Hated... justified, falsely accused or casualty?

I’ve had a really see-saw week. Some days were good, others were very difficult to get through. The irony is that it had nothing really to do with the nature or scale of my work. In fact, it had nothing whatsoever to do with work. As usual, I don’t get stressed with work – that I’m enjoying every minute of! I only get troubled with relationships.

I’ve been sharing an office with this girl who for some reason seems to have it in for me. I met her in Leicester University during my time there. She was an exchange student from NUS, in Leicester for a year or 6 months (I don’t remember exactly). I thought/think she’s really pretty, but apart from an introduction and perhaps offering her and her housemates a ride home after a party, I never spoke to her (mostly because it seemed that all the Singaporean guys were always surrounding her and that I really didn’t like crowds). I had also moved back to Birmingham quite soon after that and was very rarely in Leicester.

The next time I bummed into her was at this firm. At which time she already didn’t seem too pleased to see me (although it could have been because she was really stressed with work or was rushing somewhere). I again didn’t speak to her because, although she’s on my friendster list, we weren’t exactly friends (if you know what I mean).

2 weeks ago, I was relocated because of space constraints into her new office. She was on ‘call break’ and so I had the office entirely to myself for a week. I have to say that I somehow sensed that it wasn’t the best of moves (although I didn't have any say in it) and that she wouldn’t appreciate it when she found out. I was not wrong. When she came back, it was very obvious that she was not pleased to put it mildly. This made it all the more difficult to be there.

I have to say that I really cannot figure this out. I can’t understand how I could possibly have done anything to warrant this level of hostility, especially since I’ve never really had much interaction with her. This led me to think that it must have been something that she had either heard or something that I did to someone else. But what? As mentioned, during that year that she was there, I wasn’t in Leicester much at all. After all, I lived in a completely different city!

Then I remembered that there were 2 people that I could’ve offended during that time. The first was this undergraduate student, who initially seemed to ‘like’ me quite a bit. He would call me, introduce me as, and tell everyone to call me, ‘sir’ because I was teaching on the undergraduate course at the time (to be honest it was really unnecessary and I really didn’t like the attention I was receiving). He had later confided in me that he had never wanted to come to Leicester, but instead had always wanted to go to either Oxford or Cambridge (don’t we all?). He then added that he intended to do very well in his 1st year examinations and then transfer to one of those Universities. I told him that, although I wish him well and hoped he is able to fulfil his plans, I had never seen it done before, wasn’t sure it was even possible, and that he should probably (for his own sake) keep these plans to himself. This was because, in the event that he isn’t able to fulfil it (which he didn’t in the end) people are likely to use it against him. This I thought was fair and good advice, although it seemed that after awhile, he became quite hostile towards me.

The second person was this girl who was apparently interested in my friend. It seemed that while she was ‘sleeping’ with him, she was also having a similar relationship with another guy at the same University. This information was apparently quite public, although I suspect that by the time I got wind of it, it was old news (I do personally try to steer clear from this kind of things). She asked me out once (after bumming into each other in the library) on the pretence of asking my help/advice on what to do with her ‘relationships’. She told me how she really liked both these guys and that she couldn’t choose between them.

I told her that from the way that she spoke of the situation, that it was clear to me that she had already made her decision about what she was going to do. As such it seemed to me that our conversation was really rather pointless. I concluded that she was attempting to seek a confirmation which I was unable and unwilling to provide. I then proceeded to say that, bearing in mind the facts stated above, she was the type of girl that really scared me and that the type that I would normally stay away from. I guess this was rather insensitive of me (perhaps it was the fact that by this time it was already rather late in the evening). But I felt that it was justified, perhaps because I had, at that point, recently gotten out of a similar destructive relationship. Perhaps I brought my own soreness, bitterness and hurt into my assessment of the situation between her and those 2 guys. Needless to say, we weren’t and were never to be good friends after that incident.

The reason why I wonder whether either or both of these incidences have something to do with this girl behaving this way towards me is that, if I’m not wrong, they both had substantial interaction with this girl. I really cannot say with any certainty the extent of their relationship as I was not in Leicester very often. The only other alternative was that in some previous life I had done something terrible like destroy her entire village or something, but I doubt it (besides, I don’t believe in previous lives).

I’m truly sadden by the whole situation (between this girl and I). She did/does seem to be a really nice person, just not to me. I have resisted any urge to think otherwise, even telling friends who have observed the situation that I think that generally she’s a nice person. Its not because I think I’m an angel or trying to portray myself as the ‘bigger’ person (certainly not!). I just really don’t see the point of making any more of this situation. So my approach was to ‘pretend’ as much as I can that the hostility doesn’t exist – in other words to play dumb and ignore it. I just want to do the job and do it well. But I have to say, its not been very easy at all. It does hurt. Although I have not and feel that I cannot verify this, I believe she has been telling others about her ‘plight’ of being stuck in the same office as me. On one occasion I believe that she was doing just that over the phone, while I was in the room!

To avoid all this, I decided this week to get myself attached to the litigation department at the firm and to shadow some of them. It has certainly made the week so much easier to get through. I actually ended up really enjoying myself too! Although I doubt that I would ever want to be a litigation lawyer, I believe I’ve learnt quite a lot and found the whole experience very exciting. It has also helped keep me out of the office.

I also found out yesterday that I will be shifting office as I’m joining another department at the firm. I suppose that this itself was an answer to prayer (on both our parts). I think it would certainly be for the best. Both of us would be much happier and more relaxed - able to work more effectively. Still I maintain that she is a good person. I wish her well and I know she will do very well for herself. I further hope that this whole unfortunate situation will be resolved and that someday (hopefully sooner rather than later) she will ‘forgive’ whatever I am supposed to have done, and that we can at least be civil with each other.

God, Liar or Lunatic?

As I was sitting in church this morning, something that the preacher said sparked a thought (which carried on for quite a while during the service!). He mentioned in passing that Jesus was either God, a liar or a lunatic.

This ‘tri-lemma’ (as it is most commonly referred to) first came into popular consciousness and vocabulary through Christian Apologetic writing such as those of Josh McDowell. It essentially works on the common pre-saved person’s understanding and acknowledgement that Jesus was a good teacher or a good/holy man. Proponents of this tri-lemma argue that one cannot come to the conclusion that Jesus is a good man, good teacher or a holy man without believing or agreeing with his teachings – particularly that he is God. So if you accept that he’s a good teacher, good man or holy man, then you have to accept that he is God. If not, then he was either deluded and therefore a lunatic or that he knew he wasn’t God and therefore would be a liar.

At first glance this argument may sound convincing and rather reasonable. But the problem is that it only sounds fair from the perspective of a Christian. He already accepts that Jesus’ words are authoritative and truthful. However, it does not really change the situation for the pre-saved person.

He could always suggest that it is a matter of semantics and that when he says that Jesus was a good man, he did not intend that to mean he was ‘perfect’ in everything that he said or did i.e. he was a good man like how people would normally describe anyone in the pass who has not been reported as being ‘evil’ or committing any grievous crimes. When he said that Jesus was a good teacher he could possibly be referring to the fact that Jesus seems to be a good communicator or perhaps that he was very influential and commanded great respect. Perhaps it could refer to the fact that his teachings were ‘generally’ good i.e. generally morally good, about living right, caring for others, etc. not that everything he said was right. Holy man could refer to the fact that he tried to follow his believes about God closely and as far as humanly possible was successful (perhaps just a little more than the average person).

None of these actually necessarily requires one to accept the teachings of Christianity or that Jesus was truthful in everything that he said throughout his lifetime, much less that he is God.

On the other hand, the pre-saved person may be saying all this (that Jesus was a good teacher, good man, holy man) merely to be polite or tolerant. In this sense, he’s merely saying it so as not to offend the Christian, certainly not because he really believes it (after all he has never met the man, how will be know for sure?).

In all of these situations, only one thing is clear, that if forced into a corner, the pre-saved person should not have any problems calling Jesus either a liar or a lunatic (although, in wanting to be polite, he may display quite a lot of reluctance to go that far). This should certainly not be regarded by the Christian to be a sign of something supernatural working in this person and convicting him of the truthfulness of the gospel.

In any event, I feel that such methods do not serve any real beneficial purpose. In the end it would necessarily have to be God’s word, the bible, the gospel itself that God will use to convict anyone of the truthfulness of his salvation – not any skilful argument or eloquence of man. The bible is clear on this. God will have it no other way (for to allow arguments as these to succeed would only undermine his effort and steal his due glory/credit). It is unfortunate, however, that many in the church do not appreciate this fact and that such methods will continue.

====================

Are we expected to bear fruit all the time?

Another thought that today’s message in church raised was whether Christians are really expected to be fruitful all the time. In many, in fact probably the majority of, churches today, the idea or the teaching of bearing fruit is being continually emphasised. Christians are constantly being challenged to bear fruit for God. Depending on the particular church or denomination of church, this may take various forms, from being involved in the church’s various ministries to evangelism and mission work. This does still beg the question as to what is ‘fruit’. Is it merely doing some service to God i.e. formal service? Or does it refer merely to the ‘production’ of something good or worthwhile? If so, does the production of good Christian character i.e. more and more living according to biblical principles sufficient?

