LiveLearnLoveLeaveaLegacy

Flood, Rainbow and God

2010-11-06T00:44:00.000-07:00

C asked: I was telling my son about the story about rainbow (in biblical pt of view) and God's promise not to destroy mankind by flood. My son said God is not keeping his promise , cos lots of people are still killed by flood these days. How should I answer him? Thanks

Lip Kee replied: I would, first of all, compliment your son for having a sensitive and compassionate heart for the people who are suffering. That is very precious to our Lord.

Second, ask your son a few questions, to help him figure things out.

1.1 Why do you think a doctor would administer medicine or carry out procedures to kill off the germs, bacteria or cancerous cells in a patient's body?
1.2 What would happen if the doctor decides to be kind and merciful to the germs, bacteria and cancerous cells and decides let them live? What would that mean to the healthy organs, tissues and cells in the patient's body? What would be the end result?
1.3 Now, why do you think God allowed the Flood to happen during Noah's days?

2 Do you think there is there a difference between the Flood during Noah's days and the floods we see today - in terms of the scale and the impact?

3.1 Do you think there is a difference between PERMITTING and CAUSING something to happen?

3.2 Would you blame the Transport Minister if someone were to be injured in a road accident? Accidents are PERMITTED to happen because people are PERMITTED to drive cars and use the road. But, do you think that it was the Transport Minister who CAUSED the accidents and the injuries?

3.3 Would you blame the Education Minister if a student were to feel anguished and devastated because she did badly for her PSLE exams? Failures and disappointments are PERMITTED to happen because students are PERMITTED to go to schools and to participate in examinations. Do you believe it was the Education Minister who CAUSED the student's failure and grief?

3.4 Now, would you blame God for natural disasters and human tragedies?

4.1 Do you see God as a merciful and gracious God or a judgmental and condemning one?

4.2 What does the Bible tell us about God's heart? (John 3:16-17: God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus came to the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved).

If you have the time, please follow the link below to read about and share with your son some of my favorite encounters with the rainbow:

http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=564872499&s=20#!/note.php?note_id=65007352325

Hope this helps.

C asked: I 've gone through the part 1 to part 3.1 with him ... so far so good.
By the way, can i say that the flood that we have today is not sent by God but due to "???" Need help here. Thanks in advance

Lip Kee replied: You are welcome. :-)

God did not send the Flood in Noah's days. And God does not send any flood today. God is source of all good things. He only has good to give.

God did not and does not CAUSE natural disasters. Natural disasters are PERMITTED to happen because man was PERMITTED to rule over the Earth. The world was perfectly good when it was created by God. After Adam's fall, the world no longer functions perfectly.

The Bible puts it this way: "For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Rom 8:19-22)

In short, the world is "broken". All of creation is in a "malfunctioning" state.

When Jesus comes back again, the "broken" world will be fixed, and the "malfunctioning" creation will be restored to perfection.

You may want to watch this sermon excerpt for some insight into this issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaMTNH708SQ

Let me know if you want to watch the full sermon. I can send a copy of the DVD to you by post.

Making sense of prayer

2010-07-10T04:40:00.000-07:00

DOES GOD NOT GIVE TO US IF WE DON'T ASK OF HIM?

H's question:
If we don't ask,He won't give it to us?

Lip Kee's comment:

God is always giving
There are preachers and teachers out there who teach that we have to ask or else God would not give. Personally, I don't subscribe to that kind of teaching.

The God I know is always loving, always caring, always giving and always providing.
He knows what we need, and He takes pleasure in satisfying our needs.

"Your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)
"...your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Matthew 6:30-32)

Then why does the Bible teach us to ask of God in prayers? Why is there a need for us to ask at all?

God does not need to be arm-twisted or reminded for Him to give

I believe our "asking" is not to meant to arm twist God to remind Him to give to and provide for us. He is always giving and providing. Rather, our "asking" serves to remind us and the people around us that God is our faithful and gracious Provider.

God is not forgetful of His covenant. He does not need to be told or reminded of what He needs to do.

Prayer is meant as a reminder for us, not for God

We are the ones who are always forgetful and distracted. We are the ones who are un-faithful and unfocused. That is why God graciously provided us with a reminder tool called "prayer". Because we need it to remind ourselves of how He is always there for us - ever caring for us and providing for us.

To elaborate: Imagine someone who does not pray. She was facing a difficult situation which lasted 6 months. God eventually delivered her from the situation. But because she did not use the "reminder tool" (i.e. prayer), she is unlikely to be conscious of how God helped her out of her challenge. She would be filled with much stress and anxiety during those 6 months.

Also, in the absence of any prayer offered to God. She and the people around her will mostly likely credit herself, other people or mere good luck for the good outcome, when the whole challenge was over.

Now, imagine the same person, when faced with her situation, chose to pray to God, and to ask her friends to stand in faith with her. What difference would it make to her and to the people around her?

The benefits of praying

First, she would have a sense of hope, assuredness and restfulness, even in the midst of her 6-month long challenge. And when the breakthrough finally comes, she and her friends would be conscious of God's help. Their hearts will be filled with thankfulness to the Lord, instead of pride arising from the belief that their self efforts made the difference, or a vague sense of good fortune.

In the scenarios above, God intervened and helped, regardless of whether anyone prayed. So prayer did not affect how God acted. Like I mentioned, He does not need arm-twisting or reminder.

However, prayer did affect the quality of life, and the quality of the response of the people, don't you agree?

God meant for prayer to be used as a tool of reminder for us, not for Him. :-)

The Giver has given. Has the receiver received?

Besides, when a person is not conscious of God and His constant provision, God could be giving and giving, but she may not benefit because she is not receiving. Even though the giver has given, many a times, the receiver needs to actively receive what has been given in order to enjoy the benefits. A simple example would be that of someone who inherits a fortune but is ignorant of it or refuse to believe it.

DOES HAVING TWO OR MORE PRAYING IN AGREEMENT MAKE PRAYER MORE POWERFUL?

H's question:
"Again I say to you that if any of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ASK, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:19). Does it means two or more agreed is more powerful?

Lip Kee's comment:
It is the power of our God (not our prayers) that makes things happen

Regarding your question on whether it is "more powerful" to have two or more agree on something in prayer, my answer is a "No" if you are referring to the power that changes our situations, that overcomes our challenges, that grants us our victories.

It is not our prayers, or the number of people agreeing with us in prayer that has the power to do anything. God is the One with the power to make things happen.

Prayer is powerful because it makes us conscious of our powerful God

But if by "more powerful", you are referring to the impact on the way people deal with and respond to their situations, then, my answer would be a "Yes". Please read my comment to your earlier question above.

IS JESUS ABSENT IF THERE WERE NO GATHERING OF TWO OR MORE IN HIS NAME?

H's question:
There is also a verse,which I forgot which verse, "Two or more gathers in My Name,I'm in the mist of them." But God says He never leave nor forsake us,so what is this verse saying?

Lip Kee's comment:
You are right, God never leaves us nor forsakes us. By His Holy Spirit, He is in us and with us forever.

The verse you referred to is found in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

The "find-applicable-truth-by-reading-verses-in-reverse" method does not always work

Sometimes, when we read a verse in reverse, we can get a truth is applicable to us. For example, the verse in 1 Cor 11:30 regarding the effects of partaking the Holy Communion in an unworthy manner, which states "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep." If we apply the opposite meaning, we get a truth that applies to us, i.e. when we partake of the Holy Communion in a worthy manner (i.e. remembering Jesus and focusing on the wholeness and forgiveness He wrought for us by His broken body and His blood), we can expect to be strong (instead of weak), healthy (instead of sick), and to live long good lives (instead of dying before our time).

However, I believe your attempt to do the same for Matthew 18:20 may be mis-guided. You are trying read the verse in reverse to imply this: "For where only one person is gathered in Jesus name, Jesus will not be there in the midst of them".

Jesus said where two or three (i.e. more than one) are gathered in His name, He will be in their midst. By that, He did not say where only one is present, He would leave the one. I think it is inaccurate and illogical to read that kind of implication into that verse.

Now, let's take a good look at the reverse verse "For where only one person is gathered in Jesus name, Jesus will not be there in the midst of them", and analyse it critically.

First it does not make sense to use the word "gathered" when only one believer is involved. Next, in this case, where only one believer is involved, Jesus would be INSIDE and WITH the believer. But Jesus cannot be IN THE MIDST of the person, because by the definition of the very words, for Jesus to be "in the midst", there will have to be more than one person.

Therefore, for this particular verse, I don't think the "read-it-in-reverse" method is applicable.

Jesus wants us to focus on Him, not on how big (or small) a gathering we have

I believe the verse (read normally) is meant as an encouragement to His people. I believe the key words in the verse are not "two or more", but "in His name", .

Jesus is telling us not to be overly focused on how big our caregroup/ church is. He is affirming us that when people get together in honour of Him, His manifest Presence will be experienced and enjoyed by those in the gathering, regardless of the size of the gathering - be it is two or three, or two or three thousand.

When we gather in His name, in His honour, Jesus will be "in our midst". He will be central. He will be exalted. And when Jesus is lifted up, the Light He shines forth will benefit the people.

Hope you will find my comments helpful in one way or another.

Pardon my long-windedness. I thought the questions you raised deserve more than just a cursory treatment. :-)

Shalom,
Lip Kee

On conviction, confession and repentance

2010-05-29T15:56:00.000-07:00

Tyson Supasatit's comment on 27 May 2010 in the Charisma Magazine's facebook page:

What's up with the cover story on Joseph Prince? His teaching is popular, but wrong. In Destined to Reign, he teaches that the Holy Spirit does not convict Christians of sin (only unbelievers), that only unbelievers need to confess their sin, and that repentance does not involve remorse or sorrow for having sinned. (See pages 107, 108, 187, and 233 in Destined to Reign.) Forget about his views on Law vs. Grace, it's really about his views on conviction, confession, and repentance that should trouble us.

Lip Kee's comment:

THE HOLY SPIRIT'S CONVICTION

Let's hear what Jesus Himself said with regard to the Holy Spirit's conviction, shall we?

"And when He (the Holy Spirit) has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ME; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged." (John 16:8-9)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am convinced that Jesus has made it clear that the present day ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict:

(1) the unbelievers of the sin of unbelief;

(2) the believers of our righteousness in Christ, even though we do not see Jesus physically with us, and

(3) the devil that he has been judged and is a defeated foe

It does not take the Holy Spirit to convict me of my sin. My own conscience convicts me of sin. It takes the Holy Spirit to convict me that I am still a beloved child of the Most High God, and to convict me that I am still righteous in the eyes of my Father.

It is this conviction that my Heavenly forever loves me and sees me righteous, and will never leave me nor forsake me, regardless of what I have done, what I am doing, and what I will do, that causes me to fall deeply in love with Jesus.

And when I am in love with Jesus, I am then able and willing to stay away from sin. For apart from Christ (and His enabling love), I can do nothing. (John 15:5)

THE BELIEVER'S CONFESSION

How do I, as a believer, confess my sin(s)? Do I confess the same way an unbeliever confesses?

Do I focus on myself and what I have done, or do I focus on the Lord Jesus Christ and what He has done?

I believe the New Testament way of confession for believers is to put the focus on Jesus and His work on the Cross, and to proclaim our total and perfect forgiveness found in Him. All of Him, none of me.

And this is exactly what Pastor Joseph Prince is teaching: confession that is not self-centered indulgence, but Christ-centered celebration.

So, I honestly don't see why I should be troubled by his teaching on the subject.

Tyson, would you like to elaborate more specifically, what is it about Pastor Joseph Prince's teaching that troubles you?

REPENTANCE

"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4)

The Bible says it is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance.

By preaching God's grace, by unveiling Jesus, by expounding on God's goodness, Pastor Joseph Prince is helping us to repent (i.e. change our mind, turn away from ungodliness to God), don't you think so?

Tyson Supasatit's comment on 28 May 2010:

Hi, Lip Kee. Repentance involves more than just a change of mind. It also includes an abhorrance of one's past sins, or a "godly sorrow" that leads us to the cross and then leaves no regret. Where did you learn that repentance does not include remorse or sorrow?

lip kee's response:

FEELING OF REMORSE AND CHANGE OF MIND

Hi Tyson. I have a conscience. I would feel remorse and sorrow when I know that something I did causes pain or grief or loss or damage to another person.

