On Facebook

What you should know about Facebook's changes.

Facebook's eroding privacy policy: a timeline

Doug Groothuis review of Church of Facebook.

Word ministry - on clarity and failure

Two recent posts from The Gospel Coalition that are particularly relevant to Word ministry.

Andrew Lisi: I believe the great task of any Christian – from early believer to seasoned theologian or pastor – is to take the unique language of Scripture and theology and make it accessible to those who have not been exposed to any of it without losing the essence of what God is communicating in His Word. I am constantly learning how difficult of a task it really is, especially because I also believe we must retain the clear language of the Bible.

David Murray: And we take all our failures to our unfailing Lord for His full and free forgiveness. We take our failed evangelism, our failed sermons, our failed pastoral visits, and our failed counseling to the Lord, and pour out our hearts to Him: "Lord, I’ve messed up another sermon...I’ve forgotten to visit that needy soul…I was too scared to speak about you to my fellow-passenger...I’ve misjudged the mood of my elders...I’ve unnecessarily offended that family who left...I was insensitive in counseling...I’m paying for breaking a confidence..."

But as we confess our failures, we experience the Lord’s unchanging and unconditional love. And we re-emerge...humbler and weaker, but wiser and happier too.

As always, both posts worth reading in its entirety.

National education feature

I meant to link to this earlier. The Nut Graph had a very interesting 4-part feature reviewing the national education system. I am personally convinced that any substantial reform of Malaysia must reckon with the way education works here.

Going private
Chinese medium schools to the rescue
The homeschooling option
Whither national education?

The Quid Pro Quo God

A couple of recent conversations suggest how hard it is to exorcize the quid pro quo god. Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase meaning "something for something." The quid pro quo god is one who does something for us if we do something for him, and the one who refuses to do something for us, or even punishes us, if we fail to do something for him.

Put this way, it seems impossible that anyone in their right mind would believe in such a god. The rub, of course, is that none of us are in our right mind—that's one of the effects of sin. And one reason we're attracted to the quid pro quo god is that he's a god we can get our minds around. He makes sense. He seems reasonable and fair: We do our part, he does his, and all will be well.

The problem is our part, which we tend not to do well at all. And when repeated efforts at doing our part fail, we discover that the quid pro quo god turns out to be a demon. Naturally, we try to exorcise this demon without success.

Read the whole thing.

The wrap makes a return

I don't think I've done an around the web post this year at all. Here you are then:

304,358 Malaysians migrated from March 2008 till August this year. That's a lot, so it's no wonder the debate has been rekindled. I think over half of my classmates from secondary school days are now overseas. Tay Tian Yan exhorts us to wake up to this reality. Farish Noor has the commentary: migration as protest. The follow-up. Helen Ang also has this must-read article analysing demographic trends in Malaysia. Don't miss that one. Finally, for a Christian perspective, Bishop Hwa Yung's article Should Christians emigrate?, first published in Kairos's Emerging Church Issues and reprinted here in NECF's newsletter, is a worthwhile read.

Jared Wilson usually has good gospel-centred stuff. 10 things good pastors say. Don't Waste Your Calvinism.

4 questions with D.A Carson.

The Gospel Old and New - Kevin DeYoung. Helps articulate some of my dis-ease with a few currently popular gospel presentations, although I hope we're humble enough to be aware of our own weaknesses as well.

Brothers together in Christ. Learning to love each other as Christian men.

Self Knowledge for godliness and ministry from Mark and Jennie Baddeley. I look after their kid in Sunday School btw, although they don't really know me. :) I linked only to part 6, but you can access parts 1-5 from this post. Worth reading, especially their reflections on personality tests in parts 3 onwards.

The 50 biggest movies of 2010.

Thought-provoking article examining friendship in the age of online social networking.

What were your worst books of the decade? I'm glad some people felt the way I did about Vernon God Little. Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist wasn't bad but disappointing as I had high expectations for it.

Shattering the Tiger [Woods] dream. Lessons learned.

Thinking through ministry and parents

[This is a bit more of a personal post]

The past month has been difficult. I've felt really disheartened at various points. I've had a few...battles (the word doesn't seem quite right. Disagreements? Skirmishes?) with my parents once they realised that ministry wasn't just some passing fancy I'm into at the moment. While I didn't start my church apprenticeship 15 months ago by announcing to my parents: "I'm going to be a pastor/church planter/missionary for the rest of my life!", I think just doing the apprenticeship signalled that I was definitely exploring the call to full-time paid gospel ministry (thereafter I will simply use "ministry" or "full-time ministry" interchangeably to refer to this). When I sought counsel about the way in which I should engage my parents, the advice I receive was to keep them informed and to gradually open up to them some of my plans, so that it wouldn't be a bolt out of nowhere. I still think that was sound advice. And I believe that for the most part I have. I was up-front, for example, with the fact that I went to talk to a pastor in KL with a view to future options nearly a year ago now.

