I could really use a Robin

About five years ago, Batman Wannabe scolded me for disrespect because he misunderstood what I was trying to say. It happened on a Sunday after Second Service, sometime during the middle of the year. That time, we were at the Old Market ordering dumpling noodles at for the Dom7th girls. Duck II was also there with us, and he was equally shocked at Batman Wannabe's violent reaction. Like me, he didn't know what Batman Wannabe was thinking.

Of course, Batman Wannabe soon realised his own (momentary) dopiness and started apologising profusely. It must have occurred to him that two totally innocent junior tenors under his charge now had of him some kind of undeserved negative impression. He even treated the guys to an extremely large serving of carrot cake to atone for his needless rage. It was humorously embarrassing. Batman Wannabe was 18 years old then.

Currently, Batman Wannabe is doing very well in Chicago. Thank God for that.

I know what it feels like now. I'm certain that at that time, my misunderstood remark was simply a drop of water - okay maybe a bucket - in the flood of emotions that fractured his dam of composure. It was not easy to be Batman Wannabe at 18 years old. Education at Bishan Junior College and selfless service to the Eternal Kingdom is understandably beleaguering. Yet, I look at myself now and I'm somewhat convinced that I really have more on my hands than he did at that time. Probably more than the average above average youth today. But surely this is by no means any justification for a drowning man not to cling on to a nearby life buoy. I think Batman Wannabe knew his limits, and therein lies our difference, which may be to my detriment at the end of the day. May be.

Many eternal and not-so-eternal things depend on this year. I don't know how they shall be resolved in the future. Occasionally, even the distinction between the two is not clear to me. As of now, I'm counting on my passions. I trust that God didn't put specific convictions into my heart for no reason.

Batman is special. He's certainly a superhero. But at the same time, he knows that he is totally human. And he works with that.

Surely God Deserves Better

I just read an article entitled "Decoding God's Changing Moods" written by Robert Wright in the June 15, 2009 issue of TIME. I must say that I am quite bemused and disappointed. At the bottom line, the article is an implicit but searing indictment on the sovereignty and perfection of God, and the divine authenticity of His Word. But that is not really the cause for disappointment. If it was, I might just have to live off Prozac for the rest of my life because such phenomena are ubiquitous today.

The cause for disappointment is that it presents a series of the weakest, most unfounded revisionist arguments I have ever encountered in quite a long time. In my opinion, it is a complete and utter shame that the article has actually found itself a place in the pages of a globally esteemed issuance. Of course, there are many other publications of this nature out there in the world. But given the time I have on my hands, I guess I can only touch on them one by one.

The main thesis of the article is that from the chronicles of Israel's monarchic history in the Tanakh/Old Testament, and from the expositions of the prophet Muhammad in the Koran, it can be observed that a "perception of non-zero-sumness underlies religious tolerance". Accordingly, it is this pragmatic socio-politico-economic stimulus that incentivises the unseen "pattern" of God's "random mood fluctuations" to approve or disapprove of the coexistence of monotheistic and polytheistic faith. The article continues to say that "if we read this [the pattern] correctly, there may be hope for reconciliation and religious harmony".

To begin with, the idea of 'reconciliation and religious harmony' as the primary objective of Wright's thesis may just be the single most ridiculous idea in the article. Today, it is absolutely clear that all three Abrahamic religions have no intention to support any form of trilateral ecumenism at all. Even religious tolerance in the world is hitherto a million stone throws away. On one hand, yes, many in today's chaos of a zeitgeist fight for pluralistic relativism. It brings (temporary) peace. Laypeople accept this. On the other hand, I think it is most unwise and ignorant to attempt harmonising the Big Three by means of calumniating the divine, infallible character of Yahweh and Allah, and debasing the integrity of the holy scriptures, in a subscription patronised by over 3 million people around the world.

So how does Wright do this?

