A life worth living
A life worth living, a life of victory, a blessed life, a meaningful life, an abundant life, such a life is not one that is lived merely "under the sun".
A person who enjoys the abundant life, who reigns in life (regardless of the circumstances in the world), is a person who has an "above the sun" perspective of life.
He sees the Big Picture. He has a keen awareness of eternity. He understands God's heart. He thinks with a Kingdom mindset. His eyes are on the Heavenly Father and not on the earthly things. As a result, he can live the care-free, worry-free life, complain-free life, which is the abundant life, the reigning life.
This is the kind of abundant, victorious, reigning life that the apostle Paul lived.
Now, let us explore further the kind of abundant, victorious, reigning life that Paul lived:
The abundant and reigning life that Paul lived
1) Did Paul experience material lack from time to time?
Yes.
But did he struggle with any bitter sense of poverty? No at all.
Paul having tasted the goodness of His God, maintained a sense of abundance, of 'no lack', of being provided for, of being looked after.
In fact, it was during his captivity in prison that he encouraged the believers in Philippians with the following words, "Indeed I have all and abound, I am full, having received...the things sent from you, a sweet smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:18-19).
Even in prison, Paul's dignity remained intact, and he continued to enjoy contentment. It was in this context that he uttered the verse that we all love to quote, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me".
"I've learned in whatever state I am, to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:11-13)
Paul was truly reigning in and enjoying his life.
For more thoughts on prosperity and abundance in a believer's life, read my other post Taste and see your Good God today
2) Did Paul encounter trials, tribulations and persecutions from time to time?
Yes. Numerious, varied and severe.
But did he exhibit a defeatist attitude and suffer from any sense of abandonment? No.
It was Paul who wrote, "If God is for us, who can be against us?...Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword?...Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Rom 8:31,35,37).
I believed Paul must have enjoyed many peaceful and trouble-free days when he walked on earth, and he must have celebrated many successes and triumphs.
And during those times that he had to deal with difficulties, challenges, and apparent defeats, he did not allow his joy to be affected. He was still conscious of the Christ-wrought victory that avails forever. He still maintained the overcomer's mindset.
Therefore Paul continued to reign over circumstances and to enjoy the abundant life, even in the midst of all the trials and tribulations.
Did Paul struggle? I believe he did. But I also believe he did not focus on himself and endured the experiences as sufferings in the cold hostility of an absurd world. Instead, he focused on Christ and enjoyed the experiences as snugglings in the loving arms of a Very Good God.
3) Did Paul have to face the prospect of death, and did he experience physical death ultimately?
Yes.
But was he anxious or fearful. No.
It was Paul who proclaimed, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 15:55-56).
What boldness! What a victorious attitude!
When one has the assurance of eternal life, and is secure in one's right standing before God, physical death no longer stirs up dread or fear. Death's sting has been removed. Death is no longer a tragedy.
No wonder Paul could declare, "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labour...for I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you" (Philippians 1:21-24).
Paul was genuinely not afraid to die. As a result, he was truly ready to live, freely and boldly. Which he did. Paul lived life abundantly and victoriously.
The abundant life comprises challenging days and not-so-challenging ones
Do bear this in mind that the New Testament epistles recorded and presented to us only the more eventful parts of Paul's life. I am sure Paul's life was not just a constant series of trials, tribulations and persecutions. He must have enjoyed many trouble-free days as well.
What makes me conclude that Paul lived an abundant and victorious life is not his health or wealth, or how peaceful and trouble free his life was. Such blessings are purchased on the Cross for us, and we should rightly appropriate them and enjoy them. But they are not the most important blessings.
What makes me conclude that Paul lived life abundantly and victoriously is the way he continued to enjoy righteousness, peace and joy regardless of the circumstances he was in.
Living life "above the sun" - living in the Kingdom of God
Jesus taught us that "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". (Rom 14:17)
It was also Jesus Himself who taught us to seek first the kingdom of God, instead of focusing on the things we need, for our Heavenly Father knows all our needs and wants, and He freely and generously gives to us all that is good for us, in His good time. (Mt 6:33)
Jesus also assured us that it is the Father's good pleasure to give us the kingdom. (Luke 12:32). It is God's pleasure to see you enjoy a life of righteousness, peace and joy - a life without fear of lack, a life of true freedom.
So, in closing, be encouraged to focus on the goodness of your Father's heart, and rest in the knowledge that He will not withhold any good thing from you. If He has given you His best, His most precious, His Son Jesus Christ, how will He not with Jesus, also freely give you all things?
The abundant and victorious life that Paul lived was purchased by Jesus Christ on the Cross. The same Jesus has also purchased an abundant and victorious life for you and your loved ones.
Believe right.
Focus accurately.
Do the one thing needful.
Seek first the Kingdom of God.
Sit at Jesus feet and allow Him to love you.
Allow your heart to rest in the finished work of Christ.
Let your soul prosper in the knowledge of God's grace towards you.
"Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers". (3 John 2).
As your soul continues to prosper, may you continue to reign in life and enjoy life more abundantly.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Taste and see your Good God today
Soul prosperity first
"Beloved, I wish above all things that you prosper and be in health, even as your souls prosper" (3 John 2)
When your soul (i.e. your mind, emotion and will) prospers, everything thing else in your life prospers as well.
As children of the Most High God, we are not waiting to be blessed, we are already blessed. We are not waiting for good days, we are living in good days, and are expecting better ones ahead.
Prosperity begets prosperity, poverty reaps poverty
We are not waiting to be prosperous, we are already prosperous. Knowing and believing this truth causes us to be able and willing to give and sow generously (of our gifts and talents, our time, our finances), which in turn, causes us to reap bountiful harvests and experience a greater measure of abundance. As a result, out of a grateful heart, we cannot help but want to give and sow even more generously. This virtuous cycle goes on and on.
On the other hand, if someone does not believe that he is rich, he will most likely scrim and save everything he has. He will withhold from giving freely to others. Because he thinks his resources are limited, he cuts down on sowing As a result, he sabotages his future harvests - in the areas of his finances, his friendships or his overall fruitfulness in life.
So, paradoxically, the more he scrims and saves, and the less he gives and sows, the more poverty and lack he perceives and experiences. Soul poverty reaps poverty in other areas in life.
Prosperous when in possession of nothing
Remember the example of Joseph? When Joseph was a slave in Egypt, and had nothing, the Bible describes him as being successful, and says that everything he did prospered. (Genesis 39:2-3).
Joseph did not have a smooth-sailing life. He went through the pit and the prison, before he finally ended up in the palace. But do we see him complain and murmur? Do we see him discontent and bitter? Look at how he was always concious of the Lord's presence, and therefore enjoyed blessings after blessings, regardless of his circumstances.
Good days for Joseph were not defined by where he was or how much possession and power he had. Good days for Joseph were defined by the friendship and faithfulness of the Good God who was always with him.
Seeking after the kingdom of God which is righteousness, peace and joy
Joseph did not seek after earthly riches and material comfort. He did not seek after riches and honour. He sought after and enjoyed God. He sought after and enjoyed the kingdom of God. He sought after and enjoyed righteousness, peace and joy.
And goodness and mercy of God followed Joseph all the days of his life.
(Note that material riches and honour before men did NOT follow Joseph ALL the days of his life - he struggled with material lack and endured shame during parts of his life. But the goodness and mercy of God did follow after Joseph all the days of his life. Joseph was a blessed and prosperous man throughout his life not because of earthly riches and man-given honour, but because of the goodness and mercy of His Good God. And when God's goodness and mercy chase after you, do you think you need to worry about chasing after earthly riches and honour?)
See things through God's eyes. Renew your mind with God's truth. Speak forth life and peace. Know that you are already blessed in Christ, appreciate your blessednesses, and you will see more and more of God's blessings manifest in your life.
Loving life and seeing good days
"He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good. Let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers" (1 Peter 3:10-12)
"Oh taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!...those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. Who is the man who desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry" (Psalm 34:8,10,12-15)
You have a Good God who loves you and blesses you more than you could ask or imagine. Your path is getting brighter and brighter. You are enjoying a good life that is getting better and better.
Turn away from the evil lies of the devil that tell you otherwise. Refrain from speaking his lies.
Good days are here, enjoy them now
Confess instead God's promises and God's truths. Speak forth your life and peace. And rest in the finished work of Christ that has given you everlasting righteousness. You are righteous and you are blessed! And you don't have to wait for good days to come. Good days have already come!
Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18,19).
And it is written, 'For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, NOW is the acceptable time; behold, NOW is the day of salvation' (2 Cor 6:2)
Appreciate and enjoy your good days now.
Taste and see your Good God today.
"Beloved, I wish above all things that you prosper and be in health, even as your souls prosper" (3 John 2)
When your soul (i.e. your mind, emotion and will) prospers, everything thing else in your life prospers as well.
As children of the Most High God, we are not waiting to be blessed, we are already blessed. We are not waiting for good days, we are living in good days, and are expecting better ones ahead.
Prosperity begets prosperity, poverty reaps poverty
We are not waiting to be prosperous, we are already prosperous. Knowing and believing this truth causes us to be able and willing to give and sow generously (of our gifts and talents, our time, our finances), which in turn, causes us to reap bountiful harvests and experience a greater measure of abundance. As a result, out of a grateful heart, we cannot help but want to give and sow even more generously. This virtuous cycle goes on and on.
On the other hand, if someone does not believe that he is rich, he will most likely scrim and save everything he has. He will withhold from giving freely to others. Because he thinks his resources are limited, he cuts down on sowing As a result, he sabotages his future harvests - in the areas of his finances, his friendships or his overall fruitfulness in life.
So, paradoxically, the more he scrims and saves, and the less he gives and sows, the more poverty and lack he perceives and experiences. Soul poverty reaps poverty in other areas in life.
Prosperous when in possession of nothing
Remember the example of Joseph? When Joseph was a slave in Egypt, and had nothing, the Bible describes him as being successful, and says that everything he did prospered. (Genesis 39:2-3).
Joseph did not have a smooth-sailing life. He went through the pit and the prison, before he finally ended up in the palace. But do we see him complain and murmur? Do we see him discontent and bitter? Look at how he was always concious of the Lord's presence, and therefore enjoyed blessings after blessings, regardless of his circumstances.
Good days for Joseph were not defined by where he was or how much possession and power he had. Good days for Joseph were defined by the friendship and faithfulness of the Good God who was always with him.
Seeking after the kingdom of God which is righteousness, peace and joy
Joseph did not seek after earthly riches and material comfort. He did not seek after riches and honour. He sought after and enjoyed God. He sought after and enjoyed the kingdom of God. He sought after and enjoyed righteousness, peace and joy.
And goodness and mercy of God followed Joseph all the days of his life.
(Note that material riches and honour before men did NOT follow Joseph ALL the days of his life - he struggled with material lack and endured shame during parts of his life. But the goodness and mercy of God did follow after Joseph all the days of his life. Joseph was a blessed and prosperous man throughout his life not because of earthly riches and man-given honour, but because of the goodness and mercy of His Good God. And when God's goodness and mercy chase after you, do you think you need to worry about chasing after earthly riches and honour?)
See things through God's eyes. Renew your mind with God's truth. Speak forth life and peace. Know that you are already blessed in Christ, appreciate your blessednesses, and you will see more and more of God's blessings manifest in your life.
Loving life and seeing good days
"He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit. Let him turn away from evil and do good. Let him seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers" (1 Peter 3:10-12)
"Oh taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!...those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. Who is the man who desires life, and loves many days, that he may see good? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry" (Psalm 34:8,10,12-15)
You have a Good God who loves you and blesses you more than you could ask or imagine. Your path is getting brighter and brighter. You are enjoying a good life that is getting better and better.
Turn away from the evil lies of the devil that tell you otherwise. Refrain from speaking his lies.
Good days are here, enjoy them now
Confess instead God's promises and God's truths. Speak forth your life and peace. And rest in the finished work of Christ that has given you everlasting righteousness. You are righteous and you are blessed! And you don't have to wait for good days to come. Good days have already come!
Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18,19).
And it is written, 'For He says: "In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, NOW is the acceptable time; behold, NOW is the day of salvation' (2 Cor 6:2)
Appreciate and enjoy your good days now.
Taste and see your Good God today.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
How do we teach righteousness - right standing, right doing, both?
Below are extracts of exchanges that took place in Stanley's facebook page in response to his blog posting titled "Close Encounter of the Fourth Kind" http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2009/11/close-encounters-of-third-kind.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stanley wrote:
There is no such thing as "the process of making you righteous"; you are either righteous or not righteous ie. you either have a right standing before God or you don't.
C wrote:
Why did Paul wrote the following verses if growing in righteousness is not a process?
"PUT to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the WRATH of God is COMING. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you MUST RID yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, CLOTHE yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."
Lip Kee wrote:
We are all for righteous acts by Christians. We delight in witnessing right behavior among believers.
I suppose we differ only when it comes to HOW we can or should cause or help or encourage ourselves and our fellow siblings in Christ to manifest the righteous acts that glorify our Lord.
Some of us believe that we should focus on INSTRUCTING fellow believers on the what-to-do's and the what-not-to- do's. So when such among us read Col 3:5-14, we see a list of instructions and commands: YOU must put to death...YOU must RID yourselves of...YOU should not lie...YOU are to clothe yourselves with....YOU are to forgive
Some of us, on the other hand, believe that we should focus on AFFIRMING ourselves and our fellow brothers and sisters of our right-standing before (and intimacy with) our loving Father and our identity in Christ. Therefore, when reading the same passage, we would choose to read it in its wider context (i.e. to start from Colossians chapter 1, or at least from Colossians chapter 3 verse 1 onwards), and we see affirmations and promises: you were raised with CHRIST...your life is hidden in CHRIST with God...when CHRIST who is your life appears, then you also will appear with HIM in glory, THEREFORE put to death...rid yourselves of...do not lie...; as the elect of God, HOLY AND BELOVED, put on...even as CHRIST forgave you, so also forgive.
I used to belong to the first group, but I've switched to the second, and I intend to stay put. I believe the power to bear fruit (act righteously) does not come from focusing one's attention on the fruit, but by putting one's attention on the root (right standing before God in Christ).
For he who lacks these things (faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love) is short-sighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. (2 Peter 1:9)
According to Peter, the reason why a believer is not fruitful and does not exhibit godly behavior and righteous acts is because he has lost sight of or is ignorant of the precious truth that he is a forgiven person.
If we wish to see more manifestation of godly behavior and righteous acts in the Church and in the communities we live in, we would do well to relentlessly preach the good news of God's forgiveness, to share the life-liberating message of no condemnation, and to build one another up in the teaching of righteousness (right-standing before God because of Christ's work on the cross).
My 2-cent worth. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stanley wrote:
There is no such thing as "the process of making you righteous"; you are either righteous or not righteous ie. you either have a right standing before God or you don't.
C wrote:
Why did Paul wrote the following verses if growing in righteousness is not a process?
"PUT to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the WRATH of God is COMING. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you MUST RID yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, CLOTHE yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."
Lip Kee wrote:
We are all for righteous acts by Christians. We delight in witnessing right behavior among believers.