An apprenticeship is meant to be a testing ground to explore the call into full-time ministry, and simultaneously a stepping stone should it seem as if that call is to be pursued further. And to be honest, everything seems to be pointing that way. The work is very hard, make no mistake, but I love what I do. I appear to have teaching and preaching gifts, even if they still need to be worked hard at. Character, that most important of traits, is harder for me to judge, but I haven't been pulled aside and told that I have such serious transgressions as to be disqualified, if that counts for anything! :) Which is why I'm thinking about this seriously.

But it's hard to communicate with my parents about all this. My parents don't fit neatly into any box - on some fronts, they seem like very traditional Asian parents; on others, they have proved to be more open-minded. I'll say, for instance, that they were more positive about me embarking on my apprenticeship than I expected. Still, they've got a very different worldview from mine. And to be fair, the only models they have to go on are those in Malaysia. I noticed, for example, that they just don't seem to understand, despite me trying to explain it as clearly as I can multiple times (and believe me I've tried!), that people do get paid for this stuff, as yes, they do get paid enough to cover their basic needs at the least! Now, to be honest, I don't know much about pay structure and things like that in Malaysia for those in full-time ministry, but I am realistic enough to know that it's pretty low. (If you know more, please enlighten me in the comments!) In some harder situations, for example, a pastor will have to go bivocational. But that's not going to happen with me with the current options I have. I do think it will be hard. I come from a middle-class background, as is obvious from being able to go to university in the UK. So nice holidays abroad, for example, might no longer be easy to come by on a salary of your average full-timer. But it's not the end of the world.

There's also the "you can still work a full-time job and do ministry on the side" argument: this seems to be a favourite of Asian parents everywhere, as some of my other friends in ministry testify. Well, I had to explain the "full-time" in "full-time ministry", and the value of ministry of the word, but how do you do that when their worldviews are so different? It's made even more complex when I naturally advocate every-member ministry, i.e full-time ministry does not make you more inherently spiritual; there is a sense in which every Christian is full-time. But then to say that there is also a sense in which some people are set apart for full-time ministry. Regular readers of the blog will remember that I preached from Ephesians 4:7-16 over a month ago, which touches on this very issue. Frustratingly for me, it seems as if every church member apart from my parents understood what I was going on about!

And then there's the "you should gain experience in the real world first" argument. This one I've thought about long and hard, because this argument has validity. After all, I am very young. And I think every young person thinking about full-time ministry must wrestle hard with this. In the end, though, I think this one has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Why? There are quite a few reasons. Firstly, it isn't always the case that you must experience something to be able to minister effectively into that situation. After all, no one person will ever experience the full range of possible experiences. If you get married and have kids, then you have traded off the experience of being single into your old age, and vice versa. Would you say the married/single person has nothing to offer the person of different marital status simply because he or she has never had that experience? Now, that's not to say experience in the working world is not valuable, and it could definitely give you unique insights that are not available elsewhere. What is it like to work for a prickly non-Christian boss? When everyone is busy handing out duit kopi? But I'm trying to say that it's not the clinching argument. For some, they will benefit from time in the working world. For others, it's not necessary.

Also, I do sometimes bristle at the fact that Christian ministry isn't the "real world". I've met up with a non-Christian managing director of a publishing company at least 10 years, if not more, older than me to read the Bible together and to talk about life. I've sat with a homeless person and warmed up his sandwich. I laughed together with PhD students and discussed pressing academic matters. I work in a cross-cultural situation as the only non-Western staff member of my church. Granted, my experiences of the world look different, but is this less "real-world"? The other thing to consider is the difference in age and how that dynamic works in an Asian culture. I've thought about it. And I think this means that it's definitely true that I probably won't gain a hearing from them initially. But does that disqualify younger ones like me automatically from ministry? No, it means I have to work hard at every aspect of my godliness, to be a bit more tentative in some of the things I say, to be quick to listen and slow to speak to older heads.

You probably think from my above two paragraphs that I've already made up my mind to go full-time straight away. Believe it or not, I haven't. I spoke to our long-term mission partner, who is a British-born Chinese (Malaysian and HK parents), when I was on a mission to X Country in the summer. He has first-hand experience of parental opposition. And he offered really good advice. One reason in favour of working a "secular" job is simply to grow up a bit. Now I think sometimes I am in need of that! But he cautioned against taking a secular job simply to "earn credibility". That advice takes on renewed force now that I know some of my mum's friends have been whispering amongst themselves about the son who went to a highly esteemed university but is thinking about taking a job that doesn't command much respect! (These are professing Christians, btw, and I confess to dreaming up some rather unChristian retorts). But that has made me pause about completely rushing in. At the same time, since I've been back, one thing that has been hugely emphasised is the urgency of the task. Malaysia is really lacking in full-time Christian workers, and more than one person has independently expressed their concern to me about the next generation and whether we lose the ground that was so hard-won. So there is definitely a part of me that simply wants to press on and not dither.