The message this morning was about ‘abiding in the vine’ and producing fruit. The conclusion was that Christians should strive to bear ‘much’ fruit. The grape vine was used in the passage as the illustration for growth and the production of fruit. However, I wonder whether, barring the fact that no analogy is ever perfect, that this necessarily means that we should be bearing fruit or should be striving to bear fruit all the time – that it should be such a high priority in our lives that we place it far above our job, our family, or any other responsibility we might have. After all, I was thinking, even when it comes to fruit-producing trees, do they not only produce fruit in season? If that is the case, does this apply to us? How do we determine what season means for us? Is it stages of life, or certain periods in the year?

Which ever way we look at the principle, there are many questions still left unanswered. Although I do not presume to know the answers to all these questions, I myself am more inclined towards the understanding that fruit could mean a whole range of things (many of which may not even involve the church). Furthermore, I’m inclined towards the belief that we are not expected to produce all the time – it is more important that we are producing something worthwhile with our lives and in the lives of those around us.

To give or not to give?

I caught the tail end of ‘the world debate’ programme on the BCC world channel this Saturday afternoon. The topic for discussion was titled ‘Aid –Is it working?’ and as the title suggests it was about whether or not the financial aid raised by the various humanitarian organisations and agencies and provided to the developing world (to all the women and children suffering in poverty) is really helping. Sadly, the programme transcripts were nowhere to be found on their website.

The only point which I heard raised, which I thought was a very interesting one indeed, was that such aid may not actually be working and might in reality be counterproductive because it leads the relevant governments (i.e. those of the recipient countries) to think that they do not have a part to play or that the aid from all these sources would be sufficient to do the job and therefore they can channel their own resources into other projects. By way of illustration, in countries such as Somalia, the government can pass the responsibility of removing poverty to these organisations while they concentrate their efforts and resources into obtaining more weapons to fight each other.

Before, I thought that the danger in providing financial aid was that, if they were passed to the governments to distribute among the people, this would usually result in the aid not reaching its intended destination. Now, it seems that providing direct aid is also not working. Perhaps, I guess, if for no other reason, it is the lesser of two evils and therefore should continue.

In the final analysis, I think that the issue of poverty will always continue to plague society. This I feel is not because everyone is not doing their part to help. There is of course the first consideration of why there is even the obligation to help. After all, all of us live in capitalist societies where we have to work and achieve our own success. Nobody is obligated to help anybody else. You want to get out of poverty, you work for it. To this end, I believe that there is an Indian economist who came up with an ingenious idea – a bank which loans money to poor people in India to help them establish a trade and lift themselves out of poverty (I cannot remember his name but I believe he recently won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts). Of course this will not work in every country and in every situation. But it is indeed still a brilliant idea (at least these people will be independent, not reliant on charity alone, and will be able to sustain themselves in the foreseeable future).

But even if we put those thoughts aside, will we ever really be rid of poverty? I think that the answer has to be ‘No’. I often think that its interesting that we (and the world’s media) like to turn our attention to instances and pictures of ‘extreme’ poverty but fail to realise that poverty is really all around us (even in developed countries). I’m sure that many of us would be shocked to hear that even in Singapore, there are many homeless and poverty-stricken people (I remember seeing pictures of homeless Singaporeans on the blog of NMP Siew Kum Hong recently). America, UK and Europe have a tremendous number of homeless people living on the streets, in train stations and abandoned buildings.

Poverty is also something which is very difficult to define properly, especially in developed countries such as ours. What does it mean to be poor or impoverished? A cursory look at some dictionaries show some agreement, it is a state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support. In other words, it is someone being in the position where he is does not have ‘basic necessities’ and does not have the means to support himself.

If this were true, then there would be even more people in poverty than we realise or care to admit. This is because, what is considered a ‘basic necessity’ is very much dependent on the society (and times) in which we live. As the society becomes more developed, more things will come under the definition of a ‘basic necessity’. Let me illustrate this. During our parents childhood, a television was rare, a luxury item only available to the rich (or super rich). Now it is somewhat of a basic necessity (with many homes having more than one set). Same goes for a refrigerator, air-conditioner, mobile phone etc. Even education – more people are getting university degrees and post-graduate degrees than in our parents generation – they simply didn’t have as much access to those things then. However, there are still people in Singapore, although perhaps a minority, who are still unable to obtain all or any of these things. They do not necessarily have to be homeless, but they are poor and unable to obtain these very basic of needs i.e. they are in poverty.

Secondly, even people who have jobs may be considered poor and in poverty. As life in countries such as Singapore (and I would venture to suggest the same occurs in every developed country) gets more and more expensive, some with jobs are still unable to earn enough to survive. Of course, these people don’t seem to be in as bad a state as those in Somalia (and perhaps that is the main reason why they are not even considered poor and therefore never offered any relief or aid) but they are also suffering immensely – sometimes more than people realise. A family with both parents working and earning meagre salaries, with a mortgage over the family flat, and debts resulting from providing the basic necessities for their children, may easily be put in a desperate situation if someone in the family falls severely ill. They may not have any assets to sell (everything technically not owned by them yet), be unable to borrow from a bank or other financial institution (possibly they have a bad credit history and as mentioned earlier don’t earn high salaries) to pay off enormous medical bills. Worse still if the person taken ill is one of the parents! (of course all this assuming that such facilities as medi-shield or medi-save have already been expanded etc). What are they to do? Are they not also entitled to help? Do they qualify for such help under the current classifications of what is poverty? How can they be helped if we don’t even acknowledge that poverty exists even on our own shores in the first place?

Notwithstanding my views above about how poverty will always be around, something still has to be done. What I’ve highlighted above are what I perceive to be the problems, unfortunately I do not have and cannot offer a solution.

I Love SPAM! Don’t you?

There has been a lot of talk and newspaper reports in recent weeks/months about the issue of ‘Spam’ or ‘unsolicited electronic commercial messages sent in bulk’. Yesterday I went for a seminar on this type of spam by my ‘soon-to-be-boss’.

But of course this is not the kind of spam I’m referring to in the title (I’d be crazy to like, let alone love, to receive spam emails and/or text messages!). I’m referring to the ang moh-rican (American) luncheon meat by the same name. The name ‘SPAM’ (they ask in their website that we make a distinction between their product and the annoying messages by using caps when referring to their products) originated from its use in a Monty Python skit which featured the product (I love them too! They were these British comedy group that were well-funny! I actually bought the whole set in DVD! LOL! Of course each of them are really brilliant too, all Ox-Bridge grads! I guess you have to be brilliant to be a really comedian.. okok, I digress!). So the term was coined and also trade marked (I don’t as yet know when exactly and I can’t be asked to check it out!)

This year, 2007, marks the 70th year of the product’s existence. Its also the Chinese year of the ‘pig’. Coincidence? Freaky! LOL!

I would venture to say that nobody has not heard of SPAM (although I suspect that the majority of us would buy the Chinese branded stuff because its so much cheaper) or has not eaten it. But its been one of those brands that, because of its circulation, has been inducted into popular culture with tee-shirts and various other merchandise bearing their name and TM being worn all around us. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the owners are ‘making a killing’ in this area (as I believe the majority of SPAM merchandise are fakes!). SPAM is so popular that they even have a museum open to visitors and fans! Of course its in the US and admission is free! (To be brutally honest I fail to see the appeal of the museum. I’ve been to the beer, Guinness, whisky, even Coke museums and they let you drink – do I really want to eat loads of SPAM?! I like SPAM or at least luncheon meat, but not that much!)

=================

The Genius Sperm Bank
Sunday 7.30pm
27 May

I saw this on the Channel News Asia website and thought it was interesting (will probably catch it is I remember).

This documentary is about how a Millionaire optometrist Robert Graham believed that many intellectuals were dying childless, yet less-intelligent people were constantly reproducing (talk about elitism!). I guess in an effort to ‘save the world’ from being saturated with stupid people (aw, so philanthropic and altruistic don’t you think?), he established a Repository for Germinal Choice - a sperm bank stocked full of 'donations' solicited from some of the world's most brilliant men – beginning with Nobel Laureates (er.. who?). He wanted to bring thousands of geniuses into the world to ensure the future of the human race. So this is where we can trace the foundations for modern sperm banks to.

As I read the synopsis of the programme I couldn’t help thinking of another comment I read in a UK newspapers a few years back. The ‘High Priestess of Feminism’ Germaine Greer wrote in the papers that we as a society do not need men. According to her, women can do all the same jobs, and of course she think women can not only do them, but do them better than men. And most significantly, society does not need men because we have sperm banks! I don’t know about you, but I do have some problems with her line of reasoning, not least because I’m a man. Erm, how do you propose to get the sperm in the first place? I’m not a scientist, but from what I know you kind of need men for that. And even if they have really huge stocks of sperm currently available, I’m sure you still need men to ‘keep the stocks up’? Come on, Ms Greer (to borrow a phrase from Phua Chu Kang, ‘Use your blain’!)