I suppose we differ only when it comes to HOW we can or should cause or help or encourage ourselves and our fellow siblings in Christ to manifest the righteous acts that glorify our Lord.
Some of us believe that we should focus on INSTRUCTING fellow believers on the what-to-do's and the what-not-to- do's. So when such among us read Col 3:5-14, we see a list of instructions and commands: YOU must put to death...YOU must RID yourselves of...YOU should not lie...YOU are to clothe yourselves with....YOU are to forgive
Some of us, on the other hand, believe that we should focus on AFFIRMING ourselves and our fellow brothers and sisters of our right-standing before (and intimacy with) our loving Father and our identity in Christ. Therefore, when reading the same passage, we would choose to read it in its wider context (i.e. to start from Colossians chapter 1, or at least from Colossians chapter 3 verse 1 onwards), and we see affirmations and promises: you were raised with CHRIST...your life is hidden in CHRIST with God...when CHRIST who is your life appears, then you also will appear with HIM in glory, THEREFORE put to death...rid yourselves of...do not lie...; as the elect of God, HOLY AND BELOVED, put on...even as CHRIST forgave you, so also forgive.
I used to belong to the first group, but I've switched to the second, and I intend to stay put. I believe the power to bear fruit (act righteously) does not come from focusing one's attention on the fruit, but by putting one's attention on the root (right standing before God in Christ).
For he who lacks these things (faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, love) is short-sighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. (2 Peter 1:9)
According to Peter, the reason why a believer is not fruitful and does not exhibit godly behavior and righteous acts is because he has lost sight of or is ignorant of the precious truth that he is a forgiven person.
If we wish to see more manifestation of godly behavior and righteous acts in the Church and in the communities we live in, we would do well to relentlessly preach the good news of God's forgiveness, to share the life-liberating message of no condemnation, and to build one another up in the teaching of righteousness (right-standing before God because of Christ's work on the cross).
My 2-cent worth. :-)
Friday, November 20, 2009
On Christian discipleship - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titled "Are Christians Sinners?": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/are-christians-sinners-discussion.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Thank you, Lip Kee. You summed it up very well. The emphasis on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation is indeed commendable. Like wise, I agree that we should address and describe believers in more affirming, encouraging and assuring ways.
However, it seems that those who advocate this approach has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness. I may be wrong, but they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings.
Instead there is ambiguous language in terms like sonship, resting in faith, you're as righteous as Christ is, the good news about Jesus Christ (making the gospel synonymous with the whole counsel of God) and so on. They teach that God is no longer angry with believers when they sin and fails to distinguish between juridical and filial displeasure. They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace.
“Yet what we SUFFER NOW is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also GROAN, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from SIN and SUFFERING. We, too, WAIT with EAGER HOPE for the day when God will give us our FULL RIGHTS as his adopted children including the new bodies he has promised us.” (Romans 8:15-23)
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C,
Having read your latest comment, I felt it would be appropriate for me to provide some response.
I believe I understand where you are coming from when you wrote: "it seems that those who advocate this approach (of emphasising on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation) has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness."... Read more
First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Christian discipleship is a legitimate aspect of our walk of faith.
I acknowledge that there are some among us who may be less mature in the faith, and whose understanding of Biblical truths may be somewhat superficial, and as a result, we may appear to be ignorant or even dismissive of certain so-called "traditions" and "traditional ideas". Nonethelss, I believe most of us agree that discipleship and discipline are necessary and important.
I believe a Christian who ignores discipleship is neglecting his spiritual health and impeding his personal growth. A church deficient in the aspect of discipleship must be, in my opinion, a church that is (or will be) unstable and unsustainable.
As to how Christian discipleship is taught or inculcated, I believe each church has its own unique approach. For instance, in the Presbyterian church I grew up in, "discipleship" and "discipline" were words I frequently read and heard in the church, and the related conepts of which I was systematically taught in the Sunday schools, Bible study classes and training seminars I attended; whereas in my current church (which I've been a member of for the past seven years), I have been subject to what I felt were relevant and impactful teachings on discipleship and discipline, even though the words "discipleship" and "discipline" are not as frequently and explicitly read and heard.
It is not for me to say which is the better approach. Suffice to say, I have learned much from both and am thankful.
C, you wrote: "they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings...They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace..."
Similar to my comment on "Christian discipleship" above, I believe even though we may differ in the way and the frequency we use those exact words, most, if not all of us are agreed that sanctification, obedience, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, endurance, ongoing repentance, and good works etc. are all important aspects of our Christian life, our faith walk.
We are not negligent in reminding and encouraging one another: to set ourselves apart in Christ and be blameless before men in the world (sanctification); to constantly renew our mind with the Word of God and live a Spirit-led life (obedience); to fix our eyes on our Lord Jesus Christ and be transformed into His image (the pursuit of righteousness); to understand our utter deprivation and helplessness without Him and our total dependence on Him for the ability and willingness to live right (training in righteousness); to perservere and not give up hoping because of His faithfulness (endurance); to continually turn our mind away from the world and its sins to the Lord and His saving grace (ongoing repentance); to respond to God's love and gifts by loving and giving to others (good works).
I observe the leaders and friends whom I worship together, serve, pray and fellowship with in church, I see how they live their lives (both inside and outside of the church). They endeavor their best to walk out lives that are Christ-centered, church-edifying and God-glorying.
Like I said before, there are (and there will probably always be) some among us who are somewhat superficial and not so mature. But I pray and trust that we will grow up and grow well.
As for "sin" and "suffering", my view is that these themes are being covered regularly, extensively and repeatedly in the church, when we receive in-depth teachings on:
- our Saviour (who saves us from sin); and
- the Cross (on which our Lord endured sufferings unimaginable, and by which we have hope to endure through and triumph over our own sufferings).
I hope this helps to address some of your concerns. Shalom. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Thank you, Lip Kee. You summed it up very well. The emphasis on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation is indeed commendable. Like wise, I agree that we should address and describe believers in more affirming, encouraging and assuring ways.
However, it seems that those who advocate this approach has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness. I may be wrong, but they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings.
Instead there is ambiguous language in terms like sonship, resting in faith, you're as righteous as Christ is, the good news about Jesus Christ (making the gospel synonymous with the whole counsel of God) and so on. They teach that God is no longer angry with believers when they sin and fails to distinguish between juridical and filial displeasure. They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace.
“Yet what we SUFFER NOW is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later. For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also GROAN, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from SIN and SUFFERING. We, too, WAIT with EAGER HOPE for the day when God will give us our FULL RIGHTS as his adopted children including the new bodies he has promised us.” (Romans 8:15-23)
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C,
Having read your latest comment, I felt it would be appropriate for me to provide some response.
I believe I understand where you are coming from when you wrote: "it seems that those who advocate this approach (of emphasising on the all-sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness, his saving work for us and the assurance of our salvation) has the tendency to ignore Christian discipleship which is a legitimate aspect of holiness."... Read more
First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Christian discipleship is a legitimate aspect of our walk of faith.
I acknowledge that there are some among us who may be less mature in the faith, and whose understanding of Biblical truths may be somewhat superficial, and as a result, we may appear to be ignorant or even dismissive of certain so-called "traditions" and "traditional ideas". Nonethelss, I believe most of us agree that discipleship and discipline are necessary and important.
I believe a Christian who ignores discipleship is neglecting his spiritual health and impeding his personal growth. A church deficient in the aspect of discipleship must be, in my opinion, a church that is (or will be) unstable and unsustainable.
As to how Christian discipleship is taught or inculcated, I believe each church has its own unique approach. For instance, in the Presbyterian church I grew up in, "discipleship" and "discipline" were words I frequently read and heard in the church, and the related conepts of which I was systematically taught in the Sunday schools, Bible study classes and training seminars I attended; whereas in my current church (which I've been a member of for the past seven years), I have been subject to what I felt were relevant and impactful teachings on discipleship and discipline, even though the words "discipleship" and "discipline" are not as frequently and explicitly read and heard.
It is not for me to say which is the better approach. Suffice to say, I have learned much from both and am thankful.
C, you wrote: "they hardly mention if ever, sanctification, obedience, feeling remorse for one’s sins, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, holiness, good works, the mortification of sin, endurance and sufferings...They allude that if a believer is concerned about sin, obedience, or ongoing repentance, or good works, then he has not fully grasp the all sufficiency of God’s grace..."
Similar to my comment on "Christian discipleship" above, I believe even though we may differ in the way and the frequency we use those exact words, most, if not all of us are agreed that sanctification, obedience, the pursuit of righteousness, training in righteousness, endurance, ongoing repentance, and good works etc. are all important aspects of our Christian life, our faith walk.
We are not negligent in reminding and encouraging one another: to set ourselves apart in Christ and be blameless before men in the world (sanctification); to constantly renew our mind with the Word of God and live a Spirit-led life (obedience); to fix our eyes on our Lord Jesus Christ and be transformed into His image (the pursuit of righteousness); to understand our utter deprivation and helplessness without Him and our total dependence on Him for the ability and willingness to live right (training in righteousness); to perservere and not give up hoping because of His faithfulness (endurance); to continually turn our mind away from the world and its sins to the Lord and His saving grace (ongoing repentance); to respond to God's love and gifts by loving and giving to others (good works).
I observe the leaders and friends whom I worship together, serve, pray and fellowship with in church, I see how they live their lives (both inside and outside of the church). They endeavor their best to walk out lives that are Christ-centered, church-edifying and God-glorying.
Like I said before, there are (and there will probably always be) some among us who are somewhat superficial and not so mature. But I pray and trust that we will grow up and grow well.
As for "sin" and "suffering", my view is that these themes are being covered regularly, extensively and repeatedly in the church, when we receive in-depth teachings on:
- our Saviour (who saves us from sin); and
- the Cross (on which our Lord endured sufferings unimaginable, and by which we have hope to endure through and triumph over our own sufferings).
I hope this helps to address some of your concerns. Shalom. :-)
Are Christians sinners? - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titled "Should Christians follow Paul's example and call ourselves sinners?": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/should-christians-follow-pauls-example.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Yes, Stanley. Christ has paid the penalty for ALL our sins. Yes, even when we sin, we are still righteous in God's eyes. But where did you get the idea that He no longer see us as sinners? Why all these warnings in the bible? For example,
"We must ALL stand before Christ to be JUDGE. We will each receive whatever we deserve for good or evil we have DONE in this earthly body." ( 2 Cor. 5:10)
"It is God's will that you should be sanctified..The Lord will PUNISH men for all such sins as we already told you and warned you. For God did NOT call us to be IMPURE, but to live a holy life." (1 Thess 4:3-7).
What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are?
Why cant we call a believer who sins a sinner (James 5:8) ? What is wrong to admit that although one is righteous in the eyes of God, one is also a sinner if one commits a sin?
In the biography or autobiography of great saints, they say towards the end of their lives, they are still sinners. The reason is that as they get closer to God, they become more aware of their sins.
Most unbelievers live in darkness and because their conscience is dead, they are not aware of their sins. As we grow closer to the Light, it will reveal our more of our hidden sins, motives and agendas. We shall out of remorse and Godly sorrow that leads us to repentance.
The more we know we are sinners, the more closer we will draw near to God. It sounds like a paradox, and like most great christian truths, they are paradoxical.
Stanley wrote:
"What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are.?"
Well, C, I guess you belong to Blaise Pascal's "the righteous, who believe themselves sinners". As for me (and I think Lip Kee as well), I belong to "the righteous, who believe themselves righteous" BUT no worries, you and I will still meet in heaven, just that our journey there will be entirely different experiences ;-)
Lip Kee wrote:
To find common grounds on which to facilitate our communication and enhance mutual understanding among us, I read through all the comments again, and my comments are as follows:
1. For Stanley, the term "Christian" and "sinner" are used to define the spiritual IDENTITY of a person.
A "Christian" is someone who believes in and accepts the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, saved from the prison called "sin", and born again as a child of the most high God. The IDENTITY of a believer, a saved person, a Christian, is that of "the righteousness of God in Christ" (Rom 5:21), even if he were to fail and fall, and commit sinful acts.... Read more.
Does a Christian still have the flesh in him? Does sin in the flesh have an influence over the believer? Is it possible for a child of God to still commit sins? Yes, yes, and yes. But he remains forever a born again child of God. He cannot "un-born" himself from God's family.
In contrast, a "sinner" is an unbelieving, Christ-less, unsaved person who belongs to the tribe of the first Adam and has yet to be reborn into God's family. The IDENTITY of an unsaved person remains that of a "sinner", regardless of how saintly he behaves, and how many good works he has done.
Stanley believes that the real IDENTITY of a Christian is found in the last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, and not in the first Adam. As born-again children of God, our true IDENTITY is found in the Spirit (the supernatural), not in the flesh (the natural).
Since we are taught in the Bible to walk NOT by sight (i.e. to perceive and live naturally, to look to ourselves and depend on our self-efforts) but by faith (i.e. to perceive and live super-naturally, to look to Jesus and depend on His grace), we are to see our IDENTITY in Christ, in the Spirit, and not in our humanity, in the natural.
I believe it is in the above sense that Stanley asserts that a Christian (a child of God) can never become a sinner (a non child of God) and should therefore not be addressed as such.
2. For C, the term "sinner" simply describes a person based on his actions and deeds. The term "sinner" does not so much define the identity of a person as it DESCRIBES THE DEEDS performed by him.
Therefore, when a person, regardless of whether he is a believer or an unbeliever, commits a sinful deed, he is described as a sinner.
Here, we are NOT talking about the person's identiy. His identity as a beloved child of God remains intact - he is still fully forgiven, still completely accepted, still perfectly righteous IN CHRIST.
Nevertheless, when seen and described in his humanity, in the natural state (in contrast to the spiritual state which is IN CHRIST), this person is indeed someone who has done wrong and fallen short - a doer of sin, a sinner.
In the sense above, I would agree with C that it is not inappropriate to use the term "sinner" to describe a born again believer.
3. Personally, I think it all boils down to the context in which and the meaning to which we attribute the word "sinner" when we use it. I believe when the context of the usage and our intended meaning are made clear, we will find it easier to appreciate each other, and not disagree with each other so much. :-)
As I've stated in point 2 above, I don't object to the use of the word "sinner" to describe born-again believers. Nevertheless, my personal conviction and strong preference is to use words such as "beloved", "accepted", "Royal Priesthood", "the righteousness of God" etc. to address my fellow siblings in Christ and myself.
I find it can be quite confusing to call a believer the righteousness of God in one breath, and then in the next breath, call him a sinner.
But there is a way out. To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, we can say, "IN and of ourselves, we are but filthy and sorry sinners, but thanks be to God, IN CHRIST our lovely Savior, we are the precious children of our Abba, fully forgiven and greatly loved by Him. We are the righteousnes of God! :-)
Shalom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Yes, Stanley. Christ has paid the penalty for ALL our sins. Yes, even when we sin, we are still righteous in God's eyes. But where did you get the idea that He no longer see us as sinners? Why all these warnings in the bible? For example,
"We must ALL stand before Christ to be JUDGE. We will each receive whatever we deserve for good or evil we have DONE in this earthly body." ( 2 Cor. 5:10)
"It is God's will that you should be sanctified..The Lord will PUNISH men for all such sins as we already told you and warned you. For God did NOT call us to be IMPURE, but to live a holy life." (1 Thess 4:3-7).