Oh, and of course, there's the classic Ephesians 6:2 argument, a favourite of all Asian Christian parents. I always think, how about verse 4? But what has helped early on is recognising honouring your parents does not mean obeying them in everything. Of course, we have to be careful - that doesn't suddenly mean you can justify your every disobedient action! But v.4 does provide supporting context. It's not just that parents are not to exasperate their children, but that they are to do so by instructing their children in the ways of the Lord. And so to honour your parents is to walk in the way of the Lord, in line with the task God has set them, which can sometimes mean not going with their every whim! (The mission partner I mentioned earlier also had some interesting exegetical support from Exodus, but I'm not sure I can completely recall it now so don't want to put words in his mouth).

Wow, you're probably thinking I've been so calm and reasoned! Trust me, I'm not. I have been upset with myself that I have gotten argumentative and defensive with my parents so easily and quickly! And I don't want to paint my parents as the veritable bad guys. I have to understand how their worldview and life experiences has impacted them, and I am actually confident that in the long term, they will be supportive. But it's been very disappointing not to feel their support now, though it was expected. And it is quite hard when you're treated like a kid when others treat you like an adult! They seem to think I've been very gung-ho when really, my temperament (and more importantly, the fact that God surely doesn't like impetuous fools) militates against it. Instead, I've been torturing myself with "should I or shouldn't I?"

Well, I was going to write more on some of the more disheartening moments in the past month, but those are nothing to do with parents, so that will have to be for another post. Comments welcome.



† Expand post

Self-pity and God's pity

This one is from Glen Scrivener. Loved it enough to post it in its entirety here.

---

Self-pity is, for me, like a low-level virus, a background throb, a sapping sickness. It heavies my bones and fizzies my blood.

But the other day I gained instant relief. I was reading Psalm 103 in the King James version. Verse 13 says:

Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear Him.

Could this be true? Does the LORD Himself pity me? Yes. With fatherly affection and concern. I provoke the heart-felt pity of the living God.

You might think this would confirm my dreadful indulgence. After all, heaven seems to agree with my self-obsession. Actually no. He pities the fool who pities himself. In spite of my wallowing, the LORD’s pity is a great ‘nonetheless.’

A father whose child cries only for attention may still choose to pick up the boy, spin him round and kiss him. He is not caving into the child’s manipulation. Instead He is loving from his own free grace. And the boy is weaned from self by the love of another.

In the same way our Father in heaven reaches down in His Son to self-pitying wretches. And He lifts us up, not to confirm our self-centredness but to replace it. Now that heaven pities me, I simply have no need. What could my own self-preoccupation add to the divine pre-occupation of the LORD, who sets His affections on me?

And so this verse brought a tremendous release. Just as the LORD’s love frees us from self-love, His service frees us from self-service, so His pity frees us from self-pity.

Litany of complaints

I was at a dinner tonight, and as is fairly common at such occasions, conversation soon turned towards the injustice located in the structures of Malaysian society. There was the litany of complaints directed at our education system, corrupt bureaucracy and so on.

I've been thinking about why I usually feel a little uncomfortable whenever the floodgates open. OK, so part of it is probably that by nature, I'm not a happy bunny when it comes to conflict. I like the still waters, not the grand rapids, thank you very much. Maybe I'm guilty of apathy. But I do believe that to pretend that all is well, to be tidak apa about the wrongs that the innocent suffer, the way that so many crooks seem to get away with their abuse of power, is wrong, plain and simple. It's also probably fair to say that in context, the 2008 political tsunami notwithstanding, such talk arises perhaps because there is a feeling that we need to be woken up from our general malaise. We can't maintain the status quo forever. So such conversations are full of heat and light.

And yet. Here are a few reasons why I feel unsettled whenever such talk occurs among Christians (btw, this isn't necessarily true of tonight's conversations; they simply sparked the thought):

1. These conversations sometimes have the whiff of self-righteousness around them. Look at how rubbish everything else is. It's as if the taint of sin has affected everything and everyone apart from the one pontificating away. We feel justified by the way we remain above the fray. The purity of our motives. Surely there must be a humbler way to express our anger and sadness at the way the current system is broken.

2. These conversations are often tinged with cynicism. Things will always be this way. It's better to send our children away. I'm like, whatever happened to God bringing all things in heaven and earth under Christ? Whatever happened to God putting the world to rights? Maybe again, by nature, I'm an idealist, a romantic, a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy, but it seems to me that Christians have the gospel - good news - the good news that shouts "Jesus is the crucified King!" and calls on us to turn from sin to the living God. And that should shape our responses to injustice.