On a side note, going back to first principles, the purpose of a sperm bank being to ensure the survival of the human race by first ensuring that brilliant people will regenerate, I guess there just weren’t enough of those around in Britain, because they are generally quite stupid! (of course the whole idea does assume that stupid people have more sex and children, so I guess that the simplest come back).

Anyways, getting back to the programme, I think that sometimes people miss the whole point. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that your intellect has absolutely nothing to do with the way you were brought up (e.g. the environment you were raised and the educational and other opportunities that you were given) and that its all in the ‘balls’, would it affect the child’s intellect if the woman was one of those ‘less-intelligent’ people he was trying to save the world from? If so, did/do/can they restrict the use to only brilliant people? How do you even go about doing that?

Another point which I find interesting is how is it that these ‘supposed’ geniuses were able to have their own kids? I assume that the problem is social and not physical (like bad sperm) because if it was physical then no amount of sperm being donated to sperm banks is going to be of any use.

So, are geniuses necessarily social misfits? If so, is it also ‘in the balls’? And if so, aren’t we going to continually have the same problems?

=================

S'pore, Netherlands to make film about 1950 racial riots - Nadra: History in the making

There were 2 reports today about Singapore signing a deal with the Netherlands (Holland) to produce a film, reportedly budgeted at S$10 Million, on the story of Maria Hertogh. For those like me who do not know who this person is and why it is significant (I had to look it up in trusty wikipedia – you can follow this link) she was a Dutch girl living in Singapore during the time of WWII. Her father, a sergeant in the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army, was captured by the Imperial Japanese Army and sent to a POW holding facility in Japan, where he was kept till 1945. During that period, her mother (a Eurasian of Scottish-Malay descent brought up in Java, in the early 1930s) was persuaded to allow Maria to go and stay with a local Muslim lady for a few days.

When the time came for her to collect her daughter, the mother was arrested by a Japanese sentry and sent to an internment camp. Upon their release, the parents made numerous attempts to find and reclaim their daughter which culminated in legal proceedings after the Muslim lady claimed that Maria was given to her for adoption. When the courts gave judgment in favour of the biological parents and rejected an appeal to the Privy Council (the UK House of Lords – the highest court in the UK and correspondingly the highest appeal court for Singapore at the time too), riots broke out in Singapore leaving 18 dead, 173 injured and many properties damaged – the worst incident of its kind ever witnessed in Singapore. Of course it did not help matters that the biological parents were Catholic and (as already mentioned) Maria’s carer was Muslim.

I do think that this movie is significant, timely and relevant today.

I remember attending the various political rallies during the last Elections in Singapore with my dad. I was quite surprised by what I heard from the people (members of the parties) that I spoke to. Of course hearing people complaining about the state of things in Singapore and the political climate is not particularly new, but after spending so many years overseas, I’ve come to realise that things are really not at all bad in Singapore. The problems was were raised, perhaps genuine, were/are present in every country in the world. And if we really considered and did our research on them, I would venture to say that they would be to a greatly degree worse in those countries as compared to Singapore.

We constantly hear references being made by the ‘Old Guard’ to the past and how far we’ve come. The problem is that we are so disconnected with that past. I would even suggest that many of those who were alive during that period would themselves not be able to remember what it was really like, much less those of the younger generation (hmmm.. may I place myself in this category too? “young” I mean.). We may read about those perilous and difficult times, but they are merely abstract concepts and pictures to us. We’ve never experienced anything close to it, and are way too comfortable in the current peaceful and prosperous political and economic climate. The present government (with younger ministers) also do not really have the ability to quotes those times as they were not the ones who ‘got us out of it’ – very few of the ‘old guard’ remain. So if nothing else, this movie will hopefully be able to put us in touch with the kind of strides we have taken as a nation and the significant contributions of the ‘juggernauts’ of Singapore’s politics).

So bravo! (I just can’t wait to catch it)

The movie is titled “Nadra”. Filming is expected to start in mid-2008 in Malaysia, Singapore and the Netherlands.

After quite a long break, I’ve started reading my bible again. Notwithstanding my beliefs that it isn’t necessary to read it everyday, it has, so far, worked out that way in my case. I guess its largely because of the daily emailers I get from the church. The other reason for my starting to read is a conversation I had with my pastor on the weekend. Although, we’ve known each other for many years, and share very similar views on the most areas, he reminded me that I needed some input – that it wasn’t enough to rely on past studies and knowledge – and that in his opinion, it would at least serve to ‘sharpen’ my thinking in relation to the Christian life. Even though I’m inclined to argue that I do have some measure of input (after all I have continued to go to church ever since I became a Christian more than 10 years ago and have sat under the teaching of many a good preacher) I decided that I should heed his advice (since I do have a huge amount of respect for him – as my ‘spiritual parent’) and ‘give it a go’.

The verse in today’s devotion is Matthew 20:18 which reads:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (KJV)

Although admittedly the context seems to refer to the gathering together to pray (the preceding verse talks about ‘asking’ God) I think this would certainly apply to other areas of life too. Its no stretch of the imagination (or language and context of the verse) to apply it to life generally. We know that God is always present, and so it should follow that irrespective of whether our activities ‘revolves’ specifically around ‘spiritual’ pursuits, He is in our ‘midst’.

I do personally think that there is a over-emphasis among Christians on ‘spiritual’ activities. Just look at the number of activities in churches today – bible studies, cell groups, mid-week services, youth events/outings/ministries, evangelism, prayer meetings, etc. It is very possible, and for a few of my friends it’s a reality, that people are in church or doing some church-related activity every single day of the week. And I’m not referring to those ‘full-time’ church workers here – normal folk (well, as normal as someone living like is can actually be – but you get the picture). For some of these people, it’s a passion – they genuinely enjoy the work their doing. But I suspect that for many others, they feel its and obligation. Something that they need to do.

Many churches don’t help in this regard as they continually preach from the pulpits that this is ‘your reasonable service’ to God.

But why is this a problem?

Well, for starters, as I’ve mentioned in a previous entry, we all have responsibilities. Responsibilities to our families (our spouses, children, girl friends and boy friends) and often times these get relegated to the background. After all, how can they be compared with God? He obviously must take precedence.

The problem is that this is a misconception. The bible is clear that we actually honour God through our interaction with the people around us – by fulfilling our responsibilities in the home and even in the office. Any addition is, well, additional. Often times, it’s the other way around, people get so caught up with their ‘Christian service’ that they fail to do these very basic things – they shrug off their responsibilities and those involved will suffer (not only from neglect, but also from the guilt associated with the desire for those basic needs to be met, which may lead to resentment and the vicious cycle continues).

But quite apart from the needs of those under their charge being brushed to the side, so too do the needs of the person immersing himself in Christian activities. The reason is the same – as a human being, he too needs those relationships and support. The problem that I’ve noticed is that without the social interactions and that includes things which are not necessarily of a ‘spiritual’ nature or with ‘people of the faith’, the Christian will suffer and be rendered ineffective. Why do I say this?

Well, let’s take a particular family member of mine as a case in point. All through the years, this person has, at all family dinners and get-togethers, avoided conversation with others in the family. This wasn’t necessarily because there were problems or disagreements or conflicts present. It was merely because its normal we’ve-not-seen-each-other-in-a-long-time kind of chatter. Updating each other on our lives, our pursuits, the week’s news, etc (I’m sure everyone has these kinds of conversations right?). However, in some peculiar sense of ‘spirituality’ this person would shun such interaction, perhaps dubbing it as ‘un-profitable’ (i.e. anything that is not a major theological discussion). The problem came a few years later when this person started to realize and experience difficulties interacting with and relating to people (from what I hear, its still a problem now). Of course, one may argue that this is an extreme example, but I suspect its more common than is acknowledged.

Bottom line: I guess there needs to be a realization that there are certain things in life which are equally important (if not more) than all the activities in church. Family and relationships are. Christians also need to be able and willing to interact with the world, if not how do they propose to fulfill God’s command of reaching out? In order to interact, they would have to be willing and able to meet people wherever they are (i.e. discuss the news, or any other subject that these individuals might be interested or familiar with). Of course it may not be a very comfortable thing to do, but doesn’t everything that is profitable or useful require us to step out of our ‘comfort zones’?

Today’s devotions

The verse in today’s devotional emailer is John 20:30-31 which reads:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (ESV)

Now as I reads this, 2 thoughts came to mind.

First, that the signs that Jesus did are not all the significant or important. In other words, they were merely a means to an end. The end being to illustrate the basic truth of Christianity – that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God – Jesus is God incarnate.

But before you say, “of course!” Please realize that this point is not as self-evident as you would think. For many Christians today do and believe the complete opposite. There seems today to be an over-emphasis by Christians on the ‘signs and wonders’ that God can and often does. Truly signs are exciting, they were equally exciting to people during the time of Christ too. The point is that what is necessary, what is essential, is only some or a small amount of the ‘signs’ that God can do – the minimum to catch our attention and turn it to Himself.

