basis may well constitute a distinctive of a particular group or movement.

Finally, it seems almost too convenient for Frame to suggest, at the very least, that any contemporary Christian song counts as CWM. Surely some contemporary hymn and song writers (such as those at Wilds and Soundforth) would make a distinction between their music and CWM. Labeling is certainly not all, but it is significant because it points to a real distinction. Some songs included in the CWM corpus, like “As the Deer”, “I Love You Lord” and “Shine Jesus Shine” could as easily be categorized as hymns or traditional choruses. No one is denying that some, or even many, good, doctrinally sound songs are written today by contemporaries. The issue is not the date of composition: that should not be the criteria for categorizing songs as CWM or TWM.

What is the precise criteria that clearly distinguish CWM and TWM? I have some ideas about that, but this post is too long as it is. I also suspect that most of us who are professing Christians--and even many non-Christian Singaporean cab drivers I've talked to--do have some instinctive sense about what is "Contemporary Christian Music", and what's not.

Neil-ing the Problem of the All-Consuming TV "Family" on Family Literacy Day

2005-01-26T18:20:00.000-05:00

Okay, the title is admittedly a little corny. But the subject matter is a serious one. Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (Penguin, 1985) deserves mention and review again--20 years since its publication--for all its refreshing and pressing relevance to the state of our society today. The eve of the 6th annual Family Literacy Day in Canada is probably a good time to post a few thoughts on the issue of how the replacement of the printed word by television is affecting the way we think and communicate.

Postman's main thesis is that American society has moved from an age where the written word was dominant to one which is dominated by television and show business--to its detriment, in the decline of serious and rational thought and conversation. Every medium and technology has its own inherent bias and encourages certain tendencies. Just as the written/printed word promotes sequential, coherent and rational thought expressed in propositional form and calls for the reader's understanding and consideration of its argument, hones a tolerance for delayed response and so on, television places far less emphasis on rational argument and promotes the idea that the worth of anything is measured chiefly by its entertainment value. "Entertainment is the supra-ideology of all discourse on television." (Postman, p. 87)

Ironically, the problem is often made worse by the supposed champions of literacy and education--teachers and intellectuals--who constantly strive to make television an educational tool par excellence, who urge television to be more of a carrier of important cultural conversations, which is something its form was not made to do. Given the right kind of training through the medium of television, increasingly and in too many places promoted, it will be little wonder if future generations become less able to read, and less interested in doing so. What's the great loss in this, some may ask, since television is able to do so much in way of providing information on all areas of life from politics to law to raising public awareness of the world around us? And aren't we forgetting the educational benefits of the internet (in which this blog itself is posted)? If the TV and computer can give our children information given in books, what's the harm? Firstly, it's highly questionable if all kinds of knowledge currently (or should be) taught in schools using books can be taught through television. Many things, like political philosophy and epistemology, are just not "eminently televisable" (ibid., p. 152). Secondly, Sesame Street, the oft-touted prime example of how learning can be both fun and effective, has not taught children to love school as much as it has taught them to love school that is like Sesame Street. It doesn't even matter if children do learn the alphabet from such television programs; more crucially, they are learning the "supra-ideology" of entertainment.

Postman nailed the problem of television when he writes about the comprehensiveness and the potential that it is commonly perceived to have. It is a medium that encompasses all forms of discourse, one from which anyone can learn about the most recent policies, find out who won the ball game, enjoy some light-hearted entertainment, and find out more about the current affairs or the latest scientific discoveries. One big reason why the printed word took such a hold on people's lives and minds in earlier times is the monopoly it had--there was literally no other alternative medium with that kind of reach. Today we have a media and information glut where much that is produced and consumed is largely influenced by the dominant medium of the colourful, seductive moving picture. Even from the time of Postman's writing, books have begun to take on the forms and the language of television--in easily digestible eye-candy morsels. Think of the recently published New Testament for teens entitled Revolve in which each page resembles a glossy fashion magazine complete with tips on dating and makeup. Revolve does contain the entire text of the New Testament, but will it really promote a love for His Word and the holy lifestyle that is commanded therein? I personally doubt it can, although God can work good through anything.

