Alternative culture: The City Harvest Case

St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna, July 2011

Recently, five members of the City Harvest Church (including the pastor) were arrested. City Harvest Church is one of the biggest churches in Singapore.

Now, if you came to this site for a legal analysis on what happened-- you will not find it in this blog. If you came over here for a theological discussion and expect me to criticise the theology of City Harvest Church, you will not find it here either. Personally, I have never heard any sermon from City Harvest, so I do not want to write about something I know nothing about.

Nevertheless, some of my friends have approached me to blog about the incident, and I shall obliged them. This my stand, short and simple. I will pray for them.

My temptation
I must confess that I am tempted to cut City Harvest  from the community of Christians, by making sweeping statements like the following:

"It's not my church!"

"They weren't really Christians in the first place!"

But the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthains 12:26:
If one part [of the church] suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

So as a Christian, I must not take joy or self-righteousness from the trials that City Harvest is going through now.

God of justice
Often we Christians just portray God as slow to anger, and abounding in love (Jonah 4:1-2). However, we often forget that God is just.

In his struggles, King David wrote in the Psalms 11:7:
For the Lord is righteous,
    he loves justice;
    the upright will see his face.


As Christians, we should be concerned with social justice (helping the needy and the poor) and legal justice (doing things according to the laws of the state).

Conclusion
So my prayer is this-- if the involved parties are guilty, let them be charged. If they are innocent, let them be free. Above all, God's will be done. That's all I'm willing to blog about the matter.

Theology 1.0: What is faith?

Napoleon's tomb, Paris 2011

A misused word?

Due to the huge misunderstandings concerning the word faith, I generally avoid using the term to describe my Christian journey. Some of my friends portray faith as belief without evidence, or even belief in spite of the evidence (Dawkins, 2006).

In this post I will attempt to examine the term "faith" in slightly greater detail.

I have faith in ....

Let's use a more down-to-earth example. Let's say a 19th Century French soldier says he has faith in the French Emperor Napoleon. What is he actually saying? Is he stating 

A) I propose a metaphysical entity named "Napoleon", whose property consist of being "French" and "Emperor"

B) I place my trust in Emperor Napoleon to get me through this age and crisis.

Naturally (I hope), we would incline to accept definition B.

Who do Christians place their hope in?

So let's extend this example. When Christians say they place their faith in Christ, what do they actually mean? In what do they trust Jesus for?

One of my favourite way to think about is the way the Gospel of John introduces Jesus.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." -- John 1: 1-5 (NIV)

What does this "Word" mean? Written in Greek for the non-Christians Greeks, the way the Greeks would have understood it is "logos". A brief search at wikipedia would reveal how the Greeks treated the use of the word "Word". To the Greek Stoics, the logos was the reason for existence and the universe. To followers of Aristotle, logos was what separated humans from nature. To ordinary Greeks it mean the divine objective root from which everything flows.

Immediately, the Gospel of John throws a challenge to the Greeks, and they would have understood. The claim is this: Jesus is the ultimate reason for humanity. He can be trusted to for our existence, and to be counted on for true joy and to get us through the hardest of times.

With a claim this big, it must be examined carefully. So my readers, if you have not experienced the joy of knowing Jesus, why not come and see?

"He is so happy! I can almost believe that he has found God.” -- Atheist novelist Franz Kafka, after reading a book written by the Christian poet GK Chesterton.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, don't be so quick to dismiss faith as anti-intellectual or dangerous. Who people of faith place their trust in? As a Christian, I invite you to come and see.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

For futher reading

What is this Word?

With Due Respect: Isn't Christianity for comfort purposes only?

WELLS (Dairy Nature Farm), Singapore, 2012

A just a way to get through the night?

Often religion is portrayed only as a form of comfort. The philosopher Karl Marx described religion as the "opium for the masses"-- it was only meant to give the peasants some comfort from hardships of their daily routine.

The father of psychology, Sigmund Freud (1927) best summs up this position by this:
"They (religious beliefs) are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life."

 His stand is clear-- religious beliefs (in Freud's case, Christianity) are due to a deep-seated desire for protection from a father. Hence such beliefs are merely a psychological crutch-- stronger people do not need them.