3. These conversations lose sight of God. My immediate point above suggests that sometimes we act more like fatalists than theists. We forget God is on the throne. He does care about what goes on in his world, not just churchy things. He can effect change, and he loves to use his people to do it. And although contemporary Christianity sometimes shun the image of God as judge, it's actually good news, because it reveals our God is just; the bad guys aren't gonna get away with it. But our God is a merciful God as well. And this is great news, because to our horror, we discover that actually, we are more like those we condemn than we care to admit. We too are in need of mercy, and in view of God's mercy, we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, not the other way around.

O Lord, the next time we are tempted to recite from the Book of Common Complaints, help us to remember instead the Lord's Prayer. For there we find nourishment in remembering who our Father is, strength as we ask for his kingdom to come, and humility as we acknowledge our need for forgiveness. Then maybe we can go out into the world and shine like stars in the universe, as we hold out the word of life.

Reaching the next generation

I was going to flag this up, but forgot. Better late than never. It's Kevin DeYoung's excellent series of posts on reaching the next generation. Worth reading in its entirety.

1. Grab them with passion.
2. Win them with love.
3. Hold them with holiness.
4. Challenge them with truth.
5. Amaze them with God.

As Kevin says in his introduction, the secret is that there is no secret. Love God, love people, as Jesus so succintly put it. Uncomplicated but uncompromising. To steal a line from Gregory the Great, such a strategy is shallow enough for a lamb to wade in but deep enough for an elephant to swim.

Making sense of Matthew 17

I read Matthew 17 for my quiet time today, and I'm trying to figure it out. Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I get it! So am using this blog to untangle some thoughts. You probably need the passage open in front of you somewhere to follow me.

What we have here is the transfiguration account, the healing of a demonised boy, and an incident peculiar to Matthew's gospel on paying the temple tax. I don't recall ever reading about the temple tax before. In the wider context, Simon Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Christ in 16:16. Jesus now begins to stress how he must go to Jerusalem and be killed, and that he would be raised to life. We see this in 16:21, repeated in 17:9, 12b, 22-23 and later on in 20:18-19. This isn't exactly what Peter wanted to hear! But Jesus rebukes him, and teaches that he is to be the suffering Christ. To follow him is to take up your own cross. This is the path for his disciples. But this isn't the end of the story, as 16:27-28 indicate. Jesus will reign gloriously when he resurrects. V.28 seems to point towards the immediate aftermath of his resurrection, while v.27 appears to look further along towards the second coming. Cross before resurrection, suffering before glory. That's the pattern Jesus is teaching, both for his own ministry and that of his disciples.

v.1-13
This teaching of Jesus, therefore, seems to be re-affirmed by the transfiguration episode. We heard that Jesus will come in glory, here we see Jesus appearing in glory! Jesus is reaffirmed by God the Father in v.5, with the same words as when he was baptised. This time there is also an addition: "Listen to him!" Listen to what he's just been teaching about suffering and glory!

The disciples are just as confused as ever though. In Mark's account, he records how they discuss what "raised from the dead" mean. Their thought processes go something like this:
ok, we're waiting for the Messiah,
who will put the world to rights again
(this is when resurrection happens, right?)
but Elijah's meant to come first to prepare the way.
Wait a minute, where's Elijah?

But Jesus corrects their understanding. Elijah's here already! He's John the Baptist (v.13). So that means the Messiah is here! But this Messiah isn't what you expect - he "is going to suffer at their hands". Actually, that's what happened to John the Baptist (v.12). Suffering before glory, again.

v.14-23
Then we get the story about the exorcism of the boy. Disciples failed, Jesus didn't. I was a bit puzzled by this account. Is this simply a story suggesting that if we have enough faith, we'll have a powerful deliverance ministry? What we have to do is to simply believe? That seems, at first glance, to be a plausible interpretation. But a closer look suggests otherwise. v.22-23 has Jesus teaching about his impending death and resurrection again, which he obviously thinks is important. That doesn't sit well with simply interpreting this story as Jesus giving a model example of how to cast out demons.

Rather, in v.17 it seems better to understand Jesus' rebuke as a continued failure to actually trust in the words of Jesus. Peter's rebuke of Jesus that he could not be killed at the end of chapter 16 is one of many examples. No wonder Jesus is exasperated and possibly resulted in him putting in a quick call to his Father: "Dad, they're not listening! Could you tell them to?" (v.5) Their unbelief was not so much a failure of technique ("maybe we didn't quite have the required deposit of faith to cast out the demon!") but more of a failure to depend on God and trust what Jesus says. That's why Jesus repeats his teaching (v.22-23). So while there is probably something to be gleaned here about deliverance ministry, that's not the main point at all. Certainly it isn't a call to us to look for demons behind every sickness! What Jesus wants to emphasise is a dependence and trust in him. That might result in us actually performing an exorcism if God chooses to, but the authority belongs to him alone.

v.24-27
Errr...this one ah, I'm not surelah. Apparently, Jewish males of a certain age had to pay taxes for the upkeep of the temple. Jesus' point in his exchange with Peter seems to be that the tax is now void. That's because of who Jesus is - he is God's King. (And presumably what he's about to do, go to the cross). But then Jesus chooses to lay down his right and pay the tax, something Paul probably took note of since it will come out in his writings.