What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are?
Why cant we call a believer who sins a sinner (James 5:8) ? What is wrong to admit that although one is righteous in the eyes of God, one is also a sinner if one commits a sin?
In the biography or autobiography of great saints, they say towards the end of their lives, they are still sinners. The reason is that as they get closer to God, they become more aware of their sins.
Most unbelievers live in darkness and because their conscience is dead, they are not aware of their sins. As we grow closer to the Light, it will reveal our more of our hidden sins, motives and agendas. We shall out of remorse and Godly sorrow that leads us to repentance.
The more we know we are sinners, the more closer we will draw near to God. It sounds like a paradox, and like most great christian truths, they are paradoxical.
Stanley wrote:
"What is wrong for God to see us as righteous because of Christ's act and to see us as sinners for what we really are.?"
Well, C, I guess you belong to Blaise Pascal's "the righteous, who believe themselves sinners". As for me (and I think Lip Kee as well), I belong to "the righteous, who believe themselves righteous" BUT no worries, you and I will still meet in heaven, just that our journey there will be entirely different experiences ;-)
Lip Kee wrote:
To find common grounds on which to facilitate our communication and enhance mutual understanding among us, I read through all the comments again, and my comments are as follows:
1. For Stanley, the term "Christian" and "sinner" are used to define the spiritual IDENTITY of a person.
A "Christian" is someone who believes in and accepts the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, saved from the prison called "sin", and born again as a child of the most high God. The IDENTITY of a believer, a saved person, a Christian, is that of "the righteousness of God in Christ" (Rom 5:21), even if he were to fail and fall, and commit sinful acts.... Read more.
Does a Christian still have the flesh in him? Does sin in the flesh have an influence over the believer? Is it possible for a child of God to still commit sins? Yes, yes, and yes. But he remains forever a born again child of God. He cannot "un-born" himself from God's family.
In contrast, a "sinner" is an unbelieving, Christ-less, unsaved person who belongs to the tribe of the first Adam and has yet to be reborn into God's family. The IDENTITY of an unsaved person remains that of a "sinner", regardless of how saintly he behaves, and how many good works he has done.
Stanley believes that the real IDENTITY of a Christian is found in the last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, and not in the first Adam. As born-again children of God, our true IDENTITY is found in the Spirit (the supernatural), not in the flesh (the natural).
Since we are taught in the Bible to walk NOT by sight (i.e. to perceive and live naturally, to look to ourselves and depend on our self-efforts) but by faith (i.e. to perceive and live super-naturally, to look to Jesus and depend on His grace), we are to see our IDENTITY in Christ, in the Spirit, and not in our humanity, in the natural.
I believe it is in the above sense that Stanley asserts that a Christian (a child of God) can never become a sinner (a non child of God) and should therefore not be addressed as such.
2. For C, the term "sinner" simply describes a person based on his actions and deeds. The term "sinner" does not so much define the identity of a person as it DESCRIBES THE DEEDS performed by him.
Therefore, when a person, regardless of whether he is a believer or an unbeliever, commits a sinful deed, he is described as a sinner.
Here, we are NOT talking about the person's identiy. His identity as a beloved child of God remains intact - he is still fully forgiven, still completely accepted, still perfectly righteous IN CHRIST.
Nevertheless, when seen and described in his humanity, in the natural state (in contrast to the spiritual state which is IN CHRIST), this person is indeed someone who has done wrong and fallen short - a doer of sin, a sinner.
In the sense above, I would agree with C that it is not inappropriate to use the term "sinner" to describe a born again believer.
3. Personally, I think it all boils down to the context in which and the meaning to which we attribute the word "sinner" when we use it. I believe when the context of the usage and our intended meaning are made clear, we will find it easier to appreciate each other, and not disagree with each other so much. :-)
As I've stated in point 2 above, I don't object to the use of the word "sinner" to describe born-again believers. Nevertheless, my personal conviction and strong preference is to use words such as "beloved", "accepted", "Royal Priesthood", "the righteousness of God" etc. to address my fellow siblings in Christ and myself.
I find it can be quite confusing to call a believer the righteousness of God in one breath, and then in the next breath, call him a sinner.
But there is a way out. To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, we can say, "IN and of ourselves, we are but filthy and sorry sinners, but thanks be to God, IN CHRIST our lovely Savior, we are the precious children of our Abba, fully forgiven and greatly loved by Him. We are the righteousnes of God! :-)
Shalom
Should Christians follow Paul's example and call ourselves sinners? - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in an earlier posting titlted "Teaching personal responsibility in church": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/teaching-personal-responsibility-in.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:15 is that Paul was speaking of himself in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
So it seems that there are two forms of speaking for believers, one in the flesh, the other in the Spirit. A kind of dualism bordering on split personality when one can speak in the flesh at ... Read moreone moment, and at another moment, speak in the Spirit.
Why cant we just accept PLAINLY what the text says, " Here is a TRUSTWORTHY saying that deserves ACCEPTANCE : Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I AM the WORST? Why force an unnatural meaning into the text?
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C, I believe it was Paul himself who spoke about the "dualism" or "split personality" in Romans 7. In particular verses 17 to 20, where he wrote, "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."
Seems to me Paul was having a serious case of "split personality", don't you think so?
Paul went on and exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am!", but praise God he did not stop there. To the question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", Paul's answer was, "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).... Read more
In Rom 7, Paul was talking about himself in the natural, in the flesh. Then from Rom 8 onwards, Paul wrote about the life in the Spirit, in Christ: a wonderful life that begins with "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1), ends with "no seperation from the love of God" (Rom 8:38-39), and in between, the receiving the Spirit of Sonship by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15); the assurance that "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31); the promise of "how shall God not with Jesus also freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32); and the proclaimation that "in all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). What a gloriously victorious life in the Spirit, and what a stark contrast to defeated and helpless life in the fresh.
It seems to me the apostle Paul was the one who legitimise the "dualism" or "split personality" of a Christian's life. That being the case, I don't think my interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15 is "forced".
I hope I am making sense to you. Shalom. :-)
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, what you said make sense. However, in the context of Romans 7:14-25, Paul makes it CLEAR that he is STRUGGLING WITH SIN.
He elaborates in Galatians 5: 16-18, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in CONFLICT with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."
Having said that, that does not meant that Paul is speaking in the natural (flesh) in Romans 7 and speaking in the Spirit in Romans 8.
If we take your approach of reading the Bible, we will always have to guess whether Paul is speaking in the flesh or speaking in the Spirit in all the things he wrote. Thus, if a particular verse does not fit in to our theology, we can easily dismiss it or say that Paul is speaking in the flesh.
This is what you did as you interpret Paul as speaking in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15 when the plain reading of the verse says that Paul says " I AM chief of the Sinners." He did not say or even infer that he is speaking in the natural ( flesh).
Lip Kee replied:
Based on my little knowledge and limited wisdom, I am convinced that in Rom 7 Paul is talking about life in the flesh, and in Rom 8 he is talking about life in the Spirit. I also feel comfortable with my interpretation that Paul is talking about himself in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15.
I don't insist that others should accept my views on those passages of Scripture. If anyone were to find my sharing helpful, take it and use it to the praise of God. If not, just throw it away or ignore it. Afterall, I am no Bible scholar or theologian. :-)... Read more
Now, regarding the verse in James 4:7-8: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."
I read through the entire book of James a couple of times and in different versions this morning. I realised that the letter is meant to address a range of issues involving several different groups of people within "twelve tribes scattered among the nations". A portion of the letter was directed at the persecuted who were undergoing trials; a portion to those who apparently had anger management issues and were undisciplined in the way they spoke with one another; another portion to those who practiced favoritism in church; another portion to people who did not walk the talk and were lacking in good works; another portion to those who presumed to be teachers but were unwise in their speech and stirred up controversies; another portin to those who indulged in their pleasures; another to brothers who slandered one another; another those who boost in their future plans for profit; another to the rich oppressors, another to a group of apparently poor and long-suffering people; and another to those who were in trouble and sick.
In James 4:8, when James used the word "sinners", it is possible that he was addressing a certain group or a few groups of believers in the churches. At the same time, it is also not unthinkable that James might be addressing the unbelievers among the group(s) of people.
Even if we were to assume that there were no non-Christians/unbelievers among the churches in "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations", and that James used the term "sinners" to address the believers, I believe he meant it in the way of "you who committed sinful acts" (in reference to their deeds) rather than "you who are unforgiven and unrighteous" (in reference to their IDENTITY, their relationships with the Lord).
In any case, my personal view is that the two verses in 1 Tim 1:15 and James 4:8 do not firmly or in any way establish a case/ an example for us to follow in terms of how we should identify, address or describe ourselves and our fellow believers.
I find the ways the writers of the New Testament identify, address and describe believers are mostly (if not always) affirming, encouraging and assuring, and I intend to follow that pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, your interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:15 is that Paul was speaking of himself in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
So it seems that there are two forms of speaking for believers, one in the flesh, the other in the Spirit. A kind of dualism bordering on split personality when one can speak in the flesh at ... Read moreone moment, and at another moment, speak in the Spirit.
Why cant we just accept PLAINLY what the text says, " Here is a TRUSTWORTHY saying that deserves ACCEPTANCE : Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I AM the WORST? Why force an unnatural meaning into the text?
Lip Kee replied:
Hi C, I believe it was Paul himself who spoke about the "dualism" or "split personality" in Romans 7. In particular verses 17 to 20, where he wrote, "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find...Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."
Seems to me Paul was having a serious case of "split personality", don't you think so?
Paul went on and exclaimed, "O wretched man that I am!", but praise God he did not stop there. To the question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", Paul's answer was, "I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25).... Read more
In Rom 7, Paul was talking about himself in the natural, in the flesh. Then from Rom 8 onwards, Paul wrote about the life in the Spirit, in Christ: a wonderful life that begins with "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1), ends with "no seperation from the love of God" (Rom 8:38-39), and in between, the receiving the Spirit of Sonship by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15); the assurance that "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31); the promise of "how shall God not with Jesus also freely give us all things" (Rom 8:32); and the proclaimation that "in all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:37). What a gloriously victorious life in the Spirit, and what a stark contrast to defeated and helpless life in the fresh.
It seems to me the apostle Paul was the one who legitimise the "dualism" or "split personality" of a Christian's life. That being the case, I don't think my interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15 is "forced".
I hope I am making sense to you. Shalom. :-)
C wrote:
Hi Lip Kee, what you said make sense. However, in the context of Romans 7:14-25, Paul makes it CLEAR that he is STRUGGLING WITH SIN.
He elaborates in Galatians 5: 16-18, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in CONFLICT with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."
Having said that, that does not meant that Paul is speaking in the natural (flesh) in Romans 7 and speaking in the Spirit in Romans 8.
If we take your approach of reading the Bible, we will always have to guess whether Paul is speaking in the flesh or speaking in the Spirit in all the things he wrote. Thus, if a particular verse does not fit in to our theology, we can easily dismiss it or say that Paul is speaking in the flesh.
This is what you did as you interpret Paul as speaking in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15 when the plain reading of the verse says that Paul says " I AM chief of the Sinners." He did not say or even infer that he is speaking in the natural ( flesh).
Lip Kee replied:
Based on my little knowledge and limited wisdom, I am convinced that in Rom 7 Paul is talking about life in the flesh, and in Rom 8 he is talking about life in the Spirit. I also feel comfortable with my interpretation that Paul is talking about himself in the flesh in 1 Tim 1:15.
I don't insist that others should accept my views on those passages of Scripture. If anyone were to find my sharing helpful, take it and use it to the praise of God. If not, just throw it away or ignore it. Afterall, I am no Bible scholar or theologian. :-)... Read more
Now, regarding the verse in James 4:7-8: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."
I read through the entire book of James a couple of times and in different versions this morning. I realised that the letter is meant to address a range of issues involving several different groups of people within "twelve tribes scattered among the nations". A portion of the letter was directed at the persecuted who were undergoing trials; a portion to those who apparently had anger management issues and were undisciplined in the way they spoke with one another; another portion to those who practiced favoritism in church; another portion to people who did not walk the talk and were lacking in good works; another portion to those who presumed to be teachers but were unwise in their speech and stirred up controversies; another portin to those who indulged in their pleasures; another to brothers who slandered one another; another those who boost in their future plans for profit; another to the rich oppressors, another to a group of apparently poor and long-suffering people; and another to those who were in trouble and sick.
In James 4:8, when James used the word "sinners", it is possible that he was addressing a certain group or a few groups of believers in the churches. At the same time, it is also not unthinkable that James might be addressing the unbelievers among the group(s) of people.
Even if we were to assume that there were no non-Christians/unbelievers among the churches in "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations", and that James used the term "sinners" to address the believers, I believe he meant it in the way of "you who committed sinful acts" (in reference to their deeds) rather than "you who are unforgiven and unrighteous" (in reference to their IDENTITY, their relationships with the Lord).
In any case, my personal view is that the two verses in 1 Tim 1:15 and James 4:8 do not firmly or in any way establish a case/ an example for us to follow in terms of how we should identify, address or describe ourselves and our fellow believers.
I find the ways the writers of the New Testament identify, address and describe believers are mostly (if not always) affirming, encouraging and assuring, and I intend to follow that pattern.
Teaching personal responsibility in church - a discussion
The exchanges below follow those that took place in another posting titlted "How do we teach righteousness?": http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-do-we-teach-righteousness-right.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
There is nothing wrong if you wish to emphasize what God has already done.
I choose to emphasize on the things WE DO because the context of my comments is that the righteous who believe themselves sinners is the biblical kind of people. This is what the Bible teaches and I have provided scriptural texts to support this point.
The righteous believe themselves sinners as the Apostle Paul did, is because they know that sanctification and righteous living is a process and that although they are righteous, having a position of right standing before God, yet they must pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and] gentleness. ( 1 Tim 6:11).
I stress on personal responsibility knowing that God will do His part and enable us, if we DO our part. For example, it is irresponsible for a believer to say " I don’t know why God allows me to fail my exam when I’ve already surrender my studies to Him”, when the person who makes this statement did not put in effort in His studies.
I close with this quote: "Tell me not that you are righteous, unless you have also some marks of sanctification. Boast not of Christ's work for you, unless you can show us the Spirit's work in you."
Lip Kee replied:
Yes, Charles, I agree with you that it is important to teach about personal responsibility.
I believe that by affirming ourselves and our fellow siblings in Christ of what God has done for us, and how Jesus by His Finished Work on the Cross has made us fully righteous and completely acceptable before our Abba Father, we are reminding and encouraging ourselves that we HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESPOND to God and to His promises.
This is how I teach people about personal responsibility (response-ability) - by affirming them of their God-given, Christ-powered ability to respond.