At the end of the day, there is a vast and undeniable difference between reading the printed word and watching television. The differences are many and a few important ones have been stated, or at least implied. I shall not try to enumerate an exhaustive list of differences or give a comprehensive argument for the benefits of the printed word over those of television. Much has already been written on this, and Postman has done a job that I could never do trying to explain how our (I'm identifying with Postman here-) position is not merely another "elitist complaint against 'junk' on television" (ibid., p. 16). There are many benefits to television, and we're not denying that--but perhaps not so much for education, and perhaps the losses outweigh the gains in the final analysis. All is not lost though, and some television programs, in small, carefully administered doses, may on occasion provide a useful material for classroom learning and discussion. "But what is happening is that the content of a school curriculum is being determined by the character of television ... One would have thought that the school room is the proper place for students to inquire into the ways in which media of all kinds--including television--shape people's attitudes and perceptions." (ibid. pp. 153)

Just another word on TV using Ray Bradbury's TV "family" as an illustration. In Fahrenheit 451 (Del Rey, 1987), the protagonist's wife and her friends are hopelessly addicted to their multi-panelled TV--a kind of surround-sound, surround-screen TV which envelopes them, commanding their facile participation in shallow and inconsequential conversations and situations presented by life-sized soap opera characters who become their "family". This is obviously an exaggeration of what our TV experiences are like but illustrate well the point I wish to make. TV has the power to influence you in very subconscious ways, making you captive to its continuously changing images and sounds, and tempting you to suspend your rational thought processes to simply absorb what is presented in unrelenting speed and in forms which are not for the most part amenable to careful analysis and evaluation in the way words on a page are. A TV program you choose to watch consumes you, and good books (like classic novels) are often said to do the same, but you read at your own pace, and the words on the page engage your reason and understanding.

It seems ironic that a made-for-TV movie televised nationally during primetime should be what kick-started Family Literacy Day in Canada in 1999. It is also ironic that this movie should be made a publicity centrepiece by literary organisations who helped promote it by distributing posters and bookmarks to the general public. "Penny's Odyssey is about the agony and ecstasy of growing up as much as it is about reading and writing," says director Alan Goluboff. "Even people who can read will sympathize with the characters and find the program engaging." Am I the only one who finds the last sentence more than a little strange and telling?

Penny's Odyssey is the one thing parents seem to be encouraged to order on that webpage, and quite plausibly the one thing that most who would celebrate FLD would want to watch with their children. "Read, Write, Surf, Sing" goes the motto of FLD. They forgot "Watch." (ibid. p. 161) To be fair, my knowledge of FLD is all but most recently acquired and limited. And, as Postman says, "no medium is excessively dangerous is its users understand what its dangers are." But do they? Will most of the people this literacy campaign is targetting be sufficiently aware that there is an inevitable relation between form and content? It is possible that Penny's Odyssey will excite some children a little more about reading, but I am not optimistic. I have not watched Penny's Odyssey and so cannot much more about it, but I do not think I'll be in a hurry to get a copy. All the same, I wish the organisers of the ABC Canada Family Literacy Day all the best.

When God blesses my husband and I with a baby to bring up and teach, he or she will surely not be learning the alphabet from Winnie-the-Pooh video series or the numbers from Sesame Street. "Train up a child in the way he should go, / Even when he is old he will not depart from it." ~ Proverbs 22:6

cat in the snow

2005-01-26T13:12:00.000-05:00

cat in the snow, originally uploaded by HUICHIEH.

Kitten in the snow...begging for food.

Watts a True Refuge?

2005-01-25T21:55:00.000-05:00

Certainly not Isaac Watts--but the God He knew and about whom he wrote more than 600 hymns. Isaac Watts (1674-1748), lovingly known by many as the Father of English Hymnody, is one of my favourite hymn writers. The words to his songs have often uplifted and challenged my heart. Some of his most famous works include "O God Our Help in Ages Past" (based on Psalm 90), "When I Survey The Wondrous Cross" and "Joy to the World".

We often have a tendency to restrict our congregational and personal singing to a certain selection of songs contained in the song books we possess. One of the greatest blessings that have come of being, for a time, a member of good churches outside our home country is the opportunity to see that there is so much more to solid hymns than the usual "old favourites". For Loy and I, the "usual suspects" happened to be the most famous hymns of the faith, but also more contemporary compositions produced by music groups and writers who are mostly are associated with Bob Jones University--Wilds and Soundforth, to name two.

I do not subscribe to the view that music is neutral. Neither do I think that any traditional--or for that matter, contemporary--song is good simply by virtue of the date of its composition or style (and shall post a short review of John M. Frame's Contemporary Worship Music soon). However, being in a church that is rather more traditional in its hymn selection and which draws on a much larger corpus of English hymns (especially of the Reformation era) has given me the joy of coming to know many more good hymns--even by writers whom I thought I knew fairly well! The feeling of discovering one of these during a service is akin to that of serendipitously finding a real gem while just casually browsing the bookshelves in a familiar old book store.