Feeling remorse or sorrow is a normal emotional reaction to pain, grief, loss or damage. The feeling of remorse or sorrow by itself is NOT repentance.

I don't know about you, but I know that I cannot control my feelings. Much as I wish I could, I must be honest and admit that I have absolutely no control over my feelings. I can decide how I act in response to how I feel, but I cannot control how I feel. I simply feel.

Maybe you are different. But for me, when I see and understand the pain, grief, loss or damage caused by my sins, I cannot help but experience strong feelings of remorse and sorrow.

But the important thing is what do I choose to do next. Do I choose to wallow in those feelings of remorse and sorrow, beat myself up, and cry my eyeballs out? Or do I decide to focus on Jesus and His forgiveness, to put my trust in the Cross and its redemptive power, and to renew my mind according to His Word?

I repent (change my mind) because I abhor the destructiveness of sins, and because I am attracted by my loving Savior Who only wants the best for me.

I believe the New Covenant mindset is one that does NOT focus on one's ugly self and the introspective feelings.

The New Covenant mindset is consumed by our beautiful Lord Jesus Christ and the glorious magnificence of His Cross.

Hope you see where I am coming from. Peace.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/charismamagazine

We rejoice because He first rejoiced over us

2010-05-19T08:26:00.000-07:00

The LORD your God in your midst... He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing. (Zephaniah 3:17)

See the Lord's love in your midst - casting out fear and granting you peace, and love courageously.

See His joy surrounding you - putting a song in your heart and giving you strength, and live joyfully.

We love because He first loved us.

We rejoice because He first rejoiced over us.

Thoughts on Contentment

2010-04-10T09:24:00.000-07:00

To be content is to know God has supplied, is supplying, and will continue to supply, so that one could:
- be generous (manifested through giving and sharing) rather than be covetous (expressed through accumulating and hoarding); and
- be diligent (and exercise good stewardship) rather than complacent (and display laziness).

A person covets because of a poverty mindset - thinking he does not have enough. A person becomes complacent when he lacks godly wisdom - not understanding the greater purpose of prosperity. A person is content when he believes he is blessed with prosperity for a purpose - i.e. he possesses an abundance mindset and godly wisdom.

Covetousness and complacency are the two extremes. Contentment is the middle path. A contented person is neither covetous nor complacent. He enjoys and employs what he receives from God. He is blessed. And he is a blessing.

Antidote for online venom

2010-04-06T20:46:00.000-07:00

Read the following article in today's Straits Time. Couldn't agree more with the writer's views.

Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander

Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.

"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."

When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."

And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."

People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.

But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.

"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.

Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.

Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".

Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.

For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.

While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.

When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?

The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.

When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".

I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.

The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.

Antidote for online venom

2010-04-06T16:54:00.000-07:00

Read the following article in today's Straits Times. Couldn't agree more with the writer's views.

Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander

Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.

"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."

When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."

And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."

People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.

But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.

"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.

Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.

Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".

Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.

For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.

While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.

When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?

The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.

When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".

I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.

The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.

Letter to ST forum in response to Andy Ho article titled “Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny”

2010-04-01T21:38:00.001-07:00

Dear Editor,

I refer to the ST article by Andy Ho titled “Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny” dated 1 April 2010.

I believe the joint reply by IRAS, MCYS and URA in response to the forum letter by Mr Lester Lam on the same subject has clarified the official position of the respective authorities. Nonetheless, I think Andy’s effort to share further insights on the matter is commendable.

I find it unfortunate though, that Andy failed to make a distinction between churches that do not solicit funds from the general public with charities that do. By using terms such as ‘public charities’, ‘public policy’ and ‘public money’ in his discussion about churches, he might have caused some confusion among his readers who may be led to think that churches are involved in soliciting funds from the general public like charities such as Ren Ci Hospital and NKF, when in fact churches only receive tithes and offerings from their members. In this respect, churches are similar to private foundations whose funds come from select groups of individuals and families and not the general public.

As to whether the funds of a church and its related entities should be subject to taxation, I think a distinction should be made between income generated from business activities and the tithes and offerings received from church members. In view of the difference in their nature – one being commercial and the other being non-commercial, I believe the former should be subject to taxation but not the latter. In order to properly record and report the different forms of activities conducted by the church and its related entities, it is therefore crucial for churches to make sure their organisational structure and their accounting functions are suitably set up and adequately segregated. Having said the above, I reckon this is a matter best left to the relevant authorities to deliberate and decide upon.

With regards the motivation of the mega churches getting involved in commercial deals, I am of the view that they are not motivated by profits, but by the practical needs for larger venues to accommodate their growing congregations. In Singapore, land plots allotted for religious use are limited in availability and size – a typical plot is usually around 4,000 sq m in size, which is good for a 1,000 plus seat sanctuary. With such strict zoning of land usage in Singapore, mega churches are, in a sense, ‘forced’ to take the commercial path. How many of us would seriously regard committing funds into the building of a civic and cultural centre or the securing of some convention facilities as the best way to invest for profits? If the key objective were to be profits, I believe most of us would prefer to go for the many other options available.

It is also important for some of us to clear the misconception that the mega churches are constructing a church building, or converting existing commercial properties into premises exclusively for church use. The civic and cultural centre at one-north will be, and the Suntec Convention Centre will remain, open to and available for the public to use and enjoy. The mega churches in question will only be renting certain spaces at the respective venues when needed, not unlike what the smaller churches are doing on weekends all around Singapore – leasing the many hotel ballrooms and other commercial venues to hold their activities.

As for the issue on members’ voting rights, I believe that in large organisations, for practical and efficiency reasons, it is not uncommon to have a smaller group of voting members making decisions on behalf of the larger whole of all members. In Singapore, a church may set its own policies on membership criteria, privileges and voting rights and these are subject to approval by the Registrar of Societies. Setting the appropriate criteria for full voting membership is an important step to protect the vision and the finances of a church, or for the matter, any society or association.

Valid concerns and suggestions have been raised by various quarters in our community since City Harvest Church made their announcement on the Suntec deal. Let us trust the Commissioner of Charity and his team, whom I understand are looking into the matter, to carry out the necessary investigations and clarifications, and to enforce the appropriate measures to safeguard the best interests of everyone concerned.

Best regards,
Tan Lip Kee

------------------------------------------------------

The Straits Times – Review

Apr 1, 2010

Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny

By Andy Ho

A LOCAL megachurch announced recently that, for $310 million, it was becoming a co-owner of Suntec Singapore.

According to Reverend Kong Hee, who heads City Harvest Church, the megachurch will co-own a company that already owns, in aggregate, 80 per cent of Suntec. That company’s profits are, of course, taxed. Thus when the church receives its share of that after-tax income, it would be all kosher.

The church says it created a free-standing, for-profit corporate entity, which it wholly owns, to house its business operations. Still, in a partnership and other joint-venture arrangements, each partner is regarded as being fully involved in the underlying business. The church leadership is reported to have explained that co-ownership of Suntec means that ‘the rent we pay out (in renting space at Suntec) will be recovered by CHC (City Harvest Church) in the form of profits and dividends’.

Could this deal jeopardise the church’s tax-exempt status? The Commissioner of Charities is seeking clarifications from City Harvest on its business venture.

On his website, Reverend Kong lists his occupation as ‘businessman’ and says he has a doctorate in business from Seoul’s Hansei University – called Soonshin University before 1997 and Full Gospel Theological College in the 1950s. Reverend Kong also has a master’s degree and a doctorate in theology, both from an online school. One thus assumes that Reverend Kong, presumably having also been duly advised, would have been able to digest and grasp the tax issues involved.

Why the unease with a church going into business? At first blush, it seems unnecessary to prevent charities, churches included, from using the market as a source of funding. After all, no one would want to ban gift shops or restaurants at the Art Museum or the zoo, for instance.

In a 4-1 majority decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v Word Investments, the Australian High Court declared that ‘commercial activities and charitable status are not necessarily inconsistent’.

Still, many find commercial activity by charities odd or even unacceptable. If nothing else, their resources as well as the attention of their managers could be diverted from their core missions. Such charities may also come to be run by a set of managers motivated by market values, the opposite of the altruism that charities should exemplify.

Moreover, commercial activity can also morph into empire building for its own sake, with profits being ploughed back into the business instead of funding the charity’s non-business activities.

But these are issues that concern only the organisations themselves. The public policy issue here is whether charities that engage in substantial commercial activity should still retain their tax-exempt status and how they ought to be regulated.

The reason the public should be concerned is that tax exemption is, in effect, a government subsidy. When a church goes into business, the public dollar is effectively subsidising that activity. For example, because City Harvest is using tax-exempt money to buy its share of Suntec, the transaction is effectively being subsidised by public money.

Legal and taxation experts suggest that a corrective tax mechanism would be justifiable in such circumstances. After all, it is implicitly assumed that religious organisations cannot afford to pay taxes since their assets do not produce income streams.

But when a church engages in a massive commercial transaction, it shows that it clearly could have afforded those taxes. Thus, the government would be justified in recouping any uncollected tax.

Think of it as an exit tax imposed on the church for exiting its exclusively non-profit stance for a for-profit one, at least in part.

How should such churches be regulated henceforth?

At least two megachurches here seem to govern themselves more like private foundations than public charities. While a believer at a typical autonomous, non-denominational church here can opt to become a full voting member of his church, very few – say, 700 out of 30,000 in a megachurch that is an autonomous, non-denominational set-up – may be invited to become voting ‘executive members’.

Irked by the Suntec deal, investment banker Simon Teoh, who attends City Harvest, has written to the Commissioner of Charities. He alleges that the church’s 12-member management board went ahead ‘with utilising the church’s building fund ($65 million as of end-October 2009) and committing the church to large future liabilities…without consulting the members…at the recent AGM. No EGM has been scheduled’.

Thus, in effect, these megachurches govern themselves like private foundations. In Singapore, private foundations are lightly regulated compared to public charities since their funds come from wealthy individuals or families and not the public. But most private foundations are grant-making institutions. These churches, by contrast, not only make no grants but instead solicit funds from the public.

Once their business enterprises can regularly channel enough profits to them so that Sunday collections will no longer matter, the management boards of these megachurches will no longer be dependent on their members.

But citizens – or the relevant group of citizens, at least – should have a voice in the governance of such churches as long as they are still soliciting funds from the public.

So the Commissioner of Charities should consider if such churches should be regulated more closely. Certainly, their tax-exempt status is no sacred cow that cannot be slaughtered if a critical re-examination justifies doing so.

andyho@sph.com.sg

Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access

Clarifications by Suntec Singapore on the "co-ownership" of Suntec Convention Centre

2010-03-11T16:42:00.001-08:00

On 9 March 2010, Lianhe Zaobao (Singpore’s leading Chinese press) reported that Suntec Singapore had released a one-page statement and a 3-page FAQ in response to City Harvest’s announcement that it will be paying $310m to “co-own” Suntec Convention Centre.

An extract of the Lianhe Zaobao news article, which appeared on page 4 of the paper, is reproduced below:

新达新加坡声明：城市丰收教会入股不影响新达新加坡运作

新达新加坡国际会议与展览中心说，通过ARA Harmony基金获得其部分股权的城市丰收教会，在基金的参与不大，也没有董事会席位。它的加入不会影响新达新加坡的正常运作，也不会引发任何人力削减或裁员行动。

　　新达新加坡（Suntec Singapore）昨天发表上述声明，对城市丰收教会（City Harvest Church）决定入股的消息作出回应。

　　新达新加坡在1页长的声明和3页长的问答录中说，它所发给城市丰收教会的授权合约允许后者在周末使用6楼的三个会议厅、3楼大厅和横跨2楼和3楼的礼堂，明年3月生效。

Extracts from the FAQs issued by Suntec Singapore are as follows:

1. Who owns the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (Suntec Singapore)?

- Suntec Singapore is owned by the ARA Harmony Fund. Stakeholders of the Harmony Fund include Suntec Reit (20%) and other private investors including City Harvest Church.

2. Does City Harvest Church have a majority share in the Harmony Fund?

- While details of the stakeholders are confidential, it can be confirmed that City Harvest Church has a minority participation in the Harmony Fund.

3. Will City Harvest Church have a seat on the ARA Harmony Fund Board?

- Currently, CHC has no board seats in the ARA Harmony Fund.