So like you, I am for teaching personal responsibility. It's just that our approach and our focus are different. :-)
As for the verse in 1 Tim 1 where the apostle Paul claimed to be "the Chief" of all sinners, my interpretation is that in that particular context, Paul was speaking of himelf in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
In and of myself, outside of Jesus Christ, I am but a hopeless and helpless sinner.
But thanks be to God, because of the Finished Work at the Cross, I am now and forever in Christ. And in Him, I am the righteousness of God!... Read more
All throughout Paul's letters, he repeateded affirms and assures us that we are accepted in the Beloved, that we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places, that we have the propitiation for our sins, that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
In John's first letter, we are told that "as Jesus is (present tense), so are we in this world".
As Jesus is fully righteous in heaven, so are we fully righteous in this world.Knowing this precious truth compels, motivates me, empowers me to perform acts that are righteous, to behave in ways that are godly, in this world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C wrote:
There is nothing wrong if you wish to emphasize what God has already done.
I choose to emphasize on the things WE DO because the context of my comments is that the righteous who believe themselves sinners is the biblical kind of people. This is what the Bible teaches and I have provided scriptural texts to support this point.
The righteous believe themselves sinners as the Apostle Paul did, is because they know that sanctification and righteous living is a process and that although they are righteous, having a position of right standing before God, yet they must pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and] gentleness. ( 1 Tim 6:11).
I stress on personal responsibility knowing that God will do His part and enable us, if we DO our part. For example, it is irresponsible for a believer to say " I don’t know why God allows me to fail my exam when I’ve already surrender my studies to Him”, when the person who makes this statement did not put in effort in His studies.
I close with this quote: "Tell me not that you are righteous, unless you have also some marks of sanctification. Boast not of Christ's work for you, unless you can show us the Spirit's work in you."
Lip Kee replied:
Yes, Charles, I agree with you that it is important to teach about personal responsibility.
I believe that by affirming ourselves and our fellow siblings in Christ of what God has done for us, and how Jesus by His Finished Work on the Cross has made us fully righteous and completely acceptable before our Abba Father, we are reminding and encouraging ourselves that we HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESPOND to God and to His promises.
This is how I teach people about personal responsibility (response-ability) - by affirming them of their God-given, Christ-powered ability to respond.
So like you, I am for teaching personal responsibility. It's just that our approach and our focus are different. :-)
As for the verse in 1 Tim 1 where the apostle Paul claimed to be "the Chief" of all sinners, my interpretation is that in that particular context, Paul was speaking of himelf in the natural, in the flesh, NOT of himself in Christ, in the Spirit.
In and of myself, outside of Jesus Christ, I am but a hopeless and helpless sinner.
But thanks be to God, because of the Finished Work at the Cross, I am now and forever in Christ. And in Him, I am the righteousness of God!... Read more
All throughout Paul's letters, he repeateded affirms and assures us that we are accepted in the Beloved, that we are seated with Christ in the heavenly places, that we have the propitiation for our sins, that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
In John's first letter, we are told that "as Jesus is (present tense), so are we in this world".
As Jesus is fully righteous in heaven, so are we fully righteous in this world.Knowing this precious truth compels, motivates me, empowers me to perform acts that are righteous, to behave in ways that are godly, in this world.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
那夜月窥烛聆
中秋夜，月光和我们的呢喃在夜的沁凉中继续涌流。我们的心，桌上的烛，窗边的香，燃着。
明月几时有？促膝倾心的机会有几回？秉烛聚首的时候，我们笑着说，得乘着一个难得的夜晚计算一下，一柱香的时间究竟有多长。
你微笑着说，倾心的曲调应该用磁带纪录下来，不该让它随着夜的流逝而失去。我说对啊，如此珍贵的声音，应该永恒地珍惜。
可是我们没有那么做。我们太专心了，太专心于捕捉彼此的每一声呼吸，每一句言语，以至没有顾虑到声音在空气中飘过后的寻不回。
我们谈着听着，然后似乎很有默契地静了下来，相顾无言。心掏尽后的你，面对一个被填满的我。
从你身上，我看到一个勇敢而美丽的灵魂，也看到自己的懦弱和卑小。或许正如她所说的，我是个不愿付出、不愿投入的人。或许，说我不敢会更加确切。我真的胆怯得犹如将灭的烛火。
你说你以为你已经找到一位最懂你、最亲近的朋友了。你一直都这么以为着。我仿佛听到你的叹息，还有哽咽。
对不起啊，我很想说，我一直以来都未曾留意。
我尽量抑制自己，脑子里却不经意浮现你告诉我你生日的晚上抱着自己哭泣的画面。我想轻抚你的头发，想紧握你的双手，想拥你入怀。但是我没有。
然后，我看到一个伤心而美丽的灵魂，一朵淡淡哀然的微笑，和一双失望的眼睛。我的心感觉有些沉重，有点抽痛。
而后，我们开始收拾，收拾坠落于一夜烛光下的心情、一桌的泪以及满室清辉。
你惋惜着说，可惜我们没有磁带，可惜没有录音，可惜一夜倾心的声音往后只能在回忆里搜寻。
其实，也用不着怅然，我想。泪是凝结了，夜是燃尽了，但是没有遗憾，因为我们的交流，已经完整地被收录于蜡烛的燃烧过程中。我说，烛泪的瀮然是录音磁带的旋转。
你轻轻地笑着说，真好，但烛还是燃尽了，夜开始睡了，晨要醒了，梦也要醒了。而我们各自的日子，还是要继续。
那一夜，月亮窥视了我们的坦然，烛火聆听了我们的无奈。一柱香的时间究竟有多长，往后我们之间的距离究竟将会有多远，我们都没有去计算。
（写于1989年。修于2009年。）
明月几时有？促膝倾心的机会有几回？秉烛聚首的时候，我们笑着说，得乘着一个难得的夜晚计算一下，一柱香的时间究竟有多长。
你微笑着说，倾心的曲调应该用磁带纪录下来，不该让它随着夜的流逝而失去。我说对啊，如此珍贵的声音，应该永恒地珍惜。
可是我们没有那么做。我们太专心了，太专心于捕捉彼此的每一声呼吸，每一句言语，以至没有顾虑到声音在空气中飘过后的寻不回。
我们谈着听着，然后似乎很有默契地静了下来，相顾无言。心掏尽后的你，面对一个被填满的我。
从你身上，我看到一个勇敢而美丽的灵魂，也看到自己的懦弱和卑小。或许正如她所说的，我是个不愿付出、不愿投入的人。或许，说我不敢会更加确切。我真的胆怯得犹如将灭的烛火。
你说你以为你已经找到一位最懂你、最亲近的朋友了。你一直都这么以为着。我仿佛听到你的叹息，还有哽咽。
对不起啊，我很想说，我一直以来都未曾留意。
我尽量抑制自己，脑子里却不经意浮现你告诉我你生日的晚上抱着自己哭泣的画面。我想轻抚你的头发，想紧握你的双手，想拥你入怀。但是我没有。
然后，我看到一个伤心而美丽的灵魂，一朵淡淡哀然的微笑，和一双失望的眼睛。我的心感觉有些沉重，有点抽痛。
而后，我们开始收拾，收拾坠落于一夜烛光下的心情、一桌的泪以及满室清辉。
你惋惜着说，可惜我们没有磁带，可惜没有录音，可惜一夜倾心的声音往后只能在回忆里搜寻。
其实，也用不着怅然，我想。泪是凝结了，夜是燃尽了，但是没有遗憾，因为我们的交流，已经完整地被收录于蜡烛的燃烧过程中。我说，烛泪的瀮然是录音磁带的旋转。
你轻轻地笑着说，真好，但烛还是燃尽了，夜开始睡了，晨要醒了，梦也要醒了。而我们各自的日子，还是要继续。
那一夜，月亮窥视了我们的坦然，烛火聆听了我们的无奈。一柱香的时间究竟有多长，往后我们之间的距离究竟将会有多远，我们都没有去计算。
（写于1989年。修于2009年。）
Thursday, September 3, 2009
傻傻的
活得太精明， 对一切人事物计较得太多，考量过甚， 是非常累人的。累到一个程度， 甚至可以连微笑的力气都没有了。
认真专心、有条有理、有计划有决心尽本份地学习工作，当然无可厚非，甚至可以说应该是理所当然。我们何曾听过有“傻傻”或“笨笨”的学生或员工被称赞、被嘉许的呢？
生活不单单是学习和工作。生命并不只是尽量地利用有限的时间去完成计划、达成目标。精细的分析、聪明的计算、灵巧的筹划，或许可以让一个人更靠近甚至拥有所谓的成功圆满的生活。但是如果一个人一生只晓得一味地精明的活着， 从来没有“傻傻”地做过任何心里有感动想做，却知道未必会对自己有益，甚至可能对自己有损的事情，他也许真的活得够聪明，但他是否活得够智慧呢？
就我们生活中与人相处交往而言， 有多少人会“傻傻”地不顾被拒绝、被伤害、让自己难堪的可能，勇敢坦然地主动去帮助别人、关怀别人、与别人由衷地交心分享呢？
如果有一天你被人形容为“傻傻”的一个人，那很可能是一件值得开心的事。请一点也不要介意，反倒要喜乐地还之以一个“傻傻”的微笑。
- 2000年4月24日发表于联合早报副刊〈四面八方〉版
认真专心、有条有理、有计划有决心尽本份地学习工作，当然无可厚非，甚至可以说应该是理所当然。我们何曾听过有“傻傻”或“笨笨”的学生或员工被称赞、被嘉许的呢？
生活不单单是学习和工作。生命并不只是尽量地利用有限的时间去完成计划、达成目标。精细的分析、聪明的计算、灵巧的筹划，或许可以让一个人更靠近甚至拥有所谓的成功圆满的生活。但是如果一个人一生只晓得一味地精明的活着， 从来没有“傻傻”地做过任何心里有感动想做，却知道未必会对自己有益，甚至可能对自己有损的事情，他也许真的活得够聪明，但他是否活得够智慧呢？
就我们生活中与人相处交往而言， 有多少人会“傻傻”地不顾被拒绝、被伤害、让自己难堪的可能，勇敢坦然地主动去帮助别人、关怀别人、与别人由衷地交心分享呢？
如果有一天你被人形容为“傻傻”的一个人，那很可能是一件值得开心的事。请一点也不要介意，反倒要喜乐地还之以一个“傻傻”的微笑。
- 2000年4月24日发表于联合早报副刊〈四面八方〉版
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Delicious ambiguity
I was delighted when I came cross the words "delicious ambiguity" while reading a book recently.
I find the juxtaposition of the two words appealing. I suspect it has to do with the fact that I have been described by a friend as "a person who likes to contradict himself". With due respect, I beg to disagree with my friend's commentary on me. No one likes to be contradicted, not even by oneself. Most people love to be right all the time. Few would enjoy being proved wrong. I am no exception.
I have always enjoyed exploring the paradoxical aspects of life. And since my university days, I have been defining my own growth and maturity according to my level of appetite for the uncertain, and my capacity for the ambiguous.
Given my adherence to a faith which scriptures proclaim absolute truths, and (especially) my affiliations to organizations and people whose self-defined roles include the defending and the propagation of those absolute truths, it hasn't been an easy journey for me. But it is a path I have chosen. A choice for which I have no regrets.
The road less traveled can be exciting and enriching. Embracing uncertainty can be an expression of one's faith in the One Certainty. It can be very humbling yet liberating for one to acknowledge that one can believe in absolute truths and yet not be absolutely certain of those truths.
Ambiguity can indeed be delicious. And nourishing.
I find the juxtaposition of the two words appealing. I suspect it has to do with the fact that I have been described by a friend as "a person who likes to contradict himself". With due respect, I beg to disagree with my friend's commentary on me. No one likes to be contradicted, not even by oneself. Most people love to be right all the time. Few would enjoy being proved wrong. I am no exception.
I have always enjoyed exploring the paradoxical aspects of life. And since my university days, I have been defining my own growth and maturity according to my level of appetite for the uncertain, and my capacity for the ambiguous.
Given my adherence to a faith which scriptures proclaim absolute truths, and (especially) my affiliations to organizations and people whose self-defined roles include the defending and the propagation of those absolute truths, it hasn't been an easy journey for me. But it is a path I have chosen. A choice for which I have no regrets.
The road less traveled can be exciting and enriching. Embracing uncertainty can be an expression of one's faith in the One Certainty. It can be very humbling yet liberating for one to acknowledge that one can believe in absolute truths and yet not be absolutely certain of those truths.
Ambiguity can indeed be delicious. And nourishing.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The little musician. The little magician.
It is so fun to watch and to play with my little nephew. :-)
He plays the guitar...
and the violin...
and the viola...
and the cello...
and the double base.
He is the musician and the magician.
And this is his magic manual.
He plays the guitar...
and the violin...
and the viola...
and the cello...
and the double base.
He is the musician and the magician.
And this is his magic manual.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
My 22nd birthday
On the 7th of June in the year 1987, I made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
I am so thankful that I made the decision. :-)
I am so thankful that I made the decision. :-)
快乐的事
断然阻止尽忠职守的闹钟继续尖叫。
刻意眷恋于枕头的轻柔、被窝的温暖、梦境中捉摸不清的色彩和心情，以及赖床的那一份写意。
感受清凉的水轻抚我脸庞，唤醒我惺忪双眸、明亮我呆滞思绪的清爽快意。
漫不经心地数算专心的牙刷游走于我牙齿唇舌间的步履。
惊讶于容光焕发的镜子那恬然自得、略带微笑的表情。
细嚼每一天千篇一律却又百吃不厌的三片面包。
品铭香浓的豆浆和牛奶。
欣赏清晨空气中阳光的味道。
静观一张张熟悉的地铁车厢中缘遇的陌生面孔。
猜想木然的表情背后是否蕴藏浮动的心绪。
分析同事的笑话为什么不好笑，然后禁不住发笑。
设想看似无理取闹的老板心中的重担和苦恼， 然后尝试体谅。
期盼周末假日的到来，然后提醒自己不要忘了每一天都同样宝贵重要，所以要积极珍惜每一分每一秒。
回家吃妈妈煮的饭、熬的汤。
安心看着家里的人继续安然无恙。
想起陪我走过童年的芝麻街大鸟。
忆起小学时候，等校车的一个早上，每个候车的妈妈和孩子们都看得到，唯独我怎么努力也瞧不着的大树上的鸟窝。
怀念高中时期那只与一群同学联手安葬的麻雀，以及安插在它坟上的小小十字架。
邂逅一首美丽的诗，巧遇一曲贴心的歌。
认识新朋友，与老友重逢。
为圣经中难解的经文苦恼，为心爱的人祷告。
庆幸自己还有存活的气息，还有健全的身心。
还拥有能够经历喜怒哀乐、能够作选择作决定的生命。
- 2000年5月29日发表于联合早报副刊〈四面八方〉版
刻意眷恋于枕头的轻柔、被窝的温暖、梦境中捉摸不清的色彩和心情，以及赖床的那一份写意。
感受清凉的水轻抚我脸庞，唤醒我惺忪双眸、明亮我呆滞思绪的清爽快意。
漫不经心地数算专心的牙刷游走于我牙齿唇舌间的步履。
惊讶于容光焕发的镜子那恬然自得、略带微笑的表情。
细嚼每一天千篇一律却又百吃不厌的三片面包。
品铭香浓的豆浆和牛奶。
欣赏清晨空气中阳光的味道。
静观一张张熟悉的地铁车厢中缘遇的陌生面孔。
猜想木然的表情背后是否蕴藏浮动的心绪。
分析同事的笑话为什么不好笑，然后禁不住发笑。
设想看似无理取闹的老板心中的重担和苦恼， 然后尝试体谅。
期盼周末假日的到来，然后提醒自己不要忘了每一天都同样宝贵重要，所以要积极珍惜每一分每一秒。
回家吃妈妈煮的饭、熬的汤。
安心看着家里的人继续安然无恙。
想起陪我走过童年的芝麻街大鸟。
忆起小学时候，等校车的一个早上，每个候车的妈妈和孩子们都看得到，唯独我怎么努力也瞧不着的大树上的鸟窝。
怀念高中时期那只与一群同学联手安葬的麻雀，以及安插在它坟上的小小十字架。
邂逅一首美丽的诗，巧遇一曲贴心的歌。
认识新朋友，与老友重逢。
为圣经中难解的经文苦恼，为心爱的人祷告。
庆幸自己还有存活的气息，还有健全的身心。
还拥有能够经历喜怒哀乐、能够作选择作决定的生命。
- 2000年5月29日发表于联合早报副刊〈四面八方〉版
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ann Hui's "The Way We Are" (天水围的日与夜)
I hope more people will get to see Ann Hui's latest film "The Way We Are" (天水围的日与夜). But I doubt it will get mass screening in Singapore, even though it won best director, best screen play, best actress and best supporting actress at the 28th Hong Kong Film Awards.