Summary
So I guess the big point here is that Jesus is showing that he is the King (Christ) and we should listen to him, trust in Him. But He is the Suffering King, who will go to the cross to die for us. But to follow Him is not a futile exercise, for even though we too have to take up our cross, there is glory in the end. So let us praise God and remain faithful.

What do you think?



† Expand post

Are we searching for a better god?

One of my friends has just started reading a fascinating book called Searching for a Better God by Wade Bradshaw, who used to be on staff at L'Abri England. He's been waxing lyrical over it, so I borrowed it to read on one of my lunch breaks.

Loads of thought-provoking stuff. Bradshaw starts off by showing that all of our lives are grounded in some form of hope. You could say we all fashion narratives out of our own lives, with a climax or ending we hope to reach, although he won't put it that way. In that sense, we live teleologically. He then argues that (Western) culture has shifted imperceptibly. Whereas previously the main question people ask would be: "Does God exist?", this has now shifted to "Is God good?". That isn't to say people no longer ask the first question, as New Atheism shows. But people reject the gospel not so much because they don't believe in God, but because they no longer believe that the God, as found in the Bible, is morally good. What sort of God would allow, even command, the atrocities found in the Old Testament? What sort of God is so intolerant, of homosexuality, of pluralism? In truth, we humans are morally superior to such a God. God "cannot be a source of hope, not because He isn’t real, but because He would not be good to know and to live with forever."

That's as far as I got. Bradshaw then presumably goes on to wrestle with such new challenges, as the chapter headings for the rest of the book suggest: Is God angry? Is God distant? Is God a bully?

I certainly have lots of time for Bradshaw's argument. This is a generalisation, of course, but those of us in our 20s, it seems, living in a world where any disaster can be communicated to us via twitter, where we are subjected to a 1001 worthy causes (reminding us of the dark side of the world we live in), are tired of living for ourselves. Consumerism has been tried and found wanting. We long for more. We want to find something beyond ourselves. We're looking for a better hope, in other words. And so there is a renewed activism, a passion for social justice. Even in Christian circles, this can be found in expressions as diverse as the resurgence of what is sometimes called "New Calvinism", where the glory of God is emphasised and "man-centered theology" abhorred, and those stressing the cosmic dimensions of God's salvation and downplaying penal substitution. I guess you could also claim this is also seen in the language of the "kingdom" being deployed more commonly if differently, though I wonder if some charismatics (John Wimber was not shy about such terminology!) and Reformed types (we've been reading Vos/Goldsworthy since you were in your nappies, don't lecture me about "kingdom"!) would object.

Interestingly, as a Christian, I think I share similar struggles. The fixed point of God's sovereignty has not, as far as I can tell, posed a huge struggled for me. But the fixed point of God's goodness, that he actually cares for me and the details of my life, is one I struggle with more. Granted, it's not quite the same issue being articulated as that of the non-Christian, but I wonder if they spring from the same DNA.

I think too of one of the (Asian) girls some of us know. She's been coming to Christian things for quite a while now, and she's willing to say Christianity is objectively true. She was even encouraged that one of her mutual friends - getting baptised this Sunday! - actually came to Christ. But for her, she isn't sure if Jesus is worth it. Is this God really that good?

Anyway, happy to hear comments.


† Expand post

NBA Hall of Fame

Every year the NBA Hall of Fame inducts a few people into its hallowed halls. They've just admitted the Class of 2009, and what a class. One person overshadows them all, of course: Michael Jordan. But he's not who I want to talk about. Alongside Jordan is John Stockton, the NBA's all-time assist and steals leader. There have been flashier passers, but Stockton is the type of player who knows where he wants the ball to go to, and that it will go there. I once watched him throw a bounce pass that looked so simple, but was so razor sharp in splitting the defence - it was ten times better than any behind-the-back pass you find on an ESPN highlight reel. Of the other point guards I've actually watched (as opposed to those I didn't, such as the old-timers like Bob Cousy), only Magic Johnson and Jason Kidd are comparable.

And then there's David Robinson. My favourite player as a teenager was Penny Hardaway, but there's no player in the NBA, possibly in all sports, I admire more than the Admiral. David Robinson is class, not just as an athlete, but as a person. I like to think the reason why the San Antonio Spurs has remained such a professional and respected organisation unlike one or two others (see: New York) is due in no small part to his influence. I don't think I got to watch him at his peak - the early 90s, where by most accounts he could justifiably lay claim to being the best centre of all-time, but I did watch him in the late 90s and especially after he gracefully ceded leadership of the Spurs to Tim Duncan. He had no ego. I'm proud he calls himself a Christian, because he has shown complete integrity; no one speaks of him badly. Here's a brief news profile, and a more in-depth one. Here's a tribute post.

