Map of the continental United States, from the board game Pandemic
In early November the unthinkable happened -- Donald Trump, a businessman with zero political experience was voted in to become the 45th president of the United States.
In this post, I want to get some theological reflections from this year's election. Before I get misunderstood, I am not a Trump supporter, nor am I a Clinton supporter. As an observer from Singapore, I would much rather see a Sanders VS Kasich election. If you are looking at a political analysis of a Trump presidency, go to another blog.
Theological observations
1) Liberal bias of the media
By watching the news alone, I would assumed that Clinton would win the election easily with 70% of the vote. After all, no major newspaper and news agencies openly endorsed Trump, especially with his seemingly divisive speeches. (Even Fox News, which traditionally supported the Republicans which Trump was representing, called the election result "unreal".)
However the media failed to reflect the reality on the ground. This should fuel our scepticism of the media's objectivity. This leads on to the next point.
2) The frustration of the masses
The key issues that were brought up were immigration, job security and trade. While there have been benefits of free trade agreements, the American masses do not feel those benefits. Trump may have been divisive in statements concerning political and social issues, but his economic promises were music to the ears of factory workers.
3) The importance of contingency plans
As Trump now begins to pull out of trade agreements and implement protectionist policies, my country of Singapore will feel the impact. We can ill-afford to be complacent and must adjust accordingly.
Conclusion
As Christians, we should be wary of what we read and what we hear. While we seek for news that that favour us, we should never be taken astray from the reality of the world and the truth of God's word.
And no matter what happens, God is in charge.
I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.
Recently, I visited the Christianity in Asia exhibit at the Asian Civilisation Museum (in Singapore). My knowledge of Asian Christianity is limited: I do know of the Hudson Taylor's efforts in China and Francis Xavier's in Japan, but not too much beyond that.
I was quite pleasantly surprised by the evidence Chinese Christians in 800 AD, as shown by the tavlet below. The museum also displayed the sword hilts of the Christian samurai.
Tablet of Nestorian Christians in China dated around 800 AD
Displays of Christ and angels from India to Southeast Asia were always shown. All in all, it was a good attempt by the museum to show that Christians were not newcomers to Asia.
Recently, the Christian blog Pulpit and Pen criticised Christian convert Nabeel Qureshi, joining the chorus of several religious commenters. Their issues concerned the legitimacy of his conversion and whether he was truly Muslim in the first place.
While I do not know Nabeel personally, I have followed the news of his ministry from 2008. I feel compelled to write something in his defence before others continue to slander him. So let me deal with the unfair criticism.
1) Nabeel's contradictions in his conversion story
In Nabeel's conversion story, he had dreamt of a banquet hosted by Jesus that he was not allowed enter. This was one of his more potent dreams as his friend David stopped him from entering the banquet.
What was this major contradiction? In some of the stories, David was standing while in others, David was sitting.
Firstly, the whole point of the story was that Nabeel was disallowed from entering the banquet, rather than David's stance.
Secondly, a simple check of Nabeel's stories reveals that in most versions of the story, David was sitting. Nabeel's simple slip should not make us judge his character.
2) Nabeel was never really a Muslim
Nabeel never hid the fact that he was an Ahmadi Muslim. While Ahmadis are regarded as heretics by orthodox Muslims and are persecuted in some countries, Ahmadis do see themselves as Muslims. So naturally, Nabeel would introduce himself as an ex-Muslim, rather than an ex-Ahmadi as the differences would be too pedantic for most listeners.
So Nabeel was not being deceptive as introduce himself as an ex-Muslim, even if one feels that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
3) Nabeel should not participate at a conference (Together 2016)where "enemies of the cross" are also speaking
Well, I would also jump at a chance to preach the gospel even if someone invited me to speak at an atheist conference. At Together 2016, there were famous Christians like Francis Chan, Ravi Zacharias and Louie Giglio. They are hardly the sort one would call heretic Christians.
That said, we cannot expect everyone at a conference to agree with everything we are saying.
Conclusion
Pulpit and pen's editor Seth Dunn was being unfair in his judgement of Nabeel. He did apologise somewhat, but stuck to his general opinions.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, is a terrorist organisation which currently controls some Iraqi, Lebanese and Syrian territories. Claiming to be a Caliphate (a successor kingdom to the one Prophet Muhammad established), ISIS urges all Sunni Muslims to fight the decadent West and recognise its statehood.
ISIS has also claimed responsiblity for the 2015 Paris attacks and 2016 Brussels bombings.
In this post I will be exploring why the theology of ISIS is so attractive to potential recruits.
Why they are convincing
The temptation is to brush off the members of ISIS as gullible fools who were mislead into following a misguided form of a religion. Yet we have educated professionals signing up to ISIS to serve as doctors, military strategists and computer engineers. Why?
To a secular audience it may sound weird, but true religion is not just hobby people share with friends. To a true religious person, God is the most important thing in their lives. ISIS uses this fact well in its recruitment.
If all that is needed to be justified before God and enter paradise is to die for him, then ISIS is the most logical and safest bet for eternity. In the course of life, it is inevitable that one feels guilt on all the mistakes one has done in his or her life. Yet in final judgement, if God brings up one's sins, one could tell God that "I died for you", and therefore is worthy of paradise.
In the light of Christianity
However in Christianity, one could not use that reasoning. Even if we were to give our lives in following God, we do not change the fact that God (in the manhood of Jesus) had died for us. Our only hope is that God would reveal Himself to us in such a way that He chose us.