I suspect that the typical Singaporean movie goer, who prefers the typical Hollywood fares, will find "The Way We Are" too slow-moving and boring, and that the film is unlikely to do well at the box office. For this reason, I believe the cinemas in Singapore will not be too keen to screen the film.
Still, I hope this quietly charming film will at least be shown at the Picture House.
Film review by Kozo:
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews_2/way_we_are.html
*****************************************************
Tin Shui Wai is a place where bad things happen - or so the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us. A northwestern New Territories town, the Tin Shui Wai New Town emerged in the 1990s thanks to land reclamation and financial help from the Hong Kong Government. Unfortunately, the town currently suffers from widespread unemployment, leading to domestic violence, suicide, triad activity, and plenty of bad stuff that, again, the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us about. Exacerbating that was the unfortunate October 2007 incident when a mother and her two children reportedly leapt to their deaths from one of the area's high-rise housing estates. The negative media attention and public perception of the town as a "City of Sadness" are reasons that Lawrence Lau's Beseiged City, a 2007 drama taking place in Tin Shui Wai, has been chided for sensationalizing the city's woes.
However, there is another side to Tin Shui Wai, namely the side where people get up in the morning, live their lives, and contribute the best they can to their communities. Ann Hui's HD-video docudrama, The Way We Are gives voice to these other, less sensational residents of Tin Shui Wai, and manages to give their lives weight and depth, while also not glorifying their working-class honesty. Despite the title and presumed intentions, The Way We Are is not didactic or moralizing - it's just real, in all its serene, mundane, everyday glory. The more cinematically inclined could knock the film for its lack of action and its snail's pace, but Hui seems unconcerned with telling anything resembling a true narrative with a beginning, middle, or end. The Way We Are picks up the threads in people's lives, follows them, and reveals nothing more than unglamourous reality.
Bau Hei-Jing (Lost in Time) stars as Mrs. Cheung, who lives with teenage son Ka-On (Juno Leung). Mrs. Cheung works part-time in the local Wellcome supermarket, while Ka-On lazes about their home and occasionally attends church fellowship meetings, where he may or may not admire one of his church mentors. Life occurs when the two befriend a new neighbor (Chan Wai-Lun), an elderly woman who lives alone, and soon joins Mrs. Cheung at her workplace. Meanwhile, Mrs. Cheung's mother enters the hospital, and Mrs. Cheung is too busy to visit right away, but Ka-On visits from time to time, bringing soup with him. Meanwhile, their neighbor needs a light bulb changed, but she's too old and unwilling to do it. Will Ka-On help her change her light bulb? And will Mrs. Cheung ever visit her mom in the hospital?
It may sound like I'm mocking The Way We Are, but I'm just trying to poke fun at standard moviegoing expectations. Oftentimes we expect active narratives and characters in our movies, and indeed, some films could be called to task for not delivering those effectively. The Way We Are, however, is not one of those films, and its aims can plainly be seen in the Chinese title: Tin Shui Wai Dik Yat Yue Ye, meaning "Tin Shui Wai At Day and Night". This is a simple story about regular people, and Ann Hui breathes credibility and affection into her characters and their lives by choosing not to overdo the film. Her approach is decidedly quiet, utilizing sparing amounts of music or manipulative technique, and making no attempt to cajole the audience into the role of active participant. The viewer's role here is passive, much like the characters themselves, who react naturally and without forced emotion or incident. The result is not action-packed, and The Way We Are proves so unexciting as to soporific. Yes, this movie can put a person to sleep, and if you've had a glass of wine and only 3-4 hours sleep the previous evening, expect a nap attack.
Again, however, that's not cause to deride the film. The Way We Are is not a classic, as it never surpasses its humble aims, but Hui's hand is assured enough to make this a worthy visit. The director displays extraordinary confidence and control in that she resists the temptation to make the film more than what it truly is. The characters lives never threaten to become the stuff of melodrama, and though details are revealed about the history of the characters and the town, little qualifies as an outright dramatic revelation. The emotions here are simple and respectful ones, and show us that the people of Tin Shui Wai have a heart and soul. Living there is like living anywhere else; it's full of ups and downs, small successes and setbacks, and people who are worth getting to know if you just give them a chance. The Way We Are makes Tin Shui Wai seem like home.
I suspect that the typical Singaporean movie goer, who prefers the typical Hollywood fares, will find "The Way We Are" too slow-moving and boring, and that the film is unlikely to do well at the box office. For this reason, I believe the cinemas in Singapore will not be too keen to screen the film.
Still, I hope this quietly charming film will at least be shown at the Picture House.
Film review by Kozo:
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews_2/way_we_are.html
*****************************************************
Tin Shui Wai is a place where bad things happen - or so the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us. A northwestern New Territories town, the Tin Shui Wai New Town emerged in the 1990s thanks to land reclamation and financial help from the Hong Kong Government. Unfortunately, the town currently suffers from widespread unemployment, leading to domestic violence, suicide, triad activity, and plenty of bad stuff that, again, the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us about. Exacerbating that was the unfortunate October 2007 incident when a mother and her two children reportedly leapt to their deaths from one of the area's high-rise housing estates. The negative media attention and public perception of the town as a "City of Sadness" are reasons that Lawrence Lau's Beseiged City, a 2007 drama taking place in Tin Shui Wai, has been chided for sensationalizing the city's woes.
However, there is another side to Tin Shui Wai, namely the side where people get up in the morning, live their lives, and contribute the best they can to their communities. Ann Hui's HD-video docudrama, The Way We Are gives voice to these other, less sensational residents of Tin Shui Wai, and manages to give their lives weight and depth, while also not glorifying their working-class honesty. Despite the title and presumed intentions, The Way We Are is not didactic or moralizing - it's just real, in all its serene, mundane, everyday glory. The more cinematically inclined could knock the film for its lack of action and its snail's pace, but Hui seems unconcerned with telling anything resembling a true narrative with a beginning, middle, or end. The Way We Are picks up the threads in people's lives, follows them, and reveals nothing more than unglamourous reality.
Bau Hei-Jing (Lost in Time) stars as Mrs. Cheung, who lives with teenage son Ka-On (Juno Leung). Mrs. Cheung works part-time in the local Wellcome supermarket, while Ka-On lazes about their home and occasionally attends church fellowship meetings, where he may or may not admire one of his church mentors. Life occurs when the two befriend a new neighbor (Chan Wai-Lun), an elderly woman who lives alone, and soon joins Mrs. Cheung at her workplace. Meanwhile, Mrs. Cheung's mother enters the hospital, and Mrs. Cheung is too busy to visit right away, but Ka-On visits from time to time, bringing soup with him. Meanwhile, their neighbor needs a light bulb changed, but she's too old and unwilling to do it. Will Ka-On help her change her light bulb? And will Mrs. Cheung ever visit her mom in the hospital?
It may sound like I'm mocking The Way We Are, but I'm just trying to poke fun at standard moviegoing expectations. Oftentimes we expect active narratives and characters in our movies, and indeed, some films could be called to task for not delivering those effectively. The Way We Are, however, is not one of those films, and its aims can plainly be seen in the Chinese title: Tin Shui Wai Dik Yat Yue Ye, meaning "Tin Shui Wai At Day and Night". This is a simple story about regular people, and Ann Hui breathes credibility and affection into her characters and their lives by choosing not to overdo the film. Her approach is decidedly quiet, utilizing sparing amounts of music or manipulative technique, and making no attempt to cajole the audience into the role of active participant. The viewer's role here is passive, much like the characters themselves, who react naturally and without forced emotion or incident. The result is not action-packed, and The Way We Are proves so unexciting as to soporific. Yes, this movie can put a person to sleep, and if you've had a glass of wine and only 3-4 hours sleep the previous evening, expect a nap attack.
Again, however, that's not cause to deride the film. The Way We Are is not a classic, as it never surpasses its humble aims, but Hui's hand is assured enough to make this a worthy visit. The director displays extraordinary confidence and control in that she resists the temptation to make the film more than what it truly is. The characters lives never threaten to become the stuff of melodrama, and though details are revealed about the history of the characters and the town, little qualifies as an outright dramatic revelation. The emotions here are simple and respectful ones, and show us that the people of Tin Shui Wai have a heart and soul. Living there is like living anywhere else; it's full of ups and downs, small successes and setbacks, and people who are worth getting to know if you just give them a chance. The Way We Are makes Tin Shui Wai seem like home.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
那一季妻枪寓绿
就这样迫不及待地, 甚至还没正式认真起来, 惨绿的三个月结束自己, 以一种义无反顾的坚决。
如今坐在警察学院的宿舍里，面对着厚厚的法律课本，我正不遗余力地设法使自己认真起来，迎接警长课程第一阶段的结束、还有考试。如果这次顺利过关，六个月之后再闯过大考那一关，我就能摆脱训练的束缚、教官的苛刻，重回民间、投身社会了。
而六个月前，我首次被流放到一座岛上，开始经历我生命中一个既冬又夏的春季 – 怀着一颗悲秋的心。
甫入德光，十二月的连绵雨带来了心中微微的抽泣以及想家的病。而家的温馨，前所未有地呼唤着患病日深的我，如此情真意切， 越发使我难以忍受岛上严寒的人情世故。而长官可以无情得如此寒冬，训练却竟那般炎夏，以致我们这些虾兵蟹卒汗流浃背的灌溉，居然足够绿化整座岛日作夜续的生息、甚至我们浓缩的梦境。梦里，仍隐隐透散无边无际、无止无歇的绿色表情和叹息，夹着泥土的芳香和身体的汗臭。
幸好圣诞拯救了梦的阵亡于军绿的窒息，几抹节日的缤纷祥和了兵戎的戾气，也为我们这群新兵注射了一股越狱逃生般的兴奋。记得那次，也是自踏入德光岛后首次回家，我在日记中如此记载我的心情：虽然天空下着雨，我的心情却晴朗无比 – 所有的笑容也都禁不住拥挤到脸上来了。
那一段日子，最最高兴的就是每回乘风破浪的归乡之日。周末和假期是我们最殷切的期盼。尤其是喜气洋洋的农历新年，更让我那常耽于秋色之中的心猛然觉察到春的讯息。其他的日子， 除了陪我那无奈何迎娶过门的“妻子”在荒山野岭捕风捉影，或在打靶场印证百发百中这句成语的不实际，就是日间睡一些漫长的有关战争的课，夜里读一些短篇的有关和平的梦。
当然， 也少不了挨些翻山越岭、披荆斩棘、长途跋涉之苦，时不时做些强身壮胆的体操、还有学习诸般兵器，实行行军阵法。
时至当时，我才刻骨铭心地对战争深痛恶绝，才发现许多我平时视之为理所当然的寻常事物（如白开水），居然可以变得极其珍贵神奇。更巴不得天下马上大同，人人和谐共处、安居乐业， 好让我可以放下屠刀，立即回家。
所以我说， 当兵真好，不单栽培一批批强悍自主的卫国汉子，更教会我们这些毛头小子如何珍惜家、珍惜自由、珍惜日常生活中许多琐碎平常的事物。
并且， 军训的煎熬除了烧焦我们脸上的青春豆外，也催促青春岁月的成熟。而成熟不仅是学习自立，更是学会学习。观点的角度多了：除了个人的、社会的，额外有了军事的、国家的。以前，蓝色代表淡淡忧郁，而青色代则表无穷活力。当兵后，青色提醒我们训练的艰辛，触动我们心中的深层的忧郁。如此，我们领悟了青出于蓝的真谛。
那一季妻枪寓绿，我们一个两个都是坚毅的卫国兵、好男儿。 如今，我已卸下一身的绿，与莱福枪离婚，从军戎中迁居， 开始过着离沙场烽火较远，离人间烟火较近的深蓝警察生活。我当然深感庆幸，因为每年众多新兵中，仅有八十个被挑中接受警长训练课程。毕竟军旅生涯无论如何都是比较苛严难熬的。但是，仍在军绿中伴枪为妻的你们，可千万别荒废了这几个月来练就的工夫：坚毅和忍耐。要堂堂正正、积极乐观地接受每天的挑战。
生活就是一场没有尽期的争战，时时都需要我们打起精神，拿出勇气来应对。考期迫不及待地逼近，虽然目前我胸中的法律墨水仍严重缺供，但为了要做个堂堂正正称职的执法先锋，我会认真地备考，以一种义无反顾的坚决。
(1990年5月31日联合早报副刊〈文艺城〉)
如今坐在警察学院的宿舍里，面对着厚厚的法律课本，我正不遗余力地设法使自己认真起来，迎接警长课程第一阶段的结束、还有考试。如果这次顺利过关，六个月之后再闯过大考那一关，我就能摆脱训练的束缚、教官的苛刻，重回民间、投身社会了。
而六个月前，我首次被流放到一座岛上，开始经历我生命中一个既冬又夏的春季 – 怀着一颗悲秋的心。
甫入德光，十二月的连绵雨带来了心中微微的抽泣以及想家的病。而家的温馨，前所未有地呼唤着患病日深的我，如此情真意切， 越发使我难以忍受岛上严寒的人情世故。而长官可以无情得如此寒冬，训练却竟那般炎夏，以致我们这些虾兵蟹卒汗流浃背的灌溉，居然足够绿化整座岛日作夜续的生息、甚至我们浓缩的梦境。梦里，仍隐隐透散无边无际、无止无歇的绿色表情和叹息，夹着泥土的芳香和身体的汗臭。
幸好圣诞拯救了梦的阵亡于军绿的窒息，几抹节日的缤纷祥和了兵戎的戾气，也为我们这群新兵注射了一股越狱逃生般的兴奋。记得那次，也是自踏入德光岛后首次回家，我在日记中如此记载我的心情：虽然天空下着雨，我的心情却晴朗无比 – 所有的笑容也都禁不住拥挤到脸上来了。
那一段日子，最最高兴的就是每回乘风破浪的归乡之日。周末和假期是我们最殷切的期盼。尤其是喜气洋洋的农历新年，更让我那常耽于秋色之中的心猛然觉察到春的讯息。其他的日子， 除了陪我那无奈何迎娶过门的“妻子”在荒山野岭捕风捉影，或在打靶场印证百发百中这句成语的不实际，就是日间睡一些漫长的有关战争的课，夜里读一些短篇的有关和平的梦。
当然， 也少不了挨些翻山越岭、披荆斩棘、长途跋涉之苦，时不时做些强身壮胆的体操、还有学习诸般兵器，实行行军阵法。
时至当时，我才刻骨铭心地对战争深痛恶绝，才发现许多我平时视之为理所当然的寻常事物（如白开水），居然可以变得极其珍贵神奇。更巴不得天下马上大同，人人和谐共处、安居乐业， 好让我可以放下屠刀，立即回家。
所以我说， 当兵真好，不单栽培一批批强悍自主的卫国汉子，更教会我们这些毛头小子如何珍惜家、珍惜自由、珍惜日常生活中许多琐碎平常的事物。
并且， 军训的煎熬除了烧焦我们脸上的青春豆外，也催促青春岁月的成熟。而成熟不仅是学习自立，更是学会学习。观点的角度多了：除了个人的、社会的，额外有了军事的、国家的。以前，蓝色代表淡淡忧郁，而青色代则表无穷活力。当兵后，青色提醒我们训练的艰辛，触动我们心中的深层的忧郁。如此，我们领悟了青出于蓝的真谛。
那一季妻枪寓绿，我们一个两个都是坚毅的卫国兵、好男儿。 如今，我已卸下一身的绿，与莱福枪离婚，从军戎中迁居， 开始过着离沙场烽火较远，离人间烟火较近的深蓝警察生活。我当然深感庆幸，因为每年众多新兵中，仅有八十个被挑中接受警长训练课程。毕竟军旅生涯无论如何都是比较苛严难熬的。但是，仍在军绿中伴枪为妻的你们，可千万别荒废了这几个月来练就的工夫：坚毅和忍耐。要堂堂正正、积极乐观地接受每天的挑战。
生活就是一场没有尽期的争战，时时都需要我们打起精神，拿出勇气来应对。考期迫不及待地逼近，虽然目前我胸中的法律墨水仍严重缺供，但为了要做个堂堂正正称职的执法先锋，我会认真地备考，以一种义无反顾的坚决。
(1990年5月31日联合早报副刊〈文艺城〉)
听雨
四季之中， 特别偏爱秋天。喜欢那时序的节奏逐渐放缓的感觉；喜欢泛黄的秋叶在微扬的风中飘落时那种悠然的姿态，以及略带落漠的神情。
没有四季的岛国，常年是夏、一雨成秋。偏爱秋天的我，对于能够为炎热的岛国带来些许秋意的雨，自然情有独钟。虽然无法安排让我邂逅我所钟爱的秋叶，雨的清新凉爽却常常可以帮助我舒缓烦躁的心和匆促的脚步；有时，甚至还会激起我寻访一首好诗的意念。
欣赏一首诗的方法可以包括感受、默想、聆听。同样的，欣赏一场雨，除了感受它的清爽、默想秋天的意境，我们还可以选择聆听它的滴滴答答、淅淅沥沥。
雨简单的词汇经常被译成琐碎的聒絮、悲伤的呜咽。然而，雨的言语不一定只能够与单调乏味或阴霾哀痛挂钩。雨声也可以是美妙绝伦、多姿多彩的：细雨的飘转回旋可以旋律成优美的乐曲、配乐情侣伞下的漫步；豪雨的滂沱可以节奏成欢娱的拍子，助兴顽童水中的嬉戏。
有一些人听到雨声就会发怨言，就会愁容满面。或许他们考虑到风雨所带来的种种不便，或许他们回想起生命中一些风风雨雨、不愉快的经历。我偶尔也会如此。但是更多的时候，我会提醒自己，选择以平常心去迎接风雨的来临、学习细听其中的节奏与旋律，盼望能够听到欢娱的拍子和优美的乐曲。
聆听得够专著的话，也许还能听到一片秋天里的落叶，以它微声的叹息，吟咏美丽的诗句。
(1999年10月18日早报副刊<四面八方>)
没有四季的岛国，常年是夏、一雨成秋。偏爱秋天的我，对于能够为炎热的岛国带来些许秋意的雨，自然情有独钟。虽然无法安排让我邂逅我所钟爱的秋叶，雨的清新凉爽却常常可以帮助我舒缓烦躁的心和匆促的脚步；有时，甚至还会激起我寻访一首好诗的意念。