4. Will the Church have any influence in the daily business of the Convention Centre?

- No. The operation of the Convention Centre has been contracted to Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Services Pte Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ARA.

5. What leased spaces will City Harvest Church be using in the convention Centre?

- Suntec Singapore has issued a license agreement to the Church to provide 3 halls on the 6th floor, the Gallery space on the 3rd Floor and the theatre on the weekends. The license agreement will come into effect in March 2011.

6. Will the Church be renovating the licensed spaces for their use?

- Yes. An auditorium with the latest sound system will be constructed in the 6th floor halls. This auditorium will be available for Suntec Singapore to market for MICE business and other events during the week. The Gallery will be converted into smaller rooms for exclusive use by the Church. There are no changes planned for the theatre that will be used by the church on the weekends only.

(Source: http://lushhomemedia.com/2010/03/07/city-harvest-paying-310m-to-become-suntec-co-owner/ )

Suntec Convention Centre: CHC’s New Home

2010-03-11T09:49:00.000-08:00

"CHC’s New Home: Suntec Convention Centre" was the title of a news article that appeared on the front page of The Sunday Times, on March 7th, 2010. An extract of the article is reproduced below:

"Amid cheers from the congregation, City Harvest Church (CHC) yesterday announced that it will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore, a prime piece of downtown real estate.

Senior pastor Kong Hee broke the news first at CHC's service at its Jurong West building, then later at another service at the Singapore Expo in Changi.

He said CHC had acquired a 'substantial stake in a consortium company that owns 80 per cent of a joint venture fund that owns Suntec Singapore'.

The complex's full name is Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre.

The $310 million includes the cost of acquiring shares in the consortium, rental costs, renovation costs and others.

Suntec Singapore was acquired by ARA Asset Management through the ARA Harmony Fund last year, with its investors comprising Suntec Reit - which holds 20 per cent - and a consortium company which holds 80 per cent."

(Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_499058.html)

On March 8th, 2010, Kong Hee, the senior pastor of CHC posted a blog entry which elaborated more on the matter. By 12 March, 2010, the blog entry attracted more than 160 comments.

One of the most interesting comments was made on March 12th, 2010 at 12.20am, by John, apparently an executive member of CHC, in response to a comment made on March 11th, 2010 at 10.16pm by Derek Dunn, the executive pastor of CHC. John's comment is reproduced below:

"Dear Pastor Derek,

I shall accord you the respect you deserve as an Executive Pastor and return the politeness in my reply to you. I guess it’s not in my place to accept the apology concerning remarks made about the other church which was named openly by Pastor Kong Hee, but I do appreciate the gesture. As to whether it was done intentionally or not, I have to say that you know it’s not the first time. I do hope that we learn to treat our fellow brothers with respect since we are all in the same family. We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.

With regards to the truth behind the Suntec deal, I guess it may be a true fact about the non-disclosure but at the same time it is also a convenient excuse to not divulge very key information that is crucial for the confidence and full-hearted support of this deal by every member. I still do not understand why the leaders agree to a non-disclosure for the sake of Harmony’s shareholders when the members of the church, who are essentially shareholders too, are kept in the dark.

I agree that minority could mean anything from 1 share to 1 short of 50%, but you, of all people, should know that the stake purchased, based on our available funds and based on sound reasoning, is going to be found in the far lower half of that range. Yes, maybe in time to come when the full $310M is raised, but not now and certainly not in the near future.

This is one other reason why people like me are unhappy. To see our leaders say things that is technically not a lie but yet leads to a certain impression. And it results in our members, especially the young ones, going around declaring, blogging, twitting and facebooking we own Suntec City, have 1,000,000 sq ft, we have 78 years lease, the other church will pay rent to us and all for $310M, compared to other church who pay $500M for 30 years (evidenced in contributions above).

Please… even if we have a better deal, should we have such an attitude? This kind of behavior is a reflection of a leadership that is always comparing, competing and always needing to be number one. I know somebody’s got to be number one but it’s the competitiveness and the strong driving ethos of the church that makes many of our members to behave this way.

Why don’t the leadership do something and correct the wrong impressions concerning the building? I’m sure something can be done without infringing on the NDA.

Pastor Derek, with regards to the building, you don’t have to answer since it’ll be difficult to clarify without disclosing confidential info. I trust that you really believe you are doing the right thing for CIty Harvest Church and I respect you for being able to articulate your response to me in such an honorable and respectful demeanor.

Pardon my candidness in certain portions but it is really said without malice.

Thank you."
(Source: http://www.konghee.com/www/2010/03/chc-new-home-suntec-convention-centre/)

Note: Should you have any comments, please do NOT leave them here. I'd encourage you to visit the pastor's blog, read through the blog post as well as the responses, and then leave your comments there. Thanks!

Are looks and age important?

2010-02-10T17:53:00.000-08:00

"Are looks and age important?". A friend posted this question in her facebook and attracted quite a number of responses from her friends (including yours truly).

The discussion that ensued got me thinking about the NATURAL BRAIN and the RATIONAL MIND again (a theme which I touched upon briefly in my previous blog post). Selected exchanges are set out below:

RL: Are looks and age important?

GN: Seriously no, that's why all guys are looking for old and ugly ladies.

RL: @ Gabor: Why are guys looking for "old and ugly"?

Lip Kee: Hmm...I suppose you didn't quite get what Gabor was trying to say...Imagine if he were to pose this question, "Are health and financial stability important?" and a lady friend of his answered, "Seriously no, that's why all gals are looking for sickly and dirt poor men". You get the drift now?

GN: LoL, thanks for clarifying! :)

Lip Kee: The human brain is wired for survival and procreation, hence the general preference for youth and beauty, as well as strength and wealth. The more aware we are to such natural inclinations in the natural brain, the more able we will be to override or adjust biases with the rational mind. It takes an educated and enlightened mind to appreciate and value beyond what the natural and instinctive brain sees and prefers.

GN: But...Why would we want to override the biases? Actually those biases are highly rational...e.g. I would never settle with a dumb but pretty girl (nor with a sharp and ugly one either)

Lip Kee: @Gabor. Your not wanting to settle with a "dumb but pretty girl" is an example of how you are using your RATIONAL MIND to override/adjust the preference of your NATURAL BRAIN. From a purely biological perspective, the prettiness or physical beauty of a girl is perceived by your NATURAL BRAIN as an indicator of health, vitality and child-bearing ability in the girl, and that causes you to like her (INSTINCTIVELY). But since you also possess an educated RATIONAL MIND, you do not just "settle" (to use your own word) for the girl just because she is pretty. You (RATIONALLY) would like her to be intelligent also. The more we utilize our RATIONAL MIND rather than soley rely on our NATURAL BRAIN in our decision-making and action taking process, the more we are considered to be cultured and civilized.

But we digressed. The original question was: "Are looks and age important?". I suppose my answer is: Idealistically speaking, looks and age should not matter. Generally speaking though, they do. How important they are to an individual would depend on the individual's personal philosophy, world view and value system.

Why it does not make evolutionary sense to demonize homosexuality

2010-02-10T02:11:00.000-08:00

Note: This blog entry was originally titled "Evolution does not favor homosexuality". I decided to change the title after I realized how the original one had misled some readers and distracted them from my key message in the post.

From an evolutionary perspective, a tribe/species that persistently favors homosexuality inevitably would increasingly experience barrenness among the tribe/species members, which would ultimately lead to the demise of the tribe/species. It is for this reason that homosexuals (whether those in the animal kingdom or in human communities) have always been, and will always remain a minority.

Having said the above, I strongly believe that people with homosexual inclination should be treated with respect and understanding, and should not be discriminated against, denigrated or demonized.

Nevertheless, realistically speaking, I believe we must acknowledge that there will always be a bias among most of us (many a times unconsciously or sub-consciously) for heterosexuality and against homosexuality, given our evolutionary (natural) instinct for procreation and survival.

The more we are willing to admit this bias wired in our natural brain, the better able we will be to address it and override it, with our rational mind.

How to let go and let God

2010-02-05T23:38:00.000-08:00

In order to LET GO, we are to HOLD FAST.

The key to letting go and letting God, to letting not our hearts be troubled, to entering God's rest, is to SEE and to HOLD FAST to the Person of our Lord Jesus, and all that He has done for us.

- Hebrews 4:14
SEEING then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us HOLD FAST our confession

- Hebrews 10:19-23
Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way...Let us HOLD FAST the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

- Joshua 23:1-3,8,10
Now it came to pass, a long time after the Lord had given REST to Israel... You have SEEN all that the Lord your God has done..., for the Lord your God is He who had fought for you...you shall HOLD FAST to the LORD your God...for the Lord your God is He who fights for you, as He promised you.

We will want to hold fast to Jesus, and we will succeed in doing so, when we SEE:
- Him, our High Priest (Hebrews 4:14);
- His faithfulness (Hebrews 10:23);
- what He has already given to us (Joshua 23:1);
- what he has already done for us (Joshua 23:3,8,10);
- that He is the One who is holding fast to us (Hebrews 13:5)

When we SEE Jesus, we cannot help but HOLD FAST to Him. And when we HOLD FAST to Jesus, we cannot help but LET GO of the things that trouble our hearts, and we cannot help but enter into REST.

To see God's BEST (i.e. to behold Jesus) is to enter God's REST.

REST - meditaton on Hebrews 4:11-16

2010-02-05T23:23:00.000-08:00

REST is not inactivity. REST is not doing nothing. To REST is to:
- Renew my mind;
- Expect good;
- Step out boldly; and
- Take stock of the blessings in my life

I enter into God's REST (Heb 4:11) when I:

Renew my mind with the Word of Christ (Heb 4:12);

Expect good to happen to me and through me, seeing that Jesus my High Priest sympathizes with (rather than condemns) my weaknesses (Heb 4:15);

Step out boldly before the throne of grace and take on life's challenges as enbolden by the Holy Spirit (Heb 4:16); and

Take stock of all the blessings of mercy and grace from my Abba Father, even as He is helping me in the midst of my most urgent and deepest needs (Heb 4:16).

Blessed 2010!

2010-01-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

The world says, "Do your best and God will do the rest". We say, "God has done His best and we can enter His rest." We are at our best when we are at rest.

2010 shall be a year of restful increase. Have a restful, fruitful and joyful year ahead!

The abundant and victorious life - a life worth living

2009-11-24T18:03:00.001-08:00

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.

Taste and see your Good God today

2009-11-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

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.

How do we teach righteousness - right standing, right doing, both?

2009-11-21T00:09:00.000-08:00

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. :-)

On Christian discipleship - a discussion

2009-11-20T23:59:00.000-08:00

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. :-)

Are Christians sinners? - a discussion

2009-11-20T23:53:00.000-08:00

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

Should Christians follow Paul's example and call ourselves sinners? - a discussion

2009-11-20T23:40:00.000-08:00

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.

Teaching personal responsibility in church - a discussion

2009-11-20T23:31:00.000-08:00

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.

那夜月窥烛聆

2009-10-01T20:08:00.000-07:00

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。）

傻傻的

2009-09-03T20:50:00.000-07:00

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

Delicious ambiguity

2009-08-27T00:13:00.000-07:00

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.

The little musician. The little magician.

2009-06-29T08:33:00.000-07:00

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.

My 22nd birthday

2009-06-07T22:23:00.000-07:00

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. :-)

快乐的事

2009-06-07T22:22:00.000-07:00

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

Ann Hui's "The Way We Are" (天水围的日与夜)

2009-05-13T20:24:00.000-07:00

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.

那一季妻枪寓绿

2009-05-09T08:12:00.000-07:00

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〉)

听雨

2009-05-09T07:33:00.000-07:00

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>)

Sexuality Education and Homosexuality - a discussion

2009-05-06T20:39:00.000-07:00

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

MOE statement on Sexuality Education Programme

2009-05-06T18:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Excellent analysis by Cherian George on the AWARE fiasco

2009-05-04T06:54:00.000-07:00

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.

On false teaching, selfish desires and a real man of God - a dialogue

2009-04-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

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

On "controversial" salary , "wrong" explanation, and "incorrect" actions - a dialogue

2009-04-03T17:19:00.000-07:00

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

Why I love and support my church and my pastor

2009-04-02T22:25:00.000-07:00

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!