What I have to offer are simple rebuttals and observations that I believe any attentive, educated Christian should be able to identify. It is fairly obvious that I am totally not equipped to provide an exhaustive exegetical or historical argument for Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Unfortunately, to the casual reader, the deceptive air of pseudo-historicism and lack of biblical context in the article can be too odourless to be detected. So here are just some alarming details I noticed from a Christian's point of view:

First, it would be the lackadaisical way in which the Word is being treated in the article. Sure, there is a profusion of references to the Bible and the Koran. Yet, the books, chapters, verses, and versions of the translations are never stated. Not even once. From the perspective of a trained academic, this would be construed as a shameful case of substandard referencing. Even worse, a number of scriptural quotations consists of merely isolated phrases, or simply individual words inserted into sentences of Wright's own authorship. Clearly, there is a very misleading, de-contextualising quality about the way the scriptures are being used to support his arguments.

Aside from that, the basic assumption in the use of any evidence to substantiate a proposition is that it must hold some truth that is coherent with the context from which it was retrieved. It does not necessarily have to correspond to reality, because the purpose of Wright's argument is not to validate hypotheses vis-à-vis empirical data. For example, an agnostic can know and argue convincingly about the Christian doctrine of Justification without actually believing that it is true. Similarly, in describing the polytheistic influence over Solomon that his wives possessed, Wright asserts that the "Bible has the logic backward". It doesn't matter what his reasoning was regarding the ostensible illogicality of this issue. What matters is that the authenticity of the evidence from which he has derived many of his arguments has been severely undermined by his own criticism. From an epistemological viewpoint, Wright has unknowingly shot himself in the foot.

Second, 'random mood fluctuations' and 'vacillations between belligerence and tolerance' is a gross misunderstanding of Yahweh's communicative style toward the people of Israel. We must be very clear with the axiom of God's eternal nature, as stated in Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever." For Wright to presuppose the existence of any deity, in this case the Christian God being one of three referenced, it is necessary for him to get the nature of God's existence right before trying to fit the implications of historical events into His character. Wright didn't, of course; he did it the other way round. In doing so, he creates the false impression of a god who is not unchanging, not decisive, not omniscient, not omnipotent, not sovereign over all things, and the list goes on.

The logic is simple:

1. God created time, space and matter.

2. To do so, God must exist outside of time, space and matter.

3. Scientifically, time is a measure of changes.

4. Therefore God is eternal and unchanging.

(This also means that God is omnipresent because He isn't limited by space, and that He is immaterial because He isn't composed of matter.) And yes, to most, Step 1 is a huge assumption in itself. You don't have to accept the logic like I do, but you must assume it if you want to properly understand the scriptures, which again doesn't necessarily entail believing it. So how have scholars proposed that such "vacillation", "mood fluctuations" and 'mind-changing' fit in with the nature of God?

There are two explanations, and they co-substantiate. Number one, it is biblical anthropomorphism (Gr. prosopopoeia) that enables the cognizantly limited and causally wired human mind to communicate with an infinite, eternal and unchanging God. We should realise that the very intention of anthropomorphic passages in scripture is to distinguish Yahweh from idols and false gods:

"Their idols are of silver and gold,

the work of human hands.

They have mouths, but do not speak;

eyes, but do not see.

They have ears, but do not hear;

noses but do not smell.

They have hands but do not feel;

feet, but do not walk;

and they do not make a sound in their throat."

Psalm 115:4-7

Anthropomorphic passages show that unlike these false gods, Yahweh can do all of the above par excellence.

Number two, God has sovereignly ordained the God-human emotional exchange to be the very means by which whole tribes repent and get saved, or rebel and get destroyed. Therefore, Open Theism is heresy; God does not make mistakes.

A well-known example would be Jonah and Nineveh. In John Piper's words: "What we are saying is that one solution to this apparent mistake on God's part is to treat it the way most commentators treat God's prophecy over Nineveh: "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). But Nineveh repented and was not overthrown. The solution here is that God implicitly intended the condition: "Nineveh will be overthrown, unless she repents."