欣赏一首诗的方法可以包括感受、默想、聆听。同样的，欣赏一场雨，除了感受它的清爽、默想秋天的意境，我们还可以选择聆听它的滴滴答答、淅淅沥沥。
雨简单的词汇经常被译成琐碎的聒絮、悲伤的呜咽。然而，雨的言语不一定只能够与单调乏味或阴霾哀痛挂钩。雨声也可以是美妙绝伦、多姿多彩的：细雨的飘转回旋可以旋律成优美的乐曲、配乐情侣伞下的漫步；豪雨的滂沱可以节奏成欢娱的拍子，助兴顽童水中的嬉戏。
有一些人听到雨声就会发怨言，就会愁容满面。或许他们考虑到风雨所带来的种种不便，或许他们回想起生命中一些风风雨雨、不愉快的经历。我偶尔也会如此。但是更多的时候，我会提醒自己，选择以平常心去迎接风雨的来临、学习细听其中的节奏与旋律，盼望能够听到欢娱的拍子和优美的乐曲。
聆听得够专著的话，也许还能听到一片秋天里的落叶，以它微声的叹息，吟咏美丽的诗句。
(1999年10月18日早报副刊<四面八方>)
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sexuality Education and Homosexuality - a discussion
TWIT asked:
The Word of God says homosexuality is a sin. IF you are a parent would you encourage your children or anyone and say to them, "It is ok , it is ok...you can try it...it your choice?"
Lip Kee's reply:
POINTING TO THE FATHER'S HEART TO PROTECT AND TO BLESS
If I were a parent, I would tell my child(ren) the following:
I believe God does not condone homosexuality because He has our best interests at heart. God knows that a person who leads a homosexual life-style is subjecting himself to more risks and harms: physically, emotionally and socially, that is why God warns us against getting involved in homosexuality. God's heart is for us to enjoy our lives by living healthily and joyfully.
I would highlight to my child(ren) the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, the danger of emotional hurts and the pressure of social stigma. I would emphasize that because God loves us and wants the best for us, God does not want us to get involved in homosexuality.
Just like how I would warn against playing with fire or being rude with others, I would make sure that I explain the reasons why the warning is given.
Instead of just resorting to "because God's Word say so" and making God appear as if He is unreasonable and a spoil-fun, I would want to make sure that my child(ren) understand(s) that God is a perfectly reasonable, caring and fun-loving Parent who wants the best for His children.
NOT LABELING PEOPLE AND SINGLING THEM OUT FOR CONDEMNATION
As a principle, I am against labeling people. I think once we put a label on a person or a group of persons, the tendency is for us to treat the person or the group as a generic concept (e.g. the enemy, the threat etc.) instead of as unique individual(s).
I believe the Bible teaches us that God loves everyone, and that Jesus died for the whole world, including those who are considered homosexuals. As Christians, we are called to reject sins but to love the sinners. If we truly want to love and help the homosexuals, we should treat each of them as a person, with respect; instead of as a label, with prejudice or fear.
I personally don't think it is helpful to label homosexuals/ homosexuality as being "abnormal" or "unacceptable" or "not okay". Instead of using such value-laden words, I believe it would be more useful to use factual terms such as "minority" and "non mainstream".
The fact is that homosexuals are a minority in our societies. And I believe that because they cannot reproduce after themselves, they will always remain a minority.
The way I see it, to the extent that the homosexuals are not able to be fruitful and multiply, to that extent they are falling short of God's purpose for the human race. But should they therefore be singled out as being especially "sinful"? No, I don't think so. In my view, the homosexuals are no better and they are no worse than heterosexuals.
From the Christian perspective, ALL (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) is equally sinful. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) needs the tender mercy and saving grace of Jesus Christ. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) should be treated with due respect.
I don't think it is necessary to single out the homosexuals as a group to condemn or to fight against.
ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR
In my feedback to MOE, I raised my concerns about certain non factual statements which I find questionable in the instructor's guide to the CSE programme developed by AWARE. In my opinion, statements such as "anal sex is healthy", "homosexuality is neutral", "pre-marital sex is not negative" are not values-free statements. To the impressionable young kids, such statements could be nudges strong enough to encourage them to "go over". I therefore suggested that such statements be taken out from the CSE programme.
I also stated that the objectives of the CSE should be to encourage responsible behaviors among the students and to prevent undesirable consequences such as: teen pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, dropping out of school, disrupted education etc., it is therefore important to highlight to the students the risks and dangers associated with sexual activities. The aim, I believe, should be to provide relevant and sufficient information to help students understand that their actions will have consequences, and that it is important for them to decide and act responsibly, for their own sakes and for the sakes of others.
I am glad that MOE has addressed the concerns raised by issuing the official statement on 6 May 2009 (http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/122) and by suspending the CSE programme until its internal vetting system has been properly enhanced.
The original discussion took place in my Multiply blog: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/121
The Word of God says homosexuality is a sin. IF you are a parent would you encourage your children or anyone and say to them, "It is ok , it is ok...you can try it...it your choice?"
Lip Kee's reply:
POINTING TO THE FATHER'S HEART TO PROTECT AND TO BLESS
If I were a parent, I would tell my child(ren) the following:
I believe God does not condone homosexuality because He has our best interests at heart. God knows that a person who leads a homosexual life-style is subjecting himself to more risks and harms: physically, emotionally and socially, that is why God warns us against getting involved in homosexuality. God's heart is for us to enjoy our lives by living healthily and joyfully.
I would highlight to my child(ren) the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, the danger of emotional hurts and the pressure of social stigma. I would emphasize that because God loves us and wants the best for us, God does not want us to get involved in homosexuality.
Just like how I would warn against playing with fire or being rude with others, I would make sure that I explain the reasons why the warning is given.
Instead of just resorting to "because God's Word say so" and making God appear as if He is unreasonable and a spoil-fun, I would want to make sure that my child(ren) understand(s) that God is a perfectly reasonable, caring and fun-loving Parent who wants the best for His children.
NOT LABELING PEOPLE AND SINGLING THEM OUT FOR CONDEMNATION
As a principle, I am against labeling people. I think once we put a label on a person or a group of persons, the tendency is for us to treat the person or the group as a generic concept (e.g. the enemy, the threat etc.) instead of as unique individual(s).
I believe the Bible teaches us that God loves everyone, and that Jesus died for the whole world, including those who are considered homosexuals. As Christians, we are called to reject sins but to love the sinners. If we truly want to love and help the homosexuals, we should treat each of them as a person, with respect; instead of as a label, with prejudice or fear.
I personally don't think it is helpful to label homosexuals/ homosexuality as being "abnormal" or "unacceptable" or "not okay". Instead of using such value-laden words, I believe it would be more useful to use factual terms such as "minority" and "non mainstream".
The fact is that homosexuals are a minority in our societies. And I believe that because they cannot reproduce after themselves, they will always remain a minority.
The way I see it, to the extent that the homosexuals are not able to be fruitful and multiply, to that extent they are falling short of God's purpose for the human race. But should they therefore be singled out as being especially "sinful"? No, I don't think so. In my view, the homosexuals are no better and they are no worse than heterosexuals.
From the Christian perspective, ALL (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) is equally sinful. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) needs the tender mercy and saving grace of Jesus Christ. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) should be treated with due respect.
I don't think it is necessary to single out the homosexuals as a group to condemn or to fight against.
ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR
In my feedback to MOE, I raised my concerns about certain non factual statements which I find questionable in the instructor's guide to the CSE programme developed by AWARE. In my opinion, statements such as "anal sex is healthy", "homosexuality is neutral", "pre-marital sex is not negative" are not values-free statements. To the impressionable young kids, such statements could be nudges strong enough to encourage them to "go over". I therefore suggested that such statements be taken out from the CSE programme.
I also stated that the objectives of the CSE should be to encourage responsible behaviors among the students and to prevent undesirable consequences such as: teen pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, dropping out of school, disrupted education etc., it is therefore important to highlight to the students the risks and dangers associated with sexual activities. The aim, I believe, should be to provide relevant and sufficient information to help students understand that their actions will have consequences, and that it is important for them to decide and act responsibly, for their own sakes and for the sakes of others.
I am glad that MOE has addressed the concerns raised by issuing the official statement on 6 May 2009 (http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/122) and by suspending the CSE programme until its internal vetting system has been properly enhanced.
The original discussion took place in my Multiply blog: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/121
MOE statement on Sexuality Education Programme
The following was released by the Ministry of Education to the media on May 6, 2009:
In recent weeks, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has received feedback on the Sexuality Education Programme conducted by AWARE, as well as other lesson material not involving AWARE. MOE has done a thorough investigation. This statement presents the Ministry’s findings and future steps.
MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.
Today, schools are allowed to engage external vendors to supplement MOE’s sexuality education programme. MOE has reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors and found that they can be improved. MOE will put in more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the Ministry’s framework on sexuality education. Schools will suspend the engagement of external vendors until the new vetting processes are completed. The Ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in.
MOE has examined AWARE’s “Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide”. The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However, MOE’s assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.
In view of this, AWARE’s programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.
MOE has also investigated feedback about materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles. These materials and lessons did not involve AWARE. GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues. MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.
Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values in their children. MOE’s sexuality education programme aims to complement parents’ role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.
In recent weeks, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has received feedback on the Sexuality Education Programme conducted by AWARE, as well as other lesson material not involving AWARE. MOE has done a thorough investigation. This statement presents the Ministry’s findings and future steps.
MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.
Today, schools are allowed to engage external vendors to supplement MOE’s sexuality education programme. MOE has reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors and found that they can be improved. MOE will put in more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the Ministry’s framework on sexuality education. Schools will suspend the engagement of external vendors until the new vetting processes are completed. The Ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in.
MOE has examined AWARE’s “Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide”. The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However, MOE’s assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.
In view of this, AWARE’s programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.
MOE has also investigated feedback about materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles. These materials and lessons did not involve AWARE. GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues. MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.
Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values in their children. MOE’s sexuality education programme aims to complement parents’ role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Excellent analysis by Cherian George on the AWARE fiasco
AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco
- by Cherian George
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.