"God is the refuge of His saints" (sung last Sunday morning at our church in the Warrington tune) struck me particularly because of the recurring water-related imagery which could not but sound a more powerful note in light of the recent tsunami disaster. Most of us will probably face only tempests of mental, emotional and spiritual kinds. But these may not be, for their non-physical nature, any less distressing, daunting, or dangerous than physical disasters. For those of us, however, who know the Saviour--who have been called "saints"--this hymn reminds us that God is our ever-present help in time of trouble (Psalm 46). And those who do not know the God in this hymn may not be, for all their seeming peace, prosperity and security, better off than victims of devastating natural disasters. The victims of the latter know, at least, that they need refuge and aid.

(Note how the water-related imagery moves from being violent and distressing in the stanzas 1-3 to being gentle and peaceful in s. 4 and 5.)

God is the refuge of His saints,
When storms of sharp distress invade;
Ere we can offer our complaints,
Behold Him present with His aid.

Let mountains from their seats be hurled
Down to the deep, and buried there;
Convulsions shake the solid world:
Our faith shall never yield to fear.

Loud may the troubled ocean roar;
In sacred peace our souls abide;
While every nation, every shore,
Trembles, and dreads the swelling tide.

There is a stream, whose gentle flow
Supplies the city of our God,
Life, love, and joy, still guiding through,
And wat’ring our divine abode.

That sacred stream—Thy holy Word—
That all our raging fear controls;
Sweet peace Thy promises afford,
And give new strength to fainting souls.

Zion enjoys her Monarch’s love,
Secure against a threatening hour;
Nor can her firm foundations move,
Built on His truth, and armed with power.

(The Psalms of David, 1719)

A verse that came to mind when reflecting on recent events

2005-01-18T18:11:00.000-05:00

From the Gospel According to John

As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"

Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him..." (9:1-3)

Mac Mini

2005-01-17T17:46:00.000-05:00

With all the hype about this cutie:

I feel compelled to link to this review.

And mind you, I am no anti-apple-advocate. I use both a Dell Dimension Desktop (2GHz P4, 768MB, ATI RADEON 9200 128 MB) and a Mac iBook (12.1" G4 800MHz); and Elaine uses a Dell Inspiron 600m Notebook. And I happen to like them all for different purposes.

Another review here (warning: hilarious or vulgar, according to taste)

UPDATE: ExtremeTech seems to have backtracked a bit.

Loss and Hope in South Asia: Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face

2005-01-09T23:53:00.000-05:00

Note: This post was created mainly with fellow Christian readers in mind. "So, then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith." ~ Galatians 6:10

God does move in mysterious ways, as poet William Cowper writes--in ways that we may not always understand in full, such as the recent disaster in South Asia. But let us always remember that He is sovereign over all things. As the hymn continues, "Judge not the Lord by feeble sense, But trust Him for His grace; Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face."

Read more about the disaster and relief situation in South Asia as seen from the perspective of evangelists of Asia Harvest, an inter-denominational Christian mission working among Asia's unreached people groups. It was initially feared that entire tribes, along with many of the comparatively few Christians in this extremely unevangelised part of the world might be lost in the tsunami disaster. However, a few reports have come in with some good news, such as that regarding the Mokkien (Sea Gypsies) of southern Thailand and Myanmar. Let us continue to pray for the work of missionaries in these devastated parts, that despite the immense human suffering and loss, the kingdom of God will continue to expand, bringing hope, healing and Life to many through His gospel.

In the days since [the last email fearing the loss of entire tribes], however, we have thankfully read a report that most of the Mokkien people are safe. The report started: 'Knowledge of the ocean and its currents passed down from generation to generation of a group of Thai fishermen known as the Mokkien sea gypsies saved an entire village from the Asian tsunami. By the time killer waves crashed over southern Thailand last Sunday the entire 181 population of their fishing village had fled to a temple in the mountains of South Surin Island. 'The elders told us that if the water recedes fast it will reappear in the same quantity in which it disappeared," 65-year-old village chief Sarmao Kathalay told the paper. So while in some places along the southern coast, Thais headed to the beach when the sea drained out of beaches -- the first sign of the impending tsunami -- to pick up fish left flapping on the sand, the gypsies headed for the hills.'