The Sumptuous Dinner and the Chef - a Parable

2009-04-01T19:16:00.000-07:00

Just like to share with you a brilliant parable written by my fellow blogger friend Stanley Wong. Enjoy! : )

----------------------------------------

A FAMILY DINNER
originally published in Stanley's blog.

Last night, to celebrate April Fool's Day, I took my family out for dinner at a very nice restaurant in the city. The waitress led us to a table and we sat down and waited for her to hand us the menu. However after some time, we still did not receive the menu. I managed to catch the attention of the waitress and asked her for the menu. She replied,"I am sorry, sir. In honour of April Fool's Day, our restaurant is serving only the Chef's Special Set Dinner today. Your dinner will be served shortly."

True enough, while the waitress was still explaining to us, the first dish arrived. All in all, we were served a seven course dinner plus dessert (mango pudding). Man, was the dinner good! We thoroughly enjoyed the food and my kids were pestering me to come again soon, even though we still haven't left the restaurant yet!

Then suddenly, something caught my mind: I had not asked about the price of the dinner! I quickly signaled to the waitress for the bill and crossed my fingers that I have enough money in my wallet to pay for it. To my surprise, the waitress walked over empty-handed and said,"We have no fixed price for our set dinner, sir. You just pay us whatever you want."

My surprise turned into shock. I thought this was too good to be true. Could this be an April Fool's Day joke? I asked,"Is it ok even if I pay $2?" "Yes, sir. Any amount you pay is fine with us." came the smiling reply. Of course, I didn't pay $2 but I did give what I thought was an appropriate amount.

I asked the waitress,"I am curious. Since the customer can pay any amount he wants, how much does your chef actually earn a year?" She replied, "$500,000". I was flabbergasted; "What? $500,000 just to cook food? This is too much! I am never coming to this restaurant again!"

My dear wife (God bless her) said to me,"Darling, we really enjoyed the dinner just now, didn't we? How much did you pay for it? Just $20, not $500,000! For a seven course dinner plus dessert! Why should you be concerned about how much the chef earns?"

$0.5m annual salary for pastor - a discussion

2009-03-30T03:08:00.000-07:00

BoredToDeath asked:
Without PP, how much do you think the church can generate? More or less than GOD?

Lip Kee replied:
To be totally honest with you, I believe that without Pastor Prince, NCC will not be where it is right now.

This is just a personal conviction. I cannot prove or disprove it. (In a way, this is similar to some people's view that Singapore will not be where it is now without MM Lee. This view too cannot be proven or unproven).

Personally, I am convinced that NCC is growing so rapidly and the people are giving so willingly and generously because Pastor Prince is able to reveal and exalt Jesus Christ so effectively.

Again, this is just my personal conviction. That is why I am still a member of the church and I am regularly giving a good portion of my income to the church.

I am not here to debate or challenge anyone who holds a different view from me. I am just here to present a view - from a church member's perspective.

I just want to let the readers here know that there are people like me, a member of the church who is totally happy with how things are. :-)

And as I've written previously, anyone who is in the church and is unhappy about the pastor's salary can always choose to reduce/stop his/her giving to the church or to leave the church.

And anyone who is currently NOT in the church and are NOT giving to the church, is free to continue to NOT to step into the church and NOT to give a single cent.

Democratic, yeah? :-)

Note: the original discussion took place in the AsiaOne forum page:
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=18932&page=10

-------------------------

As He Is So Am I commented:
Where is God in this, I thought it was God who blesses a church and therefore it grows. Or is it because someone reveals christ?

Lip Kee replied:
I agree with you totally it is God who blesses the church.

The way I see it, for NCC, God blesses us with a gifted preacher who is able to effectively reveal and exalt the Lord Jesus Christ in people's lives. And through this gift of a preacher, NCC is blessed and is a blessing. Hence, the growth and influence.

Please note that I am NOT claiming that Pastor Prince is THE only gifted preacher. I believe there are many gifted preachers, and NCC is blessed with one of them.

As He Is So Am I commented:
As for voting why not vote with a real ballot. Isn't that what a vote is for? I believe that the 20000 church goers should have option (c)

(c) submit a vote of approval or rejection of JP pay.

(d) if unsatisfied, submit a vote of no confidence in the council and elect a board consisting solely of independent and unpaid volunteers.

But will the 20000 pull this off? Legally is this possible?

Lip Kee replied:
NCC has voting members who attend the AGM and vote on matters concerning the church, including that of the appointment of the church council members. The council members are the ones who decide on the salary of the pastor.

I believe this kind of an arrangement is not unlike what is being done for many other church and non-church organizations.

Note: the original discussion took place in the AsiaOne forum page:
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=18932&page=11

-----------------------

As He Is So Am I commented:
So option (c) is not a valid option at this time? Which brings me to the following questions

Firstly I would like to ask how council members are selected and elected since they determine the salary of the pastor.

Secondly in all my years at NCC I have never voted, so please enlighten me how does one qualify to be a voting member and how many voting members does NCC have?

And as a member of the church, I am asking you why not have a third option of voting on it. If 20000 agree to give x amount to the senior pastor, no one in Singapore can continue to complain.

Lip Kee replied:

These are valid questions.

Different churches adopt different types of system of governance. Prebyeterian churches have theirs which differs from the Methodist churches.

NCC has chosen a system of governance that empowers voting members to choose the members of a church council who deliberates and decides on matters concerning the church.

There are many practical issues to consider, e.g. What matter should be decided by the church council and which issues should be decided by a church-wide voting? Who among the 20,000 should be considered a member? How should membership be determined - by attendance/ commitment in terms of serving/ tithing record etc? How does the church decide on granting voting membership?

If you are a member of the church, you may want to approach the church office to clarify these matters. I don't think this is the proper forum for this discussion.

In any case, if a person who does not attend NCC and who did not give a single cent to the church chooses to be unhappy and complain about the pastor's pay, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, since this is a free country. :-)

Note: the original discussion took place in the AsiaOne forum page:
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=18932&page=12
-----------------------------

Magenta commented:
Yes, never voted in my life... be it for the elections, at shareholders' meeting or church councils. Not that it matters anyway.... but NCCians are practically free to vote with their feet or pocket.

Lip Kee's response:

I agree with you.

I have voted and I have raised questions during the AGMs I've attended.

But I totally agree with you that the most practical and the best way to vote is with our pocket and our feet.

If we don't like what we see or hear in NCC, we can simply choose to stop dropping those cash/cheques into the bags/boxes, or we can simply stop going to the church.

As far as I know, no one is forcing any person to go to NCC or to give to the church.

Just to clarify in case there is any misinformation/ misunderstanding, in NCC, we don't use GIRO for our giving - i.e. we don't have our money deducted from our bank accounts automatically every month. The way we give in NCC is by physically dropping cash or cheques into the tithing/ offering bags/boxes when we are in church.

Note: the original discussion took place in the AsiaOne forum page:
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?t=18932&page=13

------------------------

As He Is So Am I commented:
I find it a bit disheartnening that the only recourse to the 20000 givers who gave to the building is to vote with their feet.

If we are committed enough to give to the building and commited enough to tithe, why are we not enabled to vote on such a matter of conscience?

Lip Kee replied:
To be very honest with you, even though I am a member with voting right at the church AGMs, I still believe that the most practical and effective way to vote is with my time and money I decide to commit to the church.

When we talk about voting, we need to bear in mind the practical limitations and implications. Do we really want to get involved in the daily operational and administrative matters of the church? Do we want all 20,000 of us to review and vote on the pay of all the full-time staff, which pastor's salary to be raised and by how much, which overseas ministries to sow into, which charities to support, which guest speakers to invite, what type of renovation/construction works on our old and new venues be granted the go-ahead etc. etc. Where do we start and stop?

For me, I choose to trust in the Shepherd our Lord Jesus Christ to watch over our church, the church council and our pastors. If I sense that the church leaders are no longer doing God's work but are doing things for ulterior motives, I will not hesitate to leave the church.

Nevertheless, if you strongly wish to exercise church membership rights and responsibilities, I would encourage you to check and clarify the matter with the church office directly.

Shalom!

Note: the original discussion took place in the AsiaOne forum page:
http://forums.asiaone.com/showthread.php?p=229248&posted=1#post229248

$0.5m annual salary for pastor - some thoughts

2009-03-29T23:27:00.001-07:00

Church leader gets $500k
The Straits Times
March 30, 2009

By Theresa Tan & Melissa Sim

THE New Creation Church, which made headlines for raising $19 million on one Sunday last month for its upcoming multi-million dollar building, pays good money to its staff too.

The independent church paid one employee between $500,001 and $550,000 in its last financial year, checks by The Straits Times showed.

The church did not confirm if the amount went to its leader, Senior Pastor Joseph Prince, but told The Straits Times that its policy is to 'recognise and reward key contributors to the church and Senior Pastor Prince is the main pillar of our church's growth and revenue'.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_356328.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the full article, which was carried on the front page and continued on page A6 of The Straits Times on Monday, March 30, 2008, Deacon Mathew Kang made the following statement:"Senior Pastor Prince is the key man responsible for bringing in about 95 per cent of our church's income. I must concede that he has enriched the church and not the other way round".

Some critics took issue with that statement. They argued that the church is not about growth and revenue.

I agree with them. The church is not about growth and revenue. And contrary to what some critics may think, in my view, the church is also not about charity and helping people.

For me, the church is ALL about revealing and exalting Christ. I believe that when Jesus Christ is revealed and exalted, people's lives are transformed and they are helped. And when people see Jesus and find help in Him in a church, the church cannot help but grow and prosper.

Pastor Prince has been doing a tremendous job at revealing and exalting Jesus Christ. As a result, people are being helped, and the church is growing and prospering.

Should Pastor Prince not be rewarded for what he has done and is doing for the church and the people? Of course he should. I believe few of us in the church would disagree on this. The question is: how much?

Is the half a million pay package too much or too little?

I agree with Deacon Mathew's view that it is Pastor Prince who enriches the church rather than the other way round. Let's keep in mind that in the previous financial year, the annual pay for Pastor Prince constitutes a mere 1% of the total annual revenue of the church. Now, let us ask ourselves: would the church be able to generate a revenue of $54m, if not for Pastor Prince's teaching and preaching ministry?

If there were to be people in the church who think that the church is paying too much to the pastor, and they are unhappy about it, I believe they are free to vote on the matter, either:

(a) with their hands - i.e. by stopping or reducing their giving to the church; or

(b) with their feet - i.e. by leaving the church.

As for me, I trust the church council's wisdom and decision on the matter.

And I am glad to continue to call New Creation Church my home church and to carry on with my usual tithing and offering :-)

Rainbow in Shenzhen

2009-03-26T01:30:00.000-07:00

It was 14 March 2009. The time was around 12 noon. Time to knock off for my colleagues and myself who were working in the Shenzhen office. As we slowly drifted out of the office doors, one of our colleagues shouted excitedly for everyone to look out of the window. We did. And what a sight it was. A full-circle "halo" rainbow around the noon sun.

This was my third sighting of an "unusual" rainbow over the past few months. The first one was an inverted "smiley" rainbow which made a one-minute appearance in the sky of Jerusalem in December 2008. Read blog entry here.

The second was a BIG full-arch rainbow that appeared in the evening sky of Singapore on my birthday in February 2009. Read blog entry here.

Unlike the last two sightings which lasted not more than just a couple of minutes for me, this "halo" rainbow lasted much longer. This allowed me to have the presence of mind and the time to capture photos of it.

It was quite tricky though - imagine staring straight at the bright noon sun and you will see what I mean. By taking advantage of buildings and structures to obscure part of the sun, I managed to capture a few photos of the "halo" rainbow on my mobile phone. :)

Halo-ed sun peeking out from behind an office tower

Noon sun crowned with rainbow

The battery of my mobile actually went flat after just a few shots, and I had to go back to my apartment to re-charge my mobile phone.

It was well past 1pm by the time I got back to the apartments, had my lunch and fully recharged my mobile phone. When I got out of my apartment, I was pleasantly surprised that the rainbow was still hanging in the sky, although it was by then a semi-circle arch rather than a full-circle halo.

Among the photos are a few which showed the rainbow hanging over an apartment building with the four Chinese characters "Jia Nan Mei Di" (which translates as "The Beautiful Land of Canaan") on it.

Rainbow over "Beautiful Land of Canaan"

The sign of God's covenant of peace (the rainbow) over God's promised land flowing with milk and honey (the land of Canaan).

