Some thoughts on my resolutions

          In the past I haven’t really made concrete resolutions. A probable factor is that I’m afraid that I’ll fail. Sounds crude – and I’ll readily concede that point; yet for me, being unsure about the future often paralyses my decision-making faculties. So I play it safe, don’t risk things. I’ve always known I’m not the entrepreneurial type, nor do I possess amazing stores of self-discipline and drive to achieve any self-declared goal. I’ve always preferred others to set my aims and I’ll set about accomplishing them. Although I’m not very creative, I generally get things done.

          However, this year I’d like to do things slightly differently: I’m setting some resolutions! Here are three that I’ll mention.

          Firstly, I’d like to continue to grow as a Christian, especially in the area of prayer. I can read my Bible, I can read theology books, but I struggle with consistently setting apart some time each day to pray. I think that reflects a self-sufficient heart. I know that I don’t pray because I’m depending on myself too much. In other words, my lack of prayer is evidence of my lack of trust in God. That means, I can think with my mind and say with my mouth that God is sovereign and powerful; but as I daily live, in reality, God is small and weak if I don’t pray fervently. So what does this look like in practice? For now I’ve decided that every morning after my Quiet Time, I’ll spend at least 15 minutes praying for these things: 1) family, 2) friends and church back home in Malaysia, 3) friends here in Durham (or overseas), 4) church here in Durham, 5) people from whom I receive prayer letters. I’ll have a list of general permanent things to pray for, and another for prayer items as they are updated.

          Secondly, the 2016 Reading Challenge. You can find the challenge here and you might want to do it with someone/a group too! I’m doing the Avid Reader (26 books) challenge for a start and see whether I can exceed it, but the goal is still that (because I’m afraid that 52 is too big an ask). I should say that these are readings on top of my university work. That will keep things realistic. I’ll share my list up here once I’ve finalised it. I certainly hope that this will 1) give me motivation to finish reading books and review them, 2) help me learn self-discipline as I manage my time, and 3) be more well-read.

          Thirdly, and I think more specifically is an aspect of my character I’d like to work on. The Apostle Paul writes, ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age…’ (Titus 2:11-12). God’s grace training me doesn’t mean I am a passive block of stone (cf. Philippians 2:12-13); and with a new status in Christ, I know I have to live differently. So I would like to learn humility in the coming year. A friend told me that he would give himself a theme word for the year which helps him to focus on one aspect of his life. I’m borrowing that idea and say (and pray) that God will be working through good and difficult times this year to shape me to be more humble (going back to point 1) and dependent on His grace. Thomas More writes that Pride is the root cause of societal evils. In some sense we can say that it is, because in relation to God, Pride says ‘Shut up God, I’m in charge, no place for you’ (and if we take the initials of the first letter of each phrase, we have ‘sin’! A friend shared this acrostic with me). I also think I’m a bit militant in some of my views, especially when I’m talking to other Christians. It’s not very helpful I think because I’m often more concerned about being right than seeking to build up.

          Right, so here are three of my resolutions for this year. I pray that God will help me live for His glory as I face life in 2016. 

A Haunting Past and A Deceptive Conscience

           I should say that what comes next is kind of a rant, but I needed to articulate what I’m thinking. Please don’t read if you are not interested in those kind of things and do bear with me if you do continue reading. 

I had to deal with a human relationship issue and it wasn’t easy because I was confronted with failings in my past and a possibly (and likely) dishonest conscience. It seems I might have done things a bit too secretly, but then again, I’ve never been one keen to announce the things I do. I’ve realised that not telling people about what I do is enticing because there is room for irresponsibility and failure. After all, if nobody ‘outside’ knows about a mistake, it doesn’t really hurt right? Come to think of it, this is pretty scary: that I prefer to ‘work in darkness.’ Maybe that’s where my conscience is being deceitful, and I’ve been tricked – brainwashed - by my own self to think I’m doing what’s right. How brilliantly ironic.  