Asia Harvest partners in Malaysia are some of their best placed representatives to help with both the immediate emergency needs, and the longer term goal of helping people rebuild their lives and bringing them the gospel. Writes Paul Hattaway of Asia Harvest: “They are already coordinating with efforts in Aceh, Indonesia. 150 Christian medics and volunteers from the Indonesian capital Jakarta are already in Aceh helping with medicine, food, water, tents, etc.

The message and plea from these Malaysian representatives?

Please don't be put off from extending help because of the millions of dollars coming in from governments / Red Cross / OXFAM, etc. The need is more than just containers of supplies; it is a 'human factor' need. They can't meet that. Only the Body of Christ is empowered to minister healing and peace and comfort. It is more than throwing mineral bottle water from moving trucks and feeling like they have done their part, it is about... sitting down with a mother who has lost her husband and children, and praying with her... and helping her to put the bottle of water on her lips and nourish her... only the Church can do that!

Please refer to the link above to find out how you can donate towards this special relief ministry.

Because there is no reason that I alone should be idle when so many are toiling

2005-01-09T16:28:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: My blog has moved to From a Singapore Angle as of Jan 22.

I've started a new blog: Singapore Tsunami Relief Effort, dedicated to the Singaporeans involved in helping our neighbours affected by the earthquake and tsunami of December 2004. This allows me both to do something that I've meant to do soon after the events of 26 Dec, and also keep Ripostes for its original purposes. As for my motivation for the new blog, I'll let the following story say it for me:

Once upon a time, when tidings came to the city of Corinth that King Philip...was coming with an army to lay siege to the city; the Corinthians, being stricken with great fear, began busily and earnestly to look about them and to fall to work...Their labor was seen by Diogenes the philosopher, who, having no profitable work that he could help with immediatly girded about him his philosophical cloak, and began to roll and tumble his great barrel or tub (in which he dwelled--for he would not live elsewhere) up and down upon the hillside that lies adjoining to the city...On of his friends, seeing this...came and asked him: why are you doing this?...I am tumbling my tub, Diogenes said, because there is no reason that I alone should be idle when so many are toiling...

Modified from the preface of Ralph Robinson's 1516 English Translation of Thomas More's Utopia

Everywhere where the Gospel is preached

2005-01-03T21:35:00.000-05:00

Note: A small team from our (Huichieh and Elaine) home church in Singapore went to Myanmar for a short trip to help out at a bible school we've been supporting. One of the team members--a 16 year old girl named Charlane--sent us an email after returning to Singapore, and having read what she wrote, we immediately invited here to write up a a short report for us as an inaugural post for a projected series entitled "everywhere where the Gospel is preached" in which we post the experiences of Christians in various parts of the world. Here follows her report (slightly edited):

Nine of us from the Asian Baptist Community Church (ABCC) took a trip down to Myanmar this past December (10-17 Dec 2004). As it was in the month of December, the weather was chilly--much unlike the rest of the year (which is warm). It was seven enriching and humbling days.

For some, the trip brought back many childhood memories, and for others it was an eye opener. One thing to know about Myanmar is that it is like Singapore forty years ago--dusty streets, broken down buildings, cracks along the roads and buses so crammed the people seemed as if they could fall out any minute. I cannot imagine myself living in such an environment having led most of my comfortable life with everything air-conditioned!! People there live on what very little they have.

Our church was there to visit a bible school which we have been supporting in various ways spiritually and financially. Our pastor, Dr Reynolds, has been to Myanmar about seven to eight times to teach the students there. Many of these students have left homes and traveled long distances to learn more about God and to share His gospel. This time, he brought us along to see more of what our church has been doing for fellow believers in Myanmar and to give us a chance to help out.

Apart from Dr. R, the church members who went were also prepared to teach and equip the students with various skills. for example, Mr Lock, a deacon in our church and a retired teacher, taught the students how to prepare lesson plans for their own teaching in the future. Sister Soon Peng, a nurse, taught basic hygiene and medical knowledge. (Our church also supplied them with many medical supplies for future use when the students go on missions in the valleys to share God's word.) As for me, being the youngest member of the group, I helped prepare food for the students with Sister Sylvia. During the time we were there, the students had to start school earlier than usual and so they needed to eat earlier as well. On normal days, they only have two meals: lunch at ten and dinner at six. When we were there, we prepared an additional breakfast for them. (They most likely didn't want us to leave because of breakfast and great tasting lunch!)