What a beautiful reminder of God's promises and His faithfulness :)

A view of the apartment blocks "Jia Nan Mei Di" (Beautiful Land of Canaan). To the far right of the photo is "Dong Fang Xin Di" (New Land of the East) where my apartment is located. It has an alternative name called "Xu Gu Tang" (Sanctuary of the Ancient Narration). The entire area is known as "Xin An Gu Cheng" (The Old City of New Peace).

Very poetic (in a biblical way), don't you think so? :)

Perversion of the gospel? - a discussion

2009-03-18T22:48:00.000-07:00

TW wrote:

You know JP and NCC clearly teaches this false "Gospel" below:
"Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour will not only save you from sin and hell, but also give to you health, joy, peace, love, hope, unconditional acceptance, favour, the power to get wealth, all good things you can think of and more." http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/we_believe/cross.htm

-------------------
Lip Kee replied:

Why would proclaiming that "Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour will not only save you from sin and hell, but also give to you health, joy, peace, love, hope, unconditional acceptance, favour, the power to get wealth, all good things you can think of and more" be tantamount to preaching a false "Gospel"?

Do we see Christ as everything we need?

Would you agree that Jesus Christ is:
- the Lord who is able and willing to heal;
- the joy of all the Earth;
- the Prince of Peace,
- God's perfect love personified;
- our hope of glory
- the beloved in whom we are accepted;
- the Lord who enables us to be able and willing to give (in terms of material possessions, time, efforts, love) generously to help others;
- the source of all good things

The way I see it, receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior means that I also receive Him as my Lord of ALL, my Savior to whom I turn to for any and every kind of challenges I face in life.

When I say that take Jesus as my EVERYTHING, I mean just that: EVERYTHING - including health, joy, peace, love, hope, unconditional acceptance, favour, the ability to be generous with others (with our time, our energy, our material possessions), and all good things I can ever ask or think.

So, in that sense, I really don't see what's wrong with the statement.

Would you like to point out which portion(s) of the statement you find problematic or false?

--------------------------
TW wrote:

LipKee,

When anyone declares a "gospel" inviting one come to Jesus to get "favour, the power to get wealth, all good things you can think of and more.", one declares a false gospel and a false christ.

COVETOUSNESS is IDOLATRY ! Colossians 3:5

"It's idolatry because the contentment that the heart should be getting from God it starts to get from something else.So covetousness is desiring something so much that you lose your contentment in God. Or: losing your contentment in God so that you start to seek it elsewhere. Covetousness is a heart divided between two gods. So Paul calls it idolatry. "

God is to be magnified by the offensive and "foolishness" nature of true Gospel of Jesus Christ. God is to be desired above ALL, Christ is to be desired above ALL. God chose the foolish Gospel of a despised and suffering Christ. God sovereignly by grace draws and calls a sinner to come to Christ by allowing the sinner to see the beauty of the Cross of Christ. "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1Cor 1:18, 20.

When one comes to Jesus Christ, one comes to Jesus Christ ALONE. When one comes to seek $$$, one come to a false Christ or an "idolatry" offering the prospect of $$$.

This "gospel" from JP and NCC is the sad perversion of true Gospel of Jesus Christ. The false "gospel" from JP and NCC robbed Christ of His due glory. "Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour will not only save you from sin and hell, but also give to you health, joy, peace, love, hope, unconditional acceptance, favour, the power to get wealth, all good things you can think of and more." http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/we_believe/cross.htm

-----------------------------
Lip Kee replied:

TW,

We all go through different stages in our walk with God, don't we?

A journey - from being self-occupied to being Christ-occupied

I don't know about you, but I did not start out my faith walk with Jesus because I had a pure heart that appreciated Him and Him alone, without any trace of selfishness. No. I started my walk with God like a typical self-centered child, who thought only about what I needed and wanted. I wanted to be saved. I wanted to enjoy heaven. I wanted God to hear and answer my prayers. It was all about ME AND MY BLESSINGS.

As I matured more in the Lord, I began to think more about how I can be a blessing to others. I started to find ways to serve and to give to people - first just within the church community, and eventually beyond the church to the society/ world at large. It became more about OTHERS AND HOW I COULD BE A BLESSING TO THEM.

After coming to NCC (in late 2002)and sitting under the ministry of Pastor Prince, I began to see more and more of how beautiful Jesus is in and of Himself, and I started to really appreciate how truly amazing His grace is. As I learned more and more about the goodness and generosity of my Savior and Lord - Who not only blesses me but also allow me the privilege of being a blessings to others, my focus started to be more and more on Him alone. More and more, it is about JESUS AND ONLY JESUS.

From being purely self-occupied, to being more others-occupied, to being more and more Christ- occupied, it has been a journey for me.

I don't claim speak for every believer, but at least for myself, and for many believers that I know personally in NCC, our faith walks are a journey we are taking, and along this journey of faith, NCC has played and is playing an important role in helping us becoming less self-occupied, less others-occupied, but more Christ occupied. :)

Revisiting the definition of wealth and prosperity

I would really want to encourage you to see "wealth" and "prosperity" not just in terms of money and material possessions. If you find those two words offensive, may I suggest we use the phrase "more than enough for ourselves that we may give generously to others". How about that? :)

I don't have a million dollars in my bank accounts. But I believe I have more than enough to give to others. And because I believe so, I give generously.

If and when I find myself facing financial challenges (which I had, several times in my life), I continue to hold on to the truth that the Lord is my Shepherd and I shall not want. I continue to be generous in my giving because I truly believe that I have more than enough because Jesus Christ is my Shepherd.

(Note: I am not giving you mere theoretical arguments here. I am sharing my life and how I actually live it. If you so demand, I will gladly provide you with the evidences of my giving of money and time to churches and various charitable organizations over the years)

On the covetousness of man and the Solution

Man has his needs and desires. Every Man seeks to be satisfied. Every Man seeks to blessed with good things. Man, by his very nature, covets. How would you address this problem of Man's covetousness?

I suggest the solution is to point man to Christ. Because in Christ, every need and desire of Man is fully met. I believe what Man really covets is the Presence of Christ.

And honestly, I don't see anything wrong with me coveting the Presence of Christ, do you?

-------------------

TW wrote:

Hi LipKee,

I appreciate your attempt to share your experiences, I do not intend to cast aspersion on your experiences. The issue is at hand is the perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The sad perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as typified by the teaching from JP's book below, how can any Christian who truly believe and love the Gospel of Jesus Christ not feel grieve and rightly conclude that "NCC as MAN-focused: always preaching about MY blessing of health, MY blessing of wealth, My blessings - it's all about ME, ME, ME." ??

"My friend, the moment you are born again, you have Jesus in your life. And when you have Him in your life, get ready to prosper for gold will come to you! But don’t look for the gold, look to Jesus - He is the power to get wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18) The presence of the Son of the living God in your life attracts prosperity. Because of His grace toward us, Jesus though He was rich, was made poor at the cross for your sake so that “you through His poverty might become rich.

Beloved, when you have Jesus in your life and when you know that He has paid the price for your prosperity, you can boldly declare, “Jesus was made poor at the cross for my sake so that through His poverty, I am made rich in all things!” - Joseph Prince, ‘Rich Through Jesus’ Poverty’, in id., Destined To Reign Devotional: Daily reflections for effortless success, wholeness and victorious living (Singapore, 22 Media Pte. Ltd., 2008), p. 357.

Look through the whole devotional yourself, JP is NOT talking about spiritual wealth, it is clearly MATERIAL WEALTH and MATERIAL PROSPERITY.

Did your Lord Jesus, at the garden in Gethsemane, agonized and shuddered at accepting the cup the Father has asked Him to so that Jesus "paid the price for your prosperity"? This is a FALSE gospel presentation and a false Christ is being presented.

Anyone who truly love the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Savior will reject this sad perversion of the Gospel.

The Gospel is the power unto salvation to be preached for the conversion of sinful souls of men and women to repent and turn to Jesus Christ for their only hope for eternity to be with their Creator, do NOT pervert it !

Shalom

--------------------
Lip Kee replied:

TW,

Am I a false believer? Am I perverting the gospel?

I believe that because I have Jesus in my life, I have the power to get wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18). I believe and I boldly proclaim that "Jesus was made poor at the cross for my sake so that through His poverty, I am made rich in ALL THINGS" - not merely spiritual or material, but ALL things - both spiritual and material.

Now, do you therefore conclude that I am a lover and servant of money? Do you therefore consider me as a lesser (or even false) believer? Do you therefore see me as someone who perverts the gospel?

Or would you reserve your comments about me until you get to know me better as a person, until you see how I relate to people and conduct my daily affairs, until you see the fruit (or lack of fruit) in my life?

Did Jesus speak of just spiritual blessings only or BOTH spiritual and material blessings?

The Jesus I know did not MERELY speak about spiritual blessings only. The Jesus I know taught me to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and ALL THESE THINGS (material blessings) will be added upon me.

Similarly, NCC does not merely teaches about spiritual blessings only. NCC teaches the congregation to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and and ALL THESE THINGS (material blessings) will be added upon them.

As I've written previously, two different persons may observe the same facts about NCC and read the same words written by Pastor Prince, but arrive at totally different conclusions about the church.

After having served with the pastors, leaders and other members in the church for more than 5 years, my personal conclusion is "NCC is CHRIST-focused: always preaching about CHRIST'S blessing of health, CHRIST'S blessing of wealth, CHRIST'S blessings - it's all about CHRIST, CHRIST, CHRIST."

Note: The original discussion took place in a friend's blog:
here

A church that does not know what a church is - a discussion

2009-03-18T22:44:00.000-07:00

SZ wrote:

Those who support NCC's project try to justify by invoking practical and logistic reason. But I think the root problem is not they don't know how to manage their money, but they don't know what is a church and the gospel.

They think the gospel is all about God's grace saving our souls from sin and death. Period. To them, a church is just a place for people to gather, sing praise and worship songs, pray, and listen to Joseph Prince, so that our souls can be saved. This is of course nonsense.

...the church has no concern over theological education or harbor hope for the future of the wider Christian community in the long run. Their only trusted teacher is their senior pastor. And they expect Rapture to happen anytime soon. And when that happened, the faithfuls will zap to heaven leaving their clothes behind. So no point thinking too far ahead. What's important is to bring more people to Joseph Prince. To be baptized by him. That's their Great Commission.

-----------------
Lip Kee replied:

Dear SZ,

I don't know if you were just exaggerating to bring forth your points, or if you really meant what you wrote. Do you honestly think that ALL or the majority of the people who attend NCC really have no idea what a church is, and that they do not know what the gospel is?

Understanding of what the gospel is

You wrote: "They think the gospel is all about God's grace saving our souls from sin and death. Period."

I, for one, and I personally know of many others in NCC who do not subscribe to such a simplistic definition of the gospel - certainly not the way you phrased it. We (meaning those NCC members I personally know of and myself - I don't claim to represent the entire church) believe the gospel to be more than just having our souls saved from sin and death. The good news is MUCH MORE.

Afterall, the good news is ALL about Jesus Christ and His Finished Work on the Cross. So, in a sense, to the extent we could understand the limitlessness of the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Finished Work on the cross, to that extent we could talk about the richness of the content of the gospel.

Understanding of what the church is

You wrote: "To them, a church is just a place for people to gather, sing praise and worship songs, pray, and listen to Joseph Prince, so that our souls can be saved. This is of course nonsense."

I would be the first to agree with you totally that such definition of the church is utter nonsense. Honestly, I don't personally know of a single person in NCC who subscribes to such a definition for a church, do you? If such a person really do exists in NCC, I am sure the leaders in the church would like to meet up with and counsel him/her. Our pastors have taught us over and over again that it is the people who make up the church, not any building. And the church gathers to worship, to commune with, to hear and to see our Lord Jesus Christ, not any mere man.

Having only one trusted teacher?

You wrote: "Their only trusted teacher is their senior pastor."

Honestly, I am curious to find out why, and how did you arrive at such a conclusion. I personally do not regard my senior pastor as my only trusted teacher. And among the people I personally know of in NCC, many of them read the books of and listen to sermons by other pastors and preachers. And some have attended or are attending Bible schools. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt I could find a single person among them who regards Pastor Prince as the ONLY trusted teacher.