Third, I admit that religious tolerance in the Old Testament may have been tied to zero-sum or non-zero-sum socio-politico-economic gains as a means by which God graciously sustained the kingdom of Israel despite their chronic disobedience. But to obstinately fixate one's perspective on Man-centred (socio-politico-economic) factors like what Wright has done is highly dangerous, especially in the study of the history of Israel. To overlook theological implications, whether or not one subscribes to them, is to ignore the historical fact that Israel did evolve (or deteriorate) from a theocracy to become a monarchy. Moreover, the monarchy possessed immediate divine guidance through priests and prophets. Again, this is historically undeniable.

More importantly, occasions of so-called religious tolerance was a testing of Israel's devotion and their obedience of faith to Yahweh.

"These are the nations: the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites and the Sidonians and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath. They were for the testing of Israel, to know whether Israel would obey the commandments of the Lord, which He commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses. So the people of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods. And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. And the people of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years."

Judges 3:3-9

Recalling the intention for anthropomorphism in scripture, this passage is not meant to affirm the existence of lesser gods at all.

Ultimately, in relation to the 'vacillation of tolerance and belligerence', God pours out His righteous wrath to all who have sinned against Him. And that includes Israel.

"Surely this [the Chaldeans, Syrians, Ammonites and Moabites] came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done."

2 Kings 24:3

"Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.'"

Jonah 1:1-2

"For our fathers have been unfaithful and have done what was evil in the sight of the Lord our God. They have forsaken him and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord and turned their backs. They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the Holy Place to the God of Israel. Therefore the wrath of the Lord came on Judah and Jerusalem, and he has made them an object of horror, of astonishment, and of hissing, as you see with your own eyes."

2 Chro 29:6-9

As I have reasoned, Wright has made at least three erroneous judgments in the article. Not only are they inconsistent with each other, they appear somewhat persuasive as a deceptively connected thesis of de-contextualised facts. What I have done is to point out three huge problems that most definitely contribute to a wrong impression of Judaism and Christianity, and I feel obliged to do so because the glory of God is of growing importance to me. Many scholars all around the world - believers or unbelievers - study the Word daily. Yet, God must not only be analysed, He must be glorified.

Today, Christians like me return to the unconditional love of Christ as the only basis for religious tolerance. We cling to the hope that in days to come, God's sovereign grace will be granted to those who are blinded by the prince of the power of the air. Never has it been for any form of socio-politico-economic benefit. Today, the last shadows of imperialism that remain is the existence of monarchic figureheads, and there endures but one dictator in this world who is on the road to political self-destruction. Democracy is sound only because none but Christ can be trusted with absolute power. Ultimately, the kingdom of God is not of this world. Paul says that we of all men are most to be pitied if we have hoped in Christ only for this life. (1 Cor 15:19)

Honestly, I don't know who reads this, but Wright is wrong, and Jesus is coming soon.

Lullaby

Last night was a century. It's these spasmodic bouts of insomnia that really sap the life out me. Technically, I should be able to deal with them by simply pulling an all-nighter on the spot to bulldoze my backlog. But they tend to occur on nights where I have something quite demanding ahead on the next day. Like today, I'll be needing to book out of Handover Camp to sing with the minstrel ministry till ten-ish. I guess it's probably due to my erratic sleeping pattern, and now my body is just crying out for attention. Hopefully this doesn't evolve into some syndrome to plague me in my later years.

Perhaps I should just give in to Mum, and to those of you who've been chiding me like her to start sleeping early. But even if I don't now, I'm certain that the upcoming soldier season will ensure, or rather enforce that I dive at 10 and rise at 5 everyday, amidst all other activities painfully beneficial to physical fitness. It's not particularly encouraging, but it should help.

Thankfully, Day One of camp is moderately relaxing, as should be apparent from this piece of writing. But now I think I should be off to practice for this evening's vespers. Worship at the astroturf sounds great. Night sky, scattered stars, rich melodies and an abundance of black and green rubber bits, all of which ascribe glory and power to our unique Creator. Thank God music has a place for me everywhere I go.

I'll take my chances

The man has spoken:

"Let's see what time I knock off...Yeah I should be able to make it down by 8:30pm!"