          Should I then divulge everything that I do to everybody? Must I report each activity to everyone around me? Would this not seem like drawing attention to myself? Perhaps I need an accountability partner, but it seems difficult to find someone in Durham to be that. In any case, I think I need to trust myself less, doubt my heart a bit more – after all, is it not ‘deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?’ (Jeremiah 17:9)

          Can I escape my past? Am I able to no longer slink in the shadows and hide behind verbal subterfuge when questioned about my motivation for doing things? I know forgiveness and truth can only be found in Christ, but sometimes I think I prefer covering things up and pretentiously accepting acknowledgement from others. This reminds me of John’s Gospel where he write ‘the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

          It is painful to meet the spectres of my past shortcomings because I am ashamed, terribly ashamed. If I couple that with a deceptive conscience, I think I have the right ingredients for making headway into destruction-land where I not only hurt myself but the people around me, because I’m always running away from confronting the truth. That means I’m running away from God.

          Maybe I should lay my cards bare, be man enough to face up to the consequences of my past (mis)deeds, and stop pretending I’ve got things sorted. I don’t really know how that would look like, but I think it entails not closeting aspects of my past that should be open to scrutiny. It also means that I will have to tread really carefully and constantly place my conscience on the witness dock under intense cross-examination – perhaps even to others’ gaze - when I involve myself in certain activities.

          I guess it’s time to admit that I’m wrong, and cleave ever more desperately to the cross of Christ. When times are turbulent, when I want to rectify things but am misunderstood and circumstances are exacerbated, and my carefully constructed castle of cards comes crashing, then perhaps I can learn to understand these lines ‘Nothing in my hand I bring, / Simply to Thy cross I cling.’ 

Same or Different? Let’s (not) appeal to political jargon to answer the question!

           With so many voices speaking about the ‘Same God’ standoff, I thought I might add my two cents worth of thoughts and reflect on the issue a little. But here are a few links you might want to check out if you aren’t sure about the nature of the issue: 1) http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/december/wheaton-college-hijab-professor-same-god-larycia-hawkins.html; 2) http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2015/december/same-god-standoff-wheaton-college-larycia-hawkins-hijab.html; 3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/17/wheaton-professors-suspension-is-about-anti-muslim-bigotry-not-theology/?tid=sm_fb.

          Just to quickly summarise: Dr Hawkins does 2 things: 1) expresses solidarity with Muslims by wearing a hijab; 2) writes this ‘I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.’ in a Facebook post (you can find the link to the post in paragraph 4 of the first article above). Wheaton College finds issue, not with the former incident, but in the latter statement. In this released statement (http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/Media-Relations/Statements/Wheaton-College-Statement-Regarding-Dr-Hawkins), Wheaton College says ‘Dr Hawkins’ administrative leave resulted from theological statements that seemed inconsistent with Wheaton College’s doctrinal convictions, and is in no way related to her race, gender or commitment to wear a hijab during Advent.’ Alright, this sounds fair, Wheaton are aware that their disciplinary action might be misconstrued and so clearly states that it is Dr Hawkins’ theological statement about Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God which has led to this action. However, might this be a weak excuse for a harsh disciplinary action on Wheaton’s part?

          Miroslav Volf seems to think so, saying that ‘There isn’t any theological justification for Hawkins’s forced administrative leave. Her suspension is not about theology and orthodoxy. It is about enmity toward Muslims. More precisely, her suspension reflects enmity toward Muslims, taking on a theological guise of concern for Christian orthodoxy’ (see 3^rd article). He continues to write ‘What is theologically wrong with asserting that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, according to Hawkins’s opponents — and mine?’ And I think this is a brilliant question to ask. Indeed, what is wrong?

          So we return to 1 more quotation from Volf’s article

‘Hawkins asserted that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. She did not insist that Christians and Muslims believe the same things about that one God. She did not state that Islam and Christianity are the same religion under a different name, or even that Islam is equally as true as Christianity. She did not deny that God was incarnate in Christ. Neither did she contest that the one God is the Holy Trinity. In fact, by having signed Wheaton’s Statement of Faith, she affirmed her belief in God as the Trinity and Jesus Christ as God and man, fundamental Christian convictions which, among other things, distinguish Christian faith from Islam.’