Understanding of the Great Commission

You wrote: "And they expect Rapture to happen anytime soon. And when that happened, the faithfuls will zap to heaven leaving their clothes behind. So no point thinking too far ahead. What's important is to bring more people to Joseph Prince. To be baptized by him. That's their Great Commission."

Again, I do not know how you came to making such a statement. I believe I speak for many, if not all of my personal friends and myself (again, I don't claim to represent everyone in NCC, only myself and the ones I personally know of) that we certainly do not live our lives the way you've described. We think and plan ahead. We have our own minds and lead our own full lives beyond that of the church community. And we certainly do not think the Great Commission is about bringing people to Pastor Prince and getting them baptized by him.

The church is not about a mere pastor, but all about the Great Savior
I would like to clarify here, on behalf of the NCC people that I know of personally and myself, that the focus of the Great Commission for us is not about a mere pastor, but the GREAT SAVIOR - our Lord Jesus Christ.

If you would care to hear me out, may I offer you a few gentle words of advice? Be more careful and precise in the way you write, especially when you are writing about other people.

You have a good mind. You write well. Let your gifts be a blessing to build people up.

----------
SZ wrote:

Hi,

Thank you for your comment and clarification, especially for your sharing of what you and your community view on NCC. As the title of the post is "Guessing...", the post is essential a guess based on the info that I have access to. It is not a ph.D dissertation.

Yet after reading your comment, I still think that I didn't guess wrongly or at least not entirely missed the point. For eg. you wrote that "good news is ALL about Jesus Christ and His Finished Work on the Cross." But what does this really mean?

And you mentioned that NCC's people know that the church is God's community and not building. And you know what? When I wrote that I think NCC has no idea what is the church, it didn't occur in my mind that NCC is so pathetic to the extent that they think church is building. Actually I have higher regards on NCC than the impression you got or mistakenly got. Pls don't get the impression that I'm an anti-NCC whose self-declared life purpose is to condemn my fellow Bro & Sis who are worshiping our same Lord there.

Hence when I say NCC don't know what is the church, it means something more nuanced.

Again, thanks for your time to share here.

---------------
Lip Kee replied:

Hi SZ,

Just to clarify, not to prove who is right and who is wrong

You wrote: "Yet after reading your comment, I still think that I didn't guess wrongly or at least not entirely missed the point."

My comment:
Please don't misunderstand me. :) My intention is not to prove who's views are right or who's are wrong. I am NOT interested in that.

I just wanted:
(1) to find out how you arrived at your statements/ guesses about NCC, and if they were arrived at based on your actual observations of and encounters with NCC people; and

(2) to present to you my personal observations of and encounters with a number of NCC people, and the different conclusions that I arrived at based on those limited observations and encounters.

Maybe your statements/ guesses about NCC were based on your observations of and your encounters with a very different set of NCC people than those whom I've met. Maybe you arrived at those conclusions of yours because of certain unique experiences you had in NCC.

Regardless, I am in no position to reject or deny your statements/ guesses.

So, there is no question about who's right and who's wrong, just an attempt to clarify why we hold such different views of NCC and how we arrived at our views.

So, you cool with that? :)

-------------
SZ wrote:

Ya, absolutely cool with that.

My guess is based on the observation of NCC's teachings, its' activities, and reading its members' testimonies about their own experiences and opinions with the church and how they respond to outsiders' view on the church.

-----------
Lip Kee replied:

SZ,

OK. Thanks for clarifying the basis of your guess. :)

Advice to be more careful and precise in writing about others

I would just like to reiterate my advice to you: Do consider being more careful and precise in the way you write, especially when you are writing about other people.

You may not mean it, but your readers may get the impression that you are putting down the NCC people and treating them as a bunch of shallow and ignorant believers.

Perhaps you may want to consider using qualifying statements like "some of the NCC people that I've come across" instead of "they". That way, the statements you've written will sound more reasonable and acceptable, don't you think so?

Try to replace the word "they" with the phrase "some of the NCC people that I've come across" in the statements you have made (see below), and you should see where I am coming from:

"They think the gospel is all about God's grace saving our souls from sin and death. Period."

"To them, a church is just a place for people to gather, sing praise and worship songs, pray, and listen to Joseph Prince, so that our souls can be saved. This is of course nonsense."

"Their only trusted teacher is their senior pastor."

"And they expect Rapture to happen anytime soon. And when that happened, the faithfuls will zap to heaven leaving their clothes behind. So no point thinking too far ahead. What's important is to bring more people to Joseph Prince. To be baptized by him. That's their Great Commission."

---------------
SZ wrote:

Hi Lip Kee,

U r welcome. And thank you for reminding and your advise. Appreciate them :)

On the other hand, I dont see the need to change the "they" to "some of them" as you suggested. Simply because, I do think that my post is not wrong.

And since as you have previously indicated that your intention is not to prove who's view is right or wrong, then by accepting your proposal without good reasons, we would have shifted into the "right & wrong" field which you are not interested in.

So if it's not about right and wrong, then nothing need to be changed because nothing need to be righted. Does that make sense to you? :)

-------------------
Lip Kee replied:

SZ,

A scenario to consider

Imagine a female person writing about men and making generalized and sweeping statements such as the one that follows:

"ALL men are jerks. They are ill-mannered, boring, shallow, and crude. They are not capable of acting responsibly. They think only about sex all the time. They have absolutely no idea what true love is. They are a totally self centered species. They are unable to care for others at all. They don't know how to live life meaningfully. They are utterly hopeless. Period."

Perhaps because of the types of men she has encountered and observed in her life, the writer honestly believe every word she has written above about those men (or even ALL men).

But as a man, how would you react to what she has written? Would you just shrug your shoulders, raise your eyebrows and smile? Or would you regard her as well-informed, objective, analytical, accurate, and insightful writer?

If you believe that this female writer has a good mind, that she has real substance, and that she has valuable things she could share that will benefit many of her readers, what advice would you give to her?

Notice that I am not asking you to judge how right or wrong her statement about men is. I am asking you to think of ways to help her reach out more effectively to her readers.

Similarly, I am not interested in proving your statements about NCC right or wrong. I am not interest in doing that at all.

I am just suggesting that you consider adopting a different approach/tone when you write about NCC. I made the suggestion because I believe it may help you connect more with your readers, make them more receptive to your writings, so that instead of having a knee-jerk reaction, they would seriously reflect upon the points you've made.

Just ignore my advice if you don't think it is useful or helpful to you. This is you blog after all, so you get to decide what and how you write. I can totally respect that. :)

Stay blessed and be a blessing.

Note: The original discussion took place in SZ's blog :
http://szezeng.blogspot.com/2009/03/guessing-over-new-creation-churchs.html

News report on NCC's Miracle Seed Sunday - My Paper: Mar 10, 2009

2009-03-11T00:51:00.000-07:00

News @ AsiaOne

$19 million in less than 24 hours

The congregation at New Creation Church raised a whopping $19 million for the construction of its new premises at Buona Vista. -myp

Tue, Mar 10, 2009
my paper

THE congregation at New Creation Church raised a whopping $19 million for the construction of its new premises at Buona Vista - in less than 24 hours.

In a show of support, a record number of 22,000 people turned up for services at the Rock Auditorium at Suntec City Mall three weeks ago.

The donations were collected over four services on Feb 15.

In comparison, a month-long charity drive by NTUC Income, Project Love, raised about $375,000.

Following the success of its fund-raiser, the New Creation Church announced the amount it raised to its members on Feb 22. However, when contacted, the church declined to comment.

New Creation Church-goer Angelique Lee, 26, a full-time student, said her donation was a form of thanksgiving and appreciation "for all that God has blessed me with".

'Attending church has helped to transform my life and make me a better person over time,' she explained.

Graduate student Huang Wei Hsuan, 26, who is not a member of the church, felt that part of the funds could be used to "help those who are really in need, instead of being fully used to construct a new building".

'Is it really a good idea to build a new building now? Should the church members be advised to keep more for rainy days?' he asked. But many others who are not from the church were heartened by the congregation's generosity.

'I feel it's incredible that such kindness, empathy and generosity can be shown in such bad economic times,' said Mr Shawn Chin, 24, a civil servant.

joyfang@sph.com.sg

Straits Times report on NCC's Miracle Seed Sunday (2009)

2009-03-11T00:35:00.000-07:00

STRAITS TIMES - 11 March 2009
CHURCH COLLECTS $19m IN ONE DAY FOR LIFESTYLE HUB
By Theresa Tan & Melissa Sim

MEMBERS of the New Creation Church and their friends donated an average of $864 each one Sunday last month, netting the church a whopping $19 million for its upcoming multimillion-dollar lifestyle hub in Buona Vista.

The sum is believed to be the largest ever collected in Singapore in one single day and comes at a time when charities say donations are dipping, as the recession worsens and people are keeping their hands firmly in their pockets.

This, however, is not the first time the New Creation Church, an independent church led by Senior Pastor Joseph Prince, has collected such a staggering sum in one day. One Sunday in April last year, the church collected about $18 million during its first 'Miracle Seed Sunday'.

The church declined to be interviewed, saying its affairs were 'a personal expression of worship'.

But The Straits Times understands that 'Miracle Seed Sunday' is a day when the church's members 'sow a seed, expecting miracles'.

Mr Prince declared during his sermons early last month that Feb 15 would be a 'Miracle Seed Sunday'.

A record 22,000 people, including members and their friends, showed up on Feb15 for the church services and pledged $19 million. The proceeds are to go to the church's new cultural and entertainment complex being developed by its business arm, Rock Productions.

Last September, Rock Productions told The Straits Times it had raised about a third of the $500 million it needed to build the complex. It is partnering property giant CapitaLand to build the close to $1 billion project, envisioned as a 'futuristic complex with restaurants, shops and a 5,000-seat theatre'.

CapitaLand will own and manage the complex's retail and entertainment zone. Rock Productions will own and manage the civic and cultural zone, which will house the 5,000-seat theatre to be used for the New Creation Church's Sunday services.

Church members interviewed said they were happy to donate to the new complex. Bank executive Marcus Wong, 28, said: 'It's not compulsory. Whoever has the heart and wants to give can come forward to give. The building is for God, so we see it as an offering.'

When asked whether she thought the money should go to helping the poor instead of constructing a building, another church member, a businesswoman who declined to be named, replied: 'I believe with the new building, we are giving to the kingdom of God, and God will be able to bless more people.'

The New Creation Church is one of the fastest- growing churches in Singapore. It was founded here in 1984 by a group of young Christians and has grown from 25 believers to more than 18,000 members today. It had an income of $55.4 million during its last financial year.

Do you believe in love at first sight?

2009-03-05T22:34:00.001-08:00

My response to the question, "Do you believe in love at first sight?" is as follows:

I feel the word "love" is used so loosely, it has become confusing rather than useful during communication. The word is used to described uncontrolled, fluctuating FEELINGS. The same word is also used to define an informed DECISION and a deliberate COMMITMENT.

Do I believe in love at first sight? I cannot answer that question until the question is re-framed in terms that are more precise and accurate.

Feelings of attraction and fondness at first sight - Yes

Have I ever had a feeling of fondness for someone I met for the first time? Yes. Have I ever experienced a strong feeling of attraction to someone when I saw her for the first time? Yes.

Do I believe that in future, I may meet someone for the first time and instantly feel a liking for her? Yes. I don't think that is an unlikely scenario. Do I believe that in future, I will see someone for the first time and experience a strong feeling of attraction to her? Probably, yes.

Decision to a life-long commitment at first sight - No

Have I ever committed my whole life, all that I am and all that I have, to someone I met for the first time? No. Have I ever decided to protect, to provide for, to respect and to cherish someone as long as I live, when I saw her for the first time? No.

Do I believe that in future, I will meet someone for the first time, and I will deliberately commit my whole life - all that I am and all that I have, to her? No. Certainly, not. Do I believe that in future, I will see someone for the first time, and I will make an informed decision to protect, to provide for, to respect and to cherish someone as long as I live? No. I am sure I will not.

From initial feelings (beyond one's control) to life-long commitment (deliberate decision)

Do I believe: (a) I would meet someone, (b) and at first sight, the both of us become mutually attracted/ connected to each other, (c) and after getting to know each other more deeply, we find ourselves compatible/ complimentary to each other in the key areas, (d) and after careful considerations, we decide to commit exclusively to each other in a life-long relationship?