Myth-busting

Unsurprisingly, quite a few introspective "state of the nation" pieces coming out.

There's an outsider's perspective, from a decidedly secularist viewpoint: The myth of a moderate Malaysia, originally published in Forbes. I get the sense that the piece is more about his larger point that religion is best subordinated to modernity, with Malaysia as his prime example, rather than Malaysia itself. But it's an interesting piece nevertheless, since it probably is representative of the beliefs of many of the urban, upper-middle class, Malaysiakini-reading segment.

Another myth to come under attack is that of the monolithic community. This is a piece I'm generally happy to agree with.

I've also gone back to read my post from over a year ago - Race meets the Malaysian church, in conversation with my friend WN, who incidentally is trying to think through what it means to be a citizen at the moment over at his blog. And I don't think there's anything I'll change from that post.

15Malaysia

Happy National Day Malaysia!

Old news for those back home, but I have enjoyed the 15 Malaysia project, a collection of short films (about 3-6 minutes each) by some of the nation's leading artists highlighting the joys and frustrations of Malaysia and Malaysians. Pete Teo, one of our singer-songwriters, was apparently one of the prime movers. One video is being released every few days. They include some unexpected figures!

You can also check them out on Youtube.

Travelling through Matthew 2

I think it was J.I Packer who counselled Christians in their Bible reading not to spend too long a time away from the gospels, because it is there we see Jesus clearest. So I thought it was time to find my way back there. But which one? I've grown quite familiar with Mark, having studied or taught it for the last few years. And I know bits of John quite well, which is not the same as understanding it! So I thought I'll have a crack at one of the other two, and settled on Matthew, which is surprisingly unfamiliar territory. I know this is the gospel where we get the Sermon on the Mount. And the Great Commission. And of course 9:37-8, one reason why I currently do what I do! But that's about it.

I once wrote a long reflection on Matthew 1:1-25, still one of my favourite pieces. So I might as well pick up where I left off. Not strictly reflections, but some observations on Matthew 2.

2:1-12
One of the big things to come through in Matthew 1 is how the story of Jesus has its roots in the story of Israel. So we get this recounting of Jesus' family tree which takes him right back to David and Abraham. In case we don't get it, 1:20 reminds us again when the angel addresses Joseph, Jesus' earthly dad, as a "son of David". There's a short but stark reminder in the genealogy of the situation of God's people, deported to Babylon because of their sin. But now, in Jesus, salvation has come, the salvation which the prophets promised beforehand.

So, the shift in chapter 2 is actually very striking. We don't go the synagogues, to the leaders of the Jewish community, but to the palace of a pagan king and some strange, foreign men who mysteriously appear from the East. Imagine watching a Malaysian film with a local setting, local characters, and an emphasis on our own history: Hang Tuah, May 13, etc. And with liberal sprinklings of Manglish, an insider language. Then, all of a sudden there's a 2-minute scene set in America with some Mat Salleh* actors, whom you dimly recognise as minor characters on some D-list TV show from ages ago, making a cameo appearance. And then disappear before you know it. Eh?

The analogy is not perfect, but it's a bit like that here. Non-Jews take prominence. No Jewish people in sight really. Herod does gather them (2:3), but it's only the Magi who actually make the journey to see Jesus. And making some great one-liners at Herod's expense: "Hey, King Herod man, where's the king?" I haven't had a chance to look at it in the NIV, but I'm reading it in the ESV and we get a lot about kingship. Jesus born in the days of Herod the king (v.1). Magi asking where's the king? (v.2). The current king troubled - "Yo Magi, can't you see I'm the king?" (v.3) and asking about the chosen king (v.4). A prophecy about a king (v.5-6). The summons of a king (v.7). An expressed but insincere desire to worship the king (v.8) And on and on it goes, until v.12, where the king's command (Herod) is subverted by the warning of the King (God).

v.13-23
One of the things that struck me here was of course, Egypt. Again, now that we've been reminded of Israel's history in chapter 1, any mention of Egypt is sure to recall the Exodus, God delivering his people. The allusion seems to imply that God is doing his work of rescue again, but on a deeper level: rescue from sin. I had a quick look at a commentary to try to chase the Egypt reference a little more. This is a helpful summary: "In Egypt, then, God now kept His Son safe, as he had preserved Israel long ago and out of Egypt he would soon call him to his work of redemption as he had liberated Israel from Egypt to fulfill their role as his people." (emphasis in original) The tragedy of the slaughter of the babies and the citation of Jeremiah makes a similar point. In Jeremiah, the verses cited in Matthew are actually followed by signs of hope. The point: in Jesus, God is about to do something big.

And I guess that's the point of chapter 2. Pay attention to this baby. He's the One, the world-changer you're looking for.