          I think the answer to the question ‘what is theologically wrong?’ is the plain fact that Christians and Muslims really don’t worship the same God. Why? Let’s unpack the phrase ‘same God’ and consider some of its implications.

          This phrase should encompass aspects such as same character (for want of a better word), same metanarrative, resulting in same belief systems which in turn affects the behaviour and actions of their respective human followers. Thus, when the Christian says ‘God,’ there are implications to our usage of this term. We mean one God, three Persons; we mean a relational God; we mean Jesus’ divinity; we view God’s self-revelation in history as a redemptive narrative that culminates in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; we mean that history is heading towards Jesus’ Second Coming and that the Christian’s role on earth now is to proclaim His gospel to the nations. These are just a few examples of the God Christians believe in, and I don’t think a Muslim can agree that Allah is the ‘same God’ as I just described.

          What Hawkins and Volf seem to have done is take the lowest common denominator between Christianity and Islam’s teachings about ‘God’ whilst ignoring the glaring and significant differences between both religions. How can a Muslim - who says Jesus is not God, and a Christian – who says that Jesus is God, affirm that they are worshipping the same God? I really cannot see how the logic works, the Christian God cannot be the same as the Muslim God. The footballer cannot say to the handball player: ‘we’re playing the same game,’ because there are certain differences that are pretty significant; here I am thinking about God’s nature. The BMW cannot say to the Nissan: ‘hey, we have the same identity.’ No, though there are similarities, the BMW is different from the Nissan in so many ways that to pick up on simplistic parallels and make those the controlling category of identification is, I think, quite absurd. I don’t think a Karate and a Wing Chun exponent would fancy other people observe that they basically ‘come from the same tradition’ (compare ‘worship the same God’).

          However, Volf suggests in article 3 that Hawkins’ ‘suspension is about anti-Muslim bigotry, not theology.’ Perhaps this is a fair assessment, I don’t know Wheaton College personally so that might be their reason, given this politically-charged issue in the US right now. But by appealing to political jargon, I think Volf is trying to shift focus away from the issue at heart: do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? In our desire for peace, harmony, and unity, our emotions can blind us from seeing clearly what the actual issue is. Let’s not change the narrative, and stick to the matter. Wheaton College should be given time to investigate, as they report are ongoing. If the voices of Hawkins and Volf matter, shouldn’t we respect Wheaton College’s voice as well? And if they need time (and are responsible in how they use it), let’s not be bigoted by calling them bigots.

I would like to note that both Volf and Hawkins are scholars, and I’m not. I don’t have the space to write everything that I want here (perhaps I will write more in another post), but if I read my Bible carefully, and think about things a little more, I find that Christians and Muslims don’t really worship the same God. This distinction might seem undiplomatic, but if both belief systems want to hold onto their identities, they (in this case specifically, Wheaton College) has to make a stand. I think it is better to be slandered for standing up for truth, rather than to be accepted for giving up on truth. These are the two cents worth of my thoughts on this issue. 

Poem: Deleted photos

Deleted Photos

Is each deleted photo

A balm for wounds?

Or mere brooding

And breeding of bitterness?

With a click, is it release –

A way of letting go?

Or a stirring cesspool

For poisonous vendetta?

I don’t know.

I only know

I can’t control

My fingers

And my heart. 

Poem: This Christmas, I won't turn on the news

         This is a poem I wrote for my university newspaper about Christmas. I don't really like free verse, but I thought I'd try my hand at writing one. It's not a happy poem. But it is a way of reminding myself that all is not well with the world. However, I believe that there is hope, not in humanity to 'make the world a better place,' because that is unrealistic; but in the baby lying in a dirty manger, 2000 years ago. 

This Christmas, I won't tun on the news.

This Christmas,

I won’t turn on the news.

Dad doesn’t like it.

I like the other TV shows.

People always talk about love and peace.

They say as long as we are happy,

The world is happy. :)

Happiness is about giving –

I’m so excited for presents!

Perhaps Uncle Dave will get me that toy gun –

The big ones I always see on the news.

But this Christmas,

I won’t turn on the news.

Mom doesn’t like it too. :/

Big brother isn’t here yet.