The second thought that this verse reminded me of is the CD in my car, that I’ve decided to play on my way to work everyday (or almost everyday – still subject to my mood on that particular day). Its by Philip, Craig and Dean. I can’t actually remember the name of the song (these things normally aren’t that important to me) but the words are relevant here.

It starts:

“Lord I wish I could praise You with adequate words, but You leave me speechless…
And I so long to sing You the song You deserve, but it would be endless…”

Of course everything that he said and did were not recorded. Apart from not being necessary (and probably containing stuff that would be rather boring – the mundane stuff like eating, going to the loo, etc – I mean, for most of us, getting through the bible is already a difficult enough task!) I sure none of us would want to have a bible that runs into volumes and volumes (like one of the encyclopedia sets that I’m sure every kid was bought by their parents and never read). God in His “mercy” decided to give us only what we need for salvation and guidance for life. He says its complete and sufficient.

That’s good enough for me, I’m sure it is for you too.

Telegraph website targeted in mystery attack by hackers

This is the reason why I love this area of law!

The Internet is growing rapidly and with that comes the need for laws to regulate its use and to adjudicate the wrongs.

Yesterday I commented on a story about a "DOS" attack which brought Estonia to its knees. Today there was another report, this time in the Times (the UK newspaper), about another UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph’s website becoming a victim of a DOS attack.

A "denial of service" attacks occurs when hundreds of thousands of computers are directed to log onto a particular site simultaneously, causing it to crash under the weight of requests. The owners of these computers are unusually unuaware they are participating in the attack – their machines having been co-opted by an e-mail or internet-based worm sent via a network known as a 'botnet'.

Last year a Department of Trade and Industry report found that more than 50 per cent of businesses had suffered "a premeditated and malicious" security incident in the past twelve months. For large businesses, the average cost of the worst such incident was as much as £130,000, the report said.

So as I mentioned yesterday, having laws and even severe penalties is certainly not going to solve the problem.

======================

One in ten websites are infected with Malware

The Times reported that about one in ten websites are infected with malicious software (commonly known as Malware), such as ‘keyloggers’ which captures every keystroke a user makes.

Research by Google culminating in a report entitled ‘The Ghost in the Browser’ analysed approximately 4.5 million websites over a 12 month period and discovered that 450,000 had caused a test computer to make a ‘drive-by download’.

Sensitive data such as banking passwords and e-mail addresses could unwittingly be handed over to criminals as a result of visiting infected pages, which work by exploiting a vulnerability in the user’s internet browser, a study by the search company suggests.

It is unfortunately that the average computer user has no real means to protect himself from these kinds of threats. Their browser, and their personal information along with it, can be compromised just by visiting a page and become the vehicle for installing multitudes of Malware on their systems.

The most troubling finding is that 70 per cent of web-based infections were found on ‘legitimate’ websites. These Malware are embedded or linked to these websites often without the knowledge of the website owners.

Websites with advertising were among those most commonly exploited because the ads are often displayed via a third party network and therefore not under the control of the website owner. Other sites that were vulnerable included those with user-generated content, such as forums, blogs and those that make use of ‘widgets’ (e.g. traffic counters) which could be configured to exploit a visitor’s computer.

======================

Make sure of our calling…

I’ve decided again to read the ‘devotional’ passage that my church sends every morning (as I enjoyed a nice cup of coffee that the office coffee lady made me). The verse which it focuses on this morning is 2 Peter 1:10 which reads:

“Therefore, brother, be all more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (ESV)

Now I do not intend to go into a long theological debate about whether God has predestined some people to salvation and others to damnation (I think from my past entries it should be quite clear that I believe that that belief is a deception), I believe that the clear teaching of the bible is that “calling” “election” and even “predestination” are always in relation to some job or task that God wants a person to do rather than unto salvation. But I believe that the main thrust of the message contained in this verse, one which I think is of utmost importance is that we constantly have examine ourselves.

Notwithstanding my comments in Sunday’s entry about the will of God, we can never be too sure that any particular job or opportunity is what God intends for us (for our entire lives). I believe that the best way to approach the will of God is to just move along with the opportunities that present themselves and then consider it in retrospect to determine whether it was the right move. The key is in the willingness to admit and accept if you’ve got it wrong and then to choose a different course of action. After all, it was Einstein wasn’t it who said that, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”.

So bottom line: If we are willing to constantly question and examine ourselves, our beliefs, the things we are taught, certainly we “will never fall”.

==============

More rules a sign of strength or weakness?

I had a thought this morning as I was getting ready for work. It was about how people put so many restrictions, rules and “traditions” into the Christian life.

The strange thing is that if it were for the purposes of protection (of themselves and those around them – the paternal tendency of wanting to protect those in your “care”) then it should produce a sense of humility. I say this because there has to first be the acknowledgement that you are weak, so weak that you require placing “additional” restraints on yourself. However, what I see in churches today is quite the opposite. Its used as a “weapon” or “licence” by many Christians. A weapon to “bash” others with, a licence to judge those around them.

The funny thing is that Christian beliefs and teaching were never meant to be forced on people, just the same way that one cannot force another to accept Jesus into their hearts. Force is completely antithetical to anything in the Christian faith – we always have to exercise our “free will” and choose. Even if one has a conviction about a particular activity or belief, he must not “force” others to accept or agree with him. After all, shouldn’t it be a matter for God, the Holy Spirit, to deal with that person on? If you were the one of either “convinced” the other person by your skillful eloquence and wit, would all the glory go to you instead of God?

I do not presume to know everything about living the Christian life or mean to suggest that I have lived or am living a perfect Christian life (I haven’t by any stretch of the imagination), but one thing I do know – things are not what they should be.

Cyber attacks can bring countries to their knees!

With the rapid proliferation and availability of the Internet, comes many new threat that many people, many countries would not have anticipated and prepared for. China and Japan’s long standing dispute over the history textbook contents has resulted in individuals from both countries launching cyber attacks on each other. In the Middle East, a ‘cyber jihad’ has been waged by Palestinians against the Israelis. And today’s Straits Times carried a report about massive, targeted and well-coordinated attacks on websites of the government, banks, telecommunication companies, Internet Service Providers and newspapers in Estonia (the former tech-savy Soviet state commonly referred to as E-stonia).

These were apparently the response to Estonia’s recent decision to relocate a Soviet war memorial. Investigations have concluded that the attacks originated from Russia although the Russian authorities have been quick to deny any involvement. The attacks have disrupted government e-mail and led financial institutions to shut down online banking. Nato and the European Union have since rushed IT specialists to Estonia to observe and assist.

These incidences have understandably led to much concern. However, experts are quick to dismiss fears that cyber attacks will become a tool of Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. Dr Maura Conway an expert in Terrorism and the Internet from Dublin City University says, “In the 9/11 situation, the real impact was in the visual images and Internet attacks have no visual imagery”.

Dr Conway added that governments in general had been 'pretty slow on the uptake' to legislate against potential cyber attacks, with lawmakers only starting to act relatively recently. I find this a rather strange statement as it seems to suggest that the solution is in legislation. However, I think this is unlikely.

Singapore has had the Computer Misuse Act which has provisions specifically drafted to deal with Denial of Service (DOS) attacks. The UK has an Act with the same name (on which our Singapore Act must have been largely based on). I’m sure that many other countries such as the US have equivalent legislation to deal with these attacks.

Although there are no reported cases of DOS in Singapore (that I’m aware of) and admittedly I have not done any research on this but, I’m sure that such attacks are much more common in the US and UK. So I find it hard to believe that having a law or even having heavy penalties imposed on those convicted will be sufficient to protect computer systems from such attacks.

Furthermore, even if we consider all the latest computer forensics techniques and their ability to trace and locate the perpetrators, we are confronted with the horrifying reality that they still will not prevent such attacks from happening. The truth remains that laws imposing strict penalties and scientific methods to apprehend the masterminds only serve to punish those responsible ‘after the fact’, none of these actually stops it from happening in the first place.

I suspect that the main reason for this is that the Internet is inherently insecure. Having recently attended the Annual Wireless Conference in Singapore and listened to the speakers (majority of whom are professional ‘hackers’), they all are in agreement on this point. There are just so many ways in which an individual can attack a computer or a website. He doesn’t even have to be a computer expert to initiate such attacks as there are countless Open source software available which can do the job with a click of the mouse (and just about anyone can do that!).

So what’s the solution?

Well, I don’t think there is one. Not yet at least.

There are many precautions that one might be able to take, but none of them come with any guarantees. The dilemma is whether we should be more cautious about embracing the whole ‘e-government’ movement which seems to be sweeping the globe at the risk of being overtaken by the rest of the world, or we proceed ‘full-steam ahead’ and run the risk of losing everything.

Its definitely not an easy question to answer. Certainly much more research and thought is needed in this area. I’ll keep this spot updated.