Yes. I believe.

The first part of point (b) though, may read alternately as "after meeting each other over several occasions" rather than "and at first sight".

Single and Choosy - Thoughts on Chemistry and Compatibility

2009-02-27T20:00:00.001-08:00

I am a greatly blessed man.

Family members and friends have been telling me that when it comes to selection of a life partner, I am a very blessed man to have so many good choices (fine eligible single Christian ladies) around me. I agree with them.

And they wonder (aloud, many times) why I am still single.

FRIENDLY INTERROGATIONS

A few who are closer to me sometimes turn friendly interrogators and bombard me with probing questions such as "Are you too choosy?"; "Are you enjoying your freedom as a single person so much that you are not willing to give it up?", and lo and behold, "Are you straight?".

"ARE YOU STRAIGHT?"

Let me address the last question first, to dispel any lingering doubts anyone may have about my sexual orientation. I am a red-blooded male who is 100% straight. I find myself attracted only to women.

I was not sexually attracted to another male, am not, and never will be.

"ARE YOU NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM AS A SINGLE?"

As for the question about my willingness, or rather, my unwillingness to give up freedom as a single person, my answer is: It is not so much about the willingness to give up freedom as it is the readiness to take up responsibilites.

When I think about the prospect of marriage, it never occurred to me that I should ask myself, "Am I willing to give up my freedom as a single person?".

The more pertinent question for me is, "Am I ready to take up responsibities as a married man?". To which my honest answer is, "Yes, I believe I am ready, by the grace of God".

"ARE YOU TOO CHOOSY?"

So, that leaves me (and my friendly interrogators) with only one question: "Are you are too choosy?"

I find that a difficult question to answer. Over the years, I adjusted my response as I experienced more of life and grew as a person. But initially, I have always maintained that I don't consider myself as being overly choosy.

THE 2C MODEL OF DECISION-MAKING

My reason: when it comes to selection of life partner, my considerations are basic and simple. Just the two Cs: Chemistry and Compatibility.

How do I apply this 2C model of decision making?

First, with regard to Chemistry, I ask, "Are we attracted to each other?". If the answer is "Yes", then I proceed on to the next question about Compatibility, when I ask, "Are the two of us a suitable fit for each other - do we make a good team when it comes to building up a family?".

Surely, those two are the bare minimum, standard questions any reasonable person would ask of a prospective life-partner, aren't they? Surely, I am not being too choosy, am I?

SIMPLE AND ELEGANT?

After being grilled on the same question time and again by different friendly interrogators, I realised that the 2C decision-making model may seem simple and elegant, but in the course of applying it in real life, many complexities arise. I shall elucidate briefly:

There are times I say to myself, "She seems like a kind and loving person. Everyone speaks well of her. But I suppose we can only be normal friends, and nothing more, because there is simply no chemistry between the two of us whenever we meet."

Then there are other times when I say, "Even though we find each other attractive, we are just not compatible in so many areas. I think it is best that we do not allow our relationship to proceed beyond that of normal friends."

Inevitably, I find myself in a situation where though objectively, choices and opportunities are aplenty, but subjectively, they are far and few in between.

CHEMISTRY

What exactly do I mean by Chemistry?

Am I talking about a feeling over which I have no control - the spontaneous sense of infatuation and excitement caused by a surge of hormones in my physical body?

Or am I talking about the kind of admiration and respect that I can develop for a person over an extended period of time?

COMPATABILITY

What do I mean by Compatibility?

How do I gauge compatibility in the areas of spirit, soul and body?

To what extent do I insist on my prospective life partner having:
the 1 non-negotiable (i.e. must be a born again believer);
the 2 key qualities (i.e. must be gracious and have practical wisdom), and
the 3 strong preferences (i.e. should share common interests, goals and values with me)?

THINKING TOO MUCH

Recently, after speaking to me over this matter of finding someone and settling down, a dear friend commented, "I think you think too much". I am inclined to agree with her.

However, as much as I regard myself as a fiercely rational and logical man, I also dearly cherish the romantic and idealistic person who has always been in me.

I envy those "heart-people" who can take actions in accordance with what their feelings tell them. And I admire those "mind-people" who can make decisions based on pure hard reasonings alone.

THE ELUSIVE BALANCE

I reckon it is the expectation to balance both the "rational man" and the "romantic man" in me, and the insistence to arrive at a perfectly balanced Chemistry-Compatability decision that have contributed to my still being single.

I suppose that is my long-winded way of saying, "Yes, I am choosy".

So, unlike my friendly interrogators who wonder why I am single, I do not wonder. I know.

THE MOST IMPORTANT C - CHRIST IN ME

Most importantly, I know why I can be happy and fulfilled while being single. I know I have the most important C in my life - Christ in me, my hope of glory.

Jesus Christ loves me wholeheartedly without regard to my suitability as a Bride to Him. He chose me unconditionally without consideration over our Chemistry and Compatibility.

He is my Dearest Family Member. He is my Closest Friend. He is my Most Committed Life-Partner.

I am indeed a greatly blessed man.

Some Thoughts on Prayer - Why and How

2009-02-27T19:10:00.000-08:00

Ephesians 6:18:

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit (NKJV);

And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests (NIV)

What is prayer?

Prayer is not for the maintenance of the Christian life.

Prayer is the Christian life.

True prayer is being conscious of God - conscious of Him as our Father, as our Provider, as our Answer.

More specifically, praying in the Spirit is:

- Praying in the consciousness of the new covenant

- Praying in the knowledge of grace

- Praying in the sense of righteousness

One way of looking at this is: praying in the Spirit is being conscious of Jesus and seeing His lovely smile

When do we pray?

As God's beloved children, we pray with all kinds of prayers, in all kinds of seasons, for all kinds of reasons.

Even though God already knows what we need before we pray (Matt 6:8), we still pray, not so much for our Father to know what we want, but more so for us to clarify our own thoughts and intentions, and to locate where we are, in terms of our relationships with Him.

Also, when we pray, we cause ourselves to become more aware of Him (our Answer), instead of being only aware of the circumstances we are in, and the challenges we are facing (our problems).

How do we pray?

We pray both with understanding, as well as with the Spirit. (1 Cor 14:15). Having confidence not in the way we pray, but in the Lord Jesus who intercedes for us always, as well as in the Holy Spirit who prays for, in, and through, us.

We know that because of Jesus our Perfect High Priest, all our prayers (prayed with understanding) are perfect when they reach our Father's ears.

We also know that because of the Holy Spirit who is in us, all our prayers in the Holy Spirit are perfect prayers even when we don't exactly know how to articulate the words of our prayers. We know that our Father loves us so much that even a groan will reach His throne (Rom 8:26).

We pray in Jesus Name: we pray in the consciousness of His authority, character and will. And when we pray with that consciousness, we know we are praying according to His will, and we have confidence that our Father hears us (1 John 5:14).

What about unanswered prayers?

An illustration: two 4-year-old boys (twin brothers) each asks their Father for a shaver. The Father does not give them what they want immediately. One boy walks away knowing his Father loves him, and is content with his father's reassuring word that his request has been heard. The other boy goes away crying and complaining that the Father does not love him anymore.

Same request. Same Father. Same answer. But different reactions. What's the difference? Answer: the respective child's relationship with the Father.

Know that our Father wants to bless us more than we want to be blessed. Know that our Father has our best interest in His heart for us. He has the best answers to our prayers. And His timing is always the best timing.

Focus not on things we pray for, but on the One to whom we pray. As the relationship between us and our Father grows stronger and stronger, we realise more and more that He hears and answers us - every time, all the time.

What about the people who were prayed for and yet passed away?

Know that God's will is for people to have life more abundantly. His will is for his people to prosper and be in health, even as their souls prosper. (3 John 2)

Understand that death is NOT the horrible end-all of everything. Know that our lives on earth are only a short while compared to all eternity. Know that for babies and believers who died, they are in a much better place - they are having the most wonderful with Jesus in heaven.

For people who died, apparently without Christ, trust that God is perfectly just and perfectly loving, and leave things in His hands. There will be many people in heaven we'll get to see that we don't expect to see. However, our part is not to speculate, but to trust in our Father's perfect justice, goodness and wisdom.

Conclusion:

Because we are our Father's beloved children, He wants to, and is already talking and working with us, for us, in us, and through us.

Be conscious of Jesus and His lovely smile.

The success of prayer is not measured by the size and scope of our accomplishment (though that is important). The success of prayer is measured by the strength and depth of our relationships with our Father who loves us.

The power of prayer is not in moving the hand of God. The power of prayer is in being moved by the heart of God. When we are moved by God's heart, we will move in tandem with God's hand.

Prayer is not about looking for rewards. Prayer itself is the reward.

(First published on 30 Sep 2005. Edited and republished on 28 Feb 2009)

A Big and Beautiful Rainbow for My Birthday on 25 February 2009

2009-02-26T05:40:00.000-08:00

24 February:

After two full weeks away from Singapore, on the eve of my birthday, I finally got to enjoy a restful sleep at home.

I was happy. Happy to be home. Happy to have had my caregroup celebrate my birthday with me.

Photo taken by 69eFan69 from www.clubsnap.com

25 February 2009:

I found it really cool that the table calendar in my room should, on this very day, be turned to the page with the following verses:

"To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent...but born of God" (John 1:12-13 NIV).

It was as if my Heavenly Daddy could not wait to remind on my birthday that I am His child. :-)

And I found it really really cool that before the day (which was cool and peaceful, the way I wanted it to be) ended, I got to see the biggest rainbow I had ever seen in my life.

Photo taken by Qazwer from www.clubsnap.com

I could have so easily missed the rainbow.

It was around 7.10pm in the evening, I was in Ang Mo Kio Center, just had my dinner, and was walking down the street toward the MRT station, when I saw a friend's text on my mobile phone telling me about the sighting of a double rainbow.

I looked up, and there, in front of me, was a huge brilliant rainbow in the canvas of the evening sky.

I gasped. It was an awesome sight to behold. "This must be the biggest rainbow I've ever seen in my entire life," I said to myself.

Because of its sheer size, I had to turned my head from left to right (as if I was watching a tennis match) to see it in its entirety.

Photo taken by Hidden3 from www.clubsnap.com

The rainbow was so big and so beautiful - so big and so beautiful that it felt unreal to me. I blinked my eyes several times to make sure what I was seeing was real. It was.

And within a minute or so, the rainbow disappeared.

I was reminded of the rainbow I saw in Israel. http://livelearnloveleavealegacy.blogspot.com/2009/01/after-week-of-touring-in-jordan-and-in.html

I was reminded of God's everlasting covenant of peace.

I was awed. I felt so blessed and so loved.

To me, the rainbow was a big and beautiful birthday gift for me from heaven. :-)

For more photos of the magnificent rainbow captured all around Singapore on 25 Feb 2009, do visit the following webpage: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=481342&page=3

Photo taken by FortyNine from www.clubsnap.com

Balanced Preaching - Law vs Grace vs Lawlessness

2009-02-20T02:13:00.000-08:00

When I think about Law and Grace, this is what I see, when I consider only God's system:

Law vs Grace

But when I look at the bigger picture and include the godless system, this is what I see:-

Law vs Grace (God's system) vs Lawlessness (godless system)

We all know that the preaching of pure Law is legalism and the preaching of lawlessness is Antinomianism. And none of us in our sound mind would support either types of preaching.
They are considered extreme. They are considered to be imbalanced.

So, what is balanced preaching? Some of us suggest that it is a mixture of Law and Grace. Such a conclusion is arrived at because we considered only God's system, i.e. the two covenants, and fail to consider that there is a separate godless system. As a result, this is what we see (erroneously, I believe):

Law vs Grace = Law vs Lawlessness

We fail to realise that importance of differetiating between:
(a) the comparison of God's convenants (Law and Grace) and
(b) the comparison between God's system (Law and Grace) and the godless system (Lawlessness).

The failure to do so has caused much confusion and misunderstanding in the Church, with regard to the preaching of pure grace.

We should be clear that God's system of covenants is that we are either under one or the other. We cannot mix both. If we mix the two, we nullify both. We cannot mix new wine with old wine skin. If we do so, you lose both. Jesus wants us to be either hot or cold, not luke warm.

The mixture of Law and Grace is Galatianism (which the apostle was agressively against, as recorded in the book of Galatians in the New Testament).