We moved here a few months ago.

We came with lots of other families.

A lot of babies were crying,

But now it’s quiet here.

Big brother missed the boat.

I hope the boat is repaired soon.

Before Christmas Day, I pray:

“Dear God, please help me sleep tonight.”

Then close my eyes, and shut my ears,

Against the dying day.

Wing Chun - A Gospel Analogy

Ever since I watched Ip Man, I’ve always had a desire to learn Wing Chun. And now at university, I have a chance to pick it up. The experience thus far has been excellent. There is a nice small community and we have a coach who believes in serious fun. I enjoy the fact that our coach is very concerned with applicability, and he’s realistic in saying that if someone threatens us on the street, running should be our first instinct.

Anyway, from my understanding, there are three basic (weaponless) forms in Wing Chun. So far every week, we start our training session with basic drills: opening stance, forward stance, basic punching, stepping, turning, etc. I’m fine with doing these drills because I’m a neophyte, but I wonder at how even experienced students go through these drills with us. I guess our coach explains why we do the same drills every time we go through the basics, but it’s only recently that I’ve begun to understand why.

He says that although some other martial arts teach different techniques – whereby you learn a particular technique, then move on to another, or something like that – in Wing Chun, everything starts from the basic movements, or forms, and everything else is merely extending, or applying those forms to different situations. That means, when engaging an opponent, a Wing Chun practitioner merely employs the basic forms he’s learnt in response to the situation, or attack.

This reminded me of the role of the gospel for the Christian. But first, a question: when challenging and encouraging Christians to grow in godliness and to fight sin, do we assume they know the gospel, and tell them the ‘top ten tips for battling lust’? I think we are tempted to immediately appeal to do’s and don’ts when it comes to Christian living, focusing on certain ‘techniques’ on battling sin. But what learning Wing Chun has taught me is that before I can fight sin and grow in godliness, I need to be so steeped in, so familiar with, and so disciplined by, the gospel. Why do we in Wing Chun go through the basics every time we train? Because it’s not natural, and we want to be so in tuned with the various moves that there is no easy way but hard work and constant practice. If this applies to something like Wing Chun, I think it should apply to the Christian life. Why do we assume that people ‘already know the gospel,’ or that ‘the gospel alone isn’t enough’? Certainly we are not saying that we just say the same things and people will ‘automatically’ know how to act. But the gospel has to be our starting point every time.

I think that Christian messages or talks that make moral injunctions without any reminder of the gospel is questionable - for how is that message different from moralism? And any message that talks about grace without a challenge to pursue holiness, I find suspicious – for how is that message different from antinomianism? Besides learning some bits of Wing Chun, from these training sessions I’ve observed a few things that might be helpful analogies when thinking about the Christian life.

Firstly, we need to constantly remind ourselves about the gospel, not in way that becomes mundane, but in a way that we are self-critical and self-evaluative. In Wing Chun, as we are doing our basic exercises, we are constantly checking to see if we are following the correct form. This is important because if we don’t lay a foundation, and don’t strengthen it, sooner or later, we’ll just be waving our hands in the air and look silly. If I don’t want to practice the basics, it’s as good as saying I don’t want to learn Wing Chun. Similarly, if we don’t constantly remember the gospel, there is the danger of losing the ultimate source of power for the Christian life.  

Secondly, we never mature from the gospel. I think there is a tendency to think that mature Christians understand grace and all that stuff, so we only tell non-Christians or new believers that; and once they’ve understood it, we move on to the more important stuff like dealing with sin, prayer, or finding God’s will. I think that that is a fallacy which has to be corrected. It is striking that in 1 Corinthians, a letter where Paul deals with lots of issues in the church, he says in the opening verses of chapter 15 “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you” (v1); also “for I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins … was buried … was raised … in accordance with the Scriptures” (v3-4). Have we forgotten that the gospel is central to Christianity?

          In Wing Chun, we are reminded that the basic forms are absolutely crucial - if we want to be able to apply it to real life situations - by repeatedly practising it. I think in Christianity, we need to be reminded that the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection is foundational - if we are to live as Christians in this world - by repeatedly reminding ourselves and others these truths. 