Wisdom v.s. Volume

Daily I receive an emailer from GLCC (my church) with a verse and some notes – meant to be daily nuggets of truth I suppose. Its called the TTB (Thru The Bible) series. Although I must admit that I normally do not read it, in fact I almost always delete it immediately, I decided to do so today.

The passage discussed was Ecclesiastes 9:14-18 (I guess that this is the main reason why I decided to read this particular one – Ecclesiastes happens to be my favourite Old Testament book). The passage is as follows (I apologise that it is in the KJV – I couldn’t be asked to type it all out in another version):

“[There was] a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. The words of wise [men are] heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Wisdom [is] better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.”

Here’s a little city facing a siege by a neighbouring king. Of course our good sense will tell us that there’s no hope – they’re almost certain to be broken down and overrun. There is however a poor but wise man (Why is it that wise men always seem to be poor?!) who ‘single-handedly’ saved the city from an impending doom (the passage doesn’t say how exactly but it certainly had to be brilliant). It didn’t matter that the enemies had superior weapons of war (implied in v.18) or that they were more aggressive (implied in v.17). This little city managed, because of this poor wise man’s wisdom, to fend off the attack.

The surprising thing is that it seemed that almost immediately, he is not acknowledged. In fact, its not clear whether there was even an acknowledgement that he was the reason the city survived their ordeal. There was certainly no ‘key to the city’ presented to him, no celebration in his honour, no monetary rewards, no call to office. Nothing. Dido.

What makes things worse is that this poor chap’s ‘wisdom’ is despised and his words/advice not heeded. He’s completely ignored. ‘Those stupid and ungrateful wretches!’ you might think (I do).

There is also another dimension to this story. It is often the case that the counsel or counselors who are the most prominent, respected and perhaps the loudest, get heard the most. In the bible passage above, the equivalent group would be the little city’s political and military leaders. They would have adopted a strategy and commenced its execution although this would certainly prove inadequate and futile. But most people will listen to them and follow orders. This is partly due to the fact that the majority of people do not exercise their minds and think hard enough about (or verify or test) the advice they receive, but rather accept everything wholesale, as gospel truth.

However, as I think about it, I’ve come to realize that most people are like that. When they are in a dire situation (e.g. depression, overwhelming financial need) they will be receptive towards help (of course, they don’t really have much choice). But the moment that they are ‘out of the rut’, all is forgotten. No thanks and/or appreciation. Some, to make things worse, suddenly have an epiphany of sorts and miraculously experience a complete 180 degree change. From knowing absolutely nothing, they become ‘experts’ in everything. Worse still, they attempt to ‘lord’ it over the person who helped them in their time of need. They argue, they retort that the helper is not in the position to ‘teach’ them anything. Suddenly they speak with arrogance and moral superiority.

The troubled person mentioned above would originally have sought counsel from this type of counselor. However, when it proves useless and ineffective, he may be willing (as a result of his desperation) accept the advice of the poor wise man. But as is almost always the case, the instant that the problem is over, he will go back to the original counselor and forget the poor wise man. In time he might even begin to resent the poor wise man and his words.

But alas, the poor wise man’s wisdom is ignored, despised (and he is despised) to the proud man’s own peril. As he’s not learnt anything (or enough to sustain himself) he will inevitably fall again, this time deeper than before.

The Will of God? You decide..

The message this morning in church was about how to find the will of God. It certainly is the perennial question asked by all Christians, if not all the time, then at least at some point of their lives (and usually corresponding with some major event in their life like which job, marriage partner, and house, etc).

Everyone wants to know the will of God and as one would expect, countless of authors (each purporting to be an expert on the subject) have been ready to jump in on the bandwagon with the answers, resulting in hundreds of books selling thousands of copies. It’s definitely become big business.

The problem is that with many of these books offering different, sometimes conflicting suggestions, we are all left ‘none the wiser’. So here’s where today’s message comes in – to attempt to clear up some of the myths and mystique surrounding this area of the Christian life.

The preacher basically had 6 points to discovering and living within the will of God. I think there’re very sensible (although I agree with everything in principle, I would probably differ on some minor points).

First, in order for us to know the will of God we must be a Christian. This one sounds very obvious, but perhaps its basis needs to re-examined. Besides the fact that only a Christian will or should be asking that question, it is also because it is the most basic and clearest example of God’s will. His will, despite whatever the Calvinist might say to the contrary, is that God wants everyone, every human being, to be saved – to have a relationship with Him.

Second, we must be filled with the Holy Spirit. ‘Filled’ means ‘controlled’ and so the basic idea is that instead of trying to ‘get more of the Spirit’ which is what is taught in many Christian circles, we are to allow the Spirit to have more of us. It appears to be a subtle difference, one merely of semantics, but if you stop to think about it, it isn’t. Perhaps this story would help to illustrate this point. There was a famous preacher from days gone by named D.L. Moody who was a very sought after speaker. One day a church were discussing who to get in as their speaker for a conference, and when the name D.L Moody was brought up, someone spoke up and said ‘Why him? Does he have a monopoly on the Spirit?’ Another man at the table replied, ‘No, but the Spirit has a monopoly over him’. His life was completely surrendered and directed by God and that brought immense power.

Third, we must be set apart or sanctified. To this end, he said that we must abstain from sexual immorality. I know this one sounds a little out of place – I certainly thought so, but it is also one of the clear references in the biblical which uses the words ‘will of God’. Sexual immorality is defined as (1) premarital sexual relations; (2) post or extra marital sexual relations; and (3) anything which is likely to lead to (1) and (2) above. I think its stretching it quite a bit, but that ‘s just my opinion.

Fourth, we must be submissive. To the laws of the land, but also to all those who have authority over us. To be honest, I’m really glad that he specifically mentioned the employer/employee relationship. As you may have read in my previous entries, I do think that Christians use and misuse their Christianity as a licence to skive during work and rebel against their employers. Whether it is to use office time and/or equipment for their own use or to show their face to their bosses when instructed to do something by the boss (perhaps its to work overtime). Verses in support of this are contained in 1 Peter 2:13-18.

Fifth, we must suffer. What he means here is that if we do all of the above, we will inevitably experience persecution.

Now, here’s one area where I find myself disagreeing with his assessment. I do not necessarily believe that we will experience persecution. Of course this depends on your definition of persecution. If you refer to people pre-existing misconceptions or gripes against Christianity which will inevitably come out during conversations with them (even though they may know that you’re a Christian) then ‘yes’ we will inevitably face persecution. But if, as I would, understand persecution to be something far worse than that – where they will ostracise and hate you, then I think its usually (in my personal experience) not necessarily a natural or direct result of being a Christian. It seems to me that in most cases of such persecution, its because Christians go further than is necessary to ‘stand up for’ what they believe.

We need to realise, first of all, that much of Christian ‘convictions’ are not based on the bible. They are personal interpretations and/or applications of biblical principles and teaching. Some of them, as one would expect, are stretched way beyond the logical limits that were intended or possible. Next, being a Christian does not excuse or exempt us from being sensible and tactful when interacting with other human beings. There is a time and place for everything. Even if we disagreed with someone on any topic, it may not be the most appropriate thing to lodge our disagreement and differences in opinion or even to correct that person in the presence of everyone there. Furthermore, there are ways and there are ways to express differences. People, especially in this day and age, are able to appreciate differences in opinion, just as long as they can see that you still respect them as human beings and do not treat whatever they think or have to say as stupid. In other words, people tend to be quite tolerant of those who are also tolerant of others views and beliefs.

This I think is fair enough. After all, if you are not prepared to listen, understand, respect, and ‘agree to disagree’ with others, why should they give you that courtesy? Naturally, after a while, they would seek to exclude you from their company – hence you become ostracised. Its got nothing necessarily to do with the Christian faith, just some Christian’s stupidity, inflexibility, and intolerance (not to mention, their ‘holier than thou’ attitude).

Sixth and finally, we have to follow our desires. Wait a minute. Did you read this right?

Yes. He said that in order to find out the will of God, we have to follow our own desires. Of course this is not to be function independently of any of the points highlighted above. His rationale, which is supported by biblical principles and express provisions, is that if we have and maintain a close relationship with God, then He will put His desires in our heart. In this way, we are perfectly safe to rely on our desires. In other words, rather than seeing it written in the clouds or relying on coincidences, we can move forward on those things which we desire to and if God doesn’t want us to proceed, He’ll let us know. I guess this is to prevent the majority of Christians approach to not do anything unless and until they receive express and verified confirmation that it is exactly what God wants them to do. These people normally end up not doing anything at all!

I do believe that the substance of the message is very important and often missed by many. I would certainly agree with everything that was said in principle, although I would personally rather keep it a little more general.