Therefore, my conclusion is as follows:
The preaching of pure Law is Legalism. The preaching of lawlessness is Antinonmianism. Both are extreme and imbalance, and should rightfully be rejected by the Church.

The preacing of a mixture of Law and Grace is Galatianism. It is unbiblical and confusing. It robs the believers of the blessing of enjoying the power of God's covenants. Such preaching should, according to the apostle Paul, be rejected by the Church.

The preaching of pure Grace is preaching of the Gospel of Christ, which is balanced preaching.

The debate (on Law and Grace) continues

2009-02-17T23:29:00.000-08:00

Just when some of us thought that the level of understanding about the grace message was improving and a possible reconciliation between the churches (with different approaches to the teaching of Law and Grace) was in sight, fresh rounds of debates are being stirred up again:

Biggest Church Taught to Resist 'Cheap Grace':
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=education&id=682

NCC Supporters Respond to Antinomian Article
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/education/674/section/1.htm

Let's continue to pray for mutual understanding and respect to prevail among the leaders (and the members) of the churches involved, and believe for the day of reconciliation and cooperation to come soon - for the glory of Jesus and for the benefit of the Church.

A rainbow in the sky of Jerusalem

2009-01-07T03:03:00.000-08:00

After a week of touring in Jordan and in the northern region of Israel, we entered into Jerusalem on 28 December 2008, late in the evening.

Our entry into Jerusalem was delayed because of a huge traffic jam on the road leading into the Holy City. The crisis in the Gaza strip was escalating. As a result, security checks on vehicles entering Jerusalem was stepped up.

At 5.55pm, while our bus was slowly making its way toward the entrance of the Holy City, we prayed for the peace of Jerusalem, and declared "Grace, grace!" and "Shalom, shalom!"

On 29 December 2008, the eastern part of Jerusalem was closed to tourists by the police because some protests were taking place in the area. Thankfully, our itinerary was not affected, as the museums we were scheduled to visit were not located in the affected area.

On 30 December 2008, to our delight, the closure of eastern Jerusalem was lifted. It was a beautiful sunny day with a clear blue sky, and we gladly proceeded with our itinerary as planned.

After visiting the Mount of Olive and the various sites (including the Garden of Gethsemane) on and around the Mount, singing in the Church of St Anne, walking through the Via Dolorosa (The Way of Suffering) in the Old City of Jerusalem in the morning, we proceeded next to Mount Zion just outside the walls of the Old City.

When we reached the entrance of the Upper Room on Mount Zion, because of the large number of visitors at the site, we had to wait for the crowd in the Upper room to clear, before we made our entry.

The area where we waited was an un-shelthered space just outside the Upper Room entrance. It was a relatively small area and had just enough space to hold our group of about 50 people. The other groups before us and those after us were in the roofed areas of the Upper Room or the staircases, and they had no view of the sky.

As ours was a relatively big group, it took several minutes before everyone made it through the covered stairway and was gathered in the open space under the sky. After a couple of minutes of standing and waiting, Natasha, a young girl in our group suddenly pointed to the sky and shouted, "Look!" We all looked up, and saw this beautiful inverted rainbow hanging over our heads.

It was as if God was smiling at us and telling us, "Dear beloved children, take heart, I hear you. I heard your prayers for the peace of Jerusalem. Look now and see the sure sign of My convenant of peace. Remember my love for my people. Remember my love for you. And let your heart and mind be at peace."

"I set My Rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth." (Genesis 9:13)

"For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you...My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My convenant of peace be removed." (Isaiah 54:9-10)

As many among the group started to pull out their cameras and took pictures of the rainbow, I just felt so loved by God. I believe many of us in the group who were from New Creation Church felt the same way too, because just about a month ago, our Senior Pastor preached a message about rainbow. (read blog entry here: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/103). On the day our Senior Pastor preached the rainbow message, a double rainbow appeared in the sky outside Suntec City Tower Four, where our church services are held every Sunday.

I also found out subsequently that quite a number of the NewCre people in the group had in fact prayed before embarking on the trip that they would get to see a rainbow in Israel.

What made our experience in Jerusalem more amazing was that the "smiling rainbow" did not remain in the sky for too long. Within a minute or so (within a few clicks of the camera), it faded away, even while the crowd in the Upper Room was clearing away and it was time for us to enter into the room.

It was as if God had specially prepared the rainbow just for our group to see. God knew we would be spending a few minutes waiting outside the Upper Room, so He used that few minutes to show us His love, with a beautiful sign in the sky. If we had arrived at the entrance of the Upper Room just a couple minutes earlier or later, we would have missed the rainbow.

He made us feel so special.

We are so loved. He is so good!

A sandstorm in Jordan

2009-01-07T02:54:00.000-08:00

On Christmas Eve, 24 Dec 2008, which was Day Three of our Jordan/ Israel trip, while en route to Mount Nebo our bus met with a huge sand storm.

The sand storm was so bad that at certain times, the bus driver could not get a clear view of the road just a meter ahead of him. The police stepped in to control the traffic and our bus had to stop for about 45 minutes on the highway, along with many other vehicles ahead of us and behind us. We could feel the bus shaking from side to side because of the strong winds.

We also saw the wreckage of a vehicle by the road side, apparently the result of a serious accident caused by the sand storm.

After the people were done with taking photos and recording videos of the sand storm around us, sing some songs and playing a couple of games in the bus, a sister came forward and suggested that we should take spiritual authority over the situation and pray about it.

So, we prayed.

And God be our witness, within seconds after we prayed, the sand storm started to clear. And it cleared totally within a few minutes, afterwhich it was a smooth journey all the way to Mount Nebo.

Could it be a mere coincidence that the sand storm just happned to clear after we prayed?

I am convinced that it was God demonstrating to us once again that He is One who hears and answers our prayers.

Later in the day, we crossed over the Jordan River and set foot on the land of Israel and celebrated Christmas Eve in Tiberias.

In the morning of Christmas Day, while taking in the beautiful view of the Sea of Galilee in a fishing boat, I thought about the gospel accounts in which Jesus rebuked the winds and the sea, and calmed the storm, and I couldn't help but gave thanks to Him for calming the sand storm for us just the day before.

We may be experiencing all kinds of storm and turmoil around us or within us. Others may not see or know or care about what we are going through, but Jesus sees and knows and cares.

In the midst of it all, we can take heart and have good courage because Jesus is the One who rebukes the wind and the sea and says, "Peace, be still!" (Mark 4:39), and Jesus is the One who says to us, "Be of good cheer! It is I: do not be afraid" (Matt 14:27).

Rain in Israel

2009-01-07T02:52:00.000-08:00

When we traveled in Israel, we were told time and again by the guides and the people we met that rain is a blessing for Israel. Besides praying for the peace of Jerusalem, the next most important prayer to the Israeli people, it seems, is to pray for rain in Israel.

Interestingly for our group, it rained on two of the days during our trip. The first time it rained was on Christmas Eve and the other time was on New Year's Eve.

Christmas Eve was the day that our group crossed over the Jordan River and first set foot on the land of Israel. New Year's Eve was the last full day we spent in the land of Israel before we crossed over to Jordan on the next day on New Year's Day.

I find it interesting that it should rain in Israel on those two special days. Somehow, it made us feel that our group was special - that we were a blessing that brought the blessing of rain, a precious gift, to the land of Israel.

And what more appropriate time to bring gifts than on the eve of Christmas Day and on the eve of New Year’s Day?

On Christmas Eve, as we remembered Jesus and exchanged gifts with one another, God remembered His people and blessed their land with rain from Heaven.

On New Year’s Eve, when we visited the Garden Tomb, the Garden Tomb guide told us that the people have been praying for rain to fall in the land. He said that it was a miracle that it was raining and he was very happy about it.

As we parttook of the Holy Communion in a sheltered area in the Garden Tomb, with the sound of rain drops falling in the background, I shared with the group that although the rain caused a little inconvenience for us, we ought to be glad. Glad to remember the Jewish Man who hung on the cross and cried in the rain some two thousand years ago; glad to know that He was cursed so that we might be blessed; glad to see that the land of Israel was blessed with rain; and glad that we could walk in the rain, a blessing from God for Israel, while we were in the land.

And I was glad when I heard a good “Amen!” from the people.

Why pray?

2009-01-07T02:49:00.000-08:00

DOES GOD NOT GIVE TO US IF WE DON'T ASK OF HIM?

Question:
God won't give to us if we don't ask?

God is always giving

Lip Kee's comments:
There are preachers and teachers out there who teach that we have to ask or else God would not give. Personally, I don't subscribe to that kind of teaching.

The God I know is always loving, always caring, always giving and always providing.
He knows what we need, and He takes pleasure in satisfying our needs.

"Your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)
"...your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Matthew 6:30-32)

Then why does the Bible teach us to ask of God in prayers? Why is there a need for us to ask at all?

God does not need to be arm-twisted or reminded for Him to give

I believe our "asking" is not to meant to arm twist God to remind Him to give to and provide for us. He is always giving and providing. Rather, our "asking" serves to remind us and the people around us that God is our faithful and gracious Provider.

God is not forgetful of His covenant. He does not need to be told or reminded of what He needs to do.

Prayer is meant as a reminder for us, not for God

We are the ones who are always forgetful and distracted. We are the ones who are un-faithful and unfocused. That is why God graciously provided us with a reminder tool called "prayer". Because we need it to remind ourselves of how He is always there for us - ever caring for us and providing for us.

To elaborate: Imagine someone who does not pray. She was facing a difficult situation which lasted 6 months. God eventually delivered her from the situation. But because she did not use the "reminder tool" (i.e. prayer), she is unlikely to be conscious of how God helped her out of her challenge. She would be filled with much stress and anxiety during those 6 months.

Also, in the absence of any prayer offered to God. She and the people around her will mostly likely credit herself, other people or mere good luck for the good outcome, when the whole challenge was over.

Now, imagine the same person, when faced with her situation, chose to pray to God, and to ask her friends to stand in faith with her. What difference would it make to her and to the people around her?

The benefits of praying

First, she would have a sense of hope, assuredness and restfulness, even in the midst of her 6-month long challenge. And when the breakthrough finally comes, she and her friends would be conscious of God's help. Their hearts will be filled with thankfulness to the Lord, instead of pride arising from the belief that their self efforts made the difference, or a vague sense of good fortune.

In the scenarios above, God intervened and helped, regardless of whether anyone prayed. So prayer did not affect how God acted. Like I mentioned, He does not need arm-twisting or reminder.

However, prayer did affect the quality of life, and the quality of the response of the people, don't you agree?

God meant for prayer to be used as a tool of reminder for us, not for Him. :-)

The Giver has given. Has the receiver received?

Besides, when a person is not conscious of God and His constant provision, God could be giving and giving, but she may not benefit because she is not receiving. Even though the giver has given, many a times, the receiver needs to actively receive what has been given in order to enjoy the benefits. A simple example would be that of someone who inherits a fortune but is ignorant of it or refuses to believe it.

Hope you will find my comments helpful in one way or another.

Pardon my long-windedness. I thought the questions you raised deserve more than just a cursory treatment. :-)

Shalom,
Lip Kee

Life's Purpose

2008-10-16T22:45:00.000-07:00

Lately, a friend asked me about my life purpose.

My reply to her came in several parts.

The first part was based on the roles I have been given in life.

The second was focused on the passions I felt in my heart.

The third was adapted from something I read from a book several years back:
"to live, learn, love and leave a legacy".

After some further thinking, and reflecting on my Christian beliefs, I came to the conclusion that my life purpose was simply to love - to love God and love the people He places in my life.

King Solomon, after his long meditation on life's meaning, as recorded in the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible, concluded that the end of life was "to fear God and keep His commandments".

In the New Testament, Jesus interpreted "fearing God" as "worshipping God", and taught that the commandments of God could be summarised as "loving God and loving our neighbours as ourselves".

Therefore, King Solomon's conclusion regarding the purpose of life could be paraphrased as such:
"to worship God, and to love God and love the people God places in your life".

As a Christian, I believe that my life is not about me, but all about God. My Bible tells me that God is Love. Therefore, if my life is all about God, and God is Love, then, my life must be all about Love.

A Godless and loveless life would be a purposeless and meaningless life to me.

God/ Love gives meaning to my life. My life's purpose is to love.