But this argument cuts both ways
One thing Freud and Marx fail to realise is that whether a belief is comforting has no bearing on whether it is true. In other words, just because some belief gives us comfort does not mean it is false.

If Freud's argument held water, then it is also true for what he believes or not believes. If Freud's disbelief in Christianity gives him comfort, then his disbelief cannot be true either.

A deep-seated desire?
Even if Freud's argument from desire (that Christians desire a heavenly father to match their earthly fathers) is true, it can also also cut the other way. Freud had a terrible relationship with his biological father, and I guessed it can be argued that he rejected Christianity because of that. Personally, it is not an argument I would used for or against Christianity.

Works for you, but not for me!
If Christianity provides purely just comfort, then the old argument that "Christianity works for some but not others" is valid. Truth become secondary.

However we all know the dangers of such reasons. In the field of medicine, this is known as the "placebo effect". A false remedy might make you feel better, but does nothing to cure the illness.

For instance, a cancer patient might take morphine to relieve his agony, but will not stop his cancer from being worse. A placebo could be fatal in the end, but I submit to you Christianity is the cure for our human condition.

Conclusion
I invite you readers to see that Chrisitainity is not a placebo or a mere comfort tool, but something is intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. It is not something that is a mere crutch for weak people, but a cross for everyone to bear.


References
Freud, S. (1927) The Future of An Illusion.


For further reading
Bethinking

Alternative Culture: The Mission (1986 film) review

In June 2011, my French classmate lent me a 1986 film, "The Mission". he claimed it to be very inspiring, so I decided to watch it too.

Synopsis
The film kicks off with Cardinal Altamirano (played by Ray McAnally) narrating to his scribe (to report to the Pope) on the tragic conclusion of the Jesuits' fates in South America. (Jesuits are a Roman Catholic order of monks dedicated to education and missionary works.) He tells the story of Father Gabriel's (Jeremy Irons) work among the native Guarani people, and his attempts to protect them from slavery.

Robert De Niro plays a slaver named Mendoza who regularly captures Guarani in the forest. This brings him into conflict with Father Gabriel, who attempts to start a mission with the Guarani. (It is illegal to enslave tribes on Spanish mission land.) Upon finding out his brother's affair with his fiancee, Medoza engaged him in a duel and slew him. This filled him with remorse, and he spiralled into a state of depression. Medoza asked Father Gabriel for redemption, so Father Gabriel set him up with a penance.

Medoza then tied a stash of weapons and armour to himself and accompanied Father Gabriel and other Jesuits to a return journey to the Guarani. This journey was particularly hard for Medoza, as he had to dragged him stash up the Igazu Falls. The Guarani forgave Medoza despite his past atrocities against them, and this brings him to tears.

Medoza asked to join the Jesuit order, and Father Gabriel and Father Fielding (Liam Nesson) accepted him.Yet all is not perfect-- in the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, the Spanish agrees to exchange some lands (including the Guarani mission lands) with the Portuguese. The secular Portuguese state did not recognise the Spanish mission lands and protected, and would thus sought to enslave the Guarani. Highlighting this problem, the Jesuits asked the Pope to mediate this treaty. Cardinal Altamirano, an ex-Jesuit himself, is dispatched by the Pope.

Brought to the Guarani mission lands by Father Gabriel, Cardinal Altamirano is impressed by the work. The Guarani have accepted Christianity, and have a small workshop which produced musical instruments. The Guarani children were not only able to play European music, but also to sing in a choir. Yet Cardinal Altmirano knew what he must do. If he ruled in favour of Portugal, the Guarani mission would be destroyed, and its people enslaved. However, if he ruled in favour of the Jesuits, the Jesuit order would be expelled from Portugal, and the ties of the Church with Europe could be strained. The Roman Catholic Church no longer had the same power and influence as it did during the Medieval Ages. Despite his advice, the Jesuits and the Guarani refused to leave the mission lands. With deep regret, the cardinal wrote to the Pope,

"Your Holiness, a surgeon to save the body must often hack off a limb. But in truth nothing could prepare me for the beauty and the power of the limb that I had come here to sever."