Right, so what's left to do now is to tell him what he's gotten himself into. At least we've arranged for an espionage briefing come Sunday. But I just have a feeling that his guts still won't betray us in the face of all possible shenanigans. Haha, we're in for a treat one way or another. If the barbecue works out, we'd better have a serving of equally or even more lip-smacking chicken soup for the soul. Definitely looking forward to the 19th.

So that's a good cause for celebration. The good cause rather. Because unfortunately, I was hardly able to finish any work today, and this is really getting on my nerves. Though I did complete the bridge for the new tune I've been working on, and I'm quite satisfied with it.

What does scare me is the amount of time left on my hands till when it's just the pen, the paper and me in a frigid hall with about 400 other studious clones. There is so little of it left that I find myself constantly entertaining thoughts about just becoming a missionary in Africa and snoozing in the Savannah. That works for about...5 seconds on a particularly hopeless day? I then remember the people here for whom I would die rather than be separated from. So what began with a sigh ends with a sigh.

As of now, it's step by step, fork by fork, today's share of manna then tomorrow's share of manna. If I don't take what's right, I won't know what's left. Carpe diem, but live for eternity at the same time. Goodness me, what a load of self-didacticism. And most of all it reminds of a passage in my EE text actually. It takes place when the protagonist (who is an Anglican priest) attempts to fanatically justify his...well...fanaticism, for gambling.

'I cannot see', he said, 'that such a God, whose fundamental requirement of us is that we gamble our mortal souls, every second of our temporal existence...It is true! We must gamble every instant of our allotted span. We must stake everything on the unprovable fact of His existence.'

Chapter 57, Oscar and Lucinda

by Peter Carey

Slap me in the face if I ever say I agree with this. Wait, but not even to the tiniest extent? Well, maybe, but I just don't call it gambling. I call it faith. And the promise that follows is not a growing debt of evidence, but a contract pending on eternity.

Life is like that.

I woke up with with a sad, sad frown this morning. What a way to greet my Maker. But honestly, in the economy of events, I'm barely getting by. It seems that I've long forgotten what it feels like to be on top of things. But at least I have my sanity to be proud of given the fact that it's clear I ain't always happy as a clam.

It was only after an entertaining discussion with the tripartite in church, and after a long conversation with a dear friend that my plunging spirits took two right turns. But it would be going too far to say that nothing good came out of the boo-hoo. Now I have a fresh, cathartic song to share with my siblings at the upcoming chalet. Three cheers to that.

In relation to the chalet again, Willem Dafoe didn't pick up, so I didn't get to talk to him about what we wanted to have him around for. And his Queen Latifah of course. The pair would definitely spice things up at the barbecue. Chinese jokes, random anecdotes, free toffees and the like.

Well, I'm off to read Celebration now, then maybe continue with Prac 31, depending on how confident I am of my work-discipline for tomorrow.

Avarice

I was looking at the management's beware-of-theft notice again at the pantry earlier, just as we were leaving church. The first photo on the bill shows the victim leaving his bench, with his valuables left on the table. The second photo on the bill shows the thief, who had entered from the side door, helping himself to the offering of negligence - a phone and a wallet. The third photo depicts the thief fleeing from a freshly desecrated altar. That happened quite long ago.

In view of recent events, I can't help but think that history has repeated itself. Just in a different way. This time, an thewy group of High-Calibre Robbers arrived on the scene to steal from us the victim himself, in an orchestrated manner. And maybe this time, it was because I realised this parallelism of a theft too late. The victim has since become the chief-seaman of their freighter, and they're very far from shore.

What is to be done? I don't know. We don't know.

And that's simply one problem in the jigsaw of all the others. Earlier, I commented to Duck II about something regarding the dynamics of human relationships that I've come to realise. The people who hurt you the deepest are the people whom you deem the closest. It is bitterly ironic, and I guess it's only when you've realised this truth that you can flip the script and act with love, capitalising on its latter clause.