Essentially, as I understand it, as long as we are following or attempting or struggling to follow the express will of God ie His word. We are able to find the ‘specific’ will of God in any and every situation in life. One way that would have a practical affect on our lives is that we are able to make decisions quickly, efficiently and accurately – by following our desires. The only thing I would add to this is that we are given the mental capacity to assess information and to make decisions. If we use that correctly, applying biblical principles along the way, we can have the confidence that it is God’s will for us in this area. Furthermore, it seems quite typical for us to only be able to know for sure that something is God’s will for us, in retrospect. Bottom line: if it wasn’t within His will, it wouldn’t have happened!

For me it simply means that if I know the bible reasonably well and I apply and follow those precepts, bearing in mind that they are high standards that cannot be met all the time, then we have the ability to carry on in life, knowing that God’s will is discoverable and that we are living within it, relying on our knowledge of His word, our mental facilities that He has equipped us with and by relying on our own desires.

Husbands alleged perpetrators in 80% of spousal violence cases

It was revealed at the National Family Violence Networking System Symposium, organized by the Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry (MCYS) and the Singapore Police Force, on Thursday that spousal violence made up more than three-quarters of all Personal Protection Order (PPO) applications and that over 80 per cent of the alleged perpetrators are husbands.

As a result, the focus of the symposium was on "Men and Family Violence". Dr Maliki Osman, Parliamentary Secretary, MCYS said: "It's not just about women being victims. You can help the victims but in domestic violence, we know there's this cycle of violence. And violence will continue unless it's stopped…and I think [the one to] stop the violence is really the men. "So this symposium is very timely for us to understand that. Men play a very important role in trying to say that violence can be stopped and should be stopped. "I think the second part of it is not about men being abusive, but also men in general. When men in general tell other men that it's not right to be violent then the message comes across a lot more palatable to the men because they understand each other better, and our experience is that when men hear other men say it, they're more willing to accept those messages."

I completely disagree with this assessment. From my observations and experience, women seem to be more inclined towards violence (how many of you guys have experiences where the minute your girlfriend/wife doesn’t get her way, she resorts to hitting you? I mean think about it, even when they get teased they hit!) in part, I think, because they know they can get away with it! After all, would you hit back? What would people think if you did?!

Ok. I’m not able to get into this fully now (as I have to get up tomorrow morning) but I just want to relate something that this article brought to my memory.

I remember that one the issues that we covered in law school under criminology (a sort of sociology of law type subject) was the topic of “battered husband syndrome”. Of course the main topic of discussion was the more commonly known criminal law equivalent of “battered wife syndrome” where a woman may kill her husband in a fit of rage because of years of abuse etc.

Why it was brought up was that there was at least the realisation and acknowledgement by the course convener that if there is violence in the home perpetrated by men, there was also inevitably be cases of the reverse happening. The surprising thing is that it doesn’t seem to occur, at least in the police reports etc. This led us to question why is this the case. Could it really be that women don’t ever beat up their husband’s?

After doing some rather intensive research (partly because it must have been difficult to find) we came to the conclusion that they do occur. The only problem is that they do not get reported nearly as much as the reverse. Men are simply not as likely to report a situation where they are beaten up by their wives! After all, can you imagine that?!

Not only do you run the risk of the police not believing you, but you would probably get ridiculed by those very police officers and anyone who gets wind of the story! Unfortunately, as in all such issues, traditional conceptions of male-hood disadvantage us guys. I further doubt that it has been, or can be, or will be believed if, used as a defence to a murder charge anywhere in the world (just like the “battered wife syndrome” has as a “proof” of provocation reducing a murder charge to manslaughter).

So does “battered husband syndrome” occur? Definitely!

Does it only happen in 24% of all spousal violence as the report claims? I have my doubts!

Do statements like those uttered by the Minister help? Not one bit!

On being a Good Mother…

This morning’s message at church was on ‘how to be a good mother’. This was not surprising, it being Mother’s Day and all. This message struck me firstly because I have always had a fear of marriage and parenthood. This because of the state of my parent’s relationship. My father is the model father and husband (well, he’s not perfect, he’s just a very good example to me in my opinion) he has always put my mother and my family before himself. I think that his only real failing is in his inability to express his feelings and emotion effectively (which to be honest is a very common problem among us guys). My mother on the other hand is quite different. It is her response to my father and to us that has resulted in these fears.

Secondly, quite apart from it being a good message on motherhood, the message struck me because the principles taught can be applied to almost very station in life, not just to mothers. Here’s a summary of the points from memory…

Pastor Jason’s message was based on the biblical account of the life of Hannah and had 3 main headings: (1) Having a good Husband-wife relationship; (2) Having a good relationship with God; and (3) Having a good relationship with the children.

A Good Husband-wife relationship

As the adage goes, ‘the greatest gift a father can give his children is to love their mother’. The reverse is also true. The biblical response is for the wife to ‘submit’ to her husband, but the bottom line is that they have a good working relationship with each other that revolves around ‘love’.

Accordingly, the bible says that the wife displays her love for her husband through her willingness to submit to his leadership in the home. Unfortunately, many Christian husbands use the verse as a licence to lord over their wives, which inevitably causes unhappiness and bitterness. But I believe that this is because of a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the verses in question (husbands are to love their wives – which means that he is to respect her and not put her down or belittle her, he is to put her interests before himself). We are told that the rationale for submission is that it is God’s created order, that as stated in the book of Genesis, the woman was from a man and created to be his companion, his ‘helper’. God therefore holds him responsible for all the decisions and the direction of the family unit. This is the reason why I believe when the ‘traditional’ gender roles are not kept to (i.e. the husband goes out to work and ‘brings home the bacon’) there is always unhappiness in the family. Despite wanting ‘equal rights’ (and don’t get me wrong, I do believe that women should be treated equal – that’s definitely biblical) women would still crave the man provide security in the home – whether it is financial or emotional. Ask any woman whether she would like to be the main or sole breadwinner in the family and I suspect that the majority would answer a resounding ‘NO’!

Although there she shouldn’t be ignored or her role marginalised, the responsibility falls squarely on the man to make the decisions for the family unit. Even if he gets it wrong (which is bound to happen – for some men more often then not) he will be held responsible. So he should make the call.

A woman’s responsibility is to understand this order and to work within it. If she is able to appreciate it, then she will be in the position to best help and support her husband. That, the bible seems to suggest would ultimately lead to happiness and contentment in the marriage and relationship. Why is this important and how is it related to motherhood, you may ask?

Well, its no secret that the child learns the most from his observations of his parents. It is not what they say or the principles and beliefs that they teach him orally that makes the biggest impression – its what they do. If a parent constantly stresses to his/her child the importance of reading the bible but doesn’t himself/herself do it, it means nothing – the child will not believe you and it wouldn’t make an impact of his/her life. Same thing if a parents tells his/her child not to resort to violence but does the same, or tells the child not to use expletives but does that very thing continually. If a child sees his/her parents having a loving, committed relationship – where the father loves his wife and the mother submits to her husband, he/she will learn to follow. He/she will also learn the importance of submission to authority instead of bitterness and rebellion.

A good relationship with God

I shall not say too much here except for the fact that, if we accept what principle contained under the first heading – that children learn the most from observing their parents, then children will only grow into godly people if their parents are godly themselves. The best way to get your children into the habit of praying and reading their bibles is to do it yourself (I say this quite apart from my beliefs that I don’t think we necessarily have to read the bible or pray every single day – but I shall leave that discussion for another time). They will never think it important until they see how important you treat it.

The other reason why this is so important is that mothers need input as well to know how best to be a good wife and mother, and this comes only from one source – God himself.

A good relationship with the children

Under this heading is where we deal with the things that we actually say in order to teach children. The most well-known bible verse in this regard is Proverbs 22:6 where it says that ‘train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it’.

It is unfortunately that our first inclination is to put this part before anything else. For many parents, I suspect they either get the order completely the wrong way around or they only stay within this heading and wonder why their efforts are largely ineffective.

Applying the principles to other situations

As I was listening to the message I had to come up with other situations, ones which directly affect me, for applications (well, I say had to because I’m neither a woman – so incapable of becoming either a mother or a wife – and I am not as yet married with children). I started thinking about how this may relate to Christians in the work place. I guess the 3 points could be adapted and reworded as such: (1) A good relationship with the employer; (2) A good relationship with God; and (3) A good relationship with colleagues.

There is a definite hierarchy in place here which must be respected and supported. Many a times I hear friends telling me how incompetent they think that their bosses are or how nasty they are. Bottom line, they are above you, for whatever reason they have been placed in a position of authority over you and as a good Christian employee you ought to submit. It doesn’t matter how they got there or whether they are the best person for the job or that ‘you think’ you can do a better job than them. They are the boss not you. Furthermore, just as a man within a family unit, he is responsible for the success or failure of his charge, not you. Since he’s the fall-guy he must also necessarily be the call-guy.