As the combined force of the Spanish and Portuguese approached the the mission lands, Medoza and Father Gabriel had a falling out. Medoza believed in taking up arms and convinced many of the Jesuits and Guarani to follow suit. Father Gabriel believed in non-violence and expelled Medoza from the order, believing that even if Medoza won, he would lose in principle as he used violence to attain his aims.

Although they fought bravely, Medoza, Father Fielding (does Neeson die in every movie I watch him in?) and his followers are cut down. As Medoza laid dying and the Spanish and Portuguese soldiers enter the mission village, they are met with Father Gabriel and several Guarani holding a Roman Catholic ritual. Despite their initial reluctance, the troops opened fire, killing Father Gabriel and most of the Guarani.

As Cardinal Altamirano rued over the huge loss of lives, the Portuguese Governor of the region assured the cardinal that that compromise was the way the world worked. The cardinal remorsefully replied,

"No, thus have we made the world. Thus have I made it."

Despite it's tragic end, a few Guarani children approached the site of the massacre and retrieved a few belongings. The film ends with a statement that Jesuits continue to this day to fight for the rights of the natives and concludes with John 1:15.

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."


A Theological Review
[Editor's note: please understand while this movie is based on the actual Jesuits' missions to South America, I will not be comparing the film with history. This is because I do not know much about the historical issue. Instead, I will be solely looking at the messages given by the film.]

The film raises many questions, and I will write about a few of them.

Penance and Forgiveness
As a result of slaying his brother, Medoza began a road of redemption. He showed how sorry and guilty he was by dragging his stash of weapons and armour up a waterfall.

Being Protestant, this external form of penance is unnecessary. As Reformer John Calvin (based on his exposition of Romans 7: 7-25) puts in his work Of Justification By Faith, "without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God." In other words, divine forgiveness comes before repentance. Hence repentance just involved the inner change of attitude of the heart.

This contrasted with Medoza who felt he needed to punish himself to be forgiven.

Medoza (Robert De Niro) drags his stash up the waterfall as part of his penance

Politics and Compromise
As the film proposes, there is a conflict between the secular world (especially with regards to politics), and the Kingdom of God. This is a particularly difficult and tricky issue for Christians as the Bible does not provide specific instructions for government and societal conduct, but rather for individual salvation and principles (Wyatt, 2009). In fact, both Jesus and the Apostle Paul advocated obedience to the ruling governing authorities. The early Christians too followed Roman laws and customs (with the exception of worshipping the Emperor).

In the film, several clashes were highlighted. The main one was of course the clash between the interests of the Jesuits and the papal authorities. To Father Gabriel, God's Word was at stake. To Cardinal Altamirano, it was the respectability of the Roman Catholic Church. Following the example of Daniel 3,the Cardinal should have stood up to his superiors (and the Spanish and Portuguese) and should have chosen to serve God, rather than men.

Next, Cardinal Altamirano was in discussion with a Guarani Jesuit on the profits of the mission, the Jesuit stated that the profits are shared by the community. The Cardinal pointed out that "a French radical group" practised that idea. However, the Jesuit explained that it was a early Christian practice also (probably in reference to Acts 4: 32-35). Cardinal  Altamirano looked surprised-- did years of human tradition influenced the running of the Church?

Personally, I recognise that there is always going to be a clash between Christians and secular authorities. The Reformer Martin Luther ascribed this conflict with his Two Kingdoms theology. He maintained that the civil government should not enforce religious belief, while the church should obey the government's rules as far as possible. This however, should not prevent Christians for running for government positions or for Christians to rebel against the government especially in areas of moral disagreements.

This was attributed to Christians being in, but not of the world, while they await the Kingdom of Heaven (which is here, but not yet).

Violence and Non-violence
The final, most obvious conflict revealed towards the plot's end was the use of violence to repel the slavers. Father Gabriel was opposed to any form of violent resistance, while Medoza felt the great need to take up arms. Christian theologians have generally argued over whether it was right or not to wage war.

On one hand, Jesus forbade Peter from using violence to protect him (see Matthew 26: 47-56). However, the followers of Jesus did not ask tell soldiers to give up their jobs. For instance, John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to lay down their arms, but only to be fair in their treatment of others (Luke 3: 1-20).

For instance, the 3rd century theologian Origen was a firm pacifist. In his work Contra Celsum, he states that "Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength."