Thomas More's Utopia - serious joke?

While reading in preparation to write an essay on Thomas More’s Utopia (ISBN: 0521403189) (which is the ‘father’ of subsequent utopian works), I stumbled across a few interesting points. But firstly, anyone interested in modern utopian (or dystopian) literature should read More. I would also like to note that I regard Utopia as a serious work, although many people don’t. Some scholars argue that the unwillingness to accept More’s work in its entirety (there are some ‘acceptable’ bits that gets discussed and praised; and there are ‘unacceptable’ bits that are dismissed and ignored) results from paying too much attention to what we as modern readers want to read or don’t want to read. So for this reflection, I stand on the side that takes all of Utopia seriously, even the satiric parts.

But I wanted to briefly comment on 3 things: 1) Utopian military foreign policy; 2) it’s depiction of human nature; 3) is the Utopia described in the book desirable?

I’ll list down a few aspects of Utopian military foreign policy. Firstly, ‘they utterly despise war as an activity fit only for beasts’ (p.201) yet they go to war for ‘good’ reasons: to protect their own land, to drive invading armies from the territories of their friends, or to liberate an oppressed people, in the name of compassion and humanity, from tyranny and servitude’ (p.201-3). I think this sounds fair, but later we hear about some of their practices that might make us squeamish. For example, ‘they war not only to protect their friends from present danger, but sometimes to repay and avenge previous injuries,’ and the example of a war over ‘a wrong (as they saw it)’ – this sounds suspicious to me – follows (p.2013). When war is declared, they also send spies to incite rebellion against the current enemy ruler and offer rewards for assassinations of high-profile enemy targets, among other things. They also hire mercenaries (especially from a people group called the Zapoletes) and basically put them on the front lines and are unaffected by the implicit genocide they are committing. I think we are right to feel disgusted about these military policies, but I wonder whether the Western world needs to rethink theirs as well. Just today Prime Minister David Cameron made his case to MPs for UK airstrikes against IS in Syria. Scholars have suggested the imperialistic slant in the Utopians’ militaristic practices, and I think there are corollaries between them and that proposed by Cameron.

Secondly, its depiction of human nature is bleak. The character More in the book offers a stinging reason why things really aren’t getting better (despite we wanting it to be so): ‘For it is impossible to make everything good unless men are good, and that I don’t expect to see for quite a few years yet’ (p.97). We’ve waited for about 500 years and Jacob Needleman seems to concur with More in his book ‘Why Can’t We Be Good?’ I think the title speaks for itself. So More in the book proposes institutional structures as a means by which human happiness or flourishing can be achieved. Using human reason – that faculty so celebrated by the Enlightenment that it became the god of the modern age – More conducted a best-commonwealth exercise which probably surpasses Plato and Aristotle in numerous ways. And yet, his conclusion is not positive as there are problems aplenty in Utopian society that modern readers will be terribly uncomfortable with. In this exercise, More shows the limits of rationality in achieving ultimate human happiness.

          This leads to my final question of desirability. I was in a tutorial a few weeks ago and when our tutor asked us what we thought of the book, 6 of 8 students said they couldn’t connect with the book and they found many of the Utopian governing principles distasteful, perhaps verging on outrageous according to modern standards of ‘human rights.’ But I found the book relevant in that 500 years after its publication, the book still critiques a predominantly capitalist society that exhibits all the vices More talks about in his book. One of the differences is that these have now somehow become acceptable norms. Realistically, Utopia cannot be achieved. No amount of technology or self-help can overcome the innate problem within us – that which Christians call rebellion against our Maker. At our core, we aren’t good people, and we know that, that’s why we have laws. We know that left to our own devices, we will tend towards harm instead of good.

          So what options do we have? As a Christian, this reminds me not to desire a ‘heaven on earth,’ not to desire a ‘Christian’ nation. Because Jesus will return, and he will restructure society totally - all evil will be wiped out and the new world that he ushers in will be perfect in every way. So what shall I say as I sit reading Utopia and seeing the mess that we’ve made the world into? Only this: ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ (Rev. 22:20b).