*Caucasian males


† Expand post

Marriage

I read with interest a provocative article that recently appeared in Christianity Today: The Case for Early Marriage. The author, Mark Regnerus, notes that current sexual/marital trends in the evangelical subculture, namely pledges of chastity and the like, have had minimal impact on our sexual behaviour. In America at least, we aren't that different from the world. He goes on to argue that this is primarily due to a deficient, even unbiblical, view of marriage. For all our defence of traditional marriage, we have simply come to view marriage as "a central source of human contentment" and "romantic love [as] the key gauge of its health". Thus, marriage has been transformed into an ideal. Result? Unsurprisingly, many young adults are now much more wary of entering something so 'big'. The message they hear is: get yourselves and your lives sorted out first. And so marriage, and sex, is put on hold. But, sex is hard to put on hold, hence our disappointingly worldly behaviour. There is also a demographic dimension: simply put, there are more women than men in church. And judging from conversations I've had, this seems to be true just about everywhere - East and West.

This, Regnerus argues, tends to exacerbate rather than solve the problem. He anticipates and answers objections such as economic insecurity, immaturity and so on. Marriage is, first and foremost, a covenant, where we learn what self-sacrifical love and commitment really looks like. "Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't". Marriage is not some ready-made perfect union where you will enjoy bliss upon exchanging rings, but a place where both partners will continue to be formed in character. In conclusion, young Christian couples who are maturing in their faith should be encouraged towards marriage.

Does a right, biblical view of marriage necessarily incline one towards early marriage? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly in my church circles, I would say people get married earlier than average, and that some definitely encourage this.

But whatever you think, Regnerus is absolutely right to point out that all too often, our views of marriage are misshappened. I know I want to claim that Hollywood and novels and pop music have not affected me one iota. Considering I just went "awww" this morning at this Sleepless in Seattle story while chomping on some bacon, I'll say my claim doesn't exactly rest on solid foundations.

Historically, Christians have given three answers to the purpose of marriage, as I only found out recently. There are
1. procreation
2. intimacy
3. societal order
with Roman Catholics typically majoring on the first and Protestants the second, and no one really wanting to champion the third! All three can be biblically supported. So although romance and chemistry has been downplayed somewhat in this post, they're clearly a gift that God blesses his world with, and married couples should not be ashamed to delight in it.

But all of this needs to be understood within a covenantal framework. That is, marriages are not in service to us, but in service to God. Marriages are not just about what goes on in the bedroom, but how they function as a social and family unit. Christopher Ash, who has thought about this subject deeply, shows this from a sensitive and compelling reading of Genesis 1 and 2*. I take it Regnerus agrees with him.

To be honest, I haven't thought about the whole "what is the nature of marriage" question at any length before, and the only reason I've dwelt on it more recently was due to one or two pastoral situations that arose this past year. (Isn't that usually the case?) It's very counter-cultural to my own thinking.

I'm still not completely sure if that mandates early marriage. I remember at a conference early this year, there was a "you should definitely be thinking about marriage" line handed down to all of us (who were mostly in early to mid-20s). But in many cases, most people were already seeking to get married. The question then becomes, are you being too fussy? Well, maybe. But maybe not. I don't think that it was necessarily wrong to encourage marriage. That is, to engender courage in people that getting married isn't a bad thing and you can trust God! But perhaps a parallel emphasis that singleness is also a gift from God was needed.

But I'm starting to get somewhat off-track. Anyway, an important subject to think about.

*Christopher Ash has written both a weighty theological tome on the subject, simply entitled Marriage, and a book for laypeople, Married for God. I've only read the latter. He has also written an excellent summary article for the Christ on Campus Initiative.



† Expand post

Taking stock

Angry in Malaysia by Tan Soo Inn

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow
to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about
the righteous life that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and
the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you,
which can save you." (James 1:19-21 TNIV)

If you are a follower of Jesus in Malaysia, you are probably angry. Consider
the following...

Read the whole thing.

Alpha

I've just finished watching a documentary on Alpha on Channel 4 (limited time online; not sure if non-UK viewers would be able to access it). This was of special interest to me since the church previewed is literally just down the road from me, and I have friends who've gone there. It's quite interesting. On the surface at least, pretty even-handed; going for a more descriptive approach. Although there were a few throw-away lines that insinuated that this was a bit of a slick marketing operation. For example, saying that there were pretty girls on hand to serve you food seemed to me deeply unfair in what it implied. Plus the Nicky Gumbel/Tony Blair comparison, which btw, for those of you not in Britain, shouldn't necessarily be taken as a compliment.

Still, it's always interesting to see how Christians are perceived, and always just as interesting to see what sort of questions non-Christians have. There was the line about religion being all about inclusivity, whether Christianity was really more of a psychological experience, and the person who found Jesus off-putting. Disappointingly, the show actually didn't dwell that much on the small group time, preferring, somewhat understandably, to dwell on the various agnostics and their backgrounds instead.