However, the famed Thomas Aquinas argued in Summa Theologica that violence can be justified according to his Just War theory. He list three conditions--
1) Authority of sovereign
2) A just cause
3) A rightful intention

As I mentioned, the difficultly in resolving this issue is that many well-intentioned Christian thinkers differ on this. Personally, I lean towards the Just War Theory as I recognise the need to defend one's country (or in the Jesuits' case, the people) in this imperfect world.

Conclusion
The film raises many other issues, and I wished I was knowledgeable enough to engage them. The film was great and well-acted. If I had one criticism, it is that the final battle was underwhelming. (However, it is not an action film, and it was filmed in 1986.) Personally I wished I have known about it earlier. I give the film a 95/100.

References

Wyatt, J. (2009) Matters of Life and Death

For further readings

Of Justification By Faith

Christianity and Politics

Two Kingdoms

Contra Celsus

Thomas Aquinas's Just War

Theology 1.0: Tips on reading the Bible

Something that should be habitual in the Christian should be reading the Bible. However many Christians (including myself) struggle to read it daily, and the times we do, we risk interpreting the Bible to suit our needs and desires (Chan, 2011), instead of taking the text as it is (a process called exegesis).

Here's a few tips I have learnt over the years to avoid misinterpreting the Bible (a process called eisegesis). [I'm no theologian, nor church elder, but these are the tips I use to read the Bible.)

1) Never just read a Bible verse
The great temptation for lazy Bible readers is to take a single or a few verses and assume that is the summary of the whole passage. One thing to note is the demarcation of chapters and verses were not in the original text, and added later for easy referencing (Jones, 2007).

For instance, if one were to only read Ecclesiastes 1, one might think the Bible advocates nihilism, and everything is meaningless. However, upon reading the whole Ecclesiastes, one will realise that summary of the book is that if God did not exist, that life is meaningless.

As my friend remarked, "a text out of context is a con."

2) Reason it out
It is often argued that Christians accept things by blind faith. In fact, I heard some people argue that the Bible promoted cannibalism based on a passage in John 6:25-59. However, let's be reasonable-- (A) none of the Apostles practised the eating of human flesh and (B) none of the first-century Christians ate human flesh. Furthermore, other references to the eating of flesh and drinking of blood referred to the Last Supper (eg: Matthew 26: 17-30).

So yes, do not be afraid to apply reason to Scripture, and Scripture to reason.

3) Compare notes
Sometimes it's good to find out how our friends, church elders and pastors interpret the passages. There's also a wealth of resources online, such as Theology Network and Gospel Coalition. The library also might have some good books to check out. (I usually reference my posts, so there are recommended texts to check out).

4) Pray
Above all, pray. The temptation (as I mentioned) is to misuse the Bible as a tool and symbol of authority to for our own ends, We need the Holy Spirit to guide us, convict us on our next step and always remember to look to Christ.

References
Chan, F. (2011) Erasing Hell

Jones, T.P. (2007) Misquoting Truth


For further reading (recommended)
Never read a Bible verse

Theology 1.0: The meeting of Luther and Zwingli

Martin Luther, German Reformer

The first official meeting of Protestants
As mentioned in my Reformation post, both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli led the Protestants movements in Germany and Switzerland respectively. As the enemies of Protestantism gathered, the political supporters of the Reformation found it practical to attempt to unite the differing Protestant camps. Thus from 1st October to 4th October 1529, the two leading Reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli met at Philipp I of Hessen's castle in Marburg. This event was known as the Marburg Colloquy.

Were Luther and Zwingli agreeable?
While Zwingli had read Luther's works before, he often claimed to have come to the doctrine of justification by faith alone independently (Reeves, 2009). This claim seemed to be supported by how Luther and Zwingli presented their doctrines. For instance, while Luther argued that humanity inherited guilt when Adam sinned, and thus needs Christ to be clothed in His righteousness. Zwingli on the other hand believed that each time we sin we are more guilty but Christ makes us righteous in ourselves. In fact a generalisation between Luther's and Zwingli's theology would be the statement "agreeable, but in a different way".

So it was not a big surprise at the Marburg Colloquy that the two Reformers found themselves in agreement with 14 out of 15 articles of faith. The one they could not agree on is the Lord's Supper.

