Waterside's Very First Lo Hei

More Prosperous... errrr... Bible Study!! :D

Christian Friendship, Luke 10, and How To Love

hello!
it's been a while.
We're now going through Luke 9 - 12 for bible study.

there's a nice blog post on Christian friendship here, which i thought was quite useful. Do read it if you have time.

Christ Among The Partisans

NYT, Apr 9 2006

By GARRY WILLS
Chicago

THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.

This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.

Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.

But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.

The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.

To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.

Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.

Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"

That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.

The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs — accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.

He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.

It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.

The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.

It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.

Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).

If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind. He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.

The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.

Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant."

The OTHER dg

Then Naomi said, 'Wait, my daughter, until you find
out what happens. For the man will not rest until the
matter is settled today.'

婆婆说：“女儿啊，你只管安坐等候，看这事怎样成就，因为那人
今日不办成这事必不休息。”

- Ruth 3:18


Today the cell group that I attend in Beijing studied Ruth 3 and 4, in Mandarin, English and the odd smattering of Cantonese (not from me of course, mm sek gong/teng). Seeing as Waterside studied Ruth over a year ago, I felt inspired to pen my thoughts on what the Christian life in Beijing has been like.

Let me start by saying that as masochistic as my decision to work in Beijing initially was, I did not set out to further flagellate myself by joining a bible study group made up primarily of Chinese speakers. No, that was not the intention. I had envisioned finding a group of ethnic Asian, English-speaking, cosmopolitan trendies who enjoyed fooling around and hanging out together - i.e. another Waterside.

But God, ahem, had other plans.

The first group I attended in this city was an English-speaking one, made up mainly of Singaporeans and Malaysians. But something did not feel right. It was a group of mostly married couples, some old enough to be my mum and dad. Others had little kids who had to be attended to during the bible study, and on some days, there were as many toddlers in the room as there were adults. I prayed about this and did my best to be servant-minded and not thinking only of how my own needs could be met, but it became apparent that I could not relate to the fears and anxieties shared during prayer sessions to be effective in ministering to other members.

After weeks of turning up an hour late for Friday night bible study, I decided to look for a group that met on weekends. In gung-ho spirit, I decided to join a Mandarin-speaking group of Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, Singaporeans and Malaysians, thinking that it might be an opportunity to invite one of my Mandarin-speaking Singaporean pals along - she didn't last though - or my Taiwanese friend (she's reluctant to commit). So it was just me. And I soon realised that attempting to bond with a new group of mainly non-Singaporeans more comfortable with Chinese than English, let alone studying the bible in your second language, is really quite an uphill task.

In the two months or so where I stayed away from any fellowship group out of a sense of alienation, I was forced to confront the fundamental issue of why Christians should meet, pray and study the bible in a small group. This time, there was none of the comfort zone of shared socio-cultural tics that you can sort of groove along to even if you are not actually learning that much or growing spiritually from week to week. All you can take hold of, in this case, is that the Christian life is not an island and that it is in God's plan for Christians to meet and teach the bible. And that there are some struggles in our walk that only other Christians will understand and give wise counsel to.

When I started dragging myself back to the meetings, I would be humbled each time, even as I sat there quietly unable to contribute much to the discussions. Humbled because I could see the commitment of most of the members -- it is actually quite a new group, an offshoot of a Hong Kong, Cantonese-speaking group that decided to start a Mandarin splinter so they could reach out to more people. Many of them are actually more comfortable in Cantonese, although they can speak competent and even eloquent Mandarin, albeit with a heavy Hong Kong drawl.

And once I got to grips with some of the phraseology of theological discourse in Mandarin (acquiring a Chinese bible myself to cross-refer alongside my English NIV helped), I found the discussion and sharing honest, stimulating and moving. The bilingualism of the group helps; while I can't throw around my big words like I used to do in Waterside, everyone speaks and understands English enough for myself and a few others (chiefly the Singaporeans and Malaysians) to pray in English and voice opinions in a mix of both languages.

And so, back to the book of Ruth. Today's study was interesting for me because, well, I guess I am a year older and so much has changed in that year. What I remember chiefly from when Waterside studied Ruth was the whole business of Ruth lying at Boaz's feet and Naomi/Mara's grudging faith in the Lord. It didn't seem like a particularly substantial book of the bible to me.

But several things stood out for me today in sharp relief as the group members unpacked the text and shared personal experiences. The book of Ruth opens with the family of Naomi nearly decimated through the deaths of all its males and no hope of the family line ever continuing. Naomi feels totally emptied of hope and a future, and Ruth doesn't look like she will ever have a husband again or bear children. But by the end God delivers everything they desire and more. The union of R and B spawns a lineage that leads eventually to the birth of Jesus.

Then there is the matter of submission. It sucks, as Naomi said. But Ruth's submission at every step of the way is the crucial ingredient here for the working of God's plan, whether it is submission to her mother-in-law or to Boaz's request for her to wait until the matter of the appropriate kinsman-redeemer (code word for husband) is sorted out.

A Malaysian guy in the group shared his experience over the past year. He became a Christian three years ago and since then, had struggled with some of the practices of the company he works for and which he helped to start six years ago. Stuff like corruption, the giving of a little bit on the side to the other party to cut a deal, which is endemic in China. And improper account-keeping.

He tried to rationalise that it was okay and that the opportunity cost of not doing was too great. But it got to a point where he felt he was at a spiritual crossroads and that God was prompting him to leave the company. His business partners were not happy though, and threatened to make things ugly for him. And then there was the matter of his wife, who had just left her job back home to join him in Beijing. Pushed to the point of complete and utter surrender to the will of God, he prayed, stood his ground, tendered his resignation and waited. Surprisingly, his partners accepted his resignation without a fight. Now he and his wife are unemployed though, and waiting prayerfully to see what God has in store for them next.

There are a lot of stories and testimonies like that coming out of this cell group, of people in a crossroads, waiting for God to reveal His hand as they continue along uncertainly as expatriates in the Middle Kingdom. A few have gone back and a few have stayed, each renewed in their faith and purpose.

The Economist now...

two articles from the Economist, found via a blog (i no longer subscribe to the economist, maybe i should spend more lunches reading the copies at the magazine rack on my floor) - one on the corporatization of religion in the States, and another related title - Onward Christian Shoppers (Disney and Evangelical America!).

hello everyone. happy 2006. there should be another collage soon. the year has gone by fast eh?

catch ball

catch ball
Originally uploaded by waterside.

fun in the sun, had by several DG's, last sunday afternoon. thank God for good weather, and for opportunities to get to know others (and for a chance to run and play).

PTTP, reprise

i just remembered that PTTP stands for the post-thirty-tummy-pat. now we have the PTAT - post thirty acquisition therapy.

one word of reminder. DEBT.

crikey.