Conclusion
Any level-headed analysis of any movement must take into the account its theology. For more information ISIS
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
-- 1 Corinthians 15: 3 - 8
A creed is a statement of belief. The first Christian creed is found in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8, stating that Jesus died and rose again. Paul is estimated to have written this creed 2 - 24 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
The significance of this creed was that it was written so close to the actual events of Jesus's life that it would have been easy for the early Christians to correct Paul had he been inaccurate.
This creed lends credibility to the historical reliability to the New Testament.
Armenian Church in Singapore, an Eastern Orthodox Church
Growing up in Singapore, I often think of Christianity of two kinds -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. However that was a myopic view. That view was to largely ignore my Eastern Orthodox friends, who mainly reside in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
In this post I will explore the historic background of the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church.
[Note that this page intents to be a summary; I would like to go into detail into many things, such as the issue of unleavened bread, the Donation of Constantine and many others.]
Prologue
Figure 1:
Western Roman Empire (in purple) and Eastern Roman Empire (in pink)
Language
As shown in Figure 1, the Roman Empire was very big indeed. To administer the regions better, the Empire was split into East and West around 300 AD. The Western Romans spoke Latin, while the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) spoke Greek.
As Christianity became increasingly accepted in the Empire, the Eastern and Western Churches started to develop almost independently, partially due to language barriers. The Church of Constantinople (now Istanbul) took prominence in the East, while the Church of Rome took prominence in the West.
Nevertheless, there was some level of communication between the churches as they met in councils to decide theological issues.
The role of Rome and Constantinople
The role of Bishop of Rome became even more elevated when the Western Roman Empire fell to barbarian invasions in 476 AD. As the only existing administrative authority in the West, the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) manage political as well as logistical issues.
This role became more pronounced as the bishops in the East often looked to Rome to settle their disputes (as Rome was an independent observer).
However, the appointment of the Pope was subjected to the approval of the Eastern Roman Emperor (as he was the only emperor left). This brought the Pope (and by extension the Western rulers) at the mercy of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Holy Roman Empire vs Eastern Roman Empire
Figure 2: Medieval Europe around 1200
In 800 AD, Pope Leo III crowned barbarian king Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor for his military, educational, theological and administrative achievements. This shifted the religious power from the Eastern Rome to the West.
As expected, the Eastern Romans did not take to this kindly. After all, they had not fallen yet. As Charlemagne's descendant Otto I founded the Holy Roman Empire in Germany, the friction between the Roman Christians and the Greek Christians increased.
Filioque
Finally the straw that broke the camel's back was the issue of Filioque. The Filioque was the inclusion of the words "and from the Son" in the Nicene Creed, one of the common creeds (statement of beliefs) between the Western and Eastern churches.
The creed read (with the added words in []): the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]
Pope Leo IX started using the creed with the inserted words in 1014. When questioned by the Eastern bishops, he simply asserted the supremacy of Rome. To the Eastern Bishops, they felt that changing the creed required the need and consent of a council (involving them also).
Schism
Humbert vs Michael
In 1054 due to numerous theological and polititcal differences, Pope Leo IX sent a delegate which consisted of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople to discuss the matters with Patriarch Michael of the Eastern Churches.
Snubbed by Michael, Humbert excommunicated the Eastern churches while they were celebrating the Divine Liturgy. In return, Michael excommunicated the Western churches. While this date was regarded as the official date of the split, many Eastern Roman historians did not think it was a significant event at that time.
Attempts to reconcile Crusades
Despite being split, the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy Christians still regarded each other well. For instance, when Eastern Romans needed help to retake their lands from the Muslims, they appealed to the Pope for help. (This later led to the concept of the infamous Crusades.)
Nevertheless with the Eastern Romans massacring the Roman Catholics in Constantinople in 1182, and the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 soured relations between East and West to the point where reconciliation was off the table.
Yet in recent years, there have been attempts to improve relations. In 2004, Pope John Paul II expressed sorrow to Patriarch Bartholomew I for the sack of Constantinople (800 years after the incident!). This was seen an apology by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Conclusion
To me I wonder if the split was inevitable. While the Protestant Reformation was a split due to theological (in the case of Luther and Calvin) and political (in the case of England), this split seems to be more political to me.
To the Eastern Orthodox, the result of the Filioque caused Roman Catholicism to be drastically different in doctrine.
Comic Connection - where I used to buy game cards from
One of my favourite franchises in Singapore, Comics Connection has closed for good in Singapore. Its last branch at Plaza Singapura closed in December 2015. Established in 1992, it had many as 25 outlets in Singapore at its prime.
My sister and I used to buy Japanese comics, game cards and card sleeves there. When we were younger, I used to think that the shops would last for ever.
The theological point
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6: 19 -21
If even big corporations like Comics Connection, Kodak (for cameras) and THQ (for video games) can close down within decades, what more of our achievements and assets on earth we have?
Recently in a taxi ride, I discussed the importance of church with the driver. While my driver so happened to be a Christian, he does not attend church as he feels that attending the church is not important.
Maybe he is disappointed with church leadership, or disillusioned with the friendships he made. Nevertheless, I decided to dedicate this post to explain the importance of church (a community of believers).
God has chosen the church to effect his will "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- Ephesians 3:10 - 11
Firstly the church is important because God has chosen to made Himself known to the world via the church. Thus to diminish the importance of church is to deny God's will for it.
The community of believers is a pillar of truth "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." -- 1 Timothy 3:15
Secondly, the church provides a structure of support and guidance for believers. As shown above, Apostle Paul writes that in his absence, that Christians should look to the church for instruction.
Conclusion “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
-- John 17: 20 - 23
Ultimately to be in the church is to follow the commands of Jesus. Reading the above carefully, we see that Jesus wanted the believers to be united. And in this way, the whole world will recognise that God loves them.