Luther's view
Although Luther rejected the Roman Catholic's view of 'transubstantiation' (that Jesus Christ Himself was physically present at the Lord's Supper), he upheld instead a view of sacramental union (that bread and wine are both sacramentally in union with the body and blood of Jesus). In other words, God both reveals and hides Himself at the same time. While sounding only superficially different from the Roman Catholics, Luther seemed to be happy to alter the understanding behind the practices without changing the rituals.

Zwingli's view
For Zwingli, God's presence at the Lord's Supper was largely symbolic. In other words, the Lord's Supper is a public testimony to affirm the grace of God. Due this view, Zwingli's supporters tended to have simple ceremonies during the Lord's Supper, as compared to Luther's and the Roman Catholics'.

Why so serious?
To the most readers, this one difference seemed rather trivial and the Reformers looked unnecessarily pedantic. However, this disregards the point that both Luther and Zwingli were willingly to tolerate their differences in theology in their 14 articles of faith they agreed upon. Despite the political pressure, both Luther and Zwingli were unwilling to compromise on an issue they felt was essential to the understanding of the Christian faith.

To Luther, making the Lord's Supper symbolic was a compromise to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. To make this sacrament commemorative for Christians to be reminded to do something, would give a doctrine of works. Furthermore, Zwingli took away the true meaning of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

To Zwingli, Luther was being irrational. Zwingli affirmed God's omnipresence and omnipotence by stating that God is not simply present only at the Lord's Supper. Zwingli also felt that Luther was too afraid to cut ties with Rome and leave the old ways.

Conclusion of Marburg
After harsh words were exchanged over the days, Luther and Zwingli wept together and forgave each other for their bitter tones. Both agreed that the Reformations in Luther's Wittenburg and Zwingli's Zurich would go their separate ways.

One thing learnt from studying the event is that the leaders of the Reformation were willingly to tolerate varying beliefs, but were unwillingly to compromise on whatever they felt were vital to Christianity.

Let's pray that the Lord's Supper would proclaim the body of Christ broken for us, and let's not slip into the temptation that makes it purely ritualistic.

References
Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame

For further reading
Luther VS Zwingli

With Due Respect: Miracles are unscientific!

One of evidences for God?
One of the most frequently touted evidences for God is the occurance of miracles. Scottish philosopher David Hume states in his 1748 book An Enquiry on Human Understanding, that "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience as can be imagined".

In other words, a miracle is an event that violates scientific laws. David Hume further asserts that since these scientific laws are "established", the occurance of miracles are an impossiblilty. Therefore, it is not scientific (or even rational) to accept the existance of miracles.


With great respect to David Hume, I disagree with him. It is entirely possible to be a scientist, and believe in miracles.


On scientific law
Firstly in the realm of science, the word "law" has an entirely different meaning from what it is common understood. In everyday use, it is a legal set of rules that everyone has to follow. Unlike the legal term, a scientific "law" merely states what is generally observed.


For example, let's talk about Mendel's laws of genetic inhertience. His second law (aka the Law of Independent Assortment) states that each parent transmits a random copy of an allele. However, it is noted that while this oberservation is generally true (as it is a law), it does not always happen (due to the presence of epigenetics and self-genetic elements). Violating the scientific law just means an anomaly in the observations. It does not mean the laws no longer hold.

I suppose one could ask miracles do not occur more often. If they did, they would not be rare, and therefore would be called miracles.



A circular argument
Furthermore, the English poet Chesteron (1908) rightly points out the David Hume's argument is circular-- he defines miracles as impoosible to happen. Consider this:

1) Only scientific laws happen

2) Miracles cannot happen because they are by nature, unscientific.


3) Therefore, miracles cannot happen.


In other words, Chesterton points out that the assertion that miracles cannot happen because they simply cannot happen is an argument from dogma, rather than rationality.


Miracles aren't unscientific?
Yes miracles are one-time or rare events. So they aren't scientific as science investigates the repeatible and the general. However, they can be investigated-- through history (i.e. the historical method). So come and investigate Jesus Christ, the God who stepped into time and space, and who knows-- it could be heavenly.

References

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy



For further reading
Bethinking