I’ve always gone to work with the mentality that I do not know everything, in fact that I know nothing. I go there to soak up and learn any and everything I can. Anything and every task that is thrown my way, I do and I do it with a smile. If I have to work late, I do it gladly. It is not because I don’t want to have any time to myself, not that I don’t want or need more rest (because I definitely do at times). Its because its my job and I believe that its very clear in the bible that this is the what the Christian work ethic is supposed to be). I do however get extremely disgusted with Christians who drag their feet to work, spend the entire work day complaining about how their rights have been infringed upon by their bosses, how they are overworked, underpaid and unappreciated. Worse still are those who spend office hours doing their ‘ministry’ work instead of their proper work (of course they justify and spiritualise it as some higher-order work, work for God).

We all need to appreciate that God wants each and every one of us to do our best at work, submit to our employers, and to do so willingly/cheerfully. This is the only way that we are to make an impact in the workplace – through our work ethic rather you’re your speech (because if you are a slacker you lose all credibility among your employers and colleagues). I don’t say any of this as someone who has accomplished it to perfection (I’m still working it out daily) but this is how this morning’s message spoke to me.

Gee that's so stoopid.. no wait a minute.. its Britain!
(from the it-wasn't-my-fault dept)

I just came across this entry on techdirt which I thought was absolutely hilarious! The very thought of British people and technology is laughable (I taught undergraduate law for about 2 years and was completely astonished at the fact that university students still submitted hand-written essays.. apparently because they didn't know how to use Microsoft Word!). Also I remember the amusement that watching how one of the Birmingham University representatives on visit to Singapore struggled with the ezlink card at the MRT gantries (She couldn't figure out how it could be that you didn't have to put your card into the machine to make it work). So the following shouldn't really have come at a surprise to me.

According to this blog entry, there is a growing trend in the UK of people suspending their common sense when they get in a car and turn on GPS navigation units (the problem is that you kind of have to have common sense in the first place! When it comes to them, I'm not quite sure...). There have been cases of people driving off cliffs and through flooded roads and taking detours that span half of England, apparently following the instructions of their navigation units. Things have gotten so bad that authorities have even resorted to put up "ignore your sat nav" road signs in some places.

Recently a woman (incidentally a Birmingham University student) blamed her GPS navigation unit for her car being hit by a train. She said the device led her "right into the path of a speeding train"! Maybe this is conclusive proof that women (well, ok.. Some women) shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car!

What is a Christian? Where do you fit in?

I caught CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 this morning. I think its a very interesting programme (I will place a link above once its available).

It said that 2/3 of America is allegedly Christian. However, of this number, there are so many denominations (new ones forming all the time), different beliefs, different political affiliations.

Because of the time contraints of the programme, it is understandable that they only featured a few groups. The 4 groups featured were the: (1) Political Christian; (2) Community Christian; (3) Zionist Christian; and (4) Wealthy Christian.

Here's a brief summary...

Political Christianity

I guess I’ve blogged about this before (consider the issue of homosexuality). They’re the type of Christian who believes that we must affect political policy in the country of your citizenship or perhaps even the world. This can range from championing a particular political party (e.g. Democrat or Republicant – in America) to trying to affect change in law.

They are a very strong influence especially in America. Elections are won, Presidents put in office on account of whether they are able to align themselves with such groups. They argue for law reform pointing to the American Constitution’s ‘alleged’ Christian roots – something which is completely wrong. Pulpits are platforms for such preachers to advance personal political views, rally up support during election time. I’m sure we have our equivalents in Singapore, but just not so pronounced and certainly not as influential (I guess if there’s one good reason to have anti-sedition and internal security laws in place it is this. Interestingly local churches have gone the other way, largely supportive of the government – some like Life BP have a ‘patriotic hymn’ included in their church hymnals which they apparently sing every National Day).

I shall not go into on detail my views and concerns about this group as I’ve blogged about it before. The main problem I have with this group of people is that they tend to attract and breed a particular type of person – the argumentative and morally superior type. They also tend to be of a particular theological heritage – Calvinist/Reformed. I suppose the emphasis on law and law reform is because, somehow, they believe that by changing the law to reflect God’s law, they might somehow ‘covert’ and ‘conform’ the pre-believers into Christians (getting them to live by the law of God and perhaps by winning arguments convert their thinking too). Thousands of books have been written and many organisations built all to this end. As far as I’m aware, this is not the God-appointed way to conduct outreach.

Community Christianity

Then there are the Community-minded Christians, kind of like the hippies in Christian garb. They believe that the environment is God-given and therefore their focus is in spreading the gospel of environmentalism and their ‘missionary outreaches’ are towards conservation efforts. To them the choice of a regular petrol, diesel car or hybrid is a moral one.

Well, what can I say about this group of people? Afterall, they sound so noble that something inside almost feels uncomfortable to say anything that might be against them.

However, as I mentioned in a previous blog, it would seem that the ‘science’ that has coloured their views and environmental efforts and ‘convictions’ may actually be false. Many of the world’s top scientists agree that the evidence shows human activity does not adversely affect the environment or cause global warning.

Its caused by sun-spot activity – out of our control and not even having anything to do with the Earth itself! (global warming has nothing to do with the ozone layer, and absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions). So, in at least one sense, we should really be worrying so much about the environment. Not that we shouldn’t care about it at all, we should. But we shouldn’t be focusing all our efforts on it, human beings, especially the pre-believers, are who we need to be concentrating our efforts and resources in.

Zionist Christianity

As the name suggests, their focus has something to do with Zion or Israel. But not that they are all Jews, quite the contrary. They are Christians more focused on the End Times. Now I’m sure most of us have been there. Soon after getting saved, we get excited about what is to come – the future always tends to have the uncanny ability to excite people.

Again, thousands of books over the years, many organisations reaching out. But some people take it way too far. The programme featured churches which run ‘Israel remembrance services’ where everyone (mostly non-Jews) come in Jewish garb and sing Jewish songs etc (I guess this is one step beyond the Calvinist/Reformed camp who just merely believe that the church is the new Israel – a spiritual Israel). One preacher interviewed even went as far as to suggest that every Christian must go to Jerusalem at least once in his lifetime – sounds very Muslim to me though.

Wealthy Christianity

This is normally known as the ‘prosperity gospel’ or ‘name it and claim it materialism’. Anderson Cooper rather cleverly showed the difference in his short introduction by saying the that Green Christian would look at the environment and ask what kind of car should you drive? And the Wealthy Christian would reply, “A Bentley!”

I’ve always found this group rather intriguing. All of us know that they believe that God wants all of us to be happy and healthy and of course wealthy. We also know that apparently of we have to do is to ask and claim it. There’s never any mention of working for it (as far as I can remember) so its kind of like being on a spiritual dole, a bottomless trust fund, or unlimited ‘sugar daddy’.

I think that they may be 2 problems which might arise here. First of all, rich kids with huge trust funds tend to become snobs and reckless and indifferent. I’m not aware of any social or community outreaches by such groups (after all, what will they say to the poor? All you need to do it claim it?!).

Second, what happens to those people within the church who don’t actually get rich? (I’m sure there are some of those right?) How long can they continue to believe that its because they don’t have the requisite faith? This must really screw up a lot of people’s lives.

Remarks

I suppose when you stop and think about it, the church actually mirrors life outside the church. There are numerous non-governmental agencies and political activists or pressure groups who champion causes and challenge policy, there are those equivalent groups who do the same for social and environmental causes, there are those groups who believe are on the side of Israel, and there are numerous self-help and inspirational speakers like Tony Robbins etc.

The sad fact though, which I think sets them apart from corresponding groups in the secular sphere is that they feel the need to attack each other – showing the world the division and divisiveness of Christians. Even if there are attacks between such groups in the secular arena, they pretty much keep to their area of focus. Not with Christians, everyone must have a go at everyone else.

So what is there to do about this?

Well, of course there are no simple or complete solutions. And of course it’s a little unfair as these are extreme examples (but as I always say, humans have this natural tendency to swing to extremes). I myself do not fit within any of these groups. But sometimes I just wonder why, since these issues really do not concern or affect the core values of Christianity, we cannot all agree to disagree, love each other, and do what it necessary to further the cause of Christ?

Wishful thinking? perhaps.

Naïve and blind idealism? totally!
(well, only if we expect a complete solution)

Workable to some degree? For all our sakes I hope so!
(only if enough people see the need and importance)

HEAVY WORKLOADS & STRESS ≠ DVT

I’m writing about this story now, not because its only just come to my attention, but
because I wanted to take some time to compose what I wanted to say and of course wait for the hype surrounding this story dies down. I didn’t/don’t want anything that I write to be construed as either speaking ill of the dead or insensitive. Nothing that follows is intended to cause any offence to anyone.

When I first heard of this story (before the first newspaper reports, through a forwarded email) I went to all the various online forums, reading how and what happened. I noticed very quickly that people were making it out that the lady in question had died because of overwork. Contributors to these forums, many her friends, kept making references to items in her blog and the fact that she had complained about her heavy workload just days before she died. This worried me for a number of reasons – primarily that these people seemed to have missed the point completely. Secondly and flowing from the first problem, that many people (and I think I know quite a few of them) will use this story and this particular interpretation of the story as a licence not to work hard and to skive. Afterall, the thought running through their minds would be something along the lines of, ‘I’m not going to work so hard and kill myself one account of my job and employer!’ or perhaps ‘there are much more important things in life than my work… afterall work can kill!’.