Despite their poverty, the people we worked with have a great faith in God to provide them with whatever they need. They are so warm and sincere. God has left a soft spot for the people there in my heart. He has made me want to go back year after year to share whatever blessings God has bestowed upon me with them. I might even overcome the environmental differences to go and live with them to share the gospel if God so wills and calls me to it.

When it was time to leave, I was not at all emotional. But on the early morning when all the other church members have left for some last minute shopping, I stayed behind in the hotel room (Since I've already completed my own shopping) and emotions soon overwhelmed me. I could not stop crying--I love the people there.

Well there is much more that happened in Myanmar that I would really love to share, but I'll leave it up to you to experience it if you ever get a chance to. Take care and thank you for taking time to read this blessing. God Bless.

Reflections

2004-12-29T01:15:00.000-05:00

reflection, originally uploaded by HUICHIEH.

reflection1, originally uploaded by HUICHIEH.

The Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco on a drizzly december day. As this website explains:

The task of creating a Palace of Fine Arts for the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition fell to the architect Bernard R. Maybeck, then fifty years old and known for his innovative ideas. Setting to work on this new project, he chose as his theme a Roman ruin, mutilated and overgrown, in the mood of a Piranesi engraving. But this ruin was not to exist solely for itself to show "the mortality of grandeur and the vanity of human wishes .... "

Maybeck probably did not forsee that the present state of his creation would reflect his theme more than ever.

Bearing good tidings

2004-12-27T14:34:00.000-05:00

This donkey's reflections seem to betray a spirit that leaves something to be desired: traces of bitterness, or perhaps just of a very ambivalent boast. However, when we come to the last verse, ambivalence or bitterness it might have been, there is a definite joy and triumph that is evident from the first word "Fools!" that with its exclamation and in its feistiness departs somewhat from the rhythm and mood of the preceding stanzas. I can identify with the donkey: I'm certainly far from being perfect, but God is gracious and uses me still. Written in a classic hymn meter (4,3,4,3; e.g., "Joy to the World"), this could also be seen a donkey's hymn to remind us of Christ as we celebrate the baby Jesus this Christmas season. And if you're looking for a real donkey's carol, there's always John Rutter's Donkey Carol which with its whimsical sweetness has charmed listeners the world over.

THE DONKEY
By: G.K. Chesterton

When fishes flew and forests walked
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born;

With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth,
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.

Fools! For I also had my hour;
One far fierce hour and sweet:
There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet.

(Note on the last stanza: read Matthew 21)

About Elaine

2004-12-27T14:22:00.000-05:00

Elaine is currently in a position which many would envy--enjoying life as a homemaker on her early sabbatical-of-sorts as she accompanies her grad student husband Loy. Her interests lie mainly in the humanities, being happy to read a range of literature on things historical, philosophical, literary, theological. If this sounds familiar, you might like to refer to Loy's introduction. No mere coincidence here - common interests did play a big part in their friendship and love. She also has a special affection for the works of Shakespeare, C. S Lewis, the music of John Rutter, hymns and hymnology, flowers, cooking, and... the donkey, that lowly animal which was given the high honours of bearing the baby Jesus in Mary's womb and the Saviour as He rode into Jerusalem almost two thousand years ago. (My blogger profile)

Introducing Huichieh

2004-12-27T13:40:00.000-05:00

Hui-chieh, or as most friends call him, 'Loy,' is from Singapore (1.17N, 103.51E -- in case you are wondering). His professional interests--i.e., the stuff he does in order to keep his ricebowl--centers around research in ancient Chinese philosophy. But he is also interested in ancient Greek philosophy, early modern and contemporary political philosophy...in fact, he is happy to discuss most things (theological, philosophical, historical, literary, political) under the sun. But when all the things have been heard and said, Loy is a Bible believer who takes Paul at his word when he said, "critically examine all things (panta de dokimazete), hold fast the good (to kalon katechete)" -- 1 Thes 5:21. When the books are set aside, Loy looks for small critters--armed with his digital camera. The grey squirrels of UC Berkeley have a special place in his heart, but not so special as the place that Elaine--to whom he is happily married--has. (My blogger profile)

A real poser, this one

2004-12-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

fatsquirrel, originally uploaded by HUICHIEH.

Caught the critter munching on his afternoon snack in the Grinnell nature area, just inside the south-west entrance to the Berkeley campus. Thought he's going to make a dash for it as soon as I approach--but he didn't. Either he's very confident that being shot by a camera is no lethal affair, or, as we say in these parts, he's a real poser, this one. There are excellent reasons why UC Berkeley is numero uno on the Campus Squirrel Listings