The narrator concluded that Alpha, in the end, was "organised niceness", run by decent people, with just that weird element of trying to get people to speak in tongues on the weekend (I'm afraid I'm not sold on this idea, looking at 1 Corinthians 14?) What the programme does show is that people do have real questions, and that not everyone is a New Atheist™. I was slightly disappointed by the way in which some of the answers seem to have been answered. But the programme only provided a few glimpses of such moments, so it's unfair to judge them on such scant evidence.

There have recently been some questions about whether things like Alpha or Christianity Explored are out of step with the times, and more importantly, whether they come across as being too much like a "package". My own thinking at the moment is that, like most things, they have their place. What we must work hard at is getting our bearings right. So, it isn't a short-cut, nor is it a synonym for evangelism, or indeed, the power and source of salvation.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[a] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith".
Romans 1:16-17

Religion and the public square at Veritas

I was at the Veritas Forum at Oxford University on Thursday Night. I very nearly didn't go, as I was quite tired and I knew I had a pretty full Friday coming up. But I didn't really want to let my inviter down, and besides, the topic was a good one: the role of religion in the public square. The speakers were Rabbi Dr Naftali Brawer, Head of Jewish-Muslim Relations for the Chief Rabbi of the U.K., Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who's currently at the forefront of the debates regarding the future of the Anglican Communion, and Professor Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at the University of Oxford and whom you see regularly quoted in the (British) media.

As you can imagine, the debate was pitched at a pretty high-level, and it took supreme effort on my part to concentrate. I didn't take any notes either, so I'm afraid there won't be any blow-by-blow account of the evening here! But it was certainly interesting. I was especially intrigued by Tariq Ramadan. His opening statement (all the speakers were given 5 minutes to make one) was essentially a lecture in hermeneutics, where he went on for a little bit about the need for context. He also distinguished between two authorities - here I lost him a little because either he was mumbling or my seating position wasn't great for the acoustics - but it seemed to me like he endorsed some version of a public/private split. I can't remember the exact phrase now, but he did have some pithy statement on the relationship between principles and ethics; basically, he defended his right to believe while accepting the need to negotiate with rival traditions in the public square.

But his biggest point, which he repeated throughout the evening, was the need to be consistent with one's own values. And after setting such a high standard for himself, he failed to meet it, it seemed to me. On the one hand, he would uphold "universal values" such as equality, but on the other hand, he would revert to some form of social constructivism at points. The other thing I struggled with was figuring out how distinctively Islamic Professor Ramadan's position was. I knew he belonged to the reformist camp within Islam, but I don't remember him quoting the Quran even once, or using Islamic doctrine as a springboard, although Bishop Nazir-Ali, more than once, invited him to do so. In some ways, I almost wonder if his views could have come from a secularist, although that's probably overstating it, and I'm sure Professor Ramadan would insist he is working within an Islamic framework. For him, the thing most needed in the Muslim world was simply more education. By contrast, both Bishop Nazir-Ali and Rabbi Dr. Brawer were not afraid to use the Torah/Talmud and the Bible as sources for their reflections, as they should. I don't think I was the only one who thought so, during the Q&A, a Muslim student in the audience challenged Professor Ramadan to show how his views were part of mainstream Islamic thought. (Obviously, I have insufficient knowledge to make a judgment).

Dr. Brawer was arguably the clearest of the speakers, but also the least interesting, as he didn't really say all that much. Bishop Nazir-Ali, I thought, acquitted himself pretty well. Although there was a point in the discussion where it was all about just war, and I wasn't sure if that was just a tangent. Towards the end of the evening, we got an especially sharp disagreement on what constituted "Judeo-Christian tradition" and its impact on European civilisation. Professor Ramadan insisted that the contribution of Islam to Europe must not be overlooked, whereas Bishop Nazir-Ali defended the Judeo-Christian tradition as necessary to provide the necessary undergirdings for Europe as they cope with the challenges of the future. To put it another way, Bishop Nazir-Ali thinks that we need a Judeo-Christian foundation if we want an increasingly plural society to remain inclusive. (Nazir-Ali had earlier made a distinction between civic and religious pluralism, which I think is an important one)

Like I said, it was a sprawling discussion, and certainly quite academic, so I'm not even sure if I represented anyone fairly! But this continues to be an important topic, especially as mainstream commentators are beginning to recognise that God is back on the agenda.



† Expand post

Malaysian issues

On current form, I'm afraid this blog is probably going to be nothing more than a linking outpost for a little bit.

There was an interesting survey, albeit a little dated, to discover the view of Malaysian Muslims on questions of identity, as well as related issues and concerns. Makes for interesting reading, and some of the findings were surprising, at least to me.

More contemporary is the recent ruling on the conversion of children in divorce cases where one of the spouses have converted. There's a good summary and analysis of the issues involved at the Nut Graph.

(HT: Ps. Sivin)