The reason why I feel that many of her friends (although I can understand why they may interpret the situation in this particular manner) and anyone else who follows this line of reasoning have missed the point to their own peril is because she had died of DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis).

DVT or by the term it is more commonly known, ‘economy class syndrome’ first came to public conception and usage with the particularly high frequency (all occurring right about the same period) of reported cases in the newspaper some years back. In these cases, apparently as a result of the small and minimum amount of leg room in many airlines, people were unable to move around much during long haul flights. This in turn allegedly resulted in blood clots forming in their legs (commongly thighs and calfs) which travelled to their hearts as the passenger attempted to get off the plane, causing him/her to collapse and die.

It is because of the severity of such an ‘attack’ that I believe is most vital to us understanding the situation for what it is and what it isn’t. A clear distinction must be drawn between this lady’s death and her working hours, work stress, and work load. In fact, I would venture to suggest that her workload, work stress and work hours had little (or nothing) to do with her death whatsoever.

This is simply because workload & work stress ≠ DVT.

DVT is caused by long periods of inactivity and motionlessness!

I would further venture to suggest that if someone (perhaps a child) were to spend 8 hours straight playing computer games (the type where you are able to stay relatively still – perhaps a strategy game of sorts) or someone who is completely engrossed in a book for 8 hours, would be at an equal risk of contracting DVT as this lady.

This is why the distinction so important. Because until and unless we understand and accept this, we will be unable to learn from it and ensure that we don’t share a similar fate.

So what is the solution? Make every conscious effort to move your legs! Get up if you have to. As I’ve said in many previous entries, working long hours is only going to get increasingly more common. Even the late night conference calls (because as companies become global and have international customers, time zones get blurred) and ridiculous deadlines will become much more frequent. We will not be able to prevent the workload and our employer’s expectations from getting more demanding, but we can make every effort to ensure that we do not end up dying of DVT!

Law Reform: Homosexuality (2) - Former Methodist bishop calls for greater respect for homosexuals in Singapore

This article was reported today in AsiaOne.com.sg (you can follow the link above). Essentially its about a former bishop of the Methodist church, Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, calling for greater understanding, respect and tolerance towards the gay community in Singapore (but of course implicitly to apply generally too). It also reports of a recent dialogue on homosexuality and the church organized by the gay social outreach arm of the non-denominational Free Community Church. It was attended by more than 350 people, including representatives from the major denominations as well as members of the public. It is believed to be the first such dialogue between the church and the gay community.

Although it would certainly be dismissed by members of the fundamental community (and maybe even by other less strict Christian groups as being liberal or even disgusting) and I’m sure that some people would be horrified to read what I’m about to say, but here goes: I do think that it takes courage and maturity to make some of the comments and take the position contained in the report.

Now, before you jump the gun and think I’m a ‘flaming liberal’ or something, let me explain my point.

This dialogue is not to be taken as approval of homosexuality (it would be great folly to interpret it as such) and (from what I understand from his comments in the report) Rev Dr Yap is not calling for Christians to embrace homosexuality as a viable ‘alternative’ lifestyle. In fact, he explicitly said that he doesn’t agree with homosexuality (presumably meaning that he doesn’t agree that it a legitimate alternative lifestyle etc). What he’s appealing for is simply that we behave like Christians!

Here are some of his comments:

"We know that the differences will exist, we only ... plead for mutual respect and not for condemnation"

"Even though we disagree, we need to respect the humanity"

Tan Kim Huat, dean of studies at Singapore's Trinity Theological College added:
"At the end of the day, we need to know that there is a human face to all this and then we learn to adapt our strategy differently"

Bottomline: We will never be able to reach out to this section of the community unless and until we are prepared to respect them. Not approve, respect - treat them like human beings.

This is feel is one of the biggest problems with Christianity today. We have become the modern equivalent of the Pharisees of old. We use our status as God’s children as a licence to condemn. This is why we will never make an impact in our communities (well, not a positive one at least!).

I remember recently speaking to a church-mate about a related issue - transsexuals. The very mention of the idea elicited a uncomfortable and disgusted look on her face. How is such a person going to respond to one in front of them? What do you think would happen if a transsexual were to receive such a response? Do you think he/she (I use “he/she” not in any way as a suggestion that their gender is indeterminate but rather as “former-male” = “she” and vice versa) will notice it be notice the response? How would he feel? How is this church-mate (or any others like her) going to ever reach out to people like this? How will they be able to convincingly communicate the fact that God loves them and desires a relationship with them?

And it must be borne in mind that one cannot just brush it off as someone else’ responsibility, or worse still, that they are not worthy of God’s love (you can imagine the implications of such a suggestion - its utterly disgusting, not to mention morally reprehensible!).

So what then?

Accept them. Love them. Respect them (even if you don’t agree).

The point is that we can have coffee with them, eat with them, socialize with them. We’re all human beings! In fact, the measure of your dedication to God can be seen in the way you interact with the people around (and this includes homosexuals and transsexuals alike).

This brings me to another related point (and one of particular interest to me). The law.

With reference to MM Lee’s recent comments on homosexuality (including liberalizing the current laws), citizen Jonathan Cheng wrote to the Straits Times Forum pages with the following comment: "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle. What else can you expect when you do not have children to live for or be in a loving and committed relationship?"

I’m sure that many Christians are echoing the same sentiments. They want to protect their children from the ‘lie’ that homosexuality is a viable alternative lifestyle. According to their beliefs, it’s a gross sin.

But I would agree with MM Lee’s comments that the government is not meant to be the moral police. Furthermore, I would add that Christians should not expect pre-believers to live by biblical moral law (or even think that its possible).

Admittedly the government has to uphold some sort of morality with the country, but this is only a minimum standard. In other words, if one is to consider the fact that there are so many possible and even conflicting moral standards available, which one is the government (or any government) meant to impose and enforce? Furthermore, according to principles of democracy (as I understand them) the government is supposed to rule on behalf of the people - to represent them. This necessarily means that if there were to impose any form of morality, it would have to be consistent with that of the people (and since we cannot possibly come to a unanimous agreement on this) it translates to imposing and enforcing only the basic ‘common ground’ areas. This is precisely what they are doing on the homosexuality issue - they are not promoting it as an alternative lifestyle, they are merely (considering) decriminalizing it.

The next issue which I think many of these people do not realize is that everyone has the ability (and perhaps even a responsibility) to choose. Everyone, whether gay or otherwise, has to choose (I guess here is where I expose my beliefs - I do not agree that homosexuality has a naturally occurring or genetic source - it is a choice). And whether there is a law criminalizing it or not -gays have always and will always continue to exist. This also means that irrespective of whether the government continues to maintain such laws, your children can choose to be gay (to those who didn’t realize this, I’m sorry). In addition, even if the removal of such law is viewed to ‘aid’ the spread of ‘homosexual propaganda’ and/or ‘recruitment drives’, I think that the Internet and countries in the West do a more effective job through the media and movie etc (which in case you’re unaware, we have had access to for a very long time).

Bottomline is this: Gay people have always been around in Singapore and they will continue to stay. Decriminalizing homosexuality only means that they will not suffer persecution from the law. We as Christians (and as people) should respect them as human beings. And rather than ‘bitching’ about the law, if you believe that gay people are living in sin, get out there and do something worthwhile… Reach out to them!

More Singaporeans venturing overseas for work

I came across this article in the online version of the Business Times (7 May 2007) on a growing trend of Singaporeans venturing out to seek employment opportunities. Reasons for this ‘exodus’: (1) Money; and (2) Prospects.

As I Think about it, I would like to work overseas again at some point in the foreseeable future. I’ve decided that I will continue to stay here for at least another 5 years, but then, I’ll go. The plan is to spend a few years in each of the following countries: Hong Kong, Japan, US and UK (back there?! LOL!) But don’t get me wrong, its not so much for the money (although I’m sure it would come to good use!)

The legal industry, and particularly the technology law industry, promises to grow over the years to come. Although, its been quite exciting for me to come across the many reports in the papers about new laws, new developments, new arrests even, we are still very far behind the above mentioned countries in the development of laws (including case law). This is the reason for venturing out - experience and expertise.

But what I found interesting is that reasons such as “better” or “more flexible” work hours were decided missing!

I suspect that this is because the hours will be equally as long. I also think that its part and parcel of working life in our generation. I myself have been leaving the office no earlier than 10pm - usually pass 11pm. Not that I’m complaining (on the contrary I think its exciting! I’m thrilled with the amount I’m learning and love the daily challenges!).

This is not only commonplace today, but it is likely to get even more challenging. As commented in a previous entry, I believe that with continual globalisation and the advent of more technological breakthroughs (including the Blackberry), time zones will necessarily become blurred. As technology also purports to make it easier and quicker to get work done, our outputs would naturally be expected to go up. Those who cannot cope and adapt will fall into oblivion.