Thankfully, the closest Persons (there are three of them) have faithfully promised to never disappoint. It has certainly been so thus far. Unfortunately, I probably still hurt Them a lot, which is not exactly the best form of reciprocation.

Well, at least there are some things in life that cannot be stolen.

Excess heat, spare meat and a simple seed

The weather has been mercilessly hot for the past two months. I don't recall anything quite like it for as long as I've been on this sunny island. I'd very much like to attribute its cause to global warming. But I know it would be utter self-denial to ignore the fact that I'm really expanding horizontally, not in the healthier sense. Even my social jury is giving assent, continually and voluntarily. Accordingly, a thicker subcutaneous layer increases bodily insulation, which is quite unnecessary in this part of the world. At least not now. You see, what was designed to be a completely normal homeostatic function has been perverted by irresponsible diet, lack of exercise and late nights. So, more vegetables and fruit, less meat and suet? Mayb- nah, who am I bluffing.

But actually, what's more noteworthy of recency is the bare control I had over the movie-discussion a few hours ago. The over-starched collar of disorganised material clearly had a stifling effect. The conveyance of such probably ignited embers of doubt that were never properly extinguished at the end. Along the same lines, fattened resources don't necessarily lead to nutritious sharing. Especially not with an audience that has a panoply of appetites. Haha, I'm actually amused at the way this is turning out to sound a lot like a barbecue of complaints.

But if a simple seed gets just what it needs, then a Redwood tree might grow.

At least now I have some idea of how to deal with a group of folks with different needs. Just go Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for believers and unbelievers alike.

So despite the fact that my sharing earlier wasn't entirely coherent;

despite the fact that there're still so many internal and external affairs vis-à-vis YM that have yet to be sorted out;

and despite the fact that my left eye is now incredibly red and painful due to a stray spurt of alkaline shower lotion in the bathroom earlier,

God was, is and will be sovereign in all things. We fight to issue calls for conversion, but ultimately, it is He who issues a converting call.

"When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come out.' The man who had died came out, his hands and feet were bound with linen strips, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Unbind him, and let him go.'"

John 11:43-44

Re-revolution

It's a Friday afternoon and I've got quite some material to churn out for a meeting in 6 hours. Progress is slow. But when the going gets tough, the go-er gets weird and startling revelations.

Sometimes, for the brightest ideas to materialise, one needs only to look around in the old attic, with an ounce of curiosity and a fair bit of patience. Maybe a bit of luck too. After all, Einstein had Newton to disprove and Edison had Tesla to remove.

Similarly, I think I was most obscenely naive from age 14 to 16; some would argue that it's never stopped. But then again, I'd never have arrived at where I am now if those years never came to pass. And I'll probably think the same thought a few years down the road.

Which is why it's such a pity that my desktop is currently malfunctioning. 5 years worth of precious musty archives, including school stuff, church stuff, music files and what-have-yous.

So maybe desperate times don't really call for desperate measures, definitely not separate measures. I just need to remember how unconventional things used to be, then set them in stone again.

1.5 Bonus Points

"In conclusion, I believe that the claim is very relevant to both the natural sciences and the human sciences, in that it elucidates number of key principles that undergird these two areas of knowledge. Yet, I think it would be over-generalising to ergo ascribe equal relevance to both, because the nature of order and chaos assumes nuanced definitions when concerned with each of the two disciplines. Ultimately, it is clear that the statement is addressing a complex issue. I hope that in the future, I might come to glimpse a more systematic understanding of this matter from the chaos of my musings."

That's it, I guess. Hopefully the examiner has a sense of humour. Well, 1.5 years of mumbo-jumbo in 1.5k words for 1.5 bonus points, and it all comes down to this.

Which I handed in today!

Might I get to enjoy a similar blessing?

Happy 19th anniversary, Mom and Dad. You guys have been immeasurably liberal with me.

And remember, you're never too old to stop doing it. Although a little baby brother next year would come across as quite a rude shock I think. Besides, what would you name him? 天福?

God be faithful to keep you faithful, I pray. Enjoy your cake!