Secularism
Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.
The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.
People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.
The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.
When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.
Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.
First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.
For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.
Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.
Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.
Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.
CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.
While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.
Transparency
Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.
Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.
- by Cherian George
The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.
Secularism
Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.
The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.
Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.
People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.
The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.
When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.
Representation
The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.
First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.
For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.
Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.
Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.
Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.
CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.
While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.
Transparency
Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.
Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.
They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.
If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.
In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.
The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.
No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.
Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
On false teaching, selfish desires and a real man of God - a dialogue
FALSE TEACHING AND THE SELFISH DESIRES OF MAN
contendforthefaith wrote:
Beware of Wolves in sheep clothings. They will use false teaching to feed the selfish desires of Christian or fake Christian who does not love the Truth but chose to have itchy ears to give themselves to false doctrine so that their desires can be met.
Lip Kee's comment:
I totally agree with you. I also do not condone, support or subscribe to teachings that do nothing but cater to man's selfish desires.
The ministry I love so much in New Creation Church is one that points us to Jesus Christ as our Shepherd, in Whom ALL our needs can be met, in Whom there is no want, in Whom we can find the provision, protection and peace we desire, and to Whom we are to give all the glory and honor.
I don't know about you, but I know and admit that I have needs and desires (of which, I am not proud to say so, many are selfish ones).
The way I see it, having needs and desires is not a sin. It is just human nature. For me, the concern is not so much about us having needs and desires, but more about how we deal with our needs and desires.
Personally, I don't see the desires to be healthy and wealthy as sinful lusts. I see them as normal inborn inclinations of every normal human being - in-built mechanisms of the human brain (designed by God, I would dare say) to ensure the fruitfulness and multiplication of the human race on the Earth - remember God's command to man in Genesis 1:28?
If my ancestors did not have the desires for heath and wealth, and if they did not act on those desires by taking the necessary actions to provide for and to protect themselves, I am sure I won't be here typing this blog entry now. :-)
The way I see it, it is only when people value and pursue those earthly needs and desires above God and His Will and Plan for them (to be loved by God, and in response, to love God and others), that those needs and desires become sinful lusts.
Some of us think that we should teach people to deny or control their needs and desires. While others believe that we should point people to Jesus so that they can find ALL fulfillment and contentment in, and give ALL thanks and honor to Him.
I am with the second group.
THE TEACHING OF "CORRECT" DOCTRINES
contendforthefaith wrote:
Whether you love the pastor anot is not the key issue. The Key issue is the Pastor teaching correct doctrine.
Lip Kee's comment:
I don't have any illusion that the doctrines preached by my pastor in my church are 100% perfect and correct all the time. I know and admit that my church is not a perfect church. I know and admit that my pastor is not a perfect minister of the Word.
But I also know that if not for this imperfect pastor in this imperfect church, I would not have fallen so much in love with Jesus Christ and His Word. That is why I love my pastor and the church he leads so much.
I may decide to go to another church, if you could show me a church in which there is a perfect pastor who preaches perfectly the correct and perfect doctrines all the time. Until then, I think I will stay put, worship joyfully and serve faithfully in New Creation Church under the leadership of Pastor Joseph Prince. :)
contendforthefaith wrote:
Do not deceive yourself. Most prosperity church members like to deceive themselves that prosperity teaching is a good doctrine and that God wants to make Christian get rich. This is FALSE and there are bible proves againist it.
Lip Kee's comment:
I do not know why you label my church as a "prosperity church".
I see my church as a Gospel church, as a Jesus church. In our church, we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of Jesus Christ, Who is the Lord of ALL - the Lord of every world and every realm, including the spiritual and the physical/material realms.
Do you regard "prosperity" and "wealth" as unholy words? Do you think that people who talk about "prosperity" and "wealth" in church are ungodly people?
Or do you believe that it is possible for a person to talk about "prosperity" and "wealth" in church and still be a Christ-centered, God-glorifying and Holy-Spirit-Honoring person?
I hope you are not offended that I've pray for you, your loved ones, and your church the following prayer (based on 3 John 2): "Beloveds, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your souls prosper".
A REAL MAN OF GOD
contendforthefaith wrote:
If pastor is REAL man of GOD and does not betray Christianity, he should repent and decreas salary at once and not give excuses and blame others and see first. he mentioned that he will see first. It is sad as he does not have a good name now as he have taken 500k for a few yrs, he is a millionaire pastor, unlike Paul and Peter, issiah, who have their head behead, body sawn apart. whether he is real man of GOD, God knows.
Lip Kee's comment:
I don't begrudge a top doctor her million-dollar income, and I don't question her integrity, even though I personally believe that a REAL doctor is supposed be compassionate and must genuinely want to help people even without any monetary compensation.
I don't begrudge a top artist his million dollar paycheck, and I don't cast doubt on his character, even though I believe that a TRUE artist should never paint for the sake of money but only purely for the sake of his love for the arts.
How many times have we seen this happen in the world we are living in: when a man excels in what he loves to do, and is gifted to do, the monetary reward follows.
Michael Jordan did not play basketball because of money. He played because he loved the game of basketball. And because he played well, the money came. David Beckam does not play footaball because of money. He plays football because he is good at it and he enjoys it. And because he excels in the game, the financial rewards follow.
In Pastor Prince, I see a man who started serving God and studying the Bible since he was a teenager and when the church he was serving in was just a small gathering of young believers. I see a TRUE man of God who loves the Lord and loves preaching the Word. I do not see a man who teaches and preaches because of money. I see a REAL pastor who teaches and preaches because he loves doing so, and because he believes he is called by God to do so.
Personally, I greatly respect and honor Pastor Prince, and I think he deserves more than what he has been paid by the church.
If the church were to decide to stop paying him his salary, I will start to give free-will offering to him, over and above my regular tithe to the church. Yes, I will do so, because I respect and honor the man, and I believe in sowing into his ministry.
But this is purely my personal conviction and I don't insist that others must agree with me on this matter.
Stay rested and blessed. :-)
Note: the original discussion took place in the comments page in my other blog hosted at mutliply.com: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117
contendforthefaith wrote:
Beware of Wolves in sheep clothings. They will use false teaching to feed the selfish desires of Christian or fake Christian who does not love the Truth but chose to have itchy ears to give themselves to false doctrine so that their desires can be met.
Lip Kee's comment:
I totally agree with you. I also do not condone, support or subscribe to teachings that do nothing but cater to man's selfish desires.
The ministry I love so much in New Creation Church is one that points us to Jesus Christ as our Shepherd, in Whom ALL our needs can be met, in Whom there is no want, in Whom we can find the provision, protection and peace we desire, and to Whom we are to give all the glory and honor.
I don't know about you, but I know and admit that I have needs and desires (of which, I am not proud to say so, many are selfish ones).
The way I see it, having needs and desires is not a sin. It is just human nature. For me, the concern is not so much about us having needs and desires, but more about how we deal with our needs and desires.
Personally, I don't see the desires to be healthy and wealthy as sinful lusts. I see them as normal inborn inclinations of every normal human being - in-built mechanisms of the human brain (designed by God, I would dare say) to ensure the fruitfulness and multiplication of the human race on the Earth - remember God's command to man in Genesis 1:28?
If my ancestors did not have the desires for heath and wealth, and if they did not act on those desires by taking the necessary actions to provide for and to protect themselves, I am sure I won't be here typing this blog entry now. :-)
The way I see it, it is only when people value and pursue those earthly needs and desires above God and His Will and Plan for them (to be loved by God, and in response, to love God and others), that those needs and desires become sinful lusts.
Some of us think that we should teach people to deny or control their needs and desires. While others believe that we should point people to Jesus so that they can find ALL fulfillment and contentment in, and give ALL thanks and honor to Him.
I am with the second group.
THE TEACHING OF "CORRECT" DOCTRINES
contendforthefaith wrote:
Whether you love the pastor anot is not the key issue. The Key issue is the Pastor teaching correct doctrine.
Lip Kee's comment:
I don't have any illusion that the doctrines preached by my pastor in my church are 100% perfect and correct all the time. I know and admit that my church is not a perfect church. I know and admit that my pastor is not a perfect minister of the Word.
But I also know that if not for this imperfect pastor in this imperfect church, I would not have fallen so much in love with Jesus Christ and His Word. That is why I love my pastor and the church he leads so much.
I may decide to go to another church, if you could show me a church in which there is a perfect pastor who preaches perfectly the correct and perfect doctrines all the time. Until then, I think I will stay put, worship joyfully and serve faithfully in New Creation Church under the leadership of Pastor Joseph Prince. :)
contendforthefaith wrote:
Do not deceive yourself. Most prosperity church members like to deceive themselves that prosperity teaching is a good doctrine and that God wants to make Christian get rich. This is FALSE and there are bible proves againist it.
Lip Kee's comment:
I do not know why you label my church as a "prosperity church".
I see my church as a Gospel church, as a Jesus church. In our church, we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news of Jesus Christ, Who is the Lord of ALL - the Lord of every world and every realm, including the spiritual and the physical/material realms.
Do you regard "prosperity" and "wealth" as unholy words? Do you think that people who talk about "prosperity" and "wealth" in church are ungodly people?
Or do you believe that it is possible for a person to talk about "prosperity" and "wealth" in church and still be a Christ-centered, God-glorifying and Holy-Spirit-Honoring person?
I hope you are not offended that I've pray for you, your loved ones, and your church the following prayer (based on 3 John 2): "Beloveds, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your souls prosper".
A REAL MAN OF GOD
contendforthefaith wrote:
If pastor is REAL man of GOD and does not betray Christianity, he should repent and decreas salary at once and not give excuses and blame others and see first. he mentioned that he will see first. It is sad as he does not have a good name now as he have taken 500k for a few yrs, he is a millionaire pastor, unlike Paul and Peter, issiah, who have their head behead, body sawn apart. whether he is real man of GOD, God knows.
Lip Kee's comment:
I don't begrudge a top doctor her million-dollar income, and I don't question her integrity, even though I personally believe that a REAL doctor is supposed be compassionate and must genuinely want to help people even without any monetary compensation.
I don't begrudge a top artist his million dollar paycheck, and I don't cast doubt on his character, even though I believe that a TRUE artist should never paint for the sake of money but only purely for the sake of his love for the arts.
How many times have we seen this happen in the world we are living in: when a man excels in what he loves to do, and is gifted to do, the monetary reward follows.
Michael Jordan did not play basketball because of money. He played because he loved the game of basketball. And because he played well, the money came. David Beckam does not play footaball because of money. He plays football because he is good at it and he enjoys it. And because he excels in the game, the financial rewards follow.
In Pastor Prince, I see a man who started serving God and studying the Bible since he was a teenager and when the church he was serving in was just a small gathering of young believers. I see a TRUE man of God who loves the Lord and loves preaching the Word. I do not see a man who teaches and preaches because of money. I see a REAL pastor who teaches and preaches because he loves doing so, and because he believes he is called by God to do so.
Personally, I greatly respect and honor Pastor Prince, and I think he deserves more than what he has been paid by the church.
If the church were to decide to stop paying him his salary, I will start to give free-will offering to him, over and above my regular tithe to the church. Yes, I will do so, because I respect and honor the man, and I believe in sowing into his ministry.
But this is purely my personal conviction and I don't insist that others must agree with me on this matter.
Stay rested and blessed. :-)
Note: the original discussion took place in the comments page in my other blog hosted at mutliply.com: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117
Friday, April 3, 2009
On "controversial" salary , "wrong" explanation, and "incorrect" actions - a dialogue
HOW MUCH SHOULD A PASTOR BE PAID?
maic123 asked:
"Would that...mean that because [Pastor Prince] does such a great job, he should be paid a high salary?"
Lip Kee's comment:
To be sure, I am not the one who decides Pastor Prince's salary. I don't know how his salary was decided. Maybe it is a fixed amount. Maybe it is based on the total collection by the church. I don't know.
As to how much Pastor Prince SHOULD be paid, I suppose everyone will have his own benchmark. Personally, because I received so much from his ministry, I believe he should not be paid less then some of the cabinet ministers in Singapore. But of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself. :)
I think if I were to ask the question to 100 persons, I would probably get 101 different answers.
How much do you think he should be paid? What is your benchmark? Would you care to explain why you think your benchmark is a better one compared to mine? (For convenience sake and for the purpose of this discussion, I would use a cabinet minister's pay as the benchmark).
WHO USED THE WORD "PEANUTS" TO DESCRIBE THE PAY?
maic123 asked:
"However, for some NCC defenders to claim that because PP brings in 95% of church Rev, because PP is responsible for explosive growth of NCC...etc therefore $500k is peanuts..."
Lip Kee's comment:
I would appreciate it if you could let me know who was the person who used the word "peanuts"? I know I didn't. I know it's a very sensitive word. Almost a vulgar word, I would say.
maic123 asked:
"It is God that gave the growth, it is God that provided the members wealth, it is God that touched members hearts to give. PP is merely the instrument."
Lip Kee's comment:
I totally agree with you. :)
HOW ARE WE TO COMPARE THE REWARDS AMONG THE DIFFERENT SERVERS OF GOD?
maic123 asked:
"If the rational is to reward the instrument, how about the missionaries who sacrified their lives going to dangerous countries to spread the gospel, living in porvety and giving up their all for God, don't they deserve to be paid more than PP?"
Lip Kee's comment:
I am sorry I will not be able to give you an answer.
I respect everyone who serves God. I cherish every precious life.
But I am not the one who decides on Pastor Prince's pay check amount. I am also not the person responsible for determining the pay check (or lack of one) for the missionaries, whom I highly respect.
More importantly, I don't think it is appropriate for me to use the size of monetary reward to measure the worthiness of any servers of God.
Who am I to say that I, who serve as a caregroup leader should deserve to be blessed more than another believer who serves as an usher in church? Who am I to decide that my friend, who is a pastor of a small church in Singapore should deserve more pay than a house church leader in China?
All I can only say is that the missionaries who serve God deserve my full respect. And Pastor Prince deserves my full respect. But of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't pretend to represent anyone other than myself. :)
maic123 wrote:
Sorry I used the word peanuts. I added the word myself to sort of summarize the meaning I thought some of the defenders of NCC was trying to convey, that 500k salary is nothing compared to what Pastor Prince has done.
Lip Kee's comment:
Apology accepted. :)
A FEW POINTERS ON COMMUNICATING ACCURATELY
Just to share some lessons I've learned about communication (from my past work experiences as a police investigator and an auditor):
Always stick to the facts. Do not assume. Do not speculate. Do not allege. Do not accuse. Make sure. Seek to clarify the facts if unsure. Ask questions. Do research. Check and re-check. Stick to the facts.
And when expressing a personal view or opinion, I would state so clearly. i would qualify my statement using words such as "my view", "my opinion". i would make it clear that I am NOT presenting objective facts, but subjective views and opinions.
If I believe my view or opinion has the potential of being controversial, I would weigh the words I use very carefully. I would remind myself not to come across as being judgmental. I will apply the golden rule and be respectful (not diplomatic) and gentle (not soft).
HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH COUNCIL RESPOND TO THE PRESS QUERY?
maic123 wrote:
However, in the explanation given by the church to justify his salary, the church basically is saying that Pastor Prince is "responsible" for the church income and enriched the church, so he certainly deserves that salary due to the results he is producing. I think that is wrong. It is God that produces the result.
Lip Kee's comment:
Please bear in mind that Deacon Matthew Kang made those statements in response to The Straits Times' query on NCC's staff salary. See the full reply here: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/media_coverage/NCCreply_to_ST_300309.pdf
Now, let's put yourself in Deacon Matthew Kang's position. The Straits Times refers you to the church's annual report and asks you about the church staff who drew an annual salary of between $500k to $550k as reported in the annual report for the financial year ended 31 March 2008.
How will you respond to the query?
Please bear in mind that you are representing the church, and you are talking to a secular press. Now, what would you say: "No comment"; "No specific reason"; "God told us to give that amount"?
Deacon Matthew Kang had to give an explanation. And he had to give an explanation that the secular press and the public at large could understand. Wouldn't you agree? He had to make a statement. A "sensible and reasonable" one (for the secular press and the general public, not just for the church and believers).
If you were in his shoe, what kind of a "sensible and reasonable" statement would you make?
WOULD A MONTHLY INCOME OF $18,000 STUMBLE YOU?
maic123 wrote:
However, should this salary be too controversial and it causes other brothers to fall in sin, then its better not to exercise that freedom.
Lip Kee's comment:
Hmm...why would a salary that is "too controversial" cause other brothers to "fall in sin"? What kind of "sin" are you referring to? Would you care to explain or clarify?
I suggest we take a step back and look at the bigger picture:
Pastor Prince received an annual salary of around $550k from NCC in the last financial year (i.e. from April 2007 to March 2008). We do not know how much he tithed. He shared with the congregation he gives more than 10% per month. But let's assume he tithed only 10%. In that case, he would have given around $55k to the church from April 2007 to March 2008.
During the period from September 2007 to February 2009, he gave to the church $563k for the building fund (Note: This was also reported in The Straits Times article, but strangely, no one seems to have taken notice of it).
Now, let's assume Pastor Prince received a similar amount of salary and tithed 10% of that amount for the financial year ended March 2009 , he would have received $550k and given $55k for the period from April 2008 to March 2009.
So, based on the assumptions above, over the past two financial years, Pastor Prince would have received a total of $1.1m from NCC, and given $673k back to NCC, giving him a net income from NCC of $427k over two years.
This works out to be around $213.5k per year (or a monthly income of $17.8k). Is this amount still considered too high, or reasonable, or too low? Would this still be "too controversial"? Would it still cause other brothers "to fall into sin"?
WHO HAVE BEEN STUMBLED, TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HAVE BEEN STUMBLED, AND WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO FOR THEM
maic123 wrote:
So it is my opinion that the church is incorrect to -
1. Justify his salary using the results Pastor Prince produced.
2. Insisting that he take the salary, as a result causing this controversy. Look at the asiaone forum, I do think it is stumbling some Christians and causing some to be a very poor testimony of what a born again Christian is like.
Lip Kee's comment:
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I acknowledge that there are quite a lot of people talking about this matter. I also acknowledge that there are Christians who have expressed strong views about the pay Pastor Prince received, and some of the Christians (supporters as well as detractors of NCC) who were involved in the public discussion (e.g. in the AsiaOne forum) had displayed what I believe many of us would consider as immature, irresponsible and un-gentlemanly behavior.
But exactly how many Christians have really been stumbled, and to what extent they have been stumbled, I do not know.
Do you personally know of any Christian who has suffered a crisis of faith, or left church, or abandon God because of the news report? If so, would you care to bring them to my attention or the attention of the church, so that we could help them, counsel them, or pray for them?
Regardless of whether we are able to identify the ones who have been stumbled, my suggestion is that we pray for them, and trust God to strengthen their faith. :)
Shalom.
Note: the original discussion took place in my other blog hosted at multiply.com:
http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117/Half_a_million_dollar_paid_to_pastor_-_some_discussions?replies_read=9
maic123 asked:
"Would that...mean that because [Pastor Prince] does such a great job, he should be paid a high salary?"
Lip Kee's comment:
To be sure, I am not the one who decides Pastor Prince's salary. I don't know how his salary was decided. Maybe it is a fixed amount. Maybe it is based on the total collection by the church. I don't know.
As to how much Pastor Prince SHOULD be paid, I suppose everyone will have his own benchmark. Personally, because I received so much from his ministry, I believe he should not be paid less then some of the cabinet ministers in Singapore. But of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself. :)
I think if I were to ask the question to 100 persons, I would probably get 101 different answers.
How much do you think he should be paid? What is your benchmark? Would you care to explain why you think your benchmark is a better one compared to mine? (For convenience sake and for the purpose of this discussion, I would use a cabinet minister's pay as the benchmark).
WHO USED THE WORD "PEANUTS" TO DESCRIBE THE PAY?
maic123 asked:
"However, for some NCC defenders to claim that because PP brings in 95% of church Rev, because PP is responsible for explosive growth of NCC...etc therefore $500k is peanuts..."
Lip Kee's comment:
I would appreciate it if you could let me know who was the person who used the word "peanuts"? I know I didn't. I know it's a very sensitive word. Almost a vulgar word, I would say.
maic123 asked:
"It is God that gave the growth, it is God that provided the members wealth, it is God that touched members hearts to give. PP is merely the instrument."
Lip Kee's comment:
I totally agree with you. :)
HOW ARE WE TO COMPARE THE REWARDS AMONG THE DIFFERENT SERVERS OF GOD?
maic123 asked:
"If the rational is to reward the instrument, how about the missionaries who sacrified their lives going to dangerous countries to spread the gospel, living in porvety and giving up their all for God, don't they deserve to be paid more than PP?"
Lip Kee's comment:
I am sorry I will not be able to give you an answer.
I respect everyone who serves God. I cherish every precious life.
But I am not the one who decides on Pastor Prince's pay check amount. I am also not the person responsible for determining the pay check (or lack of one) for the missionaries, whom I highly respect.
More importantly, I don't think it is appropriate for me to use the size of monetary reward to measure the worthiness of any servers of God.
Who am I to say that I, who serve as a caregroup leader should deserve to be blessed more than another believer who serves as an usher in church? Who am I to decide that my friend, who is a pastor of a small church in Singapore should deserve more pay than a house church leader in China?
All I can only say is that the missionaries who serve God deserve my full respect. And Pastor Prince deserves my full respect. But of course, this is just my personal opinion. I don't pretend to represent anyone other than myself. :)
maic123 wrote:
Sorry I used the word peanuts. I added the word myself to sort of summarize the meaning I thought some of the defenders of NCC was trying to convey, that 500k salary is nothing compared to what Pastor Prince has done.
Lip Kee's comment:
Apology accepted. :)
A FEW POINTERS ON COMMUNICATING ACCURATELY
Just to share some lessons I've learned about communication (from my past work experiences as a police investigator and an auditor):
Always stick to the facts. Do not assume. Do not speculate. Do not allege. Do not accuse. Make sure. Seek to clarify the facts if unsure. Ask questions. Do research. Check and re-check. Stick to the facts.
And when expressing a personal view or opinion, I would state so clearly. i would qualify my statement using words such as "my view", "my opinion". i would make it clear that I am NOT presenting objective facts, but subjective views and opinions.
If I believe my view or opinion has the potential of being controversial, I would weigh the words I use very carefully. I would remind myself not to come across as being judgmental. I will apply the golden rule and be respectful (not diplomatic) and gentle (not soft).
HOW SHOULD THE CHURCH COUNCIL RESPOND TO THE PRESS QUERY?
maic123 wrote:
However, in the explanation given by the church to justify his salary, the church basically is saying that Pastor Prince is "responsible" for the church income and enriched the church, so he certainly deserves that salary due to the results he is producing. I think that is wrong. It is God that produces the result.
Lip Kee's comment:
Please bear in mind that Deacon Matthew Kang made those statements in response to The Straits Times' query on NCC's staff salary. See the full reply here: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/media_coverage/NCCreply_to_ST_300309.pdf
Now, let's put yourself in Deacon Matthew Kang's position. The Straits Times refers you to the church's annual report and asks you about the church staff who drew an annual salary of between $500k to $550k as reported in the annual report for the financial year ended 31 March 2008.
How will you respond to the query?
Please bear in mind that you are representing the church, and you are talking to a secular press. Now, what would you say: "No comment"; "No specific reason"; "God told us to give that amount"?
Deacon Matthew Kang had to give an explanation. And he had to give an explanation that the secular press and the public at large could understand. Wouldn't you agree? He had to make a statement. A "sensible and reasonable" one (for the secular press and the general public, not just for the church and believers).
If you were in his shoe, what kind of a "sensible and reasonable" statement would you make?
WOULD A MONTHLY INCOME OF $18,000 STUMBLE YOU?
maic123 wrote:
However, should this salary be too controversial and it causes other brothers to fall in sin, then its better not to exercise that freedom.
Lip Kee's comment:
Hmm...why would a salary that is "too controversial" cause other brothers to "fall in sin"? What kind of "sin" are you referring to? Would you care to explain or clarify?
I suggest we take a step back and look at the bigger picture:
Pastor Prince received an annual salary of around $550k from NCC in the last financial year (i.e. from April 2007 to March 2008). We do not know how much he tithed. He shared with the congregation he gives more than 10% per month. But let's assume he tithed only 10%. In that case, he would have given around $55k to the church from April 2007 to March 2008.
During the period from September 2007 to February 2009, he gave to the church $563k for the building fund (Note: This was also reported in The Straits Times article, but strangely, no one seems to have taken notice of it).
Now, let's assume Pastor Prince received a similar amount of salary and tithed 10% of that amount for the financial year ended March 2009 , he would have received $550k and given $55k for the period from April 2008 to March 2009.
So, based on the assumptions above, over the past two financial years, Pastor Prince would have received a total of $1.1m from NCC, and given $673k back to NCC, giving him a net income from NCC of $427k over two years.
This works out to be around $213.5k per year (or a monthly income of $17.8k). Is this amount still considered too high, or reasonable, or too low? Would this still be "too controversial"? Would it still cause other brothers "to fall into sin"?
WHO HAVE BEEN STUMBLED, TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HAVE BEEN STUMBLED, AND WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO FOR THEM
maic123 wrote:
So it is my opinion that the church is incorrect to -
1. Justify his salary using the results Pastor Prince produced.
2. Insisting that he take the salary, as a result causing this controversy. Look at the asiaone forum, I do think it is stumbling some Christians and causing some to be a very poor testimony of what a born again Christian is like.
Lip Kee's comment:
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I acknowledge that there are quite a lot of people talking about this matter. I also acknowledge that there are Christians who have expressed strong views about the pay Pastor Prince received, and some of the Christians (supporters as well as detractors of NCC) who were involved in the public discussion (e.g. in the AsiaOne forum) had displayed what I believe many of us would consider as immature, irresponsible and un-gentlemanly behavior.
But exactly how many Christians have really been stumbled, and to what extent they have been stumbled, I do not know.
Do you personally know of any Christian who has suffered a crisis of faith, or left church, or abandon God because of the news report? If so, would you care to bring them to my attention or the attention of the church, so that we could help them, counsel them, or pray for them?
Regardless of whether we are able to identify the ones who have been stumbled, my suggestion is that we pray for them, and trust God to strengthen their faith. :)
Shalom.
Note: the original discussion took place in my other blog hosted at multiply.com:
http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117/Half_a_million_dollar_paid_to_pastor_-_some_discussions?replies_read=9
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Why I love and support my church and my pastor
Because the loveliness of the Lord Jesus Christ is so gloriously revealed and exalted in New Creation Church by Pastor Prince.
Because the perfection of the Lord's work on the Cross is so clearly explained and expounded upon in New Creation Church by Pastor Prince.
Because of the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ such as the following:
- Will the real Christianity please stand up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10lue7bhcK0&feature=related
- Supernatural transformation and holiness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYoXwPQDYoY&feature=related
- Aleph Tav - Jesus' signature in the Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6470TSfP9Pk&feature=channel_page
- The root cause of your problem is condemnation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCUby8b1zl4&feature=related
- Grace flows in worry-free areas of your life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgNqDcMXYE&feature=related
Because in Singapore and all around the world, people's lives are being impacted and transformed by the ministry:
- Read the comments left on the wall of Joseph Prince Ministry facebook homepage:
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=5718674446
- Read the readers' reviews on the book "Destined to Reign":
* amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Destined-Reign-Effortless-Wholeness-Victorious/product-reviews/1577949323/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
* christianbook.com: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/971615642?item_no=949329&show_all_cr=1&event=PR#customer_reviews
* harrisonhouse.com: http://www.harrisonhouse.com/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781577949329
- Read the testimonies from people blessed by the church and the ministry:
* New Creation Church: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/testimonies/testimonies.htm
* Joseph Prince Ministry: http://www.josephprince.org/resources/praisereports/praisereports.htm
- Read online report and blog post on the influence of Pastor Prince's ministry on other ministries and pastors:
* christianpost.com: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=education&id=701
* blogpastor.com: http://www.blogpastor.net/2009/03/02/eating-the-flesh-of-joseph-prince/
Because God loves His Son Jesus Christ, and God loves New Creation Church and Pastor Prince, and God loves you and I too. :)
Shalom!
Because the perfection of the Lord's work on the Cross is so clearly explained and expounded upon in New Creation Church by Pastor Prince.
Because of the teaching and preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ such as the following:
- Will the real Christianity please stand up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10lue7bhcK0&feature=related
- Supernatural transformation and holiness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYoXwPQDYoY&feature=related
- Aleph Tav - Jesus' signature in the Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6470TSfP9Pk&feature=channel_page
- The root cause of your problem is condemnation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCUby8b1zl4&feature=related
- Grace flows in worry-free areas of your life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgNqDcMXYE&feature=related
Because in Singapore and all around the world, people's lives are being impacted and transformed by the ministry:
- Read the comments left on the wall of Joseph Prince Ministry facebook homepage:
http://www.facebook.com/wall.php?id=5718674446
- Read the readers' reviews on the book "Destined to Reign":
* amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Destined-Reign-Effortless-Wholeness-Victorious/product-reviews/1577949323/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
* christianbook.com: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/971615642?item_no=949329&show_all_cr=1&event=PR#customer_reviews
* harrisonhouse.com: http://www.harrisonhouse.com/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781577949329
- Read the testimonies from people blessed by the church and the ministry:
* New Creation Church: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/testimonies/testimonies.htm
* Joseph Prince Ministry: http://www.josephprince.org/resources/praisereports/praisereports.htm
- Read online report and blog post on the influence of Pastor Prince's ministry on other ministries and pastors:
* christianpost.com: http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=education&id=701
* blogpastor.com: http://www.blogpastor.net/2009/03/02/eating-the-flesh-of-joseph-prince/
Because God loves His Son Jesus Christ, and God loves New Creation Church and Pastor Prince, and God loves you and I too. :)
Shalom!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
